AIDDATA
A Research Lab at William & Mary
Pablo Beramendi, Soomin Oh, Erik Wibbels 
July 24, 2018
FINAL REPORT: 
Evaluation of the Local Government 
and Infrastructure Program
An evaluation of the effect of LGI's local government initiatives 
on institutional development and participatory governance
Author Information 
Pablo Beramendi 
Professor of Political Science and DevLab@Duke 
Soomin Oh 
PhD Student and DevLab@Duke 
Erik Wibbels 
Professor of Political Science and DevLab@Duke 
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be 
attributed to AidData or funders of AidData’s work, nor do they necessarily reflect the 
views of any of the many institutions or individuals acknowledged here. 
Citation 
Beramendi, P., Soomin, O, & Wibbels, E. (2018). LGI Final Report. Williamsburg, VA: 
AidData at William & Mary. 
Acknowledgments 
This evaluation was funded by USAID/West Bank and Gaza through a buy-in to a 
cooperative agreement (AID-OAA-A-12-00096) between USAID's Global 
Development Lab and AidData at the College of William and Mary under the Higher 
Education Solutions Network (HESN) Program. The authors would like to acknowledge 
the contributions of Tayseer Edeas, Reem Jafari, and their colleagues at USAID/West 
Bank and Gaza, and of Manal Warrad, Safa Noreen, Samar Ala' El-Deen, and all of the 
excellent people at Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre.
Contents
1 Executive Summary 1
1.1 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Introduction 3
3 Background 4
4 Research design 5
4.1 Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1 Survey Design and Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2 World Bank/USAID LPGA Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2 Outcome Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.1 Capacity Development Indicators–user survey: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2 Capacity Development Indicators–World Bank/USAID LPGA citizen survey: 14
4.2.3 Capacity Development Indicators–administrator survey: . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.4 Capacity Development–World Bank/USAID LPGA Administrator survey . . 16
4.2.5 Physical and strategic planning–administrator survey: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.6 Physical and strategic planning–World Bank/USAID LPGA administrator
survey: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.7 Participatory Governance–user survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.8 Participatory Governance–World Bank/USAID LPGA user survey . . . . . . 16
4.2.9 Participatory Governance–administrator survey: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.10 Participatory Governance–World Bank/USAID LPGA administrator survey: . 17
5 Estimation Strategy 17
6 Findings 21
6.1 Capacity Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.1 Service User Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.1.2 Administrator Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2
6.2 Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.3 Participatory Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.3.1 Service User Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.3.2 Administrator Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7 Issues, Challenges and Limitations 31
8 Conclusions and Recommendations 32
8.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8.2 Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A Annexes 35
A.1 Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A.1.1 List of Covariates used for Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A.2 Matched pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.3 Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.3.1 User survey (Primary indicators) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.3.2 Admin survey (Primary indicators) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.3.3 User survey (Secondary indicators) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.3.4 Admin survey (Secondary indicators) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A.3.5 Admin survey (World Bank Survey on Municipal Service Provision) . . . . . 39
A.3.6 Citizen Survey (LGPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.4 Control Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.5 Variable Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.6 Primary indicators for WB/USAID surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A.6.1 Capacity Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A.6.2 Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.6.3 Participatory Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.7 Secondary indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.7.1 Capacity Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.7.2 Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.7.3 Participatory Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3
A.8 Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
A.8.1 User Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
A.8.2 Admin Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4
1 Executive Summary
USAID/West Bank and Gaza (WBG) Local Governance and Infrastructure (LGI) program was
a four-year, 104 million dollar program that was in effect between 2012 and 2016. The program
worked in a total of 28 municipalities across 11 governorates of WBG for both its governance and
infrastructure components of the program. This evaluation, done through collaboration between
USAID/WBG and AidData, assesses the impact of the three categories of governance activities
that were implemented, namely institutional development, community planning, and participatory
governance.
Given the nature of the interventions and the underlying theory of change, this evaluation tests
a total of five hypotheses:
• H1: LGI will be associated with an increase in citizen perception of the quality of governance.
• H2: LGI will be associated with greater citizen satisfaction with municipal services.
• H3: LGI will be associated with good governance practices among officials and administrators.
• H4: LGI will be associated with improved community planning.
• H5: LGI will be associated with more citizen participation in government.
Hypotheses 1-3 relates to institutional development. Hypothesis 4 relates to community planning,
and hypothesis 5 relates to participatory governance.
The evaluation relies on two methods. First, given that the 28 targeted localities for the gover￾nance component of the program were not chosen at random (i.e. it was not a randomized control
trial), we employ a statistical method of matching to find suitable “control” units with which we
can compare the programmed municipalities. We measure impact via endline surveys of service
users and municipal administrators in the West Bank. Second, we draw on household and adminis￾trator surveys collected from the universe of municipalities for the forthcoming Local Government
Performance Assessment (LGPA) program.
1.1 Key Findings
To give a preview of the key results, we find:
• LGI has important, positive effects on the capacity of municipal governments, particularly as
it bears on digitized procurement, internal auditing, staff training, e-municipality, and public
disclosure.
• LGI is associated with better access to services, more reliable services, higher quality services,
and a greater belief that services have improved in recent years.
• At the same time, citizens in LGI municipalities believe that access to services is unfair,
requires side payments and is subject to personal and party favoritism.
1
• There is evidence of increasing political awareness and critical ability, with potential implica￾tions for democratic accountability.
• LGI has a positive effect on the extent of physical and strategic planning.
• LGI has limited impact on participatory governance.
1.2 Policy Recommendations
Our interpretation of the findings suggest several policy recommendations:
• Continue and, if possible, increase efforts to further advance the institutional enhancement of
municipalities across the West Bank.
• Introduce incentives for local politicians to exercise their increased capacity in a more trans￾parent way. Possible steps in this direction could include simplifying protocols for citizens to
provide input, further expand training of municipal employees in good governance practices,
efforts to socialize (through schools) future citizens into the habit of voicing feedback, and/or
conditioning fiscal decisions by the central government on transparency and citizen satisfaction
indicators.
• Increase engagement and participation by younger members of the community. Possible strate￾gies towards this end could include sustained diffusion campaigns through schools, introduc￾tion of small incentives to make use of the newly created common spaces, or provision of
transportation to and from the more remote areas within the municipality.
• Future USAID programming should explicitly build evaluation into the design of interventions.
This will allow for a much more precise assessment of if and how programs are working. Ex
post evaluations such as this one are necessarily limited in their capacity to assess the efficacy
of USAID programs.
2
2 Introduction
USAID/West Bank and Gaza (WBG) Local Governance and Infrastructure (LGI) program is a four￾year, 104 million dollar program that was in effect between 2012 and 2016. The program worked in a
total of 28 municipalities across 11 governorates of WBG for both its governance and infrastructure
components of the program. This evaluation focuses on the governance component of the program.
The programming aimed at strengthening local government capacity in Palestinian municipalities
by implementing three categories of activities:
• Providing support for institutional development,
• Promoting community planning, and
• Encouraging participatory governance.
This evaluation is designed to assess the impact of these efforts on improving Palestine’s local
government capacity and services.
The program was planned and executed with the general goal of “providing an enabling en￾vironment for good local governance” and to “provide the basic infra necessary for sustainable
improvements in the quality of life” for the Palestinians in WBG (LGI Program Description). There
was concern that the local government units (LGUs) lacked the institutional capacity and skills
to provide quality services and to attract skilled staff, and lacked sufficient guidance and monitor￾ing from the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG). In light of these concerns, the program was
designed to increase institutional capacity and skills of the LGUs.
This evaluation assesses the impact of the three categories of governance activities that were im￾plemented, namely institutional development, community planning, and participatory governance.
We examine the impact of the activities on both the demand side (citizens) and the supply side (ad￾ministrators) of municipal governance. Throughout these efforts, we use two methods. First, given
that the 28 targeted localities for the governance component of the program were not chosen at
random (i.e. it was not a randomized control trial), we employ a statistical method of matching to
find suitable “control” municipalities with which we can compare the programmed LGUs. We mea￾sure impact via endline surveys of service users and municipal administrators that we conducted
in the West Bank. Second, we draw on household and administrator surveys collected from the
universe of municipalities for the forthcoming Local Government Performance Assessment (LGPA)
program. In this document we refer to the municipalities that received programming as “programmed
municipalities” and refer to the controls as “comparison municipalities”.
Specifically, we seek to assess:
1. Whether there have been improvements in the governance practices of LGI municipalities,
and if citizen satisfaction with municipal services and governance has improved;
2. Whether programming in LGI municipalities has improved strategic and physical planning;
and
3. Whether civic engagement mechanisms in LGI municipalities have increased citizen involve￾ment in local governance.
3
3 Background
Development of good democratic local governance institutions and basic infrastructure play a cen￾tral role in the social and economic requirements for the Palestinian state. The donor community,
including USAID, has recognized that there is a need to improve local government capacity and
basic services for citizens. The donor community has run projects to provide basic infrastructure
and develop service provision institutions. In spite of those efforts, however, there remains a gap in
the institutional capacity of the Palestinian state to provide public services and infrastructure.
In order to fill this gap in institutional capacity, USAID awarded Global Communities a six￾year Cooperative Agreement to carry out the Local Government and Infrastructure Program (LGI),
with the goal of “promot[ing] an enabling environment for good local governance and provide the
basic infrastructure necessary for sustainable improvements in the quality of life for Palestinians
in the West Bank and Gaza” (LGI Program Description). The program was implemented in 28
municipalities between 2012 and 2016.
The project aimed to achieve three objectives:
• Objective 1: Improve living conditions for Palestinians through the provision of sustainable,
multi-sector community infrastructure packages.
• Objective 2: Enhance the impact of USAID sector-specific programs and priorities through
the provision of high priority infrastructure.
• Objective 3: Strengthen local government capacity to respond effectively and efficiently to
community needs by promoting and institutionalizing good democratic governance practices.
Objective 3 is the main focus of this evaluation. There are three specific goals that Objective 3
aimed to achieve:
1. Capacity Development
2. Physical and strategic Planning
3. More Participatory Governance
The capacity development portion of the program attempted to strengthen local government
capacity by institutionalizing good governance practices, examples of which include sound financial
practices, transparent procurement and tendering systems, performance-based appraisal of human
resources management, and responsive service delivery mechanisms. The program also developed
e-municipalities capabilities and internal audit functions within targeted LGUs.
The strategic planning aspects of the program provided support to increase skills in strategic
and physical planning. Strategic planning included updating the Strategic Development Framework
of the municipalities and implementing strategic planning processes. Physical planning involved the
naming of streets and buildings, developing the local registrar, and training employees in physical
planning (e.g. Geographical Information Systems).
4
The participatory governance programming involved introducing and institutionalizing mech￾anisms of civic engagement in governance, such as civic engagement committees, enhancing dialogue
and communication between LGUs and citizens through town hall meetings and public hearings,
raising public awareness on issues of good governance and community development, and promoting
youth inclusion in local governance through Youth Local Councils.
In light of the programming and the program theory upon which it was developed, we test several
hypotheses:
H1: We expect that citizen perceptions of the quality of governance will be higher in pro￾grammed than in comparison municipalities.
H2: We expect citizens in programmed municipalities to be more satisfied with the provision
of services than their counterparts in comparison municipalities.
H3: We expect that good governance practices among officials and administration will be more
pervasive in programmed than in comparison municipalities.
H4: We expect that municipal government’s community planning will be more pervasive in
programmed than in comparison municipalities.
H5: We expect that citizen participation in government will be more pervasive in programmed
than in comparison municipalities.
Two features of the programming have important bearing on the evaluation team’s capacity to
measure program effects. First, not all parts of the programming were applied equally to all the
LGI municipalities. For instance, while all LGI municipalities received training in restructuring and
process reengineering under the first objective of institutional development, only 4 out of 28 mu￾nicipalities received training for e-municipality. Second, the selection of the targeted municipalities
was non-random–meaning the municipalities that were chosen for programming were not chosen
randomly but were instead chosen intentionally on the following criteria:
• Regional representation
• Population size
• Level of development and current operational capacity
These criteria resulted in a set of programmed municipalities that is considerably more urban than
average. These two features of the programming make it difficult to construct comparison cases for
LGI municipalities and to identify average effects of the program. Below we discuss our IE design
strategy for addressing these challenges.
4 Research design
Our evaluation examines the impact of the programming on both the demand side (citizens) and the
supply side (administrators) of service provision. In doing so, we compare evidence from citizens and
5
administrators that did receive LGI programming with those from municipalities that did not. Our
aim in collecting data from non-beneficiary municipalities is to generate a benchmark against which
to compare LGI’s effects. To that end and given that the 28 targeted localities for the governance
component of the program were not chosen at random (i.e. it was not a randomized control trial),
we employ a statistical method of matching to find suitable “control” municipalities with which
we can compare the programmed LGUs. This method generates matched pairs of similar LGI and
non-LGI municipalities to compare against each other.
We measure impact via endline surveys of service users and municipal administrators that we
conducted in the matched pairs of LGI and non-LGI municipalities. As a robustness check we draw
on household and administrator surveys recently collected from all West Bank municipalities for
the forthcoming Local Government Performance Assessment (LGPA) program.
As mentioned above, the selection of LGI municipalities was non-random; that is, municipalities
that were chosen for programming were not chosen randomly but were instead chosen intentionally.
The non-random selection of targeted units poses a threat to accurate evaluation of the program
effects since the municipalities chosen to be programmed are inherently different from those that
were not, and especially since the targeted municipalities already have higher levels of development
and operational capacity (Dunning 2012; Gerber and Green 2012). Likewise, no municipalities were
explicitly assigned as control municipalities at the time of program design or at baseline for evalu￾ation purposes. On top of the non-random selection of targeted units, the non-uniform assignment
of programs across the municipalities poses a threat to evaluation, since the delivery of different
elements of the programming is not likely to have been random either.
4.1 Matching
In the absence of an experimental design and in light of the evaluation budget, the evaluation team
chose to examine the effects of the interventions by matching the programmed municipalities to com￾parison municipalities and conducting surveys (municipal office users and employees) in a total of 56
municipalities. The goal of matching techniques is to reduce imbalance (or differences) between the
programmed municipalities and comparison municipalities on observed pre-treatment confounders
(Stuart et al. 2013). Reducing imbalance between programmed and comparison municipalities and
thus increasing their similarity offers several benefits. First, it decreases the risk that municipality
level characteristics other than the programming are responsible for the differences in outcomes
between the programmed and comparison municipalities. Differences between the programmed and
comparison municipalities that are correlated with the program outcomes can lead to biased, in￾correct inferences about program effects. Second, it increases the robustness of subsequent analyses
by decreasing the prevalence of extrapolation across observed variables. Third, directly comparing
districts that are most similar on pre-LGI programming municipal-level characteristics that predict
the outcomes of interest can improve our ability to detect effects of the programming.
In order to ensure that the municipalities were as similar as possible, we conducted matching on
a number of pre-programming characteristics at the municipal level that are expected to be highly
correlated with the outcomes of interest (Brookhart et al. 2006), namely service provision and
local governance capacity. In total, we included 27 variables for matching, including demographics,
economic structure, service access and wealthy. The full list of covariates included in the matching
algorithm can be found in Annex A.1.1.
6
There are several approaches to statistical matching, ranging from exact matching to nearest
neighbor to genetic matching. Given the non-random selection of programmed municipalities and
the multi-dimensionality of the covariates we match on, most matching algorithms produce imbal￾anced pairs of matches. In light of this consideration, we used a genetic matching technique that
tries to maximize the balance of observed covariates across LGI-programmed and comparison mu￾nicipalities. Genetic matching searches a range of distance metrics to find the particular measure
that optimizes post-matching covariate balance. Each potential distance metric considered corre￾sponds to a particular assignment of weights for all matching variables, and the algorithm weights
each variable according to its relative importance for achieving the best overall balance.
The matching algorithm resulted in pairs of programmed and comparison municipalities that
are as similar as possible on the 27 pre-treatment variables in Annex A.1.1. Figure 1 shows the
standardized mean differences of the covariates between the programmed and comparison munici￾palities. The “adjusted” points are the balance across the covariates of the matched pairs (i.e. the 28
LGI districts and their matched, unprogrammed pairs), and the “unadjusted” points are the balance
in the entire universe of municipalities in the West Bank. The figure shows the balance in covariates
between the treated and control units in terms of standardized mean differences. Figure 2 shows the
map of treated and matched control units, and the full list of the matched pairs is in Annex A.2.
Figure 1: Covariate balance table
Ideally, the standardized mean differences should be as close to 0 as possible, meaning that there
is no difference in the variables between the LGI-treated and matched, ‘control’ units. The absolute
standardized mean differences should be less than 0.25 (Rubin 2001) or more conservatively, 0.1
(Stuart et al. 2013) for the adjustment to be trustworthy. Overall, there is better balance in all
the covariates in the matched sample than in the unadjusted sample, i.e. the standardized mean
differences in the adjusted sample are closer to 0 than the unadjusted sample; in short, the matched
7
pairs are as similar as we can make them. Nevertheless, there is still considerable imbalance across
many variables between the LGI-treated and ‘control’ municipalities, including population. The
imbalance is to be expected, especially on variables such as population and levels of development,
given that the municipalities for programming were specifically chosen on these characteristics. The
imbalance implies that the strong ignorability condition is not met, and there is likely to be bias
in the estimation of program effects. Thus, while the matched pairs are as similar as possible, the
evaluation is not in the position to make strong causal claims about the effect of LGI. This limitation
follows from the manner in which LGI was designed.
4.1.1 Survey Design and Sampling
With our full set of 56 municipalities in hand (28 LGI municipalities and their matched pairs),
we conducted surveys to estimate LGI’s program effects. To assess the demand side of municipal
governance, we interviewed municipal office visitors, which we refer to as “service users”. To assess
the supply side of municipal governance, we interviewed municipal officials, both administrative and
political.
The fieldwork occurred between March and April 2017. The survey team was composed of 17
enumerators employed by Jerusalem Media and Communications Center (JMCC). The surveys were
conducted electronically, and field supervisors uploaded the completed survey forms once every two
days for the first two weeks and once a week thereafter. The evaluation team conducted weekly
assessments of the quality of the data to catch and address any problems that might have emerged
with individual questions or enumerators. The evaluation team was impressed with the quality of
JMCC’s work.
Below we outline our sampling strategy for each of the two populations we surveyed.
Service Users
The goal for the endline survey was to interview 30 users in each of the 58 municipalities. This
yielded a target of 1740 surveys; 1751 surveys were ultimately conducted. Figure 2 shows the map of
programmed municipalities and their matched pairs, and the response rates for each municipality.
Our survey has good coverage both geographically and in terms of the response rates; the majority
of the municipalities yielded 100 percent response rates and even if there was less than 100 percent
response rate, at least 30 respondents were interviewed per municipality.1
1Of those who have refused to participate in the survey, 61 percent responded that they were “busy”; 15 percent
responded that they were “not interested”; 1 percent responded they were “interviewed recently by another surveyor”;
5 percent responded “No reason”; 16 percent responded “Other”.
8
Figure 2: Map of programmed and control municipalities and response rates (User)
Programmed municipalities are shaded in yellow and the matched ’control’
municipalities in blue.
Within each municipality, respondents were sampled at the municipal office; in cases where
municipal offices (one-stop shops) did not exist, such as in village councils, enumerators visited the
municipal offices where citizens apply and pay for electricity or water services. Enumerators were
instructed to ask the users that had just completed their task at the municipal office whether they
would be willing to participate in a 25-minute survey. When they agreed, the enumerators took the
respondents to a room provided by the municipal office to conduct the surveys; this was done to
reduce the chance that respondents would be affected by the presence of political or administrative
officials when responding to the surveys.
Figures 3 to 5 show respondent characteristics for the programmed and matched municipalities.
As is evident, the respondents are similar in their age ranges (programmed municipalities have
more respondents who are slightly older (in their 60s). The ratio between male and females for
9
both LGI and matched municipalities are similar; there are more males in both programmed and
matched municipalities than females. As for the respondents’ level of education, LGI municipalities
and matched municipalities showed similar distributions.
Figure 3: Respondents’ Age (User Survey)
Figure 4: Respondents’ Sex (User Survey)
10
Figure 5: Respondents’ Educational Level (User Survey)
Municipal Officials
To assess the supply-side of municipal governance, We interviewed two administrative officials
and two political officials per municipality for a total of 224 officials. For surveys with the political
officials such as the mayor, JMCC, the survey company, set up appointments in advance. For
administrative officials, enumerators were instructed to go through the list below to inquire whether
they were available for a 25-minute survey. If the official refused, enumerators were told to inquire
about the next administrative official on the list. If the official agreed to take the survey, enumerators
went through the survey questions in his/her office.
The list of political officials, in the order of priority, was: the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and
Municipal Council members. The list of administrative officials, in the order of priority was: Head
of the tax office, manager of the service center, Director of Planning, Director of Waste/Water
Management, Head of Electricity Department, Head of Local Economic Development and Invest￾ment, Head of Audit Department, Human Resources Manager, Head of Public Relations, Financial
Manager, and Accountant.
Figures 6 to 8 show respondent characteristics for the administrator survey. The age of the
administrators in LGI municipalities was higher (mode at mid-50s) than the age of administrators
in matched municipalities (bimodal at late 30s and mid-50s), but the ratio of male to female in
both sets of municipalities were similar—with both having more male than female administrators.
As for educational levels, the LGI municipalities had more administrators with graduate degrees
(Master’s) than matched municipalities, and matched municipalities had more administrators with
secondary school education. These differences likely reflect the fact that LGI municipalities are more
urban and developed.
11
Figure 6: Respondents’ Age (Admin Survey)
Figure 7: Respondents’ Sex (Admin Survey)
Figure 8: Respondents’ Educational Level (Admin Survey)
12
4.1.2 World Bank/USAID LPGA Surveys
The evaluation budget did not permit data collection in all of the West Bank’s municipalities.
Nevertheless, the baseline surveys of citizens and administrators in association with the forthcoming
World Bank/USAID LPGA project collected data of relevance to assessing the impact of LGI. The
Local Government Performance Assessment (LPGA) survey, designed by Fotini Christia, Ruben
Enikolopov, and Erin York, provides household-level data on the demand side of services. The LPGA
survey covers more than 380 Palestinian municipalities and village councils, and 11970 households
were surveyed. The survey included a wide range of questions with regards to municipal service
provision, including citizen satisfaction with service reliability, service quality, and service cost.
The project also collected data on municipal service provisiders (MSP), i.e. the supply side of
municipal services. This portion of the LPGA survey covers 116 Palestinian municipalities. From
each municipality, the enumerators surveyed administrators in charge of several municipal services
how they perceived the quality of service provision and how that quality had changed.
Since the evaluation team was not in charge of these surveys, we treat them as an opportunity
to test the robustness of our results to different survey question wordings and a larger sample of
municipalities.
4.2 Outcome Indicators
Per the hypotheses outlined above, this study examines the effect of LGI on three sets of outcome
measures–municipal governance capacity, municipal planning, and participatory governance. In ad￾dition to the primary outcome indicators, we construct a series of secondary measures that augment
our understanding of the program’s effects. In several cases, we rely on multiple related survey items
bearing on a core concept to reduce the noise of measurement. In such cases, we follow the standard
approach of calculating z-scores as summary measures (Kling et al. 2007). Below we summarize how
we measure our primary outcomes. We refer the reader to Annex A.3 and A.7 for the indicators
and results bearing on secondary outcomes.
4.2.1 Capacity Development Indicators–user survey:
• E-municipality: Binary measure of whether citizens can apply/pay for services at the mu￾nicipal office
• Change in need to pay bribes: Ordinal measure of the change in the need to make side
payments/bribes
• Party favoritism: Ordinal measure of how likely the municipal council representatives are
to help members of their own party at the expense of the people of the municipality
• Competitive selection of employees: Ordinal measure of how much the user agrees that
the selection of municipal employees reflects a competitive process based on merit
• Side payments: Index of user experience with making side payments for water/electricity/tax
payments/roads and basic infrastructure/sewage maintenance/solid waste collection
13
• Fairness in services (community): Index of how much the user agrees with fairness in
municipal provision of water/electricity/roads and basic infrastructure maintenance/sewage
maintenance/solid waste collection
• Fairness in services (office): Index of user perception of fairness in (a) bureaucrats’ treat￾ment of users and (b) bureaucrats’ provision of tax collection services
• Satisfaction with services (today): Index of the users’ level of satisfaction with services
today and the length of time it took them to be serviced
• Satisfaction with services (year): Index of the users’ level of satisfaction with water/electricity/solid
waste collection/basic infrastructure maintenance of the municipality
The distribution for the outcome variables of the user surveys are illustrated in Figure 9. It
can be seen that a number of variables are right-skewed: e-municipality, satisfaction with services
(today), and satisfaction with services (year). The right-skewness in e-municipality means there are
still a lot of municipalities without e-municipality systems in place. The right-skewness in services
for both today and the year means there is not much deviation from the average opinion on the
satisfaction with the services for both LGI and matched municipalities. Left-skewness is evident in
the variable for fairness in services (services provided in the community and in the office), which
means there were a large share of respondents who reported greater fairness in services in both
LGI and matched municipalities. The variable for the change in need to make side payments is
symmetric in the paired municipalities, with mode at 2 (no change), and is bimodal in programmed
municipalities, with modes at 1 and 2 (decreased and no change, respectively).
4.2.2 Capacity Development Indicators–World Bank/USAID LPGA citizen survey:
The relevant measures we extract from the LPGA survey are:
• Access to services: Index variable of whether the household has access to piped water/sewage/waste
collection
• Municipality provides the services: Index variable of whether piped water/waste collec￾tion is provided by the same municipality/village council in which the respondent lives
• Satisfaction with reliability of services: Index variable of the respondent’s satisfaction
with the reliability of electricity grid/piped water/waste collection
• Satisfaction with quality of services: Index variable of the respondent’s satisfaction with
the overall quality of electricity grid/piped water/waste collection/physical condition of the
road outside
• Change in quality of services: Index variable of the change in quality of electricity/water/waste
collection services
• Personal connections for services: Index variable of the respondent’s reliance on personal
connections for water/waste collection services
• Municipal responsiveness: Index variable of the respondent’s satisfaction with municipal￾ity’s responsiveness (citizen concerns and complaints, problems with public services)
14
4.2.3 Capacity Development Indicators–administrator survey:
The relevant measures from our own LGI administrator survey are:
• Has CSC: Binary measure of whether the municipality has a citizen service center
• Digitized procurement: Binary measure of whether the procurement system is digitized
• Internal audit manual: Binary measure of whether the municipal office has an internal
audit manual
• Internal audit staff training: Binary measure of whether the municipal staff has received
staff training in the last three years
• CSC staff training: Binary measure of whether the municipal staff has received
• Change in internal audit skills: Ordinal measure of how the internal audit skills of the
municipal staff have changed in the past 3 years
• Bribes: Index of the perception of the presence of side payments in the municipality
• Public disclosure: Index on whether the municipal office publishes municipal documents
(Summary of approved annual budget, detailed approved annual budget, actual executed
budget, municipal investments, SDIP execution, external audit reports, municipal council
decisions, digitized procurement)
• Digitized: Index of the level of digitization of municipal services (E-billing, digitized informa￾tion management, human resource management, payroll, hiring, and performance assessment
system)
• Importance of merit in selection: Index of the perception on the importance of merit in
hiring and promotion
• Importance of merit in selection (change): Index measuring the change in importance
of merit in the hiring process
• Length of time for services: Index of the length of time for the provision of services (citizen
taxes, business taxes, building permit, business permit)
Figures 10 and 11 show the distributions of variables for the administrator survey. Visibly, the
left-skewness of variables for the presence of CSC, internal audit manual, staff training (internal audit
staff, CSC staff, physical planning), change in internal audit skills, public disclosure, and digitization
show that more administrators in LGI municipalities reported having CSCs, having made internal
audit manuals, having trained the internal audit staff and the CSC staff, having conducted physical
planning training, and having established public disclosure and digitization system. The results from
the models will be shown in section 6.
15
4.2.4 Capacity Development–World Bank/USAID LPGA Administrator survey
The relevant outcome measures from the LPGA Administrator survey are:
• Have records and manuals: Binary variable on whether the municipality has Fixed As￾sets Registry/Operations and Maintenance Plan/accounting and financial procedures man￾ual/procurement records
• Change in quality of services: Index variable on how the quality of the services has
changed over the past three years (electricity provision/piped water provision/spatial and
road planning/piped sewage provision/solid waste collection)
• Publish documents: Index variable of whether the municipality publishes documents (finan￾cial statements/summary of approved annual budgets/detailed actual executed budgets/municipal
investments/SDIP execution/external audit reports/municipal council decisions)
4.2.5 Physical and strategic planning–administrator survey:
• Physical planning training: Binary measure of whether the municipal employees have been
trained in GIS and/or urban/municipal planning in the last 3 years
• Completion of physical training: Index of the level of completion of naming streets, num￾bering buildings, registrar, and municipality map
• Change in skills (planning, human resources): Index of the change in municipal staff’s
physical planning skills and efficiency of human resource management in the past three years
4.2.6 Physical and strategic planning–World Bank/USAID LPGA administrator sur￾vey:
• Have plan: Index variable of whether the municipality has SDIP/physical plan
4.2.7 Participatory Governance–user survey
• Participatory governance: Index of whether the respondent has provided feedback to
the municipality in the past year and whether the respondent has participated in meetings
organized by the municipality in the past year
4.2.8 Participatory Governance–World Bank/USAID LPGA user survey
• Visit website: An index variable of whether the respondent has ever visited the web￾site/Facebook page of the municipality/village council
16
4.2.9 Participatory Governance–administrator survey:
• System for public input: Binary measure of whether the municipality has a system to allow
public input on proposed policies or actions
• Youth input: Index of whether the municipality has a youth local committee and how im￾portant youth input is in the decisions of the municipal council
4.2.10 Participatory Governance–World Bank/USAID LPGA administrator survey:
• Have youth council: Index variable of whether the municipality has a youth council and
how active it is.
• Involve citizens: Binary variable on whether the municipality actively involves citizens in
local government planning.
5 Estimation Strategy
We present the results of models that include an indicator variable for LGI municipalities and a set
of control variables. There is debate as to the costs and benefits of introducing covariates into the
analysis of randomized control trials; because LGI was not designed as an RCT and the selection of
programmed municipalities was intentional, it is particularly important to include a set of covariates
to account for differences across municipalities that could have an impact on the outcomes of inter￾est independent of LGI programming. We include municipal-level control variables for population
density, the percent of the population with access to water, classroom density, the percent of house￾holds with income and consumption below US 4.70 dollars per day, and the percent of households
that are food insecure (measured as the decrease in total food and non-food expenditures, including
households unable to further decrease their expenditure patterns). All of these measures are derived
from the “Vulnerability Assessment of Palestinian Communities in the West Bank for the Commu￾nity Infrastructure Development Program” conducted by Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem in
2010. At the individual-level, we include control variables for respondents’ gender, age, education
level, employment status, and a wealth index.2
We estimate the effect of LGI using the following baseline specification:
Yij = β0 + β1Tij + φj + µij (1)
where Yij is the outcome measure of respondent i in municipality j. As described above, outcome
indicators are constructed from survey data and are continuous, dichotomous or ordinal.3 We also
2The asset index is calculated using the first component scores from a principal component analysis of a set of
household assets, including whether or not the household has a: car, motorcycle/scooter, tractor/truck, animal￾drawn cart, fridge, washing machine, dryer, television, DVD player, satellite, radio, solar water heating system,
central heating system, vacuum cleaner, electric/gas cooker, microwave, dishwasher, water filter, computer, phone
line, Palestinian phone line, Israeli phone line.
3We drop from the analysis questions for which more than 30 percent of responses are missing. When missingness is
17
Figure 9: Outcome Variables (User Survey)
18
Figure 10: Outcome Variables (Admin Survey)
19
Figure 11: Outcome Variables (Admin Survey)
20
include matched pair indicators, φ , per Bruhn and McKenzie 2009 to account for the matching
design. We rely on OLS (rather than a combination of linear and non-linear models) across all these
variable types in light of evidence on the robustness of OLS in a wide range of settings.4 Tij is
the treatment dummy for whether or not the municipality received LGI programming, and uij are
robust standard errors clustered at the municipal level using Huber-White sandwiched standard
errors (Lin et al. 2013).
6 Findings
Below we present the findings across the three outcomes of interest–capacity development, com￾munity planning and participatory government. For each outcome, we first present results from
the service user survey and then from the administrator survey. When we present results from the
WB/USAID LPGA survey, we present results for the matched pairs of LGI and non-LGI munici￾palities discussed above; we present the comparison between LGI and all Palestinian municipalities
from that survey in Annex A.6. For ease of presentation we present the results graphically. In all
figures the LGI point estimates are surrounded by 95 percent confidence intervals. In any case that
the confidence intervals cross the dotted line, we infer that LGI did not have an effect.
6.1 Capacity Development
First we focus on LGI’s impact on municipal capacity development. Initially, we emphasize municipal
practices that LGI directly aimed to change, such as promoting digital governance, improved internal
auditing and staff training. We then examine service quality and satisfaction, and finally we turn
to issues bearing on governance quality and the de-politicization of municipal public sectors. These
latter set of indicators obviously bear on political economy considerations that are harder to move
than staff trainings or digitization alone.
6.1.1 Service User Results
First we focus on the extent to which LGI increased the capacity of citizens to apply for per￾mits/services and pay for them online. This emphasis on e-governance was a central pillar of capac￾ity development. Figure 12 below shows that LGI did increase the probability that citizens reported
the capacity to make such payments by about 1.5 percent. This is a statistically significant, but
small, effect.
lower, we use multiple imputation (Rubin 2004 to fill in the missing values. We use level of education, asset index,
region, their political linkages, as well as outcome measures as predictors.
4See Judkins and Porter 2016
21
Figure 12: Service user results
Next we provide a series of results bearing on citizen service access and satisfaction. Figure 13
(on the left) provides results from our own LGI service user survey, while Figure 14 (on the right)
provides the results from the WB/USAID citizen survey. The results are positive on service access.
The top two results of Figure 14 show a large increase (nearly .3 standard deviations) in access
to services, including water, electricity and waste collection, and a nearly .1 standard deviation
increase in the provision of those services by the municipality in which the respondent lives. Keep
in mind that by design, LGI reached the most urban set of municipalities, so these differences in
access could reflect differences in access that preceded LGI.
The results on service satisfaction are somewhat more ambiguous. The bottom two results in
Figure 13 show that our own surveys indicate no impact of LGI on service satisfaction, either with
regards to how efficiently and well they were serviced on that particular day, or how the municipality
provides services more generally. On the other hand, the “satisfaction w quality of services” finding
from Figure 14 (i.e. the LPGA survey) suggests a small positive effect on service satisfaction.
The two figures also show some negative effects of LGI. Figure 13 shows that users in LGI
municipalities perceive that services in the municipal office (i.e. bureaucratic treatment of users and
tax payers) and municipal services (i.e. water, electricity, sewage, etc.) more generally are provided
less fairly than in non-LGI municipalities. Moreover, both surveys indicate a greater need–to the
tune of .1 standard deviation–for personal connections (Figure 14) and side payments (Figure 13)
to get services from the municipality.
It is worth nothing that these estimated effects (both positive and negative) on service access,
satisfaction and the need for personal connections grow larger when citizens in LGI municipalities are
compared with the full set of Palestinian municipalities surveyed in the World Bank/USAID LPGA
survey; see Annex A.6 for those results. Put differently, as the analysis moves from a focus on users to
a focus on the entire community, the perceived quality of services increases. This change plausibly
results from the fact that comparison groups are different and short term context effects: users’
views change immediately before or after interacting with the administration. Given the nature of
22
the program, and the time at which the evaluation was designed, we cannot pinpoint which specific
mechanism underpins the more critical take users adopt relative to the broader citizenry, but it is
interesting to note that LGI is associated with larger levels of satisfaction when citizens (not users)
are interviewed and the reference point is the broader set of municipalities. The reader should keep
in mind though that the underlying differences between LGI and non-LGI municipalities grow when
LGI municipalities are compared with all other municipalities rather than just their matched pairs.
In short, the differences could be driven by fundamental differences between LGI and non-LGI
municipalities rather than the programming itself.
Figure 13: Service user results Figure 14: World Bank/USAID LGPA survey results
(Matched municipalities)
Turning to more explicit political economy considerations that bear on municipal capacity, Fig￾ure 15 below provides evidence on citizens’ perception of changes in the need to pay bribes, the
likelihood that municipal council representatives help members of their own party at the expense of
the people of the municipality, and the extent to which municipal hiring is based on a competitive,
meritorious process. The figure shows that the results are mixed. On one hand, respondents in LGI
municipalities report a .13 standard deviation reduction in the need to pay bribes. On the other
hand, there is a higher perceived incidence of party favoritism and uncompetitive hiring to the tune
of .25 standard deviations. It seems unlikely that LGI unto itself generated these negative outcomes
bearing on party favoritism and politically motivated hiring. It is possible that by programming
on municipal governance, LGI sensitized citizens to municipal governance in a way that they had
not been before, and that it paying greater attention, citizens perceived more politicization of the
municipal public sector. Alternatively, it could be that the underlying differences between LGI and
non-LGI municipalities are to blame. Perhaps the more urban LGI municipalities have a stronger
pre-programming predisposition toward politicization of the public sector, or perhaps urban citi￾zens are simply more skeptical of municipal governance. The underlying design of LGI makes it
impossible to know the precise roots of these differences.
23
Figure 15: Service user results
All told, these results suggest that citizens in LGI municipalities have better access to services
and are more satisfied with them, but they also see services as less fairly provided and perceive
greater politicization of the municipal public sector.
6.1.2 Administrator Results
We now turn to the capacity development results derived from the surveys of administrators. The
first set of results bear on capacities that come close to measuring LGI outputs, i.e. whether pro￾curement is digitized, if there is an internal audit manual, a citizen service center, etc. The second
set of results bear on deeper questions of how administrators perceive the governance practices in
the municipality.
Figure 16 provides results on five indicators. In all five cases, LGI has a significant and positive
effect on outcomes, including whether procurement has been digitized, whether there is an internal
audit manual, whether audit staff have been trained in the last three years,5 whether the municipality
has a citizen service center, and whether the staff of that center has received training. These results
also seem substantively meaningful.6 At the low end, LGI municipalities are 12 percent more likely
to have had recent training for audit staff; at the high end, LGI municipalities are nearly 30 percent
more likely to have a citizen service center. To the extent these were key programming goals of LGI,
it succeeded.
5We also asked whether there has been an improvement in the skills of auditors. Though the coefficient is positive,
it is not statistically significant.
6Averages for the sample: digitized procurement (0.56), internal audit manual (0.68), internal audit staff training
(0.86), CSC staff training (0.68), has CSC (0.81)
24
Figure 16: Administrator results
Turning to deeper issues bearing on governance quality, the results are more mixed. Figure 17
below shows that LGI has no effect on administrators’ perceived incidence of side payments in the
municipality, the role of merit in hiring and promotions, or the change in the role of merit in said
hiring and promotions. On the other hand, LGI municipalities are more likely to publicly disclose
key documents (including the annual budget, external audit reports, municipal council decisions,
and the like) and have digitized a broader set of municipal processes services (including billing,
information management, payroll, hiring, etc.). The substantive effects are quite large. Since these
outcome variables are z-scores, one should interpret them in terms of standard deviations; thus,
LGI municipalities are about .2 standard deviations more likely to disclose documents to the public
and .5 standard deviations more likely to have digitized key municipal processes.7 The WB/USAID
survey of administrators confirms the finding on publishing documents, but otherwise it provides
few questions bearing on municipal capacity.
7Average z-score across the sample for public disclosure is .1 and the average z-score for digitized procurement is .3.
25
Figure 17: Administrator results
All told, these results suggest that LGI has indeed improved the administrative capacities it
most directly targeted, and it seems to have modestly improved transparency in government, even
if it has not impacted the incidence of bribes or made employee recruitment and promotion more
meritocratic.
6.2 Strategic Planning
We now turn to evidence bearing on LGI’s impact on the extent of, and capacity for, strategic
planning. Since citizens/service users do not observe municipal planning in action, the evidence
draws entirely from the surveys of administrators. Figure 18 provides results from the administrator
survey asking if municipal employees have been trained in GIS and/or municipal planning in the
last three years (i.e. the lifespan of LGI). The positive, significant result suggests that such training
is about 13 percent more prevalent in LGI municipalities.8
8The average across the sample is 74 percent.
26
Figure 18: Administrator results
Figure 19 reports the results for perceived changes in the actual skills of human resources and
planning staff and the extent to which physical planning has taken place. The physical planning
measure is an index of the extent to which the municipality has completed the naming of streets,
the numbering of building, the creation of a registrar, and the production of a municipal map. This
finding is significant and substantively large, showing that LGI has had a big impact on the extent
of physical planning. The effect on planning skills and efficiency of human resource management
is also large, even if not quite as impressive as it is on physical planning. The WB/USAID LPGA
survey of administrators provides little insight into municipal planning.9
9The survey does ask whether the municipality has an SDIP (Strategic Development and Investment Planning) plan.
The LGI coefficient is positive, but it is not significant.
27
Figure 19: Administrator results
6.3 Participatory Governance
Finally, we turn to LGI’s third goal, namely to improve participatory governance by integrating
youth and citizens into municipal decision-making.
6.3.1 Service User Results
Focusing first on citizens, we asked service users if: 1) they had provided feedback to the municipality
in the past year; and 2) whether the respondent has participated in meetings organized by the
municipal government over the last year. We combined the responses of these two questions into an
index, and Figure 20 shows the results. Contrary to the goals of the program, respondents in LGI
municipalities are .18 standard deviations less participatory than those in non-LGI municipalities.
Again, it seems unlikely that this reduced participation is actually caused by LGI programming.
It seems more likely that the more urban settings where LGI took place militates against active
citizen participation.
28
Figure 20: Service user results
6.3.2 Administrator Results
Next we turn to results from the surveys of administrators. First, we asked administrators if the
municipality has a system in place for the public to provide input on proposed policies or actions.
The overall incidence of municipalities with public input on proposed policies or actions is 89 percent.
Figure 21 shows that LGI is not associated with increased incidence of such systems.
Figure 21: Administrator results
29
Next we asked administrators if the municipality has a youth committee and how important
youth input is to the decisions of the municipal council. We turn these questions into an index, and
the results are in Figure 22, which shows that LGI is not associated with greater youth input into
municipal governance.
Figure 22: Administrator results
Finally, we turn to the WB/USAID survey of administrators, which asks them if they have a
youth council and whether the municipality actively involves citizens in local government planning.
As Figure 23 shows, LGI does not have an impact on either of these measures.10
10Mean incidence for “have youth council” is .63; mean for “involve citizens” is .89
30
Figure 23: WB/USAID administrator survey results
7 Issues, Challenges and Limitations
There are a number of threats to inference that USAID should keep in mind. These represent
obstacles to assessing the impact of LGI.
Balance
Although imbalance on pre-treatment variables is often a threat to impact evaluations, the
use of the matching procedure for sampling of control municipalities from the total population of
municipalities led to a sample of municipalities more balanced across a wide range of observed
confounders. Nevertheless, there is still imbalance across a number of variables, including the size of
the population, since the selection of LGI programming was based on these variables. To the extent
municipalities with larger, more urban populations are fundamentally different, it is possible that
measured differences between LGI and non-LGI municipalities on outcomes of interest result from
those differences rather than LGI itself.
Heterogeneity in implementation across municipalities
According to the Global Communities document on the implementation of activities across mu￾nicipalities, we can see that not all activities were implemented across all municipalities. For instance,
only 4 out of 28 municipalities received e-municipality treatment, and 26 out of 28 municipalities
received human resources management training. Furthermore, many of the activities are still marked
as “ongoing”, hampering our judgement with regards to the extent of programming in the 28 mu￾nicipalities. Thus, LGI programming was different in important ways across municipalities, which
makes estimating an “average” LGI effect quite difficult.
Spillovers
31
There is a potential source of spillover from LGI to non-LGI municipalities and from non-LGI to
LGI municipalities via the rotation of administrators from one municipality to another. To the extent
that a lot of the programming was inside the municipal administration, rotation of the administrators
mutes our capacity to identify program effects: administrators from the LGI municipalities could
rotate into the non-LGI municipalities and hence “contaminate” non-LGI communities with their
training. This would reduce our capacity to measure LGI’s effects.
External factors
Major factors impacting local services, such as electricity, water, and road access, are outside
the control of local governments. Depending on the frequency of service cuts or the reliability of
services provided by the municipality, the positive effect of LGI could be muted.
Other Donor Programming
Other donors, including the World Bank, have conducted programming on municipal governance
in other municipalities. To the extent these other efforts have improved municipality capacity and
governance in non-LGI municipalities, it reduces the evaluation team’s to measure the effect of
LGI. Conditional on the other concerns above, our results may represent a lower bound on actual
program effects.
8 Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1 Conclusions
Our evaluation of the LGI provides a rich set of findings on several aspects of the intervention.
These findings fall into three broad categories: (1) Capture of direct impact of the program in terms
of investments and quality of services; (2) Implications for Citizens’ perceptions of access to services
and attitudes towards local services; and (3) Implications for participatory governance and citizens’
engagement.
1. In terms of direct impact of the program, the analysis establishes a consistent positive impact
of LGI on capacity development. The effect is particularly visible in investments bearing on
digitized procurement, internal auditing, staff training, e-municipality, and public disclosure.
We have also documented a positive and significant effect on the extent of physical and strate￾gic planning. Our comparison between LGI municipalities and their “matches” also show that
these efforts translate into citizens’ perceptions of the quality of services. LGI is associated
with better access to services, more reliable services, higher quality services, and a greater
belief that services have improved in recent years. The program has had a positive impact as
captured by both objective checks on its impact across LGI municipalities and citizens’ overall
assessment of the quality of services.
2. At the same time, however, users appear to grow more critical when asked about access to
services. Items such as party favoritism, lack of competitiveness in selection of employees, need
to provide side payments, and lack of fairness in service provision lead to lower satisfaction
with service provision among users. This finding points to a possible positive side effect of
32
enhancing capacity: it might raise critical awareness among citizens exposed to the program.
This interpretation builds on the contrast between the findings emerging from the compari￾son between the users’ analysis (LGI vs ‘matched’ municipalities on users) and the broader
comparison involving respondents across all LGPA.The key implication that follows is as the
analysis moves from a focus on users to a focus on the entire community, the perceived quality
of services increases (see figures 12 and 13 above). This result plausibly results from short term
context effects: users’ views change immediately before or after interacting with the adminis￾tration. Given the nature of the program, and the time at which the evaluation was designed,
we cannot pinpoint which specific mechanism underpins the more critical take users adopt
relative to the broader citizenry. But we have established that as capacity increases, and users
interact with personnel in administrations with better resources, their view on process and
criteria for selection becomes more critical relative to the broader sample of citizens.
3. Finally, regarding citizens’ engagement and participatory governance, we find no evidence
among municipal officials that LGI has increased citizen or youth input into municipal gover￾nance. On average, citizens in LGI municipalities actually report less participatory governance
than in non-programmed municipalities. A possible explanation for this counter-intuitive find￾ing points to the determinants of the take-up rate by the LGI communities and potential dis￾couraging effects associated with centralizing political engagement at the municipality. Some
subgroups within the municipality may grow wary of excessive capacity for control if all en￾gagement takes place within the same premises. Political engagement in its various forms is
a habit. Providing institutional infrastructure is a necessary step to launch such a habit but,
judging by the findings, not a sufficient one. In the absence of complementary engagement
and socialization efforts, it is plausible that they produce effects opposite to those intended.
In summary, as best we can assess, LGI had important positive effects on the administrative
capacity of municipal governments, a mix of positive and negative effects on the professionalization
and depoliticization of municipal officials, and no effect on citizen participation in governance.
Citizens have better access to services and perceive that those services are both of higher quality
and more reliable, but they also perceive that services are provided less fairly and that side payments
and party favoritism are more problematic. This could result from improved municipal capacity being
delivered unequally across citizens within LGI municipalities. It could also be that successful efforts
to increase the capacity of subnational governments can sensitize citizens to performance in a way
that reduces citizen satisfaction. It is also possible that some of these findings reflect fundamental
differences between LGI and non-LGI municipalities and how LGI was targeted rather than the
programming itself.
8.2 Policy Recommendations
We interpret the findings to suggest a series of policy recommendations, including:
1. Bridging the capacity gap across the West Bank’s municipal governments is worthy of ad￾ditional investments. LGI has shown important improvements in 28 municipalities. The re￾maining municipalities would benefit from increased investments in basic capacity. Once all
West Bank municipalities have reached a higher threshold of bureaucratic capacity, additional
33
transfers of resources are likely to have a stronger impact on service quality and development
outcomes.
2. Whether this positive cycle (a sort of multiplier effect) associated with additional capacity in￾vestments actually materializes likely depends on the incentives of local officials. Local politi￾cians’ tendency to make allocative decisions according to criteria questionable to users, such
as partisan attachments or personal favoritism, becomes more visible as capacity increases.
Our analysis suggests that service users react more critically precisely in those localities where
capacity has been enhanced. We recommend that policy reforms and/or future rounds of in￾terventions concentrate on creating incentives for local politicians and officials to exercise
their increased capacity in a more transparent way. Possible steps in this direction could in￾clude simplifying protocols for citizens to provide input, further expand training of municipal
employees in good governance practices, efforts to socialize (through schools) future citizens
into the habit of voicing feedback, and/or conditioning fiscal decisions by the central govern￾ment on transparency and citizen satisfaction indicators. Future interventions on activating
mechanisms of political accountability are a fruitful area for additional efforts.
3. The findings on citizen and youth input and participation suggest the need for a closer focus
on the factors determining the take-up rate in interventions designed to bolster social and
political participation. We recommend paying particular attention to the reasons why citizens
and communities do not take full advantage of the new institutional opportunities, or are even
discouraged by them. As mentioned above, political participation is a habit that develops
during the years of political socialization. Possible strategies towards this end could include
sustained diffusion campaigns through schools, introduction of small incentives to make use
of the newly created common spaces, or provision of transportation to and from the more
remote areas within the municipality.
4. Future USAID programming should explicitly build evaluation into the design of interventions.
This will allow for a much more precise assessment of if and how programs are working. Ex
post evaluations such as this one are necessarily limited in their capacity to assess the efficacy
of USAID programs.
34
A Annexes
A.1 Matching
A.1.1 List of Covariates used for Matching
• Population
• Area (km2
)
• Availability of water services (binary; yes or no)
• Availability of electricity network (binary; yes or no)
• Availability of sewage and wastewater systems (binary; yes or no)
• Availability of solid waste collection system (binary; yes or no)
• Accessibility to road network (1km of service area is used and thus the accessibility to road
network was assessed)
• Water network (% with access)
• Water loss (% of freshwater lost)
• Water consumption (liter per capita per day)
• Number of students
• Number of classrooms
• Dependency ratio - A measure of the portion of a population which is composed of dependents.
The dependency ratio is equal to the number of individuals aged below 15 and above 64 divided
by the number of individuals aged 15 to 64
• Illiteracy (%)
• Presence of a youth center
• Families in need of assistance
• Food security index - Households with income and consumption below $4.7/capita (adult)/day
and household showing decrease in total food and non-food expenditures including households
unable to further decrease their expenditure patterns
• Wealth index - Is the value of all natural, physical and financial assets owned by a HH, reduced
by its liabilities? The wealth index is a composite index composed of key asset ownership
variables; it is used as a proxy indicator for HH level of wealth. The criteria reflect % of
households that are measured within poorest wealth index quintile.
• Permanent agriculture
• Primary school
35
• High school
• Health center - number of health centers per locality
• Part time (%) - % of working force working part time
• Non-agriculture households
• Number of households
• Agricultural households
• Families in need of assistance - percentage of families that need and did not receive assistance
A.2 Matched pairs
Table 1: Matched Municipalities
Programmed Matched pair
Tubas Ash Shuyukh
Qalqiliya Ya’bad
Tulkarm Beit Ummar
’Illar Baqa ash Sharqiya
Kafr Thulth Kafr Qaddum
’Attil Deir al Ghusun
Aqraba Beit Furik
Al Yamun Beit Ula
Qabalan Huwwara
’Anabta Ad Doha
Nablus Al ’Ubeidiya
Jenin Fahma al Jadida
Ar Rama Mirka
Al Bireh Qabatiya
Bir Zeit Qarawat Bani Zeid
Jericho Rummana
Salfit Bir Nabala
Abu Dis Beituniya
Ramallah Tarqumiya
At Tayba Ash Shuhada
Hebron (Al Khalil) As Sawahira ash Sharqiya
Yatta As Samu’
Beit Jala ’Anata
Beit Sahur Al Khadr
Halhul Idhna
Ad Dhahiriya Dura
Beit Fajjar Deir Sharaf
Bethlehem Bani Na’im
36
A.3 Variables
A.3.1 User survey (Primary indicators)
37
A.3.2 Admin survey (Primary indicators)
A.3.3 User survey (Secondary indicators)
38
A.3.4 Admin survey (Secondary indicators)
A.3.5 Admin survey (World Bank Survey on Municipal Service Provision)
39
A.3.6 Citizen Survey (LGPA)
A.4 Control Variables
• Respondent’s sex: 0 for male, 1 for female
• Respondent’s age: Continuous variable of age
• Respondent’s education level (User and admin surveys only): an 8-point category that
ranges from illiterate to post-graduate
• Owner/salaried employee (User survey only)
• Population density
• Class density: Number of students per classroom
• Water network: % of people with access to clean water
• Food security: Households with income and consumption below $4.7/capita (adult)/day
and household showing decrease in total food and non-food expenditures including households
unable to further decrease their expenditure patterns
• Asset index: First principal component of a list of assets11
A.5 Variable Transformation
Some outcome variables have been transformed as Z-scores (Kling et al. 2007) using the following
steps:
11The assets include: car, motorcycle/scooter, tractor/truck, animal-drawn cart, fridge, washing machine, dryer, tele￾vision, DVD player, satellite, radio, solar water heating system, central heating system, vacuum cleaner, electric/gas
cooker, microwave, dishwasher, water filter, computer, phone line, Palestinian phone line, Israeli phone line
40
1. Recode all variables such that better outcomes have higher scores
2. For variable X, subtract the control group mean of X from all observed values of X
3. Divide the dividend by the standard deviation of X for the control group
4. Repeat the above for all other variables in the index
5. Calculate the mean across all variables for each individual
A.6 Primary indicators for WB/USAID surveys
A.6.1 Capacity Development
LGPA Survey
Figure 24: Matched municipalities
Figure 25: All municipalities
Supply Side Survey
Figure 26: Matched municipalities Figure 27: All municipalities
41
A.6.2 Strategic Planning
Supply Side Survey
Figure 28: Matched municipalities
Figure 29: All municipalities
A.6.3 Participatory Governance
LGPA Survey
Figure 30: Matched municipalities
Figure 31: All municipalities
Supply Side Survey
42
Figure 32: Matched municipalities
Figure 33: All municipalities
A.7 Secondary indicators
A.7.1 Capacity Development
User Survey
43
Admin Survey
44
WB Admin Survey
Figure 34: Matched municipalities Figure 35: All municipalities
A.7.2 Strategic Planning
WB Admin Survey
45
Figure 36: Matched municipalities
Figure 37: All municipalities
A.7.3 Participatory Governance
Admin Survey
WB Admin Survey
46
Figure 38: Matched municipalities Figure 39: All municipalities
A.8 Survey Instrument
A.8.1 User Survey Instrument
47
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
1
Section A: Basic Information and Consent
# QUESTION RESPONSE CODES
A1 Date of survey [Date]
A2 Name of enumerator 
A2o. [If A2 is 97. ‘Other’]
Please enter YOUR name.
[Text]
A3 Name of supervisor
A3o. [If A3 is 97. ‘Other’]
Please enter the name of your supervisor.
[Text]
A4 Governorate 1. Bethlehem
2. Hebron
3. Jenin
4. Jericho
5. Jerusalem
6. Nablus
7. Qalqilya
8. Ramallah
9. Salfit
10. Tubas
11. Tulkarm
A5 Municipality 'Anabta
'Anata
'Attil
'Illar
Abu Dis
Ad Doha
Adh Dhahiriya
Al 'Ubeidiya
Al Bireh
Al Khadr
Al Yamun
Aqraba
Ar Rama
As Samu'
As Sawahira ash Sharqiya
Ash Shuhada
Ash Shuyukh
At Tayba
Bani Na'im
Baqa ash Sharqiya
Beit Fajjar
48
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
2
Beit Furik
Beit Jala
Beit Sahur
Beit Ula
Beit Ummar
Beituniya
Bethlehem (Beit Lahm)
Bir Nabala
Bir Zeit
Deir al Ghusun
Deir Ballut
Deir Istiya
Deir Sharaf
Dura
Fahma al Jadida
Halhul
Haris
Hebron (Al Khalil)
Huwwara
Idhna
Iskaka
Jenin
Jericho (Ariha)
Kafr Qaddum
Kafr Thulth
Kifl Haris
Marda
Mirka
Nablus
Qabalan
Qabatiya
Qalqiliya
Qarawat Bani Hassan
Qarawat Bani Zeid
Qira
Ramallah
Rummana
Salfit
Sarta
Tarqumiya
Tubas
Tulkarm
Ya'bad
Yasuf
Yatta
49
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
3
INFORMED CONSENT: PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CONSENT FORM WORD FOR WORD:
READ ALOUD: Good morning/ good afternoon, my name is _____. I am a research assistant working with 
the U. S. Agency for International Development on a study on local governance and infrastructure. I would 
like to ask you some questions to better understand your municipality. Your participation is entirely 
voluntary. If you agree to participate, our discussion will last for around 25 minutes. Please rest assured 
that your answers will remain confidential. We will not provide your name and answers to anyone. Your 
answers would help us understand important features of your municipality. Do not feel obligated to answer 
any question that you are not comfortable with, and do not hesitate to ask me for a clarification if you think 
that a question is a bit difficult or unclear. If you have any questions or concerns about our study, please 
contact {Pablo Beramendi, Erik Wibbels contact info}. May we continue?
CONSENT
# QUESTION RESPONSE CODES
A8 Did the respondent consent?
[If 0. ‘No’, go to A9]
[If 1. ‘Yes’, go to A10]
0. No
1. Yes
A9 Can you please tell me why you have 
chosen not to participate?
[End survey]
[Text]
ELIGIBILITY
# QUESTION RESPONSE CODES
A10 Are you over 16?
[If 0. ‘No’, End of Survey]
0. No
1. Yes
A11 Are you a resident of THIS municipality?
[If 0. ‘No’, End of Survey]
[If 1. ‘Yes’, go to B1]
0. No
1. Yes
Section B. Respondent Information
# Question Response
READ ALOUD: Let’s begin with a few facts about yourself.
B1 Sex of the respondent 1. Male
2. Female
B2 How old are you? [Integer]
A6 At home/business or municipal council 
building?
1. Home
2. Business
3. Municipal council buildling
A7. Respondent ID [Enter number]
A7v. Please retype the respondent ID [Enter number]
(must match A8)
50
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
4
Section B. Respondent Information
# Question Response
B3 How many years 
have you lived in 
THIS municipality?
[Enter number, round to the nearest year]
(6 months or less = 0)
777. Not applicable (I don’t live here) [End Survey]
888. Don’t know
999. Prefer not to respond
B4 Are you married? 1. Yes, married
2. No, widowed
3. No, divorced
4. No, separated
5. No, never married
97. Other
999. Prefer not to respond
B4o [If B3 is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[Text]
B5 What is your religion, 
if any?
1. Islam
2. Christianity
3. Samaritan
999. Prefer not to respond
B6 What is your highest 
educational 
achievement?
1. Primary school
2. Secondary school
3. High school
4. Bachelor’s degree
5. Master’s degree
6. Doctorate degree
777. None
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
B7 Are you a refugee? 0. No
1. Yes
B8 What is your primary 
occupation?
[DO NOT READ ALOUD]
1. Worker
2. Public Sector Employees
3. Non-government employee
4. Farmers/fishermen2
5. Owns a business
6. Professionals (e.g. doctors/lawyers/ pharmacists/engineers) 
7. Technical (Electrician…)
8. Students
9. Housewives
10. Unemployed
51
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
5
Section B. Respondent Information
# Question Response
11. Retired
12. Freelancer
97. Other
888. Don't know
999. Prefer not to respond
B8o. [If B8 is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[text]
B9. Are you a salaried 
employee or an 
owner/self-employed?
1. Salaried employee
2. Owner/self-employed
999. Prefer not to respond
B10. Do you have a 
contract with your 
employer?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
B11. In a typical week, how 
many hours do you 
spend working on 
your main job?
[integer]
B12. Do you work in a 
private sector or a 
public sector?
1. Private
2. Public
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
B13. How long have you 
held your job title?
[In years]
[integer]
B14. Do	you	have	
somebody	you	can	
call	up	in	the	
government	if	you	
have	a	problem?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
B14y [If B14 is 1. ‘Yes’]
is	this	
person/people	a	
family	member	or	a	
friend?	
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES
READ ALOUD: We would like to know the availability of public services in your municipality.
52
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
6
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
C1a Can you pay your taxes 
at the municipal office?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C1a_y [If C1a is 1. ‘Yes’]
If so, what types of 
taxes can you pay at the 
municipal office?
1. Property taxes
2. Education taxes
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C1a_other [If C1a_y is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[text]
C1b Can businesses pay 
taxes at the municipal 
office?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C1b_y [If C1b is 1. ‘Yes’]
If so, what types of 
taxes can businesses 
pay at the municipal 
office? 
1. Trade taxes
2. Business taxes
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C1b_other [If C1b_y is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[text]
C1c Can you get services for 
disabled citizens at the 
municipal office?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C1d Does the municipality 
have a municipal court 
to solve disputes with 
third parties?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
GENERAL SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
READ ALOUD: Now we would like to ask about your satisfaction with the services provided by the municipal 
office. Please position your level of satisfaction in the following scale: 1 (very satisfied), 2 (somewhat satisfied), 
3 (neutral), 4 (somewhat dissatisfied), 5 (very dissatisfied).
C2a Paying taxes at the 
municipal office?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
53
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
7
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
C2b Getting services for 
disabled citizens at the 
municipal office?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
C2c Going through the 
municipal court to solve 
disputes with third 
parties?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
C2d Paying taxes for your 
business at the 
municipal office?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
C2e Getting permits for your 
business at the 
municipal office?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
C2f Water provision of the 
municipality?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
C2g Electricity provision of 
the municipality?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
54
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
8
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
C2h Solid waste collection? 1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
C2i Roads and basic 
infrastructure 
maintenance of the 
municipality?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
C2i Sewage maintenance of 
the municipality?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
777. Not applicable
888. Haven’t heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES TODAY
READ ALOUD: Now we have some questions about your experience with the municipal office TODAY.
C3 What was the purpose 
of your visit today? 
Select all that apply.
1. Apply for water service
2. Apply for electricity service
3. Fix a problem with water service
4. Fix a problem with electricity service
5. Apply for a business license
6. Apply for a building license
7. Pay taxes
8. Pay fees
9. File a complaint about the municipality
10. File a complaint about a third party
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
55
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
9
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
C4 Did you receive 
guidance on the type of 
documentation/evidence 
needed to apply to 
process your request 
and if so, how?
1. Printed procedure manual at the municipal office
2. Brochure/pamphlets at the municipal office
3. Municipality website
4. Municipality Facebook page
5. Municipality bulletin board
97. Other
777. I did not receive guidance
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C5 Was it clear to you 
which documentation or 
evidence you were 
expected to provide to 
process your request?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to answer
C6 In this visit, how many 
MINUTES did you need 
to wait to get the task 
completed?
[Integer] (in minutes)
C7 How satisfied are you 
with the visit today?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Bureaucratic Efficiency – Last 12 months
READ ALOUD: We would now like to discuss your experience with the municipal office in the LAST 12 
MONTHS. how satisfied were you with the following services provided by the municipal office in the 
past 12 months? Please place yourself on the following scale: 1 (very satisfied), 2 (somewhat satisfied), 
3 (neutral), 4 (somewhat dissatisfied), 5 (very dissatisfied).
C8a Water provision? 1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C8b Sewage maintenance? 1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
56
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
10
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
C8c Solid waste collection? 1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C8d Electricity provision? 1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C9 In the last 12 months, 
about how many times 
have you gone to the 
municipal office to deal 
with administrative 
matters like paying 
taxes, fees, getting a 
permit, or filing a 
complaint?
[integer]
C9v [If C9 > 30]
You entered a very 
large number. Are you 
sure this is correct and 
the respondent 
understood the 
question? If not, go 
back and correct the 
answer.
C10 Of those times, how 
common was it for you 
to come to the municipal 
office during normal 
business hours and find 
it CLOSED?
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always
777. This is my first visit
C11 In the last 12 months, 
how long did it usually 
take from the time you 
place your request until 
the issue is solved? (in 
minutes)
[integer]
57
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
11
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
C12 Has the time necessary 
to complete 
administrative 
procedures increased or 
decreased relative to 
TWO YEARS AGO?
1. Increased
2. Decreased
3. Remains the same
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C13 During your visits in the 
last 12 months, did you 
have to provide any 
documentation to 
process your request?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C14 Did you receive 
guidance on the type of 
documentation/evidence 
needed to apply to 
process your request 
and if so, how? Select 
all that apply.
1. Printed procedure manual at the municipal office
2. Brochure/pamphlets at the municipal office
3. Municipality website
4. Municipality Facebook page
5. Municipality bulletin board
97. Other
777. I did not receive guidance
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C15 Was it clear to you 
which 
documentation/evidence 
you were expected to 
provide?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C16 How much of that 
documentation was 
processed 
electronically, that is 
inputted into a 
computer?
1. None of them
2. Less than half
3. More than half
4. All of them
C17 In the last 12 months, 
how often has the 
municipality misplaced 
or lost a document you 
provided them?
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always
C18. In those instances 
where you were unable 
to provide the 
necessary 
documentation, were 
you able to obtain the 
permission?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
58
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
12
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
C18y. What facilitated the 
outcome? Select all that 
apply.
1. A promise to bring it later
2. A small token of appreciation to the municipal employee
3. An intervention of a third party connected to the municipal employee
4. Pressures from acquaintances with influence
5. Talking to senior level officials
97. Other
C19 Have you successfully 
paid your taxes 
electronically?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C19a [If C12a is 2. ‘No’]
If not, why not?
1. Machine not working
2. Did not know how to use it
3. No option that I wanted
4. Such service was not available
5. Never tried
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C19b [If 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[Text]
C20 In the last 12 months, 
have you attempted to 
get a permit of any sort 
from the municipality?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C20a [If C13 is 1. ‘Yes’]
Which ones? Check all 
that apply.
1. Business permit/license
2. Building permit/license
97. Other
C20o [If 97. Other]
Please specify.
[Text]
C21 How satisfied were you 
with the process(es) for 
getting a permit?
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat dissatisfied
5. Very dissatisfied
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C22 How knowledgeable do 
you think the municipal 
employees are?
1. Very knowledgeable
2. Somewhat knowledgeable
3. Somewhat unknowledgeable
4. Very unknowledgeable
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
FEEDBACK
59
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
13
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
C23 In the last 12 months, 
were you asked to 
provide feedback to the 
municipal employees 
about their service?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C23a How did you provide 
feedback? Select all 
that apply.
1. Complaint box
2. Municipality Facebook page
3. Municipality website
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C24 In the past 12 months, 
have you participated in 
or heard of any 
meetings organized by 
the municipality on how 
to improve the access 
and quality of local 
services?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Refuse to answer
C24y [If C24 is 1. ‘Yes’]
What meetings?
[text]
SIDE PAYMENTS
READ ALOUD: We are now going to ask you about side payments to access services offered by the 
municipality. Have you ever had to pay side payments to the municipal office for:
C25a Water provision? 0. No
1. Yes
777. Never used 
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C25b Electricity provision? 0. No
1. Yes
777. Never used
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C25c Tax payments? 0. No
1. Yes
777. Never used
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C25d Roads and basic 
infrastructure 
maintenance?
0. No
1. Yes
777. Never used
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
60
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
14
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
C25e Sewage maintenance? 0. No
1. Yes
777. Never used
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C25f Solid waste collection? 0. No
1. Yes
777. Never used
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C25g Permits? 0. No
1. Yes
777. Never used
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C26 Compared to two years 
ago, has the need for 
side payments to get 
services increased or 
decreased?
1. Increased
2. Decreased
3. Remains about the same
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
Fairness
C27 In your view, do 
municipal employees 
treat everyone equally?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C27a [If C22 is 0. No]
Why do you think some 
people are treated 
better than others by the 
municipal employees? 
Please select the most 
important reason
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Wealth/income
4. Status/prestige within the community
5. Private/personal connection with municipal employee
6. Political affinity with the party/mayor in office
7. Ability to provide side payments
97. Other
C27b Second most important 
reason
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Wealth/income
4. Status/prestige within the community
5. Private/personal connection with municipal employee
6. Political affinity with the party/mayor in office
7. Ability to provide side payments
97. Other
READ ALOUD: How fairly does the municipality provide the following services? Position yourself on the 
following scale: 1 (Very fairly), 2 (somewhat fairly), 3 (somewhat unfairly), 4 (very unfairly).
C28a Water provision [DO NOT READ; PROBE AND CODE]
61
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
15
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
1. Very fairly
2. Somewhat fairly
3. Somewhat unfairly
4. Very unfairly
777. Not applicable
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C28b Electricity provision [DO NOT READ; PROBE AND CODE]
1. Very fairly
2. Somewhat fairly
3. Somewhat unfairly
4. Very unfairly
777. Not applicable
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C28c Tax collection [DO NOT READ; PROBE AND CODE]
1. Very fairly
2. Somewhat fairly
3. Somewhat unfairly
4. Very unfairly
777. Not applicable
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C28d Roads and basic 
infrastructure 
maintenance
[DO NOT READ; PROBE AND CODE]
1. Very fairly
2. Somewhat fairly
3. Somewhat unfairly
4. Very unfairly
777. Not applicable
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C28e Sewage maintenance [DO NOT READ; PROBE AND CODE]
1. Very fairly
2. Somewhat fairly
3. Somewhat unfairly
4. Very unfairly
777. Not applicable
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C28f Solid waste collection [DO NOT READ; PROBE AND CODE]
1. Very fairly
2. Somewhat fairly
3. Somewhat unfairly
4. Very unfairly
62
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
16
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
777. Not applicable
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C28g Permits [DO NOT READ; PROBE AND CODE]
1. Very fairly
2. Somewhat fairly
3. Somewhat unfairly
4. Very unfairly
777. Not applicable
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS
READ ALOUD: Now we would like to ask for your opinions on who is responsible for interruptions in 
services in this municipality.
C29a Who	is	the	most	
responsible for	
electricity	cuts	in	
THIS	municipality,	if
any?
1.	Palestinian	National	Authority
2.	Israeli	Government
3.	Service	company
97.	Other
C29b How	often	do	you	
experience	electricity	
cuts	by	that	[agent]?
1. Daily
2.	Once	a	week
3.	Twice	a	week
4.	Once	a	month
5.	Twice	a	month
6.	More	than	twice	a	month
7.	Never
888.	DK
999.	Prefer	not	to	respond
C29c Who	is	the	most	
responsible for	water
cuts	in	THIS	
municipality,	if any?
1.	Palestinian	National	Authority
2.	Israeli	Government
3.	Service	company
97.	Other
C29d How	often	do	you	
experience	electricity	
cuts	by	that	[agent]?
1. Daily
2.	Once	a	week
3.	Twice	a	week
4.	Once	a	month
5.	Twice	a	month
6.	More	than	twice	a	month
7.	Never
888.	DK
999.	Prefer	not	to	respond
63
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
17
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
C29e Who	is	the	most	
responsible for	the	
destruction of	local	
infrastructure cuts	in	
THIS	municipality,	if
any?
1.	Palestinian	National	Authority
2.	Israeli	Government
3.	Service	company
97.	Other
C29f How	often	do	you	
experience	electricity	
cuts	by	that	[agent]?
1. Daily
2.	Once	a	week
3.	Twice	a	week
4.	Once	a	month
5.	Twice	a	month
6.	More	than	twice	a	month
7.	Never
888.	DK
999.	Prefer	not	to	respond
C29g Who	is	the	most	
responsible for	the	
suspension	of	this	
municipality’s	
autonomy cuts	in	
THIS	municipality,	if
any?
1.	Palestinian	National	Authority
2.	Israeli	Government
3.	Service	company
97.	Other
C29h How	much	do	Israel’s	
interventions	affect	
your	planning for	the	
future?
1.	A	lot
2.	Somewhat
3.	A little
4.	No	effect
888.	DK
999.	Prefer	not	to	respond
C29i How	does	the	
municipality	respond	
to	the	interventions	
by	Israel?
1.	No	action	is	taken
2.	Tries	to	prevent	citizens	from	being	affected	by	the	
intervention
3.	Seeks	help	from	the	national	government	and/or	
international	actors
4.	Tries	to	lobby	unilaterally	with	the	Israeli	government	to	
limit	the	scope	or	duration	of	the	intervention
888.	DK
999.	Prefer	not	to	respond
TAXES AND PUBLIC GOODS PROVISION
READ ALOUD: Now we would like to ask about your thoughts on taxes.
C30 Given the quality of 
service you receive, do 
1. Too low
2. Low
64
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
18
Section C. Perceptions by users 
# Question Response
you think your taxes 
are:
3. Fair
4. High
5. Too high
C31 How much do you think 
a rich individual in your 
locality earns?
[In NIS]
[Integer]
C32 Compared to the 
amount of taxes the rich 
pay, do you think they 
should pay:
1. Much more
2. More
3. About the same
4. Less
5. Much less
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond 
C33 For which services 
would you be willing to 
pay more taxes if their 
quality increased? 
Select all that apply.
1. Water provision
2. Electricity provision
3. Tax payments
4. Roads and basic infrastructure maintenance
5. Sewage maintenance
6. Solid waste collection
7. Permits
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
SECTION D. PREFERENCES OVER POLICIES
D1 As you know, the Israeli government
collects all taxes and tariffs generated in 
the West Bank and makes a transfer to 
the PNA. How much do you agree with 
the following statement? "I would support 
more autonomy in tax collection of PNA 
even if it meant higher taxes and fees for 
myself"
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D2 As you know, the vast majority of water 
generated in the West Bank goes to 
Israel. How much do you agree with the 
following statement? "I would support a 
larger scale infrastructural effort by the 
PNA so that we could have access to 
better water, even if it meant an increase 
in taxes and fees for myself"
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D3 As you know, the majority of 
infrastructure improvements such as 
schools, roads and water facilities in the 
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
65
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
19
West Bank is financed by foreign donors 
and organizations. How much do you 
agree with the following statement? "I 
would support substituting foreign help 
for a higher effort by the PNA even if it 
meant higher taxes and fees for myself"
4. Agree little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Section E. PERCEPTIONS ON GOVERNACE
# Question Response
E1 What percentage of the municipal 
government resources do you think is 
wasted due to POOR FINANCIAL 
MANAGEMENT of the municipality?
1. 0%
2. 25%
3. 50%
4. 75%
5. 100%
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
E2 What percentage of resources do you 
think the municipalities waste due to 
LOCAL POLITICIANS using the money for 
PERSONAL USE?
1. 0%
2. 25%
3. 50%
4. 75%
5. 100%
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
E3 What percentage of resources do you 
think the municipalities waste due to 
LOCAL ADMINISTRATORS using the 
money for PERSONAL USE?
1. 0%
2. 25%
3. 50%
4. 75%
5. 100%
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
E4 How much do you agree or disagree with 
this statement? 'When a party is in power 
in a municipality, only its party supporters 
receive benefits.’
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Neutral
4. Disagree
5. Strongly disagree
888. Don’t know
999. Refused to answer
E5 How likely is your CURRENT MUNICIPAL 
COUNCIL EXECUTIVE to help members 
of their own party at the expense of the 
people of your municipality? Or have you 
not heard enough about them to say?
1. Very likely
2. Likely
3. Unlikely
4. Very unlikely
888. Haven't heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
E6 How likely is your MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 
REPRESENTATIVE to help members of 
1. Very likely
2. Likely
66
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
20
Section E. PERCEPTIONS ON GOVERNACE
# Question Response
their own party at the expense of the 
people of your municipality? Or have you 
not heard enough about them to say?
3. Unlikely
4. Very unlikely
888. Haven't heard enough to say
999. Refused to answer
SE1 Survey Experiment 1: Randomize between SE1_1, SE1_2, and SE1_3
SE1_1 [If randomly assigned to Condition 1]
Imagine that your MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 
received an extra 100,000 ILS from the 
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT for 
development projects. About what share 
of that money would you guess would be 
wasted?
1. 0%
2. 25%
3. 50%
4. 75%
5. 100%
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
SE1_2 [If randomly assigned to Condition 2]
Imagine that your MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 
received an extra 100,000 ILS from a 
FOREIGN DONOR for development 
projects. About what share of that money 
would you guess would be wasted?
1. 0%
2. 25%
3. 50%
4. 75%
5. 100%
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
SE1_3 [If randomly assigned to Condition 3]
Imagine that your MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 
raised an extra 100,000 ILS IN LOCAL 
TAXES for development projects. About 
what share of that money would you 
guess would be wasted?
1. 0%
2. 25%
3. 50%
4. 75%
5. 100%
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
SE1_4 [If SE1_1 or SE1_2 or SE1_3 > 0 and <= 
100]
Who do you think would benefit most from 
the wasted ILS?
1. Elected members of the Municipal Council
2. Unelected members of the Municipal Council
3. The Municipal Council Executive
4. The MP
5. The contractors who were hired to build the 
development projects
97. Other 
888. Don’t know
999. Refused to answer
SE1_5 [If SE1_4 is 97. ‘Other’]
If 'Other', please specify.
[Text]
67
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
21
Section F. POLITICAL ATTITUDES
# Question Response
READ ALOUD: In talking to people about elections, we often find that a lot of people were not 
able to vote because they weren’t registered, they were sick, or they just didn’t have time. 
F1 Which of the following statements
describes you the best?
1. I did not vote in the local elections in 2012
2. I thought about voting, but didn’t
3. I usually vote, but didn’t this time
4. I am sure I voted
999. Refused to answer
F1a [If F1 is 4. ‘I am sure I voted’]
Which of the parties that contended in 
the national election did you support?
F2 Do you plan to vote in the next 
municipal election?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
ASSESSMENT ON MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
READ ALOUD: I am going to read you a series of statements. Please position yourself in the 
following scale: 1 (agree completely), 2 (agree a lot), 3 (agree somewhat), 4 (agree a little), 5 (do 
not agree at all)
F3 Selection of municipal employees 
reflects a competitive process based 
on merit
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F4a Municipal employees are independent 
of local political pressures when 
performing their job
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F4b Municipal employees are independent 
of the pressures by the Palestinian 
National Government
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F4c Municipal employees are independent 
of the interference by the Israeli 
government 
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
68
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
22
Section F. POLITICAL ATTITUDES
# Question Response
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F5a Municipal employees take side 
payments from the citizens to help 
them bend the rules to pay lower 
taxes
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F5b Municipal employees take side 
payments from the businesses to help 
them bend the rules to pay lower 
taxes
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F5c If municipal employees are asked by 
an elected politician to benefit a 
private citizen or business even if such 
action implies a break from rules and 
procedures, ALL municipal employee 
would abide.
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F5d In your opinion, has the share of 
citizens or businesses giving side 
payments to process their requests 
increased or decreased in the past 
TWO years?
1. Increased
2. Decreased
3. Remains the same
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F6a In your opinion, who are municipal 
employees MOST responsive to?
1. Citizens
2. Incumbent party
3. Elected officials
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F6b In your opinion, who are municipal 
employees SECOND MOST 
responsive to?
1. Citizens
2. Incumbent party
3. Elected officials
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
ATTITUDES TOWARDS ISRAEL
69
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
23
Section F. POLITICAL ATTITUDES
# Question Response
F7 How much do you agree with the 
statement that 'the Palestinian 
National Authority is too weak in its 
responses to external interferences of 
the Israeli government'?
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F8 How much do you agree with the 
statement that 'We should have a 
firmer stance against Israeli 
occupation and mobility restrictions'?
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Section G. ASSET OWNERSHIP
# Question Response
READ ALOUD: Now we would like to ask you about other sources of family income
G1 What is your household’s TOTAL 
MONTHLY income?
[Integer]
READ ALOUD: How many of the following does your household own?
G1a Car [Integer]
G1b Motorcycle or scooter [Integer]
G1c Tractor/truck [Integer]
G1d Animal-drawn cart [Integer]
G1e Fridge
G1f Washing machine [Integer]
G1g Television [Integer]
G1h Video [Integer]
G1i Satellite [Integer]
G1j Radio [Integer]
G1k Solar water heating system [Integer]
G1l Central heating system [Integer]
G1m Vacuum cleaner [Integer]
G1n Electric/gas cooker [Integer]
G1o Computer [Integer]
G1p Phone line [Integer]
G1q Palestinian mobile line [Integer]
G1r Israeli mobile line [Integer]
70
USAID/West Bank LGI User Survey 2017
24
Section G. ASSET OWNERSHIP
# Question Response
G1s Dryer [Integer]
G1t Radio/recorder [Integer]
G1u Microwave [Integer]
G1v Dishwasher [Integer]
G1w Water filter [Integer]
READ ALOUD: How about property? How many of the following do you own?
G2a House with private bathroom [Integer]
G2b House with common bathroom [Integer]
G2c Agricultural land [Integer]
G2d Petty business [Integer]
Section G. Questions for Enumerators
# Question Response
G1 What was the primary language used in 
the interview?
1. Arabic
2. Hebrew
G2 Were there any other people 
immediately present who might be 
listening during the interview?
0. No
1. Yes
G3 What proportion of the questions do you 
feel the respondent had difficulty 
answering?
1. 1-10%
2. 11-20%
3. 21-30%
4. 31-40%
5. 41-50%
6. 51-60%
7. 61-70%
8. 71-80%
9. 81-90%
10. 91-100%
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
G4 What was the respondent’s reaction to 
the interview?
1. Very positive
2. Somewhat positive
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat negative
5. Very negative
71
A.8.2 Admin Survey Instrument
72
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
1
Section A: Basic Information and Consent
# QUESTION RESPONSE CODES
A1 Date of survey [Date]
A2 Name of enumerator 
A2o. [If A2 is 97. ‘Other’]
Please enter YOUR name.
[Text]
A3 Name of supervisor
A3o. [If A3 is 97. ‘Other’]
Please enter the name of your supervisor.
[Text]
A4 Governorate 1. Bethlehem
2. Hebron
3. Jenin
4. Jericho
5. Jerusalem
6. Nablus
7. Qalqilya
8. Ramallah
9. Salfit
10. Tubas
11. Tulkarm
A5 Municipality / Village Council 1. 'Anabta
2. 'Anata
3. 'Attil
4. 'Illar
5. Abu Dis
6. Ad Doha
7. Adh Dhahiriya
8. Al 'Ubeidiya
9. Al Bireh
10. Al Khadr
11. Al Yamun
12. Aqraba
13. Ar Rama
14. As Samu'
15. As Sawahira ash Sharqiya
16. Ash Shuhada
17. Ash Shuyukh
18. At Tayba
19. Bani Na'im
20. Baqa ash Sharqiya
21. Beit Fajjar
22. Beit Furik
23. Beit Jala
73
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
2
Section A: Basic Information and Consent
# QUESTION RESPONSE CODES
24. Beit Sahur
25. Beit Ula
26. Beit Ummar
27. Beituniya
28. Bethlehem (Beit Lahm)
29. Bir Nabala
30. Bir Zeit
31. Deir al Ghusun
32. Deir Ballut
33. Deir Istiya
34. Deir Sharaf
35. Dura
36. Fahma al Jadida
37. Halhul
38. Haris
39. Hebron (Al Khalil)
40. Huwwara
41. Idhna
42. Iskaka
43. Jenin
44. Jericho (Ariha)
45. Kafr Qaddum
46. Kafr Thulth
47. Kifl Haris
48. Marda
49. Mirka
50. Nablus
51. Qabalan
52. Qabatiya
53. Qalqiliya
54. Qarawat Bani Hassan
55. Qarawat Bani Zeid
56. Qira
57. Ramallah
58. Rummana
59. Salfit
60. Sarta
61. Tarqumiya
62. Tubas
63. Tulkarm
64. Ya'bad
65. Yasuf
66. Yatta
A7 Municipal council or village council? 1. Municipal council
74
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
3
Section A: Basic Information and Consent
# QUESTION RESPONSE CODES
2. Village council
A8. Respondent ID [Enter number]
A8v. Please retype the respondent ID [Enter number]
(must match A8)
INFORMED CONSENT: PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CONSENT FORM WORD FOR WORD:
READ ALOUD: Good morning/ good afternoon, my name is _______. I am a research assistant working 
with the U. S. Agency for International Development on a study on municipal governance and 
infrastructure. I would like to ask you some questions to better understand your experience with the 
municipal government. Your participation is entirely voluntary. If you agree to participate, our discussion 
will last for around 25 minutes. Please rest assured that your answers will remain confidential. We will not 
provide your name or answers to anyone. Your answers would help us understand important features of 
your municipality. Do not feel obligated to answer any question that you are not comfortable with and do not 
hesitate to ask me for a clarification, if you think that a question is a bit difficult or unclear. If you have any 
questions or concerns about our study, please contact {Pablo Beramendi, Erik Wibbels contact info}. May 
we continue?
CONSENT
# QUESTION RESPONSE CODES
A9 Did the respondent consent?
[If 0. ‘No’, go to A10]
[If 1. ‘Yes’, go to B1]
0. No
1. Yes
A10 Can you please tell me why you have chosen not to 
participate?
[End survey]
[Text]
ELIGIBILITY
# QUESTION RESPONSE CODES
A10 Are you over 16?
[If 0. ‘No’, End of Survey]
0. No
1. Yes
A11 Are you a resident of THIS municipality?
[If 0. ‘No’, End of Survey]
[If 1. ‘Yes’, go to B1]
0. No
1. Yes
Section B. Respondent Information
# Question Response
B1 Sex of the respondent 1. Male
2. Female
B2 How old are you? [Integer]
B3 How many years have you lived in THIS 
locality?
[Enter number, round to the nearest year]
(<6 months = 0; >=6 months = 1)
75
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
4
Section B. Respondent Information
# Question Response
777. Not applicable
888. Don’t know
999. Prefer not to respond
B4 Are you married? 1. Yes, married
2. No, widowed
3. No, divorced
4. No, separated
5. No, never married
97. Other
999. Prefer not to respond
B4o [If B3 is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[Text]
B5 What is your religion, if any? 1. Islam
2. Christianity
3. Samaritan
999. Prefer not to respond
B6 What is your highest educational 
achievement?
1. Primary school
2. Secondary school
3. High school
4. Bachelor’s degree
5. Master’s degree
6. Doctorate degree
777. None
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
B7 What is your current position? 1. Mayor
2. Deputy mayor
3. Municipal council member
5. Head of tax office
6. Head of engineering department
7. Manager of service center
8. Director of planning
9. Director of waste/water management
10. Head of electricity department
11. Head of local economic development and 
investment
12. Head of audit department
13. Human resources manager
14. Head of public relations
76
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
5
Section B. Respondent Information
# Question Response
15. Financial manager
16. Accountant
97. Other
B7o [If B8 is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[Text]
B8 How many hours do you spend working in 
a TYPICAL week?
[integer]
B9 How many years have you worked for this 
municipality?
[integer]
(If < 6 months, enter 0; if more than 6 months, 
enter 1.)
B10 How long have you held your current job 
title?
[integer]
(If < 6 months, enter 0; if more than 6 months, 
enter 1.)
B11 Are any of your FAMILY MEMBERS 
government officials or bureaucrats?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
B11y [If B12 is 1. ‘Yes’]
How many?
[Integer]
READ ALOUD: In a TYPICAL working week, how many HOURS do you spend on each of the 
following tasks? If you spend an hour working on something that belongs to more than one of 
these categories, please include it in both.
B12a Meeting with municipal officials [Integer]
B12b Meeting with national officials [Integer]
B12c Meeting with administrators [Integer]
B12d Providing services/responding to citizen 
concerns
[Integer]
B12e Working with civil society or community 
groups
[Integer]
B12f Working on administrative tasks and 
documentation
[Integer]
B12g Training, skill-building, or workshops [Integer]
77
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
6
Section C. Political Attitudes
# Question Response
Voting behavior
C1 Are you a member of any political 
associations?
0. None
1. Yes, party
2. Yes, union
3. Yes, both party and union
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C1y [If C1 is >0 and <888]
Which one?
[text]
READ ALOUD: In talking to people about elections, we often find that a lot of people were not 
able to vote because they weren’t registered, they were sick, or they just didn’t have time. 
C2 Which of the following statements 
describes you the best?
1. I did not vote in the local elections in 2012
2. I thought about voting, but didn’t
3. I usually vote, but didn’t this time
4. I am sure I voted
999. Refused to answer
C2a [If is 4. ‘I am sure I voted’]
Which of the parties that contended in the 
national election did you support?
C2b Do you plan to vote in the next municipal 
election?
C3 How did you get the position? 1. Election
2. Appointed
3. Merit
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
Political pressures
[READ ALOUD] I am going to read you a series of statements. Please position yourself in the 
following scale: 1 (agree completely), 2 (agree a lot), 3 (agree somewhat), 4 (agree little), 5 (do not 
agree at all)
C4 Municipal employees are independent of 
local political pressures when performing 
their job
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C5 Municipal employees are independent of 
the pressures by the Palestinian National 
Government
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
78
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
7
Section C. Political Attitudes
# Question Response
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C6 Municipal employees are independent of 
the interference by the Israeli government
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Side payments
C7 Citizens who provide side payments 
would get faster services
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C8 Local businesses that provide side 
payments would get faster services
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C9 If a municipal employee is asked by an 
elected politician to benefit a private 
citizen or business even if such action 
implies a break from rules and 
procedures, ALL municipal employees 
would abide.
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C10 When is it okay to bend tax rules for 
businesses? Select all that apply.
1. If it is for a family member
2. If it is for a friend
3. If it is for an elected official
4. If it is for a informal small business
C11 In the past 2 years, has the percentage of 
citizens or businesses giving side 
payments to process their requests 
increased or decreased?
1. Decreased
2. Increased
3. About the same
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
Attitudes toward donor-funded/built projects vs. PA-funded/built projects
C12 Compared to PA-funded projects, is the 
implementation of DONOR-FUNDED 
1. Much more likely
2. Somewhat more likely
79
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
8
Section C. Political Attitudes
# Question Response
projects more or less likely to stick to the 
Annual Plan?
3. About the same
4. Somewhat less likely
5. Much less likely
C13 In your estimation, how often are PA￾funded/built projects abandoned during 
construction (i.e. never finished) four 
years from when they began?
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C14 In your estimation, how often are 
DONOR-FUNDED/BUILT projects 
abandoned during construction (i.e. never 
finished) four years from when they 
began?
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Tax compliance
READ ALOUD: I am going to read you a series of statements. Please position yourself in the 
following scale: 1 (agree completely), 2 (agree a lot), 3 (agree somewhat), 4 (agree a little), 5 (do 
not agree at all)
C15 A large proportion of citizens in my 
municipality pays the required taxes
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C16 A large proportion of citizens in my 
municipality pays the required utility bills
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C17 A large proportion of businesses in my 
municipality pays the required taxes
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
80
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
9
Section C. Political Attitudes
# Question Response
C18 A large proportion of businesses in my 
municipality pays the required utility bills
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C19 Municipal employees are encouraged to 
implement the tax code in full and 
prosecute citizens or businesses if they 
are found to be paying less than they 
should
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
What is the normal length of time before 
cutting off the service when citizens and 
businesses do not pay?
1. Less than a week
2. 1 week
3. 2 weeks
4. 3 weeks
5. 4 weeks
6. Never (even if they do not pay)
7. Never (they are not allowed to cut services)
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Accountability
C20 Who are municipal employees the MOST 
responsive towards?
1. The Public
2. NGOs
3. Incumbent party leaders
4. Ministry of Local Government
97. Other
C21 Who are municipal employees the 
SECOND MOST responsive towards?
1. The Public
2. NGOs
3. Incumbent party leaders
4. Ministry of Local Government
97. Other
Attitudes towards Israel
C22 How much do you agree with the 
statement that 'the Palestinian National 
Authority is too weak in its responses to 
external interferences of the Israeli 
government'?
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
C23 How much do you agree with the 
statement that 'We should have a firmer 
1. Agree completely
2. Agree a lot
81
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
10
Section C. Political Attitudes
# Question Response
stance against Israeli occupation and 
mobility restrictions'?
3. Agree somewhat
4. Agree a little
5. Do not agree at all
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
READ ALOUD: Now we would like to ask for your opinions on who is responsible for 
interruptions in services in this municipality.
C24a Who is the most responsible for electricity 
cuts in THIS municipality, if any?
1. Palestinian National Authority
2. Israeli government
3. Service company
97. Other
777. Not applicable; this municipality does not 
experience cuts
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
24b How often do you experience electricity 
cuts by that [agent]?
1. Daily
2. Once a week
3. Twice a week
4. Once a month
5. Twice a month
6. More than twice a month
7. Never
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
24c Who is the most responsible for water
cuts in THIS municipality, if any?
1. Palestinian National Authority
2. Israeli government
3. Service company
97. Other
777. Not applicable; this municipality does not 
experience cuts
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
24d How often do you experience electricity 
cuts by that [agent]?
1. Daily
2. Once a week
3. Twice a week
4. Once a month
5. Twice a month
6. More than twice a month
7. Never
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
24e Who is the most responsible for the 
destruction of local infrastructure cuts in 
THIS municipality, if any?
1. Palestinian National Authority
2. Israeli government
3. Service company
82
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
11
Section C. Political Attitudes
# Question Response
97. Other
777. Not applicable; this municipality does not 
experience cuts
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
25f Who is the most responsible for the 
suspension of this municipality’s 
authority, if any?
1. Palestinian National Authority
2. Israeli government
3. Service company
97. Other
777. Not applicable; this municipality does not 
experience cuts
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
C26 How often do you experience electricity 
cuts by that [agent]?
1. Daily
2. Once a week
3. Twice a week
4. Once a month
5. Twice a month
6. More than twice a month
7. Never
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
How much do Israel’s interventions affect 
your planning for the future?
1. A lot
2. Somewhat
3. A little
4. No effect
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
How does the municipality respond to the 
interventions by Israel?
1. No action is taken
2. Tries to prevent citizens from being affected
3. Seeks help from the national government and/or 
international actors
4. Tries to lobby unilaterally with the Israeli 
government
Section D. Internal Audit
# Question Response
D1 Do you have an internal audit manual? 0. No 
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D2 How many staff work in your internal 
audit office?
[Integer]
83
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
12
Section D. Internal Audit
# Question Response
D3 Has your internal audit staff received 
additional training in the last 3 years?
0. No 
1. Yes
D4 In the past 4 years, how has the internal 
auditing skills of the municipal staff 
changed between then and now?
1. Increased a lot
2. Increased a little
3. Did not change
4. Decreased a little
5. Decreased a lot
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D5 Did you conduct an internal audit in the 
last 12 months?
0. No [Skip to D10]
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D5a [If D5 is 1. ‘Yes’]
If yes, how many?
[Integer]
D5b Did the internal audit catch any 
irregularities?
0. No [Skip to D9]
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D5c [If D5b is 1. ‘Yes’]
If yes, were the irregularities reported to 
the mayor?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D5d [If D5c is 1. ‘Yes’]
If so, how did the mayor respond? 
1. Made personnel changes
2. Introduced procedural changes to internal 
audit process
3. Pass on the information to judicial autohrities
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D5d_other [If D5d is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[text]
D5e [If D5b is 1. ‘Yes’]
If yes, were the irregularities reported to 
the Ministry of Local Government?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D5f [If D8 is 1. ‘Yes’]
If so, how did the MoLG respond?
[Text]
84
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
13
Section D. Internal Audit
# Question Response
D5f_other [If D5f is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[text]
D6 When you consider the most extensive 
internal audit of the last 12 months, can 
you briefly summarize its findings?
[Text]
D7 In your opinion, how independent is the 
internal audit staff from the rest of the 
municipal government?
1. Very important
2. Somewhat important
3. A little important
4. Not at all important
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
D8 Imagine there was a non-minor
irregularity in the municipal budget. How 
confident are you that your internal 
auditing process would catch the 
irregularity?
1. Very confident
2. Somewhat confident
3. A little confident
4. Not at all confident
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Section E. Restructuring
# Question Response
E1 Does your municipality have any of the 
following? Select all that apply.
1. Organizational chart
2. Municipal Strategic Corporate Plan
3. Strategic Development and Investment Plan
4. Technical committee for strategic planning
5. Spatial management system
6. Centralized and automated system of 
information management
777. None
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
E2 Does the municipality publish the 
following documents? Select all that 
apply.
1. Municipal balance sheet
2. Summary approved annual budgets
3. Detailed approved annual budgets
4. Actual executed budgets
5. Municipal investments
6. SDIP Execution
7. External audit reports
8. Municipal Council decisions
97. Other
85
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
14
Section E. Restructuring
# Question Response
777. None
DK
Prefer not to respond
E3 Where does the municipality publish the 
approved budget and audit reports? 
Select all that apply
1. Municipality website
2. Municipality Facebook page
3. Bulletin board at the municipality
4. Newspaper
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
SPATIAL PLANNING
E4 Have the municipal employees been 
trained in Geographical Information 
Systems in the last 3 years?
0. No [Skip to E5]
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E4a [If E4 is 1. ‘Yes’]
Approximately how many hours of 
training in total did they receive?
[Integer]
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E4b Who provided the training? [text]
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E5 Have any municipal employees been 
trained in urban/municipal planning in 
the last 3 years?
0. No [Skip to E6]
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E5a [If E5 is 1. ‘Yes’]
In which areas?
1. Local road planning
2. Handicraft and industrial zone planning
3. Billboard oversight and planning
4. Cultural and sports centers planning
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E5a_other [If E5a is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[text]
E5b [If E5 is 1. ‘Yes’]
Approximately how many hours of 
training in total did they receive?
[Integer]
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E5c Who provided the training? [text]
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
86
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
15
Section E. Restructuring
# Question Response
E6 In the past 3 years, how have the 
physical planning skills of the municipal 
staff changed?
1. Increased a lot
2. Increased a little
3. Did not change
4. Decreased a little
5. Decreased a lot
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
E7 How clear are the roles and 
responsibilities of each department in the 
municipal government?
1. Very clear
2. Somewhat clear
3. A little clear
4. Not at all clear
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E8 How clear are the roles and 
responsibilities of individual employees 
in the municipal government?
1. Very clear
2. Somewhat clear
3. A little clear
4. Not at all clear
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E9 Do you have a job description guide for 
municipal employees?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
E10 Does the municipality have a public 
notification process (or processes) for 
public input on proposed policies or 
actions?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E10y [If E10 is 1. ‘Yes’]
Which methods are used? Select all that 
apply.
1. Town Hall or Citizen Meeting
2. Citizen Report Cards
3. Municipality website
4. Municipality Facebook page
5. Twitter
6. Citizen walk-ins
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E11 Does the municipality have a Youth 
Local Committee?
0. No
87
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
16
Section E. Restructuring
# Question Response
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E12 How important would you say that youth 
input is to the decisions of the municipal 
government? 
1. Very important
2. Somewhat important
3. A little important
4. Not at all important
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
CITIZEN SUPPORT CENTER
E13 Do you have a Citizen Service Support 
Center?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E13y [If E13 is 1. ‘Yes’]
What services are available at the 
Center?
1. Water and wastewater
2. Electricity
3. Public health (includes solid waste 
management)
4. Engineering
5. Financial
6. Administrative
7. Trades and businesses
8. Taxes
9. Permits
10. Bill payments
11. Maintenance requests
97. Other
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E14 Have your Citizen Service Support 
Center staff received additional training 
in the last 12 months?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
E14y [If E20 is 1. ‘Yes’]
Approximately how many hours of 
training did the staff receive?
[Integer]
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
TIME TO COMPLETE SERVICES
READ ALOUD: On average, in minutes, how long would you say it takes a citizen to:
E15a Pay taxes (property/education)? [Integer]
E15a_v [If E15a > 100]
88
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
17
Section E. Restructuring
# Question Response
You entered a large number. Are you 
sure this is correct and the respondent 
understood the question? If not, go back 
and change the answer.
E15b Pay business taxes? [Integer]
E15b_v [If E15b > 100]
You entered a large number. Are you 
sure this is correct and the respondent 
understood the question? If not, go back 
and change the answer.
E15c Get a building permit? [Integer]
E15c_v [If E15c > 100]
You entered a large number. Are you 
sure this is correct and the respondent 
understood the question? If not, go back 
and change the answer.
E15d Open a new business? [Integer]
E15d_v [If E15d > 100]
You entered a large number. Are you 
sure this is correct and the respondent 
understood the question? If not, go back 
and change the answer.
E16 In a typical year, approximately what 
percent of municipal revenue comes 
from building permits?
[Integer] (in percent)
E17 How much does a typical building permit 
cost?
[Integer]
Section F. Procurement
# Question Response
F1 Is your procurement system digitized? 0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F2 Has your procurement staff received 
additional training in the last 3 years?
0. No [Skip to F5]
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F2a [If F2 is 1. ‘Yes’]
Approximately how many hours of training
did they receive?
[Integer]
F2b Who provided the training? [Text]
89
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
18
Section F. Procurement
# Question Response
F3 How often are municipal procurements 
subject to competitive bids?
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
F4 How often over the last 12 months have 
procurement costs exceeded budgeted 
amounts?
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Section G. Human Resources
# Question Response
READ ALOUD: Now we would like to ask you about the hiring and promotion process in the 
municipality.
G1 Has your human resources staff received 
additional training in the last 3 years?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
G1a [If G1 is 1. ‘Yes’]
Approximately how many hours of training 
per year did they receive?
[integer]
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
G1b Who provided the training? [text]
G2 Is human resources system digitized? 0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
G3 Is payroll digitized? 0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
G4 Does the municipality have a digitized 
system for hiring municipal employees?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
90
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
19
Section G. Human Resources
# Question Response
G5 Does the municipality have a digitized 
system for performance assessment of 
municipal employees?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
READ ALOUD: Now we would like to ask you about the hiring and promotion process in the 
municipality.
G6
In the past 3 years, how has the efficiency 
of human resource management of the 
municipal staff changed?
1. Increased a lot
2. Increased a little
3. Did not change
4. Decreased a little
5. Decreased a lot
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
G7
In your opinion, what percentage of 
employees in your municipality are hired 
on merit?
1. 1-10%
2. 11-20%
3. 21-30%
4. 31-40%
5. 41-50%
6. 51-60%
7. 61-70%
8. 71-80%
9. 81-90%
10. 91-100%
888. DK
999. Refused to answer 888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
G8
Even if most employees are hired on the 
basis of merit, we hear that some are hired 
for other reasons not related to their 
qualifications--maybe because of their 
family connections, gift, or whatnot. Which 
of these do you think are reasons for hiring 
in your municipality? Select all that apply.
[Select all that apply]
1. Family connections
2. Political party connections
3. Ability to build public support for the political 
party in power
4. Payment or gift to some public authorities
5. Knowing the hiring manager
6. None/No other reasons/Only merit matters
97. Other
G8o [If G8 is 97. ‘Other’]
Please specify.
[text]
G9 In the past 3 years, how has the 
importance of MERIT in SELECTION 
process changed?
1. Increased a lot
2. Increased a little
3. Did not change
91
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
20
Section G. Human Resources
# Question Response
4. Decreased a little
5. Decreased a lot
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
G10 Does your municipality have a clear set of 
criteria for salary increases and 
promotions?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
G11
In the past 3 years, how has the 
importance of MERIT in the PROMOTION 
process changed?
1. Increased a lot
2. Increased a little
3. Did not change
4. Decreased a little
5. Decreased a lot
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Section H. Numbering/Naming of Streets and Buildings
# Question Response
H1 Has the municipality completed the naming 
of STREETS?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
H1n [If H1 is 0. ‘No’]
If not, about what share have NOT been 
named?
1. None (0%)
2. 1-10%
3. 11-20%
4. 21-30%
5. 31-40%
6. 41-50%
7. 51-60%
8. 61-70%
9. 71-80%
10. 81-90%
11. 91-100%
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
H2 Has the municipality completed the 
numbering of BUILDINGS?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
92
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
21
Section H. Numbering/Naming of Streets and Buildings
# Question Response
H2n If not, about what share have NOT been 
named?
1. None (0%)
2. 1-10%
3. 11-20%
4. 21-30%
5. 31-40%
6. 41-50%
7. 51-60%
8. 61-70%
9. 71-80%
10. 81-90%
11. 91-100%
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
H3 Do you have a local registrar? 0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
H3y [If H3 is 1. ‘Yes’]
In percentage terms, how complete is it?
1. None (0%)
2. 1-10%
3. 11-20%
4. 21-30%
5. 31-40%
6. 41-50%
7. 51-60%
8. 61-70%
9. 71-80%
10. 81-90%
11. 91-100%
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
H4 Does the municipality have a detailed map 
of landmarks and municipal services?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
H4n If not, about what share have been 
completed?
1. None (0%)
2. 1-10%
3. 11-20%
4. 21-30%
5. 31-40%
6. 41-50%
7. 51-60%
8. 61-70%
9. 71-80%
93
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
22
Section H. Numbering/Naming of Streets and Buildings
# Question Response
10. 81-90%
11. 91-100%
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Section I. E-Municipality
# Question Response
READ ALOUD: Now we would like to ask you about electronic services at the municipality.
I1 Does your municipality have electronic billing for 
any of its municipal services?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
I1y [If H5 is 1. ‘Yes’]
How many years has electronic billing been in 
place?
________# of years
(If < 6 months, enter 0; if more than 6 months, 
enter 1.)
I2 Does the municipality have a digitized system for 
information management?
0. No
1. Yes
888. DK
999. Prefer not to respond
Section J. ASSET OWNERSHIP
# Question Response
READ ALOUD: Now we would like to ask you about other sources of family income
J1 What is your household’s TOTAL 
MONTHLY income?
[Integer]
READ ALOUD: How many of the following does your household own?
J1a Car [Integer]
J1b Motorcycle or scooter [Integer]
J1c Tractor/truck [Integer]
J1d Animal-drawn cart [Integer]
J1e Fridge
J1f Washing machine [Integer]
J1g Television [Integer]
J1h Video [Integer]
J1i Satellite [Integer]
J1j Radio [Integer]
J1k Solar water heating system [Integer]
J1l Central heating system [Integer]
J1m Vacuum cleaner [Integer]
94
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
23
Section J. ASSET OWNERSHIP
# Question Response
J1n Electric/gas cooker [Integer]
J1o Computer [Integer]
J1p Phone line [Integer]
J1q Palestinian mobile line [Integer]
J1r Israeli mobile line [Integer]
J1s Dryer [Integer]
J1t Radio/recorder [Integer]
J1u Microwave [Integer]
J1v Dishwasher [Integer]
J1w Water filter [Integer]
READ ALOUD: How about property? How many of the following do you own?
J2a House with private bathroom [Integer]
J2b House with common bathroom [Integer]
J2c Agricultural land [Integer]
J2d Petty business [Integer]
Section K. Questions for Enumerator 
# Question Response
K1 What was the primary language used in the interview? 1. Arabic
2. Hebrew
K2 Were there any other people immediately present who 
might be listening during the interview
0. No
1. Yes 
K3 What proportion of the questions do you feel the 
respondent had difficulty answering?
1. 1-10%
2. 11-20%
3. 21-30%
4. 31-40%
5. 41-50%
6. 51-60%
7. 61-70%
8. 71-80%
9. 81-90%
10. 91-100%
888. DK
999. Refused to answer
K4 What was the respondent’s reaction to the interview 1. Very positive
2. Somewhat positive
3. Neutral
4. Somewhat negative
5. Very negative
95
USAID/WEST BANK LGI Officials Survey 2017
2496
References
Brookhart, M. A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., and
Stürmer, T. (2006). Variable selection for propensity score models. American journal
of epidemiology, 163(12):1149–1156.
Bruhn, M. and McKenzie, D. (2009). In pursuit of balance: Randomization in practice
in development field experiments. American economic journal: applied economics,
1(4):200–232.
Dunning, T. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: a design-based ap￾proach. Cambridge University Press.
Gerber, A. S. and Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis, and
interpretation. WW Norton.
Judkins, D. R. and Porter, K. E. (2016). Robustness of ordinary least squares in
randomized clinical trials. Statistics in medicine, 35(11):1763–1773.
Kling, J. R., Liebman, J. B., and Katz, L. F. (2007). Experimental analysis of neigh￾borhood effects. Econometrica, 75(1):83–119.
Lin, W. et al. (2013). Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data:
Reexamining freedmanâĂŹs critique. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 7(1):295–318.
Rubin, D. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: appli￾cation to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology,
2(3):169–188.
Rubin, D. B. (2004). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys, volume 81. John
Wiley & Sons.
Stuart, E. A., Lee, B. K., and Leacy, F. P. (2013). Prognostic score–based balance
measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative
effectiveness research. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(8):S84–S90.
97