6 CITIZEN SERVICE CENTERS Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges, and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans Abstract where citizens can access a range of public service provid- ers under one roof. CSCs are linked to benefits for citizens This report presents the results of an online survey adminis- and the public administration, including easier access to ser- tered in six southeastern European countries: Albania, Bosnia vices, faster and more streamlined service delivery, reduced and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and corruption, and improved interagency coordination. They are Serbia. The survey was aimed at gathering insights related instrumental in guaranteeing the human rights of citizens, for to the operations and human rights approach of municipal example by facilitating the enforcement of the right to social one-stop shops delivering services to citizens. Findings show security, to health, or to birth registration. In turn, human that the region’s municipal citizen service centers are gener- rights principles such as equality, nondiscrimination, partici- ally aware of the impact that their activities have on human pation, inclusion, accountability, and the rule of law contrib- rights. In addition to complying with legal requirements to ute to strengthening CSCs when they are included in their guarantee the rights of citizens and avoid discriminatory design and day-to-day operations. practices in service delivery, many citizen service centers actively promote universal access to public services. This As part of this project, several in-depth case studies is mostly accomplished by taking measures that foster the were produced examining the functioning and human rights inclusion of vulnerable groups and by offering mechanisms impact of CSCs at the national and regional level across that encourage participation and accountability, such as citi- various countries.1 A human-rights-based assessment zen feedback and complaint-handling mechanisms. tool was created so that CSC managers could evaluate the degree to which human rights are integrated in CSC poli- 1. Rationale, Background, and cies and service delivery processes.2 Moreover, a note was Methodology 1. For further detail, please refer to the following case studies in this series: • “One-Stop Shops in Vietnam: Changing the Face of Public Administration for The Nordic Trust Fund project—Effective Citizen Service Citizens and Businesses through a Single Door to Multiple Services”; and • “Citizen Service Centers in Kenya: The Role of Huduma Centers in Advancing Centers and Human Rights: Mutually Reinforcing Dynamics— Citizen-Centered Service Delivery in a Context of Devolution and Digitization.” set out to explore the connection between citizen service 2. See “Human Rights-Based Assessment Tool for Citizen Service Centers: Moving Toward a Rights-Based Approach in Design, Strategy, and Implementation,” which is centers (CSCs) and human rights. CSCs are one-stop shops part of this series. 2 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery prepared to summarize key trends in the development of Methodological limitations include the fact that because CSCs worldwide, including an overview of design options for the questionnaire is in English, language skills may have them. To complement these various outputs, a client survey 3 been a barrier for some respondents, discouraging them was administered to explore the current situation of CSCs in from taking the survey. A potential social desirability bias a given region, including challenges and successes as well exists: respondents may have tried to answer the questions as the level to which human rights shape the operations of in a manner they thought would be viewed favorably by the one-stop service delivery models. To add a new dimension World Bank team. A self-selection bias also seems likely: it is to the perspective adopted in the other deliverables, the sur- possible that only the municipalities that thought their CSCs vey focused on a group of municipal-level CSCs because that functioned well chose to participate in the survey. Finally, level of government had not yet been addressed. because survey results are analyzed as a whole, they could conceal country differences, especially in terms of the impact The survey, consisting of 30 questions, was designed of the legal framework and degree of decentralization. in collaboration with the Nordic Trust Fund Secretariat and divided into six sections that primarily collected data related Overall, the great majority of respondents responded to: (1) basic information about the CSC; (2) service provi- to all of the questions, and no respondents dropped out of sion and institutional set-up; (3) citizen-centered service the survey halfway through the process, suggesting that the delivery; (4) human resources; (5) challenges and success/ questions were clearly formulated, the length was appropri- enabling factors; and (6) future outlook and possibilities for ate, and the form was user-friendly. The survey results and cooperation. cooperation with the Urban Partnership Program helped identify a municipal CSC that had put a considerable empha- To allow for a meaningful comparison of responses, the sis on improving access to services for people with disabili- team launched the survey in southeastern Europe, where ties, leading to the production of an additional case study.4 the World Bank is particularly active through the Urban Partnership Program, which relies on close cooperation with 2. Main Findings and Recommendations a network of municipalities across the Balkans. The link to the online survey was sent to the heads of local government asso- The key findings from the survey and suggestions for practi- ciations in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, tioners seeking to improve citizen service centers are sum- Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. They then emailed the marized in table 1. They can be organized into six categories: link to the survey to the local government units (except in the (1) access channels, (2) citizen engagement, (3) performance case of Montenegro, where emails were sent directly to the indicators, (4) use of human rights language, (5) service municipalities). The questionnaire was presented in English, delivery for vulnerable groups, and (6) key success factors/ but the emails introducing the survey and its purpose were challenges. Section 3 provides a more detailed analysis of the formulated in the respective local languages. The survey was survey results. The questionnaire itself is presented in annex 1. accessible online for a period of two weeks, and 31 responses were logged between February 9– 21, 2017. 4. See the case study “The City of Pancevo’s Citizen Service Center, Serbia: Stream- 3. See “Recent Developments in Design and Implementation of One-Stop Shops for lining Service Delivery and Fostering Inclusion at the Municipal Level,” a note in this Citizens: A Design Guide for Citizen Service Centers,” which is part of this series. series. 3 Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe: Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges,  and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans Table 1. Recommendations for Improving Citizen Service Centers Finding Suggestions for Improvementa Access channels. While over two-thirds of • Create or improve online portals with information for citizens about services and how to citizen service centers (CSCs) provide an access them: online portal with access to information and/ – Include clear contact details, opening hours, and contact persons; or services to citizens, only about one-fifth – Include information about timeframes, procedures, and documents required; and also provide short message service (SMS)- based services. None of the CSCs indicated – Wherever possible, foster digital uptake of documents. the use of smartphone or tablet applications • Develop SMS-based communication with citizens (e.g., to inform them about the status to communicate with or provide services to of their requests). citizens. • Develop smartphone or tablet applications for citizens (these could be linked to more generic applications that provide information about the municipality as a whole). Citizen engagement. An overwhelming • Ensure complaint-handling mechanisms are functioning well along the entire value chain: majority—84 percent—of the CSCs interviewed – Advertise the complaint-handling mechanism to ensure citizens are aware of it; provide options for citizens to voice their – Create a clear workflow, transparent responsibilities, and set timeframes to guide the complaints, but only 65 percent also have citizen process from the moment a complaint is submitted until the moment it is resolved; feedback mechanisms (e.g., satisfaction surveys or electronic satisfaction monitors) in place. – Collect and publish information about complaint resolution rates and timeliness of complaint handling; and • Use complaints actively to improve service delivery processes. • Institutionalize citizen feedback mechanisms across the board: – Communicate about the CSC on social media, and use this channel to respond to citizens’ queries. – Regularly collect data on citizen satisfaction with various elements of service delivery. – Communicate results (e.g., in the form of an online dashboard, in newsletters or online communications, or on municipal notice boards). Performance indicators. At 65 percent, the • When collecting data about grievances, add “number of complaints resolved” to the number of complaints received is the most performance indicator” number of complaints received.” frequently collected performance indicator • Expand the use of performance indicators related to citizens’ experience (e.g., waiting by citizen service centers. Other frequently time and satisfaction with service received and quality of communication). measured indicators include the number of • Make use of mystery shopping techniques to identify possible bottlenecks or pain points completed transactions and the time it took to in citizens’ access to municipal services. process the request (58 percent each); waiting time for visitors (45 percent), and performance/ behavior of attendants (39 percent). Sixteen percent of respondents do not track any of these. Use of human rights language. Ninety percent • Mainstream references to human rights principles in communication and training of respondents said that human rights are materials as well as in performance standards.b mentioned in their “official documents,” 71 percent said that they are mentioned in their communication materials, and 68 percent said that human rights are included in training materials. However, less than half of respondents (42 percent) said that human rights played a role in the definition of performance standards. (continued) 4 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery Table 1. Continued Finding Suggestions for Improvementa Service delivery for vulnerable groups. • Undertake an intentional horizon-scanning of the CSC’s range of rights-holders: Regarding measures in place to guarantee – Who is the CSC serving? effective service delivery to vulnerable population – What are the specific needs and requirements of different population groups? segments, people with disabilities is the group most widely identified and taken into – What problems are they facing and how can the CSC provide relevant answers? account—63 percent of respondents claimed • Design tailored solutions for vulnerable population segments. they cater to their special needs, followed by • Develop barrier-free infrastructure for various groups of people with disabilities: elderly people (50 percent), and people with low levels of literacy (47 percent). Forty-three – Make the building accessible for people using wheelchairs (e.g., access ramps, percent of respondents indicated that their CSC elevators, lower counters…); and had mechanisms in place to guarantee access to – Make the facilities accessible for people with hearing or seeing impairments (e.g., service delivery to citizens living in remote areas, hearing loops and braille tables). women, and young people. Between 20–40 • Set-up mobile teams to ensure access to services to remote or hard-to-reach percent of interviewed CSCs strive to ensure populations. equal service for the poor, foreign citizens, ethnic and linguistic minorities, migrants, internally • Train and sensitize staff on providing services to vulnerable or marginalized groups. displaced persons, and indigenous peoples. Thirteen percent of respondents indicated that they had special measures in place for the LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and/or intersex) community. Key success factors and challenges. The • Invest in hard infrastructure and technology: top three enabling factors singled out by – Modernize existing facilities to provide a welcoming space for citizens and a respondents for the success of the CSCs are motivating work environment; significant capital investment; territorial, – Modernize technical equipment; and decentralization and/or administrative reform; and process reengineering or – Develop technology-driven solutions to streamline internal communications and improvement. Respondents also mentioned information/data management. political leadership, information technology • Invest in people development: infrastructure and software, as well as – Review the allocation of financial and human resources, and invest in staff training; and digitization and qualified staff as important elements to explain the success of CSCs. – Educate citizens on how to use e-services. • Rethink processes and cooperation at the municipal level: Asked to rank a series of possible challenges on a scale of 1—not at all a challenge to 5—very – Improve internal communication and cooperation across departments (e.g., significant challenge, 58 percent of respondents institutionalize cross-departmental meetings and organize cross-sectoral team- noted that staff motivation is a key challenge building activities). (with a ranking of 4 or 5), followed by capacity • Cooperate with higher levels of government: to meet demand (51 percent gave a ranking – Undertake business process reengineering to reduce the number of required steps for of 4 or 5) and legal framework (49 percent administrative procedures; gave a ranking of 4 or 5). The challenge of institutional coordination across agencies and – Improve coordination with national-level institutions, notably by guaranteeing the departments was highly ranked (4 or 5) by 45 interoperability of online systems and access to central-level databases; and percent of respondents. Technology was ranked – Broaden the mandate and responsibilities of government units at the local level. as a burning issue (4 or 5) by 42 percent of respondents, and funding was highly ranked (4 or 5) by 42 percent of respondents. a. The suggestions are based on the team’s collective research and experience. b. For comprehensive guidelines on how to mainstream human rights in the design and operations of CSCs, please see: “Human Rights-Based Assessment Tool for Citizen Ser- vice Centers: Moving Toward a Rights-Based Approach in Design, Strategy, and Implementation” which is part of this series. 5 Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe: Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges,  and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans 3. Detailed Analysis of Survey Results Table 2. Geographic Distribution of Respondents Bosnia and Section 1: Basic information Macedonia (10) Albania (8) Herzegovina (6) Geographic Distribution of Respondents Berovo Bilisht Fo a The largest group of respondents (about one-third) repre- Bosilovo Elbasan Gradiška Gostivar Kamez Laktaši sented municipalities in Macedonia (10). The second larg- Kavadarci Mat Modrica est group was from Albania (8), followed by Bosnia and Kocani Patos Šamac Herzegovina (6), Kosovo (3), Montenegro (3), and Serbia (1). Krivogastani Proger Trebinje Makedonska Kamenica Shköder The names of the specific municipalities are listed in table 2, Radovis Vlora and figure 1 illustrates the geographic response distribution. Shtip Veles Names of Citizen Service Centers Kosovo (3) Montenegro (3) Serbia (1) A proliferation of competing terms has emerged to describe Istog Cetinje Pan evo the idea of bringing a range of public services under one roof, Pejë Podgorica including citizen service center, one-stop shop, one-door service Vushtrri Ulcinj center, and public service hall. Therefore, the first survey ques- tion asked respondents what the integrated service delivery Figure 1. Geographic Response Distribution model in their municipality was called. Seven respondents did not indicate a specific term for the CSC, instead referring back Montenegro, 3 Serbia, 1 to the name of their municipality. Another seven reported the use of the term citizen service center of [name of the municipal- Albania, 8 ity]. Six claimed to use one-stop shop, integrated one-stop shop, or one-step office. The rest said they used variations of the same idea, referring to their organizations as citizens bureaus, Macedonia, 10 municipal service centers, citizens information centers, counter halls of the municipal administration, or citizens’ offices. Bosnia and When asked if their CSC had a website, 20 out of 31 Herzegovina, 6 respondents referred to the general website of their munic- Kosovo, 3 ipality, some of which feature a special section dedicated to the CSC (e.g., for the municipality of Cetinje, Montenegro: http://cetinje.me/index.php/me/gradanski-biro/o-birou). Physical Locations and Accessibility A question regarding the CSC’s physical location revealed Start Dates that all CSCs are located on premises at their respective A question regarding the start date of CSC operations municipal offices (i.e., town halls); they are also sometimes revealed that, while the concept of municipal CSCs is not at other administrative unit offices as well. new (the earliest in the ones considered dates back to 1996), the institutionalization of one-stop shops for citizens A significant number of CSCs pay attention to issues of appears to have picked up since 2006 and remains relevant: accessibility for people with special needs: 17 respondents year after year, increasingly more municipalities are progres- claimed that their center was accessible to people with dis- sively adopting this model (figure 2). abilities. Respondents mainly pointed to the existence of 6 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery access ramps and the absence of doorsteps and stairs, but businesses (49 percent), or administrative issues (48 per- some also referred to a “special counter lower in height” for cent). Many of the centers that do not provide partial or full people using wheelchairs. A few mentioned a planned rede- transactions will at a minimum provide relevant information. sign of their facility, which might provide better access to According to the survey results, health- and police-re- people with disabilities. Others drew attention to the existing lated services are not usually among the services that can limitations of which they are aware, such as a lack of eleva- be accessed at municipal CSCs (65 percent of respondents tors for accessing higher floors. claimed that their CSC does not provide health-related ser- In terms of access by various means of transport, results vices; and 58 percent claimed their CSC does not provide indicate that CSCs are easily accessible due to their cen- police-related services). tral location within a municipality. Most respondents noted Regarding education, social services and utilities, the pic- that there was easy access to their centers by road or pub- ture is mixed, with some CSCs providing partial or full service lic transport; some said they offered free parking to visitors. transactions on these issues, while others provide informa- However, some respondents noted that access to their facil- tion only, and between one-fifth and one-third also do not ity by pedestrians was not ideal due to adjacent motorways, provide them at all. was only possible with a private vehicle due to the poor qual- ity of roads, and that there were an insufficient number of Some CSCs offer additional services, including for sports parking spaces. organizations and nongovernmental organizations or related to agricultural awards, rural development, the environment Operating hours vary but mostly range from 7:00 or 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. or 8:00 or 08:30 a.m. to 4:00 or 4:30 (e.g., provision of ecological permits), tourism, or the provi- p.m. Monday–Friday. Some CSCs have longer operating hours sion of assistance to minority groups (e.g., the Roma). on specific days to provide easier access for working people. Institutional Coordination Section 2: Service Provision and Institutional Set-up Five respondents said that all of the municipal departments were offering services through the CSC. For others, the num- Service Delivery ber of departments active in the CSC ranges from 3 to 35. Regarding types of services delivered, the survey revealed that the partial or full transactions provided by municipal CSCs Nine respondents said that their municipality’s depart- most frequently relate to land (61 percent), taxes (55 percent), ment of general administration, general affairs service, Figure 2. Start Dates of Municipal Citizen Service Centers 7 Number of citizen service center openings 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 7 Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe: Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges,  and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans Figure 3. Types of services provided by CSCs 100 90 80 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 Health- Education- Social Utilities- Tax- Administrative Police- Business- Land- related related services related related services related related related services services services services services services services No answer Provision of information only Yes, partial or full service transactions No secretariat for common affairs, or department of organiza- Ten percent of CSCs utilize telecenters, and 10 percent pro- tional services oversees the functioning of the CSC; three vide mobile team visits to citizens in remote areas or who are claimed that the mayor’s office does. Ten respondents indi- unable to get to a physical service center. Sixteen percent of cated that the overall responsibility for the CSC lies with the respondents indicated that they do not provide access chan- municipality without providing any details. Other reported nels other than the physical center. None of the respondents departments in charge of CSCs include the directorate of reported using smartphones or tablet applications. information and public relations, the department of human Communication Strategies resources and public relations, the directorate for admin- CSCs communicate with citizens through various means, istration and legal services or the department of human such as via their websites, which many respondents indicate resources and support services. Two respondents indicated as the typical channel; notice boards; social networks (e.g., that the CSC seemed to be an independent body with its own Facebook); local media (e.g., print newspapers, information oversight mechanism called the office of integrated one-stop gazettes, radio, and television); and direct contact with citi- shop or the one-stop-shop office. zens to raise awareness about available services . More than Section 3: Citizen-centered Service Delivery one-fourth of respondents said that they had developed and Access Channels distributed informational leaflets, brochures, flyers, and/or Sixty-eight percent of the brick-and-mortar CSCs are com- posters to citizens, sometimes with accompanying presen- plemented by an online portal that provides access to tations in local communities or even a workshop series pre- information and/or services to citizens. Nineteen percent senting the one-stop-shop model as a best practice for local provide SMS-based services; and 16 percent use e-kiosks. governments. Some indicated that the speed and quality of 8 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery Figure 4. Access Channels 80 68 60 Percent 40 19 20 16 16 10 10 0 0 Online SMS-based Smartphone/ E-kiosks Telecenters Mobile Physical portal services tablet teams CSC applications only service delivery at the CSC is in itself the most effective pro- citizens to rate their satisfaction with received services. In motion mechanism for the center. some instances, heads of departments interview citizens on a monthly basis to receive feedback. Depending on the CSC Citizen Engagement and the type of feedback channel used, data are collected Citizen engagement is the two-way interaction between a and analyzed monthly, quarterly, or annually. The informa- citizen and the government, which gives citizens a stake in tion is then used to improve services, often leading to, as one decision-making with the aim of improving intermediate and respondent put it: “a positive growth for the perception of ultimate outcomes. Sixty-five percent of CSCs provide ave- quality services in certain sectors.” nues to engage citizens and elicit their input, which leaves about one-third without citizen feedback mechanisms—an interesting observation because the citizen service center Figure 5. Presence of Citizen Feedback model is built around citizen interaction. However, an over- Mechanisms whelming majority (84 percent) of citizen service centers do provide complaint handling mechanisms. Don’t know, 3% Regarding citizen feedback mechanisms, some CSCs follow ISO 9001:2008 standards,5 including an annual sur- vey conducted online or in print. Some offer citizens a way to leave anonymous feedback with forms and a survey box at the entrance of the center. Some centers have a book in No, 32% which customers can make remarks, contributions, and suggestions; others have electronic monitors that allow 5. ISO 9001:2008 specifies requirements for a quality management system where Yes, 65% an organization: (1) needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide a product that meets customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements; and (2) aims to enhance customer satisfaction through the effective application of the sys- tem, including processes for continual improvement and the assurance of conformity to customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 9 Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe: Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges,  and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans Figure 6. Presence of Citizen Complaints Some respondents indicated that the process is digitized Mechanisms and accompanied by a case management tool that deter- mines the timeframe, status, and manager assigned, and that Don’t know, 10% allows citizens to track the status of their complaints on the municipality’s website. No, 6% Timeframes for complaint resolution vary depending on the problem, but respondents generally seem quite aware of the service standards in place for responding to a complaint and working toward its resolution. Examples of responses include: Yes, 84% • “The legal deadline to respond to every complaint is ten days”; • “The legal deadline for awarding the charge is one month”; • “The deadline for resolving is sixty days”; and Complaints are accepted in many ways: online via email, social media, and municipal websites; through a paper-based • “The citizen has the right to sue the municipal office if this system, such as complaint boxes, books, and in letter form; or timeframe is not respected.” in person and on the telephone. A few respondents mentioned that citizens are able to directly contact the mayor if they are Performance Indicators dissatisfied and can even request a meeting with the mayor or The performance indicator most frequently collected by another high representative. In these cases, a 48-hour inter- CSCs is the number of complaints received (65 percent). nal assessment timeframe applies, “although there is a legal The number of completed transactions and the time taken deadline of thirty days for more complex situations.” to process the requests are also among the frequently mea- sured indicators (58 percent for each). Forty-five percent of Respondents seem quite clear on the workflow and pro- respondents track the waiting time for visitors, 39 percent cesses involved from the moment a complaint is received track the attendants’ performance/behavior, and 16 percent to when its resolution is communicated to the citizen. do not track any of these measures. Complaints received are generally addressed to the relevant departments and assigned to department specialists for Human Rights and Service Delivery for Vulnerable Groups handling. Some respondents provided a fair amount of detail Regarding human rights, 90 percent of respondents said regarding the process, such as the following: they were mentioned in their official documents, 71 percent that they were mentioned in their communication materials, “At the point of service One Stop Shop every citizen and 68 percent that they were included in training materials. can write by hand his complaint. After that the expert However, less than half of respondents (42 percent) said that of information has the duty to scan the document and human rights played a role in the definition of performance to send it as per protocol in electronic way by using standards. the system of electronic circulation of documents. After this procedure, the complaint goes directly to the Regarding measures guaranteeing effective service deliv- relevant directorate for resolution and response back ery for vulnerable groups, people with disabilities were the within legal limits.” most widely identified group being taken into account—63 10 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery Figure 7. Measured Performance Indicators (percent of CSCs) 80 65 60 58 58 45 Percent 40 39 20 16 0 Waiting time Time to Attendant’s Number of Number of None of for visitors process performance/ completed complaints these request behavior transaction per service percent of respondents said their CSCs cater to citizens with Between 20 and 40 percent of the surveyed CSCs strive special needs, primarily by guaranteeing a barrier-free infra- to ensure equal service for the poor, foreign nationals, eth- structure, ranging from ramps and elevators to Braille tables nic and linguistic minorities, migrants, internally displaced and hearing induction loops. persons, and indigenous peoples.6 One respondent noted that their municipality works closely with an interpreter to Elderly people (50 percent) and people with low levels of help overcome language barriers; and the staff of one CSC literacy (47 percent) also frequently benefit from specially includes a coordinator for issues affecting the Roma people. tailored arrangements, such as being provided personal Thirteen percent of respondents indicated that they had spe- assistance in filling out forms. Three respondents highlighted cial measures in place for the LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, that training was carried out to sensitize staff and improve trans, and/or intersex) community. communication skills with these groups. In response to a question about whether the CSC takes Forty-three percent of respondents indicated that their a human rights approach—defined as one where the CSC’s CSC had mechanisms in place to guarantee access to service policies and operations are underpinned by human rights delivery for citizens living in remote areas, for women, and principles, including participation, transparency, equality, for young people. Several municipalities have mobile teams, universality, and accountability and where ensuring service some of which include a translator, that reach out to rural pop- provision to marginalized individuals and groups is specifi- ulations, the elderly, and others by bringing services directly cally emphasized—61 percent of respondents agreed that to them. Some CSCs have satellite or branch offices serving a their center takes this approach—that they operate through similar purpose. Regarding women, one respondent said that a lens that considers citizens to be the rights holders and their municipality had an office for citizens dedicated to pro- government entities the duty-bearers. viding a coordinated response in cases of domestic violence under the framework of a project supported by the United 6. The term indigenous peoples is rarely used in southeastern Europe, but the term is used here to cover the full spectrum of potentially vulnerable population groups, Nations Development Program (UNDP). reflecting an all-encompassing human rights approach. Some respondents chose this option in the survey. 11 Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe: Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges,  and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans Figure 8. Percentage of CSC Documents that Mention Human Rights 100 90 80 71 68 60 Percent 42 40 20 0 Human rights mentioned Human rights mentioned Human rights mentioned Human rights mentioned in training materials in official documents in communications in definition of materials performance standards The majority of respondents realize that the CSCs are par- Some respondents mentioned that the respect for human ticularly well-placed to play an active role in ensuring that the rights embodied by their CSC is linked to legal and regulatory citizens in their communities enjoy equal rights, and many compliance. Responses include: CSCs root their human rights approach in the principles of • “Human rights are applied as predicted by applicable leg- equality, nondiscrimination, and universality. Examples of islation”; responses include: • “ISO standard 2009”; • “The municipality offers its service to all citizens groups with no exception”; • “Human rights, according to the law in our country”; • “Every citizen of Peja enjoys equal rights in obtaining ser- • “On the basis of the Republic of Kosovo, we have an obli- vices”; gation to universal meeting of human rights in all fields”; • “The CSC provides services for all citizens living in the ter- • “Law on human rights and the right to information”; ritory covered by the municipality of Veles no matter their • “Relying on legal principles and the rights of citizens”; and age, sex, orientation, situation, religion etc.”; • “We are here to help as the law indicates us.” • “We aim to provide equal approach to everyone”; These responses can be considered positive in the sense • “The administrative staff is trained to be professional and that these administrators seem to think of themselves provide services to every person that requests some- as duty-bearers serving rights-holders. For example, one thing”; respondent noted that “the system in our center works on • “Every citizen, poor, rich, healthy, any religion has equal the basis that the citizen has the right and that we are here to rights and access to information”; and provide all the services they need”; and another claimed: “we have an obligation to help.” • “We provide service to all citizens.” 12 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery Figure 9. Percentage of CSCs with Special Measures for Vulnerable Groups 80 60 63 50 Percent 50 43 47 43 43 40 40 30 30 33 23 20 20 13 10 0 Citizens Elderly Ethnic and Foreign Indigenous Migrants People Persons The LGBTI The Women Young living in people linguistic citizens peoples and with with community poor people remote/rural minorities internally disabilities limited areas displaced levels of persons literacy The principles of transparency, participation, and Section 4: Human Resources accountability were mentioned in a more piecemeal fashion. Training Participation in particular is not adequately framed in terms Eighty-seven percent of CSCs have carried out some form of of human rights. Only one respondent briefly mentioned it by staff training. According to the survey, the three most signif- noting that “the quality of services is monitored (…) through icant areas of training were information technology for the surveys.” Regarding transparency, many respondents con- use of dedicated software, e-services, and electronic docu- sider themselves to be “transparent service providers.” One ment circulation (mentioned by 14 out of 31 respondents); pointed out that their CSC has appointed a coordinator communication skills (mentioned by 12); and customer ser- who is responsible for overseeing the right to information. vice (mentioned by 8). Other trainings, sometimes carried Regarding accountability, some respondents claimed that out at the national level, focused on auditing, financial man- they provide citizens with the right to appeal if they are dis- agement, right to information, social networks, legal pro- satisfied with the suggested resolution to a problem. One cedures, document management systems, motivation, and respondent noted that their philosophy is “based on the prin- negotiation skills. Two respondents said that the training had ciple of transparency and accountability toward citizens.” been provided by the United States Agency for International These elements—transparency, participation, and Development (USAID). One respondent said that their CSC accountability—however, are being taken up separately; there had engaged with other municipalities in an exchange of is no overall human rights approach or strategy considering experiences. these principles together. As one respondent expressed: Staff Numbers and Recruitment Procedures “there is no special human rights approach. The approach is The average number of staff among the surveyed CSCs is guaranteed through the transparent procedures of citizens’ 11.5; and the median is 9. Overall staff numbers range from participation in decision-making.” 2 to 50. 13 Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe: Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges,  and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans Employees are recruited according to the respective The most commonly expressed concern among respondents national recruitment frameworks. Candidates must pass regarding the legal framework involved the existing rules and a competitive civil service admissions exam, or they are regulations surrounding, for example, paper-based proce- recruited through an open application process. In either case, dures. One respondent emphasized that “it is important to CSC employees become a part of the municipality’s regular have qualified staff who know the relevant laws.” staff, and they usually receive permanent contracts. They are The challenge of institutional coordination across agen- typically a member of a specific municipal department, such cies and departments received a high ranking (4 or 5) by 45 as finance, urban affairs, legal, or infrastructure, but they do percent of respondents. One respondent pointed out that not tend to come from ministries, except perhaps if they are a key issue is the “interoperability of information with that in charge of administrative services, such as birth, death, and of the central government institutions” and the “interaction marriage certificates; passports; identification cards, and with state databases.” Another noted: “collaboration with registrations. other institutions always has to go through legitimate paper The majority of CSCs do not outsource any functions (77 requests, which take too long to follow-up on and even lon- percent); 10 percent outsource specific services, such as sys- ger to receive a response.” Another respondent highlighted tem maintenance, web design, and marketing services; and that core competencies are retained at the national level and 13 percent of respondents are unaware of any outsourcing that “CSCs do not have a recognition as part of the institu- arrangements. tional infrastructure.” Section 5: Challenges and Enabling Factors for Success Forty-two percent of respondents ranked technology and Main Challenges funding as serious issues (with a score of 4 or 5 for each). As Asked to rank a series of possible challenges on a scale of one respondent put it: “tech and financial funds are one of 1—not at all a challenge to 5— very significant challenge, 58 the main (prerequisites to provide) solutions (that are) mod- percent of respondents noted that staff motivation was a key ern and effective.” challenge (with a ranking of 4 or 5), followed by capacity to The high rankings given by respondents to the various meet demand (51 percent of respondents gave a ranking of 4 topic areas indicate that the listed potential answers are or 5), and legal framework (49 percent of respondents gave a quite relevant to the actual challenges faced by CSCs in the ranking of 4 or 5). The issue of staff motivation could be due region. As one respondent noted: “these challenges signifi- to the comparatively low salaries in the public sector across cantly affect the quality and speed of service delivery to cit- the region, as well as the difficulty in providing staff incen- izens.” tives and motivational mechanisms in addition to any train- ing. One survey participant noted: “we are working through One respondent mentioned the challenge of working trainings and plan continued coaching to improve staff moti- toward the full application of the ISO 9001:2015 Quality of vation.” Struggles to meet demand may be linked to imbal- Management System standards. ances between citizens’ requests and the budgetary capacity Solutions of the municipalities. As one respondent noted, “both techni- Respondents suggested potential solutions to address these cal and human resources are limited, which affects improve- challenges, outlined below. ment of existing services and implementing of new ones.” 14 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery Invest in “hard” infrastructure and technology. connection to ministries and other relevant institutions as • Modernize existing facilities “to improve working condi- well as improved information exchange to enhance ser- tions at the CSC” or to “increase space and accessibility vice quality. Technical interoperability between municipal for people with disabilities.” and state databases, particularly regarding civil, business, or license registries, and other databases related to prop- • Modernize technical equipment in terms of hardware erties and land seems essential to improve communica- and software. tion and outcomes for citizens. • Develop technology-driven solutions, such as online • Broaden the mandate and responsibilities of govern- complaint-handling mechanisms through “user friendly ment units at the local level. As one respondent noted: software applications that could simplify the processing of the requests but also inform the citizens about the sta- “better service provision and efficient measures tus of the request” and/or SMS-based applications. could be undertaken if these centers could play more functions. Even though in the beginning of the Invest in people. decentralization, some of the competencies have • Increase financial and human resources. Respondents taken place in local level, a lot of permits, certificate, expressed a need for additional staff and improved ben- and identification documents are still the responsi- efits for employees, but pointed to a lack of resources to bility of national ministries.” address the issue. Key Success Factors • Train staff to work with the marginalized; to use state- Participants were asked to identify the three main factors of-the-art e-systems and software; in language and other that facilitate the CSC’s provision of high-quality services. skills needed to deliver services to citizens, and imple- Their responses are summarized below. menting the ISO 9001:2015 First-tier success factors • Educate citizens on the use of e-services. As one respon- • Thirteen respondents highlighted that significant cap- dent pointed out: “citizens in general prefer to obtain ital investment played a central role in the success of some kind of information or service directly tête-à-tête CSC implementation, and that it had improved working (with) the competent authority (…) people want to talk conditions, physical spaces, and equipment. USAID for directly to the clerks about their problems.” instance has provided some assistance in certain cities, Rethink processes and cooperation but generally the municipalities covered the bulk of the • Improve internal communications and cooperation expenses. among municipal departments to allow for more rapid • Ten respondents singled out territorial/decentralization/ information dissemination. administrative reform as an important enabling factor • Reengineer processes, by, for example, “streamlining cer- because it expanded the functions of the municipalities tain procedures in the work of the management board.” by transferring services from the state to the local level, which is seen as a considerable opportunity. • Improve cooperation with national-level institutions and guarantee the interoperability of online systems. • Nine respondents emphasized the importance of process Some respondents emphasized the need for a network reengineering or process improvement, including through the implementation of ISO 9001:2008. 15 Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe: Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges,  and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans Second-tier success factors partnerships with bilateral or multilateral donors, such as • Seven respondents said that political leadership, notably by USAID (mentioned four times), UNDP, the Organization for mayors, was a critical factor for success, highlighting how Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), or the European important it is that the reforms and service improvements Union. Only 16 percent of the CSCs reported having partner- are supported from the management of the municipality ships with the private sector (e.g., business associations or and/or the centers. information technology providers). • Six respondents consider information technology infra- Section 6: The Way Forward structure and software to be a crucial success factor for When asked if they would be willing to make available tech- the CSCs, since it enables the development of e-ser- vices based on ISO 9001:2008, the digitization of offi- nical documents related to their CSC toward the creation of cial requests and complaints, which shortens turnaround an online repository, 81 percent of respondents agreed to times, and the building of an effective document manage- share guidelines and legal documents regarding the estab- ment system. lishment of the center; 77 percent agreed to share their human resource procedures, terms of reference, and recruit- • Six respondents underlined the essential role of highly ment tools; 71 percent agreed to share their communication motivated and qualified staff with a strong work ethic. strategies, performance reports and/or statistics, plans for Third-tier success factors the physical layout of the centers, and specifications for the • Three respondents indicated that advanced training and introduction of information technology systems; 58 per- workshops were critical success factors for their CSC. cent agreed to share their inter-institutional memoranda of • Three respondents said that the speed of service delivery understanding and their relevant training and operational was the most crucial. manuals; and 39 percent agreed to share public-private part- nership agreements. • Three respondents mentioned support through partner- ships as being the most significant success factor. Sixty-five percent of respondents said that they would be interested in joining a community of practice (i.e., a peer-to- • Three respondents claimed that the greater accessibility of peer learning network) related to citizen service centers; and services was key. 32 percent said they needed more information before making • Two respondents singled out cooperation and the horizon- a decision. Only three percent expressed no interest. Ninety- tal and vertical networking with state agencies and minis- seven percent of respondents agreed to be contacted with tries as crucial. follow-up questions as needed. Seventy-one percent believe Partnerships that their CSC has lessons to share with other municipalities, Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that their CSC had and would potentially be interested in participating in part- some kind of partnership with civil society organizations. nership with the World Bank team in an effort to document Thirty-nine percent indicated that their CSC had or envisaged their experiences in a case study. 16 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery Annex 1. The Survey Purpose of the Survey The purpose of the survey is to deepen our understanding of Background Information on the Project the experiences of citizen service centers in several countries The World Bank’s Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global from around the globe. The information obtained will be used Practice is in the process of gathering insights about citizen as a basis for collecting data regarding the challenges and service centers (CSC), i.e., public administration entities that opportunities surrounding the use of this method of deliv- deliver a range of public services to citizens from a single ery for municipal and central-level administrative and public physical location. The key idea behind citizen service centers services. is for citizens to be able to access numerous government services at one location instead of having to travel to multi- Survey Design ple administrative offices to deal with their requests. Citizen The survey consists of 30 questions, divided into six sec- service centers are sometimes referred to as one-stop shops, tions. It takes approximately 15–20 minutes to complete the one-window service offices, or one-door service centers. survey. The content of the survey is shown in box A.1. Box A.1. Citizen Service Center Survey Section 1: Basic Information 1. Name of the citizen service center (CSC): 2. City, country: 3. Website, if any: 4. When did the CSC begin operations? 5. Where is the CSC physically located? (e.g., in a separate building or within the town hall) 6. How accessible is the location? (e.g., for persons with disabilities, but also more generally in terms of roads, public transportation, and hours of operation) (continued) 17 Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe: Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges,  and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans Section 2: Service Provision and Institutional Set-up Provision of Partial or information full service Not 7. What types of services does the CSC provide? only transactions applicable Health-related services (e.g., medical cards and insurance) Education-related services (e.g., study certificates, payment of school fees, and enrollment) Social services (e.g., application for social insurance, pensions, or benefits and receipt of payments) Utility-related services (e.g., water, electricity bills) Tax-related services (e.g., payments and records) Administrative services (e.g., birth, death, and marriage certificates; driver’s license renewal; passports; identification cards; and registrations Police-related services (e.g., payment of fines) Business-related services (e.g., registration, taxes, and permits) Land-related services (e.g., building permits) Other services (please describe): 8. How many different agencies or departments provide services through the CSC? 9. Which agency is in charge of the CSC overall? Section 3: Citizen-centered service delivery If yes, please describe (e.g., how are satisfaction scores collected? How often? How are they being used?). 10. In addition to the physical building that hosts the CSC, which of the following access channels are available to citizens? Select all that apply. 13. Is there a system in place to enable the collection of citizen o An online portal complaints (e.g., a grievance-redress mechanism)? o SMS-based services o Yes o No o Don’t know o Smartphone/tablet applications If yes, please describe (e.g.—What are the channels through o E-kiosks (kiosks offering information or services by means of which citizens can submit complaints? What happens after a a computer screen) complaint is submitted? Are there set timeframes for resolution? o Telecenters (dedicated public spaces where citizens can Is there an appeals system?). use computers and internet to access online government services) o A mobile (vehicle) Citizen Service Center that can reach rural/remote populations 14. Which of the following performance indicators are measured o None of the above and tracked over time by the citizen service center? 11. What types of communication strategies, if any, are used Yes No to create awareness and promote the use of citizen service Waiting time for visitors o o centers by the general population and particularly by Time to process request (by service) o o marginalized groups? Attendant’s performance and behavior o o Number of completed transactions per service o o 12. Is there a system in place to evaluate customer satisfaction Number of complaints o o and collect feedback (e.g., a satisfaction survey)? None of the above o o o Yes o No o Don’t know (continued) 18 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery 15. Human rights include the right to access to information, to on ensuring service provision to marginalized individuals and social security, and to health care, among others. These issues groups. are sometimes included in citizen charters or service standards. 17. Does the citizen service center in your city have a human Are human rights referred to in: rights approach? o Training materials for staff o Yes o No o Official documents If yes, please describe: o Communication materials o The definition of performance standards o Other documents? Section 4: Human Resources 16. Does the citizen service center in your city have any special measures in place to guarantee effective service delivery for any 18. Did the staff receive specific training to carry out its duties? of the following population groups? o Yes o No o Don’t know o Citizens living in rural/remote areas 19. If yes, please describe (e.g., customer service, handling o Elderly people difficult telephone calls, communication skills, and the use of o Ethnic and linguistic minorities information technology). o Foreign citizens o Indigenous peoples o Migrants and internally displaced persons 20. What is the size of the staff of your citizen service center? o People with disabilities o Persons with limited levels of literacy o The LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, 21. How is citizen service center staff selected or appointed? and/or intersex) community Please describe staff recruitment methods (e.g., are they o The poor delegated from their ministries?). If possible, indicate the o Women breakdown of contract employees versus civil servants as well o Young people as long-term versus short-term staff. If yes to any of the above, please describe (e.g., barrier-free infrastructure, special arrangements for the visually impaired, 22. Is the CSC outsourcing any of its functions (e.g., to a call translation of documents into local languages, and mobile center)? teams providing services to rural populations). o Yes o No o Don’t know If yes, please describe: Some citizen service centers adopt a systematic approach to human rights—i.e., a lens that considers citizens to be right-holders and government entities to be duty-holders. A human rights-based approach means that the center’s policies and operations are underpinned by human rights principles, including participation, transparency, equality, universality, and accountability. It means that a specific emphasis is placed (continued) 19 Municipal Citizen Service Centers in Southeastern Europe: Survey Results on Success Factors, Challenges,  and the Human Rights Approach of Municipal One-stop Shops in the Western Balkans Section 5: Challenges and Success/Enabling Factors 23. How much of a current challenge are the following factors to your municipality’s CSC? On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not at all a challenge; 5 = very significant challenge) 1 2 3 4 5 Institutional coordination across agencies and departments o o o o o Legal framework (e.g., rules regarding privacy, access to information, and paper-based procedures) o o o o o Technology (e.g., connectivity and shift toward paperless procedures) o o o o o Funding o o o o o Staff motivation o o o o o Capacity to meet demand o o o o o 24. If applicable, please explain how these challenges affect 27. Does your CSC have or envisage any partnerships with civil the citizen service center’s efforts to provide services. Please society organizations? include any challenge that was not mentioned above. o Yes o No If yes, please describe: 25. What measures have been or could be undertaken to address these challenges? Please include any type of technical assistance the CSC sought in the past or that is currently 28. Does your CSC have or envisage any partnerships with needed. bilateral or multilateral donors? o Yes o No 26. What three main factors have enabled or facilitated If yes, please describe: the CSC’s provision of high quality services (e.g., political leadership, decentralization reforms, reengineering of processes, 29. Does your CSC have or envisage any partnerships with and significant capital investment)? private sector actors? o Yes o No If yes, please describe: Section 6: The Way Forward We are considering developing an online repository for technical documents related to citizen service centers as well as a community of practice for people with an interest and experience in this field. 30. Would you be willing to share any of the following? Yes No Communication strategies for the CSC? Guidelines/legal documents for the establishment of the CSC? Human resource procedures, terms of reference, and recruitment tools? Inter-institutional memoranda of understanding? Performance reports and/or performance statistics? Physical plans for CSC? Public-private partnership agreements? Specifications regarding the introduction of information technology systems? Training and operational manuals in support of staff delivery of services? (continued) 20 Citizen Service Centers Pathways Toward Improved Public Service Delivery 31. Would you be interested in becoming part of a community 34. Please provide any other suggestions, comments, or of practice (i.e., a peer-to-peer learning network) for citizen feedback related to this survey or the topics covered. service centers? o Yes o No o I need more information 32. Could we contact you with follow-up questions if needed? o Yes o No 33. The World Bank is interested in documenting good practice examples of citizen service centers. If you think your center has lessons to share with other municipalities, would you be interested in working in partnership with a World Bank team to document them in a case study? o Yes o No Acknowledgements This report was part of an effort to document the relationship between citizen service centers and human rights by a team led by Sanjay Agarwal and comprising Hélène Pfeil, Berenike Schott, Kimberly Johns, and Saki Kumagai at the World Bank. The lead author of the report is Hélène Pfeil, with invaluable contributions from Sanjay Agarwal and Berenike Schott. The core team benefited from valuable inputs, comments, and guidance from Nina Bhatt, Raymond Muhula, and Sanela Ljuca. This report would not have been possible without the valuable help of Anna Autio, Sabine Palmreuther, Sandra Kdolsky, and Tamara Nikolic, and the support of the World Bank country management unit in Vienna, Austria. The authors would also like to thank Laura Johnson for her excellent editorial support. Finally, the authors are grateful to the Nordic Trust Fund (NTF) for supporting the activities under this initiative. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent.