perceptions of the prevalence of unofficial payments<sup>3</sup> and then about their household‘s utilization, satisfaction and actual unofficial payments.

**Utilization:** Respondents were asked if any household member had interacted with, or used, each of the public services.

**Satisfaction with service delivery:** All respondents who indicated that a household member had used the service during the past 12 months were asked if they were satisfied with the quality and efficiency of the service interaction<sup>4</sup> . Satisfaction data can be a proxy for measuring actual quality of services, as well as an indicator of the extent to which services are responsive to the needs and preferences of clients. They can also help to assess the effects of service delivery reforms (see section 3.2).

**Unofficial payments:** Respondents were asked if they had to make unofficial payments and why – specifically whether the payment was requested, expected, offered or given as a gift – allowing for a more detailed analysis of the incidence and causes of informal payments than is usually possible from household surveys.

For education and public services, the 2010 LITS survey provides more in-depth information on perceptions of service quality and grievance redress mechanisms. Regarding education, the survey inquired about any lack of textbooks and supplies, poor teaching, teacher absenteeism, overcrowded classrooms and poor conditions of facilities. Similarly for health, it asked about doctor absenteeism, treatment by staff, availability of medicines, waiting times and cleanliness of facilities. The answers to these questions provide a snapshot of people‘s experiences with services and can act as another measure of service quality. Another new feature of the 2010 LITS is a set of questions related to grievance redress mechanisms in health and education. The survey asks whether people know where to file a complaint if they were unsatisfied with education and health services, whether they filed a complaint, received a response, or were satisfied with the response.

Finally, respondents were asked to rate the overall performance of their national, regional, and local governments using a five-point scale (ranging from 1: very bad to 5: very good), and whether they felt the overall performance of these three administrative tiers had worsened, stayed the same or improved in the previous three years.

# **2.2. Descriptive statistics**

**Utilization.** The proportion of respondents who interacted with service providers varied considerably according to the type of service (see figure 2). By far the most often accessed service was the public health system (70 percent in the previous 12 months). Utilization rates for other services were much lower. The next highest usage rates were for primary/secondary public education (23 percent), interaction with traffic police (20 percent) and requests for official documents (14 percent).

> 3 “In your opinion, how often is it necessary for people like you to have to make unofficial payments/gifts in these situations”, with responses recorded on a five-point scale: 1= never, 2=seldom, 3=sometimes, 4=usually and 5=always.

> 4 Respondents were asked: “How satisfied were you with the quality and the efficiency of the service/interaction?” and responses were recorded on a five-point scale: 1=very dissatisfied, 2=dissatisfied, 3=indifferent, 4=satisfied and 5=very satisfied.

4