Skip Navigation

End of Commitment Report – Improve access to and delivery of municipal services, especially for the most marginalized communities


Name of Evaluator

Nodar Kherkheulidze



Khoni, Georgia

Action plan

Action plan – Khoni, Georgia, 2021 – 2021


Improve access to and delivery of municipal services, especially for the most marginalized communities


The commitment envisages conducting of needs analysis based on public consultations in order to identify and select at least three remote locations with the most limited access to available services. As the most vulnerable locations are identified, the municipality will locate one specific space in each location and prepare them for providing municipal services on spot. The municipality will equip each location, map services that will be provided locally, and retrain staff for local service delivery. Next, the municipality will officially open local service centers and launch the service delivery. Finally, to increase the awareness about the available services and the new opportunities offered by the local service centers Khoni will conduct a full-scale awareness-raising campaign in the respective rural areas.


Despite Georgia’s progress to stand out as a country where local self-governments provide high-quality public services, access to municipal services remains a challenge. The accessibility issue has become especially vividly observable during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak since it drastically disrupted the delivery of services to those citizens residing in remote areas. The issue did not emerge due to the pandemic, but the COVID-19 outbreak followed by the government’s preventive measures greatly contributed to the surfacing of the problem. Khoni municipality that covers the mountainous and remote rural areas is known as inhibited mostly by marginalized communities, that lack the means and thus encounter a number of challenges to acquire municipal services on spot, in the administrative center.

Section 1.
Commitment completion

1.1 What was the overall level of progress in the commitment implementation at the time of this assessment?


Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

A working group that has been established with the Mayors’ Decree to steer the AP process, identified 3 remote and most vulnerable locations to launch new service centers and deliver services in rural areas. However, no formal needs analysis was conducted, and no documented report is available. The centers were placed in administrative buildings and were equipped with computers and internet access. Finally, all the new centers were launched in the reporting period. The staff of the new service centers was trained within the training sessions provided by the MSDA nationwide program on new electronic systems in the municipalities. However, no additional training was provided specifically targeted toward the new locations. The services provided are not formally mapped in advance, rather, depending on the case, the staff decides whether the service provision is possible locally or transferred to the administrative center. No specific awareness-raising campaign was launched.

Provide evidence that supports and justifies your answer:

1.2 Describe the main external or internal factors that impacted the implementation of this commitment and how they were addressed (or not).

Even though the Khoni action plan implementation phase coincided with the local self-governance elections of 2021 (Oct. 2, 2021), this did not interact or hinder the implementation process according to the interviewed stakeholders. However, COVID-19 slowed down the process, which resulted in the delay of the implementation process as well as the scale of awareness-raising activities.

1.3 Was the commitment implemented as originally planned?

Most of the commitment milestones were implemented as planned.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Khoni Municipality implemented most of the commitments as planned. However, some of the activities were adjusted during the implementation period. For example, the municipality did not conduct a typical needs analysis based on public consultations as outlined in the action plan (MS 1), rather it identified the locations for the three new service centers solely based on the internal consultations within the extended Working Group and among other officials. Further, milestone 2 intended to map the services applicable for each of the centers was not implemented as planned, since even though the municipality provides the list of services available in general on its webpage, no list of services is available that could be obtained locally in the new locations. Finally, instead of the full-scale awareness-raising campaign as outlined in the action plan (MS 5), the information on the new service centers and the subsequent opportunities were spread by word-of-mouth.

Section 2.
Did it open government?

2.1.1. – Did the government disclose more information; improve the quality of the information (new or existing); improve the value of the information; improve the channels to disclose or request information or improve accessibility to information?

Not Applicable

Degree of result:

– Select –

2.1.2. – Did the government create new opportunities to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation inform or influence decisions; improve existing channels or spaces to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation/ inform or influence decisions; create or improve capabilities in the government or the public aimed to improve how the government seeks feedback from citizens/enables participation/ or allows for the public to inform or influence decisions?

Not Applicable

Degree of result:

– Select –

2.1.3 Did the government create or improve channels, opportunities or capabilities to hold officials answerable to their actions?

Not Applicable

Degree of result:

– Select –

2.1.4 Other Results


Degree of result:


Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

According to the stakeholders, the commitment improved the accessibility to municipal services and delivered positive results, especially in times of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. In particular, the provision of services locally, in the villages located remotely from the municipal administrative center has reduced the overall mobility of the local population, which was crucial during the pandemic. However, the most significant result of the commitment is that it has allowed marginalized populations residing in remote locations to easily acquire information and receive or at least start the process for most of the services locally, avoiding various challenges associated with traveling to the administrative center, including financials such as expenses for travel, logistical – limited transportation opportunities, and/or crowded transport contributing to the spread of the pandemic. Thus, for those, who reside closer to the new service centers, the municipal services have become more accessible as well as affordable, which is a step positive forward in public service provision on a local level.

2.2 Did the commitment address the public policy problem that it intended to address as described in the action plan?


Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The commitment directly addressed the problem of limited access to public services, which remains one of the most significant areas for improvement at the local level, especially for the most marginalized local population, residing in remote areas. The three new service centers have allowed for providing several services locally, easing the access to public services for the population of the three villages and their surroundings. Consequently, the reduced mobility also well-responded to the challenges associated with the COVID Pandemic.

Section 3.
Lessons from

3. Provide at least one lesson or reflection relating to the implementation of this commitment. It can be the identification of key barriers to implementation, an unexpected help/hindrance, recommendations for future commitments, or if the commitment should be taken forward to the next action plan.

The commitment is assessed by stakeholders as a good starting point to improve the provision of the services, especially for the marginalized communities in the remote areas of the municipality. However, these first steps are limited in scope resulting in substantial changes in service provision praxis at the local level; thus, further initiatives related to improving service provision are recommended. However, if taken forward to the next action plan, it is crucial to design the commitment within the scope, and with a stronger emphasis on at least one of the OGP values such as transparency, participation, and accountability.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open Government Partnership