Citizens satisfaction with public administrative servicesat the ward people''s committees of Tay Ho district

CITIZENS' SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AT THE WARD PEOPLE’S COMMITTEES OF TAY HO DISTRICT A DISSERTATION PAPER Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate Program of the College of Arts and Sciences Central Philippine University, Philippines In Collaboration with Thai Nguyen University, Vietnam In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF MANAGEMENT HOANG VAN HAO MARCH 2017 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is hard to imagine how this dissertation could have been completed without the encouragement and support from researcher’s academic supervisor, family and friends Firstly, he would like to thank his academic supervisor, Dr Reynaldo Nene Dusaran He was greatly honored to receive his guide, suggestions and feedbacks on each chapter with great patience Although the researcher and his academic supervisor live in two different countries, the academic discussion has not been affected Both direct and indirect meetings between them have been really effective These have helped researcher improve his expertise and insights, which finally improve the quality of this study The researcher also deeply grateful to his family, who had provided him with unconditional support throughout the whole process Over the last four years, his wife had taken the responsibility of taking care of their two sons His wife had never complained about it, so that he fully focused on studying Furthermore, she had read and given valuable opinions about this dissertation so that the content was expressed more precisely and professionally Next, the researcher would like to send his gratitude to his parents They had helped much in looking after his sons He is deeply indebted to his parents as they provided such help while they were in worse health than before His parents had only heard about the university from him, but they have been always ready to try their best to ensure his sisters' educational quality as well as his Finally, the researcher would like to thank his friends who had shared their research experience, especially in collecting and analyzing the data He also sends his loyal thanks to his peers in this PhD course who had brought to him many more experiences in study, work and life as well He really looked forward to working with them in the future The Researcher TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF TABLES iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v ABSTRACT vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background and Rationale of the Study Objectives of the Study Hypotheses Theoretical Framework Conceptual Framework 12 Operational Definitions 16 Significance of the Study 19 Scope and Limitations 20 II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES 21 Related Literature 21 Related Studies 32 III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 37 Research Design 37 Population, Sample Size and Sampling Technique 39 Research Instruments 41 Data Gathering Procedure 49 Data Processing and Analysis 50 IV DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Respondents’ Characteristics 52 52 Respondents’ Perception of the Components of the Public Administrative Services 57 Respondents’ Perception of Satisfaction with Public Administrative Services 60 Differences in Citizens’ Perception of Public Administrative Services and Satisfaction according to their Personal Characteristics 61 Relationship between Citizens’ Perception of Public Administrative Services and their Satisfaction V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 71 77 Summary of the Key Findings 78 Conclusions 79 Policy Recommendations 81 REFERENCES 91 APPENDIXES 97 ii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Figure 1.1 Measuring Service Quality using SERVQUAL Model Figure 1.2 Performance Only Model (SERVPERF) 11 Figure 1.3 Conceptual Framework of the Study 14 Figure 1.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study (Adjusted after EFA) 15 Figure 2.1 The Nordic Model by Gronroos 23 Figure 2.2 The Kano Model 26 Figure 3.1 Research Process 38 iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE Table 3.1 List of Variables and Initial Items in the Survey Instrument 42 Table 3.2 Results of Reliability Test of Scales 44 Table 3.3 Result of the Seventh EFA with Scales of Independent Variables 46 Table 3.4 Result of EFA for Citizens’ Satisfaction 48 Table 3.5 Names and Abbreviations of Variables after EFA 49 Table 4.1 Distribution of Respondents as to their Characteristics 54 Distribution of Respondents as to Information Related to the Use 56 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 of Public Administrative Services Descriptive Statistics of the Different Items and Components of 59 Public Administrative Services Descriptive Statistics for Different Items of Citizens’ Satisfaction 61 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public 62 Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Gender Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public 63 Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Age Table 4.7 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public 64 Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Marital Status Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Table 4.8 Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Educational 65 Attainment Table 4.9 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public 66 Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Occupation Table 4.10 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Income 67 iv Table 4.11 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public 68 Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Frequency of Use Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public Table 4.12 Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Acquaintances in 69 Ward People’s Committees Table 4.13 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public 70 Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Paying Extra Fee Table 4.14 Mean Scores on the Different Components of Public 71 Administrative Services and Satisfaction by Residence Table 4.15 Regression Results for Citizens’ Satisfaction 73 v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Symbol Explanation ANOVA Analysis of Variance EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis ISO International Organization for Standardization IT Information technology KMO Kaiser - Meyer - Olkin measure NPM New Public Management OLS Ordinary Least Square OSS One - Stop - Shop QFD Quality Function Deployment Sig Significance SIPAS Satisfaction index of public administrative service SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences VFF The Vietnam Fatherland Front VAVN The Veterans Association of Vietnam vi ABSTRACT CITIZENS' SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AT THE WARD PEOPLE’S COMMITTEES OF TAY HO DISTRICT HOANG VAN HAO This study was conducted to evaluate the citizens' satisfaction with public administrative services at the Ward People’s Committees of Tay Ho District The one-shot survey design or the post-test only design was used to gather data from 440 randomly selected respondents allocated proportionately to the eight wards of Tay Ho District The survey instrument was tested for its reliability using the Cronbach’s Alpha Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to reduce the number of items and factors from the initial seven factors with 33 items to five factors with 27 items after the EFA The instrument was translated to Vietnamese to allow easy understanding of the respondents and distributed to the randomly selected respondents All the data collected were processed using SPSS 20 Analysis made use of descriptive statistics and Multiple Regression Analysis, t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to test the hypotheses of the study The study revealed that most if not the majority of the respondents were females, not more than 45 years old, married, university educated , working as employee, civil servant or freelancer; and with a monthly income of to 5M VND The majority of the respondents were occasional users of public administrative services, without acquaintances in the Ward People’s Committee, have not paid extra fee to avail of the services and residents of the ward where they avail the public administrative services The respondents generally have “Good” perception of the different components of the public administrative services and have “high” perceived satisfaction of the public administrative services There were no significant differences in the perception of the respondents of the different components of public administrative services and their satisfaction according to their gender, age, marital status, income, acquaintances in the Ward People’s Committee, payment of extra fee and residence However, significant differences were observed according to educational attainment, occupation and frequency of use of public administrative services All the five components of public administrative services were vii found to be significant determinants of satisfaction Civil servants’ capacity and publicduty ethics appeared to be the major determinant followed by time and cost and facilities while transaction and process of delivery showed to be the least 123 APPENDIX 7: Descriptive Statistics for independent and dependent variables Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation CAE 440 2.14 5.00 3.4620 64923 REL_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.5273 83717 CAP_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4386 81044 CAP_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.4773 83184 CAP_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.5159 78117 CAP_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.4250 87163 ATT_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.3750 85261 ATT_4 440 2.00 5.00 3.4750 84805 Valid N (listwise) 440 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation TRA 440 1.40 5.00 3.4591 66856 REL_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4455 82486 REL_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.5932 77867 CAP_5 440 1.00 5.00 3.4045 85109 ATT_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4591 80043 ATT_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.3932 84165 Valid N (listwise) 440 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation PRO 440 1.83 5.00 3.5000 62523 EMP_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.4636 79207 EMP_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.4523 78569 PRO_1 440 2.00 5.00 3.5000 73320 PRO_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.5614 77891 PRO_3 440 2.00 5.00 3.5295 77785 PRO_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.4932 79575 Valid N (listwise) 440 124 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation FAC 440 1.00 5.00 3.5041 70286 FAC_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.6250 83914 FAC_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.5750 87943 FAC_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.4250 84509 FAC_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.4682 86115 FAC_5 440 1.00 5.00 3.4273 98701 Valid N (listwise) 440 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation TAC 440 1.25 5.00 3.4591 73613 TAC_2 440 1.00 5.00 3.3932 90428 TAC_3 440 1.00 5.00 3.4636 88188 TAC_4 440 1.00 5.00 3.5091 88516 TAC_5 440 1.00 5.00 3.4705 91260 Valid N (listwise) 440 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation SAT 440 2.00 5.00 3.4856 64764 SAT_1 440 1.00 5.00 3.4136 77359 SAT_2 440 2.00 5.00 3.6045 77429 SAT_3 440 2.00 5.00 3.4386 74910 Valid N (listwise) 440 125 APPENDIX 8: Results of Tests Result of Independent Samples T-Test according to gender Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2- Mean Std Error 95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed 056 814 Upper -.173 438 863 -.01079 06244 -.13351 11194 -.173 410.834 863 -.01079 06251 -.13367 11210 430 438 667 02765 06429 -.09871 15400 432 418.716 666 02765 06403 -.09821 15350 717 438 474 04307 06010 -.07505 16119 716 411.693 474 04307 06014 -.07514 16129 507 438 613 03425 06758 -.09858 16707 504 404.181 614 03425 06793 -.09930 16779 378 438 706 02672 07079 -.11241 16586 377 408.877 707 02672 07096 -.11276 16621 436 438 663 02718 06228 -.09522 14958 437 414.004 662 02718 06222 -.09513 14949 CAE Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 067 796 TRA Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 009 925 PRO Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 443 506 FAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 186 666 TAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 000 991 SAT Equal variances not assumed 126 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Age Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 1.394 436 244 TRA 2.450 436 063 PRO 434 436 729 FAC 1.444 436 229 TAC 821 436 483 SAT 322 436 809 ANOVA CAE TRA PRO FAC TAC SAT Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig Between Groups 2.648 883 2.110 098 Within Groups 182.390 436 418 Total 185.039 439 Between Groups 850 283 632 595 Within Groups 195.374 436 448 Total 196.224 439 Between Groups 1.278 426 1.091 353 Within Groups 170.333 436 391 Total 171.611 439 Between Groups 1.630 543 1.101 348 Within Groups 215.242 436 494 Total 216.873 439 Between Groups 1.670 557 1.028 380 Within Groups 236.218 436 542 Total 237.889 439 Between Groups 2.675 892 2.143 094 Within Groups 181.456 436 416 Total 184.131 439 127 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Marital status Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 372 437 689 TRA 1.290 437 276 PRO 798 437 451 FAC 1.276 437 280 TAC 756 437 470 SAT 544 437 581 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 1.214 Within Groups 182.611 437 418 Total 185.039 439 811 406 Within Groups 195.412 437 447 Total 196.224 439 2.085 1.043 Within Groups 169.526 437 388 Total 171.611 439 1.610 805 Within Groups 215.263 437 493 Total 216.873 439 2.514 1.257 Within Groups 235.375 437 539 Total 237.889 439 2.691 1.345 Within Groups 181.440 437 415 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 2.427 Between Groups TRA df F Sig 2.904 056 907 404 2.688 069 1.634 196 2.333 098 3.240 090 128 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Education attainment Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 710 435 585 TRA 1.922 435 106 PRO 722 435 577 FAC 4.201 435 102 TAC 2.134 435 076 SAT 4.640 435 101 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 1.623 Within Groups 178.546 435 410 Total 185.039 439 4.650 1.162 Within Groups 191.574 435 440 Total 196.224 439 6.546 1.637 Within Groups 165.065 435 379 Total 171.611 439 6.447 1.612 Within Groups 210.426 435 484 Total 216.873 439 10.054 2.513 Within Groups 227.835 435 524 Total 237.889 439 6.774 1.694 Within Groups 177.357 435 408 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 6.493 Between Groups TRA df F Sig 3.955 004 2.639 033 4.313 002 3.332 011 4.799 001 4.154 003 129 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Occupation Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 1.467 434 199 TRA 1.507 434 186 PRO 1.053 434 386 FAC 2.008 434 176 TAC 1.448 434 206 SAT 1.799 434 112 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 1.030 Within Groups 179.888 434 414 Total 185.039 439 8.435 1.687 Within Groups 187.789 434 433 Total 196.224 439 4.586 917 Within Groups 167.025 434 385 Total 171.611 439 11.728 2.346 Within Groups 205.145 434 473 Total 216.873 439 21.300 4.260 Within Groups 216.589 434 499 Total 237.889 439 9.957 1.991 Within Groups 174.174 434 401 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 5.151 Between Groups TRA df F Sig 2.485 031 3.899 002 2.383 038 4.962 000 8.536 000 4.962 000 130 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Monthly income Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 1.107 435 353 TRA 1.436 435 221 PRO 1.499 435 201 FAC 1.254 435 287 TAC 901 435 463 SAT 1.535 435 191 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 311 Within Groups 183.796 435 423 Total 185.039 439 1.418 355 Within Groups 194.805 435 448 Total 196.224 439 561 140 Within Groups 171.050 435 393 Total 171.611 439 1.382 345 Within Groups 215.491 435 495 Total 216.873 439 1.029 257 Within Groups 236.860 435 545 Total 237.889 439 1.515 379 Within Groups 182.616 435 420 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 1.242 Between Groups TRA df F Sig .735 568 792 531 357 839 697 594 472 756 902 463 131 Result of One-way ANOVA according to Frequency of use Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig CAE 705 437 495 TRA 5.563 437 104 PRO 1.508 437 222 FAC 355 437 701 TAC 13.875 437 200 SAT 5.216 437 106 ANOVA Sum of Squares Between Groups CAE 1.529 Within Groups 181.981 437 416 Total 185.039 439 1.446 723 Within Groups 194.777 437 446 Total 196.224 439 2.145 1.073 Within Groups 169.466 437 388 Total 171.611 439 1.407 704 Within Groups 215.466 437 493 Total 216.873 439 1.536 768 Within Groups 236.352 437 541 Total 237.889 439 2.228 1.114 Within Groups 181.903 437 416 Total 184.131 439 Between Groups PRO Between Groups FAC Between Groups TAC Between Groups SAT Mean Square 3.058 Between Groups TRA df F Sig 3.671 026 1.623 019 2.766 004 1.427 041 1.420 043 2.676 040 132 Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to the relationship Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2- Mean Std Error 95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed 8.573 004 Upper -.921 438 357 -.08763 09511 -.27455 09929 -1.121 78.146 266 -.08763 07820 -.24331 06806 -.146 438 884 -.01433 09803 -.20700 17833 -.166 73.628 868 -.01433 08610 -.18591 15724 -.468 438 640 -.04290 09166 -.22304 13724 -.576 79.020 566 -.04290 07452 -.19123 10543 191 438 849 01967 10306 -.18288 22222 192 67.408 848 01967 10218 -.18427 22360 -.680 438 497 -.07333 10788 -.28536 13871 -.760 72.563 450 -.07333 09646 -.26559 11894 091 438 927 00866 09496 -.17798 19530 098 70.271 922 00866 08855 -.16794 18527 CAE Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 2.041 154 TRA Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 4.039 045 PRO Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 003 959 FAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 434 510 TAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 622 431 SAT Equal variances not assumed 133 Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to Extra fee payment Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2- Mean Std Error 95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed 888 346 Upper -.008 438 994 -.00080 10127 -.19985 19824 -.008 54.543 994 -.00080 10701 -.21530 21369 -1.278 438 202 -.13308 10409 -.33767 07150 -1.292 56.340 202 -.13308 10302 -.33943 07326 -.955 438 340 -.09306 09743 -.28455 09842 -.967 56.408 337 -.09306 09620 -.28575 09963 -.667 438 505 -.07312 10958 -.28849 14226 -.614 53.873 542 -.07312 11905 -.31180 16557 078 438 938 00894 11483 -.21674 23462 075 55.003 940 00894 11918 -.22990 24778 322 438 748 03248 10101 -.16605 23101 309 54.902 759 03248 10525 -.17845 24341 CAE Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 100 752 TRA Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 114 735 PRO Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 019 892 FAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 001 971 TAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 201 654 SAT Equal variances not assumed 134 Result of Independent-Samples T-Test according to Residence Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2- Mean Std Error 95% Confidence tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed 766 382 Upper 1.653 438 099 11618 07030 -.02200 25435 1.620 193.055 107 11618 07173 -.02530 25765 974 438 330 07069 07254 -.07189 21327 939 187.582 349 07069 07526 -.07778 21916 1.739 438 083 11773 06768 -.01530 25075 1.687 189.570 093 11773 06978 -.01993 25538 962 438 337 07334 07627 -.07656 22323 917 184.261 360 07334 07997 -.08445 23112 1.025 438 306 08187 07987 -.07510 23884 1.006 193.334 316 08187 08142 -.07871 24246 1.536 438 125 10778 07016 -.03011 24568 1.501 192.045 135 10778 07180 -.03383 24940 CAE Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 2.738 099 TRA Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 1.034 310 PRO Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 3.590 059 FAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 164 686 TAC Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 492 483 SAT Equal variances not assumed 135 APPENDIX 9: Results of Regression Variables Entered/Removed Model Variables Entered FREQ, JOB, EDU a Variables Removed b Method Enter TRA, FAC, TAC, PRO, CAE Enter b a Dependent Variable: SAT b All requested variables entered Model Summaryc Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std Error of the Durbin-Watson Estimate 240a 057 051 63093 849b 721 716 34520 2.159 a Predictors: (Constant), FREQ, JOB, EDU b Predictors: (Constant), FREQ, JOB, EDU, TRA, FAC, TAC, PRO, CAE c Dependent Variable: SAT ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares Regression df Mean Square 10.570 3.523 Residual 173.561 436 398 Total 184.131 439 Regression 132.771 16.596 51.360 431 119 184.131 439 Residual Total a Dependent Variable: SAT b Predictors: (Constant), FREQ, JOB, EDU c Predictors: (Constant), FREQ, JOB, EDU, TRA, FAC, TAC, PRO, CAE F Sig 8.851 000b 139.273 000c 136 a Coefficients Model Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std t Sig 3.209 170 EDU 082 032 JOB -.065 FREQ (Constant) Correlations Collinearity Interval for B Beta Error (Constant) 95.0% Confidence Statistics Lower Upper Zero- Bound Bound order Partial Part Tolerance VIF 18.879 000 2.875 3.544 125 2.590 010 020 145 157 123 120 931 1.074 022 -.143 -2.974 003 -.109 -.022 -.172 -.141 -.138 932 1.074 127 050 119 2.553 011 029 225 110 121 119 998 1.002 247 132 1.867 063 -.013 507 EDU -.001 018 -.002 -.077 938 -.036 033 157 -.004 -.002 896 1.116 JOB -.012 012 -.026 -.944 346 -.036 013 -.172 -.045 -.024 882 1.134 FREQ 041 028 038 1.483 139 -.013 095 110 071 038 975 1.025 CAE 328 045 329 7.253 000 239 417 776 330 185 315 3.172 TRA 130 043 134 3.026 003 045 214 721 144 077 330 3.026 PRO 094 045 090 2.103 036 006 181 709 101 053 350 2.857 FAC 155 034 168 4.608 000 089 221 680 217 117 485 2.062 TAC 218 036 247 6.062 000 147 288 738 280 154 389 2.574 a Dependent Variable: SAT Excluded Variablesa Model Beta In t Sig Partial Correlation Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF Minimum Tolerance CAE 762 b 24.662 000 764 946 1.057 910 TRA 705b 21.705 000 721 987 1.013 924 PRO 693 b 20.321 000 698 957 1.045 905 FAC 659b 18.472 000 663 953 1.049 915 TAC b 21.843 000 723 934 1.071 899 727 a Dependent Variable: SAT b Predictors in the Model: (Constant), FREQ, JOB, EDU 137 Correlations ABSRES1 Correlation Coefficient CAE TRA PRO FAC TAC 1.000 -.111 -.160 -.123 -.079 -.100 089 101 410 097 236 440 440 440 440 440 440 ABSRES Spearman's rho Sig (2-tailed) N * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) ... COMMITTEES OF TAY HO DISTRICT HOANG VAN HAO This study was conducted to evaluate the citizens' satisfaction with public administrative services at the Ward People’s Committees of Tay Ho District The. .. components of public administrative services delivery at the Ward People’s Committees of Tay Ho District; ii determine the citizens satisfaction of the public administrative services at the Ward People’s... general and the leaders of Tay Ho District in specific can know the context of the citizens satisfaction towards the delivery of the public administrative services at grassroots level The administrators