Slovakia
Institutional Module
The Community Trust Index measures the level of trust in the Slovak Red Cross by assessing its competencies and core values. It examines key subdimensions that shape trust perceptions, alongside community views on the Institutional module. The findings highlight both strengths and areas for improvement, with the aim of strengthening community engagement and guiding policy development. Ultimately, the index seeks to foster a more trusted and cohesive environment, contributing to Slovakia’s sustainable development and the well-being of its communities.
Sampling
The sampling employed a random stratified approach in selected districts where the Slovak Red Cross (SRC) operates. Stratification was based on age group, gender, with additional distinctions made between migrant and host community populations to ensure representation across diverse communities.
The survey was conducted by the Slovak Red Cross (SRC) in October 2025 as part of the Community Trust Index project. SRC volunteers administered the questionnaire, focusing on issues of trust within the framework of the Building Trust initiative. In total, the survey reached 2,268 respondents across selected districts.
See metrics: Metrics
Geographic
The sample distribution broadly reflects the population structure across the selected regions and provinces within Slovakia. Most notably, Bratislava is heavily under-represented, comprising only 8.8% of the sample despite accounting for 42.4% of the actual population. In contrast, respondents from Central and Eastern Slovakia are over-represented; Central Slovakia makes up 35.1% of the survey (vs. 13.6% population), and Eastern Slovakia sits at 39.4% (vs. 27% population). Western Slovakia is the only region where the sampling (16.7%) closely aligns with the population benchmark (17.1%).
Coverage
Gender and Age
The sample broadly reflects the population structure by age and gender. Women 35+ are well aligned with estimated population data, though women 18-34 are slightly over-represented. Among men, the 18–34 group is close to population levels, while men 35-49 are under-represented. Also, men above 40 are under-represented slightly. These small imbalances may require post-stratification adjustment.
The education profile of the sample is closely aligned with population data. University and secondary levels match well (23.3% vs. 22.7% and 40.7% vs. 43.4%). Primary education is slightly under-represented (24.7% vs. 27.6%), while those with no formal education are somewhat over-represented (11.2% vs. 6.4%).
Limitations
The data presented in this study should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations related to sampling and representativeness. While the survey provides valuable insights, certain groups and regions are over- or under-represented compared with population distributions. For example, Bratislava province is under-represented, women aged 18-34 are over-represented, and most men age groups are under-represented.
To reduce these imbalances, post-stratification adjustments were applied using key variables such as age, gender, education, and employment status. These corrections improve comparability but cannot fully eliminate bias introduced by the sampling approach. As a result, the findings should be viewed as broadly indicative rather than fully representative of the wider population, and caution is advised when generalizing beyond the surveyed groups.
Survey Results
The charts below present the survey answers as percentages, offering visualization of the Community Trust levels by subdimensions. They illustrate the distribution of community’s perceptions of the competencies and values.
Perception of trust
Competencies
Values
Additional Questions
Contextual questions
This section presents findings on community members’ experiences with and behaviors toward the Red Cross. These questions explore interactions, perceptions, and engagement patterns, offering insights into how the Red Cross is viewed and utilized within the community.
Experiences
Though only 37.6% received support, engagement outcomes are highly positive. Around 83% said engagement improved their life situation. Over 50% reported that migrant support activities positively influenced their trust and perception, while nearly a third saw no change, indicating strengthened reputation without significant alienation.
Channels
Awareness of communities
Score
This score is derived from responses to questions that assess perceptions of competencies and values, providing a comprehensive measure of trust. A higher score indicates stronger trust, suggesting that community members believe their needs are being addressed and their values are respected. Learn more about scoring method: Methods
Overall Score
The following chart presents an analysis of competencies and values, each rated on a scale from 0 to 10. For competencies, the strongest perceptions are in Effectiveness (8.84), Awareness (8.81), and Capability (8.8), while Relevance (7.46) scores the lowest, highlighting an area where improvement may be needed.
For values, the highest ratings are for Inclusiveness (9.36), Respectfulness (9.34), and Integrity (8.75), reflecting positive perceptions of these qualities. In contrast, Transparency (6.74) and Neutrality (7.4) score significantly lower, suggesting challenges in these dimensions.
Overall, the data indicates that while competencies such as capability and responsiveness are viewed positively, and values like inclusiveness and fairness are well-regarded, there is a clear need to strengthen openness, integrity, and especially transparency.
Learn more about weighting process: Weighting
Score by factors
The chart illustrates perceived competencies and values across various demographics, including age, gender, area of residence, main language, education, province, district, as well as experiences with the SRC such as being a beneficiary, migrant or volunteering. Respondents who have had direct interaction with the organization—specifically Migrants (Ukraine), beneficiaries, and those who received information—consistently rate the organization highly, with scores typically exceeding 9.0 across both Competencies and Values.
In contrast, the “Others” group (the general public with presumably less direct contact) gives significantly lower ratings. This disconnect is most severe in Transparency (5.33) and Relevance (5.97), suggesting that while direct beneficiaries deeply value the aid provided, the broader public feels less informed about and less connected to the organization’s mission.
Distribution of mean scores for values and competencies per demographic questions
Score by respondent profile
The score analysis by respondent profile reveals that Ukrainian migrants generally rate competencies and values higher than once-beneficiaries, those who received information, and others. Among competencies, the strongest perceptions are in Accessible (ranging from 9.49 to 9.59 for non-migrant groups) and Responsiveness, while Relevance (5.97 for Others) emerges as a weakest area. In terms of values, Inclusiveness (9.54–9.70) and Respectfulness (9.58–9.60) stand out positively for non-migrant groups, whereas Transparency scores lowest across all groups (5.33 for Others, with other groups ranging from 8.12 to 8.33).
This indicates that while trust is particularly strong among once-beneficiaries and those who received information, Non-migrants (Others) consistently score both competencies and values lower — especially on Relevance and Transparency — highlighting the need to strengthen these dimensions to enhance overall trust and engagement with this specific population.
Methods and Metrics
Metrics
Gender
| Gender | Total Respondents | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Female | 1053 | 55.4 |
| Male | 838 | 44.1 |
| Other or did not answer | 11 | 0.6 |
| Total | 1902 | 100.0 |
Age
| Age Group | Total Respondents | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 18-34 | 504 | 26.5 |
| 35-49 | 520 | 27.3 |
| 50-64 | 449 | 23.6 |
| 65+ | 429 | 22.6 |
Geographic
| Oblast | Kraj | Total Respondents | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bratislava | Bratislava | 168 | 100.0 |
| Bratislava | TOTAL | 168 | 100.0 |
| Central Slovakia | Nitra | 468 | 70.1 |
| Central Slovakia | Banská Bystrica | 200 | 29.9 |
| Central Slovakia | TOTAL | 668 | 100.0 |
| Eastern Slovakia | Prešov | 406 | 54.2 |
| Eastern Slovakia | Košice | 343 | 45.8 |
| Eastern Slovakia | TOTAL | 749 | 100.0 |
| Western Slovakia | Nitra | 160 | 50.5 |
| Western Slovakia | Trenčín | 157 | 49.5 |
| Western Slovakia | TOTAL | 317 | 100.0 |
Relationship with RC
| Profile | Total Respondents |
|---|---|
| Migrant: Ukraine | 323 |
| Once beneficiary: Yes | 716 |
| Received information: Yes | 1005 |
Methods
Scoring methodology
To determine the score, we employ the following method:
- Survey Structure The CTI survey includes multiple questions grouped
under sub-dimensions of two main categories:
- Competencies (e.g., reliability, effectiveness, technical proficiency)
- Values (e.g., ethics, integrity, fairness, transparency)
Sub-Dimension Scoring
Each sub-dimension comprises several survey items (questions).Respondents answer on a Likert-type scale (1 to 4 - Don’t not is excluded). For each sub-dimension:
Sub-dimension Score = ∑ (Weighted Response Scores) / Number of Items
If weights are not empirically derived, equal weighting is typically applied to each item.
- Dimension Scoring
Once all sub-dimension scores are calculated, the Competency Score and Values Score are each derived as the arithmetic mean of their respective sub-dimension scores:
Competency Score = ∑(Sub-dimension Scores for Competency) /𝑛
Values Score = ∑(Sub-dimension Scores for Values)/𝑚
where 𝑛 and 𝑚 are the number of sub-dimensions in each category.
Overall Scoring
The final Community Trust Index score is the arithmetic mean of the Competency and Values scores:
- CTI Score = (Competency Score + Values Score)/2
Weighting
Weighting vs. unweighting
To correct demographic deviations from the overall population, we applied a technique called raking. This method adjusts results based on variables such as age, gender, province, education level, and geographic (urban/rural) to align the sample with the population distribution. Data sources included the 2025 Slovakia Population Estimate (Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic) (https://krajskemesta.statistics.sk/?lang=en).
The weighted results are broadly consistent with the unweighted data, showing only small differences across most dimensions. The largest variation appears for openness and transparency, where weighted scores drop more noticeably compared with unweighted results. This suggests that weighting slightly reduces overall averages but does not substantially alter the general trends in competencies and values across respondent groups.
Drivers Correlation
Correlation matrix
Significance testing
Significance testing
When checking for significant differences between the groups we use a t-test to compare means of the competency and value questions, for all the questions, the results are indeed not significant due to the small sample size. The table shows whether a results for Ukrainian migrants, non-migrants and others are significantly different form each other. We used a 95% confidence level and corrected the p-values using a multiple comparisons correction.
| Pillar | Drivers | Migrant: Ukraine-Once beneficiary: Yes | Migrant: Ukraine-Others | Once beneficiary: Yes-Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competency | Capabillity | No | Yes | Yes |
| Competency | Responsiveness | No | Yes | Yes |
| Competency | Awareness | No | Yes | Yes |
| Competency | Accessible | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Competency | Relevance | No | Yes | Yes |
| Competency | Effectiveness | No | Yes | Yes |
| Competency | Openness | No | Yes | Yes |
| Value | Kindness | No | Yes | Yes |
| Value | Fairness | No | Yes | Yes |
| Value | Inclusiveness | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Value | Respectfulness | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Value | Engagement | No | Yes | Yes |
| Value | Integrity | No | Yes | Yes |
| Value | Neutrality | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Value | Transparency | No | Yes | Yes |