Garbage uncollected for 4 days
TriagedCommunity bins overflowing, dogs scattering waste.
A civic accountability platform for Indian urban local bodies
Bengaluru · Ward profile
Civic Health Score for Koramangala ward, covering roughly 175 thousand residents. Six service components, scored on the same 0–100 scale used for every ward under measurement.
Civic Health Score
Score twelve months ago
Open issues
Weakest service
Monthly Civic Health Score for this ward. Scored on the same 0–100 scale as every other ward, so the level is comparable, not just the shape.
Monthly score, oldest first.
| Month | Koramangala score |
|---|---|
| Aug ’24 | 75 |
| Sep ’24 | 76 |
| Oct ’24 | 76 |
| Nov ’24 | 74 |
| Dec ’24 | 72 |
| Jan ’25 | 70 |
| Feb ’25 | 69 |
| Mar ’25 | 70 |
| Apr ’25 | 72 |
| May ’25 | 74 |
| Jun ’25 | 74 |
| Jul ’25 | 73 |
| Aug ’25 | 70 |
| Sep ’25 | 68 |
| Oct ’25 | 65 |
| Nov ’25 | 65 |
| Dec ’25 | 66 |
| Jan ’26 | 68 |
| Feb ’26 | 70 |
| Mar ’26 | 71 |
| Apr ’26 | 70 |
| May ’26 | 68 |
| Jun ’26 | 66 |
| Jul ’26 | 69 |
Recomputed hourly from published municipal records and citizen reports. Methodology version 2.4.
| Month | Koramangala score |
|---|---|
| Aug ’24 | 75 |
| Sep ’24 | 76 |
| Oct ’24 | 76 |
| Nov ’24 | 74 |
| Dec ’24 | 72 |
| Jan ’25 | 70 |
| Feb ’25 | 69 |
| Mar ’25 | 70 |
| Apr ’25 | 72 |
| May ’25 | 74 |
| Jun ’25 | 74 |
| Jul ’25 | 73 |
| Aug ’25 | 70 |
| Sep ’25 | 68 |
| Oct ’25 | 65 |
| Nov ’25 | 65 |
| Dec ’25 | 66 |
| Jan ’26 | 68 |
| Feb ’26 | 70 |
| Mar ’26 | 71 |
| Apr ’26 | 70 |
| May ’26 | 68 |
| Jun ’26 | 66 |
| Jul ’26 | 69 |
Each service scored 0–100 on the same scale as the overall index. Weakest first, because that is the one that needs a work order.
Component score and band per service.
| Service | Band | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Roads | Needs attention | 62 |
| Sanitation | Needs attention | 64 |
| Sewage & drainage | Fair | 66 |
| Education | Fair | 68 |
| Water | Fair | 71 |
| Electricity | Good | 80 |
Components are the weighted inputs to the overall score. Weights are published in the methodology and have not changed since version 2.4.
| Service | Band | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Roads | Needs attention | 62 |
| Sanitation | Needs attention | 64 |
| Sewage & drainage | Fair | 66 |
| Education | Fair | 68 |
| Water | Fair | 71 |
| Electricity | Good | 80 |
4 published reports in scope, by current stage.
Report count and share per resolution stage.
| Status | Reports | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Submitted | 0 | 0.0% |
| Triaged | 4 | 100.0% |
| In progress | 0 | 0.0% |
| Resolved | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disputed | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 4 | 100% |
| Status | Reports | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Submitted | 0 | 0.0% |
| Triaged | 4 | 100.0% |
| In progress | 0 | 0.0% |
| Resolved | 0 | 0.0% |
| Disputed | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 4 | 100% |
The public record. Every entry carries a reference number and stays visible after closure.
Community bins overflowing, dogs scattering waste.
Tap water smells of sewage, residents reporting illness.
Speed-breaker crumbled, vehicles hitting hard at speed.
Open manhole on footpath, hazard at night.
Names appear only where the citizen chose to give one. Phone numbers are never published.
Content last reviewed 2026-07-24. GIGW 3.0 · WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Compare this ward against others in the city dashboard, or read the scoring methodology.