Social Accountability Tools: an Overview Transparency and Accountability Programme Workshop

1. 1 Social Accountability Tools: an Overview Transparency and Accountability Programme Workshop Johannesburg, 3rd May 2011 Russell Wildeman Director ANSA- Africa

2. Economic Governance Programme (EGP) Mission of EGP The mission of EGP is to democratise economic decision-making processes and resource management through sustained citizen engagement, to achieve sustainable socio-economic justice in Africa.   EGP conducts research, capacity building and advocacy. Projects: Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in Africa; Right to Know, Right to Education; Public Expenditure & Small-holding Agriculture; Public finance in South Africa; Child Rights’ Network

3. Presently, ANSA-Africa is housed within the EGP of Idasa Overall Objective: Enable citizens and institutions to use Social Accountability knowledge, skills and methods to enhance their ability to contribute to effective governance and service delivery in Africa. Affiliated Network for Social Accountability in Africa (ANSA Africa)

4. Project Objectives Objectives of the Network: Deliver training programs on specific tools and techniques; Provide technical assistance to different countries so that the quality of social accountability initiatives is enhanced; and, Share country experiences and lessons from social accountability and demand-side governance initiatives regionally and globally.

5. What is Social Accountability? Ordinary citizens and civil society organizations hold government actors responsible for their actions Mechanisms of social accountability can be initiated and supported by the state, citizens, or both The key is enduring and effective engagement TOOLS include: Participatory budgeting, Public expenditure tracking, Citizen monitoring and evaluation of public service delivery

6. What is Social Accountability? The key is enduring and effective engagement This implies actions from State and non-State actors, e.g., compulsory schooling and welfare benefits in Brazil Although reconciliation of demand side actions and supply side response is what we are aiming for, there is also The need to start and facilitate discussions within supply side organisations (coherence, same standards of rights and service) And of course crucially within civil society-us confronting ourselves and recognising we are not the same/our needs are different

7. Social accountability tools viewed from the budget process Social accountability tools Public expenditure cycle

8. Participatory Budgeting (PB) Implemented at the budget formulation stage Formulation of public policies and budgets involve direct citizen/Civil Society Organization participation, ensuring aligning of funds with local community spending priorities Ideally, process incorporates direct citizen participation during monitoring of budget execution Pioneered at the municipal level in Brazil during the late 1980s (Public meetings involving communities, citizensvoted on their budgetary priorities and submitted information to government)

9. Participatory Budgeting (PB) Participatory budget model extended beyond Brazil to local councils in Ecuador and Serbia. Many African countries also leaning more towards PB No single model 1) Participation (direct/representative; number of participants; local government participation) 2) Inclusion (quota of participants; specific budget allocations for marginalized groups) 3) Financial dimension (Amount of funds available; Level of budget transparency; Portion of budget assigned to PB) 4) Legal dimension (degree of formalisation)

10. Key purposes of implementing PB Increasing efficiency in budget allocation Improving accountability and management Reducing social exclusion and poverty Increasing trust between government and citizens Strengthening democratic practices

11. Key issues to consider in PB Community cohesion and maturity to effect trade-offs without any deleterious conflict The percentage of budgetary resources subject to PB principles Lines of accountability: who makes the budget and who should be held accountable for it? PB and governance: how far can we push it?

12. Independent Budget Analysis IBA involves research, advocacy, and dissemination using available government finance documents. These efforts by CSOs should be: Independent Technically rigorous Timely Widely accessible Relevant and topical

13. Independent Budget Analysis IBA mostly involves a 4-step process4-step process: Identifying entry points Obtaining information Analyzing information (5 criteria: progress, adequacy, equity, priority, and fiscal sustainability) Disseminating information

14. Independent Budget Analysis (IBA) Rationale for employing IBA Impact analysis of budget allocations Demystifying the technical content Budget training Budget advocacy and public campaigns Tools Independent budget analysis (by sector/area) Budget trainings Budget guides Alternative budgets

15. Key issues to consider in IBA IBA and the sectoral curse-how to analyse and advocate without destroying the bigger picture? Government information challenges and the skills needed to do this work Organisational decisions needed to sustain this work, thus requiring resources (both money and time) Value-based budget analysis: how to manage ideological conflict in CSOs

16. Expenditure Tracking Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) track flows of funds and materials from the central government to local service providers, via regional and local governments, in order to determine how much of the originally allocated resources reach each level, in particular frontline service providers PETS can be used to: track funds both from the government and from development partners monitor specific elements of expenditure categories: investment projects, salaries, project budgets, etc.

17. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys PETS collect factual data, as opposed to perception surveys, which collect subjective data PETS consist of the collection of data from different levels of government, in particular service delivery units PETS rely on records, but also on interviews of head teachers, health facility managers, water supply centers, road construction supervisors, etc.

18. Main Findings of PETS Leakage rates can be extremely high Leakage occur at specific tiers within the government Delays in budget transfers are common When combined with other surveys, PETS can help generate additional findings, e.g.: Public spending is often ‘regressive’ User fees constitute an important part of service costs Public spending contributes to better social outcomes

19. Key issues to consider in PETS An important anti-corruption tool and could be used in conjunction with other social accountability tools Is there a relationship between the use of PETS and the information environments in various countries? Its attempts at recording resources and materials (inventory) makes it less amenable to answer input-output questions or efficiency questions

20. Tools at the auditing and review stages of the budget process Community Score Cards Citizen Score Cards Public procurement monitoring Social Audits Citizen feedback mechanisms

21. Tools at the auditing and review stages of the budget process Implemented at the final stage of the public financial management cycle Monitoring public services implementation and community projects often according to indicators selected by citizen groups and communities Tracks factors such as adequacy of funds, access, quality and choice in services, targeting of beneficiaries, the capacity of service providers, their incentive systems, or the flow of funds and information regarding service delivery Findings are presented at meetings where users and service providers meet

22. Community Score Cards (CSC) “Community” = intended users or beneficiaries of a public service or a development project (such as building a school) CSC is both a process and a tool by which community members evaluate performance It combines quantitative surveys with qualitative assessment of services through focus groups of service providers and service users

23. Community Score Cards Six stages: Informing all relevant actors about the process Input tracking scorecard = inventory of resources that have been budgeted or planned for Performance scorecard= users select indicators and assign scores for each indicator in order to analyze the performance of the service or project Self-evaluation scorecard = service providers generate indicators and evaluate their own performance. Interface meeting = where the service providers and users present their scorecards and negotiate and prepare a joint action plan Institutionalization

24. Issues to consider using Community Score Cards In focus group meetings, group dynamics have to be carefully considered Such a step would require meetings to be moderated and then obviously you have questions about the moderators/their identity/legitimacy In a context of corruption, the idea that community is separate from service providers and power brokers not always so in reality, thus making meetings much more difficult mechanism to assess performance Meetings may generate valid resolutions for the way forward but adequate representation necessary

25. Citizen Report Cards (CRC) CRCs collect citizen feedback on the performance of a given service, based on their experience as users of such services Information is collected through household and individual surveys in which citizens grade the overall quality of a service or facility Areas addressed: access, quality, and reliability of service delivery; problems encountered by users; responsiveness of service providers; gaps in service delivery coverage

26. Citizen Report Cards (CRC) Seven key stages: Scoping and planning (which service; who are the users) Selection of implementing partners Survey design (with help of focus groups) Survey execution Data collection and analysis and findings (the summary of user ratings is called the Citizen Report Card. The service providers’ response should be integrated into the final Citizen Report Card) Dissemination of results Institutionalization

27. Key issues to consider in use of Citizen Report Cards (CRC) Technical requirements may tax some service delivery organisations Implementation period fairly lengthy so requires sustained awareness and mobilisation from CSOs to keep the agenda active Because often initiated by service delivery entities, analysis and dissemination strategies must be carefully scrutinised Strategy and finesse needed in providing “feedback” and attempting to change the service delivery regime Usefulness depends on community mediators and skills at understanding analysis and dissemination strategies

29. Procurement Monitoring Process in which citizens are trained to oversee all stages of the public procurement process Monitoring can take place at all stages of the public procurement process (Pre-bidding, Competitive Bidding, Bid submission and Evaluation, Awarding of Contract, and Contract Implementation) Tools: integrity pacts, social audits, and e-procurement.

30. Benefits of Procurement Monitoring Unlike IBA, analysis and monitoring space and time bound, which makes it more tractable The compressed time frame of most contracts means detailed analyses and comments available soon Requires considerable networking and diplomatic skills to extract operational information crucial for assessment and analysis

31. Key issues to consider in use of Procurement Monitoring The information environment is crucial for success of the monitoring effort CSOs should try and work out where best to invest in time and research (awarding stage, specification stage or outcomes and results) This requires co-operation across sectors and requires different kinds of professionals working together In a context involving national and international role players, doubly hard because of the incentives to safeguard the conditions of the contracts

32. Social Audits Process that collects, analyzes, and shares information; Central concern: social objectives; Purpose: Vary in scope and purpose Broad – specific Outcomes: Evidence-based, accurate, and impartial information Raised awareness Improved access to information Tool for exposing corruption Better stakeholder influence, progress monitoring

33. Social Audits Six main steps: Defining objectives Identifying and training facilitators Collecting and analyzing data Disseminating information Holding a public hearing Follow-up and reporting

34. Key issues to consider in the use of Social Audits Time Costs Organization Data collection Levels of participation Manipulated findings Response from State entities following public meetings (follow-up)

35. Citizen Feedback Mechanisms Simple, Small-scale, Less time and resources Tools: citizens’ charters, citizens’ juries, public hearings, citizen advisory boards, study circles, integrity pacts, and online grievance redress tracking systems Citizens’ Charters: Pact between community and service providers specifying: Standards of services Roles and responsibilities Procedures for grievance redress

36. Citizen Feedback Mechanisms Citizens’ Juries: Link between policy makers and citizens: Group of community members investigate issues Make recommendations Goal: improve quality of decision-making Public Hearings: Platform for voicing needs & concerns Often led by CSOs Mobilize community and implement hearings Open to citizens, include public officials Concludes with public officials’ responses and commitments Summarized in report and publicized

37. Citizen Feedback Mechanisms Citizen Advisory Board: Communities recommend actions to public representatives Group of community volunteers Work with civil society, media, public and private agencies Study issues and make recommendations Common agenda built Study Circles: Involve communities in dialogue and action Small citizen peer groups Choose and examine issues Combine with other study circles Public official support with funding and partnerships

38. Citizen Feedback Mechanisms Integrity Pacts: Helps government, business, and civil society fight corruption in public contracting Adopt series of measures to enhance transparency and accountability Establish contractual rights between citizens and government Online Grievance Redress Tracking System: Uses technology to record grievances and collect feedback Government receives calls, registers complaints, forwards information Individuals track status of complaint Process evaluated on rapidity and responsiveness Spot-checks of local bureaucrat performance

39. Other social accountability tools Multi-stakeholder Forums: brings together diverse constituencies to address a common social issue Purpose to arrive at a consensual understanding of what should be done Skilled and legitimate mediators needed to prevent power imbalances and domination of the proceedings Is voluntary in nature Corporatist arrangements: In a formal institutional way, bring together diverse constituencies to Discuss government policies and reach a common understanding in solving policy problems Participants are representatives of government, labour, community and business Pressure may induce false agreements which may fall apart when full import of decisions become clear

40. Other social accountability tools Public Dialogues: Often used by proponents and advocates of an issue to raise awareness Participants could be from different national jurisdictions and functions Willingness to listen to others who may have a different point of view Skilled mediation needed to “protect” participants Often the first step towards the formalisation of contact in taking forward social issues

41. Social accountability and governance SA tools are subject to manipulation by whoever has control over it, good or bad Social activists should guard against the confinement of SA tools to the local level and ignore the joined-up nature of national policy and politics A teasing question is always: should we do what we can within limits or should we do what we must to advance good governance? SA tools must make ungovernable the idea that diverse community and societal needs must perforce be settled by a government agency such as national treasuries Above all, SA tools must discourage a sector consciousness becoming petrified because of the bad governance implications

42. Over to you!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Contact details: rwildeman@idasa.org.za www.idasa.org www.ansa-africa.net