Session 5 External assessment methodologies: Participatory Corruption Appraisals (PCAs)

1. Session 5 External assessment methodologies: Participatory Corruption Appraisals (PCAs) in Indonesia Marie Laberge, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre

2. Why use PCAs? Methodology Findings Follow-up action Overview

3. Few policy makers actually know the effects of corruption on the poor The poor lack voice in the political system and are afraid to speak out Surveys are useful for collecting info that can be easily quantified (%) But we need a different method to capture more qualitative info: How does corruption affect people? How do people cope with and respond to corrupt practices affecting their daily life? What are their suggestions for curbing corruption? Especially useful for capturing the experiences of minority/vulnerable groups (otherwise lost in ’average numbers’) 1. Why use PCA?

4. 3 components

5. Identify an organization that has the confidence of the traget group (NGO? Local community organization?) 2. Train the facilitators in participatory focus group discussions 2. MethodologyStep 1: Preparations

6. Introductory meeting – telling stories, wealth classification, community mapping, listing the poor people First FGD – with cards identify the places on the map where bribes have been paid in the last year, Make up a matrix from that information. Second FGD - Identify the 3 most troublesome bribes. Then the most troublesome. Using cards , identify causes of bribing, then causes of those causes, finally effects of such bribes. Make matrix. Third FGD - Using “Cause and Effect” matrix, ask “What can we, what can others, do to change this situation?” 2. MethodologyStep 2: Focus Group Discussions: 30-40 poor men & women (10 days)

7. Interviewers talk to 30 people identified from the FGDs to learn their stories about how corruption has affected their lives Essential to have their trust and preserve their confidentiality Alternatively, people may feel more comfortable using a ‘corruption diary’ (for anonymous written inputs) These stories were written up in a journalistic style Describes the very important influence corruption has on the lives of the poor 2. MethodologyStep 3: Case interviews

8. Present to the community all the material collected (maps, matrices, charts) always emphasizing that it is their information. Further discuss, perhaps add. Discuss follow-up actions If the community agrees, hold a public meeting in which the findings are presented to a larger audience (local government officials, local NGOs, local traditional leaders, local journalists) Objective: Amplify the community’s voice, and seek others’ involvement. 2. MethodologyStep 4: Report back to the community

9. Financial cost Share of bribe payments out of total income of the poor, compared to ‘average population’, per ‘risk area’ Reducing human capital Corruption affects poor people’s physical well-being and their skills Social cost: reducing social capital Corruption erodes relationships of trust within a community Moral decay Lack of role models / Erodes the rule of law Cost of not bribing Exclusion from or lower quality of services 3. Findings: The ‘costs’ of corruption for the poor

10. Discussion of findings of PCAs with local communities, NGOs and media attracted a lot of attention (incl. Media coverage) The Poor Speak Out, a set of 17 journalistic picese recording stories of poor people Publication on the methodology Establishment of a network of NGOs, universities & professional organizations to take action againts corruption: popular theatre, comunity-based eductaion, media campaign, comic strips, Corruption monitoring grousp established at community level 4. Follow-up action: Ownership is key