Monitoring and Tailored Support . ... The Social Accountability Training Tool Kit . ...... In 1994, the Malawian governm
Ethiopia Protection of Basic Services Social Accountability Program
Social Accountability Guide First edition
Chapter 1 of 13
Ethiopia Social Accountability Program Phase 2 MANAGEMENT AGENCY Multi Donor Trust Fund
Contents
0. Contents 0. Introduction to the Social Accountability guide.................... 6 0.1. Introduction.................................................................................................6 0.2. Target Group................................................................................................6 0.3. Definitions and Concepts used......................................................................7 0.4. Capacity Development Rationale................................................................. 8 0.4.1. Overall Objective............................................................................................................................8 0.4.2. Specific Objective...........................................................................................................................8 0.4.3. Results............................................................................................................................................8
0.5. Rationale of the Social Accountability Tools.................................................9 0.6. Approach.................................................................................................... 10 0.6.1. The Three-Staged Approach and a Modular Framework........................................................... 10 0.6.2. Training Programme for the Orientation.....................................................................................11 0.6.3. Training Programme for the Rolling-Out................................................................................... 13 0.6.4. Monitoring and Tailored Support............................................................................................... 14
0.7. How to Use This Document......................................................................... 14 0.7.1. Session Overview.......................................................................................................................... 15 0.7.2. Hand-outs.................................................................................................................................... 15 0.7.3. Trainer Notes............................................................................................................................... 16
0.8. The Social Accountability Training Tool Kit................................................ 17
1. Introduction to Social Accountability...................................19 1.1. Session overview......................................................................................... 19 1.2. Hand-outs................................................................................................... 19 1.2.1. Primer Social Accountability........................................................................................................20 1.2.2. Exercise on Citizens’ Role in Basic Service Delivery...................................................................23 1.2.3. Exercise on Citizen-led Social Accountability in Practice........................................................... 25
1.3. Trainer notes..............................................................................................33 1.4. Slides..........................................................................................................38
2. Roles and Responsibilities in Social Accountability............ 40 2.1. Session overview........................................................................................ 40 2.2. Hand-outs.................................................................................................. 40 2.2.1. Primer on Regional and Woreda Responsibilities in Service Delivery....................................... 41 2.2.2. Exercise on Service Standards and Social Accountability..........................................................43 2.2.3. Action Plan Matrix.......................................................................................................................45
2.3. Trainer notes..............................................................................................46 2.4. Slides..........................................................................................................50
2 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
3. Vulnerability and Social Inclusion...................................... 52 3.1. Session overview.........................................................................................52 3.2. Hand-outs...................................................................................................52 3.2.1. Primer on Social Vulnerability and Social Inclusion................................................................... 53 3.2.2. Role-play Social Vulnerability and Social Inclusion................................................................... 54 3.2.3. Exercise on Vulnerable Groups................................................................................................... 57
3.3. Trainer Notes..............................................................................................59 3.4. Slides..........................................................................................................64
4. Overview of the Regional and Woreda Budget Processes.... 66 4.1. Session overview.........................................................................................66 4.2. Hand-outs...................................................................................................66 4.2.1. Primer on the Regional and Woreda Budget Process................................................................. 67 4.2.2. Exercise on a Household Budget ................................................................................................ 72
4.3. Trainer Notes.............................................................................................74 4.4. Slides.......................................................................................................... 81
5. Social Accountability Tools - Community Score Cards......... 83 5.1. Session Overview........................................................................................83 5.2. Hand-outs...................................................................................................83 5.2.1. Primer Community Score Card....................................................................................................84 5.2.2. Input Tracking Form.................................................................................................................... 97 5.2.3. Issues and Priorities Form...........................................................................................................98 5.2.4. Scoring Matrix Form....................................................................................................................99
5.3. Trainer Notes............................................................................................ 101 5.4. Slides........................................................................................................ 107
6. Social Accountability Tools - Citizens’ Report Cards.......... 110 6.1. Session Overview...................................................................................... 110 6.2. Hand-outs................................................................................................. 110 6.2.1. Primer Citizens’ Report Cards.................................................................................................... 111 6.2.2. Sample Questionnaire................................................................................................................119 6.2.3. Agriculture Sector Stakeholders Exercise................................................................................. 122
6.3. Trainer Notes........................................................................................... 123 6.4. Slides.........................................................................................................131
3 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
7. Social Accountability Tools - Community Mapping.............133 7.1. Session overview....................................................................................... 133 7.2. Hand-outs................................................................................................. 133 7.2.1. Primer community mapping...................................................................................................... 134 7.2.2. Example of a Community Map...................................................................................................137 7.2.3. Example of Community Mapping Exercise in Tanzania........................................................... 138 7.2.4. Sample Enumeration Form....................................................................................................... 139 7.2.5. Sample of a Record Book........................................................................................................... 140 7.2.6. Nine Steps to Conducting an Interface Meeting........................................................................141
7.3. Trainer Notes............................................................................................ 143 7.4. Slides........................................................................................................ 150
8. Social Accountability Tools - Participatory Planning and Budgeting.................................................................... 152 8.1. Session overview....................................................................................... 152 8.2. Hand-outs................................................................................................. 152 8.2.1. Primer Participatory Planning and Budgeting.......................................................................... 153 8.2.2. Case Studies of Participatory Planning and Budgeting.............................................................157 8.2.3. Fictional Woreda Budget (only in five sectors)......................................................................... 163 8.2.4. Kebele Fictional Budget............................................................................................................. 164
8.3. Trainer Notes........................................................................................... 165 8.4. Slides........................................................................................................ 172
9. Social Accountability Tools - Gender Responsive Budgeting......................................................................... 174 9.1. Session Overview...................................................................................... 174 9.2. Hand-outs................................................................................................. 174 9.2.1. Primer Gender Responsive Budgeting........................................................................................175 9.2.2. Exercise on the Prioritization of Private Household Expenditures.......................................... 186
9.3. Trainer Notes........................................................................................... 187 9.4. Slides........................................................................................................ 194
10. Social Accountability Tools - Social Auditing.................... 197 10.1. Session overview..................................................................................... 197 10.2. Hand-outs............................................................................................... 197 10.2.1. Primer Social Auditing............................................................................................................. 198 10.2.2. Case studies of Social Auditing................................................................................................ 201
10.3. Trainer notes..........................................................................................205 10.4. Slides...................................................................................................... 212
4 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
11. Capacity Development Results Framework.......................214 11.1. Session overview...................................................................................... 214 11.2. Hand-outs................................................................................................ 214 11.2.1. Primer Capacity Development Results Framework................................................................. 214
11.3. Trainer notes........................................................................................... 217 11.4. Slides.......................................................................................................222
12. Participants’ Capacity Development Action Plans............ 224 12.1. Session overview.....................................................................................224 12.2. Hand-outs...............................................................................................224 12.3. Trainer notes........................................................................................... 225 12.4. Slides......................................................................................................228
13. Delivering the Training................................................... 230 13.1. Preparation of the Training.....................................................................230 13.1.1. Development of the training programme.................................................................................230 13.1.2. Preparing the training materials.............................................................................................. 231 13.1.3. Arranging for the training venue and preparing the training room........................................232 13.1.4. The Social Accountability Tool Box..........................................................................................232
13.2. Conduct of the Training...........................................................................233 13.2.1. The Start of the Training..........................................................................................................233 13.2.2. Time Management...................................................................................................................233 13.2.3. Absenteeism.............................................................................................................................234 13.2.4. Ice Breakers and Energizers.....................................................................................................234
13.3. Training Approaches...............................................................................234 13.3.1. The Role of the Trainer.............................................................................................................234 13.3.2. Stimulating Participants.......................................................................................................... 237
13.4. Monitoring and Tailored Support at Woreda Level.................................238 13.4.1. Gender and Women’s Participation.........................................................................................238 13.4.2. Authority Roles.........................................................................................................................238 13.4.3. Practical Issues.........................................................................................................................238
5 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
1. Introduction to Social Accountability 1.1. Session overview Aim of session
Getting acquainted and introducing the concept of Social Accountability and Social Accountability practices
Learning Outcomes
At the end of the session, participants will understand: • The overall training objectives and anticipated training outcomes • The factors determining a conducive learning environment • The existence of the Social Accountability guide • The meaning of Social Accountability • The role of citizens in basic service delivery • The potential of citizens as change agents • Experiences of other agents of change
Additional results
Orientation training: listing of expectations on cards Rolling-out training:
Time allocation
Orientation training: 2 x 90 minutes Rolling-out training: 2 x 90 minutes
Work form
Presentation, group exercises and plenary discussions (scenario of fictional town, case studies on social accountability practices)
Key topics
Welcome, introductions, objectives and outcomes of Social Accountability training
1.2. Hand-outs The following hand-outs are provided for distribution to participants on the following pages: 1.2.1 Primer Social Accountability 1.2.2 Exercise on Citizens’ Role in Basic Service Delivery 1.2.3 Exercise on Citizen-led Social Accountability in practice
19 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
1.2.1. Primer Social Accountability
Key message
Estimated reading time Remarks
This primer provides an overview of Social Accountability, how it is applied in relation to holding governments accountable, and introduces six Social Accountability tools. These six tools are instrumental in giving effect to citizens’ demands for improved service delivery and accountability of government, and are strongly linked to different stages of the budget process. 15 minutes
What is Social Accountability? Accountability is most commonly understood as the requirement of those in power to explain and take responsibility for their choices and actions. This often refers to officials in government who are seen as custodians of public resources. Ackerman defines Government Accountability as a ‘pro-active process by which public officials inform about and justify their plans of action, their behaviour and results and are sanctioned accordingly’. In this definition, emphasis is put on the fact that accountability is a pro-active process where government officials do not sit and wait for citizens to request for information and accountability but actively and voluntarily disseminate information, convene forums of public participation and give account. Accountability is not merely a one off activity but a continual process between public officials (the supply side of accountability) and citizens (the demand side of accountability). An important mechanism to ensure public officials are held accountable is the threat of sanctions. Sanctions are often codified in laws and regulations, and their implementation is monitored by a civil service commission or a statutory body that is independent from the state. The sanctions are designed to prevent any form of rule from being broken, but often this is not sufficient. For a government official with a minimal salary there is very little incentive to not commit corruption. Punitive measures are necessary to prevent mismanagement of resources and abuse of power. But excessive punitive strategies can paralyze public officials’ behaviour and this can be counter-productive to improving government performance and will limit their creativity. Knowing that they are being monitored by outsiders as well as their peers can act as a powerful deterrent to officials tempted to break the rules.
20 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
The active participation and engagement of citizens and civil society groups in policy-making and implementation can greatly improve accountability and overall good governance. Citizen Monitoring can complement elections by reinforcing and improving vertical accountability mechanisms. Citizen Monitoring can include Social Audits of public services and expenditure tracking surveys. Similarly, Citizen Monitoring can also enhance horizontal accountability within the state. Citizens can raise awareness by setting standards of public service performance and placing pressure on oversight institutions to act, through institutions such as the ombudsman offices in various countries. It is through these institutions that citizens can participate and fuse the vertical and horizontal accountability mechanisms. It should be acknowledged that the tools or approaches used by actors who aim to assert Social Accountability is not a new phenomenon, but the concept of Social Accountability is new territory that aims to develop a framework of how citizens demand and enforce accountability from those in power. The common definition of Social Accountability is: Social Accountability can be understood as a process by which ordinary citizens, who are the users of public services, voice their needs, preferences and demands regarding public services, and are able to hold policy-makers and service providers accountable for their performance and commitments via service delivery. In the Ethiopian context, Social Accountability must also be understood in relation to the woreda level governance structures.
At woreda level there are three main actors in the overall governance structure: woreda councils (political accountability), woreda administration (administrative accountability) and citizens (Social Accountability).
21 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
The elected councillors are accountable to citizens, and the woreda administration is accountable to the council and to citizens for their actions and decisions. The citizens are not passive recipients of services but have the responsibility to provide feedback and ensure that the services are delivered in a transparent and accountable manner. As can be noted in the diagram above, the three are interlinked and interdependent to ensure that all three stakeholders are accountable towards each other. Woreda councils are elected officials responsible for oversight and key decisions, while the woreda administration implements those decisions and the citizens are the monitors of the services and provide feedback to the council and officials. In this tripartite relationship, all stakeholders mutually work together towards ensuring accountability and transparency of service delivery. This responsibility does not solely rest with one stakeholder but rather their relationship reinforces and strengthens accountability mechanisms inside and outside government institutions. To achieve a beneficial and successful relationship between the stakeholders-there are necessary pre-conditions that include: •
Political will from the woreda councils and woreda administrations to engage with citizens in a transparent manner.
•
The woreda administrations must also be willing to share information with citizens; this includes sector plans and budgets for that woreda.
•
Citizens must be empowered to participate. Citizens can only participate once they understand why and how they can participate in service delivery and accountability mechanisms of the woreda.
Social Accountability Approaches and Tools Civil society and citizens have a range of approaches at their disposal to hold the state accountable. Citizen engagement has ranged from Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil and Senegal; social auditing in Rajastan, India and Mombasa, Kenya; independent budget analysis in South Africa to expenditure tracking in Malawi. These approaches provide important lessons for anyone interested in holding their state institutions accountable. The emergence of tools like Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre is context specific and adopting the same tool might not be a practical option in a context where there is not the necessary political will. These approaches and their successes are strongly linked to how citizens respond to a certain problem. Often a problem or crisis within a specific context can trigger state action or a response from civil society. The selection of a particular tool must be understood within the context of the specific social problem to make an effective response. It is very important to match the tool with the social problem instead of using a tool that does not offer the necessary information to convince power holders to change.
22 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
1.2.2. Exercise on Citizens’ Role in Basic Service Delivery Key message Estimated reading time Remarks
This scenario will assist citizens to understand how often citizens become reliant on governments to solve their problems but being a citizen also means you should participate in local affairs like service delivery through constructive mechanisms. 15 minutes
When the woreda development plan was drafted in Baygon town (an imaginary town in the Amhara region), woreda officials consulted the residents, and 300 people from the squatter areas generated a long list of development needs. Housing was the number one priority. The settlement had been growing but not a single government house had yet been built. In response to the citizens’ needs the woreda development plan included the housing issue. The woreda development plan helped community leaders to hold the woreda and regional government to account and to report their decisions to citizens. But a local civil society organization claimed that the budget could only cover part of the housing plan. People quickly became sceptical and adopted a wait-and-see attitude. Soon after the first government houses were built and occupied, tension started to build up in the town. People were unhappy about the way the new houses had been allocated. The civil society organizations monitoring the budget revealed shocking figures demonstrating that fewer houses had been built for a larger amount of money than had previously been budgeted. A large group of citizens marched to the woreda administration offices in town, and a petition was handed over to the mayor and council demanding more houses, and a more transparent allocation. The councillors and the mayor did not want to talk to the crowd of people or give any indication of what further action they would take. The citizens were very angry and started to protest by booing, screaming and shouting. The leaders of the march expressed shock, but said they were powerless to control the angry group. The councillors left and the citizens felt very frustrated for having no solution presented to their problems. When it was over, people just shrugged their shoulders and said: “What else can we do to be heard?” The relationship between citizens and the woreda council had reached rock bottom. Councillors were angry because they felt their efforts to serve the community had been ignored and that people had unrealistic expectations. Woreda officials were deeply shocked at the attitude of the citizens and felt that they were being disrespected, as this was not in keeping with Ethiopian culture.
23 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
But the mayor had heard of a new approach called “co-production” that was proving successful in other parts of the world. Co-production blurs the separation line between “leaders” in government and “citizens” outside. In co-production, leaders see themselves as citizens first. Citizens are seen as producers, helping to solve problems and to create public goods, not just reduced to acting as consumers. Development is understood to be something in which everyone plays a role in. So the mayor held a public meeting with community leaders from diverse backgrounds – businesses, religious groups, schools, clinics, police, leaders from the shack dwellers, Iddirs, sports clubs, etc. He spoke from his heart: “I am part of this community, just like you. We struggled together to end poverty. Since I have been in government, I know people have accused me of losing touch with my roots. But we need to find a new way of working together. Together we need to build the community we want to live in, and everyone has to play a part. It is too easy to blame the government for all the problems. Nothing much is going to change until we break out of the ‘us versus them’ mentality and start working together.” Many were unconvinced, saying “this is your job, that’s why we elected you”. But an elderly man, much respected in the community, stood to speak. “We’re going in the wrong direction,” he said. “We have this dependency where we can’t do things for ourselves. Look at the woreda next to us, the people there have built a primary school with their own hands. They asked that the government help out, but the government didn’t. The government later finally provided a few teachers and some bits of equipment. We must learn from them that the government is ours, that we are part of the government. Stop waiting for somebody to rescue us and give us everything we need. This has got to change. The mayor is right. We need a different way to move forward”.
Questions for Discussion 1. Identify all the different ways in which citizens participate in public life in this scenario. In your opinion, which forms of participation are the weakest, and which are the strongest? 2. How do you see accountability being exercised, or not being exercised in the story? 3. Do you think it would be possible for the conversation that takes place between the mayor and the community to happen in real life? Why or why not? 4. What difference will it make if the community responds positively to the challenge posed by the mayor and the old man? 5. What will happen if they don’t?
24 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
1.2.3. Exercise on Citizen-led Social Accountability in Practice
Key message
Estimated reading time Remarks
In these four case studies the reader will learn about the experiences, lessons and challenges faced by other African Social Accountability initiatives. These cases are illustrative of how citizen-led demand for accountability can increase transparency, open doors of government institutions and make the voices of citizens heard to influence decision-makers. 15 minutes per case study
Case study 1: Social Audits in Kenya’s Constituency Development Funds1 The Kenyan government established the Constituency Development Funds (CDF) in 2003, which are funds channelled through Members of Parliament (MP) to be spent on development projects in their constituencies. The MPs are allocated approximately one million dollars per year, which they can use for development projects like infrastructure programmes at schools or health facilities. In theory, the funds are to be decided with a constituency development fund committee who are representatives elected from the constituency and should involve wide range community participation. However, in practice there has been secrecy about the management of the constituency development funds by MPs and officials and so the fund lacks Public Accountability. The majority of the Kenyan population did not understand the purpose of the constituency development funds or knew that they as citizens were expected to play a role in the decision-making, implementation and monitoring of the constituency development funds. Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI), a non-governmental organization based in Mombasa, undertook efforts to monitor expenditures from the constituency development funds. Monitoring was not easy in the beginning, as Kenya still does not have the legislation or a regulatory framework for access to national information that empowers civil society organizations and citizens to request information from officials. MUHURI was limited to creating awareness on the constituency development funds and the various expenditures incurred amongst local communities. Through international assistance MUHURI was able to learn and enhance their skills on Social Auditing from the state of Rajasthan in India. Social Auditing is a participatory process whereby communities and civil society organizations evaluate the use of public resources and identify how to improve outcomes of public services and programs. The tool examines expenditures and audits documentation to verify if resources have been spent on the stated purpose.
1 Adapted from: “Social Audits in Kenya: Budget Transparency and Accountability” http://internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Impact-Story-Kenya-English.pdf, and Ramkumar, V, Kidambi, S, 2008, “Twataka Pesa Zetu” (We Want Our Money): A Public Budget Hearing in Kenya, both from the International Budget Partnership (IBP), Washington DC, http://www. comminit.com/job_vacancies/content/twataka-pesa-zetu-we-want-our-money-public-budget-hearing-kenya
25 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
The tool also examines the quality of community participation in decision-making and if the projects are serving the needs of local communities. The evidence collected is shared through a public budget hearing where the officials and other power holders are invited and have the opportunity to respond to the concerns of the community. The major challenge with the MUHURI Social Audit was the lack of access to information. In 2007, an election year, MUHURI was able to convince an MP from the Changamwe constituency to share his constituency development fund records with the argument that he would be the first to publicly disclose this information. MUHURI had access to records of 14 constituency development fund projects, which were considered the best by the Changamwe Constituency Development Fund Committee. The information they accessed included a listing of projects selected by the CDC, bills of quantities, work specifications, minutes of CDC meetings and Completion Certificates, which testify that projects were completed. MUHURI and the Social Audit team conducted site visits of these 14 projects, including interviews with local residents. The site visits were conducted to verify the actual status of the projects in terms of quality and community participation in the decision-making process. There were several problems that were uncovered during the site visits. An example is that residents indicated that when a market construction project was done, the builders had used old materials bought from the market in the construction of the new market, even though the bill of quantities indicated new materials were used. All the site visit reports were shared at a public hearing with approximately 1,500 community members, including residents, constituency development fund officials, MPs and media. The hearing was vibrant, the public were able to share their findings and to ask questions on issues related to Public Service Delivery. The officials were able to respond to some of the questions raised and made a commitment to address concerns, which could not be resolved immediately. At the end of the hearing the MP signed a petition with the public demanding increased accountability and transparency measures to be included in the Constituency Development Fund Act and in the Comprehensive Freedom of Information law. As it was an election year in 2007, the majority of sitting MPs lost their seats but the MP from Changamwe was able to be re-elected. During his campaign he used the Social Audit and public hearing as a showcase for his work, claiming that he was the most transparent MP. Even though the Social Audit revealed several challenges with the constituency development fund projects, the fact that the MP was opening his books for public scrutiny assisted him in receiving the support from his constituency.
26 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
Case 2: Participatory Budgeting in Ilala, Tanzania2 Tanzania’s government has strong political will to increase transparency and accountability, and has legal frameworks requiring local governments to consult and include citizens in their annual budgeting and planning processes. The Ilala Municipal Council (IMC) generates approximately 50 per cent of its own revenue sources while most local government authorities are dependent on central government transfers to operate and deliver services to the public. This means that the IMC is able to sustain a Participatory Budgeting initiative despite the changes in allocations from the central government. The population of Ilala municipality is mainly self-employed in the informal sectors, which accounts for 40 per cent of adult employment. The population covers diverse communities, which are not developed along clan and tribal lines that could divide them. This makes consensus building amongst the communities of Ilala far easier as there are similar interests in service delivery amongst the citizens. The IMC appreciates the need for Participatory Budgeting and the necessity for meeting legislative requirements to ensure citizens are involved in decision-making. In 2001, the IMC started the Participatory Budgeting process with a sensitization of sub-ward (kebele) leaders, and with communities on the process of Participatory Budgeting. Unfortunately the expectations of citizens were too high, so it had to be abandoned. Also the priorities of the communities were not well articulated. In July 2002, the IMC restarted the Participatory Budgeting process including a Capacity Development and Training programme with stakeholders. The training program focused on urban Participatory Planning and Budgeting. Training was conducted with IMC management, extension staff, ward executive officers, and NGO and community based organizations’ representatives from each ward. In public forums, the IMC management team provided the communities with revenue projections and indicative figures of the amounts available. The communities would identify their social and economic problems, the possible solutions and setting priorities for the problems and actions to be taken. In this context, there was no need for separate focus groups based on gender, as men, women and vulnerable groups were able to participate equally during the Participatory Budgeting process. The ward development committee submitted the communities’ project proposals for discussion and approval before they were forwarded to the council. The council management teams compiled and ranked the priorities into their sector plans and submitted them to the council standing committees for consolidation into the municipal annual budget and development plan, which the council later approved at a budget meeting.
2 Adapted from, Kihongo, R, Lubuva, J, 2010, Civic participation in policy and budgetary processes in Ilala Municipal Council, Tanzania, in Demanding Good Governance: Lessons from Social Accountability Initiatives in Africa, McNeil, M, Malena, C (eds.), World Bank: Washington DC, pg. 53-69
27 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
The final budget and all projects were far more realistic and better articulated this time. Subsequently, 60 per cent of the projects that were implemented originated from the community. In 2003, the IMC established 22 Community-Level Planning (CLP) and budgeting support teams with the objective to build community capacity for Participatory Planning and Budgeting. An effort was made to ensure the teams were apolitical, gender-balanced and inclusive of vulnerable groups. The teams were trained in participatory mechanisms and technical planning and budgeting skills. The Participatory Budgeting process also led to increased IMC effectiveness and a 53 per cent increase in tax-based revenues for the municipality in just three years. Civic participation increased the sustainability of local development projects. For example, the construction of water projects in Ilala ward where communities fully participated in planning and implementation, decisions on water pricing based on affordable user fees were agreed-upon for operation and maintenance, which contributed measurably to the project’s sustainability. The Participatory Budgeting process also increased the capacity of communities to analyse and prioritize problems, and to design and execute community projects. Communities have also increased their ability to monitor and evaluate community projects during the implementation and review phases. There has also been an improved citizen-government relationship where community concerns are better addressed, and vulnerable groups like women and youth have increased their participation in decision–making, which resulted in council resource allocations being focused on social services and the employment needs of these groups.
Case 3: Malawi Budget Tracking In 1994, the Malawian government adopted a policy of free primary education with the aim of increasing access to primary education for children. In 2000, approximately 75 local, national and international civil society organizations established the Coalition for Quality Basic Education (Community Score Card QBE). The aim of the coalition was to enhance civil society organizations’ advocacy and monitoring for free primary education, with a focus on quality and not just access to education. The membership of the coalition was based on district education networks with a range of stakeholders from district education officials, school management committees and parent-teacher associations. The initial focus of the coalition was mainly on the policy of the free primary education, but by 2002 the budget was a core part of its monitoring facility. The coalition acknowledged that they needed to engage with the government on the annual budget as it influences policy design and implementation.
28 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
The coalition began its budget work at the national level in order to understand the policy and budget processes. At a later stage (during 2002-04), district level budget work became essential for the collection of evidence to be used for national advocacy. The coalition’s budget work approach focused on research and advocacy. The research used a pre-budget analysis, post-budget analysis, and conducted annual school budget and performance monitoring. These are inter-linked as each one feeds into another. The pre-budget analysis influences the national budget during the drafting phase of the budget process. The pre-budget analysis contains a set of recommendations on primary education policy, budget and service delivery. The coalition members are also involved in the pre-budget analysis with each member focusing on their area of interest which includes teaching and learning materials; infrastructure support and expenditure at national and district level. The post-budget analysis was conducted after the national budget was tabled in parliament. This analysis examined the budget in relation to education in general and primary education with the coalition secretariat acting as the lead agency receiving inputs from other members. The analysis examined the allocations for the Ministry of Education for that particular financial year, how those allocations would be divided between the various programmes and transferred to districts as well as issuing recommendations for amendments to the education budget. The post-budget analysis was presented in a simplified manner to ensure that the education budget could be understood by all. This post-budget analysis was important for members of parliament (MPs) who relied on the simplified version to enable them to comment, debate and make recommendations on the budgets. The annual school budget and performance monitoring process tracked budget resources and programme implementation at district level. The coalition secretariat developed a standard questionnaire for use in face-to-face interviews at district level targeted at schools, representatives of school management committees, district education managers, chief executive officers of the district assembly, principals of teacher training colleges and managers of supply units. District education network volunteers trained by the coalition secretariat administered the questionnaire. The questionnaires examined: •
Budget allocations received by schools from districts
•
Demand and supply for teaching and learning materials in the schools
•
Teacher availability and training
•
Overall enrolment figures
•
School infrastructure
•
Policy awareness
•
School governance, specifically on SMCs and PTAs
29 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
The findings of the annual school budget and performance monitoring are fed into the prebudget analysis to make policy and budgetary recommendations to the Ministry of Education in their development of the national budget. Some of the key findings of all the budget analysis research outputs were used in advocacy with government officials at national and local level. The findings showed that even though allocations for teaching and learning materials (TLMs) were made and procurement tenders were advertised, the materials were never delivered to the schools. It was discovered that for the past four years no additional TLMs were supplied. The coalition approached the Ministry of Education and discovered that they had been servicing debt of MK 1.8 billion (US$ 128 million) and despite the budget showing allocations to TLMs, the funds were not spent for this purpose. The coalition also uncovered how some teachers had not been paid their salaries for a few years. They worked with the Teachers’ Union of Malawi to lobby the Ministry of Education to pay the teachers. The union and coalition were successful in this and all teachers received their salaries and outstanding payments were settled. The coalition’s research also found that the national budget allocations for education declined from 28 per cent during the early 1990s to 13 per cent in the 2005/06 financial year. As a result of the coalition lobbying the Ministry of Finance and Education, and hosting consultations with members of parliament and civil society organizations, and using their research to persuade various stakeholders, in the 2006/07 financial year- the overall share of the education budget increased to 14.2 per cent, but this remains below the recommended 20 per cent share needed to achieve education for all. In Karonga district, the district education network found out that there was inequitable distribution of teaching and learning materials, especially textbooks. Some schools had a surplus while others had much less. The network members approached the district education manager and they collaborated and distributed TLMs equally.
Case 4: Uganda Children’s Participation and School Monitoring In 1992, the Uganda Government adopted a policy of Universal Primary Education. The government recruited and trained new teachers, revised the curriculum and textbooks and built additional classrooms. The government also increased funding with the share of gross domestic product (GDP) allocated to education increasing from 2.5 per cent in 1995/96 to 4.3 per cent in 1999/2000. The government adopted a policy of decentralization to ensure that services were delivered effectively and efficiently to the people, by devolving functions and funds to district level. Civil society organizations were concerned about misappropriations of funds and intended to play a monitoring role.
30 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
Civil society organizations like the ‘Uganda Debt Network’ formed the Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group (CS-BAG), focusing on various sectors from women and gender, children’s rights, health rights to education and agriculture. This diverse group of civil society organizations use budget analysis and advocacy as key strategies to influence policy and budget processes. In 1997, three child’s rights organizations formed child budget monitoring clubs based on child’s rights clubs at schools in six districts. Two of these districts included Apac and Oyam, which are located in Northern Uganda. This region had been involved in armed conflicts for more than 20 years, many children were used as child soldiers and as servants for adult soldiers, and even after war this region still had the lowest school enrolment rates. They established child budget monitoring and child clubs to increase enrolment and ensure children knew about and were able to demand their rights. The six districts were selected on the basis of the organizations’ previous operations in these districts; the extent of the social problems caused by the war; the extent of child labour due to HIV and AIDS; inadequate infrastructure and instructional materials, and the districts’ record on the accountability of public funds. The three organizations started a process of sensitization amongst community members, school head teachers and teachers, parents and district officials. Initially there was resistance from adult stakeholders who felt that it was going against cultural norms to question elders and leaders. The organizations challenged this by explaining the objectives of the project and clearly indicating the potential benefits to the children and to the rest of the communities. The organisations were successful in gaining the support and cooperation from many of the stakeholders and continued their awareness raising at the school level with both adults and children. The next phase of the project was when the facilitators of the project started to hold workshops with children to gather their knowledge and experiences about their own schooling. The children who participated in these workshops were aged six to fourteen years. The facilitators used simple questions to get views from the youngest children; the children also expressed their personal responses via their artwork. Each child would then explain to the other children what they had drawn. The older children used role-playing, games and written reports as methods to illustrate their views about the schooling system. At these workshops, the children also elected a teacher who they trusted to act as a support base in the school environment and s/he attended the training sessions with the children. The views were used as themes and indicators for the children to use to measure their school’s performance. The monitoring themes were: •
Budget expenditure
•
The performance of teachers
•
The school learning environment
All head teachers were required to publicly display on a quarterly basis the school’s budget, which showed the income and the quarter’s expenditures. The above themes are collected on a weekly basis and compiled into a report. The children would examine:
31 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
•
Teacher attendance
•
Teacher performance in the classroom and whether they were prepared for the day’s work
•
Student attendance on a daily basis
•
School expenditures
Children would verify expenditures based on the receipts of expenses and examine the actual products that were purchased and whether the receipts and products match. For instance, if the school plan stated that the head teacher would purchase fifty chalk sticks and there was a receipt for this purchase, children would check that those fifty chalk sticks were in the school. The information compiled would be shared with teachers, the head teacher and with the relevant civil society organization for further follow up. The child budget monitors’ reports would be disseminated at the sub-district, district and national level through various platforms with various stakeholders. At the national level children presented their reports to the Minister of Education and Sports. This has now become an annual national dissemination workshop with the Ministry of Education and Sports. The budget monitor’s report unearthed corruption, bribery, misappropriation of funds and child abuse in schools perpetrated by adults against children. In one instance, a head teacher actually attempted to bribe the children with money to not report his corrupt activities in this school. The children took his money and reported him to the relevant civil society organization. One of the key successes of the child budget monitors has been to have their recommendations for school improvements published annually in the ministry’s education sector review.
32 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
1.3. Trainer notes As this session is included in the orientation training, and is also mandatory for the rolling-out trainings, these trainer notes can be used in both cases. •
• Key messages •
Social Accountability is a mechanism to bridge the gap between service providers and service users to jointly address the challenges in service delivery Citizens have a role in service delivery, not just as users but as decision-makers, implementers and monitors to ensure services are delivered according to the wishes of the intended beneficiaries Citizens can act as change agents in their communities to bring about improved service delivery and should not be dependent on government for this change but can work in partnership with local government
Timing
Part 1: Introductions and Objectives: 60 minutes Part 2: Group discussions: 30 minutes Part 3: Citizens’ role in services: 45 minutes Part 4: Case studies: 45 minutes Total: 180 minutes
Work form
Plenary discussions, group discussions, scenario of a fictional town, case studies of Social Accountability practices
Hand-outs
1.2.1 Primer Social Accountability 1.2.2 Exercise on Citizens’ Role in Basic Service Delivery 1.2.3 Exercise on Citizen-led Social Accountability in practice •
Preparations
• • • • • •
Remarks
Flip chart on the overall training objectives and outcomes or PowerPoint presentation (requires laptop and LCD projector) Flip chart paper Markers (15) Scotch tape (2) Flip chart stands (1) Coloured cards (30 orange, 30 light green, 30 yellow, 30 white, 30 pink) LCD projector
Distribute slides after presentation
Part 1: 60 minutes, PowerPoint presentation. Slide 1: Introduction to Social Accountability Welcome participants and state the title of the training programme.
33 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
Slide 2: Getting Acquainted Introduce yourself and the training team to the participants. Ask the training team members to briefly say who they are and what they hope to achieve during this training. Ask all the participants to introduce themselves and to say one objective they would like to achieve this week. Ask another trainer to write this on the flip chart while you facilitate the introductions.
Slide 3: Learning Objectives Reveal on screen the learning objectives of the Social Accountability training. Inform participants that you will try to accommodate some of their objectives as the programme moves along. The learning objectives are: 1. To introduce participants to Social Accountability concepts, approaches, mechanisms and tools that can be applied to the Ethiopian context. 2. To introduce participants to Social Inclusion and Exclusion as key concepts and approaches to mainstreaming Social Inclusion into development projects. 3. To understand the role of the various stakeholders at woreda level in contributing to the effective delivery of services, including during the budget processes at regional and woreda levels. 4. To introduce participants to six Social Accountability tools that could be applied to the Ethiopian context. 5. To apply knowledge and skills to woreda level action plans for increasing awareness on Social Accountability concepts and tools.
Slide 4: Training Programme Reveal the program for the six-day training to participants. Explain what will be covered in each of the days. Explain to participants that: •
The training will be built on discussion and active participation, not on instruction and lecturing
•
There is no absolute truth, we have to be pragmatic and not too academic (in search of perfect optimal solutions)
•
You are not the expert as the participants know much more about the subject than they are aware off, and you are just facilitating by providing them with the stimulus
•
It is not about academic knowledge, but about understanding local circumstances in which the changes will take place
34 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
Why? Because this is a better way to learn and it will be better remembered and applied. We want to create an open atmosphere in which everyone can share and contribute to the learning process.
Slide 5: Practical Issues Reveal the rules you suggest: •
No use of mobile phones during the training- only during breaks and lunch
•
Respect each other’s views and comments
•
Listen to others while the facilitator or any participant speaks. So no small group discussions while another person is addressing the whole group
•
Ask for additions from participants. Explain the need for ground rules to create an optimum learning environment
Slide 6: Existence of Social Accountability Guide Explain to participants how the Social Accountability guide can be used during the implementation of their own trainings in the roll-out. Briefly run through the table of contents.
Slide 7: What is Social Accountability? Engage in a discussion by asking what the participants’ experiences are, or what they have heard about Social Accountability, before providing the answer. Try to break open the discussion by asking for differing views. Deepen discussions by asking about the reasons and motives behind the topic being discussed. Social Accountability is the process by which ordinary citizens, who are the users of public services, voice their needs, preferences and demands regarding public services, and are able to hold policy-makers and service providers accountable for their poor performance. This definition places emphasis on the relationship between the supply of governance (service providers and woreda officials) and the demands of governance (citizens and citizens’ groups). Essentially these are two sides of the same coin.
Slide 8: Tripartite Relationship between Stakeholders At woreda level there are three main actors in the overall governance structure: woreda councils (political accountability), woreda administration (administrative accountability) and citizens (Social Accountability). The elected councillors are accountable to citizens and the woreda administration is accountable to the council and to citizens for their actions and decisions. The citizens are not passive recipients of services but have the responsibility to provide feedback and ensure that the services are delivered in a transparent and accountable manner.
35 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
As can be noted in the diagram above, the three are interlinked and are interdependent to ensure that all three stakeholders are accountable towards each other. Woreda councils elect officials to be responsible for oversight and key decisions, while the woreda administration implements those decisions and the citizens are the monitors of the services and provide feedback to the council and officials. In this tripartite relationship, all stakeholders mutually work together towards ensuring accountability and transparency of service delivery. This responsibility does not solely rest with one stakeholder but rather their relationship reinforces and strengthens accountability mechanisms inside and outside government institutions.
Slide 9: How Citizens hold Public Officials Accountable Ask first for examples from participants and their experiences or views. Through evidence based examples, demonstrate how (Social Accountability) tools are used to influence policy, service delivery objectives and outcomes, and the channelling of resources. Examples of Social Accountability tools include: Community Scorecards, Citizen Report Cards, Budget Tracking, etc. Note: Add that these tools will be further discussed in the following days of the training.
Part 2: 30 minutes, group exercise Slide 10: Exercise 1 on the Concept of Social Accountability Divide participants into random groups. Ask groups to discuss (10 minutes) what they understand by the concept of Social Accountability and to write it down on coloured cards. After this have plenary presentations of max 3 minutes.
Part 3: 45 minutes, group exercise Slide 11: Exercise 2 on Citizens’ Role in Basic Service Delivery Distribute hand-out on “Citizens’ Role in Basic Service Delivery” for group discussion. (30 minutes). Ask participants to report back in plenary in 3 minutes max with their answers to the scenario. Write the responses on flip-chart paper and discuss.
Part 4: 45 minutes, group exercise Slide 12: Exercise 3 on the Citizen-led Social Accountability Practice Distribute the case studies “Citizen-led Social Accountability Practice”. Please ensure that each group receives one case study. The questions are the same for each case study.
36 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
Give the groups 30 minutes to discuss and answer the questions. In plenary, discuss the questions and answers. Write the responses on flip-chart paper. Conduct a debrief where you link the first and second step of this session. Place emphasis on the key messages of this session
37 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
1.4. Slides
38 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
SA Guide: Introduction to the Social Accountability Guide
39 / 239
www.esap2.org.et
