YAT Social Accountability Guide.pdf

A Practioners’ Guidebook for Social Accountability Administration of CSC and PETS tools:

VOICE! PARTNERSHIPS! ACTION! IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY! 1

Table of Contents

Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Terminologies ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Preface .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

About Youth Agenda Trust - YAT ................................................................................................................................ 5

Audience to this Guide .................................................................................................................................................... 5

Why Social Accountability? ............................................................................................................................................. 6

The Link: Social Accountability and HRBA programming ........................................................................................ 7

A. Community Score Card (CSC) ............................................................................................................................. 9

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a CSC? ....................................................................................... 9

Step 1: Planning and Preparation ............................................................................................................................... 9

Step 2: Administering the CSC with rights holders (Communities) ............................................................... 10

Step 3: Administering the CSC with duty bearers (Service Providers) ......................................................... 13

Step 4: Interface meeting – service providers & duty bearers ......................................................................... 15

Step 5: Action planning, reporting and monitoring ............................................................................................. 16

B. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) ................................................................................................... 18

Step 1: Mapping resources ....................................................................................................................................... 18

a) Gathering Data ............................................................................................................................................... 19

b) Following the money .................................................................................................................................... 19

Step 2: Collecting and Analyzing the data ............................................................................................................ 20

a) Establishing a team ........................................................................................................................................ 21

b) Data input and cleaning ................................................................................................................................ 21

c) Data analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 21

Step 3: Flagging out issues ........................................................................................................................................ 22

Step 4: Setting recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 22

List of Tables

Community Score Card

Table 1: Sample issue and Stakeholder Analysis

Table 2: Sample input tracking matrix

Table 3: Priority matrix sample

Table 4: Scoring matrix sample

Table 5: Sample community score card

Table 5: A sample of clustered issues for indicator formulation

Table 6: A sample planning matrix

PETS

Table 1: A sample facility Tool (with sample issues)

Table 2: A sample questionnaire framework ((with sample issues)

Table 3: Disaggregated Data

Table 4: Aggregated Data

Table 5: Sample PETS

List of Images

Image 1: Sample situational analysis models – diamond and problem tree

Image 2: Sample Resource Chain



Abbreviations

AAIZ ActionAid International Zimbabwe

CBOs Community Based Organizations

CD Country Director

CSC Community Score Card

CSOs Civil Society Organizations

HRBAs Human Rights Based Approaches

I/NGOs International / Non Governmental Organizations

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MOH Ministry of Health

PETS Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys

USD United States Dollar

YAT Youth Agenda Trust

TOT Training of Trainers

Terminologies

Social Accountability This is a programming approach aimed at building accountability on the

basis of popular civic engagament

SA Practioner This is an individual who is qualified to empower others and administer /

facilitate / moderate social accountability processes and tools

PETS This is a social accountability tool that is used by rights holders to track

public resource alloactions and expendure

Epworth & Chitungwiza These are two Districts based in Harare where YAT implements its

programs

Supply Side This is the level or capacity of an individiual or an organization to

provide a certain good or service adequately

Demand Side This is the potential level or capacity of an individual or a group of

people to absorb a certain good or service

Duty Bearer This is an individual who has the responsibility to offer a certain

entilements at a given time to an individual or a group of people an

example of this is the Govenment

Rights Holder These is an individual or group of persons who have particular

entitlements an example of this is a Citizen

Social Services These are public services offered by the state to its citizens

Training of Trainers This is the process of tooling individuals with particular skills and

knowledge so that they are in a position to empower others with the

same skill and knowledge



Acknowledgements

This guidebook highlights key steps in formulating and administering successful Community Score Card

(CSC) and Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) tools.

Sincere gratitude goes out to YAT Board for their leadership, guidance and continued programming

support and more so to the process of formulating this guidebook.

Working Group

Francis Rwodzi, National Coordinator - Youth Agenda Trust

Trust Nhubu, Program Officer - Youth Agenda Trust

Alice Banda, Shadow Youth Councilor - Epworth District

Chamunorwa A., Shadow Youth Councilor - Epworth District

Obey Mwariwangu, Shadow Youth Councilor - Chitungwiza District

Hilda Muranda, Shadow Youth Councilor - Chitungwiza District

Peter Nyapetwa, Epworth Residents Association - Epworth District

Damuson Damuson, Epworth Residents Association - Epworth District

Agnes Chigwedere, Chitungwiza Residents Association - Chitungwiza h District

Margret Chogugudza, Chitungwiza Residents Association - Chitungwiza District

Donald Makuvaza, Epworth Residents Association - Epworth District

As a team, we are grateful to colleagues from ActionAid International Zimbabwe led by Ronnie

Murungu; The Country Director (CD) and in particular; Precious Gombera and Lillian Matsika both of

the Governance Unit for their programming guidance on the broad process of adopting and

institutionalizing social accountability at Youth Agenda Trust. The group also recognizes the financial

support and guidance offered by the finance unit - this has been instrumental in ensuring that the

programing objective is not only on course but is also attained.

Gratitude and appreciation goes out to shadow youth council representatives from the Epworth and

Chitungwiza Districts in Harare who were intricately involved in the Training of Trainers process,

formulating relevant social accountability tools and subsequently part taking in the development of this

guidebook. Recognition also goes to the greater youth communities and CBOs within the

aforementioned Districts who were instrumental in providing relevant strata of information that guided

the formulation and determined the user responsiveness of this guide book.

This guide book is formulated with them in mind as its primary users.

Process and Technical Lead

Ger Odock

Institutional and Individual Capacity Building & Empowerment Practioner

People4Change (P4C)



Preface

In its 7 years of programming, Youth Agenda Trust - YAT has been instrumental in building capacities

and empowering youth communities to take up their civic roles and repsonsibilities. Increasingly, this has

given rise to a more exposed youth, one who is knowledge, self-awareness and appreciates governance

sytems. While this has ensured that it is no-longer “business as usual” while engaging the youth, there is

still much to be done to ensure that Zimbabwe’s greatest human resource is not short-changed in

matters pertaining to development, governance and accountability and is as such, consulted and their

issues considered for inclusion in Zimbabwe’s development agenda.

Within the first half of the year 2015, youth have depicted increasing interest and zeal to participate

more actively in meetings organized by local leadership - however, while spaces have been limited the

youth have been lacking in capacities to engage on social service delivery matters within the broader

facet of good governance, accountability and transparency. To this effect, YAT saw it prudent to

empower the youth directly so that they can be part of the process of participatoty development by

acting as drivers of the change that they seek. YAT did this by conducting a two day TOT session for a

select few from either districts on the concept of Social Accountability which broadly involved;

understanding social accountability, its role in social services delivery and monitoring and formulating

tools.

The inidividuals who were part of the Training of Trainers (TOT) will be mandated with the task of lead

in the process of institutionalizing the concept at Organizational level and the scaling-down at

community level by empowering other youth and community members to effectively be aware and get

engaged on governance matters and social service delivery issues within their communities so as to be in

an informed and strategic position to hold their local governments accountable on timely and quality

provision on issues social services like water, education and health care provision, which from a rights

perspective, translate to increased access, enjoyment and practice of human rights and broadly, quality

livelihoods.

Through the TOT process, YAT has a team of 10 trainers (five from each district). Upon testing of

knowledge and skills at community settings, they will be driving the social accountability agenda on behalf

of YAT where by they will be empowering communities by creating awareness for them to sustainably

engage leadership, technocrats and service providers at District and Ward levels on a more professional,

aware, responsible way therein establishing and/or building good relations between the local government

and the general public. It is the informed assumption that this approach and subsequent relationship will

lead to local governments being more accomodating and responsive of the issues being raised by youth

and other communities by openly and willingly providing development information (plans, budgets and

expenditure reports) and by acting upon any identified anomalies in social services delivery and public

resource utilization.



About Youth Agenda Trust - YAT

Youth Agenda was institutionalized in 2007 and is registered both as a Trust and non-government

organization. It works with youth between the ages of 15-35 years in high density, rural, mining and peri-

urban communities of Zimbabwe to end injustice and improve their lives through enhancing the

qualitative participation through civic education, policy advocacy, mass mobilization and creating local,

regional and international synergies amongst youth. As an organization, it strategically establishes

collaborative platforms for engagement with other groups outside its primary target group.

YAT is a membership driven organization that is registered with the Zimbabwe Youth Council as a

Trust through the registrar of deeds with members spread across 20 districts in Zimbabwe totaling

17,000. Despite having intensively worked for over 3 years in Epworth and Chitungwiza Districts on life

skills training, social entrepreneurship and empowerment and leadership development, it has

membership and project presence across the Country. The organization is governed by a board of

trustees composed of seven (7) professional individuals drawn from different sectors such as; law, fourth

estate, medical and political science among others.

Its VISION is that of a democratic Zimbabwe where empowered youth are free to actively participate in

governance and development issues while its MISSION is to create a platform for dialogue, debate and

participation in governance and development issues amongst the youth through lobby and advocacy

work, capacity development and through civic education.

Audience to this Guide

Administers for this toolkit will be service providers decision/policy-makers, youth communities and

community organizations all as practioners.

The former include government officials particularly at District and Ward levels involved in the planning,

monitoring, and evaluation of sector plans in relation to timely and/or quality service provision. The

latter entails youth leaders (shadow youth councilors) and community based organization employees

keen on Monitoring social services and government projects to assess progress on reduction of

vulnerabilities, disparities and tracking devolved funds in Epworth, Chitungwiza and other areas in

Zimbabwe where YAT has programming and membership presence.



Why Social Accountability?

Social Accountability will generally help service providers, youth and other communities, orgnanizations

based in rural and urban settings to;

Now I understand

WHY social

accountability!!!

It enhances awareness,

understanding and

appreciation among

communities…

It promotes

shared

responsibilities… It invokes participatory

decision making

between rights holders

& service providers…

It tracks resources,

allocation and their

utilization…

It promotes ownership

& leadership by

communities in

development of their

communities…

It promotes

understanding of

community perceptions

on quality and timeliness

of services….

It helps service

providers understand

community needs

better…



The Link: Social Accountability and HRBA programming

There is a strong co-relation of values, ethics and focus on human rights to social accountability

processes as they have a more intrinsic link to the human-rights-based approach in programming. This

goes beyond knowledge, application and ownership of processes by communities leading to the

improved performance and better outcomes. In this regard, social audits can be seen through the

“human rights lens” and applied to test the integrity of a given process through the “lens of the rights

holders” vis-à-vis the obligations of duty bearers.

Below is a description of rights holders and duty bearers in the context of social accountability;

Rights holders (representing the demand side) - primarily citizens/clients (consisting of civil society

members that include communities).

Duty bearers (representing the supply side) - primarily the state and service providers, but can also

include CSOs, NGOs, INGOs, donors and multilateral agencies.

From a HRBA perspective, influencing policy, planning and implementation relates primarily to the

delivery of obligations in terms of budgetary provisions, allocations and use. This is because the manner

in which a budget is planned and implemented has consequence to the poor in a society for whom

public social services are actually designed. This is also because only users themselves can judge whether

social service delivery is making a difference to their lives or not.

Duty bearers are accountable for fulfilling obligations in terms of public sector delivery, reporting and

efficiency without discrimination. Rights holders are also accountable for ensuring that there exist basic

human rights standards they follow when realizing various individual rights.

T



The CSC are a community-level tool for exacting local-level

accountability that links service providers to the community

and facilitates assessments of services in order to negotiate

improvements where necessary and continuity where

applicable.

Scorecards use facilitated discussions in focus groups to

encourage popular participation for qualitative assessments

of projects, processes or service provision. They often begin

with collective discussions of service delivery problems and

move to assessment of results to the participatory

development of action plans.

This way, they can provide localized feedback that can aid

immediate action to rectify identified problems.

The Community

Score Card

(CSC)



A. Community Score Card (CSC)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a CSC?

Advantages Disadvantages

It promotes dialogue and improves rights holder,

duty bearer relationships;

It facilitates popular understanding of issues and

solutions to problems;

It empowers rights holders leading to community

capacity to monitoring of services and own

services;

It promotes accountability, transparency and

responsibility by duty bearer;

It heightens awareness of rights holders on their

roles and duties in service delivery by duty bearers;

It is a tool that the service provider can use to

monitor progress and service quality together with

the community;

It promotes a common understanding of issues and

solutions to problems;

It requires time (holding service providers

accountable might be a new concept and

therefore a difficult concept to understand and

get accepted by communities and service

providers);

It can sometimes lead to conflict if not

facilitated well;

It requires good facilitation skills (the CSC deals

directly with issues of behavior and personalities

and can be uncomfortable for those on the

receiving end);

Sometimes individuals can be targeted

(“finger-pointing”);

It can raise expectations with the service users

if not facilitated well (creating a demand that

cannot be fulfilled by the service provider)

Step 1: Planning and Preparation

Preparation for an effective score card process should always be done well in advance as it requires

mobilization and awareness of both rights holders and service providers for them to prepare well to

participate physically and also mentally by sharing insights, thoughts and experiences. Preparation should

entail the following:

Identification of the area unto which the score card will be administered;

Selection of a facilitator(s) (preferably one who is conversant with the issue(s) as they apply in

the location and is also known by either party. He/She will play a key role in supporting the

community to identify the sector they would like to score e.g. education or health;

Prior to the actual score card day, make formal introduction of the program to either party as

well as seek permission from the local security apparatus as protocol requires;

Invite key stakeholders to be part of the process at this level. This will guarantee their

participation through-out the score card process and further build on the existing relationship;

Formulation of a work plan & budget for the process. The budget should entail provisions that

can support select stakeholders that would normally be adamant to part take in the process but

are critical players in the success of the entire process;

Formulation of a checklist of all the materials (and/or equipments) that you will need to ensure

that the process is a success. The checklist will guide you to ensure you do not forget any single

item;

Consultatively with the critical stakeholders at service provider side and leaders at right holders’

side, select a probable date for the score card process, the most suitable location and the

estimated duration of the process. This way, either party will plan accordingly to attend and be

part of the process for the stipulated time.



Step 2: Administering the CSC with rights holders (Communities)

Stage 1 Sub Stage 1.0 Description

Convene a

community

gathering

Introducing the

score card

At this point, you will convene a community meeting and introduce

them to the exercise, its objective and the SC tool itself;

Clustering the

community

Group the participants into interest groups for FGDs such as: male

and female youth or as per sector e.g. health, water or education;

However, in the event that the participants are analyzing a single

sector, it is not necessary to have them into different groups, rather

they can work as a single group.

Introducing a

facilitating team

Each group will have a two-person team of facilitators (both

facilitators will have a relationship of trust with the community). One

facilitator will lead the group in generating issues and the other will

provide support and jot down notes of all discussions in a notebook.

Overtime, they can change roles as the process continues. (see a

sample of situational analysis Image 1)

Issue Analysis

Once all the issues have been cited by the participants, one facilitator

should guide the group to carry out the process of Issue-stakeholder

analysis. This will clearly point out interventions, responsible persons

etc (see a sample of Issue-Stakeholder Analysis Table 1)


Develop an

Input

Tracking

Matrix

Tracking all

inputs

Inputs in this case refer to resources allocated to a service delivery

point in order to ensure efficient delivery of that particular service.

The facilitator should explain to the groups about the purpose of

tracking inputs to the services e.g. Inputs in the context of a school

may include;

# of students per class;

# of desks and chairs for students; etc.

Guide the group to develop an input matrix for clarity, understanding

and participation of all. (See a sample input matrix under Table 2)


Develop

the actual

CSC tool

Generating issues

Upon completion of input tracking, facilitators will stimulate

participants’ discussions by asking questions like, “How are things

going with service or program here? What service or program works

well? What does not work well?” etc.

Once the groups have agreed on the issues, jot them down in a

note book and/or flip chart – not before.

Help groups cluster similar issues together. For all problems, ask

for suggestions about how to improve on quality of delivery; and

for all strong points, discuss how to maintain them.

Prioritizing issues

More often than not, the groups will generate quite a number of

issues, and not all are relevant to your service or project. Ask the

group to agree on the most important and urgent issues to deal with

first. Let the groups give reasons for their choice. (See a sample

priority matrix on Table 3)

Close the

meeting (to

prepare for 2nd

meeting)

Once all the issues raised have been broken down and prioritized,

thank the participants for their time and inputs.

Explain to them that you will take the arrived at priorities and

develop indicators for them to score on.



Agree on a date for the follow up visit when the issues (to be

presented as indicators) will be scored.

Let them know that the same group members will be doing the

scoring during the next meeting.

Developing

indicators

At this point, facilitators will develop indicators from the priority

issues.

Developing a

scoring matrix

After generating the indicators, the next step is to develop the Score

Card matrix for participants to score the indicators. (See a sample

scoring matrix under table 4 & sample score card on table 5)

Guiding the

participants to

score the score

indicators

With indicators and matrices having been formulated, the community

will convene (on the days agreed upon during the past meeting) to

continue the process. Follow the steps below during this stage;

1. Begin the community meeting by carrying out a recap of the past

meeting to ensure that everyone is clear about the process, what

has been done so far and the next steps. The facilitation team will

inform the participants that the issues they raised have been

transformed to indicators for purposes of scoring and that they

are the full representation of the community perception as a

whole as they sum up all the issues that they prioritized.

2. Group the participants into the same focus groups they were in

on the first day of the CSC process (with as many of the same

people as possible and with the same facilitators to maintain the

position of trust);

NOTE: However, in the event that the participants are analyzing

a single sector, it is not necessary to have them into different

groups; rather they can work as a single group.

3. Present the indicators that have been formulated, take the

participants through them (indicators) ensuring that they fully

understand and check that they represent their priority issues as

settled upon during the first meeting.

4. Explain to the participants how the scoring works in great detail

so that they are not confused and score wrongly as this may cause

tension or the process may lose its meaning.

5. Then, starting with the first indicator, ask the group to give it a

score. Make sure the participants have agreed on the score before

writing it up on the matrix. Also check that each score represents

the views of the more quiet people in the group.

6. After they have given the score to the first indicator, ask for the

reason(s) for the score, and write it on the matrix.

7. If it is a low score, ask for any suggestions for improvement and,

similarly, for high scores, ask for suggestions on how to maintain

those aspects of the service. Make notes of all these discussions in

your notebook.

8. Repeat the process for all the other indicators on the scoring

matrix.

Consolidating the

score card

1. Facilitators will support the participants to develop a scoring

matrix that will record scores so that the scores can be

consolidated (to have a combined score for each indicator) to

present a general consensus for the indicators.

2. When the participants agree on a consolidated score for each



Image 1: Sample situational analysis models – diamond and problem tree

Diamond Model Problem Tree Model

indicator, the facilitators will guide them to fill it into the matrix.

Facilitators should challenge the groups to be clear about their

reasons for the scores and to write these reasons down on the

matrix.

3. On completion of the scoring, the facilitators will guide the

participants in a discussion by asking questions such as; “Looking at

the different scores, what is the real picture? Which score can represent

all scores and the real situation?” This is to guide the participants to

see the bigger picture of the issues that they are addressing.

NOTE: However, in the event that the participants are analyzing

a single sector, it is not necessary to have them into different

groups; rather they can work as a single group.


Preparing

for

interface

meeting

Setting up the

meeting

1. At the end of the consolidation exercise, once again remind the

representatives about the purpose of the CSC process and the

need and relevance of the interface meeting - proposing the dates,

venue and participation for the meeting.

2. The facilitators nominate two representatives - will a focus on

gender representation, who will present the scores on behalf of

participants to the service providers during the interface meeting.

These representatives should be literate and active in the

community.

3. Facilitators and community representatives should follow up on

invitations to ensure good attendance. People at the interface

meeting should include but not limited to:

Residents Associations

CBOs

Councilors

MPs

Pastoral Fraternity

Informal Traders Associations

Business Community

Representatives from Ministry of youth and local government



Table 1: Sample issue and Stakeholder Analysis

Issue Victim Sign Perpetrator Remedial

Action Expectation

Responsible

Department Allies

Table 2: Sample input tracking matrix

Indicators

Input Entitlement (This is what

the situation should be, guided by

government policies and frameworks)

Actual (This is what is

actually happening based

on community perception)

Remarks

Teachers 1:45 1:70 Observed

over-crowding

Table 3: Priority matrix sample

Issue Priority Reason

Table 4: Scoring matrix sample

Group

Name Date

District /

Ward

Score

Indicator Very Bad =1 Bad = 2 Okay = 3 Good = 4 Very Good = 5 Reason

Indicator

Table 5: Sample community score card

Indicators

Entitlements

(these are the

provisions in place

by Gov.)

Actuals (these

represent the

situation as it on

ground)

Scores (out

of 100%)

Observations (here,

communities explain

briefly the reason for their

scores)

Ratio of Teachers

to students

Step 3: Administering the CSC with duty bearers (Service Providers)


Initiating

the duty

bearer

score card

The duty bearer score card can be administered after or concurrently

to that of rights holders. The indicators generated by the providers

are usually similar to those of the community because the service

providers often identify the same issues but from a different angle.

The pace is also quicker because of the literacy levels and that it is

usually not necessary to consolidate scores since the service provider

generally come from only one group (i.e., one institution). However,

it is important to clearly explain to the service providers that the

Score Card process is not to point fingers at individuals but to

improve service delivery problems. This requires a shift or change in

attitude of the staff to be open minded and critical thinkers while

taking part in the scoring process.



Organizing &

preparing the

duty bearer

Score Card

Choose a facilitator who is most suited to lead the Scoring exercise.

This should be someone who is trusted by other staff and is

sufficiently mature to lead.

Agree on a date and venue for the exercise; try to meet

somewhere the staff will not be disturbed to attend to other issues.

Explain the benefits and purpose of the Score Card and make sure

they understand and don’t feel threatened.

PS: If the community Score Card process has already been

conducted, let the facilitators explain to the rest of their colleagues

what was done, how and why.

Developing

the duty

bearer

Score Card

Generating

issues

1. Explain to the group that they will start their session by sharing some

general issues about certain aspects of their program or service. For

instance, they will respond to such questions as: What are the types of

services we offer? How do we offer them? What are the main challenges?

2. Note all the issues generated by the group on flipchart paper, BUT

only when they have been agreed upon. For the problems or

challenges listed, ask for suggestions to improve them and for the

strong points, discuss how to maintain them. Note all the discussions.

Developing

indicators

After issues have been generated, identify the major ones, develop

indicators and list the issues related to each indicator under it. Similar

issues might generate related indicators which can be clustered e.g.

indicators concerning management of the services, delivery of the

service, staff attitudes toward clients, availability of equipment to

deliver the service, etc. (A sample of clustered issues for indicator

formulation table 5)

Creating the

duty bearer

score card

matrix

After the indicators have been developed (by facilitators at the office),

the service provider group will now have to score each indicator.

Explain the different scoring methods and agree on a method

(preferably use a method similar to that used in the community).

Starting with the first indicator, ask the service provider group to give

it a score using the identified technique. Make sure the group has

agreed on the score before writing it on the matrix. Check that each

score includes the views of the quieter staff members in the group.

Include reasons for the scores.

Table 5: A sample of clustered issues for indicator formulation

Issues Components to form

the indicator

“The community leaves litter in the grounds of the health centers.”

“There is not always water to wash the floors in the center and clean the

bed linens.”

“The cleaner has left & the MOH has not given us permission to appoint a

new one.”

Cleanliness of the health

facility & surroundings.



Step 4: Interface meeting – service providers & duty bearers


Conducting

the joint

interface

meeting

Commencing the

Interface

Meeting

Welcome everyone.

Explain the purpose of the meeting and expectations.

Explain the methodology – this will be a participatory dialogue

between service users and providers.

Call the representatives of community service users to present the

consolidated scores. Presentations should include recommendations

for how to improve where there were low scores and suggestions

about how to maintain the high scores.

Next, the service providers will present their scores and

suggestions for improvement or sustaining performance, as well as

their recommendations based on the suggestions for improvement

made by the service users.

At this point, allow for an open and participatory

dialogue/discussion and questions for clarity with each side given

ample time to respond to and question the other.

Out of the discussions, identify burning issues to resolve and

prioritize into action for change.

Developing a

joint action plan

After the discussions, let the members jointly decide the order in

which the indicators/issues should be dealt with, and list them in

order of priority on a separate flipchart with their suggestions for

improvement. Remember to be realistic about any suggestions for

improvement. What is the most possible and realistic? What is short-

term and what is long-term?

Group similar priorities together and agree on an overall theme or

name/heading for group

Discuss each priority theme as follows and record in the planning

matrix (A sample of a planning matrix table 6)

It is best to keep the duration of the action plan to a minimum of 6

months and a maximum of one year for proper follow up and

evaluation.

Table 6: A sample of a planning matrix table

Priority

Issue

Action

(activities

needed to

address

the issue)

Who will lead

it (name &

institution)

With whom

(name &

institution)

Completion

date

(be realistic)

Resources

(what is

needed

to do the

action)

Cleanliness

of the health

Centre

More staff

Community to

use bins

District official

Health center

committee

- Health center

clinician

- Health center

grounds cleaner

June 2015 to

Dec 2015



Step 5: Action planning, reporting and monitoring

It is important to recognize that the Score Card process does not stop immediately after generating a

first round of scores and joint action plan. Follow-up steps are required to jointly ensure

implementation of plans and collectively monitor the outcomes. Repeated cycles of the Score Card

are needed to institutionalize the practice - the information collected needs to be used on a sustained

basis, i.e., to be fed back into the service providers current decision-making processes as well as its M&E

system. The Score Card tool generates issues which can be used in advocacy efforts to raise awareness

of the problems and push for solutions. These advocacy efforts can also help integrate the solutions into

local policies and systems for the sustainability of results.

Some of the key follow-up activities may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Compile a report on the Score Card process including the joint action plan. Most of the

information is already recorded in the note books;

Use the outcomes and action plan to inform and influence any current plans concerning

delivery of the concerned service (e.g., planning processes for the district implementation plan,

as well as budgeting processes to take into consideration the needs of the people and the staff).

Monitor the action plan implementation as it is the responsibility of the service providers

and community to implement the plan – they have to own it.

Plan a repeat Score Card cycle ahead of time and inform both service providers and

communities. The repeat cycle will provide an opportunity to assess if there has been any

improvement from implementing the joint action plan. The repeat cycle involves the same

process with the same communities and service providers. Ask participants to check if the joint

action plan has been implemented and if there are improvements in the service delivery process.



The Public

Expenditure

Tracking Survey

(PETS)

Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) are designed to

achieve the primary need of improving governance and reducing

corruption in public service delivery. They constitute a

quantitative survey of the supply side of public services. They

therefore differ from the other mechanism (Community Score

Card) as presented in this report - nonetheless, it complements

the CSC which mainly focuses on the demand side mechanisms.

PETS seek to answer questions such as: Do public funds and

material resources end up where they are supposed to? If they don’t,

the survey may go further and ask: Why are those funds being

diverted? Such surveys are typically implemented at the sector

level, usually in health or education. By providing exact

information about how many of the resources allocated to public

service provision actually reach the users, PETS provide

important input for informing citizens about their rights and

entitlements to public services.

Furthermore, the testimony of citizens regarding the services

they have actually received constitutes an important source of

information as compared with more ordinary reports.



B. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS)

The first step in conducting PETS is defining its objective as this is the most significant step in

determining whether implementation succeeds in conducting a valid and valuable study and whether the

work has a short-term or long-term impact on public spending and service delivery. Defining a clear

objective for PETS will drive not only the scope of the study, but will also determine what will be done.

That said, thinking about the way in which the research results will be used can also be a powerful tool

for determining the objective and scope of the study. For either category of PETS - analytical or

monitoring - defining the objective involves making critical decisions about the study, including selecting

the topic, scope, developing research questions and identifying target audiences.

Step 1: Mapping resources

The logic behind Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys is that government officials and facilities have an

incentive to misrepresent the amount of resources going to service users if some fraction of these

resources is being used for purposes for which the funds are not intended. To deal with this problem of

incentives, PETS implementers triangulate budget data by looking at records from all of the places where

money changes hands for particular resource flows. Viewing district level records of money allocated to

a primary school by itself cannot identify potential corruption; comparing these records to ones kept by

the primary school itself and seeing that the two records do not match, however, can point to a place

where money may have leaked.

Most public social sector funds go through many hands before reaching the service user, and accurately

determining both the level and location of leakages requires that project practitioners start with a

complete and correct picture of what the expenditure chain looks like. This exercise is in itself a major

contributor to the PETS process. Though various entities (government ministries and agencies)

understand their own budgets and transfers systems, very few, if any, truly understand how frontline

service providers are actually funded in such a case, a well-mapped PET can serve as a vehicle for

establishing this information.

Mapping the flow of resources also provides a good list of sources from which to gather the data

needed to conduct the PETS. Practitioners should also note that different entities along the expenditure

chain that contribute to a pool from different sources, potentially making data collection and analysis

more challenging if not noted and accounted for at early stages.

Image 2: Sample Resource Chain

Below is a chain of how resources come from the highest level all the way to the schools.

For practioners, this kind of supply chain information/knowledge, they are in a position to

better plan for the PETS process.

Central

Government

Min of

Education

District

Education

Office

Provincial

Education

Office

Primary &

Secondary

Schools



a) Gathering Data

After completing the map of resource flows, the practioners have a complete list of budget sources to

check and compare in order to provide an accurate picture of inefficiencies in the expenditure chain.

When officials see that the study is being conducted out in the open and not under the radar of

policymakers, they sometimes feel more comfortable providing access to data. However, in many cases,

and despite all efforts, practioners are faced with the challenge of lacking access to data.

Gathering budget data itself, however, can also reveal interesting trends in public expenditure

management. Key to these being;

First, the challenges is that civil society and practioners generally face more huddles in gaining

access to data from government officials demonstrates the lack of transparency that exists in the

system and the need for a remedy to opaque budgeting procedures.

Second, without looking at the numbers, many practioners find from the process of collecting

budget records that there is significant miscommunication between different levels of

policymakers about budgeting responsibilities and funding requests.

b) Following the money

At this point, we have begun exploring how practioners can determine what budget data they need to

collect and from where (e.g. which Ministry, Department, Unit etc.) and begin analysis and compilation.

Following the money generally requires the collection of secondary and primary data, including:

1. Sub-national level budget data (This is at District level);

2. Facility budget data (This can either be at District or Ward level); and

3. Data on spending and service delivery on the ground (This is at Ward level).

Once the resource flow has been determined and mapped, the process of tracking the money can begin

by preparation of a simple tool for the facility survey and coupled by a questionnaire.

Note: Gaining access to necessary data can require

some amount of finesse. On the one hand, engaging with

government officials from the beginning can help

practioners overcome the problem of uncooperative

government office holders; on the other, it can serve as

a signal to government officials that it is time to start

keeping an extra set of budget books.



Note:

The facility tool will guide what the practioners/communities want to see/address, WHILE,

the questionnaire framework will generate the information to guide the objective of the

PETS process.

Table 1: A sample facility Tool (with sample issues)

Objective Question Interest Source

Data

Collection

Method

Data

Collection

Tool

To understand

the mechanism

of

resource

allocation

in the

education

sector in

Epworth &

Chitungwiza

Districts

What are the

procedures

with regard

to resource

allocation

& transfers?

What are the

spending

Patterns at

each level?

What was

budgeted?

What was

approved?

What was

released to the

sector?

What are the

methods

of

disbursement

National budget

District budget

Ward budget

Desk

Reviews &

Analysis

Checklist(s)

Questionnaires

Table 2: A sample questionnaire framework ((with sample issues)

Facility

Traits Inputs Outputs Quality Financing

Accountability

mechanisms

This includes

size of the

facility, how

many

students use

the facility,

what type of

facility it is

(public, or

private),

competition

etc.

This needs

to be

measured in

monetary

terms.

Measurable

outputs to

calculate cost-

efficiency

include;

# of students

enrolled in a

school,

# of patients

seen,

etc.

In the case of

PETS, quality

can be

measured

through

observation

and FGD

deliberations

Focus should be

on;

Where

is the money

coming from?

e.g. Gov.,

donors

Amounts should

also be

recorded.

Because

different types of

facilities operate

under different

types of

accountability

structures e.g.

private schools are

not bound to

the same rules as

public schools - it is

important to

collect data on

management,

reporting

mechanisms,

and record keeping

Step 2: Collecting and Analyzing the data

The first step outlined in this guidebook has dealt with preparing for PETS implementation. Practioners

are well advised to put significant time and effort into this step; carefully articulating objectives,

developing a strong work plan, and crafting a clear set of instruments will make the step of collecting

and analyzing the data simpler and more successful.



Once the practioners have completed the preparatory step, they can begin implementing the PETS. This

step (step two) involves several sub-steps including training the survey team, facility visits, entering and

cleaning the data, and data analysis.

a) Establishing a team

This step focuses on identifying a team of enumerators who understand the basics of the project and,

preferably, have some experience with social accountability or surveying. Many PETS practioners face

obstacles in administering the survey instruments themselves, as such, recruiting and training a team of

temporary staff or community members to serve as enumerators can be a cost-effective means of

administering the survey and also an angle for ownership. Once a team has identified/selected

enumerators, the next step is to adequately train them. Training on the survey instruments can be a

timely process, but its importance cannot be overstated. Note: If enumerators are not well trained and

as such are unfamiliar with the questions they are asking, the data they will collect faces the possibility of

being unusable as factual or relevant.

b) Data input and cleaning

While practioners wait until completing the survey, there is a case to be made for entering data as they

are collected. Although piloting a survey should uncover many of the potential problems with an

instrument, additional problems with relaying answers can arise when entering the data. Entering data

can also uncover trends that can be added to the survey.

c) Data analysis

This process entails analyzing collected information and seeking to flag out any kind of leakage(s) of

funds, delays and areas where problems with priorities may exist in the expenditure chain. Leakages can

be identified (if they exist) at each stage of the expenditure chain by comparing the amount disbursed by

the higher link in the chain and the amount received by the lower link in the chain. On instances, the

exact source of leakage may not be identified but the practioners should be in a position to cite

evidence that there is leakage.

Different offices/departments keep different forms of data. In such a situation, the kind of data being

kept can either make it clear or harder for practioners to establish a trend, or cite a probable situation.

These kinds of data are in two forms: Aggregated and Disaggregated.

Table 3: Disaggregated Data

School DEO Disbursement Amount received at

school Leakage

A USD. 100, 000 USD. 90, 000 USD. 10, 000

B USD. 100, 000 USD. 100, 000 USD. 0

C USD. 100, 000 USD. 40, 000 USD. 60, 000

USD. 300, 000 USD. 230, 000 USD. 70, 000

A scenario: Take for example the case of a District

Education Office (DEO) that conveys MOE funding for

textbooks to five primary schools in the District. If the

district office keeps disaggregated budget records, PETS

should be able to identify the level of leakage occasioned

on disbursement at each school.



Table 4: Aggregated Data

School DEO Disbursement Amount received at

school Leakage

A No Data USD. 90, 000 No Data

B No Data USD. 100, 000 No Data

C No Data USD. 40, 000 No Data

USD. 300, 000 USD. 230, 000 USD. 70, 000

Step 3: Flagging out issues

The preceding steps have provided the framework needed to identify and answer questions regarding

the flow of public resources. However, in order to utilize the results to improve policies, spending, and

human development outcomes, the practioners must translate numbers into actual answers. In

particular, there are three types of questions that the quantitative results, combined with supporting

qualitative evidence, can be used to answer:

Step 4: Setting recommendations

The final question that PETS must tackle is the question of how to remedy the problems uncovered.

From the issues identified, practioners can now develop specific recommendations. This part of the

process is project-specific however. For CSOs, it is important to keep a few things in mind;

What should I

consider while making

recommendations?

What are the problems? What are the leakage levels or delays in

fund disbursement?

What are the trends in problem occurrence? These are the

“who,” “where” and “when” of the problems. Where is the leakage

higher (rural schools or urban schools)? When are school meals

most likely to be delayed in arriving at schools (early in the school

year or later)?



Table 5: Sample PETS

Critical Focus Questions

Entitlements

(these are the

provisions in place

by Gov.)

Actuals

(these

represent the

situation as it

on ground)

Scores

(out of

100%)

Observations

(here, communities

explain briefly the

reason for their

scores)

Indictors determinants

When was the decision to build

the school arrived at?

Who are the people who

participated in the decision

making?

When was this decided?

Quality Determinants

What are the details of the

materials used?

Resource Determinants

What is the source of the

funding? (Gov., Donor Aid or

community)

What was the planned cost of

the entire project?

How much did the entire

project cost?

How many disbursements were

made for this project?

Are there records for each

disbursement? And actual

expenditure?

a) CSOs can be well-positioned (depending on country context); to target

recommendations to specific audiences and take advantage of their local status to

influence policy at a level that large organizations may not be able to accomplish.

b) Recommendations can be targeted not only at the central Government and ministries,

but also at local government, service users, service providers, and stakeholders-at-large.

c) Practioners and CSOs should target their recommendations according to the audience. In

an effort to not only disseminate the PETS evidence but also recommend solutions to

identified problems, different strategies can be employed, ranging from press releases to

media campaigns.

d) Recommendations do not necessarily have to be exclusively policy-based; some of the

best recommendations can call for action related to specifically identified issues of leakage

or delays.

e) Practioners can advantageously highlight qualitative findings to examine the underlying

issues of leakages, delays, problems of priorities and service delivery issues.

Documents

YAT Social Accountability Guide.pdf