Civil Society Engagement inEducation Budgets:A report documenting Commonwealth Education Fund Experience

The Commonwealth Education Fund (CEF) was established in March 2002 withfunding from DFID. CEF was managed jointly by ActionAid, Oxfam and Save theChildren.

This report documents budget work carried out by partners in the sixteencountries supported by CEF. It is one of a series of three publications oneducation budget work, designed to be used together, which also include:

• Making the Budget Work for Education: Experiences, Achievements andLessons from Civil Society Budget Work

• A Budget Guide for Civil Society Working in Education

Front cover: Pupils at Thattativu Sivakalai Vidyalum School, Sri Lanka/Teri Pengilley, Save the Children UK

3

Contents

Acknowledgements 4

Abbreviations 5

Introduction 7

Part I: Overview

Civil society and education budget work 10

CEF supported budget work 12

Part II: Country Profiles

Bangladesh 18

The Gambia 20

Ghana 22

India 24

Kenya 25

Lesotho 27

Malawi 28

Mozambique 30

Nigeria 32

Pakistan 34

Sierra Leone 36

Sri Lanka 38

Tanzania 40

Uganda 42

Zambia 45

Part III: Further Information

CEF budget work references 48

44

Acknowledgements

This report was written by Victoria Perry and coordinated by Janice Dolan of Save the Children on behalf ofthe Commonwealth Education Fund.

Special thanks for contributions and comments are due to Carol Angir, Chike Anyanwu, Shiela Aikman,David Archer, Zerha Arshad, Hendrina Doroba, Tome Eduardo, Dr. Gunawardenda, Jill Hart, Nyakassi Jarju,Dorothy Konadu, Chandima Liyanagamage, Emily Lugano, Andrew Mamedu, William Migwi, Patrick Ngowi,Nickson Ogwal, Debdutt Panda, Jonathan Saffa, Robert Salati, Niraj Seth, Zakaria Sulemana, MohammedMuntasim Tanvir, Grace Taulo, Francis Vernuy, Katy Webley, Sadaf Zulfiqar Ali.

5

Abbreviations

ACCU Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda

ADB African Development Bank

ANEEJ African Network for Environment and Economic Justice

ARE Action for Rural Education

ASPBAE Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education

BODEN Bo District Education Network

CADEC Cancel Debts for Child Campaign

CAPP Community Action for Popular Participation

CASSAD Centre for African Settlement Studies and Development

CATI Community Accountability and Transparency Initiative

CED Coalition for Educational Development

CBGA Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability

CBO Community-Based Organisation

CEF Commonwealth Education Fund

CIRDDOC Civil Resource Development and Documentation Centre

CPDI Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives

CSACEFA Civil Society Action Coalition on Education for All

CSCQBE Civil Society Coalition on Quality Basic Education

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DEFAT District Education for All Team

DFID Department for International Development

DISHA Developing Initiatives for Social and Human Action

DOSFEA Department of State for Finance and Economic Affairs

DSS Direct Support to Schools

EFA Education for All

EFASL Education for All Coalition Sierra Leone

ELBA Economic Literacy and Budget Analysis

EYC Elimu Yetu Coalition

FIVDB Friends in Village Development Bangladesh

FPE Free Primary Education

GCN Girl Child Network

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GNECC Ghana National Education Campaign Coalition

GSB Gender Sensitive Budgeting

HRCP Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation

ISODEC Integrated Social Development Centre

KAACR Kenya Alliance for the Advancement of Child Rights

KaDEF Kambia District Education Forum Network

KDG Kigulu Development Group

KNAP Kenya National Association of Parents

66

LDÇ Child Rights LeagueLERA Lesotho Education Research AssociationMahlahle Mozambican Association for Women’s DevelopmentMEPT Mozambique Education for All MovementMoE Ministry of EducationMoES Ministry of Education and SportsMoFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic DevelopmentMP Member of ParliamentNCDHR National Campaign for Dalit Human RightsNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationNGND Northern Ghana Network for DevelopmentNNED Northern Network for Education DevelopmentNRDS Noakhali Rural Development SocietyNUT Nigerian Union of TeachersOSISA Open Society Initiative for Southern AfricaOYV Operation Young VotePAF People’s Action ForumPCE Pakistan Coalition for EducationPEDP Primary Education Development PlanPET People’s Empowerment TrustPETS Public Expenditure Tracking SystemPOSDEV Pan African Organisation for Sustainable DevelopmentPPRC Power and Participation Research CentrePROAGAPE Project AgapePro-PAG Pro-Poor Advocacy GroupPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperPTA Parent Teacher AssociationRePOA Research on Poverty AlleviationSDS School Development SocietySERI Social and Economic Rights InitiativeSMC School Management CommitteeSNV Netherlands Development AgencySPIP School Performance Improvement PlanSUS Sabalamby Unnayan SamityTAACC The Apac Anti-Corruption CoalitionTEN/MET Tanzania Education Network/Mtandao was Elimu TanzaniaTGNP Tanzania Gender Networking ProgrammeToT Training of TrainersUBE Universal Basic EducationUGAADEN Uganda Adult Education NetworkUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUSD United States DollarsWA-BEAN Western Area Budget Education and Advocacy NetworkYUVA Youth for Unity and Voluntary ActionZANEC Zambia National Education CoalitionZCEA Zambia Civic Education AssociationZCSS Zambia Community Schools Secretariat

7

The Commonwealth Education Fund wasestablished in March 2002 with a focus onpromoting civil society input into the Education forAll process and raising the profile of internationaleducation targets in low-income Commonwealthcountries. The Commonwealth Education Fundaimed to increase public debate around theeducation goals, promote greater transparency ineducation budgets and focus attention on theneeds of children outside the education system.Sixteen countries received CommonwealthEducation Fund support for work around three corecriteria:

• Strengthening civil society participation indesign and implementation of national and localeducation plans, especially through support forbroad based national alliances and coalitions.

• Enabling local communities to monitor spendingon education both at national and local levels.

• Supporting innovative ways for communities toensure that all children are able to accessquality education within a framework of nationaleducation plans, in a way that links this toadvocacy.

Of particular significance was the portfolio of workaround education budgets. The CommonwealthEducation Fund supported partners in each of thesixteen countries to empower communities tomonitor spending on education at local and nationallevels. Establishing civil society input into educationbudgets is key to the Education for All process. Thisrequires building capacity and enabling civil societyorganisations to more strategically andsubstantively influence budgetary decisions anddecisions around education budget policy.

This report documents Commonwealth EducationFund experience, illustrating how civil society canengage in the budget process through budgetanalysis; tracking disbursement flows through theeducation system; monitoring expenditure; andlobbying to influence budget allocations to theeducation sector. This report relies on availableexperience and attempts to pull together differentapproaches to education budget work into onecoherent document. It is primarily intended forgroups or individuals that have a new or relativelynew interest in education budget work, but mayalso be of interest to those that have engaged in

this work for some time and are interested inexamples of best practices and access to usefulresources. The report is divided into three parts:

Part I: Overview: This section describes whyeducation budget work is important. It records therange of work supported by the CommonwealthEducation Fund and sets this within the internationalcontext of budget work. It documents the majorachievements and common challenges faced byorganisations implementing programmes of budgetwork and makes recommendations based on theexperience of partners supported by theCommonwealth Education Fund.

Part II: Country Profiles: The profiles offer an insightinto the experiences of budget work programmes atcountry level. They document the achievements,activities, challenges and lessons learnt for each ofthe countries supported by the CommonwealthEducation Fund.

Part III: Further Information: The final sectionprovides a list of resources – budget expendituretracking manuals, tools and examples of researchon education financing – that were produced withsupport from the Commonwealth Education Fund.These serve as a useful guide for the reader toinvestigate budget work and budget issues in moredepth. There are also links to organizationalwebsites where further information on budget workmay be found.

Introduction

8

9

Part I:Overview

Girl reading in Andrha Pradesh, India/Stuart Freedman, Save the Children UK

10

Why is Education Budget Work Important?Over the last decade, budget work has grownenormously in popularity as a tool for holdinggovernment to account at all levels – from thenational to the grassroots. The move to political andfinancial decentralisation in many countries and thestrength of pro-democracy and accountabilitymovements have also focused attention onbudgets1. By empowering civil society to exploreissues related to the education budget,opportunities can be created that allow local peopleto engage in the big questions of national economicpolicy.

The budget reflects a government’s social andeconomic policy priorities by translating policies,political commitments and goals into decisions onwhere funds should be spent and how funds shouldbe collected. As such, budgets are crucial tounderstanding the planning choices made by agovernment2. A well-functioning budget system isvital to the formulation of sustainable fiscal policyand facilitates economic growth.

While a government’s budget directly or indirectlyaffects the life of all its citizens, frequently peoplewith the most modest means are the most greatlyaffected by budget decisions. In particular, the well-being of those with low incomes, and their futureprospects, can hinge on expenditure decisions inareas such as education. Moreover, even whenfunds have been allocated to pro-poor policies,weak expenditure and programme management –and a lack of political power among the poor – canmean that money does not always reach theintended beneficiaries3. Therefore it is important formarginalised groups of people to be able toparticipate and express their opinion regardingdecisions that impact them.

Whilst the budget cycle is complex, opportunitiesexist for civil society to engage at different levelsthroughout the process. Civil society can work withthe government to influence the decision-makingprocess and final expenditure. It can examinewhether this expenditure is disbursed as planned,

whether it has the desired impact, and the impactof the budget on different parts of the population.By building national capacity in budget analysis,tracking and monitoring, civil society can use theinformation generated on public expenditure toadvocate for their right to education to be fulfilled.

International Organisations and Budget WorkOver the last decade significant transformations ingovernmental systems have provided improvedopportunities for civil society to engage in budgetwork. Many countries have shifted from beingclosed societies to open ones, and are striving tobuild more democratic and participatory decision-making processes. Democratic societies requireinformed citizenry, public participation, andgovernment practices that are transparent. Whilethis trend has been perhaps the single largestfactor behind the new interest in and possibilities forbudget work, the timing of the growth in budgetwork also reflects several other internationaldevelopments including4:

• An emerging consensus on the complementaryroles of government and non-governmentalactors in advancing economic development.Increasingly, state, private sector, and non-profitpartnerships are seen to be central toenhancing governance and implementingeffective poverty-reduction strategies.

• The adoption of new public finance practices inmany countries. This has led to a surge ofindependent budget work. The new practiceswelcome and support greater transparency inbudget systems and a larger role for theindependent oversight offered by civil societyand legislatures.

• Decentralisation has brought budgeting closerto communities. While decentralisation cancomplicate the monitoring of budgets nationally,it can also create opportunities for greatercitizen and local legislative involvement.

1 Save the Children (2004) Where’s the Money Going?: Monitoring Government and Donor Budgets London: Save the Children UK

2 Global Campaign for Education and ActionAid (2007) Education Rights: An Activist’s Guide to a Human Rights Based Approach to EducationLondon: ActionAid

3 International Budget Project (2001) A Guide to Budget Work for NGOs Washington DC: International Budget Project

4 Ibid

5 The groups listed here are representative of some of the more experienced organisations engaged in budget work. For a detailed list of groups bycountry see www.internationalbudget.org

Civil Society and Education Budget Work

11

A number of international organisations5 haveemerged in the wake of these transformations,including:

The International Budget ProjectThe International Budget Project of the Centre onBudget and Policy Priorities supports the growth ofindependent budget work around the world. Itassists non-governmental organisations andresearchers to analyse budget policies and toimprove budget processes, systems andinstitutions. In particular, the project supportsapplied research on the effects of budget policieson the poor, working primarily with organisationsthat conduct analysis in developing countries or incountries new to democracy.

The Economic Governance Programme, Institute forDemocracy in South AfricaThe Economic Governance Programme analysesthe allocation and use of public resources tounderstand the impact of budgets on the poor. Itspriority is to enhance the advocacy and policy-making efforts of civil society and legislatures, with

the belief that civil society can add value to theeconomic choices government makes, and thatwider participation in the budget process can helpbroaden agreement on these choices. Programmesinclude the Africa Budget Project, which is also theregional partner of the International Budget Project;the Women’s Budget Project; and the Children’sBudget Unit; Sector Budget Analysis; and a focuson education.

Transparency InternationalTransparency International recently launched a newprogramme called the Africa Education Watch,aimed at improving transparency and accountabilityin the use of resources for primary education.Through a set of diagnostic measures nationalchapters assess waste leakages and corruption inthe use of resources for primary education. Theproject also assess the extent to which localaccountability structures and instruments such asschool management committees and the publicdisplay of financial information contribute toreducing leakages and corruption.

12

6 No profile for CEF Cameroon is included in this report as budget work had not started at the time of writing.

CEF Supported Budget WorkOrganisations such as Transparency Internationaland the Commonwealth Education Fund aresupporting budget work focused on a particularsector. In the case of education, this sectoralapproach to budget work aims to hold governmentsand donors accountable to their commitments andspending towards Education for All.

The scope of activities supported by CEF aroundbudget work has been wide and varied. The rangeof creative approaches documented under each ofthe fifteen CEF countries where education budgetwork has taken place6 has clearly helped to engageordinary people, as well as officials and politicians,on budget issues. Some common threads of budgetwork conducted at the national and local levels areoutlined below.

National Level Budget WorkCEF-supported budget work at the national levelhas attempted to raise public and parliamentaryawareness of the education budget, and to raisethe importance of education financing in relation toachieving the Education for All. This has involved:

• Building the capacity of national coalitions andtheir members to engage in budget work.

• Monitoring government expenditure oneducation and using findings to informadvocacy activities.

• Raising strategic questions on education financingwith the ministries of education and finance.

• Analysing the national budget and allocations toeducation in relation to education policies andplans.

• Consulting with the government during thebudget preparation process.

• Lobbying government and donors to commitadditional resources to education.

• Working with parliamentarians on legislativeoversight of the education budget.

Local Level Budget WorkAt the grassroots level CEF activities have centredon empowering citizens to articulate their owndemands towards schools, local councils anddistrict education officials, as well as nationalauthorities. CEF-supported budget work at the locallevel has included:

• Sensitising communities to the importance ofeducation budget work.

• Building the capacity of civil society – inparticular School Management Committees(SMCs) and Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs)– to conduct education budget expendituretracking, analysis and advocacy.

• Using participatory methods to allowcommunities to monitor the use of educationresources.

• Sharing user-friendly versions of the budgetextensively and translating these into locallanguages.

• Exposing the misuse and misappropriation ofeducation resources.

• Engaging with local and national authorities aspart of the budget process.

• Advocating for increased resources to theeducation sector.

Budget work at the national level

In Bangladesh, CEF partners challenged claims made by the government that spending on educationwas increasing by demonstrating instead that it was a declining trend. Their findings were widely citedby the media, putting intense pressure on the government to reverse this trend.

In The Gambia partners worked to increase parliamentarians’ understanding of the education budgetand build their capacity to analyse allocations to education. This has made it possible to influencemembers of the National Select Committee on Education and Training to approve pro-poor activities thatmeet the aims of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper.

Budget monitoring at the national level in Malawi has led to the annual publication of an EducationBudget Monitoring Study, an exercise focused on examining priority poverty expenditure areas. Thestudy is circulated to the government, donors, civil society organisations and the parliament. Findingshave been used as an advocacy tool and contributed to an increased budgetary allocation to theeducation sector.

13

Budget work at the local level

In many countries CEF has sought to build the capacity of SMCs by providing them with anunderstanding of their role in monitoring the judicious use of school finances. CEF Mozambique hasraised the awareness of SMCs with regards to budget allocations, particularly the Direct Support toSchools initiative. CEF Nigeria has lobbied the government to institutionalise SMCs in primary andsecondary schools across the country.

In Uganda, children have been empowered to track expenditure and assess quality issues associatedwith education delivery by participating in school-based child-monitoring committees. Children developaction plans for improving the school environment and present these to the SMCs as well as at districtand national level policy workshops.

As a result of budget tracking work in Kenya, more than 50 head teachers were exposed by the mediafor corruption on the purchase of school textbooks. The Minister of Education issued a directivedemanding that all public primary schools display the school budget on the school notice board.

AchievementsThe Commonwealth Education Fund has worked tobuild the confidence of people at the national andlocal levels to understand and engage on educationbudgets. This has been done through awarenessraising and capacity building around budgetanalysis, tracking, monitoring and advocacy toenable civil society to participate in educationbudget processes. As a result of CEF support,education budgets have increasingly been broughtunder the scrutiny of civil society organisations toensure they are managed effectively so thatgovernment authorities may be held to account.

Empowering civil society organisations toparticipate in tracking and monitoring educationbudgets has led to the confidence of SMCs, PTAs,children, community-based organisations andNGOs to ask questions about budgets at theschool, district and national level. Where it has beendone in a systematic way at different levels andlocations, and when the analysis is used foradvocacy, budget work has contributed toenhancing transparency and accountability in themanagement of education.

Across the sixteen countries, information abouteducation budgets has been distributed to over sixmillion individuals as a direct result of CEF support,

and over 430,000 people have received training oneducation budget work. Training has strengthenedthe position of national coalitions entering intodiscussions over the budget with the Ministry ofEducation, something that has happened in twelveCEF countries. In nine countries, coalitions have feltconfident enough to take these discussions a stepfurther by engaging with the Ministry of Finance. Formany Ministries of Finance this has been a novelty,as it is the first time they have held informeddiscussions with civil society groups over thecontents of the education budget and beenchallenged on their own figures.

Work, with parliamentary caucuses, is now evidentin eight countries and has yielded quick results asparliamentarians become more familiar with theissues faced by the education sector in theircountry, as well as their responsibilities in providinglegislative oversight of the education budget. Manypartners supported by CEF have questionedmacroeconomic policies and their impact upon theeducation sector, whilst others have challengeddonors on the amount of aid allocated to spendingon education. The table below presents an overviewof what partners in countries supported by CEFhave achieved in relation to their education budgetwork.

Achievements in Ghana and Tanzania

As a result of the public expenditure tracking system introduced in Tanzania, relevant, detailed andaccessible information on expenditure was made publicly available. This has allowed civil society toconfidently analyse public expenditure and hold local government to account over their spending.

In Ghana, there was a marked improvement in education financial management, accountability andtransparency at the community and district levels in areas where CEF had supported budget work. Over70% of participating community schools in the Suhum-Kraboa-Coaltar district began to operate bankaccounts and headteachers started to prepare quarterly revenue and expenditure reports.

14

Budget Work Achievements

ChallengesEach stage of the budget cycle contains potentialchallenges for civil society engagement. Whilebudget-making during the formulation andenactment stages can be highly political, otherparts of the budget cycle may be dominated bychallenges related to restricted access toinformation and insufficient capacity to addressbudget issues effectively. Some of the challengescommonly faced by CEF partners are outlinedbelow.

Difficulty Entering into the Budget CycleIt is often difficult for civil society to gain entry intothe budget cycle. Post-budget analysis is generallyeasier to carry out, but this leaves little opportunityfor lobbying. Where there is no legal frameworkproviding a clear role for civil society in the budgetprocess, as in Bangladesh, there is rarely anyscope for participation.

Limited Access to InformationIn many countries, the general absence ofinformation on education budgets – particularly inaccessible, non-technical forms – seriously hindersthe efforts of national and local organisations toparticipate in discussion on the distribution ofeducation resources. Accessing data remains oneof the major challenges in education budget work.Even where it is available at the national level it isinvariably inaccessible at the local level, or viceversa.

In countries such as Malawi, Nigeria and Zambiathere is no legislative framework with regard to thefreedom of information. Often, where a legalframework exists, as in Mozambique, there is a gapbetween this and an ideal standard of transparencyand participation. Some partners have negotiatedthis issue by obtaining education budgetinformation from sympathetic officials in Ministries.

Absence of a National PlatformSome CEF countries were slow to start on budgetwork. These have tended to be those countrieswhere there was no pre-existing education coalition,such as Cameroon and Lesotho. Unless a widerplatform is in place it is difficult to undertakeconstructive budget work as activities benefit fromcross-agency collaboration and the legitimacy thatcomes from a well-established and nationallyrecognised platform.

Lack of Civil Society CapacityDespite the efforts of CEF partners to build thecapacity of civil society organisations in budgetwork, a number of countries, including Ghana andSri Lanka, still recognise that one of the majorchallenges in scaling up activities associated withbudget work is a general lack of capacity amongcivil society organisations to undertake budgetanalysis and expenditure tracking

Reduced Financial SupportA number of programmes were affected by a CEFbudget cut, with partners finding it difficult to sourcefunds from other organisations to support theirbudget work. When a decision was taken to stopfinancing the budget work of a few CEF partners inTanzania, some partners were forced to drop thiswork as the result of insufficient funding.

Ban

glad

esh

Cam

eroo

n

The

Gam

bia

Gha

na

Indi

a

Ken

ya

Leso

tho

Mal

awi

Moz

ambi

que

Nig

eria

Paki

stan

Sier

ra L

eone

Sri L

anka

Tanz

ania

Uga

nda

Zam

bia

Tracked/InfluencedNational / X X X / X X X X X / X

Education Budget District / X X / X / / X X X XLocal / X X / / X / X X X

Exposed misuse of budget in media / X X X X X X / X XTaken public officials to court over misuse of funds / / XCalculated costs of key policy reforms X X / / X X / XWorked with MP or parliamentary caucus X X X X / X X X X /Linked to wider public finance network X X / X X XLinked to campaigns on debt X X X X X X /Challenged donors on their aid to education / / O / X X / / XQuestioned macro economic policies X X X / X X / / X X X

Achieved X Attempted without Success O In Progress /

15

Lessons Learnt

Budget Work Can Be Done by EveryoneBudget work is not only about academic analysis,but can also be a popular tool for claiming basicrights. It is an adaptable tool, which can be used indifferent environments by identifying and exploitingvarious entry points in the budget process. CEF hassupported a wide range of budget work activities,many of which have successfully been carried outby children and adult learners as well as nationalNGOs and parliamentarians.

Civil Society Capacity and Participation is Crucial toHolding Governments AccountableIn countries where political opposition is weak, civilsociety organisations may be the only meaningfulchallengers to government policy and budgets, andthe only credible group able to make demands ongovernment accountability. Civil societyparticipation in the budget process ensures that theperspective and interest of the excluded andmarginalised are voiced.

Gender Sensitive Budgeting Should be Reflected atAll Levels of the Budget ProcessBy analysing spending, and unpackingassumptions about where money will go and whowill benefit, gender budgeting can reveal whether aprogramme is equitable, and can ensure that statedcommitments to gender equality are backed up withsufficient budgetary allocations.

Building Constructive Relationships is Central toEffective Budget WorkSome governments feel threatened or affronted bycivil society organisations conducting budget work.Where this is the case, there must be a strategy forinvolving officials in planning and capacity buildingwork. There is a need to be pro-active in making thecase for budget work and building constructiverelationships with government officials andheadteachers – clearly explaining the potentialbenefits that come from an improved understandingof the budget by all stakeholders.

Highlighting Crucial Information and Policy IssuesCivil society organisations have substantial capacityto analyse the education budget from theperspective of the poor. They are able to be inclose, regular contact with stakeholders and feedthese perspectives into the budget decision-makingprocess. They can highlight important informationand policy issues that might not otherwise receiveenough attention.

The Value of Informed ResearchCivil society plays a crucial role in critiquing thework of the Ministry of Education and influencingthe budget. It is essential that the claims they makeare credible and backed up by informed research.To avoid unnecessary confrontation it is essentialthat positions on budgets are well researched andthat evidence of any budgetary discrepancies or amisuse of funds entirely robust before being madepublic.

7 Adapted from a paper prepared by the CEF Kenya Gender Monitor for the Elimu Yetu Coalition: Kamau, N. (2007) Engendering the EducationSector Budget

Gender Sensitive Budgeting

Gender Sensitive Budgeting (GSB)7 is a process that examines budgets to assess whether they benefitmen and women equally. It assists governments to achieve their gender objectives by requiring them tospell out how the different needs of men and women are being met; how policies need to be adjusted toachieve their maximum impact; measuring commitment by linking spending to policies; and monitoringperformance against the equality target.

GSB is the integration of a gender perspective into budget analysis and the budget itself. GSB should bereflected at all levels of the budget process – national, provincial, district and at community level. Thereporting format of such a budget should either include a separate document highlighting specific issuesfor women and girls or have the issues fully integrated in the main document. Most budgets assume thatthe needs of everyone can be addressed in a uniform way, ignoring the very real effects of genderrelations on women’s lives and the differential impact of policies on men and women.

GSB increases equality by establishing gender equality as an indicator of economic governance;accountability by providing a tangible measurement (of revenues and expenses) and holdinggovernments accountable for their policy on gender; and efficiency by reducing the losses in economicefficiency and human development caused by gender inequality, and informing policy debate, therebyimproving resource allocation.

16

Recommendations

Understand the Political and Economic Environment• Monitor the political landscape and shift

advocacy strategies accordingly to maximiseimpact.

• Understand the budget’s legal and institutionalframework, and timing of the budget cycle.

Build Capacity in Budget Analysis and Awareness• Develop budget training expertise that can be

directed at increasing the analytical andadvocacy capacity of civil society organisationsand legislatures.

• Invest in the capacity and confidence buildingof civil society organisations to conduct budgetwork.

• Produce simple, user-friendly tools for trainingthat are accessible to grassroots groups.

Establish Constructive Relations with theGovernment, Parliament and Civil Society• Promote the potential benefits of budget work to

government officials and headteachers.

• Establish collaborative relationships with othercivil society organisations, to ensure thatopportunities are created that draw on thecapacities and expertise of others.

• Create a mutually beneficial relationship with thelegislative arm of the government.

• Advance grassroots participation in budgetwork.

Conduct a Variety of Budget Work Activities• Ensure that capacity building is followed up by

activities that can be used for advocacypurposes.

• Link budget tracking and advocacy from local tonational level so that grassroots voices areconsidered in decision-making.

• Support campaigns to secure the freedom ofinformation where this affects the ability of civilsociety to carry out budget work

• Focus on producing high quality, evidence-based research as a way to influence thebudget process.

Disseminate Findings Widely• Distribute the results of budget analysis in a way

that is diverse, targeted, and clear, encouragingother stakeholders to act on recommendations.

• Disseminate information in time to allowstakeholders to influence policy debates.

• Involve the media to maximise the visibility ofresearch.

• Share examples of best practice widely.

17

Part II:Country Profiles

Boys at school in Kenya/Sven Torfinn, ActionAid

18

CEF championed education specific budget work inBangladesh, while other organisations such as theBangladesh Institute for Development Studies andActionAid conducted macro-level analysis of thebudget. CEF sponsored projects primarily focusedon budget tracking and analysis, as well as theproduction of informed and quality research. Itsmain national partner was the Power andParticipation Research Centre (PPRC), which wasresponsible for taking forward advocacy andcampaigning initiatives on education financing. CEFBangladesh later moved on to work with sevenfurther partners – SUS, Uttaran, Zabarang, FIVDB,NRDS, Wave Foundation and Coast Trust – oncommunity audits of the school budget and acitizens’ review of the primary education sectorwide plan. The People’s Empowerment Trust (PET)facilitated the formation of a parliamentary caucuson primary education.

Achievements and Impact• Challenged government claims that education

spending was increasing by demonstratinginstead that it was a declining trend.

• Proved that while absolute amounts allocated tothe education sector were increasing, whenspending was compared with GDP growth itwas evident that allocations were in fact indecline.

• Established Bangladesh’s first parliamentarycaucus on primary education.

• Held the government and donors to accountover spending on the primary education sectorwide plan by conducting a citizens’ review ofspending.

Programme of WorkBudget work concentrated on budget tracking andadvocacy work. The main areas of work werecommunity audits, the formation of a parliamentarycaucus, a citizens’ review of the primary educationsector wide plan, and research on educationfinancing.

Community AuditCommunity interest in budget analysis wasgenerated through the use of participatory toolsdeveloped by partners. Each community prepareda ‘people’s plan of action’, an ongoing process-

intensive initiative where the community isencouraged to realise the critical stake they have ineducation. They also collected key officialeducation documents and conducted budgettracking. This led to the successful lobbying formore equitable teacher deployment and theidentification of resource misuse.

Parliamentary Caucus on Primary EducationA parliamentary caucus on primary education wasformed with the mandate of lobbying within thegovernment on issues related to education. Thepurpose of the caucus was to analyse, promote andinfluence existing and proposed policies andlegislation on primary education. Membersidentified issues where they, as legislativepolicymakers could play a tangible role. One of thepriorities for this group was to lobby for educationto be declared a fundamental right in theconstitution. The group also advocated thateducation could not be classed as a meaningfulright without sufficient resources being allocated tothe sector. The caucus also contributed significantlyto the debate on education financing prioritiesduring the national budget preparation.

To sensitise members of the caucus to educationbudget issues, orientation sessions were held onthe budget and other relevant education issues –an unprecedented event in Bangladesh’sparliamentary history. Issues discussed includedthe significance of international education goals,education financing and the Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper (PRSP). Work with the parliamentarycaucus proved highly successful, generating thesupport of many parliamentarians. However, theestablishment of an interim government and militaryregime led to the dissolution of parliament and thepostponement of elections, leaving many issuespending.

Citizens’ Review of PEDP IISeven partners conducted fieldwork for a citizens’review of the primary education sector wide plan(PEDP II). The results were shared with theinternational donor consortium when they beganwork upon the official mid-term review. Internationaldonors had allocated 1.8bn USD to the plan,representing almost the total budget accorded tothe formal primary education sector. Partnersassessed how much of this money had been spentand on which priority areas. The results of the

Bangladesh

19

review were used to hold donors and the nationalgovernment to account over their spending.

Researching Educational Budget Issues forAdvocacyPPRC published two influential reports related toschool budget analysis and household expenditureon primary education. The report on FamilyEducation Expenditure and Budget demonstratedthat although primary education in Bangladesh isfree, rural families continue to make substantialinvestments in their children’s education for schoolequipment and household lighting. It was found thatalmost one-fifth of household expenditure is forlighting, leaving families with insufficient funds topay for direct school costs. As a result of thisresearch, specific reference to this issue was madein the PRSP. Further successes included schoolmeal provision being adopted and financed in theeducation budget.

Challenges• It was difficult for civil society to gain entry to

the budget cycle. There was no legal frameworkstating a role for civil society in the budgetprocess, nor any scope for participation.

• Post-budget analysis was easily carried out asbudget information was readily available, butthis left little opportunity for lobbying as budgetdecisions had already been made.

• Budget lines were ambiguous and invocation ofthe ‘official secrecy act’ prevented transparentaccess to information. This also impededlobbying activities.

Lessons Learnt• Awareness-raising is required at all levels to

demonstrate the untapped potential of budgetwork and its wide range of benefits.

• Budget work is not only about academicanalysis but also about activist advocacy. Itmust be popularized and put into the hands ofthe local community as a tool for claiming basicrights.

Publications and Useful Documents• PPRC (March 2004) The Budget Analysis of a

Primary School

• PPRC (March 2004) Family EducationExpenditure and Budget

• PPRC (March 2005) Quality Improvements inPrimary Education: Micro Insights for a MacroAgenda

• PPRC (May 2006) Prathomik Shikkhar Halkhata

• The Innovators (February 2004) EncounteringExclusion: Primary Education Policy Watch

• Uttaran (August 2004) The Truth Behind:Primary Education Scenario in Tala Upazila

20

CEF started supporting budget work in The Gambiain 2004 through the Pro-Poor Advocacy Group (Pro-PAG), a leading NGO championing pro-poorbudgets, policies and other economic interventionsthat improve the living conditions of the poor anddisadvantaged. Pro-PAG built up the expertise andmandate to conduct activities relating to budgetanalysis, and trained partners, communities andparliamentary groups on budget analysis, trackingand monitoring.

Achievements and Impact• Exposed education budget concerns via the

media and discussed them with the Departmentof State for Finance and Economic Affairs. Thisresulted in an increased allocation to theeducation budget that benefited voluntaryschool staff.

• Increased National Assembly Select Committeemembers’ awareness of their important role inlegislative oversight and their understanding ofissues relating to the education budget.

• Expanded training to other influential bodiessuch as the Gambian Teachers’ Union, the ChildProtection Alliance and the EFA CampaignNetwork, as a result of internationalorganisations’ interest in partners’ work with theNational Assembly.

Programme of WorkBudget work has concentrated on informationsharing and capacity-building with the NationalAssembly Select Committees on Education &Training and Public Accounts. Another key area hasbeen budget tracking, enabling communities toparticipate in the budget planning interface with thegovernment.

Opening Up the Budget ProcessWhile the budget consultations process took place,Pro-PAG simultaneously conducted a series ofcapacity-building and sensitisation workshops forcivil society members and parliamentarians onbasic budget literacy and analysis. Pro-PAGprovided technical support to the NationalAssembly on budget matters, raising awareness oftheir importance in legislative oversight of theeducation budget.

Pro-PAG developed a collaborative partnership withthe Department of State for Finance and EconomicAffairs (DOSFEA), the central agent responsible forthe national budget in The Gambia. Upon receipt ofthe Cabinet’s budget estimates, Pro-PAG carriedout preliminary analysis and released a ‘budgetbrief’, a copy of which was officially shared withDOSFEA. Once the budget was submitted to theNational Assembly, and before it was debated, Pro-PAG convened a budget brief sensitisation sessionfor parliamentarians to share key observations onthe draft estimates.

Educating the National AssemblyPro-PAG worked to build the capacity of theNational Assembly to understand the educationbudget and analyse allocations to education.Members of the National Assembly were taken tolocal schools to see for themselves that although alarge proportion of national resources have beencommitted to education, this did not automaticallytranslate into gains towards the internationaleducation goals that the government hadcommitted itself to achieving. The opportunity towitness first hand the needs of local schools meantthat National Assembly members could readilycomprehend school priorities and were able toarticulate these priorities in parliamentary debates.As a result of this work it was possible to influencemembers to approve activities that were pro-poorand in line with the aims of the PRSP.

Continual TrainingAs each National Assembly committee’s term ends,a new body of members is elected, meaning thatthe process of training and sensitisation had to berepeated. Budget work with committee membersattracted the support of other organisations such asUNDP, the African Development Bank, and DFID.Due to the success of the initial trainingprogramme, it was possible to expand the capacity-building initiatives to include other groups such asthe Gambian Teachers’ Union, the EFA CampaignNetwork, the Child Protection Alliance, YouthAmbassadors for Peace, and local municipalities.Gender analysis of the budget formed part of thistraining as there was a particular interest inanalysing the gender sensitivity of the governmenttrust fund on gender education.

The Gambia

21

Budget Expenditure Tracking with the LocalCommunityPro-PAG worked to enable communities to monitorgovernment spending on education at both thenational and local level. A database on educationalexpenditure by level and type was established thatallowed for a review of budget estimates and actualexpenditure from 2000 to 2004, a period whendeclarations were made on Education for All. Theresults were published as a synopsis of governmentspending on education and were used as evidenceto advocate for more budgetary allocations to theeducation sector. In a bid to take budget trackingdown to sub-district level communities, Pro-PAGpresented the data in a format that could be easilyunderstood and materials were disseminated thatwere used for sensitising communities on theimportance, nature and magnitude of resourcesmade available by central government to theeducation sector. Materials were used to trainregional budget groups of teachers, PTAs and SMCrepresentatives.

Lobbying for an Increase in the Education BudgetThe 2000-2004 budget expenditure publication waslater updated for the period 2001-2005 and sharedwith the National Assembly, sparking action on theparliamentarians’ part to request advance copies ofthe 2006 budget from DOSFEA. The NationalAssembly aired their concerns via the media and indiscussion with the Ministry of Finance. This led toan increase of 1.5m GMD (£30,000) to theeducation budget, enabling small payments to bemade to voluntary staff in schools such as untrainedteachers and school caretakers.

Challenges• A reduced CEF budget for 2007-8 meant that

Pro-PAG had to source funds for some of itsbudget work projects from elsewhere. It wasdifficult for the partner to find otherorganisations willing to finance its communitylevel budget expenditure tracking training ofbudget, holding up the transition from training tothe implementation of activities in the field.

Lessons Learnt• The most effective way of working within the

political climate of The Gambia is to work fromthe national level down to the community level.When work initially started at the local level itwas very quickly discovered that budget workantagonised government authorities who feltthat they were under attack – this was verymuch due to the nature of the political climateand a sense of apprehension towards rights-based approaches to development. However,budget work through Pro-PAG – which hasnational government support and is mandatedto build National Assembly capacity – hasdissipated the sense of suspicion surroundingbudget work, making it easier to work at theregional and local levels.

Publications and Useful Documents• Pro-PAG (2004) Expenditure Analysis on the

Nature and Magnitude of Resource Allocation inthe Education Sector

• Pro-PAG (2007) The Gambia EducationExpenditure Analysis – 2001-2005

• Pro-PAG (2007) A Guide for UnderstandingBudgets

22

CEF has supported its partners to enhance civilsociety participation in budget preparation,tracking, lobbying and educational governance.CEF has supported the Northern Network forEducation Development (NNED) and the PanAfrican Organisation for Sustainable Development(POSDEV) to conduct budget tracking activities,and the Northern Ghana Network for Development(NGND) in the scorecard method for participatoryapproach to monitoring the use of educationresources. Other CEF partners include the GhanaNational Education Campaign Coalition (GNECC)and the Centre for Budget Advocacy of theIntegrated Social Development Centre (ISODEC).CEF also supported Action for Rural Education(ARE) to undertake training to expose SMCmembers to practical budget tracking techniques.

Achievements and Impact• Enabled parents, communities and the District

Assembly to participate in the planning ofresources to address teaching and learningneeds.

• Increased communities’ ability to demandaccountability for the delivery of educationdevelopment services.

• Increased transparency in the flow ofinformation between district education officesand local communities in areas where NGNDand POSDEV worked.

• Trained communities in techniques to lobby formore resources. Some communities receivedsupport from the District Assembly and privatephilanthropists as a result of these interventions.

Programme of WorkCEF supported capacity building for civil societybudget expenditure tracking at the community anddistrict levels, with a particular focus on thecapitation grant. It also supported partners toanalyse the government budget statement.

The Scorecard MethodNGND applied a participatory approach tomonitoring education resources. Communities usedthe ‘scorecard method’ to assess the performanceof public services by analysing the supply anddemand sides of service provision. Information oneducation expenditure was collected from

community schools, district and regional offices ofthe Ghana Education Service, as well as DistrictAssemblies. Through discussion and access tobudget information, communities developed theirown criteria to assess the performance ofcommunity schools. This was intended to improvetransparency and accountability, and ultimatelyimprove the quality of education.

Findings were used as the basis to negotiate forimproved education services. Communitiesengaged the district education directorate on issuesuncovered by the monitoring exercise – related topoor school infrastructure and weak schoolmanagement. The directorate promised toinvestigate the conduct of non-performingheadteachers for appropriate sanction, agreed tostrengthen school monitoring and collaborate withthe district assembly to improve schoolinfrastructure.

Building Local Civil Society Capacity in BudgetTracking to Attain EFAPOSDEV concentrated its budget work at thedistrict level by addressing budget allocations toschools, local community inputs into the budgetprocess, and advocacy efforts. Training madecommunity stakeholders aware of resourcesavailable for schools. As a result, there was amarked improvement in education financialmanagement, accountability and transparency atthe community and district levels. Over 70% ofparticipating community schools in the Suhum-Kraboa-Coaltar district began to operate bankaccounts and headteachers started to preparequarterly revenue and expenditure reports.

National Level Budget Advocacy WorkA collaborative initiative between GNECC, NNEDand the ISODEC Centre for Budget Advocacytrained District Education for All Teams (DEFATs) inbudget evaluation and expenditure tracking. Uponcompletion of training, DEFAT members returned totheir communities to gather information related toimplementation of the capitation grant. Findingswere used for district and national level budgetadvocacy work. The process resulted in increasedawareness among parents and communitymembers of the importance of budgets to equitableaccess to quality basic education, and theimportance of their participation in the budgetprocess.

Ghana

23

Community members gained the skills andunderstanding necessary to participate in thedevelopment of School Performance ImprovementPlans (SPIPs), which form the basis for capitationgrant disbursements. It was uncovered that,previously, the majority of SPIPs were prepared byheadteachers, without the participation of SMCs asrequired by the guidelines. This had resulted inpoor data collection and reporting, leading to someschools receiving lesser grants than they wereentitled to. CEF also supported ISODEC to assistGNECC and NNED in carrying out a technicalanalysis of the education budget, using informationprovided by the government’s annual financialstatement. The results were published andrecommendations used to engage with thegovernment.

Challenges• Tracking the flow of resources from the national

to the district level was complex due to the lackof disbursement data available. It wasparticularly difficult for partners to accessinformation on education budgets andexpenditure. Development partners were alsofound unwilling to provide relevant information.For this reason CEF opted to focus its support ofbudget work at the local levels.

• Civil society capacity was not sufficient toconduct high-level budget analysis, a problemexacerbated by the complex nature of thebudget.

• Public servants showed little appreciation of theimportance of civil society engagement inbudget work and, consequently, little willingnessto cooperate with CEF partners.

• Whilst the Ministry of Finance and EconomicPlanning began to involve civil society in itsannual budget preparation, information relatedto the budget did not come early enough forcivil society groups to analyse the budgetbefore consultation sessions were held.

Lessons Learnt• There is generally a low level of community

interest in budget tracking in the early stages ofimplementation, as the processes do not resultin immediate tangibles such as schoolinfrastructure. However, with tact andperseverance, community members’ interest inthe process tends to grow as they realise thepotential benefits of budget work.

• Budget tracking has the potential to bring aboutimproved resource management andaccountability.

• Civil society participation in budget processesensures that the perspective and interests of theexcluded and marginalised are voiced and thatthe budget process caters for their needs.

Publications and Useful Documents• ISODEC (May 2006) Budget Statement and the

Challenges of Universal Primary Education by2015

• NGND (2004) Training Manual for CommunityFacilitators

2424242424

The Centre for Budget and GovernanceAccountability (CBGA) is the main partnersupported by CEF India and is well known forbudget tracking at the central level. Its primaryfocus has been to build the capacity of CSOs anddevelop simplified and user-friendly modules onbudget tracking. At the state level CEF hassupported the NGOs DISHA and YUVA to conductbudget tracking and analysis.

Achievements and Impact• Trained over 50 NGOs in budget tracking.

• Worked to demystify the budget and familiarisecivil society with basic budget issues.

• Produced manuals on budget tracking that havebeen used at the district level.

Programme of WorkThe focus of CEF India’s budget work has been onsupporting capacity building and raising awarenessof the budget cycle. CBGA carried out analysis ofthe budget at the state and district level andsubsequent training on budget tracking.

Budget Analysis at the State and District LevelCEF partners initiated the process of state levelbudgetary analysis in the state of Uttar Pradesh.Budgets were analysed at the state and districtlevel. Following the success of this pilot, CBGAconducted budget work in three further states –Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Bihar. The programmewas designed to complement advocacy work in thethree lead CEF states by providing a consistentapproach to analysing the budget. Researchersalso collected information on education indices atdistrict and state level and used this to draw up anoverall analysis of education sector funding in India.Secondary data relevant to budget tracking wascollected by CBGA in each of the states, and user-friendly tools developed for community level budgettracking.

Capacity-Building in Budget TrackingCGBA organised a workshop to build civil societycapacity in budget tracking at the state level. Thiswas followed up by collaboration with the NationalCampaign for Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR) on ameeting of civil society, government, teachers,academic, and media representatives, to familiarisethem with the process of education budget analysisand tracking. A subsequent series of meetings wereorganised with various education stakeholders toimpress upon them the importance of mediaparticipation and its value for budget tracking.

Challenges• The complicated national allocation of funds to

education made budget monitoring difficult, asthere is no education budget per se. It wasnecessary to analyse the education componentsof union and state budgets. This wascomplicated by a lack of access to relevantbudgetary information.

• Conducting budget tracking from the districtlevel to the local level was also complicated. Toovercome this challenge CEF supported ameeting with organisations active in local levelbudget tracking and worked with them toproduce a community education budget-tracking tool.

Lessons Learnt• Budget tracking is perceived as a highly

technical and complex process. Steps need tobe taken to demystify the budget process.

• By empowering the community to engage in thebudget process, it is possible to ensure thatbudgetary allocations are adequate andguarantee the optimum use of availableresources.

• User-friendly tools for budget tracking areessential to building the capacity ofcommunities.

Publications and Useful Documents• CBGA (2006) A Civil Society Report on

Monitoring the Right to Education in India

India

25

CEF Kenya has supported the building ofcommunity capacity to meaningfully engage inbudget tracking, advocacy and lobbying ineducation. CEF Kenya has partnered with a numberof organisations including the Cancel Debts forChild Campaign (CADEC), Elimu Yetu Coalition(EYC), Dupoto e Maa, Kenya Alliance for theAdvancement of Child Rights (KAACR), Girl ChildNetwork (GCN) and the Kenya National Associationof Parents (KNAP). The collective objective hasbeen to inform education stakeholders of their rolesin budget work and to train them to track andmonitor education resources. Other organisationsincluding the Kenya Institute for Public Researchand Analysis, Social Development Network, and theInstitute of Economic Affairs are also active inbudget work, leading on budget dissemination andanalysis.

Achievements and Impact• Pioneered budget expenditure tracking at the

local level and developed budget tools.

• Promoted Kenya’s case to the internationalcommunity through CADEC, turning their‘Cancel Debt for the Child’ campaign into anational movement.

• Built consensus among education officials onthe important role of parents and communities insupporting the development of education intheir districts.

• Empowered SMCs to proactively cooperate withdistrict education officials, thereby increasingthe transparency of school income andexpenditure.

Programme of WorkPartners focused on partnership building atdifferent levels, encouraging stakeholders to identifytheir responsibilities. CEF Kenya supportedcommunity capacity building to engage in budgettracking, advocacy and lobbying at national andlocal level. This was achieved through theproduction of quality research and budget-trackingtools, continued advocacy at the national level, alinking of policy to budget allocations, andincreasing the capacity and governance of SMCs.

Research and DocumentationHigh-quality research supported by CEF Kenya ledto the credibility and success of partners’ advocacywork. The EYC Free Primary Education studyestablished that although government expenditureon primary education had increased as a result ofthe Free Primary Education (FPE) policy, demandsfrom schools for resources were much higher.Findings showed that allocations per child wereinadequate and that government allocation fell shortof the costs of keeping a child in school for the fullprimary cycle. This explained the differences in thequality of learning between private schools andgovernment-funded public schools.

The Budget Tracking Tool was used as anadvocacy instrument at national and decentralisedlevels by EYC and Dupoto e Maa who trainedfacilitators and conducted budget tracking. The toolwas used to sensitise education managers andSMCs to focus on the efficient use of public funds inschools. It also brought to the fore the debate aboutchanging the Education Act to clearly spell out theroll of PTAs to monitor education funds andresources in their schools.

Budget Advocacy at the National LevelCADEC conducted an expenditure audit of thegovernment, evaluating the government’sperformance in key areas such as education. Itsreport was widely used as a point of reference bythe media, civil society, donors and politicians. Theorganisation went on to link its advocacy processfrom the national to the international level byaddressing the issues of debt burden and theimpact that this has on the education sectorthrough its ‘Cancel Debt for the Child’ campaign.

Dupoto e Maa advocated for the formulation of anall-inclusive education policy that ensures thegovernment budget and plans guarantee equalaccess to basic education for pastoralist children.Members analysed government education budgetsto determine the percentage of resources allocatedto pastoralist education and used the informationgenerated to lobby for increased central and localgovernment budgetary allocations to pastoralisteducation.

Kenya

2626262626

Linking Policy to Budget AllocationsGCN successfully worked to link policy to budgetappropriation and has been responsible for draftingthe education gender policy at the national level.Civil society influenced the policy process byundertaking research on the impact of themenstrual cycle on school attendance. Researchshowed that girls were out of class for an averageof four days per month, resulting in a significantloss of class time during the school year, withramifications in terms of the ability of girls toparticipate and perform.

As a direct result of this study the Ministry ofFinance began to promote greater participation ofgirls and GCN took steps to address how thebudget could support such a policy. GCNpresented its case by arguing that: the cost ofeducating girls and boys at the same level ofeducation is different; they respond differently to thesame policy aiming to promote access, retentionand participation; sanitation for girls is a majorcontributor to retention and participation of girls inthe learning process; it is the government’sresponsibility to even the learning environment forall children as a step towards achieving a genderbalance in access and completion.

Building the Capacity and Governance of SMCsKNAP addressed governance issues at the schoollevel and ensured that school funds wereaccounted for by holding workshops with SMCsand community members on the budgetingprocess, budget tracking and analysis. As a resultof training conducted by Dupoto e Maa, SMCs haveundertaken budget tracking of FPE grants. Theyassessed how effective budget allocations were inpromoting key education indicators such as access,quality and retention, and identified gaps as a basisfor advocacy work. Sectional action groups linkedup with the headteachers’ association and districteducation lobby group to push for increasedbudgetary support to pastoralist schools under theFree Education Programme.

Challenges• Collecting and analysing data for advocacy

work was an expensive process. This wasfurther compounded by the need to find theright people to conduct budget analysis. Whilstit was generally easier to find people with theability to carry out data collection and analysisfor the national level, it became increasinglydifficult at the local level due to a lack ofcapacity.

• CSO research reports carry no weight in termsof criminal prosecution and as a result, findingsrelating to corrupt activities were not acted uponby authorities and corrupt officials were notprosecuted.

Lessons Learnt• Civil society plays a crucial role in critiquing the

work of the Ministry of Education andinfluencing the budget. Community involvementand participation in the management ofeducation is a critical area that must besustained if EFA objectives are to be achieved.Forming and nurturing partnerships to carry outthis work requires dedication and patience.

• Critical issues relating to the budget should beresearched and carefully documented. It isimportant that partners have ownership of theresearch and that this is subsequently sharedbetween groups. Most importantly, whendocuments are concise and well written theycan be used for successful advocacy andlobbying.

Publications and Useful Documents• CADEC (2004) One Year After the Promise:

Citizens’ Audit of NARC Government’sPerformance

• CADEC (2005) Two Years After the Promise:Citizens’ Audit of NARC Government’sPerformance

• EYC (2002) A Tool for Tracking BudgetaryAllocations, Disbursement and Utilisation forBasic Education in Kenya

• EYC (2004) Monitoring FPE and Establishing theUnit Cost of Primary Education in Kenya

• EYC (2005) Setting the Beacons of Education inKenya

27

Budget work in Lesotho started in late 2006. CEFsupported its partners, the Campaign for EducationForum and Lesotho Education ResearchAssociation (LERA) to conduct training on budgettracking.

Achievements and Impact• Provided civil society organisations with basic

budget tracking skills through training sessionson budget expenditure tracking.

• Conducted Training of Trainer (ToT) sessions sothat budget tracking could be rolled out acrossthe country.

Programme of WorkThe Campaign for Education Forum and LERAprovided technical support for training workshopson budget expenditure tracking.

Building Capacity in Budget TrackingThe Campaign for Education Forum facilitatedtraining on budget tracking for its members. Beforetraining sessions were held a survey was carriedout to gain an insight into civil society knowledge of,and participation in, budget tracking. Training oftrainer workshops were held for civil societyorganisations, with the intention that trainers couldroll the training programme out to district level.These sessions provided the basic information andskills needed for budget tracking sessions that wereattended by civil society organisations andrepresentatives of the Ministry of Education.

Challenges• It was a challenge for partners to find resources

for organisational training as budget trackingwas a relatively new concept in Lesotho andsupporters needed convincing of the benefits ofbudget work for education.

Lessons Learnt• Where the government is wary of budget

tracking, the right approach is crucial toobtaining a positive response from officials.Information must be shared openly andobjectives explained. There must be a strategyof involving officials in planning and capacitybuilding work. It is important not to assume thatgovernment officials will have these skills, andwherever possible it is important to address thiscapacity gap.

• Budget tracking is the start of change foreducation issues. There is considerable interestfrom civil society organisations to learn aboutwork, showing that it is not just the nationalcoalition or CEF that thinks this is important, butthe grassroots too.

• Civil society in Lesotho is not very strong andneeds to be more proactive. Building thecapacity of CSOs to carry out budget trackingand advocacy is an effective way ofstrengthening these organisations and will becritical for expanding this type of work to othersectors.

Publications and Useful Documents• CEF/OSISA (2006) Budget Tracking and

Advocacy Training Manual

Lesotho

282828282828

CEF played a leading role in education sectorbudget work by supporting the Civil SocietyCoalition on Quality Basic Education (CSCQBE).Prior to the inception of CEF, budget work wasoverseen by the Malawi Economic Justice Network,which conducted micro- and macro-analysis of theeconomic environment. CSCQBE’s focus was onbudget monitoring at the national level,complimented by budget analysis and thepublication of regular reports to instigate debate oneducation financing. The coalition also worked tomobilise civil society education networks to monitoreducation budgets at district level, using findings tofeed into national level advocacy work.

Achievements and Impact• Strengthened the relationship between civil

society and parliament on issues of educationfinancing. CSCQBE was invited to present theresults of its annual budget monitoring report tothe parliamentary committee on education.

• Advocated successfully for an increasedbudgetary allocation to education.

• Raised donors’ interest in governmentaccountability for spending internationalresources allocated to education. This led to anincrease in support from donors for budgetmonitoring work.

Programme of WorkCSCQBE budget work concentrated on monitoringthe national education budget and building thecapacity of district education networks to carry outbudget expenditure tracking.

National Education Budget Monitoring StudyCSCQBE developed training tools and trainedcoalition members in budget monitoring andadvocacy. CEF supported the annual publication ofan Education Budget Monitoring Study. The budgetmonitoring exercise examined priority povertyexpenditure areas and used findings to informlobbying and advocacy activities. The Finance andBudget Committee of the Parliament andParliamentary Committee on Education werepresented with the results, to guide them in theirdecision-making.

Advocating for ChangeThe success of the monitoring exercise led toCSCQBE being asked by the ParliamentaryCommittee on Education to collaborate on a studyaround ghost schools and teachers, which causethe Ministry of Education to loose millions ofKwacha every year. A strong relationship was builtbetween the coalition and parliament, whichresulted in a number of advocacy successes.Findings from the Education Budget MonitoringStudy had shown that the percentage of thenational budget allocated to education haddecreased from 26% to 12% over a period of fiveyears due to a lack of political commitment toeducation. CSCQBE participated in pre-budgetconsultations with the parliament and used theirfindings to influence an increase in the allocation byone percentage point (8 million USD), thusreversing the progressive decline in the allocation –a key achievement for the coalition.

Other successes related to the monitoring exerciseincluded the adoption of a policy by thegovernment to address the lack of teachers in ruralareas by requiring newly recruited teachers toagree to be deployed across the country. CSCQBEalso exposed fraud within the Ministry of Education,discovering that a significant amount of resourceshad been misappropriated. The coalition presenteda case on how the loss of money to the educationsector would affect the lives of Malawian children.The officials responsible were brought to court oncharges of corruption and action was taken againstthem.

CSCQBE monitored education services provided bythe government, by conducting spot checks ofbudget and resource allocation to schools, revealingthe untimely distribution of resources and holding thegovernment accountable. It also exposed genderdisparities in the education budget.

Monitoring DecentralisationTo monitor the process of decentralisation, CSCQBEestablished district education networks to carry outbudget tracking, with the aim of strengthening localpeople’s involvement in budget decisions. It wasintended that CSCQBE capacity-building exerciseswould enable networks to monitor and developbudgets at the district level.

Malawi

29

Raising Awareness of Direct Support to SchoolsIn 2006 the World Bank and the Malawiangovernment jointly announced the introduction of aDirect Support to Schools (DSS) programme.CSCQBE conducted a baseline survey in schoolsrevealing that the major factors hinderingcommunity involvement in school managementwere a lack of knowledge of the relevant policiesand lack of skills in budget tracking and advocacy.It built SMC awareness of their eligibility for DSSfunds and trained them to manage these funds, inline with the new government policy on schoolgovernance.

Building Community Capacity in Budget MonitoringLocal NGOs including Nkhomano, Deeper LifeMinistries and Yochris worked to build SMC andPTA capacity to monitor the use of resourcesallocated to local education authorities. CEFcontinued to support Livingstonia Synod to conducttraining on the role of stakeholders in servicedelivery. A critical issue identified by communitiesas part of this process was that parents supported‘free’ primary education by paying substantialamounts for volunteer replacements due to ashortage of qualified teachers. It was uncoveredthat pupils were required to contribute a monthlystipend towards volunteer teacher salaries, and thatfailure to do so resulted in children being sent homeor severely punished. Major education policymakers had failed to recognise these ‘contributions’as fees, referring to them as ‘communityparticipation’. Having identified this gap,Livingstonia Synod worked to hold governmentauthorities accountable through CSCQBE.

Challenges• Information related to the budget was difficult to

access, particularly from the Ministry of Finance.Insufficient information or failure by governmentofficials to collaborate with civil society greatlyimpeded the budget monitoring exercise.Partners campaigned for a freedom ofinformation bill.

• There was a significant capacity gap amongstcivil society due to issues of high staff turnover.The capacity of CSOs and district educationnetworks participating in the budget monitoringexercise was shown to be a limiting factor. Totackle this issue, the coalition made provisionsfor training district education networks in budgetmonitoring so that they could engage effectivelyin the process.

Lessons Learnt• Budget monitoring should start as soon as the

budget has been approved so that gaps can beidentified at the earliest possible moment.Findings can then inform the next stage of thebudget process, ensuring that activities areconducted in good time.

Publications and Useful Documents• CSCQBE (2003) Budget Monitoring Exercise

• CSCQBE (2005) Have the Resources TrickledDown to Schools? Report on the Spot CheckExercise

303030303030

Budget work supported by CEF in Mozambiquestarted in late 2005 and gathered pace under thenational coalition MEPT – Mozambique Educationfor All movement – as well as a number of localNGOs such as the Mozambican Association forWomen’s Development (Mahlahle) and the ChildRights League (LDÇ). Work focused on theproduction of a baseline study on Mozambique’seducation finances, and raising awareness amongSchool Management Committees of the DirectSupport to Schools initiative.

Achievements and Impact• Identified several crucial advocacy issues using

the national education finances baseline study,and raised these in discussions with the Ministryof Education. The findings of the study wereused to inform civil society of Mozambique’seducation finance structure.

• Raised School Management Committees’awareness of the Direct Support to Schoolsinitiative. In districts where CEF partnersoperated, school communities developed agreater understanding of budget allocations andspending at school level.

Programme of WorkBudget work was concentrated upon the productionof a baseline study on education finances at thenational level and complimented by work withschool management committees at the local level.

The Baseline Study of Education FinancesThis was the first such evidence-based study totake place in Mozambique and was aimed atbuilding an understanding of how the educationfinance system operated in Mozambique. Itspurpose was to increase partners’ confidence indealing with budget issues and to identify specificareas of advocacy work for the future. The nationalcoalition MEPT was the implementing partner. Thestudy The Financing of the Education Sector inMozambique was distributed to education donors,the government, as well as national andinternational NGOs.

Advocacy issues raised by the study were broughtto light during the 2007 Global Action Week. Ofparticular note was the Minister of Education’sinterest in one of the observations – that primaryschools in Mozambique were not budgetary units.The national coalition felt that this findingrepresented a big issue of accountability and thatthere was a strong need for primary schools to beconsidered as independent budgetary units. As aresult of the coalition’s advocacy work, the Ministerof Education promised to form a working group toaddress this aspect of the education budget.

Raising SMC Awareness of Direct Support toSchoolsCEF Mozambique supported partners to empowerthe community, in particular SMCs, to understandschool budget allocations and to take moreownership over school funding. Partnerorganisations raised awareness of the DSS initiativethrough training sessions with SMC members. DSSwas intended to bypass bureaucracies so that eachschool could have some accountability over schoolspending. School management in coordination withthe local school community committee were allowedto spend the resources received for the purchase ofpermanent schooling materials; basic schoolingmaterials for teachers and learners; the acquisitionof schooling maintenance materials; and acquisitionof other basic materials necessary for the normalfunctioning of the school.

Ministry documents outlining the use of DSS fundswere reviewed and sessions were facilitated bylocal education officials. Greater awareness ofbudgets and spending at SMC level was noted inschools in Bambatela in the Massinga district wherethe CEF partner Mahlahle had worked with SMCs.This work improved community awareness ofbudget allocations for their schools and how themoney is spent. Mahlahle has also initiated debatewith provincial education authorities on school feesand other levies charged by schools. Some schoolsstopped charging these levies as a result of thecampaign.

Mozambique

31

Challenges• Gaining access to information in Mozambique

was often complicated by the political scenarioand highly centralised government notaccustomed to supplying budgetaryinformation. Whilst the legal frameworks were inplace for civil society to access informationrelated to the budget and allowing them toparticipate in the budget process, this did nothappen in practice. CEF partners successfullynegotiated this issue by building strategicrelationships with former senior employees ofthe MoE who were willing and able to accessthe necessary documents and pass them on tothe national coalition.

• There was a lack of capacity amongst civilsociety to interpret and understand budgetinformation. For example, where Mahlahle hadbeen successful in its work with SMCs, schoolsin the Zambézia province that had been trainedby the partner organisation LDÇ, did not showthe same awareness of the budgeting processor become involved in monitoring budgetexecution at the school level. It was felt that thiswas due to a lack of organisationalunderstanding on budget issues as this had notbeen part of the organisation’s original mandate,and the inability of Community-BasedOrganisations (CBOs) to access qualifiedpersonnel to conduct training.

Lessons Learnt• In a country where political opposition is weak,

civil society is the only meaningful challenger togovernment policy and budgets, and the onlycredible group able to make demands ongovernment accountability.

• Civil society in Mozambique has tended in thepast to make demands of the government onissues such as corruption, without substantialevidence to back up its claims. This approachhad not been popular with politicians whoconsequently chose not to take civil societyclaims seriously. However, the evidence-basedfindings of the baseline study demonstrated thatgovernment authorities, when faced with soundevidence, are willing to address the issues theyare presented with.

Publications and Useful Documents• MEPT (August 2006) Education Sector

Financing in Mozambique

32

CEF started supporting education budget work in2003, focusing its efforts upon budget monitoringand advocacy at the national level, and capacitybuilding in budget tracking at the local level. WithCEF support national coalition memberorganisations expanded their work on communitylevel budget tracking and school management.Budget tracking was formally initiated by the Centrefor African Settlement Studies and Development(CASSAD), Project Agape (PROAGAPE) and theSocial and Economic Rights Initiative (SERI).CASSAD employed a participatory budget-trackingapproach to its work as well as community-targetedadvocacy, to ensure transparency in primaryeducation management. PROAGAPE workedtowards enhancing CSOs understanding of budgettracking, and its link to policy influencing, whilstSERI conducted research into factors hinderingdissemination on budgets and budget advocacy.Later this work was continued by organisationssuch as Community Action for Popular Participation(CAPP), African Network for Environment andEconomic Justice (ANEEJ), Civil ResourceDevelopment and Documentation Centre(CIRDDOC), the Nigerian Union of Teachers (NUT)and the national coalition CSACEFA. Otherorganisations conducting work around the budgetin Nigeria include the Justice, Development andPeace commission as well as various national andinternational NGOs.

Achievements and Impact• As a result of CEF partner advocacy efforts, the

government approved a policy to institute anSMC in each primary and secondary school. Anadditional £17m was allocated for the renovationof schools in the Lagos state, and a FederalGovernment increase of 1.5% to the educationbudget was announced.

• Partners participated in the preparation of the2007 budget, particularly the educationcomponent for CEF focus states as well as atfederal level.

• CEF co-funded CIRDDOC and other partners toprepare an education budget-tracking manualwhich was to be accompanied by manualscovering the other major social sectors.

Programme of WorkBudget work in Nigeria was largely undertaken byCSACEFA which led on building the capacity of itsmembers in budget tracking, and undertakinganalysis of the national education budget. A further,prominent strand of its work was to expandcommunity participation in budget work byinstitutionalising SMCs and creating all-stakeholdercommittees to engage in budget monitoring andadvocacy.

National Level Engagement in the Budget ProcessCSACEFA aimed to provide its members with anunderstanding of the budget process and tosupport them to carry out budget-tracking activities.This increased awareness among stakeholders andopened up the possibility for CSOs to participate ineducation budget-tracking processes. Training ofCEF partners and other CSOs in budget-trackingwork led to education budget monitoring exercisesrelated to debt relief gain in three northern states.The coalition also worked with the MoE as astrategic partner to monitor and track federaleducation expenditure throughout the country.When the government committed more resources toensure the full implementation of free UBE, coalitionmembers analysed the use of funds at state leveland reported to the committee to prepare informedadvocacy work around this issue.

CSACEFA also organised a roundtable on basiceducation that was attended by top governmentofficials and the media. Attention was drawn tobasic education funding, following a request madeby the executive secretary of the UBE Commissionthat Nigerian states make judicious use of the UBEgrant. The government initiated the CommunityAccountability and Transparency Initiative (CATI)reform programme with the intention ofinstitutionalising budget tracking at all levels ofsociety. This reform was anchored and led byCSACEFA. Community members and othereducation stakeholders were provided with thenecessary information for tracking educationspending at their level.

Education Advisory ForumThe coalition became a member of the EducationAdvisory Forum which provided CSO advice to thelegislative and executive arm of the government. Itanalysed state and federal education budgets andtrained coalition members in budget tracking. The

Nigeria

33

Forum implemented an advocacy campaign forschool-based budgeting policy as part of this work.The Forum’s analysis influenced state budgets, andalso influenced government policy action regardingadditional fees for IT services. Advocacy issuesraised by the forum were passed to CSACEFA atthe state level for action. This activity strengthenedthe working relationship of the coalition at the statelevel and with the Ministry of Education, as theybegan to recognise CSACEFA as a criticalstakeholder in education. Budget tracking tookplace at the local level with CEF partners collectingdata, training stakeholders and undertaking budgetanalysis.

Expanding Community Participation on Budget WorkPartners worked to demystify the concept of budgettracking and engage communities in resourcemonitoring. One major achievement was theinstitutionalisation of SMCs. Prior to 2006 there wereno SMCs in Nigeria, only PTAs whose function waslimited to fundraising and levying dues. Through itspartners, CEF piloted the establishment of 30 SMCstrained in budget tracking and management. Thesuccess of the pilot project and subsequentlobbying activities influenced federal educationministers to agree that all primary and secondaryschools in Nigeria should establish SMCs. Partnersworked with government officials to draft the policywhich was eventually approved.

All stakeholder committees were established inNigeria’s focus states. This was part of asensitisation process aimed at increasingcommunities’ awareness of the budget andenabling them to participate in the budget process.They were trained in budget analysis, gendersensitive budgets and budget advocacy. Allstakeholder committees established with CEFsupport were composed of a wide range ofcommunity representatives from the SMC, PTA,NUT, Market Women’s Association, youth groupsetc. Recent work carried out by the ANEEJ hasexpanded the committees they support to includerepresentatives from the media. Reports of thecommittees’ findings were released to journalists sothat they could reach the widest possible audience.

Challenges• At state level it remained difficult to obtain

information through formal channels, andgovernment agencies were less than willing togive out information on state budgets and thebudgeting process. This challenge wascompounded by failure to pass the Freedom ofInformation Bill which had been championed bya coalition of civil society organisations.

Lessons Learnt• Empowering civil society to become involved in

budget tracking is more effective than NGOsdoing it themselves. Communities welcome theopportunity to undertake budget work and tofamiliarise themselves with the budget.

• Budget tracking to advocate for the efficient useof resources has delivered many more resultsthan expenditure tracking for adequateprovision.

Publications and Useful Documents• CAPP (2006) A Guide on Establishing and

Running a School Management Committee

• CIRDDOC (2007) The Education BudgetTracking Manual

• CSACEFA (2005) Education BudgetPerformance in Nigeria – The UNESCORecommendation

• CSACEFA (2007) Tracking Education RelatedDebt Relief Gain in Nigeria

• CSACEFA (2007) Training Manual forCommunity Facilitators and Members of SMCs

• CSACEFA/NUT (2005) A Briefing Paper onFinancing Quality Education in Nigeria

• SERI (2005) Five Year Analysis of EducationBudgets in Three Eastern States of Nigeria

• SERI (2005) Privatisation, Liberation andCommercialisation of Education in Nigeria

34

CEF Pakistan supported the Human RightsCommission of Pakistan (HRCP) to carry outnational level budget tracking and monitoring, andto empower local communities to demandtransparency for public education resources. CEFalso partnered with the Pakistan Coalition forEducation (PCE) and the Centre for Peace andDevelopment Initiatives (CPDI). PCE advocated forincreased allocations to the education sector, aswell as undertaking regional and national levelanalysis of education financing. CPDI worked withparliamentarians to highlight issues related to theuse of public education resources.

Achievements and Impact• Contributed to the achievement of increased

financing for the education sector in Pakistan.An increase in allocations to the educationsector from 2% to 4% of the national budgetannounced in March 2007 represented asignificant milestone. This increase was theresult of continuous efforts of civil society andgovernment departments lobbying for anincrease in education resources.

• Empowered civil society to advocate forincreased allocations to education; lobby forimproved transparency and accountability; andparticipate in budget planning with thegovernment. It also made organisations awareof their political right to engage in the budgetcycle.

• Gained an invitation for civil society toparticipate in discussion related to theeducation budget, as a result of sensitisationwork with the standing committee.

Programme of WorkCEF Pakistan supported partners to carry outresearch on education finances and to buildcommunity capacity in budget monitoring, trackingand advocacy. Work was also done to build therelationship between communities, educationstakeholders and parliamentarians and to influencebudget processes.

Strengthening Community Involvement in BudgetTracking and AdvocacyHRCP worked on strengthening communityinvolvement in school management in four districtsof Pakistan. District monitors and SMCs were

trained in analysis of the district education budget.The initiative was aimed at empoweringcommunities to track government spending toensure the effective use of available resources,demand transparency and accountability, and toadvocate for an increase in the education budget.PCE organised workshops to build the capacity ofdistrict and provincial partners in budget tracking.The objective of these workshops was tounderstand the budget process, data collectionmethods, and the role of various stakeholders inbudget planning and tracking processes.

The project enabled communities to developadvocacy positions regarding budgetary issues andto strengthen the participation of communities andother stakeholders in education planning andspending. This was done through awareness-raising sessions, community dialogues, and policyforums with key stakeholders. During the policyforums, budget-monitoring methods were sharedand discussed with the community. Communitydialogues were followed up with focused interactivesessions to raise these issues with key stakeholdersat legislative forums. Data relating to school, unioncouncil and district level budgets were collectedand analysed for advocacy purposes.

Education Financing AnalysisResearch studies were undertaken to help buildadvocacy positions, strengthen participation ineducation planning and spending, and to informdebate with policymakers. These analysed the stateof education before and after the devolution system,as well as financial decentralisation and theopportunity it created for improved communityparticipation.

HRCP publications were widely disseminated andmany CSOs planned their interventions accordingto the recommendations made. Two key reports,Primary Education and Funding in Pakistan and TheEducation Budget in Pakistan were particularlyinfluential. The first documented the status of publicsector primary education and the level ofgovernment commitment to education. The seconddescribed the budgetary process in Pakistan, withspecial reference to education. The twopublications were used alongside a budget-trackingmanual to help stakeholders understand budgetaryprocesses, train them in budget tracking, and todevelop their advocacy positions in relation to theeducation budget.

Pakistan

35

Civil Society Response to Education Budget and PolicyPCE organised a seminar delineating civil society’sresponse to the federal education budget. Civilsociety representatives, academics and analystscriticised the small amount allocated to education,the rebasing and fudging of numbers, and theinability to increase the absorptive capacity of thegovernment education sector which is seen to bethe only way to ensure equitable access to qualityeducation. Following the national budget releaseand national education policy review process, PCEand other partners organised several seminars andpolicy dialogues with key stakeholders. Theirrecommendations were well received andconsidered in the national-level review process.

Involving PolicymakersPrior to the inception of CEF, the standingcommittee had not been open to discussion withcivil society. CPDI worked to develop an interfacebetween the community, stakeholders and thecommittee by establishing a working group that metquarterly to discuss issues related to transparencyand accountability in the education sector. CPDIalso facilitated a Roundtable Discussion onTransparency and Accountability in the Utilisation ofFunds Allocated for Education that was attended byPCE members, parliamentarians and members ofthe National Assembly. Further national level policyconsultations were held involving participants fromcivil society groups, the media, and thegovernment. These consultations focused onmaking district-level spending for primary educationmore transparent and responsive to the needs ofthe community. PCE built the capacity of itspartners by providing training in budget tracking,and training trainers on how to engage withparliamentarians.

Challenges• Access to financial information in Pakistan,

though public in nature, was bureaucratic anddifficult to access. The process was oftenredundant as timely access to the relevant datawas not given. The budget-tracking initiativewas held back in cases where permanentchannels of communication were not yet

established. It was felt that it would take sometime before the primary beneficiaries at locallevels became strong enough to out-manoeuvrebureaucracies.

• Although some political parties showed interestin the budget-tracking initiative, HRCP initiallystruggled to engage others hesitant to openlydiscuss the government’s finances and servicedelivery.

• The implementation of the Devolution Plan andcreation of local bodies led to a number ofambiguities, particularly with regard to thedistribution of decision-making power andauthority over financial matters. The extent of thetransfer of powers from central government tothe local government was undefined and led towidespread confusion regarding the educationbudget. It became difficult to study budgetarymatters, as there was lack of clarity as to whereand how the budget was distributed and howfunding was controlled and monitored.

Lessons Learnt• Increases to the budget should be

accompanied by support of communityparticipation and needs-based planning, andbuilding the capacity of stakeholders to analysethe allocation, use and distribution of resources.

Publications and Useful Documents• CPDI (2007) Performance of the Standing

Committee of the Senate on Education

• CPDI (2007) Toolkit on the Right to Information

• HRCP (October 2004) Primary Education andFunding in Pakistan: Results of District Findings

• HRCP (February 2005) The Education Budget inPakistan

• HRCP (July 2005) Budget Tracking Manual: ATool for Community Empowerment

• PCE (2007) Education Devolution, Myths andRealities

• PCE (2007) Financing of Education in Pakistan

36

Budget work in Sierra Leone was a new area at theinception of CEF. Previously, the Ministry of Financehad conducted public expenditure tracking surveysbut there was no detailed information available ondisbursement flows within the education sector. Inan attempt to fill this gap, CEF supported thetraining of civil society organisations on economicliteracy and budget advocacy across four regionsof Sierra Leone. This work was carried out by theCEF Sierra Leone Secretariat whilst the restructuringprocess of the EFASL coalition was underway, andwas later continued by the coalition.

Achievements and Impact• Enabled CSOs and representatives of the media

to participate in budget discussions with thegovernment for the first time in 2005.Discussions led to a reaffirmation of thegovernment’s commitment to the educationsector.

• Trained regional budget and district educationnetworks, resulting in an increased awarenessof civil society regarding the budget process.

Programme of WorkCEF Sierra Leone supported budget-trackingtraining sessions across the country as well as theformation of education networks.

Raising Civil Society Concerns at the National LevelFollowing the Public Expenditure Tracking Systemreports of 2002 and 2004, CSOs pressured thegovernment on accountability and transparencyover national budgets. The discussions providedspace for the public to challenge issues and raisetheir concerns relating to the budget. Although theimpact of this participation at the initial stage wasminimal, it has served as a foundation upon whichfuture budget advocacy could be built.

Training on Budget TrackingCEF initiated budget-tracking work by conductingToT sessions. Trainees were introduced to budgetliteracy and the monitoring of spending oneducation. This was a prelude to rolling out moretraining for community groups to monitor theSababu Education Project, a World Bank/ADBfunded project to increase the enrolment andretention of girls in the education system. The thrustof the Sababu Education project is on the

rehabilitation and reconstruction of schools, theprovision of core textbooks to basic education, thetraining of SMCs and teacher training.

Training Regional Budget Networks in EconomicLiteracy and Budget AnalysisCEF supported a workshop on Economic Literacyand Budget Analysis (ELBA), a community learningprocess that creates enabling conditions wherepeople understand their own contributions to theeconomy of the state. The workshop was attendedby stakeholders from each of the four regions of thecountry, with 50 participants trained in each region.Participants included councillors, representativesfrom the Sierra Leone Teacher’s Union, and variousCBOs. Training was designed to deepenparticipants’ knowledge of, and involvement in,budget analysis and advocacy; to generatematerials on budget tracking and economic literacy;and to form budget networks to collect public dataon education expenditure and priorities through aprocess of action research.

District Education NetworksCEF provided funding and technical support to theBo District Education Network (BODEN) toundertake research on the administration and useof school fee subsidies in the Bo District of theSouthern Province. BODEN also trained 60 SMCs inparticipatory school governance and advocacyplanning and implementation. A baseline survey onEducational Services Delivery was funded andtechnical support was provided for Kambia DistrictEducation Forum Network (KaDEF) in KambiaDistrict in the Northern Province. The KaDEF studyuncovered leakages in the system and areas ofschool fee subsidy, lack of trained and qualifiedteachers, inadequate learning materials, and themisuse of resources.

Challenges• The EFASL coalition was not strong enough to

carry out effective work on education budgetadvocacy in the early stages of CEF in SierraLeone. The coalition had to go through aprocess of restructuring and strengtheningbefore it could start budget work.

• There was limited access to information at thelocal level. This was compounded by insufficientliteracy skills as the information was often notavailable in local languages. The EFASL

Sierra Leone

37

coalition worked to address this issue byproducing translated versions of local budgetsso that they were more readily accessible to thecommunity.

Lessons Learnt• With the processes of decentralisation, regional

and district networks are the best placed toimplement or employ suitable strategies formaximum impact in their communities. Thisrequires greater sensitisation at community leveland a need for EFASL coalitions to exploit theopportunity of decentralised governance tofocus on budget controllers at the local level.

• It is often difficult to influence positive changeas the objectives of budget work are oftenmisunderstood by government officials. It isimportant to reassure authorities that civilsociety involvement in the budget process doesnot represent a threat.

• Sharing examples of best practice across thecountry is enormously beneficial in engagingthe media in advocacy work around the budgetprocess.

Publications and Useful Documents• BODEN (2006) Administration and Utilisation of

School Fees Subsidies by Primary and JuniorSecondary Schools in Bo District, SouthernProvince

• EFASL Coalition (2006) Training Manual onEconomic Literacy and Budget Analysis

• EFASL Coalition (2006) Training Manual onAdvocacy Planning and Implementation

• EFASL Coalition (2007) Subsidy Allocation andUse by Basic Education in Kenema District: ABaseline Survey

• KaDEF (2006) Educational Services Delivery inKambia District: A Baseline Survey

• WA-BEAN (2006) Utilisation of GovernmentSubsidies by Primary Schools in the EasternPart of Western Area

38

Budget tracking was a new concept for thedevelopment field in Sri Lanka, particularly in theeducation sector, when CEF began to supportbudget work in late 2004. Budget activities had notstarted earlier as partners felt that the formation of anational coalition should be prioritised and workdone to establish trust with educational authorities,before budget tracking and the monitoring ofresource allocation could be carried out effectively.Since 2004, CEF Sri Lanka’s principle partners inbudget work have been the national Coalition forEducational Development (CED) and the AsianSouth Pacific Bureau of Adult Education (ASPBAE).Their focus has been on enhancing budget literacyand activism in Sri Lanka.

Achievements and Impact• Supported the first workshop in Sri Lanka

bringing together all the major educationstakeholders to discuss the budget process andsensitise participants to issues facingstakeholders at each level of the educationsystem.

• Published materials detailing how the budgetcycle and processes operate, increasing CSOsunderstanding of education financing.

• Increased involvement of School DevelopmentSocieties (SDSs) in monitoring school budgets,as a result of capacity building at thecommunity level.

Programme of WorkCEF support of budget work concentrated onenhancing budget literacy and activism. This wasdone through a series of training sessions andworkshops, which were followed up by budget-tracking activities at the school level.

Building Capacity in Budget Literacy and AdvocacyIn collaboration with ASPBAE, ToT sessions wereorganised to enhance provincial coordinators’knowledge of the budget process and to train themin budget literacy and advocacy. Findings from abackground paper produced by the Institute ofPolicy Studies recording government budgetprocesses and cycles relating to primary and lowersecondary education were presented. There wasalso discussion around the practical side of budgettracking at the community level, as well as the issue

of bottlenecks occurring in the budget allocationprocess.

As a follow up to the ToT workshop on community-level budget tracking for the provincial networks,further workshops were conducted by the localNGOs that had participated. These were carried outwith the objective of disseminating knowledge toother members, and to refine the provincial actionplans that had been developed in the earlierworkshop.

School Level Budget Tracking (Pilot Study)As part of a pilot study, budget tracking wasconducted at the school level. Budget-trackingactivities supplemented ongoing provincial planningand were implemented in schools selected by thecommunity groups. As a result, schools in twoprovinces increased their involvement of SDSs inmonitoring school budgets. The SDSs alsoengaged in budget tracking and advocacy to callfor improved infrastructure and improved staffing.Results of the pilot study fed into regional researchconducted by ASPBAE for publication and werepassed onto interested INGOs wanting to engage ineducation budget work in Sri Lanka.

Bringing Education Stakeholders TogetherIn 2007 CEF supported the organisation of the firstworkshop in Sri Lanka to bring together all themajor stakeholders in education. Participantsattended from the Finance Commission, the Ministryof Education, donor organisations, and INGOs aswell as community-based organisations and ruralschools. The range of participants includingstakeholders from the international, national,provincial and local level was representative of theentire Sri Lankan education system.

The workshop identified key issues relating to thebudget process that affected the variousstakeholders, and worked as a sensitisationexercise, creating awareness of the problems facedby stakeholders at each level of the educationsystem. Participants were able to ask questions ofother stakeholders relating to education financing.For example, they were able to ask why resourcestake so long to reach schools; and headteacherswere made aware that accurate reporting wasessential to informing national government decision-making with regards to resource allocation.Discussion focused on budget processes and theflow of disbursements from the national level to

Sri Lanka

39

school level, as well as the issue of bottleneckswithin the system and how this could be overcome.

Challenges• A major concern for CEF Sri Lanka was capacity

building, improving the capacity of stakeholdersand CSOs to hold the government accountable.Post-assessment analysis of the ToT workshopsshowed that considerable capacity building stillneeded to be done as civil society had littleknowledge base for how to influence the budgetor conduct advocacy work.

• Data and information on allocations and sourcesof funding were available but there was ageneral lack of transparency overdisbursements, making it difficult to conductresearch into the efficiency of their use andpossible misappropriation.

• There was no legal authority for civil society toparticipate in the budget cycle or during thebudget planning phase. Decision-making wasdominated by bureaucracies with minimal inputfrom education stakeholders. Only post-budgetanalysis was possible, leaving little scope forlobbying.

• The decentralisation of financial managementwas not clearly articulated in the amendment tothe Constitution and, as a result, manyprovincial administrators remained unaware oftheir responsibilities. This led to a dual system

of education financing in Sri Lanka which furthercomplicated the process of tracking andmonitoring the education budget.

Lessons Learnt• Budget expenditure tracking is not viewed

favourably by either government officials orheadteachers and, as such, it is essential tobuild constructive relationships in order to solicitinformation relating to education spending andto work with the system.

• Sri Lankan civil society is not empowered to actas a meaningful challenger to the government.National coalitions are therefore essential toproviding a voice for civil society.

Publications and Useful Documents• CED (2007) The Cost, Financing and Budgetary

Process in Education in Sri Lanka

• CED (2007) A Comparative Study on theImplementation Process of Major FundingProjects in Sri Lanka

• Institute of Policy Studies (2004) Overview ofEducation Budgeting and Resource AllocationProcess in Sri Lanka

40

CEF started funding budget work in 2003,supporting the Tanzania Education Network(TEN/MET) and a number of local NGOs to monitoreducation finances. CEF also collaborated with theNetherlands Development Agency (SNV), the NGOPolicy Forum, and the Research on PovertyAlleviation NGO to undertake research and promotedialogue on pro-poor growth and poverty reduction.Other organisations involved in budget work inTanzania have focused their attention on the issueof debt relief and its impact on education.

Achievements and Impact• Helped empower TEN/MET to discuss the

budget with the Ministries of Education andPlanning, and was successfully advocate forincreased allocations to the education sectorand the abolition of school fees in primaryeducation.

• Enhanced community members’ understandingof the budget and budget process, as a resultof the public expenditure tracking system study,and particularly work conducted by HakiKaziCatalyst. This allowed civil society to confidentlyanalyse public expenditure information and holdlocal government to account.

Programme of WorkCEF supported several initiatives on budgettracking as well as the ongoing work of TEN/MET onmonitoring education finances. TEN/MET wassupported by CEF to coordinate the work of itsmember organisations at the national level.

Monitoring Primary Education Development Plan FundsThe Tanzanian Primary Education DevelopmentPlan (PEDP) aimed to change the relationshipbetween the State and the people by makingfinancial transactions transparent. As such, it madeSMCs responsible for the use of all funds receivedfrom the government. All schools were required todisplay information of receipts and expenditures notonly at the school but in other prominent places inthe village. This was to ensure that everyone,including children, knew what funds had beenreceived and how they had been used.

Despite having these procedures in place, therewas concern among many Tanzanians that therewas little accountability and transparency in the use

of funds. CEF supported initiatives by CSOs tomonitor the flow and use of PEDP funds. CEFsupport was used to study how funds allocated forcapacity building of school committees and in-service training of teachers were spent. Among theparticipating CSOs, MAARIFA and MAADILIprepared the research instruments, which werepiloted in Magu, Mtwara and Shinyanga. Data forthe study were collected in five regions of thecountry.

Establishing a Public Expenditure Tracking SystemThe publication of the district Public ExpenditureTracking Survey (PETS) report was widely sharedand attracted the attention of many NGOs workingin budget tracking. With CEF support, the NGOPolicy Forum identified a partnership between twoNGOs – HakiKazi Catalyst and Tanzania GenderNetworking Programme (TGNP) – to develop a planto establish a public expenditure tracking systemensuring that relevant, detailed and accessibleinformation on expenditure was made publiclyavailable. The plan was developed around threecore components: capacity building (training,learning, mentoring and partnering); informationpackaging and sharing; and institutional linking(with local government processes and nationalNGOs works). The main findings of the researchstudy on methods and approaches used by CSOsin budget monitoring were presented at the NGOPolicy Forum’s Technical Working Group on LocalGovernance, and attracted interest from othernational and international NGOs.

HakiKazi Catalyst produced a draft training manualon PETS in collaboration with its implementingresearch and gender partners, Research on PovertyAlleviation (RePOA) and the Gender NetworkingProgramme. HakiKazi Catalyst facilitated theempowerment of communities to engage in PETSand demand accountability. As a result of PETSactivities, poor people were provided with relevantinformation on current and emerging publicexpenditure issues in a user-friendly format. Thisinformation enabled local communities to analyseand provide feedback about the impact of povertypolicies on their livelihoods. Local level action planswere developed by communities to take advantageof opportunities provided by the PETS learningenvironment.

Another CEF partner, PAMOJA Trust, heldsensitisation and capacity-building sessions with

Tanzania

41

district education stakeholders to monitor publicspending in primary education. A trainers’ manualwas produced to enable consistency in the contentand methodology of training across districts.

Challenges• As a result of the reduced CEF budget for 2007-

8, CEF Tanzania decided to stop supporting anumber of its budget work partners. Some ofthese partners managed to sustain their workaround the education budget with financingfrom other sources, but others were forced todrop budget work due to insufficient funding.

• Despite promises from the government to movetowards increased transparency andaccountability, the Tanzanian bureaucracyremained secretive and suspicious of any effortsto seek information on financial matters. Stiffbureaucracy and suspicions hampered accessto information at different levels of thegovernment, meaning that findings were rarely atrue reflection of allocation and expenditureacross the board.

Lessons Learnt• Budget work is a delicate area. Civil society

must be willing to persevere with their work butbe diplomatic in their approach to questioningthe government over their use of resources.

• Advocacy work informed by evidence-basedresearch is essential when raising budget issueswith government authorities.

Publications and Useful Documents• CEF and REPOA (February 2005) Report on a

Budget Monitoring Workshop

• CEF-SNV (August 2005) A Study of the PublicExpenditure Tracking Survey

• HakiKazi Catalyst (September 2006) TrainingManual on Budget Tracking

• Hakikazi Catalyst, RePOA and TGNP (2007)Follow the Money. A Resource Book for Trainerson Public Expenditure Tracking in Tanzania

• PAMOJA Trust (April 2006) Facilitators’ Guide toPrimary School Budget Tracking

42

CEF expanded the scope of education budget workin Uganda by empowering communities toparticipate in budget tracking and analysis, trainingchild monitoring committees and adult learners; andlinking the grassroots to national policy processes.In particular, CEF supported budget trackingcarried out by The Apac Anti-Corruption Coalition(TAACC), the Bundibugyo CBO/NGO Forum, KiguluDevelopment Group (KDG)8, ANPPCAN UgandaChapter, Acenlworo Child and Family Programmes,and the Uganda Adult Education Network(UGAADEN). It also worked at national level withthe Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group and theAnti-Corruption Coalition Uganda (ACCU).

Achievements and Impact• Enabled communities to question budget

allocations and demand public accountability offunds. Civil society organisations challenged theMinistry of Finance, Planning and EconomicDevelopment (MoFPED) and the Ministry ofEducation and Sports over the issue ofallocations not matching the sector prioritiesarticulated in policy documents9.

• Recognised by district leaders as keystakeholders in public resource tracking andmanagement.

• Produced information through budget trackingthat provided a strong rationale for increasedfunding for EFA attainment. This issue caughtthe attention of the Ministry of Education andSports (MoES), which recognised CEF as a keystakeholder in this debate.

• Generated information through budget work thatled to the prosecution of corrupt public officials.

Programme of WorkCEF supported budget tracking by districtnetworks, child participation in budget monitoring,adult learners’ involvement in school governance,and budget advocacy.

Budget Tracking by District Networks/CoalitionsDistrict networks were established to carry outbudget tracking and strengthen local people’sinvolvement in decisions around how to use the

budget. Budget tracking conducted by the districtnetworks resulted in a reduced time lag betweendisbursement and use of funds. They alsounearthed ghost pupils, teachers and schools.Some diverted funds diverted were recovered anderrant officers charged in courts of law.

Community Monitoring Groups exposed seriousfaults in the local budget disbursement system,misappropriation of resources, and a lack of publicaccountability on the plans and budgets. Theseissues were raised for discussion with, and followedup by, the District Local Government authorities atdistrict and national levels. Findings were fed intothe ACCU campaigns at the national level. On thebasis of their experiences, monitoring groupsenforced the public display of educationdisbursements to ensure greater transparency, andworked to increase the legal power of the EducationStandards Agency in the Education Bill toprosecute corrupt public servants.

TAACC’s budget tracking and anti-corruption workled to the investigation, interdiction and dismissal oftop local government officers. District local councilspassed resolutions to support the education budgettracking and anti-corruption initiatives of districtnetworks. The district local council requestedTAACC carry out an independent audit of thefinance department to inform further action andaddress systemic financial managementweaknesses and loopholes. The BundibugyoCBO/NGO Forum exposed a ghost school, pupilsand teachers and brought the issue to the attentionof the MoES. It also isolated fraudulent contractorsin the district and communicated this to governmentinstitutions at the district and national levelresponsible for blacklisting and legal redress.

Child Monitoring of UPE and Quality EducationChildren were empowered to track educationexpenditures and assess quality issues associatedwith education delivery through the formation ofchild-monitoring committees in schools. Childrendeveloped action plans for improving the schoolenvironment and, based on these plans, madepresentations to the SMC and the schooladministration, and in district and national-levelpolicy workshops. By supporting this work, CEFprovided opportunities for children to engage

8 Now LIDI Uganda

9 Including the Education Sector Strategic Plan (2004 -2015), Ministry of Education and Sports, and the Poverty Eradication Action Plan, Ministry ofFinance Planning and Economic Development

Uganda

43

directly in policy and budget work from their ownperspective, based on their own research andanalysis. Children held their parents, SMCs,teachers and headteachers accountable on the useof funds. All schools where CEF supported childrenon budget tracking began to display disbursementand expenditure information publicly. The childrenexposed the weaknesses of the SMCs in theoversight of school finances and corruptheadteachers10.

Adult Learners and School GovernanceThe effectiveness of school management improvedin schools where adult learners were supported byUGAADEN to become involved in schoolgovernance. UGAADEN used the adult learningcycle to train participants on issues abouteducation financing and policy. Adult learners usedthe skills acquired to involve themselves in theirschool by participating in planning and monitoringfunds. As a result of adult learner budget tracking,education resources were used more effectively atdistrict and school levels.

Civil Society Budget Advocacy GroupCEF supported the formation of a civil societybudget advocacy group that advocated for a pro-poor national budget. The group engaged at thenational level in the budget process, feeding itswork with the grassroots into local and national-leveladvocacy work, an approach that was verysuccessful. They examined whether the budget waspro-poor, if it was equitable and gender sensitive.The group drafted position papers on the nationalbudget outlining a parallel pro-poor budget. Thefocus was upon how money was allocated todifferent national needs, the poverty categories andgender strategy issues. For the education sector,the group raised the need to ensure that startingUniversal Post-Primary Education and Trainingshould not pull money away from UBE. It alsoadvocated for an increase in teachers’ pay, andaddressed the issue of children affected by conflict.This resulted in a re-adjustment of the sectorbudget to cater for increased teachers’ pay andmoney being allocated for the rehabilitation ofschools destroyed by armed conflict in NorthernUganda.

The group also challenged the government’s ‘sectorceiling’ argument that was against increasingexternal funding to the education budget for thesake of macroeconomic stability. The argumentsagainst external funding were weakened by the factthat current allocation to the sector was not beingwell used. This was the basis for linking budget

work very strongly with anti-corruption campaignsand litigation processes. The Civil Society BudgetAdvocacy Group provided a strong and meaningfullink between the grassroots and organisations atthe national level engaged in the budgetingprocesses. This presented a forum for citizens’concerns to be voiced at the national level andincluded in the policy agenda, resulting in newpolicies and subsequent government commitmentand action.

Challenges• A lack of cohesion amongst members of the

coalition meant that not all opportunities foradvocacy were fully exploited. It was felt thatnational organisations and grassroots membersof the coalition needed to connect and engageat the international, national and local levels foradvocacy activities to be successful.

• Although strong relations were built betweenCEF partners and the government, and therewas consensus on the issues that needed to beaddressed, a severe lack of governmentresources available to finance policy initiativesleft many of these issues unaddressed.

Lessons Learnt• Policy advocacy programmes delivered through

focused funds such as CEF have the ability todeliver effectively. Essential to this success isthe clear articulation of plans, roles and time-bound deliverables. Flexible funding, withmoney tied to broad objectives rather thanspecific activities allows for adjustments to bemade, ensuring that activities fit the changingcontext over time.

• The policy and technical personnel in charge ofsuch programmes require an internationalperspective and exposure. The structure of CEFallows partners the opportunity to understandhow issues such as gender sensitive budgetsare addressed in a broad range of countrycontexts. It is important that civil society has theopportunity to engage both nationally andinternationally based on local reality.

Publications and Useful Documents• ACCU (2006) Anti-Corruption Week Report –

Tackling Corruption in Primary Education

• ACCU (2006) Nature and Extent of Corruption inUniversal Primary Education (UPE) in Uganda

10 In one instance children were offered a bribe of 30,000 Uganda Shillings to share out and not report their finding of financial misappropriation.

44

• CEF Uganda (2005) Child Participation inMonitoring Education Programmes – BestPractices, Issues and Suggestions

• CEF Uganda (2006) Budget Work BestPractices

• CEF Uganda (2006) Issues Affecting PrimaryEducation in Uganda: The Views of Childrenfrom Mayuge, Iganga, Apac, Kampala andWakiso Districts

• CSO Budget Advocacy Group (2005) How Pro-poor Are the National Budgets in Uganda? Caseof the Budget for 2004/05

• UGAADEN (2005) Basic Education BudgetTracking: Facilitators’ Guide

• UGAADEN (2006) Adult Literacy Learners’Booklet on School Management and BasicEducation Budget Tracking

• UGAADEN (2006) Lesson Plans on FacilitatingLearners on School Management and BasicEducation Budget Tracking

45

The CEF Zambia initiative aimed at wideningopportunities for civil society participation in budgetexpenditure tracking so that they could engage withthe government on education budget issues.Previously, budget work in Zambia focused onanalysis of the national budget and was carried outby a handful of civil society organisations. Keyplayers were the Civil Society for Poverty Reductionwhich tracked PRSP spending, and the CatholicCommission for Justice Development and Peacewhose focus was on pre- and post-budget analysis.CEF supported partners to carry out budget workfocused on education. Its principle partners werethe Zambia National Education Coalition (ZANEC)and the Zambia Civic Education Association(ZCEA) which led budget tracking and analysis atthe national level; and the Zambia CommunitySchools Secretariat (ZCSS), People’s Action Forum(PAF), and Operation Young Vote (OYV) whichsupported budget work at the community level.

Achievements and Impact• Promoted school governance and budget

tracking at the community level. Communitiesreported cases of resource misappropriationand fraud to the District Education Board office.

• Shared via the media the experiences ofparticipation in school governance, analysis ofthe national budget and budget-trackingfindings.

• Ensured that headteachers became moretransparent and accountable to localcommunities over their management ofeducation resources.

Programme of WorkThe impetus for education budget-tracking work inZambia evolved out of an initiative to widen civilsociety organisation participation in budget work.CEF supported partners to train civil society inbudget work and how it can be used as anadvocacy tool to contribute to the attainment ofEFA.

Joint Budget Expenditure Tracking StudyCEF supported a workshop designed to enable civilsociety organisations to undertake budget tracking.Participants had the opportunity to learn about therole of the parliamentary sub-committee and howcivil society budget work could feed into budget

processes. A key outcome of the workshop was thedecision to undertake a joint budget-tracking studyof education expenditure under the specific themesof teacher training, teaching and learning material,infrastructure, antiretroviral education, andeducation bursaries for vulnerable children. Theobjective of this study was to build the capacity ofCSOs in study design, data collection, analysis andadvocacy. ZANEC worked on the budget-trackingstudy with the aim of using findings to feed into thenational budget process.

Analysing the National BudgetZCEA produced a comprehensive analysis of the2007 national budget with particular reference toeducation and the child. Findings showed that thebudget was not child-friendly and that allocation tothe education sector remained below the southernregional average of 5% GDP. The position paperwas officially presented to government and MPs tofeed into parliamentary debates. The report wasalso used for post-budget community discussions.

Community Level Budget TrackingCEF supported training in budget tracking andmonitoring for CSOs, SMCs, PTAs, women’s groupsand school-going children to monitor thegovernment’s basic school grants at school leveland national education budget processes. OYVsupported CEF partners by coordinating andsharing budget related information as well asfacilitating the production of a budget-tracking tooltailored to the needs of local users and translatedinto local languages. It also ensured that the datacollected was analysed and developed intoadvocacy tools. Community members were trainedin budget tracking, monitoring the use of resources,and analysis of education resources at the schoollevel. School development action plans weredeveloped following training on school governanceand budget tracking. This led to communitiesreporting cases of misappropriation of resourcesand fraud to the District Education Board office.Experiences of budget tracking and schoolgovernance were shared through local radiostations, meetings and other media publications

Budget Tracking for AdvocacyBudget-tracking results were compiled so that theycould be shared and used for advocacy work.Findings from the exercise revealed a number ofissues and challenges that civil society

Zambia

46

organisations took on to lobby and campaign forbetter implementation of sector plans. Some of theissues identified were that: government funding toschools was irregular and not adequate to meet theneeds of schools; children and parents were notusually involved in decision-making processes atthe school level such as in planning the use of thesector pool school grant; moreover, guidelines onthe use of sector pool funds were very limiting, notclear and usually not adhered to. Budget-trackingfindings were disseminated to officials at the districtand national level. The Ministry of Educationcommitted to addressing most of the issues raised.Their commitments were closely monitored byCSOs at the district level and by ZANEC at thenational level.

Challenges• A number of the national education coalition

members found it difficult to progress from thetraining stage to actually implementing national-level budget work, and being in a position toshare findings. In some cases this process tookup to a year and a half. It was felt that there wasa need for greater exposure to budget-trackingactivities during training and the opportunity toshare experiences.

• Gender analysis of the budget was hindered bya lack of clear information as it was difficult topull out relevant and specific budget lines, andto make sense of them in relation to gender.

• In some instances district education officers andheadteachers were found to be uncooperativewith budget expenditure tracking activities asthey felt affronted by CSOs conducting budgetwork.

Lessons Learnt• The process of budget tracking and analysis not

only influences the way that school managersmanage funds, but also encourages communityparticipation in school governance and nationalbudget processes. This contributes to theimproved implementation of education policies.

• Networking amongst CSOs trained in budgettracking is essential so that they can shareexperiences, learn from others and gainconfidence in their capacity to carry out thistype of work.

• There is a deep need for communityparticipation. Budget tracking conducted by thecommunity at the school level is essential toensuring the efficient management of schoolresources.

Publications and Useful Documents• ZANEC (2006) Budget Tracking Manual

47

Part III:Further

Information

Boy reading in Ghana/Stuart Freedman, ActionAid

48

Budget Work Tools/Manuals

CAPP (2006) A Guide on Establishing and Running a School Management Committee

CEF/OSISA (2006) Budget Tracking and Advocacy Training Manual

CEF Uganda (2005) Child Participation in Monitoring Education Programmes – Best Practices, Issues andSuggestions

CEF Uganda (2006) Budget Work Best Practices

CIRDDOC (2007) The Education Budget Tracking Manual

CPDI (2007) Toolkit on the Right to Information

CSACEFA (2007) Training Manual for Community Facilitators and Members of SMCs

EFASL Coalition (2006) Training Manual on Economic Literacy and Budget Analysis

EFASL Coalition (2006) Training Manual on Advocacy Planning and Implementation

EYC (2002) A Tool for Tracking Budgetary Allocations, Disbursement and Utilisation for Basic Education

HakiKazi Catalyst (2006) Training Manual on Budget Tracking

HRCP (July 2005) Budget Tracking Manual: A Tool for Community Empowerment

NGND (2004) Training Manual for Community Facilitators

PAMOJA Trust (2006) Facilitators’ Guide to Primary School Budget Tracking

Pro-PAG (2007) A Guide for Understanding Budgets

UGAADEN (2005) Basic Education Budget Tracking: Facilitators’ Guide

UGAADEN (2006) Lesson Plans on Facilitating Learners on School Management & Basic Education BudgetTracking

UGAADEN (2006) Adult Literacy Learners’ Booklet on School Management and Basic Education BudgetTracking

ZANEC (2006) Budget Tracking Manual

Local Level Budget Work

BODEN (2006) Administration and Utilisation of School Fees Subsidies by Primary and Junior SecondarySchools in Bo District, Southern Province

CEF Uganda (2006) Issues Affecting Primary Education in Uganda: The Views of Children from FiveDistricts

EFASL Coalition (2007) Subsidy Allocation and Use by Basic Education in Kenema District: A BaselineSurvey

HRCP (2004) Primary Education and Funding in Pakistan: Results of District Findings

KaDEF (2006) Educational Services Delivery in Kambia District: A Baseline Survey

PPRC (2004) The Budget Analysis of a Primary School

PPRC (2005) Quality Improvements in Primary Education: Micro Insights for a Macro Agenda

SERI (2005) Five Year Analysis of Education Budgets in Three Eastern States of Nigeria

CEF Budget Work References

49

Uttaran (2004) The Truth Behind: Primary Education Scenario in Tala Upazila

WA-BEAN (2006) Utilisation of Government Subsidies by Primary Schools in the Eastern Part of WesternArea

National Level Budget Work

ACCU (2006) Anti-Corruption Week Report – Tackling Corruption in Primary Education

ACCU (2006) Nature and Extent of Corruption in Universal Primary Education in Uganda

CADEC (2004) One Year After the Promise: Citizens’ Audit of NARC Government’s Performance

CADEC (2005) Two Years After the Promise: Citizens’ Audit of NARC Government’s Performance

CBGA (2006) A Civil Society Report on Monitoring the Right to Education in India

CED (2007) The Cost, Financing and Budgetary Process in Education in Sri Lanka

CED (2007) A Comparative study on the Implementation Process of Major Funding Projects in Sri Lanka

CEF and REPOA (2005) Report on a Budget Monitoring Workshop

CEF-SNV (2005) Public Expenditure Tracking Survey Study

CPDI (2007) Performance of the Standing Committee of the Senate on Education

CSACEFA (2005) Education Budget Performance in Nigeria – The UNESCO Recommendation

CSACEFA (2007) Tracking Education Related Debt Relief Gain in Nigeria

CSACEFA/NUT (2005) A Briefing Paper on Financing Quality Education in Nigeria

CSCQBE (2003) Budget Monitoring Exercise

CSCQBE (2005) Have the Resources Trickled Down to Schools? Report on the Spot Check Exercise for FY2004/5

CSO BAG (2005) How Pro-poor Are the National Budgets in Uganda? Case of the Budget for 2004/05

EYC (2004) Monitoring Free Primary Education and Establishing the Unit Cost of Primary Education inKenya

EYC (2005) Setting the Beacons of Education in Kenya

Hakikazi Catalyst, RePOA & TGNP (2007) Follow the Money. A Resource Book for Trainers on PublicExpenditure Tracking in Tanzania

HRCP (2005) The Education Budget in Pakistan

IPS (2004) Overview of Education Budgeting and Resource Allocation Process in Sri Lanka

ISODEC (2006) Budget Statement and the Challenges of Universal Primary Education by 2015

MEPT (2006) Education Sector Financing in Mozambique

PCE (2007) Education Devolution, Myths and Realities

PCE (2007) Financing of Education in Pakistan

Pro-PAG (2004) Expenditure Analysis on the Nature and Magnitude of Resource Allocation in the EducationSector

Pro-PAG (2007) The Gambia Education Expenditure Analysis – 2001–2005

PPRC (2004) Family Education Expenditure and Budget

SERI (2005) Privatisation, Liberation and Commercialisation of Education in Nigeria

The Innovators (2004) Encountering Exclusion: Primary Education Policy Watch

50

WebsitesCommonwealth Education Fund: www.commonwealtheducationfund.org

Global Campaign for Education: www.campaignforeducation.org

International Budget Project: www.idasa.org.za

Transparency International: www.transparency.org

sterling greenaways 109240