Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PBS II Social Accountability Program: Phase 2 Implementation Plan Evaluation and Design of Social Accountability Component of the Protection of Basic Services Program, Ethiopia
Final Report
October 2010, updated June 2011
Prepared By: Dr. Samuel Taddesse, Team Leader Biraj Swain, Social Accountability Expert Merga Afeta, Program Design, Implementation & Management Expert Gadissa Bultosa, Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist Dr. Renu Khosla, Advisor, Social Accountability Sidhartha Patnaik, Project Manager Submitted by:
Infrastructure Professionals Enterprise (P) Ltd A-10, Green Park Main, New Delhi 110 016, India Phone: (91 11) 40755900, 2656 2736 Fax: (91 11) 2696 9478 Email: [email protected], [email protected] www.ipeglobal.com
Disclaimer: Opinions and views expressed in this document are entirely those of the authors and do not reflect opinions of the Government of Ethiopia, The World Bank, Development Partners, or Civil Society Organizations.
i
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................................... iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Why Scale Up Social Accountability for Public Basic Services ........................................ 7 1.2 Design of the Program ................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2: SCOPE OF PHASE-II SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ....................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................................ 11 2.3 Geographical Coverage under Phase II ................................................................................. 12 2.4 Actors in Phase II .......................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Sectors to be added in Phase II ................................................................................................ 13 2.5 Tools in Phase II ............................................................................................................................ 13 2.6 Implementation Approaches .................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 3: TRAINING & CAPACITY BUILDING ............................................................................ 17 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Building Social Accountability Capacities of SAIPs ........................................................... 18 3.3 Building Capacities of Local Actors ........................................................................................ 18 3.4 Approach to Training and Knowledge Building ................................................................ 19
CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .......................................................................................... 21 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Implementation Strategy ........................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Implementation Stages and Program Outputs and Outcomes ..................................... 21 4.4 Outputs ............................................................................................................................................. 23 4.5 Implementation Timeline .......................................................................................................... 24 4.6 Program Budget Envelope & Assumptions .......................................................................... 24
4.6.1 Steering Committee Budget ............................................................................................................. 24 4.6.2 Management Agency Budget ........................................................................................................... 24 4.6.3 SAIPs Related Budget ......................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT ........................................................................ 28 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 28 5.2 The Steering Committee ............................................................................................................. 28 5.3 Regional Governments ................................................................................................................ 29 5.4 The Woreda as Entry Point for the Social Accountability Program ............................ 29 5.5 The Management Agency ........................................................................................................... 29
5.5.1 Program and Financial Management Capacity ........................................................................ 29 5.5.2 Grant Administration and Management .................................................................................... 30 5.5.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) ............................................................................................... 30 5.5.4 Training and capacity building ...................................................................................................... 31 5.5.5 Criteria for Selection of the Management Agency (MA) ...................................................... 31
5.6 Social Accountability Implementation Partners ............................................................... 31 5.6.1 Functions of SAIPs ............................................................................................................................... 31 5.6.2 Criteria for selection of SAIPs for Phase II-SAP ....................................................................... 32 5.6.3 Organizational Arrangements of SAIPs ...................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 6: MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................ 34
ii
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 34 6.2 The M&E framework .................................................................................................................... 34 6.3 Making the M&E framework operational ............................................................................ 34 6.4 Program monitoring .................................................................................................................... 35 6.5 Field observations and periodic reviews ............................................................................. 35 6.6 Program evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 36 6.7 Reporting and communication ................................................................................................ 36
6.7.1 Reporting................................................................................................................................................. 36 6.7.2 Written materials, reports, leaflets and posters ..................................................................... 37 6.7.3 On-line learning materials and documentary films ............................................................... 37 6.7.4 Experience sharing workshops and meetings ......................................................................... 37
6.8 M&E Capacity Building ................................................................................................................ 37 6.9 Key Timelines ................................................................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER 7: PROGRAM PROCUREMENT ....................................................................................... 39 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.2 Procurement Methods ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.3 Procurement Procedures ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
7.3.1 Goods and equipment ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.3.2 Consultancy services .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.3.3 Evaluation of bids .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.3.4 Prior review thresholds ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.3.5 Procurement monitoring and evaluation ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Annex 1: Phase II-SAP – Indicative Logical Framework .......................................................... 46
Annex 2: Management Agency – Terms of Reference ......................................................... 492
Annex 3: Social Accountability Implementing Partner (SAIPs) - Terms of Reference ...... 58
iii
ACRONYMS
BET Baseline Evaluation Team BOCB Bureau of Capacity Building BOFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development C2 PBS II Sub-program C, part 2 (Social Accountability) C4 PBS I Component 4 (Social Accountability) CBOs Community-Based Organizations CRC Citizen Report Card CSC Community Score Card CSOs Civil Society Organizations EDC Evaluation and Design Consultancy EOI Expression of Interest FBOs Faith-Based Organizations FSC Federal Level Steering Committee FTA Financial Transparency & Accountability GOE Government of Ethiopia INGOs International Non-Governmental Organizations MA Management Agency MBAs Member-Based Associations MBOs Member-Based Organizations MDGs Millennium Development Goals MIS Management Information System MOCB Ministry of Capacity Building MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTH Month MTHS Months NGO Non-Governmental Organization PAD Project Appraisal Document PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty PBS Protection of Basic Services PC Program Coordinator PCC Program Coordinating Committee PLWHA People Living with HIV/AIDS PSFs Program Site Facilitators PWDA People with Disabilities RBA Rights Based Approach RDOs Regional Development Organizations RFP Request for Proposal RSC Regional Level Steering Committee SA Social Accountability SAIPs Social Accountability Implementing Partners SC Steering Committee TOR Terms of Reference USD United States Dollars WBOCB Woreda Bureau of Capacity Building WBOFED Woreda Bureau of Finance & Economic Development WPC Woreda Program Coordinator
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This document outlines the design and implementation of the Social Accountability Program under the Protection of Basic Services (PBS) II. The Sub-program C, part 2 (C2) on Social Accountability, hereafter referred to as Phase II - Social Accountability Program (Phase II-SAP), is based on a review of the implementation of and lessons from PBS I Component 4 (C4) that was piloted across Ethiopia between January 2008 and June 2009.
2. The rationale for scaling up the social accountability program comes from the very successful implementation of the pilot social accountability project that demonstrated how appropriate social accountability mechanisms overlaid on Government of Ethiopia’s (GOE’s) accountability framework and synergized with its civil service reforms and capacity building efforts, can work in Ethiopia with beneficial outcomes for the actors involved and for improving the quality of basic service delivery. Simple social accountability tools such as Community Score Cards (CSC), Citizen Report Cards (CRC) and Participatory Budgeting in the PBS I social accountability program, have served as powerful instruments of accountability as they are easily understood and capable of being applied by local communities. It has also established that it is possible for citizens groups and service providers to constructively engage in joint reviews of service delivery effectiveness, quality and equity, and to develop plans for addressing service deficiencies. In addition, social accountability can build community ownership and mobilize community contributions and resources such as time and labor for operation, maintenance and upgrading of services; an unprecedented and invaluable change in citizens’ attitudes and behavior towards partnering with government institutions.
3. A second impetus for rolling out the social accountability program comes from the GOE’s continued focus on social accountability. Recent changes in the legal framework defining Civil Society Organization (CSO) initiatives notwithstanding, the GOE has positioned social accountability as an important and intended objective within basic services’ provisioning framework.
The Design of Phase II - Social Accountability Program
4. Guiding Principles: As in Phase I, the guiding principles for Phase II-SAP will be:
Recognition of civil society and government roles, mandates and responsibilities in Social Accountability;
Government and Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs) working together with deeper understanding of the Social Accountability framework;
Commitment from all actors (Government and SAIPs) to make joint efforts in building woreda level capacity;
Inclusion and engagement of diverse civil society actors and citizen groups, and building partnerships among them;
Localization of Phase II social accountability activities to the context, where tools and mechanisms are adapted and agreed at the local level;
Transparency at all levels and from all stakeholders involved and non-partisanship on the part of SAIPs; and
Focus on the local/woreda level; the core of social services delivery.
Social accountability is
an approach in which
ordinary citizens
collectively demand for
better and more public
basic services from
service providers, and
hold service providers
accountable for
performance.
2
5. Phase II-SAP is designed to deepen and broaden the accountability initiatives under basic services’ programs. It targets both men and women, including those living with HIV/AIDS and/or disabilities. It is designed with the objective of “strengthening the use of social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms by (a) citizens and citizens groups, (b) civil society organizations (CSOs), (c) local government officials, and (d) service providers (SPs) in order to make basic service delivery more effective, efficient, responsive and accountable”. Phase II-SAP will ensure the effective implementation of social accountability tools and mechanisms to achieve the following five outcomes for effective, gender-sensitive, inclusive, efficient, responsive and accountable public basic services delivery.
Outcome 1: Increased awareness of citizens and citizen groups of their rights, responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and demand better quality public basic services.
Outcome 2: Increased empowerment and involvement of citizens and citizen groups and communities in the planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring of the quality of, access to, and quantity of basic public services.
Outcome 3: Increased capacity of Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs) to empower citizens and citizen groups on multiple social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms.
Outcome 4: Increased capacity of woreda officials and public basic service providers to respond to community and citizens’ needs and preferences and be accountable.
Outcome 5: Improved quality of basic services in the PBS sectors (i.e., education, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, and rural roads) attributed to the social accountability program.
6. The above outcomes are to be achieved through:
Increased knowledge, skills and capacities of Social Accountability Implementing Partners to (i) build citizens’ knowledge of the GOE’s policies regarding basic services planning, budgeting and delivery, (ii) build capacities among citizens and citizen groups to use social accountability tools, (iii) organize and facilitate interface meetings between both service users and service providers for joint assessment of service quality and quantity, and service provider performance, and (iv) facilitate the development and implementation of joint actions for basic service delivery improvement.
Increased knowledge and abilities of citizens and citizen groups to (i) diagnose service delivery problems in their communities and measure access, availability and quality of basic services using selected social accountability tools and service delivery indicators, (ii) demand, and partner with service providers for improved equity, quality and quantity of basic public services, and (iii) hold service providers accountable for none or ineffective performance.
Increased knowledge and abilities of woreda officials and service providers to (i) self-evaluate the quality and quantity of basic services delivered to citizens and communities using selected social accountability tools and performance indicators, (ii) understand citizens evaluations of service quality and service delivery performance, (iii) set up mechanisms and procedures to take account of and be more responsive to both male and female citizens’ service needs, and (iv) redress citizens’ grievances individually or collectively.
Increased interactions and partnerships between service users and service providers to (i) jointly assess basic service quality, availability and access, (ii) jointly plan to improve basic
3
service equity, quality, availability and access, and (iii) jointly implement and monitor progress on implementation of joint action plans.
7. Scaling up social accountability initiatives would include: (a) increasing the geographic coverage incrementally to cover more woredas depending on resource availability, (b) adding to the number of social accountability tools used for the assessment of basic services, (c) expanding number of sectors covered, (d) making the program inclusive by increasing the number and range of stakeholders in the dialogue and implementation of the social accountability program, and (e) when feasible, sharing best practice and lessons gained from implementation with non-SAP woredas and other programs. Besides the resource envelope, scale up will also depend on the capacities of the Management Agency (MA) and the Social Accountability Implementing Partners. The scaling up will be implemented in stages.
8. Geographic spread: Phase II-SAP is open for all regional states of Ethiopia. It is expected that, given the current resource envelope of US$ 18 million, it will be possible to double the coverage for numbers of woredas/towns in the pilot program; from 86 woredas and towns to nearly twice that number.
9. Woredas will be the entry points for the implementation of Phase II-SAP. They will be selected by SAIPs using the criteria set out below. SAIPs shall get the consent of the respective woreda administrations before submitting proposals to the Management Agency (MA). The MA shall map all SAIP proposals submitted to achieve widespread coverage of woredas before making a final selection of SAIPs.
10. Proposed woreda selection criteria are:
Phase I woredas, to consolidate the gains and deepen the processes from the pilot and ensure sustainability;
Woredas with successful GOE accountability initiatives, to nurture and exploit their synergies with social accountability interventions;
‘Hot spot’ woredas or those at strategic locations with high potential for snowballing the demonstration effect to neighboring woredas and with ability to serve as the center in a cluster-based approach;
Woredas with significant service deficiency/deprivation levels based on state data (some challenging woredas with very low service delivery efficiency should self-select for the initiative); and
Woredas where Local Investment Grants (LIGs) are being implemented.
11. As in the Pilot phase, the Steering Committee shall contract a strong multi-disciplinary Management Agency to implement and manage the social accountability program with capacity to:
Ensure implementation of an expanded and robust program for social accountability under PBS II;
Supervise the implementation of the social accountability program in all the sectors;
Build capabilities of SAIPs to implement SA initiatives at the local level;
Manage grants to SAIPs and oversee their performance;
Establish mechanisms for training and capacity building including “Social Accountability Centers of Excellence” at selected regional universities and training institutions; and
Establish and maintain a robust Web-based Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system to track and report on the progress and performance of the social accountability program.
12. The number and range of Social Accountability Implementing Partners will be broadened and may include (a) regional development organizations, (b) civil society organizations (CSOs), and (c) faith-based associations. The MA will select SAIPs using the following criteria:
Experience of implementation of social accountability activities;
4
Experience of working in essential services sectors (Provisioning and/or Advocacy);
Experience of working with local government institutions (LGIs);
Experience of community mobilization and community capacity building including approaches to ensure participation of women and other vulnerable groups;
Experience of training and capacity building of frontline staff of line departments/service providers, community members and woreda officials;
Experience of program planning and participatory budgeting;
Willingness to implement the social accountability program outside their current operational sectors and geographical areas; and
Capacity to work in more than one woreda.
13. Coverage of essential services sectors shall be extended to rural roads in addition to the current service sectors: education, health, water and sanitation and agriculture to create a better balance than in the pilot program and to give each sector its due importance.
14. Social accountability tools in the pilot project, i.e., Community Score Cards (CSCs), Citizens Report Cards (CRCs), and Participatory Budgeting and Public Expenditure Tracking (PBET) will be continued with a wider scope1:
Increased use of CRC and PBET;
Using tools in combinations, such as PBET and CSC where scoring for quality accountability may follow the participatory budgeting process or vice-versa; and
Sequencing all three tools in mature sites with CSCs setting the baseline, CRCs tracking changes and PBET tracking the annual resource allocation and planned implementation;
15. For improved sustainability and mainstreaming social accountability mechanisms Phase II-SAP will be linked with GOE’s reform agenda so as to capitalize on the program to professionalize the civil service and make the supply side more responsive to citizens, particularly reach women, children and other social groups including people living with HIV/AIDS or disabilities, and the elderly. Such synergy will be created through: :
Capacity building of government officials, civil servants and elected councilors in social accountability;
Integration of social accountability frameworks within civil services training and capacity building programs;
Institutionalization of participatory budgeting processes within service department budgets and budgeting requisitions, including gender based budgeting; and
Incorporating citizen satisfaction feedbacks (i.e., CRC and CSC results) and service quality indicators into sectoral resource allocation decision-making processes.
16. Phase II-SAP will have a well-defined sustainability strategy and an exit plan. Social accountability is a long-term initiative. Actors that can sustain the program after program funding is over shall be identified, trained and prepared early on in the program implementation timeline. As these actors develop ownership and capacity to pursue the accountability goals, they are expected to continue to implement with increasing intensity the social accountability program in their respective communities including (a) continue the use of social accountability tools to assess the quality, access and equity of basic service delivery, and (b) conduct regular interface meetings between service users and service providers.
1 Of course, within the framework of the institutional responsibilities provided for in the Ethiopian Constitution.
5
Phase II - Social Accountability Program Implementation
17. Phase II-SAP will be implemented until December 31, 2012. The program will be implemented in stages as shown in Figure E.S1. Activities and deliverables in each stage will be as follows:
18. Stage 1: Selection of MA: The World Bank, on behalf of the Steering Committee, shall invite global Expressions of Interest (EOI), short-list firms, and issue Request for Proposal (RFP) for the selection of a Management Agency. It shall organize the evaluations of the technical and financial proposals and final selection of an appropriate agency for implementing Phase II-SAP. The Steering Committee will be the final approving authority for contracting the MA following negotiations. Before the final contracting, the Steering Committee shall get a no objection from the Government of Ethiopia on the selected agency.
19. Stage 2: MA shall set up operations in Ethiopia for implementing the Social Accountability Program. It shall be accountable to the Steering Committee on program design and implementation and to the World Bank on its fiduciary management. Its key tasks will be to: develop a program logical framework with outputs, outcomes and gender disaggregated performance indicators; create linkages between Phase II-SAP and the GOE’s public sector reform and capacity building efforts as appropriate; setup operations and develop and put in place financial and program operating procedures, practices and systems; establish grant making and management procedures and systems; invite proposals and select participating SAIPs, support them in signing MOUs with woreda governments and disburse grants to them; develop/adapt gender-sensitive social accountability training modules to the Ethiopian context; develop a gender-sensitive training plan and strategy, engage regional universities and training institutions in training of SAIPs, government officials and service providers; select control group woredas for program impact evaluation in consultation with regional administrations and SC; recruit and field M&E consultants for Phase II-SAP baseline data collection; and establish a web-based monitoring and evaluation system.
20. Stage 3: Building Capacities: MA shall create capacity among SAIPs and woreda officials on SA tools and mechanisms.
21. Stage 4: Rolling out implementation of Phase II-SAP with support of SAIPs. This shall include building capacities of citizens groups, local government officials and service providers; undertaking bi-annual program reviews and assessments; monitoring implementation, outputs and outcomes; sharing experiences, documenting and disseminating best practices.
22. The overall budget envelope for Phase II-SAP is estimated at about US$ 18 million, to be allocated for implementation of the following components: (a) services of the Management Agency; (b) grants to Social Accountability Implementing Partners for social accountability activities in the woredas; (c) training and capacity building program; (d) monitoring, evaluation and financial audits; (e) program oversight, technical support, and end-evaluation by the Steering Committee and the World Bank; (f) trust fund set-up; and (g) administration fees.
6
Figure ES.1: Implementation Stage of Phase II-SAP Key Deliverables
STAGE 1 4 - 6 mths Selection of the MA
STAGE 2 1-2 mths Setting Up Operations
STAGE 3 1 mth Initial Training & Capacity Building
SC recruits the MA
Advertize the MA position –EOI
Short-list firms
Issue RFP
Collect and Score Technical & Financial Proposals
Select & Contract MA
Obtain GOE no objection
MA establishes office(s) & mobilizes staff
MA develops Program Log frame & Inception Report
Establish Web-based M&E System
MA develops systems and procedures for implementing and managing Phase II-SAP
MA establishes grant making & management system
MA recruits and signs grant agreements with SAIPs,
MA begins planning for gender sensitive baseline data collection
MA collects baseline data for subject and control woredas
MA provides first round of training & capacity building of SAIPs; government officials and service providers
SAIPs sign MOUs with woreda administrations and begin implementing Phase II-SAP
Grant Funds disbursed to SAIPs
Continue Capacity building of SAIPs
Intensify capacity building of local government officials, service providers, citizens and civic groups for effective, efficient, transparent and accountable basic service delivery
Foster and promote partnerships between citizens, civic groups, service providers and local government officials for better basic service delivery
Build capacities of CBOs, MBA, MBOs and other civic groups to sustain and institutionalize social accountability
MA conduct biannual program reviews and assessments
Enhanced capacity of actors for:
Evidence-based learning, dialogue and decision-making
Contributing to sustained and equitable service delivery improvements
STAGE 4 22 to 24 mths Rolling out SAP
7
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
In this Chapter we highlight the rationale for scaling up the social accountability initiative, the enabling environment and the Phase II conceptual framework.
23. The Evaluation and Design of the Social Accountability Component of the Protection of Basic Services Program, was commissioned to Infrastructure Professionals Enterprise (IPE) Private Limited by The World Bank on 16th December 2009 with the objectives of: (a) reviewing the objectives and on-ground achievements of the PBS I Social Accountability Component 4 (C4); and (b) to develop the design of the Social Accountability component under PBS II that would scale up the social accountability interventions on the basis of the evaluation findings, lessons learnt and experiences of implementing the social accountability pilot program under the guidance of the Steering Committee (see Annex 1 - Terms of Reference (TOR)).
1.1 Why Scale Up Social Accountability for Public Basic Services
24. Successful Interface of Citizens and Service Providers with Service Quality Improvements: The success of social accountability initiatives piloted under PBS I, provide a strong argument for the continuation and scaling-up of social accountability under PBS II. As indicated in the ESAP Evaluation Report, the PBS-I Component 4 Social Accountability has demonstrated that use of appropriate social accountability mechanisms can work in Ethiopia with beneficial outcomes for all actors, in particular to citizens with improved quality of basic services. By successfully testing simple accountability tools such as Community Score Card (CSC), Citizen Report Card (CRC) and Participatory Budgeting, PBS- I C4 has demonstrated that these can serve as powerful instruments of accountability as these are easily understood and can be applied by local communities. Additionally, it has shown that it is possible for citizens and service providers to jointly engage in service delivery performance reviews and plan for addressing service delivery deficiencies.
25. Improved Responsiveness and Efficiency of Basic Service Delivery: The justification for broadening and deepening social accountability mechanisms within basic service delivery programs across Ethiopia also comes from the very successful implementation of PBS itself. PBS was designed to support development and implementation of accountability mechanisms both at the government and citizens’ end.2 PBS I Component 4 on Social Accountability was aimed at strengthening citizens’ voice, enhancing public sector service provider responsiveness and accountability to citizens, build demand-side pressure for accountability in public budgeting processes, and build citizen capacity to engage in the public budgeting processes. These twin objectives have been successful in “strengthening the use of social accountability approaches by citizen and civil society organizations (CSOs) as a means to make basic service delivery more effective, efficient, responsive and accountable”.3
2 World Bank (2006), Program Appraisal Document on a Proposed Grant in the Amount of SDR 149.6
million (US$215 million Equivalent) to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for a Protection of
Basic Service Program, May 2, 2006 3 Ibid, page 50
8
Strong demonstration of civic responsibility & ownership of service solutions
“My name is Sheik Yahiya Bakar. I came from Haromaya woreda. I worked on community facilitation. I am happy to tell you that ESAP has brought positive attitude among the community. With practical exercise and awareness creation, ESAP improved the common understandings of the community members and the government sector offices for improved service delivery. For example, in our woreda, at specific place called Iddo Bali’na, there was a network of water pipelines to supply drinking water to the community. It was laid down during the Dergue government but it was not functioning. The community did not understand that these water pipes were for the community’s water supply. They destroyed the pipeline and some people took the pipes for the construction of their houses. Latter after the ESAP exercise the community and sector offices learnt their duties and responsibilities and worked together on the reconstruction of the water pipelines. Community members that had taken the water pipes and used them for constructing their home brought back the pipes. They also participated in reconnecting the water pipeline. Now water is flowing through the pipes and it is supplying potable water to the community. In addition, the community established quality control and management committee to ensure continuous supply of potable water.”
Sheik Yahiya Bakar. March 11, 2010
26. Informed and Empowered Communities: ESAP evaluation has further confirmed that the implementation of social accountability initiatives has significantly improved citizens’ awareness of their rights and responsibilities as well as their entitlements and service standards. The initiatives have promoted collaborative engagement between the civil society and service providers; with the two jointly assessing the quality and performance of basic services and developing a signed and time-bound joint action plan designed to remedy and improve basic services quality and enhance service provider performance. In addition, ESAP evaluation found that in a majority of pilot sites, social accountability initiatives have resulted in building community ownership of services and solutions with contribution of personal resources, time and labor for the expansion, upkeep and quality improvement of basic facilities; an unprecedented and invaluable change in citizens’ attitudes toward working with government.
27. GOE’s Continued Focus on Social Accountability: Recent changes in the legal framework defining Civil Society Organization (CSO) initiatives notwithstanding, the GOE has positioned social accountability as an important and intended objective within the basic services provisioning framework. Under the recently revised Charities and Societies Proclamation passed by Parliament on January 6, 2009, a serious question mark had been raised over the expansion of social accountability under PBS II. According to The World Bank (PAD, 2009)4, the amended Act seriously compromised the strong legal framework for social accountability action by ‘prohibiting the civil society organizations with more than 10% foreign funding derived from foreign sources from engaging in political governance and rights-based advocacy activities’. The Act also contradicted the GOE’s stated intent to allow CSO engagement in social and economic development and other charitable purposes within the Proclamation.5 In February 2009, the Government of Ethiopia (GOE) rested these concerns of development partners and CSOs in a written statement assuring that “the (amended) law would not impede implementation of social accountability activities in the delivery of basic services”6. This reaffirms GOE’s strong stewardship of the social accountability and financial transparency and accountability (FTA) agendas within PBS II. It also guarantees that CSOs would continue to play an important role in implementing social accountability activities in the provisioning of basic services.
4 World Bank (2009), Program Appraisal Document (PAD) on Proposed Grant of SDR 207.5 Million (US$
309.78 million equivalent) and Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 154.3 million (US$ 230.22 million
equivalent) to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia for a Protection of Basic Services Program
Phase II Program, April 22, 2009, p. 10 5 Ibid., page 10
6 Ibid., page 10
9
1.2 Design of the Program
28. Phase II-SAP is structured to deepen and broaden the accountability initiatives within basic service delivery programs. Social accountability in PBS II will continue to be understood as the process and approach by which ordinary citizens, men and women, including people with HIV/AIDS and disabilities and the elderly, who are users of public basic services can (a) voice their needs, preferences and negotiate for improved and effective public basic services delivery; and (b) hold service providers accountable for ineffective performance. A key element of good governance, social accountability requires that local governments and service providers develop and establish mechanisms and procedures to listen to the voices of citizens and citizens groups and to respond to these with appropriate and equitable solutions and service deficiency rectification in a time-bound manner. These two definitions of social accountability will continue to remain at the core of Phase II-SAP as well and will be designed to result in “Strengthened use of social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms by (a) citizens and citizens groups, (b) civil society organizations (CSOs), (c) local government officials, and (d) service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more effective, efficient, responsive and accountable”.7
29. Phase II-SAP shall ensure the effective implementation of social accountability activities as summarized in the logical framework (see Annex 2); to result in the achievement of the following five expected results that contribute to the above stated objective at the end of Phase II.
Outcome 1: Increased awareness of citizens and citizen groups of their rights, responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and demand better quality public basic services.
Outcome 2: Increased empowerment and involvement of citizens and citizen groups and communities in the planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring of the quality of, access to, and quantity of basic public services.
Outcome 3: Increased capacity of Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs) to empower citizens and citizen groups on multiple social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms.
Outcome 4: Increased capacity of woreda officials and public basic service providers to respond to community and citizens’ needs and preferences and be accountable.
Outcome 5: Improved quality of basic services in the PBS sectors (i.e., education, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, and rural roads) attributed to the social accountability program.
30. Further, achievements under each of the above outcomes are expected to be as follows:
Outcome 1 is about creating ‘informed communities’ with skills and capacity to obtain and analyze information from service providers, and be aware of their constitutional and legal rights and responsibilities to demand answers and solutions from service providers.
Outcome 2 is about promoting citizens’ voice and citizens’ ability to negotiate for better quality basic services through the use of previously tested tools such as Community Score Cards (CRCs), Citizen Report Cards (CRCs), Participatory Budgeting and Expenditure Tracking (PBET) to assess the performance of public basic services providers, participate in the planning, budgeting and implementation of public basic services, and track public spending on basic services.
Outcome 3 is about building capacities of Social Accountability Implementing Partners to train and build capacities of citizens groups and communities to exercise their constitutional
7 Adopted from the World Bank (2006) PAD, page 50. The EDC team has added local government officials
and service providers as key actors that make social accountability initiatives work effectively.
10
rights and responsibilities to demand quality basic services and to use the same effectively and efficiently to enhance their living conditions.
Outcomes 4 is about building capacity among key public basic service delivery actors to be inclusive; listen to and respond to citizens voices in a transparent and accountable manner; and effectively engage citizens and civil society in service delivery planning, budgeting, implementing and performance monitoring. For such accountability to work, a more proactive approach and an opening up on part of public officials will be required to actively inform citizens, explain interventions and perhaps even justify these in comprehensible language.
Outcome 5 is aimed at improving the quality of basic services resulting from the effective implementation of joint action plans developed collaboratively between citizens and basic service providers.
31. This report has been organized into 8 chapters. Chapter 2 describes the scope of Phase II - Social Accountability Program, Chapter 3 discusses the training and capacity building needs, Chapter 4 describes the implementation plan, timeline and indicative budget, Chapter 5 describes the implementation arrangements proposed for Phase II-SAP, Chapter 6 describes the lessons learning and experience sharing mechanisms that would be implemented under Phase II-SAP, and Chapter 7 discusses the procurement plan for Phase II-SAP.
11
CHAPTER 2: SCOPE OF PHASE-II SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
In this chapter we discuss the scope of the Phase II-Social Accountability Program. We discuss the optimal geographical spread, the actors anchoring the process, the sectors in which the program needs to be implemented, the tools used and implementation approaches. The chapter would end with discussing some pre-requisites of the exit strategy to be adopted in Phase II-SAP.
2.1 Introduction
32. The prime objective of the pilot Ethiopian Social Accountability Program was to strengthen social accountability approaches by citizens and civil society organizations as a means to make basic service delivery effective, efficient, responsive and accountable. This was attempted through adapting best practices of social accountability in Ethiopia and by building a learning curve. The other sub-objective was to build capacity on social accountability amongst all stakeholders (i.e., citizens, civil society organizations, service providers, local government representatives, etc.).8 In Phase II, the purpose would be to deepen the process and scale-up its implementation on the basis of lessons learnt from the pilot phase. The expected outcome of Phase II will be:
Informed, empowered and engaged citizenry that demands, contributes to and negotiates for quality basic services and can hold service providers accountable for ineffective performance;
Informed and engaged public officials and service providers that are open and responsive to citizens’ needs and demands;
Improved quality of basic services;
Cadre of home-grown social accountability specialists, i.e. program coordinators, community mobilizers, community trainers and interface meeting moderators; and
Domestic social accountability centers that provide training to public officials, civil society organizations and citizens and can conduct policy research to advance the institutionalization of social accountability tools, mechanisms and practices.
2.2 Guiding Principles
33. As in the pilot project, the following principles will continue to guide the implementation of Phase II - Social Accountability Program.
Recognition of civil society and government roles, mandates and responsibilities in Social Accountability;
Government and Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs) working together with deeper understanding of the Social Accountability framework;
Commitment from all actors (Government and SAIPs) to make joint efforts in building woreda level capacity;
Inclusion and engagement of diverse civil society actors and citizen groups, and building partnerships among them;
8 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Program Appraisal Document for Protection of
Basic Services Programme Phase II, 2009
12
Localization of Phase II social accountability activities to the context, where tools and mechanisms are adapted and agreed at the local level;
Transparency at all levels and from all stakeholders involved and non-partisanship on the part of SAIPs; and
Focus on the local/woreda level, the core of social services delivery.
2.3 Geographical Coverage under Phase II
34. The pilot social accountability program was initiated in 86 woredas, cities/sub-cities and towns of seven regional states as well as Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa city administrations. Regions covered in the pilot phase included; Oromiya, Tigray, Amhara, SNNPR, Beni-Shangul Gumuz, Somali and Harari. In Phase II, the coverage shall be aimed at expanded to all regional states.
35. While the Government of Ethiopia is keen to introduce basic service provider accountability and responsiveness across the country through its Civil Service Reforms Program, intensive capacity building and resources are needed to roll-out demand-side accountability, also known as social accountability. Limited donor resource (human and monetary capital), also creates a ceiling over the remit of the initiative. The fact that only up to US$ 18 million is available for the entire phase II, demands a robust logic for the choice and selection of wordeas and Social Accountability Implementing Partners for the social accountability program roll out.
36. At this stage it would be difficult to spell out the exact number of woredas where Phase II-SAP should be rolled out. However based on the potential resource envelope of US$ 18 million, we propose scaling up to at least 172 woredas; the number of wordeas per region may vary depending upon the extent of service deficiencies, willingness to participate and availability of SAIPs. In the pilot project there was a wide variation in woredas targeted per region, i.e., 37 woredas and Jimma town in Oromiya, 14 woredas and Mekele town in Tigray, 8 woredas in Amhara, 6 woredas in SNNPR, 5 woredas in Beni-Shangul Gumuz and 2 woredas each in Somali and Harari regions respectively. In Phase II, the effort would be to have a more uniform spatial coverage.
37. SAIPs will select the woredas for their implementation of Phase II-SAP proposals. However, SAIPs will be strongly encouraged to use the following woreda selection criteria. SAIPs are also expected to clear their woreda selections with the regional BOFED (Bureau of Finance and Economic Development) before submitting their proposal to the MA. Proposed woreda selection criteria are:
Phase I woredas, to consolidate gains and deepen processes from the pilot and ensure sustainability;
Woredas with successful GOE accountability initiatives, to nurture and exploit their synergies with social accountability interventions;
‘Hot spot’ woredas, or those at strategic locations with high potential for snowballing the demonstration effect to neighboring woredas and ability to serve as the center in a cluster-based approach;
Woredas with significant service deficiency/deprivation levels. Based on state data (some challenging woredas with very low service delivery efficiency should self-select for the initiative); and
Woredas where Local Investment Grants (LIGs) are being implemented.
2.4 Actors in Phase II
38. The Steering Committee at the federal level with representation of all the three key stakeholders, i.e. the Government of Ethiopia, development partners and civil society organizations will continue. The committee, its structure, constituents and their role will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. In this section, the actors involved in the implementation of Phase II-SAP will be described.
13
39. Based on lessons of the pilot, a Management Agency (MA) will be selected using World Bank procedures and endorsed by GOE, to coordinate the implementation of the Social Accountability Program in Phase II as well. The MA selected must possess key multi-disciplinary skills of social accountability, gender equity, training and capacity building, grant management, monitoring and evaluation, program management and financial management. These skill sets are deemed critical in a Management Agency for implementing a social accountability program. In addition, it is expected that the MA has substantial knowledge and work experience from Ethiopia.
40. Capacity building is a core function of the social accountability program and shall get due weight. Capacity building will be focused on creating Ethiopian/home capacity and institutional memory for social accountability. It is proposed that the Management Agency enter into agreements with regional universities or training institutions to set up “Centers of Excellence” for a cluster of regional states (one center per three regions), where the entire range of capacity on social accountability is built. These would serve as proximate resource centers on social accountability with training, research and communications capacity housed in them and would become the institutional memory of the program in the country. Besides, their closeness to the program sites would make them more accessible and available for support and mentoring to SAIPs/woredas.
41. As per the pilot project evaluation, implementation of social accountability and its sustainability post phase-out is the second key determinant of long-term success and full scale-up of the social accountability initiative. Hence the EDC team strongly recommends a broad-basing of the set of civil society actors for implementing Phase II; the selection being based on the suggested qualification criteria (see section 5.6.2). The typology of Social Accountability Implementing Partners proposed is as follows:
Regional Development Organizations
Civil Society Organizations
Faith-Based Associations
2.4 Sectors to be added in Phase II
42. Phase II will continue in the key essential services’ sectors i.e. health, education, water, sanitation and agriculture. It needs to expand to the lone sector omitted in the pilot phase; rural roads or community access roads. This sector has critical importance as an anti-poverty investment for the following reasons:
It connects farmers to market opportunities;
Connects children to schools; and
Provides healthcare access, in particular in critical life-saving cases.
2.5 Tools in Phase II
43. Tools used in the pilot project; Citizens Score Cards (CSC), Citizens Report Cards (CRC), Participatory Budgeting and Public Expenditure Tracking (PBET) would be continued in Phase II as per EDC team suggestions, albeit with an altered focus:
Increased use of CRC and PBET tools;
Use of tools in combinations such as PBET and CSC where after the participatory budgeting, services are scored on their adequacy and quality; and
Social accountability
tools provide
systematic and direct
feedback from citizens
to policymakers and
service providers to
help them redesign
service delivery
programs and
reallocate resources.
14
Use all three tools in sequence, in particular in mature sites, where CSC is used for setting the baseline, CRC for monitoring changes and PBET for tracking resource allocations and spending and planned implementations under joint action plans.
44. The tools recommended above demand a higher level of methodological accuracy and technical skills. Evidence also shows that the tools, when used in combination, increase the probability of success in negotiations with service-providers. Hence investing in capacity building for use of such tools is imperative to the program and also an indicator of its success; evident in the increasing use of these tools by more and more implementing organizations and citizens’ groups within their own projects and work sites, and which in turn would reflect the increased capacity within the country for social accountability.
45. Participatory Budgeting and Public Expenditure Tracking has direct linkage with the GOE supported Financial Transparency and Accountability (FTA) tools and program9 as well. Since these are naturally allied, including PBET in the SA framework can have ‘knock-on’ impact on citizens’ engagement in FTA. Hence, there is the effectiveness argument on why investments must be made in building capacity to apply PBET.
2.6 Implementation Approaches
46. Entry Strategy: In the social accountability pilot program (Phase I) the over-riding consideration of entry into a geographical site and or sector was a-priori presence and willingness of the organization in the area/sector. This was a fair strategy in the pilot stage. But in Phase II with considerable intended investment in social accountability processes and outcomes and Government of Ethiopia’s own focus and investment in good governance, a more robust logic will be applied to SAIP and woreda selection.
47. As in the pilot project, SAIPs will select the woredas where they propose to implement the social accountability program, and these need not necessarily be in their present work sites or sectors. However, SAIPs are expected to apply the woreda selection criteria discussed below in choosing the sites. Challenging locales, suffering from severe service inadequacies and or sites with catalytic community groups should be targeted.
48. SAIPs shall mobilize community and member-based organizations for reviewing service provision and interacting with government officials. When mobilizing Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and Member Based Organizations (MBAs), SAIPs must ensure that vulnerable groups such as women, people living with disabilities and HIV/AIDS, elderly, orphaned children, etc. are represented and that the Social Accountability Program is designed to optimize their participation. This will ensure that the Social Accountability Program is truly inclusive.
49. Phase II-SAP must challenge social hegemonies based on gender, age, illness or disability. Engendering Phase II and making it more inclusive, besides a conscious program design, would need to measure achievements using a disaggregated set of gender/disadvantage monitoring and evaluation indicators. For example:
Girl student enrollment and retention in education sector.
Enrollment in schools of children with disabilities or children of parents with HIV/AIDS.
Family responsiveness to availing healthcare services in case of a woman or girl child’s sickness.
Mobility freedom of women or access to transport and safety of women at agricultural worksites.
Mobility freedom and access to transport for people with disabilities.
9 FTA is sub-program C1 of PBS II.
15
Separate capacity building and training events for women, orphaned children, etc. to express their views without inhibitions.
Separate interface meetings with service providers to ensure women’s demands and needs are addressed adequately.
50. Institutionalization/Mainstreaming in Phase II: The GOE’s reform agenda, in particular the civil services reform, is aimed at development and operationalization of a “comprehensive service delivery policy, complaints handling mechanisms, and service standards to facilitate positive changes in the culture, attitudes and work practices of government officials toward the provision of effective and equitable public services”. The major elements of the civil services reforms are strengthening staff, incentives and setting service standards. The expected outcomes of these reforms are:
Improved service delivery speed, efficiency and fairness;
Attitudinal change among civil servants about the importance of accounting resources under their control in a professional manner, searching for more efficient ways of using scarce resources, and responsiveness to both citizens’ demands and preferences;
Increased accountability and transparency of government policy makers and service providers to people; and
Strengthening of Customer Services and Complaints Handling Units to handle citizens’ complaints effectively and in a timely manner.
51. However, as evidenced in the pilot review, the effectiveness of these reforms varies across different regions and woredas. In regions and woredas with high staff turnover these have not been very effective; as the trained staff and officials get transferred and their replacements are yet to be trained and capacitated, the program become less intensive.
52. Social accountability initiatives can help to bridge the gap between training and implementation of the GOE reform agenda. The main objective of the Social Accountability Program is to create an informed and empowered citizenry that can deal and work with the government machinery with confidence to help develop and extract effective, efficient and quality basic services in an equitable, accountable and transparent manner. Being a local level initiative, it works with citizens, civil society and community groups, which are the recipients and users of basic public services. Informing, empowering and capacitating citizens, civic groups and civil society organizations to demand equitable, effective, efficient, and quality basic services can incentivize and push service providers to respond. In addition, this engagement will give citizens and citizen groups a better understanding of challenges faced by service providers and will help them to work with service providers to overcome these challenges. As an integral component of the GOE’s reform agenda, effective implementation of the social accountability program would further the GOE’s reform and capacity building efforts.
53. The complementarities between GOE capacity building initiatives and the social accountability program could be enhanced through five main intervention approaches:
Advocating Government of Ethiopia’s ownership and support of the program and clearly enunciating and communicating it to the lowest tier of government.
Integrating Social accountability reportage via CRC, CSC and other tools into the program Management Information System (MIS) at the woreda and regional levels to serve as a live, real-time program MIS for the respective sectors and for use in incentivizing service efficiencies. The importance of an updated Management Information System with service and human resource status updates cannot be over-emphasized. Taking into consideration that the departmental MIS is still a work-in-progress across Ethiopia, the civil-services reforms’ package could initiate the process of performance-linked remuneration, where the citizens’ feedback in the form of CRC and CSC would be part of the database for deciding on a reward or penalty.
16
Recruiting and retaining qualified Human Resource in key sectors is a challenge across the developing world and Ethiopia is no exception. However, staffs that join public service in the essential services sectors need to internalize the rationale and need for accountability to users. When they don’t, practices such as absenteeism, or profiteering through private practice begin. It is therefore imperative that staff, in which public investment has been made through training and capacity building, stay and serve to their optimal levels in the public system and improve delivery of basic services. Performance-linked remuneration could be a small step towards institutionalizing a culture of accountability. This performance-based incentive system should start at the regional administration-cum-budget-disbursement level and cascade down to the frontline cadre and should be based on citizens’ reviews of service delivery. This will put positive pressure on regional level decision-makers and intermediary managers to address the constraints and take active interest in improving service-delivery efficiency and sectoral performance.
Participatory Budgeting that responds to resource requests of the woredas and is based on participatory budgeting exercises.
Integrating Reform Program Outcome indicators within the social accountability framework. In the pilot phase, project indicators were mostly process and input related. Phase II intends to graduate to program outcome indicators as well. These quality and effectiveness indicators will be derived from the sectors’ monitoring and evaluation frameworks and will complement the GOE reform program.
54. Sustainability Strategy: The EDC team witnessed discontinuation of social accountability activities and processes in many pilot areas during the evaluation. Therefore in Phase II-SAP, a sustainability strategy has been designed from the outset. This will be achieved through multiple ways such as:
Training and capacitating CBOs, traditional groups or informal institutions like Iddirs, women’s groups, user associations, etc., to continue and widen the process of monitoring service delivery improvements.
Building a cadre of bare-foot accountability champions from within the community who retain the institutional memory of the program and are likely to stay on long after the program exits.
Acceptance by local governments, service providers and communities, of a mechanism at the woreda level that enables the continuation of reviews and development of joint action plans for service improvements.
Per Diem payment for participating citizens had been introduced in many parts in the first phase. In the phase out, when people did not get paid, they lost interest. There are equally strong arguments for and against payments of per diem. The arguments in favor include compensating people for the opportunity cost or wage loss in participation in meetings. On the negative side is the lack of sustainability once budget support is withdrawn. The latter has a far more prohibitive impact on program sustainability. If people’s vigilance is the ingredient of democracy and accountability then building that vigilance capacity and interest amongst citizens’ groups must be the cornerstone of Phase II. Hence dependency on financial incentive has to be de-constructed, and the initiative must be built with a long-term vision, economic benefit achieved through better services, and in the spirit of civic engagement to make demands on the public system.
17
Box 3.1: Selected Social Accountability Mechanisms and Tools Below are selected social accountability mechanisms and tools that have been used in Phase I and many countries as entry points at different stages to promote and foster effective, efficient and equitable basic service delivery.
Participatory budgeting
This involves direct participation by citizens and citizens groups in the basic services budget formulation processes to influence the amount and priorities of budgets allocated to basic services delivery. Participatory budgeting usually occurs at the local level but can be applied at higher levels of government. Another approach to participatory budgeting is when civil society actors prepare alternative budgets with a view to influencing budget formulation by expressing citizen preferences.
Public expenditure tracking
This involves citizen groups tracking how the local government actually spends funds, with the aim of identifying leakages and/or bottlenecks in the flow of financial resources or inputs. Typically, these groups employ the actual service users (assisted by CSOs) to collect and publicly disseminate data on inputs, expenditures and basic service delivery performance. Information is disseminated through media, publications and public meetings.
Participatory performance monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
This entails citizen groups or communities monitoring of the implementation and performance of public basic services and evaluating their impact, often according to indicators they themselves have selected. This is achieved through participatory M&E tools and, at a more macro level, through public opinion surveys, public hearings or citizens’ report cards. The findings of participatory M&E exercises can be publicly disseminated and presented to local government officials to demand accountability and lobby for change.
Citizens’ report cards
Citizen report cards are surveys that compile service users’ opinions on their satisfaction with service delivery, quality and equity. A key component is interface meetings where citizens can engage with government officials to address their concerns regarding service delivery, quality or equity.
Community Score Card
Community Score Card is a tool where community members evaluate their access to basic services and the quality of services they receive. It also includes a self-assessment of service delivery and performance by services providers. The access, quality and equity of basic service delivery are assessed using community developed performance indicators assisted by the SAIP.
CHAPTER 3: TRAINING & CAPACITY BUILDING
In this chapter we discuss the need to train and build capacities of Social Accountability Implementing Partners; citizens and citizens groups; and service providers and local government officials to engage in social accountability in order to enhance access to quality basic public services.
3.1 Introduction
55. As shown in Box 3.1, the range of social accountability mechanisms and tools are diverse. The building blocks include obtaining, analyzing and disseminating information, mobilizing public support, advocating and negotiating for change, and promoting and fostering partnerships between service users and service providers.
56. Successful implementation of social accountability requires an understanding of (a) the concept, objective and mechanisms of social accountability, and (b) familiarity with all aspects of the targeted service sectors including inputs, outputs, budgets, staffing, benchmarks and entitlements. Also
18
effectiveness and sustainability of social accountability mechanisms are improved when (a) social accountability knowledge and skills of both service users and service providers are increased, and (b) service users understanding of the service sector is improved. Eventually, the effectiveness and sustainability of social accountability mechanisms is improved when they are “institutionalized” – that is, when the government has incorporated these mechanisms into its practices and when the state’s own mechanisms of accountability are rendered more transparent and open to civic engagement. It is also improved when citizens groups and community and membership-based organization actively and routinely use social accountability mechanisms and tools to assess service providers’ performance, demand and advocate for change and participate in basic services planning and delivery. For building an understanding of and effectively implement a social accountability program, training is needed for a range of stakeholders including SAIPs, local government officials, service providers and citizens and citizens groups.
3.2 Building Social Accountability Capacities of SAIPs
57. Phase II-SAP, as in the pilot program, will be implemented by Social Accountability Implementing Partners or SAIPs. SAIPs will need considerable capacity building to effectively implement Phase II-SAP. Training for SAIPs would need to focus on:
Concept and objectives of the social accountability program;
Gender, child and disability sensitive understanding of basic services (i.e., education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads) components including budgets, staffing, benchmarks and entitlements;
Gender, child and disability friendly community entry, mobilization and empowerment;
Social accountability tools such as citizen report cards, community score cards, participatory planning and budgeting, public expenditure tracking, etc.; their use in information generation and analysis for negotiating with service providers;
Planning for management of interface meetings and implementation of the SA program; and
Program sustainability strategies and approaches
58. Gender aspects will form an integral part of SAIPs training, in particular mobilization of women and empowering them for negotiating during interface meetings. The effort shall be to encourage women to participate and contribute to the discussions and decisions and have a voice in the meeting arrangements such as separate timings and places for meetings or training, etc.
59. SAIPs would need specific training on the skill sets required for implementation of specific social accountability tools. This training shall be based on an analysis of the available skill sets. For instance, expenditure tracking and satisfaction surveys require higher order statistical skills, often beyond the capacity of community-based organizations and local civil society groups. Implementation of such tools would require significant capacity building support and intervention by the MA to SAIP and the SAIP to the community.
3.3 Building Capacities of Local Actors
60. SAIPs will be responsible for training and empowering citizens and citizens groups to demand better quality basic services and negotiate for their entitlements. This demands a clear articulation of the goals and objectives of accountability across all service sectors and their delivery chain, and the measurement of outcomes and real performance. Demystification of the sectors to users, making citizens aware of the inputs, outputs, service benchmarks and entitlements will be critical for the ultimate achievement of the objectives of social accountability. Training of citizens and citizens groups would also be essential on the tools and processes of measuring social accountability.
61. Service quality improvements will demand a shift in orientation; from a target-based to an input, output and outcome-based approach. Outcome goals will need a clear definition across the service
19
delivery chain to make it possible for citizens to track progress against outcomes and hold service providers to account.
62. Meaningful participation from citizens necessitates that they be made aware of their entitlements, lines of accountability, roles and responsibilities of various departments and the demarcation of their administrative boundaries to enable them to push accountability.
63. Training of citizens and citizens groups will be essential on the tools of social accountability– CSC, CRC and PBET and others as new ones get evolved. Each of the tools has a different strategic focus; aimed at improving citizen participation in decisions that affect their lives, or ensuring transparency and monitoring the use of public resources, or for generating information for policy lobbying and advocacy, or on capacity building for creating an enabling environment for citizen action. Social Accountability tools are also capable of being implemented at different levels in the service delivery chain. For instance, to strengthen awareness and mobilize citizens to access information on various aspects of service delivery, or to monitor basic service outcomes. Tools can also be retrospective or prospective depending on whether they aim to enhance accountability in process and outcomes or in planning and budgeting.
64. Mobilization of citizens lies at the heart of all social accountability initiatives and consequently, forms the core of training as well. In its essence social accountability is about all citizens demanding and directly participating in eliciting accountability. Most tools are intrinsically primed on the assumption that access to information and the creation of platforms for direct engagement with service providers can catalyze mobilization and collective action for change. However, this may not occur automatically. Significant time and effort is required to facilitate mobilization of both men and women and other disadvantaged groups in the community. Mobilization itself can take different forms and has different entry points. In most instances it would require intensive work by SAIPs and local organizations that work with communities. Alternatively with support, community based organizations (CBOs) and member-based organizations/ associations too could further mobilize and catalyze collective action.
65. On the supply side, training will require that roles and responsibilities are unbundled, clearly delineated and internal distinction enforced between the entity that sets goals, determines the budgets, and monitors and evaluates outcomes and the entity that directly provides the service. Such delineation shall sharpen the lines of accountability and in so doing; ensure that incentives for performance are also clearly aligned.
66. The social context of a woreda also plays a critical role in the choice of accountability tools and type of training to be imparted. In woredas where mobilization and awareness levels are high, and there is history of sustained interactions between citizens and service providers such as in Phase 1 woredas or GOE reform regions, the nature of the tool and method of implementation would be somewhat different from a woreda where basic understanding and organization is lacking. In urban areas, where the community is more literate, capacity building on the use of a specific tool may be sufficient to generate the needed momentum for the successful implementation of a tool. On the other hand, in rural woredas, where awareness levels are low and power dynamics skewed, intensive mobilization and support would be crucial for success.
3.4 Approach to Training and Knowledge Building
67. Training shall be experiential in nature with field practice to enable SAIPs and citizens and civil society groups to develop the knowledge and skills to engage with local governments and service providers. The social accountability training can be classified into:
Immediate/short-term training to enable selected SAIPs and officials to get started with the Social Accountability Program. This could include training or showcasing of the concrete Phase I cases and experiences by Phase I CSO partners. It shall also focus on starting implementation of the social accountability program. Short-term trainings will cover (a) the
20
objectives and mechanisms of the social accountability program; (b) entry and community mobilization strategies; (c) use of Community Score Card for rating basic services and performance of service providers by service users at the community level; and (d) how to organize and manage interface meetings between service users and service providers. The MA will also organize and conduct sensitization seminars and workshop on social accountability best practices for concerned social accountability stakeholders including government officials, service providers, civil society organizations and business leaders.
Continuing training including: (a) on-the-job training of the SAIPs related to their ongoing activities, and (b) SAIP training of social accountability participants including citizen groups, woreda officials and service providers. During this stage, MA will expand training on social accountability tools to include Citizen Report Cards, Participatory Budgeting and Public Expenditure Tracking and other related tools with a view to deepen the understanding, knowledge and skills of SAIPs so that multiple social accountability tools can be applied in the relevant service sectors for improved service delivery.
Training for longer term goals shall be implemented by MA in collaboration with selected universities and training institutions and include: (a) building institutional capacity for social accountability training to broaden, deepen and support social accountability knowledge and practices; (b) training and building capacities of local government institutions to mainstream social accountability into basic services planning, budgeting and delivery to citizens equitably; and (c) training and building capacities of Community Based Organizations, Membership-Based Associations and traditional community associations to enable them to take over the running of social accountability activities from the demand side without external support. During this stage the focus will be on establishing and capacitating ‘Centers of Excellence’ at regional universities and training institutions.
68. The MA will also provide handholding support to SAIPs on a drawdown basis and as per need. The MA will participate in the programs organized by SAIPs at the field level to understand ground level constraints and to enrich the content of their training.
21
CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This Chapter discusses the implementation plan for Phase II-SAP. We estimate that it will take between six and nine months, working diligently to start the implementation of Phase II-SAP in the field.
4.1 Introduction
69. Phase II-SAP will be implemented in stages and in a prioritized manner and aim to set up appropriate institutional arrangements, partnerships and systems for capacity building, accountability and M&E.
4.2 Implementation Strategy
70. Management Agency: Phase II-SAP shall be implemented by a competent Management Agency with multi-disciplinary skills to deliver all tasks required for the effective pursuance of the goals and objectives of the social accountability program. The MA shall be contracted through an open, international competitive bid. The MA will be responsible for the further elaboration of plans and approaches recommended in this design and program implementation document, and for the overall coordination of the program.
71. The MA will design the program implementation approach keeping in mind the geographical context and ground realities. The MA shall take decisions regarding the logistics of operations management, including the establishment of a headquarters office in Addis Ababa and additional regional sub-offices as required. Regional sub-offices, as and where required, will enable the MA to provide closer management oversight, technical support and training to SAIPs. Each sub-office could be responsible for supporting two to three regions and between 10-12 SAIPs. Such configuration will enable the MA to work with a much larger team of SAIPs to ensure adequate coverage of woredas.
72. Alternatively, the MA can outsource tasks, for example (a) the training and capacity building tasks, (b) the program monitoring and evaluation function, and (c) the grants management, to other domestic organizations and work with a smaller number of professional staff that will provide overall program management, administrative and financial management of the program. Outsourcing shall however, follow World Bank procurement rules and all selections will have to be endorsed by the Steering Committee.
73. Training Plan: The MA shall design a training plan based on a training needs assessment. The MA shall explore capacity building requirements vis-à-vis use of social accountability tools and approaches among SAIPS and other actors. The MA may commission the services of regional universities/academic/training institutions for the training needs assessment to ensure time and cost-effectiveness. An annual training plan will be developed by the MA to ensure regular, demand driven and continuous training for government officials, service providers, SAIPs and civic groups and civic minded entrepreneurs.
4.3 Implementation Stages and Program Outputs and Outcomes
74. PBS II Social Accountability Program shall be implemented in phases. The phased implementation of the program is shown in Figure 4.1; Stages 1 and 2 are focused on procurement of services of a Management Agency and the management agency operationalizing its activities. Stages 3 and 4 will focus on building the learning curve through capacity building and on-program implementation.
75. Stage 1 Inception Phase: Stage 1 shall also be treated as the Inception Phase when the Steering Committee shall identify and contract the Management Agency as described above through an open, international competitive bid to implement the program. The search for a multi-disciplinary
22
Management Agency will follow World Bank procedures; inviting “Expressions of Interest (EOI)”, screening and short-listing of firms, preparing Terms of Reference, sending the Request for Proposal (RFP) to short-listed firms, making a technical and financial evaluation of the proposals, ranking and contracting the suitable organization after due negotiations and obtaining the GOE’s no objection. This process is expected to take between 4 to 6 months.
76. Stage 2 Setting up Phase: Stage 2 would last for about 1 to 2 months to enable the selected Management Agency to establish office(s), mobilize and orient staff to the context of Ethiopia and the program goals and objectives. The MA will also use this time to establish the program management and administrative structure, grant making system, accounting and financial management system, and the social accountability training and capacity building plan.
77. Simultaneously, the MA shall develop an Inception Report and submit to the Steering Committee and start developing the Web-based M&E system that shall capture relevant data and serve as a tool for sharing information and knowledge among stakeholders. Towards the development of a robust M&E system, the MA will:
Develop the Phase II-SAP logical framework with appropriate performance indicators and obtain Steering Committee endorsement;
Undertake baseline data collection using identified performance and gender and child-sensitive indicators and establish a control group of woredas (not in the project) for impact monitoring;
Refine the logical framework, the performance indicators and the M&E system based on baseline results and in consultation with relevant stakeholders; and
Train SAIPs to collect data and prepare quarterly reports using a structured M&E template.
78. Concurrently, the MA shall draft the Terms of Reference and identify using appropriate selection processes, an evaluation team for the baseline study.
79. The MA shall initiate due process for the selection of SAIPs; develop Terms of Reference, invite proposals review technical and financial proposals, select SAIPs, and sign grant agreements with each SAIP. Evaluation of SAIPs’ proposals by the MA would include efforts to achieve woreda coverage according to the woreda selection criteria discussed in Chapter 2. The MA shall ensure that each SAIP has cleared the woredas that it has selected with the respective woreda administrations and regional BOFEDs.
80. Stage 3 Training and Capacity Building: Stage 3 would last for about 1 month and will focus on immediate training and capacity building of SAIPs on the social accountability tools and mechanisms, gender-sensitive community mobilization and facilitation, and moderation and conflict resolution skills as described in Chapter 3. Even as this will be an on-going process, it is expected that one round of training for all SAIPs and relevant stakeholders shall be completed within a period of 1 month.
81. During this period, the results of the baseline data collection efforts will also be reviewed with the SC, SAIPs and other relevant stakeholders and the findings incorporated in the M&E framework.
82. Stage 4 Rolling-out and Implementation: Stage 4 would be for approximately 22 months, depending on the speed with which the MA is contracted and is able to begin operations. Phase II-SAP will be implemented in approximately 172 woredas depending on resource availability. Throughout the implementation period, the MA shall document good practices, provide capacity building and handholding support to SAIPs and interact with government stakeholders to move the process forward.
23
83. At the end of the implementation phase, the World Bank on behalf of the Steering Committee will commission an End-of-Program (EOP) evaluation to capture lessons learned and the impact of Phase II-SAP.
Figure 4.1: Implementation Stages of Phase II-SAP Key Deliverables
4.4 Outputs
84. Key outputs of Stages 2 and 3 shall be:
MA develops and submits Inception Report
MA develops program log-frame with appropriate program outputs, outcomes and performance indicators and obtains endorsement of Steering Committee;
MA operations in Ethiopia set up with financial, program and grant operating procedures, practices and systems;
SAIPs recruited and trained for implementing SAP;
SAIPs sign MOUs with woreda administrations;
Gender-sensitive monitoring and evaluation system developed on the web and made operational;
Social accountability training modules developed/ adapted to the Ethiopian context;
STAGE 1 4 - 6 mths Selection of the MA
STAGE 2 1-2 mths Setting Up Operations
STAGE 3 1 mth Training & Capacity Building
SC recruits the MA
Advertize the MA position –EOI
Short-list firms
Issue RFP
Collect and Score Technical & Financial Proposals
Select & Contract MA
Obtain GOE no objection
MA establishes office(s) & mobilizes staff
MA develops Program Logframe & Inception Report
Establish Web-based M&E System
MA develops systems and procedures for implementing and managing Phase II-SAP
MA establishes grant making & management system
MA recruits and signs grant agreements with SAIPs,
MA begins planning for gender sensitive baseline data collection
MA collects baseline data for subject and control woredas
MA provides first round of training & capacity building of SAIPs; government officials and service providers
SAIPs sign MOUs with woreda administrations and begin implementing Phase II-SAP
Grant Funds disbursed to SAIPs
Continue Capacity building of SAIPs
Intensify capacity building of local government officials, service providers, citizens and civic groups for effective, efficient, transparent and accountable basic service delivery
Foster and promote partnerships between citizens, civic groups, service providers and local government officials for better basic service delivery
Build capacities of CBOs, MBA, MBOs and other civic groups to sustain and institutionalize social accountability
MA conducts biannual program review and assessment
Enhanced capacity of actors for:
Evidence-based learning, dialogue and influencing
Contributing to sustained and equitable service delivery improvements
STAGE 4 22 to 24 mths Rolling out SAP
24
Training plan and strategy, including proposed selection of regional universities and training institutions, developed and MOUs signed for training of SAIPs, government officials and service providers;
SAIPs, government officials, and service providers trained in social accountability; and
M&E Team recruited and conducts Phase II-SAP baseline data collection; 85. Stages 4 Outputs shall include the following:
Phase II-SAP implemented in all selected woredas;
Citizens, SAIPs, service providers and government stakeholders trained in all social accountability tools, objectives, approaches and mechanisms;
Bi-annual program reviews and assessments conducted to assess progress on program implementation, outputs and outcomes;
Experience sharing M&E workshops organized;
Best practices documented and disseminated; and
MA and SAIPs develop and submit Program Completion Reports.
4.5 Implementation Timeline
86. The MA will present Phase II- SAP implementation timeline in its work plan. Figure 4.2 provides an indicative timeline.
4.6 Program Budget Envelope & Assumptions
87. PBS II Component 2 Social Accountability will be financed through a Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF). According to the World Bank (2009) PAD, the size of the funding envelope was set at around US$ 13.7 million, raised subsequently to approximately US$ 18 million10. This money will be used for contracting a capable Management Agency, Social Accountability Implementing Partners and for implementing the social accountability initiatives. The funding will also be used for contracting consultants at various levels for capacity building activities, networking and advocacy, M&E tasks and external audit.
88. Most importantly, the MDTF financing will be used for building capacities of SAIPs for effective and efficient implementation of social accountability initiatives in the targeted woredas, towns and kebeles.
Assumptions
4.6.1 Steering Committee Budget
The Steering Committee will take responsibility for recruiting a capable Management Agency. The search and hiring of the MA will be done through The World Bank. The World Bank will also provide technical support and commission End-of-Program (EOP) evaluation and financial audit as necessary.
4.6.2 Management Agency Budget
The MA will have a core staff of senior experts to manage the program and to provide guidance and quality assurance. It will setup a fully functional office in Addis Ababa. The MA will carry out program visits with Social Accountability Implementation Partners (i.e., CSOs, CBOs, and Service Users Groups) and provide guidance and coaching support as needed.
10
Email exchange with Per Egil Wam of the World Bank (May 31, 2010): “in addition to the $13.7 million in
the PAD we are getting 3 million Euro from KfW. With a normal exchange rate that should bring the total
to about $18 million”
25
The MA will develop appropriate social accountability training modules and program guidelines and templates.
As noted in Chapter 2, 3 and 5 above, the MA will enter into an agreement with local universities that will establish “Centers of Social Accountability” and provide MA approved social accountability training to a variety of actors including government officials, service providers and social accountability implementing partners.
The MA will be responsible for establishing a strong monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system. This will require establishing and maintaining a Website not only for entering and managing M&E data but also for uploading program documents, templates, guidelines and other relevant document for knowledge building, and experience and lessons sharing. It will also include developing a Program Logframe with appropriate gender-sensitive performance indicators; establishing a Randomized Community Control Group; developing sample design, survey questionnaires and conducting (a) baseline survey, (b) participatory biannual reviews, and (c) end-of-program Impact Evaluation. Furthermore, the MA may have to develop and disseminate quarterly program performance reports and host learning and knowledge sharing workshops.
The MA will commission external financial audit.
4.6.3 SAIPs Related Budget
The scaling-up of the social accountability initiative assumes (a) the program is open to all regions, (b) all five sectors will be covered i.e. education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads, (c) a multiplicity of social accountability tools will be used in each sector with the proviso that all SAIPs will implement Participatory Budgeting and Expenditure Tracking (PBET) tools, (d) all the ESAP pilot woredas will be covered to consolidate the gains made under PBS I, and (e) an additional 86 woredas will be added bringing the total number of woredas covered to 172.
One SAIP handles 3 woredas and approximately 9 kebeles.
SAIPs will be responsible for (a) local situation assessment and baseline study to establish the status of service delivery and the socio-economic condition of the community, (b) mobilize and build capacities of communities in the use of social accountability tools and to participate effectively in engagement platforms and processes, (c) manage and report on program budget, and (d) develop and disseminate program performance reports, joint action plans and other relevant documents.
26
Figure 4.2: Implementation Timeline
2010 2011 2012 2013
Task Name Sep
Oct
No
v
Dec
Jan
Feb
Ma
r
Ap
r
May
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Sep
Oct
No
v
Dec
Jan
Feb
Ma
r
Ap
r
May
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Sep
Oc
t
No
v
Dec
J a
n
Steering Committee Decisions
Task Force Selects MA
Prepare Tender Document
Advertize & Collect Proposals
Review & Screen Proposals
Shortlist, Select & Negotiate Contract
Management Agency on Board
Set up Offices for MA Operations
Establish Program Management System
Establish Financial Management System
Develop Program Logframe
Establish Website & M&E System
Operate & Maintain Website & M&E System
Develop Training Modules
Develop Program Guidelines & Templates
Revise/Update Training Modules
Update Program Guidelines & Templates
Conduct SA Sensitization Workshop for Key Stake holders
Sign MOUs with 3 to 4 Regional Universities
Develop Tender Document to Contract SAIPs
Collect, Review & Screen SAIPs Proposals
Select & Negotiate Contract
27
2010 2011 2012 2013
Task Name Sep
Oct
No
v
Dec
Jan
Feb
Ma
r
Ap
r
May
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Sep
Oct
No
v
Dec
Jan
Feb
Ma
r
Ap
r
May
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Sep
Oc
t
No
v
Dec
J a
n
Build SAIP Capacities - Intensive Training -- On Going
Establish Woreda SA Coordination Committees
MA, SAIPS with the consultation of Regional Administration Select Woredas
Build Capacities of Local Government Officials & Service Providers - On Going
Training of Government Officials
Conduct Baseline Survey
Conduct EOP Impact Evaluation
Community Mobilization & Capacity Building -- On Going
Interface Meetings between Service Users & Service Providers (quarterly)
28
CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT
This chapter explains the implementation arrangements for Phase II-SAP. It describes the organizational structure of the three tiers of implementation; that is, the compositions and functional responsibilities of the Steering Committee, the Management Agency and the Social Accountability Implementing Partners. It also describes the criteria for selection of both the MA and SAIPs.
5.1 Introduction
89. Phase II Social Accountability Program implementation framework will follow the design of the pilot program albeit with some modifications designed to overcome the shortcomings observed during the evaluation of the pilot program. Changes in Phase II will include (i) strengthened engagement and information flows between regional governments across all tiers and structures, (ii) a stronger multi-disciplinary Management Agency, (iii) a better integrated SA program linked on the supply side with the existing PBS Financial Transparency and Accountability (FTA) sub-program and on-going government civil service reform initiative, and mainstreamed into the existing local institutions like Community-Based Organizations and Membership-Based Organizations on the demand side, and (iv) a sector Management Information System (MIS) that is regularly updated by information generated from the social accountability program findings and which aids in the improvement of basic service delivery performance.
90. Accordingly, implementation arrangements for Phase II-SAP shall have three hierarchical levels. At the apex there will be the Steering Committee for strategic and policy directions and to oversee program implementation. A multi-disciplinary Management Agency shall handle the overall program coordination, implementation and management under the guidance of the Steering Committee. At the grassroots, the Social Accountability Implementing Partners selected and contracted by the MA shall implement the program.
5.2 The Steering Committee
91. As indicated in the Protection of Basic Services II PAD (2009, page 26) and the ESAP Evaluation Report, the multi-stakeholder Steering Committee has been instrumental in successfully guiding the implementation of the pilot Social Accountability initiative. The multi-stakeholder Committee adopted a harmonized and integrated approach with development partners, the Government of Ethiopia, the SAIPs and other programs. Phase II-SAP shall continue to rely on mechanisms developed in the pilot and the multi-stakeholder governance structure for implementation of social accountability component in PBS II. This will enable phase II to also align with the on-going policy dialogue under the PBS SAFE framework (PAD P28).
92. As the apex body, the Steering Committee will act as the owner of the Program and give directions to and supervise the MA, especially with regard to policy and strategic decisions. The responsibilities of the SC will be to:
Provide strategic direction and guide program implementation;
Endorse annual plans and budgets prepared by the Management Agency;
Oversee the implementation of Phase II-SAP by the Management Agency including the screening and contracting of SAIPs;
Review and assess lessons learnt and provide guidance on replication of best practices to improve the quality, quantity and access to basic services; and
Inform GOE on phase II progress and provide strategic support in institutionalization of social accountability within GOE’s other initiatives.
29
93. The Steering Committee structure shall remain unchanged with three representatives each of the GOE, development partners and the civil society. The Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED) will continue to chair the SC and thus provide the focus and direction to Phase II implementation and enhance public sector acceptance and responsiveness. The development partners will also play the role of knowledge partners by bringing into the Social Accountability program international Best Practice experience. Civil society representatives will bring in the voices of people and citizens’ perspectives, and greater diversity to the policy dialogue.
5.3 Regional Governments
94. While the regional administrations will not be directly involved in the implementation and operation of the Social Accountability Program in their regions, the SC will keep them informed through the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED). MOFED, through its regional Bureaus of Finance and Economic Development (BOFED), shall inform other relevant regional bureaus, woredas and sub-city administrations about the implementation of the social accountability program, its achievements and progress.
5.4 The Woreda as Entry Point for the Social Accountability Program
95. The woredas will be the entry and focal points for the implementation of the social accountability program and key partners with SAIPs. The woreda administration may establish a Coordination Committee to oversee the implementation of the Social Accountability Program or use any another appropriate mechanism for the same.
5.5 The Management Agency
96. Based on experiences and lessons of Phase I and ESAP evaluation recommendations, a strong multi-disciplinary Management Agency with appropriate technical expertise and experience in program management and social accountability in basic services delivery shall be identified to implement and manage Phase II-SAP. The MA will report directly to the SC.
97. The expected capability and functions of the Management Agency for Phase II-SAP would be: (i) program management, (ii) training and capacity building in social accountability principles, mechanisms and tools, (iii) grant administration and management, and (iv)program monitoring and evaluation (M&E). These are further elaborated below.
5.5.1 Program and Financial Management Capacity
98. Program functions and responsibilities of MA will include:
Overall management, coordination and directions of the program as well as handling of preparatory steps including the selection of SAIPs by use of appropriate selection criteria;
Preparation of annual plans and budgets for the implementation of SAP for discussion and approval by the Steering Committee;
Establishment and implementation of a financial management system for the program;
Preparation and submission of quarterly and annual financial reports to the Steering Committee;
Organization of an annual financial audit of the Social Accountability Program including the utilization of grant funds by the grantee SAIPs; and
Ensuring that SAIP selected woredas meet the following criteria:
Woredas were part of the SA pilot phase under PBS I - to consolidate gains and deepen processes from the pilot and ensure sustainability;
Woredas with successful GOE accountability initiatives - to nurture and exploit their synergies with social accountability interventions;
30
‘Hot spot’ woredas or those at strategic locations with high potential for snowballing the demonstration effect to neighboring woredas and ability to serve as the center in a cluster-based approach;
Woredas with significant service deficiency/deprivation levels based on state data (some challenging woredas with very low service delivery efficiency should self-select for the initiative); and
Woredas where PBS Local Investment Grants (LIGs) are being implemented.
Providing substantive direction, leadership and analytical guidance to SAIPs on the implementation of the social accountability tools and mechanisms including exit and entry strategies, institutionalizing and sustaining SA, mentoring and training of local government officials and service providers, consensus building, and acting as interlocutors among stakeholders.
5.5.2 Grant Administration and Management
99. The MA will be responsible for managing grant funds to SAIPs. It will thus have the fiduciary responsibility to ensure that grant funds are used effectively, efficiently and with accountability by grantee SAIPs. The grant management function will include the following tasks:
Invite and appraise SAIP proposals and select and sign contract agreements with the qualified SAIPs;
Disburse grants to the selected SAIPs;
Oversee and manage the accounting of grants disbursed to SAIPs;
Develop financial reporting procedures and templates and train the SAIPs on submission of monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports using the templates; and
Provide the SAIPs directions and training on procurement procedures.
5.5.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
100. The functions and responsibilities of the MA with respect to the program M&E would include:
Develop a program logical framework with agreed upon performance indicators to guide management of program results;
Establish and use a web-based monitoring and evaluation system for capturing program achievements and for sharing lessons learnt;
Establish and use an M&E reporting and information dissemination process;
Ensure effective communication of M&E findings to the Steering Committee as well as to SAIPs;
Commission woreda baseline data collection to guide program implementation and mid-term reviews to make course corrections and glean lessons learned;
Supervise and support baseline surveys on the status of social accountability and conditions of basic services (including scope, input, budget, staffing and quality) in the SAP woredas and in “control” woredas;
Train and support SAIPs to prepare and submit M&E reports regularly;
Conduct regular field visits to identify constraints and challenges faced by SAIPs, and make suggestions on how to address the constraints to enhance the outcomes of the program; and
Hold discussions and leave Aide Memoires behind with the SAIPs to highlight field visit findings and agreed actions.
31
5.5.4 Training and capacity building
101. Training and capacity building shall be a key function of the MA. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the MA will explore and establish linkages with regional academic and training institutions to create institutional memory and sustained mechanisms for continued training and capacity building in social accountability to new and concerned actors. In particular the MA shall:
Design gender-sensitive social accountability training and capacity building modules and a training plan;
Conduct training sessions in SA for relevant government officials, SAIPs, and other stakeholders to enable them to engage effectively in the social accountability program;
Create and build capacities and skills of SAIPs on the use of SA tools and on facilitation of interface meetings between service users and service providers;
Provide guidance to SAIPs on approaches for institutionalizing and sustaining social accountability initiatives including training and involvement of CBOs and MBAs;
Establish capacity (“Centers of Social Accountability”) at selected regional universities or training institutions to provide training for longer-term goals.
5.5.5 Criteria for Selection of the Management Agency (MA)
102. The criteria for selection of the MA would be:
Substantial international experience and track record in implementation and management of social accountability programs.
Experience of working in Ethiopia and familiarity with the GOE’s civil service reforms and capacity building efforts.
Capacity for raising awareness and organizing sensitization workshops in social accountability and good governance with various stakeholders including SAIPs, government officials at all levels and citizens.
Proven experience in training, capacity building and skills development on social accountability tools including their applications to assess the adequacy and quality of basic services by service users, service providers, SAIPs, local government officials and elected councils.
Considerable administration and management experience.
Significant program monitoring and evaluation experience.
5.6 Social Accountability Implementation Partners
103. As stated in Chapter 2, the MA will broaden the base of SAIPs responsible for implementing the social accountability program.
5.6.1 Functions of SAIPs
104. The functions of the SAIPs shall include:
Signing of MOUs with woreda administrations and sub-city administrations on the implementation of the social accountability program in consultation with regional BOFEDs;,
Working with the woreda administration in implementation of the social accountability program;
Undertaking baseline surveys on status of social accountability in the relevant service sectors (i.e., health, education, water, sanitation, agriculture and rural roads) in Phase II SAP woredas;
32
Conducting workshops to sensitize, create awareness and build capacity at the woreda level for local government officials (including executive, legislative and judiciary branches), service providers, citizens and civic groups and other relevant stakeholders on SA;
Creating and building capacities and skills including in the use of SA tools, of service users and service providers, to enable them to interact and assess the quality and quantity of basic services and to develop joint action plans;
Organizing and facilitating interface meetings between service users and service providers;
Facilitating implementation of joint action plans;
Monitoring program activities and regularly reporting on progress and performance of the program to the MA;
Building capacities of CBOs and MBAs for institutionalization and sustainability of social accountability (including in M&E) by integrating these into existing activities;
Linking social accountability with the different components of PBS II; and
Submitting regular quarterly financial reports to the MA on utilization of grant funds.
5.6.2 Criteria for selection of SAIPs for Phase II-SAP
105. The MA will apply the following criteria in selecting SAIPs:
Experience of working in social accountability activities,
Experience of working in Essential Services Sectors (Provisioning and/or Advocacy),
Experience of working with local governance institutions (LGIs),
Experience of community mobilization and capacity building,
Experience of training and capacity building (for example, training of frontline staff of Line Departments/service providers, community members and woreda officials),
Experience of Program Planning and Budgeting,
Willingness to implement SAP outside their current operational sectors and geographical areas,
Capacity to implement and manage the Social Accountability Program, and
Capacity to work in more than one woreda.
106. The MA shall make organization/field visits for due diligence for each candidate SAIP or as appropriate, prior to selection.
5.6.3 Organizational Arrangements of SAIPs
107. Organizational arrangements of SAIPs refer to their staffing and functions. As suggested above, the MA is expected to suggest a model implementation arrangement for consistency of approaches and outcomes with local contextual variations and as needed within the model. Till such time that this model is designed and agreed upon, it is suggested that the management model applied during the Pilot Social Accountability program be continued.
108. Each SAIP will establish a Program Coordination Committee (SAIP-PCC) composed of the Executive Director of the SAIP and regular staff as members. The functions of SAIP-PCC are to supervise and coordinate the overall operations of the program and liaison and report to the MA.
109. Program Coordinator (PC): Each SAIP will hire a Program Coordinator at their respective headquarters. The function of the program coordinator is to guide, supervise and support their respective woreda coordinators and facilitators for implementation of the social accountability activities being undertaken by their respective organizations including training and capacity building, sharing experiences with other SAIPs and the MA, and M&E and follow-up. He/she will also acts as a secretary for the SAIP-PCC.
33
110. Woreda Program Coordinators (WPC): Based on the experience of the pilot project, the EDC team suggests woreda program coordinators be hired and posted at every woreda in which the SAIP is implementing social accountability activities. The function of the WPC is to liaise with woreda governments across all levels (executive, council and judiciary) and sectors, and to coordinate the whole processes of program implementation including organization, selection, recruitment, training and capacity building of site facilitators. They shall also be responsible for the identification, selection, training and capacity building of service users and service providers, local government officers, CBOs and MBAs.
111. Program Site Facilitators (PSFs): Program Site facilitators, supported by the woreda coordinators, will be responsible for organizing, training and facilitating the Interface Meetings, developing joint agendas, drawing up plans of action and monitoring and reporting the implementation of action plans.
112. CBOs and MBAs: At the ground level, different CBOs and MBAs (like Iddirs, Women and Youth Forums/Associations, Farmers’ Cooperative Unions, Water Users’ Associations, Irrigation Users’ Associations, Teachers’ Associations, Parent Teacher Associations, Children’s Parliament and Student Councils, etc.) shall be identified with awareness generation on their rights and responsibilities. They shall be trained and capacitated to assist and participate in the implementation of SA program at the community level or at each program site. Each of these CBOs and MBAs shall get additional training to enable them to continue SA activities and ensure institutionalization and sustainability of SA activities. Deliberate efforts shall be made to link these CBOs and MBAs to the woreda councils and the Woreda Citizen’s Complaints Hearing Secretariats/Offices.
34
CHAPTER 6: MONITORING AND EVALUATION
This chapter presents the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework and tools involved to provide regular and adequate information on program performance and achievements to the communities, service providers, the Steering Committee and other relevant stakeholders. The chapter also presents the reporting and communication processes under M&E activities to ensure their valuable contribution to decision-making and learning. Finally, the chapter provides capacity building requirements to support the M&E function and indicates key timelines.
6.1 Introduction
113. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are important activities that can maximize the effectiveness of PBS II-SAP. A robust M&E framework not only facilitates tracking inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts but also enables an effective exchange of information between various actors, improves action and management at different levels, and informs the next steps.
114. As part of PBS II social accountability program, a dynamic and regular monitoring and evaluation system shall be established. The system shall contribute to the process of experience sharing between various stakeholders, enable project management to draw lessons, serve as a communication link and provide invaluable inputs into progress reports.
6.2 The M&E framework
115. The Management Agency shall put in place a participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework to track progress, assess impact of the Social Accountability program on a regular basis, identify challenges and opportunities and enable timely action.
116. The MA will implement the national level M&E system, and the Social Accountability Implementing Partners will implement woreda level M&E system. The MA will be responsible for the design, operationalization and overall management of Phase II-SAP M&E system, which shall include both a database and a management information system. The MA will review and analyze information generated by SAIPs and prepare progress reports using the results. The SAIPs will manage the woreda/facility/site level monitoring and reporting with the technical support of the MA and using the M&E templates prepared by the MA. The step-by-step process envisaged for setting up the M&E system by levels and actors is described below.
6.3 Making the M&E framework operational
117. The MA is required to develop a program log-frame along with gender-child-disability-age responsive indicators and targets in the inception phase of the program. An indicative logical framework of the PBS II Component 2 is provided in Annex 2 of this design document.
118. The indicative log-frame would need to be made more robust by refining the same and updating it regularly to capture ground realities. The MA will review, adjust and improve the proposed log-frame in a participatory process, shall get consensus from all concerned stakeholders, and submit the same to the Steering Committee for approval. The SAIPs will adapt and/or develop similar log-frames for their program sites that shall synchronize with the overall log-frame so that the indicators reflect the local situation in their respective operation areas.
119. A baseline survey (with data disaggregated by gender, age, disability, etc.) will be used to populate the M&E framework and provide the points of comparison. It will also help in redefining
35
and/or adjusting the program at the start-up. The baseline survey for Phase II Social Accountability shall be designed to provide comprehensive baseline information to enable pre- and post-program and site/ facility level comparisons. The baseline survey would be carried out among the potential target groups and, where feasible, among a “control group”. The MA in consultation with SAIPs and other relevant stakeholders will make initial identification of these groups for the baseline survey. The MA shall take the lead in designing and executing the baseline evaluation.
120. Setting gender-based targets will be critical to ensure the M&E framework captures benefits of SA for the more vulnerable groups. These targets or goals shall be set by the MA in consultation with all key partners to synchronise with their common goals, to improve the effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation exercise.
6.4 Program monitoring
121. As stated above, program monitoring will be at two levels; by MA at the national level and by SAIPs at the woreda level to measure progress, performance and program outputs. Reporting shall be on a quarterly basis against agreed inputs, outputs and outcome indicators.
122. Monitoring at the MA level shall be mainly about inputs, activity schedules and targeted outputs to ensure that these are proceeding as per plan. SAIP level monitoring will focus on the social accountability interventions, use of different social accountability tools in different sectors, interface meetings, basic service delivery performances, and level of participation of women and other social groups. In addition, it shall track inputs such as training and capacity building for citizens and other actors at the site/ facility level.
123. At both levels, program monitoring shall be undertaken using participatory processes involving the program coordinators, M&E officers and concerned service providers/sectoral officers. Citizens/service users too, will have access to information generated and use it to plan follow-up activities based on progress made at the sector and/or facility level in their respective areas. Besides, incorporating feedback, local knowledge, and preferences into plans, the participatory monitoring process will help build trust across the different actors. Participatory M&E shall result in improving program outcomes, triangulating findings, and institutionalizing local engagement. The results of program monitoring shall provide valuable inputs to program evaluation and long-term assessment of outputs and impacts.
6.5 Field observations and periodic reviews
124. Regular field observations shall be an essential feature of the monitoring activities. Field observations will be made bi-annually by the MA and on a quarterly basis by the SAIPs. Field visits shall be based on a systematic sampling of woredas, kebeles/service facilities, and citizen groups reached, especially gender and other social groups. Field observations shall cover a cross-section of social accountability tools applied and sectors covered and shall address, among others, the following key monitoring issues:
Timely implementation of planned activities;
Progress towards attainment of program objectives and outcomes;
Level of community mobilization and resources;
Degree of citizen engagement, particularly of women and other social /vulnerable groups such as people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), people with disabilities (PWDA), elderly, and orphaned children, etc. in program implementation and management;
Effectiveness and appropriateness of program approach, tools and management arrangements;
Improvement of service providers’ capacity, responsiveness, etc.;
Improvement in organizational capabilities of implementing partners and service providers; and
36
Improvements in quality and quantity of services delivered.
125. The biannual reviews by the MA shall also be conducted in a participatory manner. It shall be aimed at a review of the program activities to understand which tools, approaches, implementation arrangements, etc. have worked well and which have not, and reasons for the same. These periodic reviews shall result in a set of action plans aimed at sharpening the program design and implementation arrangements so as to enhance progress and performance. Periodic reviews shall be supplemented by field observations and monitoring reports.
6.6 Program evaluation
126. An end review of the program performance shall also form part of the M&E framework. This shall measure achievements against a set of agreed and clearly defined outcome and impact indicators.
127. The end of program evaluation will be commissioned by the World Bank on behalf of the Steering Committee immediately on completion of the program with two main objectives: (a) to document program achievements, and (b) to draw lessons for future program planning and/or institutionalization of the initiative.
6.7 Reporting and communication
6.7.1 Reporting
128. All implementing partners shall prepare and submit brief and precise quarterly, bi-annual and annual reports of progress. A final report shall also be submitted on completion of the respective program of each SAIP. These reports shall be provided in the reporting formats prepared by the MA to ensure standardization of information. All reports will be reviewed and endorsed by the SC.
129. The SAIPs shall also develop and submit the following reports as per an agreed timeline (see Table 4.1 below for an indicative timeline).11
Financial monitoring reports
Procurement monitoring reports
Physical monitoring reports
Mid-term review report, and
Program completion report
130. The SAIPs (through their respective M&E Officers) will prepare these reports and submit to the MA with copies to concerned bureaus/offices at woreda levels in a manner similar to the MA reporting to the SC at the federal level. All reports will also provide a comparative assessment of achievements against proposed targets and make suggestions with regard to required modifications/actions to bridge performance gaps, if any. The reports shall also document case studies of good practices vis-à-vis application of tools, use of new approaches and interface meetings. The SC will review SAIP program implementation on a regular basis (preferably quarterly) and provide strategic guidance to the MA, which in turn will communicate the same to the SAIPs. The minutes of these meetings will be shared with all concerned actors. The reports will thus, enable stakeholders to review/evaluate program implementation on an on-going basis and identify challenges early on. These formal progress reports shall vary from the M&E reports described above.
11
The discussion here is to give an insight of reporting requirements for monitoring and evaluation purpose.
The MA would be expected to prepare detailed reporting procedures and standards for each report while
developing functional/ operational guidelines for the program.
37
6.7.2 Written materials, reports, leaflets and posters
131. Besides M&E and the formal progress reports described above, reports MA and SAIPs shall also submit report of special studies and/or informal briefs in the form of memorandums highlighting current issues in relation to the program. Information on program activities, relevant events, meetings etc. may be prepared in the form of newsletters, leaflets, photo posters, short video clips, etc. Besides informing managers about project progress, these also serve as effective communication tools to inform the public at large. The MA shall disseminate relevant extracts from these reports to promote learning and experience sharing between partner SAIPs.
132. The MA shall keep a record of all reports, written material etc. in the form of a dynamic database. It shall therefore devise standard formats for all levels for easy storing of the records of all activities. The database will also include relevant documents relating to the program, including, among others, the initial Memoranda of Understanding, M&E reports, review mission reports, case studies of good practices, evaluations of basic service delivery using social accountability tools by citizens, outcomes of interface meetings, etc. This database shall provide an online access to reports and records and shall be useful for corrective action and/or future planning.
6.7.3 On-line learning materials and documentary films
133. Visual displays such as photographs and/or video clips shall be used to document ground situations including changes realized as a result of the program. Photos and videos are powerful tools and capable of generating more support and interest in the program. The MA will develop an easily accessible on-line photo and video library.
134. MA shall also develop a program website that shall serve as an e-repository and electronic memory of the program’s database generated through the M&E program, relevant documents, lessons learned, and good practices, etc. The SA website shall be designed to publicize important events by sites/facilities/woredas/regions and shall upload decisions taken, reports and /or presentations at these forums.
6.7.4 Experience sharing workshops and meetings
135. As part of the SA program, the periodic and on-going lessons learning and experience sharing workshops; multi-stakeholders review meetings shall be organized at various levels. As these shall bring together all stakeholders; donor representatives, implementing partners, service providers etc. their effectiveness needs to be maximized. Reports of such meetings shall be communicated to all stakeholders to enable timely solutions to problems. In turn these workshops shall be built upon the knowledge and learning curve from monitoring reports, field visits, etc. to capture and incorporate lessons quickly.
6.8 M&E Capacity Building
136. The MA will ensure that the institutional and human capacity needed is in place to support the M&E function. The program staff including M&E officers, experts from offices of SAIPs, service providers, etc. at all levels, and selected citizens would be provided specific trainings to create the necessary M&E capacity within SAIPs, civic groups and service providers and other relevant entities. The MA in collaboration with the SAIPs would be expected to assess the M&E training needs and to plan and provide the training in a systematic manner.
6.9 Key Timelines
137. A tentative M&E timeline is developed to provide an overview of main activities scheduled, reporting moments and responsibility of concerned actor (Table 4.1). The timeline should be revisited regularly (by the MA and SAIPs as appropriate) to incorporate new developments in the course of program implementation and to enhance the M&E exercise.
38
Table 4.1: Key Timelines
S/N Activity Period & Frequency Responsible Entity
1 Recruitment of MA Preparation period, months 1-6 SC
2 MA staff mobilization, recruitment of SAIPs
Preparation period, months 7-8 MA
3 SAIPs staff recruitment & mobilization
Preparation period, months 9-10 SAIPs
4 Launch workshop Preparation period, month 11 SC, MA, SAIPs
5 Inputs, financial & materials delivery
Yr1 to Yr2, annual (usually 1st quarter)
WB (MDTF), MAs, SAIPs
6 Baseline survey Month 7-10 MA, SAIPs
8 Training needs/gaps assessment
Months 8-10 MA, SAIPs
7 Specific M & E training to SAIPs & SPs
2011 quarters 2 & 3 MA, SAIPs
9 Field visits 2011 & 2012, quarterly M & E Officer (MA, SAIPs)
10 Periodic reviews 2011 to 2012, twice/year Participatory (MA, SAIPs, SPs, citizens)
11 Monitoring reports to the MA
Starting 2011 3rd Quarter, quarterly SAIPs (M & E Officer)
12 Monitoring reports to the SC Starting 2011 3rd Quarter, quarterly MA (M & E Officer)
13 Review of monitoring reports Starting 2011 3rd Quarter, quarterly SC & MA
14 Information dissemination 2011 &2012 Quarterly MA & SAIPs
15 Program Completion Report 2013, 1st Quarter MA
16 End of Program Evaluation 2013, 1st Quarter World Bank in behalf of the SC
39
CHAPTER 7: PROGRAM PROCUREMENT
In this chapter we describe the different procurement methods and procedures to be used for procurement of goods and services under the program.
7.1 Introduction
138. The objective of the program procurement shall be to procure goods and services with efficiency, transparency and accountability and in a manner that is fair, non-discriminatory and cost
effective, to get best value for money.12 Procurement would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s “Guidelines: Procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-Consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011; and “Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011. Indicative Terms of References for the Management Agency and the Social Accountability Implementing Partners are attached as Annexes 3 and 4. The procedures applicable for the procurement of various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed under the Program, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for prequalification, estimated costs, prior review requirements and the time frame will be agreed between the Management Agency and the Bank and will be captured in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated semi-annually to reflect the actual program implementation needs.
7.2 Procurement Methods
139. The basic method to be followed for procurement of the service of a Management Agency shall be international competitive bidding (ICB) in order to get a wide choice of supplier, and giving all prospective bidders from eligible source countries an adequate, fair and equal opportunity to bid.
140. When there are circumstances where ICB would not be the most economic and/or efficient method of procurement, other methods of procurement deemed more appropriate shall be adopted including:
Limited International Bidding (LIB)
National Competitive Bidding (NCB)
Shopping
Direct Contracting (DC) 141. The circumstances under which these methods shall be adopted have been described in the attached Annexes 6-9.
7.3 Procurement Procedures
7.3.1 Goods and equipment
As much as possible, requirements will be consolidated in order to benefit from economies of scale and to be procured through the ICB method. Contracts for goods and equipment of individual value USD 500,000 equivalent or above will be awarded on the basis of ICB. Where ICB would not be the most economic and/or efficient method of procurement, the LIB method may be used in accordance with paragraph 3.2 of the Guidelines.
12
Program Appraisal Document for Protection of Basic Services Programme -Phase II, International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, 2009
40
Small value goods and equipment contracts of individual value of USD 50,000 equivalent or less than USD 200,000 equivalent will be awarded on the basis of NCB.
Contracts for goods and equipment valued at less than USD 50,000 each may be awarded through Shopping procedures in accordance with paragraph 3.5 of the Guidelines.
DC may be used for exceptional cases, such as for the extension of an existing contract, standardization, proprietary items, spare parts for existing equipment and emergency situations, in accordance with paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of the Guidelines.
The award of contracts shall be published in accordance with paragraph 2.60 of the Guidelines.
7.3.2 Consultancy services
142. Selection of consultant firms for assignments estimated to cost USD 200,000 equivalent or more will be carried out using the Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) method. Consulting firms for services estimated to cost less than USD 200,000 equivalent may be selected using the Consultants Qualification Selection (CQS) method. 143. Consulting services for audits and other services of standard or routine nature may be procured using the Least Cost Selection (LCS) method. Individual consultants will be selected on the basis of their qualifications in accordance with Section V of the Consultant Guidelines. Consulting services for audits and other services of a standard nature or routine nature may be procured using the Least Cost Selection method. Single source selection may be used where it can be justified. Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than $200,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines.
144. The award of contracts shall be published in accordance with paragraph 2.31 of the Guidelines.
7.3.3 Evaluation of bids
145. The bid evaluation for the procurement of the services of SAIPs by the Management Agency will be done with the objective to arrive at lowest evaluated bid for award of contract. A Tender Evaluation Taskforce with a minimum of three technical members and a maximum of five members shall be formed to undertake the evaluation of bids. The program manager shall chair the Committee; and the procurement officer shall serve as the secretary of the Taskforce. The quorum of the Committee shall comprise of three members. All decisions of the Procurement Committee shall be made by a simple majority of the members present at the meeting.
146. The Tender Evaluation Taskforce shall receive, consider and decide on the program’s procurement needs, procurement plans and bidding documents, including bid invitations, expressions of interest, RFP documents and services/ goods bidding documents. The Taskforce shall ensure that the documents reviewed and approved are consistent with General Policies and Guidance. The Taskforce shall also process and decide on bid evaluations, short listing of consultants and proposal evaluations for contracts in accordance with established procurement procedures.
147. The SAIPs shall adopt similar tender evaluation panel and procedure to process their respective procurement needs. The MA shall provide SAIPs with the necessary procurement guidelines that comply with agreed procurement arrangement for the Phase II-SAP.
41
7.3.4 Prior review thresholds
148. For procurement of goods and equipment, all cases valued at USD 500,000 equivalent or more will require prior review by the Bank.
149. For consultancy contracts to be awarded to firms and individuals, prior review will not be required for contracts worth less than USD 200,000 equivalent for firms and contracts worth less than USD 100,000 for individuals.
150. However, the following are subject to prior review:
All TORs for contract regardless of value,
All single-source selection, and
Amendments of contracts raising the contract value above the prior review thresholds.
7.3.5 Procurement monitoring and evaluation
151. As part of the M & E of the program, the MA will establish a system to continuously monitor all procurement activities. The monitoring shall be done to know the progress made in implementation of procurement plan, operational hurdles, action required to overcome the hurdles through field visits, reports, meetings and discussions.
152. The Bank will also undertake procurement supervision. In addition to the prior review of the program’s procurement, the Bank shall carry out special supervision for post review of procurement actions during supervision missions.
42
ANNEXES
43
Annex 1: Phase II-SAP – Indicative Logical Framework
Objectives, Outcomes, Outputs & Inputs
Verifiable Indicators of Performance Sources & Means of Verification Critical Assumptions
Objective: Strengthened use of social accountability tools and approaches by (a) citizens and citizens groups, (b) civil society organizations (CSOs), (c) local government officials and (d) service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more effective, efficient, responsive and accountable.
% of citizens (men and women) aware of their rights to demand quality public basic services and to hold accountable basic services providers
% of citizens (men & women) and civic groups engagement with public basic service providers to ensure basic services reflect citizens’ priorities
% of service providers’ aware of their responsibility and accountability to citizens/service users (men & women).
Number of collaboration and partnerships among public actors and citizens in the provision of basic public services.
Review of Administrative Reports of Service Providers
Focus Group Discussions
Citizen Survey
Key Informant Interviews
Local governments and service providers receive adequate non-payroll budget
There is political space for civic organizations and citizens to participate in government policy making and service delivery
Outcome 1:
Increased citizens’ and citizens groups’ awareness of their rights, responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and demand better quality public basic services.
Number of citizens (men and women) given awareness about their rights to demand improved public basic services and to hold public basic services providers accountable
% of citizens surveyed (men & women) that indicate their awareness about their right to demand improved public basic services and to hold service providers accountable has increased
Focus Group Discussions
Key Informant Interviews
CSO Interviews
Citizen Survey
There is political will for rights-based discourse and implementation of social accountability program by a wide range of CSOs and civic groups
Outcome 2: Increased empowerment and involvement of citizens & communities in planning, budgeting implementation and monitoring of the quality and
% of citizens surveyed (men & women) that indicate participation in public basic service planning, budgeting and implementation
Focus Group Discussions
Key Informant interviews
CSO/IPO Interviews
44
Objectives, Outcomes, Outputs & Inputs
Verifiable Indicators of Performance Sources & Means of Verification Critical Assumptions
quantity of, access to basic public services.
Degree to which citizens (men & women) are involved in public basic services planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring
Citizen Survey
Program Document Reviews
Outcome 3: Increased capacity of social accountability implementing partners (SAIPs) to train citizens and citizen groups on multiple social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms
# of SAIPs trained and capacitated
# of SAIPs that can use only CSC
# of SAIPs that can use CRC
# of SAIPs that can use all SA tools – CSC,CRC,PBET
# of SAIPs that engendered social accountability tools and mechanisms
MA
SAIP records
Evaluation Reports
Outcome 4: Increased capacity of policy-maker and public service providers to respond to communities & citizens’ needs and preferences.
% of citizens surveyed (men and women) that indicate service providers are increasingly responsive
Degree to which public basic service providers are responsive to communities and citizen requests and demands
Focus Group Discussions
Key Informant interviews
CSO/IPO Interviews
Citizen Survey
Program Document Reviews
Service providers have sufficient budget and resource and budget allocation flexibility to respond to citizens’ demands on a timely manner
Outcome 5:
Improved quality of basic services in the PBS sectors (i.e., education, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, and rural roads) attributed to the social accountability program
Incidence of water-borne diseases in the water / sanitation sector
Radial distance travelled by citizens (men & women) in Social Accountability sites to access all weather roads for the rural roads’ sector
Percentage of students (male and female) with age-appropriate, grade-appropriate learning skills for the education sector
Percentage of patients (male & female)
Baseline Survey
Mid-term Evaluation
EOP Impact Evaluation
CRCs
SAIOs and the MA focus not only on access and availability of basic services but also on the quality of basic services.
45
Objectives, Outcomes, Outputs & Inputs
Verifiable Indicators of Performance Sources & Means of Verification Critical Assumptions
getting adequate healthcare at the health facility
Percentage of women opting for institutional deliveries
Output 1: International best practices on social accountability disseminated widely to citizens, public officials and civil society organizations,
Number of international best practices seminars/workshops and study tours organized and facilitated by the Management Agency
Number of citizens, civic groups, SAIPs, CBOs, and public officials that have participated in social accountability best practices seminars, workshops and conferences.
Key Informant Interviews
Program Document Reviews
Output 2: Best practices in social accountability understood & adopted by the Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs)
Number of SAIPs that indicate they have understood and implemented social accountability international best practices
Number of SAIPs that have developed and used locally-based social accountability tools
Key Informant interviews
CSO/IPO Interviews
Program Document Reviews
Output 3: Social Accountability tools developed with indicators of basic service performance
Social accountability tools used by participating citizens and service providers
o Community Score Cards
o Citizen Report Cards
o Participatory Budgeting
Review of Program Document
CSO/IPO Interviews
Output 4: Program Coordination Offices (PCOs)) establish by SAIPs to guide and manage the implementation of social
Number of SAIPs that had established and used PCO to implement and oversee social accountability programs
CSO/IPO Interviews
Program Document Reviews
46
Objectives, Outcomes, Outputs & Inputs
Verifiable Indicators of Performance Sources & Means of Verification Critical Assumptions
accountability tools at the grassroots level.
Output 5: Community facilitators trained on how to train citizens and community groups on using social accountability tools to assess performance of public basic services
Number of community facilitators (male and female) trained and used by SAIPs
CSO/IPO Interviews
Program Document Reviews
Output 6: Services providers trained on completing self-assessment of their basic services delivery performance
Number of SAIPs that have trained service providers on how to complete self-assessment
Number of service providers personnel trained on self-assessment tools
Number of service providers that have completed self-assessment
Key Informant interviews
SAIP Interviews
Program Document Reviews
Output 7: Community groups and citizens mobilized and given awareness training about their rights to effective public basic services and social accountability.
Number of community groups provided awareness training/workshop about their rights to demand improved public basic services and to hold service providers accountable
Focus Group Discussions
Key Informant interviews
SAIP Interviews
Output 8: Community groups and citizens apply social accountability tools.
Number of community groups that have used community score cards (CSC) assessing the performance of service providers
Number of citizens that have used Citizen Report Cards (CRC)
Number of citizens (men & women) that have participated in Public Expenditure
Focus Group Discussions
Key Informant interviews
SAIP Interviews
Citizen Survey
Program Document Reviews
47
Objectives, Outcomes, Outputs & Inputs
Verifiable Indicators of Performance Sources & Means of Verification Critical Assumptions
Tracking (PET)
Output 9: Interface meetings between citizens and service providers conducted.
Number of dialogues and interface meetings between citizens and services providers
Number of interface meeting that resulted in reform agenda/action plans for service delivery improvements
Focus Group Discussions
Key Informant interviews
SAIP Interviews
Citizen Survey
Program Document Reviews
Output 10: Reform agenda action plans developed and agreed on between citizens (service users) and public basic service providers
Number of community groups that have participated in developing reform agendas and action plans
Focus Group Discussions
Key Informant interviews
SAIP Interviews
Citizen Survey
Program Document Reviews
Input 1: A functioning Steering Committee composed of government, civil society and development partner representatives
Multi-stakeholder Steering Committee Key Informant Interviews
Input 2: Selection of Management Agency to manage the implementation of social accountability programs
Capability and expertise of the Management Agency
SAIP Interviews
Program Document Reviews
Input 3: Selection and contracting of Civil Society Organizations as SAIPs
Number & types of CSOs/IPOs selected MA records
48
Objectives, Outcomes, Outputs & Inputs
Verifiable Indicators of Performance Sources & Means of Verification Critical Assumptions
Input 4: Allocation and disbursement of funds for Social Accountability activities
Timeliness of disbursement of funds MA records
Input 5: Exposure and sensitization of SAIPs and government officials and service providers to social accountability concepts, objectives and practices
Number of workshops and seminars
Number of study tours
MA records
Input 6: Training of SAIPs on social accountability tools and approaches, community mobilization, conflict resolution and program monitoring and evaluation
Number of SAIP personnel trained MA records
49
Annex 2: Management Agency – Terms of Reference
1. Background
1.1 Country context For much of the 20th century highly centralized governments ruled Ethiopia. Traditions of autocratic and hierarchical rule are long and deep-rooted. The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front Government, which took power in 1991, has taken significant steps to introduce a series of institutional and policy reforms with significant public sector capacity building to enhance government responsiveness to citizens. The 1994 Constitutional response involved the elaboration of a new institutional framework built around the formal devolution of hitherto highly centralized authority. The 1994 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia implemented in 1995, grants rights and freedoms to citizens (Articles 13 through Article 32, 35, 41, 43) and makes government accountable to the people (Article 12, 41, 43). The Government initiated successive rounds of deepening of decentralization, devolving powers and mandates to regional states, and then to woredas or district authorities. According to the organizational structure implemented since June 2002, the woredas organization and functions have been expanded. The woreda arrangement consists of an elected council, an executive committee and judiciary. The Woreda Council is accountable to the people by whom they are elected. Within this decentralized framework, the federal government sets standards and provides overall policy guidance and monitoring and evaluation for the entire basic services sector and the regional governments share responsibility in oversight and management of the service sectors, including education, health, water/sanitation, agriculture and rural roads in order to enhance quality, equity and access to basic services to all people. The Good Governance package introduced by the Government of Ethiopia (GOE) in 2006 was aimed at improving the management, information, and complaints mechanisms at all levels of government. There is evidence that this has changed the interactions between citizens and local administrations. Nonetheless, it will take several years before the good governance practices are fully adopted, internalized and practiced across all regions, woredas and kebeles. Capacity was identified as a key issue in Ethiopia’s development and democratization process, and the Government launched massive capacity building programs to address the issue. It has developed and implemented a multi-sectoral national capacity building strategy, which is being implemented at a varying degree in all regions, woredas and kebeles across the country overseen by the Ministry of Capacity Building. The capacity building strategy upholds the principles of decentralization, regional autonomy and efficiency. Its basic tenets are to create public-private partnerships in economic development, to enhance popular participation in economic management across sectors and regions and to promote good governance, accountability and transparency. The Government continuously trains elected officials at the woreda, zonal and regional levels in agricultural development, basic management skills, financial management, integrated rural development and ethics. Traditionally, Ethiopia had limited experience in involving non-state actors in the policy process. Over the past 10 years, however, non-state actors have increasingly assumed significant roles in the
50
Ethiopian Government and politics, even though their practical contribution in terms of influencing government policy-making and decision processes has yet to be seen. The role of civil society and the legal framework for their involvement in public policy-making and implementation processes pertaining to vital areas that affected them and society at large has been defined (in the 2009 Proclamation for the Regulation and Registration of Charities and Societies, and in subsequent statement by the Government assuring participation of CSOs in the implementation of social accountability activities in the delivery of basic services13), and is in the process of being implemented. Social accountability has been launched and implemented to strengthen the demand side for effective, equitable and efficient public basic service delivery. Through the use of social accountability tools and mechanisms citizens voice their demands for quality basic services and hold service providers accountable for none or weak performance. On the supply side, social accountability is expected to reinforce the Government of Ethiopia’s reform agenda and capacity building initiatives to further enhance the responsiveness of service providers to citizens’ needs and priorities.
1.2 Background to the Phase II- Social Accountability Program According to the Project Appraisal Document (PAD), the PBS II Sub-Program Part C2 (“Social Accountability Program”) strives to strengthen and deepen financial transparency and accountability (FTA) and social accountability (SA) initiatives, which the GOE and other actors initiated under PBS I. The objectives are to work further towards enhancement of transparency around public budgeting and monitoring procedures (planning, budget preparation, expenditures and audits, performance monitoring), and to enhance and scale up activities to engage civil society (citizens and citizen representative groups) on basic services planning, budgeting, implementation, and monitoring to ensure that public basic services delivery reflect citizens’ needs and preferences. The PBS II Social Accountability Program will give voice to the needs and concerns of all citizens regarding their access to basic public services – basic education, health, water and sanitation, agricultural and rural access roads. Through Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs), the program will bring citizens into dialogue with local governments and service providers to contribute to and demand better quality public basic services. The program will make use of a range of tools, mechanisms and best practices to build and enhance local capacity on social accountability in support of GOE’s wider efforts to improve transparency, accountability and citizens’ participation in public basic services delivery. Service users and service providers will evaluate the access and quality of basic services using social accountability tools and agree on joint actions for service delivery improvements. The PBS II Social Accountability Program will be financed from a World Bank-administered Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF). The day-to-day management of the Social Accountability Program will be undertaken by a Management Agency (MA) with proven track record of managing complex socio-political initiatives. A multi-stakeholder Steering Committee, organized at federal level, will oversee and guide the overall program implementation.
13
World Bank (2009), PAD on Proposed Grant of SDR 207.5 Million (US$ 309.78 million equivalent) and
Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 154.3 million (US$ 230.22 million equivalent) to the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia for a Protection of Basic Services Program Phase II Program, April 22, 2009
51
The overall budget envelope for the Social Accountability Program is estimated at about US$ 20 million. The MDTF funds will be allocated for implementation of several components, including (a) the Services of the Management Agency (key personnel in accordance with #5 below and related “reimbursable” expenses). In addition, funds will be allocated to the following program components to be managed by the MA: (b) grants to Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs) for implementation of the social accountability program at woreda level; (c) training and capacity building activities; and (d) surveys, monitoring, evaluation, and financial audits. Funds from the MDTF will also be allocated for support components: (e) program oversight, technical support, and end-evaluation by the Steering Committee and the World Bank; and (f) trust fund set-up and administration fees. The Management Agency will be responsible for (i) programmatic and financial management of the program and its funds, (ii) building local capacity on social accountability, including training of SAIPs and other stakeholders, and establishment of capacity (“Social Accountability Centers”) at selected local universities/training institutions to provide training for longer term goals, (iii) grant administration and management, and (iv) program monitoring and evaluation, including the commissioning of baseline data collection. The MA responsibilities are detailed below. The MA reports to and gets its programmatic directions from the Steering Committee. The Management Agency is responsible for the selection of SAIPs, using an open tender. The process to be set up by the MA for the selection of SAIPs shall ensure coverage of a diverse set of woredas in all regional states of Ethiopia. SAIPs are responsible for community mobilization and creating awareness and building capacities of citizens and citizens groups on their rights, responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and demand better public basic services. SAIPs report to the MA, and the MA is responsible for the effective and efficient implementation of the Social Accountability Program across the country. The MA is also responsible for dissemination of information on the progress and achievements of the program to all relevant stakeholders.
2. Objectives The objective of the assignment outlined in this TOR is to ensure the effective implementation of the Protection of Basic Service II Social Accountability Program (SAP). SAP aims at strengthening the use of social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms by (a) citizens and citizens groups, (b) civil society organizations, (c) local government officials and (d) service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable. Specifically, SAP seeks to achieve:
Increased citizens’ and citizens groups’ awareness of their rights, responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and demand better quality public basic services.
Increased empowerment and involvement of citizens, citizens groups and communities in the planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring of the quality of, access to and quantity of basic public services.
Increased capacity of social accountability implementing partners to empower citizens and citizen groups (civic groups) on multiple social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms.
Increased capacity of public basic service providers to respond to community and citizens’ needs and preferences and be accountable.
52
Improved quality of basic services in the PBS sectors (i.e., education, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, and rural roads) attributed to the social accountability program.
3. Scope of Work and Specific Tasks The Management Agency will be responsible for the overall management and implementation of the Social Accountability Program in at least 170 woredas (districts) across Ethiopia, providing and/or organizing required technical assistance, capacity building, networking, and other support as needed for successful implementation of the program. It will coordinate and support the implementation of social accountability tools and mechanisms by appropriately qualified and experienced non-governmental implementing partners (SAIPs), while promoting a general learning process and information sharing among all stakeholders. The MA is expected to serve as a resource center for the actors involved, including the GOE at different levels, social accountability implementing partners and civic groups, and the Development Partners supporting the program. The MA will also ensure that an appropriate monitoring, evaluation and learning system is established and used effectively. The MA will be responsible for the selection of the Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs) and the management of grants to SAIPs. The selection of SAIPs shall be broad-based to include regional development organizations, civil society organizations (CSOs), and faith-based associations. The MA shall provide training and technical guidance to SAIPs on the implementation and management of the social accountability program at the woreda level. The MA will have fiduciary responsibility for program funds, including grants to SAIPs, and shall be fully accountable to the World Bank for all expenditures. The MA will establish and utilize a grant management system, financial management and reporting system and a web-based monitoring and evaluation system. It will provide SAIPs a model for their implementation arrangement and guidance on (a) entry and exit strategies, (b) institutionalization and sustainability of social accountability mechanisms, and (c) approaches for effectively linking social accountability to the activities of the different components of PBS II; and act as an interlocutor and consensus builder among stakeholders. The MA will establish three sub-offices for support of the implementation and management of the program. Each sub-office may support three to four regional states and supervise 10 to 15 SAIPs. Overall the MA will manage and work with 50 to 60 SAIPs to scale-up the social accountability program to cover as many woredas as possible across all regional states of Ethiopia. The specific functions and responsibilities of the MA will include:
53
3.1 Program and Financial Management
The responsibility for overall management, coordination and directions of the program as well as handling of preparatory steps, including the selection of SAIPs by use of appropriate selection criteria;
Prepare annual plans and budgets for the implementation of SAP for discussion and approval by the Steering Committee;
Establish and implement a financial management system for the program;
Prepare and submit quarterly and annual financial reports to the Steering Committee;
Organize an annual financial audit of the Social Accountability Program, including the utilization of grant funds by the grantee SAIPs;
Ensure that SAIP-selected woredas meet the following criteria:
Woredas that were part of the SA pilot phase under PBS I, to consolidate gains and deepen processes under the pilot and ensure sustainability;
Woredas with successful GOE accountability initiatives, to nurture and exploit their synergies with social accountability interventions;
‘Hot spot’ woredas or those at strategic locations with high potential for snowballing the demonstration effect to neighboring woredas and ability to serve as the center in a cluster-based approach;
Woredas with significant service deficiency/deprivation levels based on state data (some challenging woredas with very low service delivery efficiency should self-select for the initiative); and
Woredas where PBS Local Investment Grants (LIGs) are being implemented.
Provide substantive direction, leadership and analytical guidance to SAIPs on the implementation of the social accountability tools and mechanisms including exit and entry strategies, institutionalizing and sustaining SA, mentoring and training of local government officials and service providers, consensus building, and acting as interlocutors among stakeholders.
3.2 Grant Management
Invite and appraise SAIP proposals, and select and sign contract agreements with the qualified SAIPs;
Disburse grants to the selected SAIPs;
Oversee and manage the accounting of the grants disbursed to SAIPs;
Develop financial reporting procedures and templates and train the SAIPs on how to submit monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports using the templates;
Provide the SAIPs directions and training on procurement procedures. 3.3 Monitoring and Evaluation
Develop a program logical framework with consensus-driven performance indicators to guide management of program results;
Establish and use a web-based monitoring and evaluation system for capturing program achievements and for sharing lessons learnt;
Establish and use an M&E reporting and information dissemination process;
Ensure effective communication of M&E findings to the Steering Committee as well as to SAIPs;
54
Commission woreda baseline data collection to guide program implementation and mid-term reviews to make course correction and glean lessons learned;
Supervise and support baseline surveys on the status of social accountability and conditions of basic services (including scope, input, budget, staffing and quality) in the SAP woredas and in “comparison” woredas;
Train and support SAIPs to prepare and submit M&E reports regularly;
Conduct regular field visits to identify constraints and challenges faced by SAIPs, and make suggestions on how to address the constraints to enhance the outcomes of the program;
Hold discussions and leave Aide Memoires behind with the SAIPs to highlight field visit findings and agreed actions.
3.4 Training and Capacity Building
Design gender-sensitive social accountability training and capacity building modules and training plan;
Conduct training sessions in SA for relevant government officials, SAIPs, and other stakeholders to enable them to engage effectively in the social accountability program;
Create and build capacities and skills of SAIPs on the use of SA tools and on facilitation of interface meetings between service users and service providers;
Provide guidance to SAIPs on approaches for institutionalizing and sustaining social accountability including training and involvement of CBOs and MBAs;
Establish capacity (“Centers of Social Accountability”) at selected regional universities or training institutions to provide training for longer term goals.
4. Outputs/Deliverables
The MA will be responsible for several key deliverables over the contract period including the following:
Inception report
Program Logical Framework with expected outcomes and performance indicators
Grant Management Plan
Annual work plan and budget, and action plan
Training and Capacity Building Annual Plan
Gender and local context sensitive Social Accountability Training Modules
Program operational guidelines, including management, procurement, M & E template;
Baseline surveys in woredas
Quarterly program and financial reports
Social accountability database; including website with on-line repository of the program’s database and relevant documents
Training/capacity building workshops for SAIPs, service providers and other relevant actors
Case study publications on assessment of experience and lessons learned
Biannual program review and lessons learned dissemination workshops
Media disclosure/ dissemination of social accountability approaches
“Centers of Social Accountability”
Program completion report
55
5. Management Arrangements
The MA shall have a core managerial and technical staff that can deliver on the main outputs described above. At a minimum it should have senior personnel covering the following key functions:
o Team leadership o Social Accountability (guidance and training) o Financial Accounting & Management o Grant Management o Monitoring & Evaluation
The above key functions will be part of the component ‘Services of the Management Agency’ (component ‘a’, section 1.2, fourth paragraph);
The MA’s core staff will be responsible for developing overall strategy, annual work-plans and quality control arrangements;
The MA is expected to have access to adequate financial, administrative and logistics support, and the capacity to produce the agreed program results;
The MA will operate out of a main office and from strategically located sub-offices to effectively and efficiently implement and manage the social accountability program and supervise the SAIPs.
6. Procurement The successful MA will be obliged to follow best procurement practice and conduct fair and open competitions in accordance with World Bank procurement guidelines. The MA shall create proper records of all documents pertaining to such procurement for post review by the World Bank and external financial auditors. The MA will undertake procurement on behalf of the program in consultation with the Steering Committee and the World Bank as per the approved budget for such procurement.
7. Administration and Financial Responsibilities The MA will have fiduciary responsibility for financial administration of the program funds under its control and shall be fully accountable to the World Bank for all expenditures. It is expected to set up internationally accepted financial transaction accounting and recording system.
8. Reporting and Governance Arrangements A multi-stakeholder governance structure including the tripartite (government, CSOs, development partners) Steering Committee (SC) will act as the primary supervisory body for PBS II Social Accountability Program. The MA will report directly to the Steering Committee and get directions and decisions on policy and strategic issues from the SC. The SC will meet regularly and on occasions requested by the MA. The MA will submit proposals to the SC and obtain its endorsement on the following:
56
Annual work plan and budget,
Program operational guidelines, including management, procurement, M&E template, and execution of activities;
Selection of SAIPs and woredas;
Input, output, outcome and impact indicators and targets for agreed indicators;
Dissemination of outcomes and learning experience;
Considerations of future strategic directions. At the beginning of each year of implementation, the MA will submit an Annual Rolling Work Plan and Budget to the Steering Committee for review and endorsement. The MA must receive endorsement for its plans and budgets before proceeding with implementation of the program elements. The MA will also provide the Steering Committee with quarterly progress reports and bi-annual and annual reports summarizing progress made towards that year's Work Plan and expenditures made under the agreed annual budget.
9. Required Experience and Skills The MA will have appropriate technical expertise and experience in program management, social accountability in basic services delivery, grant management, training and institutional capacity building, and program monitoring and evaluation. The MA will also have substantial knowledge about Ethiopia and preferably direct working experience from the country. Such expertise could be based in-house or obtained through outsourcing or partnering with domestic or international organization. The MA will be recruited, through international competitive bid.
10. Guiding Principles The PBS II Social Accountability Program is guided by the following principles:
Recognition of civil society and government roles, mandates and responsibilities in Social Accountability.
Government and SAIPs working together and in enhanced understanding in the Social Accountability field.
Commitment from all actors (Government and SAIPs) to joint efforts on capacity building at Woreda level.
Inclusion and engagement of the diverse civil society actors and different segments of citizens, as well as promotion of partnership among them.
Localization of Phase II social accountability activities to the context, where tools and mechanisms adapt and are agreed at the local level.
Transparency at all levels and from all stakeholders involved and non-partisanship in the part of SAIPs.
Focus on the local/Woreda level, forefront of social services delivery.
57
Annex 3: Social Accountability Implementing Partner (SAIPs) - Terms of Reference
1. Background
1.1 Country context For much of the 20th century highly centralized governments ruled Ethiopia. Traditions of autocratic and hierarchical rule are long and deep-rooted. The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front Government, which took power in 1991, has taken significant steps to introduce a series of institutional and policy reforms with significant public sector capacity building to enhance government responsiveness to citizens. The 1994 Constitutional response involved the elaboration of a new institutional framework built around the formal devolution of hitherto highly centralized authority. The 1994 Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia implemented in 1995, grants rights and freedoms to citizens (Articles 13 through Article 32, 35, 41, 43) and makes government accountable to the people (Article 12, 41, 43). The Government initiated successive rounds of deepening of decentralization, devolving powers and mandates to regional states, and then to woredas or district authorities. According to the organizational structure implemented since June 2002, the woredas organization and functions have been expanded. The woreda arrangement consists of an elected council, an executive committee and judiciary. The Woreda Council is accountable to the people by whom they are elected. Within this decentralized framework, the federal government sets standards and provides overall policy guidance and monitoring and evaluation for the entire basic services sector and the regional governments share responsibility in oversight and management of the service sectors, including education, health, water/sanitation, agriculture and rural roads in order to enhance quality, equity and access to basic services to all people. The Good Governance package introduced by the GOE in 2006 was aimed at, improving the management, information, and complaints mechanisms at all levels of government. There is evidence that this has changed the interactions between citizens and local administrations. Nonetheless, it will take several years before the good governance practices are fully adopted, internalized and practiced across all regions, woredas and kebeles. Capacity was identified as a key component in Ethiopia’s development and democratization process, and the Government launched massive capacity building programs to address the issue. It has developed and implemented a multi-sectoral national capacity building strategy, which is being implemented at a varying degree in all regions, woredas and kebeles across the country overseen by the Ministry of Capacity Building. The capacity building strategy upholds the principles of decentralization, regional autonomy and efficiency and its basic tenets are to create public-private partnerships in economic development, to enhance popular participation in economic management across sectors and regions and to promote good governance, accountability and transparency. The Government continuously trains elected officials at the woreda, zonal and regional levels in agricultural development, basic management skills, financial management, integrated rural development and ethics. Traditionally, Ethiopia had limited experience in involving non-state actors in the policy process. Over the past 10 years, however, non-state actors have increasingly assumed significant roles in the Ethiopian Government and politics, even though their practical contribution in terms of influencing government
58
policy-making and decision processes has yet to be seen. The role of civil society and the legal framework for their involvement in public policy-making and implementation processes pertaining to vital areas that affected them and society at large has been defined (in the 2009 Proclamation for the Regulation and Registration of Charities and Societies, and in subsequent statement by the Government assuring participation of CSOs in the implementation of social accountability activities in the delivery of basic services14), and is in the process of being implemented. Social accountability has been launched and implemented to strengthen the demand side for effective, equitable and efficient public basic service delivery. Through the use of social accountability tools and mechanisms citizens voice their demands for quality basic services and hold service providers accountable for none or weak performance. On the supply side, social accountability is expected to reinforce the Government of Ethiopia’s reform agenda and capacity building initiatives to further enhance the responsiveness of service providers to citizens’ needs and priorities. 1.2 Background to the Phase II- Social Accountability Program According to the Project Appraisal Document (PAD), the Social Accountability Component (C2) under PBS II strives to strengthen and deepen financial transparency and accountability (FTA) and social accountability (SA) initiatives, which the GOE and other actors initiated under PBS I. The objectives are to work further towards enhancement of transparency around public budgeting and monitoring procedures (planning, budget preparation, expenditures and audits, performance monitoring), and to enhance and scale up activities to engage civil society (citizens and citizen representative groups) on basic service planning, budgeting, implementing, and monitoring to ensure public basic service reflect citizens’ needs and preferences. Phase II-Social Accountability Program is financed by a World Bank managed Multi-Donor Trust Fund. This Trust Fund amounts to USD18 million equivalent. The day-to-day management of the social accountability program will be undertaken by the Management Agency (MA), with proven track record and evidence of managing complex socio-political initiatives. The multi-stakeholders Steering Committee, owner of the program, organized at federal level will oversee and guide the overall program implementation. The Implementation of Phase II-SAP at the grassroots level will be carried out by Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs) to be selected and contracted by the Management Agency. 1 Objectives The objective of the assignment outlined in this TOR is to ensure the effective implementation of the Protection of Basic Service II - Social Accountability Program (i.e., Phase II-SAP). Phase II-SAP aims at strengthened use of social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms by (a) citizens and citizens groups, (b) civil society organizations, (c) local government officials and (d) service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable. Specifically, Phase II-SAP seeks to:
Increase citizens’ and citizens groups’ awareness of their rights, responsibilities and entitlements to contribute to and negotiate and get better quality public basic services.
14
World Bank (2009), PAD on Proposed Grant of SDR 207.5 Million (US$ 309.78 million equivalent) and
Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 154.3 million (US$ 230.22 million equivalent) to the Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia for a Protection of Basic Services Program Phase II Program, April 22, 2009
59
Increase empowerment and involvement of citizens and citizens groups and communities in the planning, budgeting, and implementation and monitoring of the quality of, access to and quantity of basic public services.
Increase capacity of social accountability implementing partners to empower citizens and citizen groups (civic groups) on multiple social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms.
Increase capacity of public basic service providers to respond to community and citizens’ needs and preferences and be accountable.
Improve quality of basic services in the PBS sectors (i.e., education, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, and rural roads) attributed to the social accountability program
2 Tasks The SAIPs will be responsible for implementing the social accountability program at the grass root levels. The SAIPs, with the guidance and close supervision from the MA, will work in close collaboration with the service providers, citizens including community groups, traditional informal groups, Community-Based Organizations, and membership-based associations (women and youth associations). The main responsibilities of the Social Accountability Implementing Partners will include:
Signing of MOUs with the woreda administrations and sub-city administrations on the implementation of the social accountability program;
Financial administration of the grant funds and shall be fully accountable to the MA for all expenditures;
Commissioning baseline surveys on the status of SA and the targeted service sectors in the woredas they are implementing social accountability program;
Conducting sensitization, awareness creation, capacity building and training workshops, and seminars in social accountability to the woreda government officials (including executive, legislative and judiciary branches), service providers, citizens and civic groups, and other relevant stakeholders;
Building capacities and skills in the use of SA tools, among others, of service users and, service providers to enable them interact and assess the quality and quantity of basic services and in developing joint action plans for basic service improvement;
Submitting regular financial reports to the MA on the grant fund they received;
Organizing and facilitating the use of appropriate SA tools and mechanisms, including interface meetings between service users and service providers;
Conducting M&E and regularly reporting on the progress and performance of the program to the MA; and
Training and building capacities of CBOs and MBAs in the institutionalization and sustainability of social accountability (including M&E) into their existing normal activities and preparing them as potentials institutional homes for carrying forward the social accountability activities once the program funding ends.
3 Selection of woredas SAIPs will select the woredas they propose to implement the social accountability program. They are encouraged to apply the following criteria in the selection of woredas and are expected to obtain
60
clearance from the regional; Bureau of Finance and Economic Development before submitting their proposals to the MA. The following woreda selection criteria are proposed:
Phase I woredas to consolidate gains and deepen processes from the pilot and ensure sustainability;
Woredas with successful GOE accountability initiatives, to nurture and exploit their synergies with social accountability interventions;
‘Hot spot’ woredas or those at strategic locations with high potential for snowballing the demonstration effect to neighboring woredas and ability to serve as the center in a cluster-based approach;
Woredas with significant service deficiency/deprivation levels based on state data (some challenging woredas with very low service delivery efficiency should self-select for the initiative); and
Woredas where Local Investment Grants (LIGs) are being implemented.
4 Outputs/Deliverables The SAIP will be responsible for several outputs and deliverables over the contract period including:
Inception report
Annual work plan and budget,
Program management and administrative procedures, procurement guidelines and financial management system,
Woreda-level baseline survey and service sector input–output matrix and entitlements and performance benchmarks
Quarterly program and financial reports
Training/capacity building workshops for Service Providers, citizens and other relevant actors
Case study publications on assessment of experience and lessons learned
Lessons learned dissemination workshops
Media disclosure/ dissemination of social accountability approaches
Program completion report 5 Management Arrangements
The SAIP should have a core managerial and technical staff that can deliver on the key outputs described above. Core staff of the SAIP may include the following types of personnel.
o Senior Program Coordinator – HQ o Senior Woreda Program Coordinator & Trainer o Program Site Community Mobilizers and Facilitators
The SAIP core staff will be responsible for the overall implementation and performance of the social accountability program including the development of work plans, monitoring and reporting systems and adaptation of training modules to the local situation.
The SAIP is expected to provide adequate administrative, supervisory and logistical support to field staff that work at the grassroots level.
6 Procurement The successful SAIP is obliged to follow best procurement practice, conducting fair and open competitions, and must comply with the procurement guidelines provided by the Management Agency.
61
All documents pertaining to such procurement shall be properly maintained for post review by the Management Agency. 7 Administration and Financial Responsibilities The SAIP will be responsible for financial administration of the grant funds and shall be fully accountable to the MA for all expenditure. 8 Reporting/ Governance Arrangements The SAIP will report directly to the MA and shall get directions, guidance and decisions on policy and strategic issues from the MA. The SAIP will submit proposals to the MA on the following aspects and will need to obtain the endorsement of the MA to proceed with implementation:
Annual work plan and budget;
Selection of woredas, kebeles and/ or service facilities;
Input, output, outcome and impact indicators and setting targets for agreed on indicators;
Dissemination of outcomes and learning experience;
Considerations of future strategic directions, etc. At the beginning of each year of implementation, the SAIP will submit an Annual Work Plan and Budget to the MA for review and endorsement. The SAIP will also provide the MA with quarterly progress reports and bi-annual and annual reports summarizing progress made towards that year's Work Plan and expenditures made under the proposed annual budget. 9 Required Experience and Skills The SAIP will have adequate management, administrative and program implementation and management experience as well as track record in implementing similar programs. The SAIP will be selected on competitive basis. Criteria for selection of SAIP would include:
Experience working in the social accountability area
Experience of working in Essential Services Sectors (Provisioning and/or Advocacy),
Experience of working with local government institutions (LGIs),
Experience of community mobilization and community capacity building, including approaches to ensure participation of women and other social groups including people living with Hive/Aids (PLWHA), people living with disabilities (PWDA), the elderly and orphaned children,
Experience of training and capacity building of frontline staff of Line Departments/service providers, community members and woreda officials,
Experience of program planning and participatory budgeting,
Willingness to implement SAP outside their current operational sectors and geographical areas, and
Capacity to work in more than one woreda.
10 Guiding Principles The PBS II Social Accountability Program (C2) is guided by the following principles:
Recognition of civil society and government roles, mandates and responsibilities in Social Accountability.
62
Government and SAIPs working together and in enhanced understanding in the Social Accountability field.
Commitment from all actors (Government and SAIPs) to joint efforts on capacity building at Woreda level.
Inclusion and engagement of the diverse civil society actors and different segments of citizens, as well as promotion of partnership among them.
Localization of Phase II social accountability activities to the context, where tools and mechanisms adapt and are agreed at the local level.
Transparency at all levels and from all stakeholders involved and non-partisanship in the part of SAIPs.
Focus on the local/Woreda level, forefront of social services delivery.
63
