Social Accountability Guide

A Practioners’ Guidebook for Social Accountability Administration of CSC and PETS tools:
VOICE! PARTNERSHIPS! ACTION! IMPROVED SERVICE DELIVERY!
1
Table of Contents
Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................................2
Terminologies.....................................................................................................................................................................2
Preface..................................................................................................................................................................................3
About Youth Agenda Trust - YAT................................................................................................................................5
Audience to this Guide ....................................................................................................................................................5
Why Social Accountability? .............................................................................................................................................6
The Link: Social Accountability and HRBA programming........................................................................................7
A. Community Score Card (CSC).............................................................................................................................9
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a CSC?.......................................................................................9
Step 1: Planning and Preparation...............................................................................................................................9
Step 2: Administering the CSC with rights holders (Communities)...............................................................10
Step 3: Administering the CSC with duty bearers (Service Providers) .........................................................13
Step 4: Interface meeting – service providers & duty bearers.........................................................................15
Step 5: Action planning, reporting and monitoring.............................................................................................16
B. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS)...................................................................................................18
Step 1: Mapping resources.......................................................................................................................................18
a) Gathering Data...............................................................................................................................................19
b) Following the money ....................................................................................................................................19
Step 2: Collecting and Analyzing the data............................................................................................................20
a) Establishing a team ........................................................................................................................................21
b) Data input and cleaning................................................................................................................................21
c) Data analysis ...................................................................................................................................................21
Step 3: Flagging out issues........................................................................................................................................22
Step 4: Setting recommendations ..........................................................................................................................22
List of Tables
Community Score Card
Table 1: Sample issue and Stakeholder Analysis
Table 2: Sample input tracking matrix
Table 3: Priority matrix sample
Table 4: Scoring matrix sample
Table 5: Sample community score card
Table 5: A sample of clustered issues for indicator formulation
Table 6: A sample planning matrix
PETS
Table 1: A sample facility Tool (with sample issues)
Table 2: A sample questionnaire framework ((with sample issues)
Table 3: Disaggregated Data
Table 4: Aggregated Data
Table 5: Sample PETS
List of Images
Image 1: Sample situational analysis models – diamond and problem tree
Image 2: Sample Resource Chain

2
Abbreviations
AAIZ ActionAid International Zimbabwe
CBOs Community Based Organizations
CD Country Director
CSC Community Score Card
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
HRBAs Human Rights Based Approaches
I/NGOs International / Non Governmental Organizations
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MOH Ministry of Health
PETS Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys
USD United States Dollar
YAT Youth Agenda Trust
TOT Training of Trainers
Terminologies
Social Accountability This is a programming approach aimed at building accountability on the
basis of popular civic engagament
SA Practioner This is an individual who is qualified to empower others and administer /
facilitate / moderate social accountability processes and tools
PETS This is a social accountability tool that is used by rights holders to track
public resource alloactions and expendure
Epworth & Chitungwiza These are two Districts based in Harare where YAT implements its
programs
Supply Side This is the level or capacity of an individiual or an organization to
provide a certain good or service adequately
Demand Side This is the potential level or capacity of an individual or a group of
people to absorb a certain good or service
Duty Bearer This is an individual who has the responsibility to offer a certain
entilements at a given time to an individual or a group of people an
example of this is the Govenment
Rights Holder These is an individual or group of persons who have particular
entitlements an example of this is a Citizen
Social Services These are public services offered by the state to its citizens
Training of Trainers This is the process of tooling individuals with particular skills and
knowledge so that they are in a position to empower others with the
same skill and knowledge

3
Acknowledgements
This guidebook highlights key steps in formulating and administering successful Community Score Card
(CSC) and Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) tools.
Sincere gratitude goes out to YAT Board for their leadership, guidance and continued programming
support and more so to the process of formulating this guidebook.
Working Group
Francis Rwodzi, National Coordinator - Youth Agenda Trust
Trust Nhubu, Program Officer - Youth Agenda Trust
Alice Banda, Shadow Youth Councilor - Epworth District
Chamunorwa A., Shadow Youth Councilor - Epworth District
Obey Mwariwangu, Shadow Youth Councilor - Chitungwiza District
Hilda Muranda, Shadow Youth Councilor - Chitungwiza District
Peter Nyapetwa, Epworth Residents Association - Epworth District
Damuson Damuson, Epworth Residents Association - Epworth District
Agnes Chigwedere, Chitungwiza Residents Association - Chitungwiza h District
Margret Chogugudza, Chitungwiza Residents Association - Chitungwiza District
Donald Makuvaza, Epworth Residents Association - Epworth District
As a team, we are grateful to colleagues from ActionAid International Zimbabwe led by Ronnie
Murungu; The Country Director (CD) and in particular; Precious Gombera and Lillian Matsika both of
the Governance Unit for their programming guidance on the broad process of adopting and
institutionalizing social accountability at Youth Agenda Trust. The group also recognizes the financial
support and guidance offered by the finance unit - this has been instrumental in ensuring that the
programing objective is not only on course but is also attained.
Gratitude and appreciation goes out to shadow youth council representatives from the Epworth and
Chitungwiza Districts in Harare who were intricately involved in the Training of Trainers process,
formulating relevant social accountability tools and subsequently part taking in the development of this
guidebook. Recognition also goes to the greater youth communities and CBOs within the
aforementioned Districts who were instrumental in providing relevant strata of information that guided
the formulation and determined the user responsiveness of this guide book.
This guide book is formulated with them in mind as its primary users.
Process and Technical Lead
Ger Odock
Institutional and Individual Capacity Building & Empowerment Practioner
People4Change (P4C)

4
Preface
In its 7 years of programming, Youth Agenda Trust - YAT has been instrumental in building capacities
and empowering youth communities to take up their civic roles and repsonsibilities. Increasingly, this has
given rise to a more exposed youth, one who is knowledge, self-awareness and appreciates governance
sytems. While this has ensured that it is no-longer “business as usual” while engaging the youth, there is
still much to be done to ensure that Zimbabwe’s greatest human resource is not short-changed in
matters pertaining to development, governance and accountability and is as such, consulted and their
issues considered for inclusion in Zimbabwe’s development agenda.
Within the first half of the year 2015, youth have depicted increasing interest and zeal to participate
more actively in meetings organized by local leadership - however, while spaces have been limited the
youth have been lacking in capacities to engage on social service delivery matters within the broader
facet of good governance, accountability and transparency. To this effect, YAT saw it prudent to
empower the youth directly so that they can be part of the process of participatoty development by
acting as drivers of the change that they seek. YAT did this by conducting a two day TOT session for a
select few from either districts on the concept of Social Accountability which broadly involved;
understanding social accountability, its role in social services delivery and monitoring and formulating
tools.
The inidividuals who were part of the Training of Trainers (TOT) will be mandated with the task of lead
in the process of institutionalizing the concept at Organizational level and the scaling-down at
community level by empowering other youth and community members to effectively be aware and get
engaged on governance matters and social service delivery issues within their communities so as to be in
an informed and strategic position to hold their local governments accountable on timely and quality
provision on issues social services like water, education and health care provision, which from a rights
perspective, translate to increased access, enjoyment and practice of human rights and broadly, quality
livelihoods.
Through the TOT process, YAT has a team of 10 trainers (five from each district). Upon testing of
knowledge and skills at community settings, they will be driving the social accountability agenda on behalf
of YAT where by they will be empowering communities by creating awareness for them to sustainably
engage leadership, technocrats and service providers at District and Ward levels on a more professional,
aware, responsible way therein establishing and/or building good relations between the local government
and the general public. It is the informed assumption that this approach and subsequent relationship will
lead to local governments being more accomodating and responsive of the issues being raised by youth
and other communities by openly and willingly providing development information (plans, budgets and
expenditure reports) and by acting upon any identified anomalies in social services delivery and public
resource utilization.

5
About Youth Agenda Trust - YAT
Youth Agenda was institutionalized in 2007 and is registered both as a Trust and non-government
organization. It works with youth between the ages of 15-35 years in high density, rural, mining and peri-
urban communities of Zimbabwe to end injustice and improve their lives through enhancing the
qualitative participation through civic education, policy advocacy, mass mobilization and creating local,
regional and international synergies amongst youth. As an organization, it strategically establishes
collaborative platforms for engagement with other groups outside its primary target group.
YAT is a membership driven organization that is registered with the Zimbabwe Youth Council as a
Trust through the registrar of deeds with members spread across 20 districts in Zimbabwe totaling
17,000. Despite having intensively worked for over 3 years in Epworth and Chitungwiza Districts on life
skills training, social entrepreneurship and empowerment and leadership development, it has
membership and project presence across the Country. The organization is governed by a board of
trustees composed of seven (7) professional individuals drawn from different sectors such as; law, fourth
estate, medical and political science among others.
Its VISION is that of a democratic Zimbabwe where empowered youth are free to actively participate in
governance and development issues while its MISSION is to create a platform for dialogue, debate and
participation in governance and development issues amongst the youth through lobby and advocacy
work, capacity development and through civic education.
Audience to this Guide
Administers for this toolkit will be service providers decision/policy-makers, youth communities and
community organizations all as practioners.
The former include government officials particularly at District and Ward levels involved in the planning,
monitoring, and evaluation of sector plans in relation to timely and/or quality service provision. The
latter entails youth leaders (shadow youth councilors) and community based organization employees
keen on Monitoring social services and government projects to assess progress on reduction of
vulnerabilities, disparities and tracking devolved funds in Epworth, Chitungwiza and other areas in
Zimbabwe where YAT has programming and membership presence.

6
Why Social Accountability?
Social Accountability will generally help service providers, youth and other communities, orgnanizations
based in rural and urban settings to;
Now I understand
WHY social
accountability!!!
It enhances awareness,
understanding and
appreciation among
communities…
It promotes
shared
responsibilities…
It invokes participatory
decision making
between rights holders
& service providers…
It tracks resources,
allocation and their
utilization…
It promotes ownership
& leadership by
communities in
development of their
communities…
It promotes
understanding of
community perceptions
on quality and timeliness
of services….
It helps service
providers understand
community needs
better…

7
The Link: Social Accountability and HRBA programming
There is a strong co-relation of values, ethics and focus on human rights to social accountability
processes as they have a more intrinsic link to the human-rights-based approach in programming. This
goes beyond knowledge, application and ownership of processes by communities leading to the
improved performance and better outcomes. In this regard, social audits can be seen through the
“human rights lens” and applied to test the integrity of a given process through the “lens of the rights
holders” vis-à-vis the obligations of duty bearers.
Below is a description of rights holders and duty bearers in the context of social accountability;
 Rights holders (representing the demand side) - primarily citizens/clients (consisting of civil society
members that include communities).
 Duty bearers (representing the supply side) - primarily the state and service providers, but can also
include CSOs, NGOs, INGOs, donors and multilateral agencies.
From a HRBA perspective, influencing policy, planning and implementation relates primarily to the
delivery of obligations in terms of budgetary provisions, allocations and use. This is because the manner
in which a budget is planned and implemented has consequence to the poor in a society for whom
public social services are actually designed. This is also because only users themselves can judge whether
social service delivery is making a difference to their lives or not.
Duty bearers are accountable for fulfilling obligations in terms of public sector delivery, reporting and
efficiency without discrimination. Rights holders are also accountable for ensuring that there exist basic
human rights standards they follow when realizing various individual rights.
T

8
The CSC are a community-level tool for exacting local-level
accountability that links service providers to the community
and facilitates assessments of services in order to negotiate
improvements where necessary and continuity where
applicable.
Scorecards use facilitated discussions in focus groups to
encourage popular participation for qualitative assessments
of projects, processes or service provision. They often begin
with collective discussions of service delivery problems and
move to assessment of results to the participatory
development of action plans.
This way, they can provide localized feedback that can aid
immediate action to rectify identified problems.
The Community
Score Card
(CSC)

9
A. Community Score Card (CSC)
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a CSC?
Advantages Disadvantages
It promotes dialogue and improves rights holder,
duty bearer relationships;
It facilitates popular understanding of issues and
solutions to problems;
It empowers rights holders leading to community
capacity to monitoring of services and own
services;
It promotes accountability, transparency and
responsibility by duty bearer;
It heightens awareness of rights holders on their
roles and duties in service delivery by duty bearers;
It is a tool that the service provider can use to
monitor progress and service quality together with
the community;
It promotes a common understanding of issues and
solutions to problems;
It requires time (holding service providers
accountable might be a new concept and
therefore a difficult concept to understand and
get accepted by communities and service
providers);
It can sometimes lead to conflict if not
facilitated well;
It requires good facilitation skills (the CSC deals
directly with issues of behavior and personalities
and can be uncomfortable for those on the
receiving end);
Sometimes individuals can be targeted
(“finger-pointing”);
It can raise expectations with the service users
if not facilitated well (creating a demand that
cannot be fulfilled by the service provider)
Step 1: Planning and Preparation
Preparation for an effective score card process should always be done well in advance as it requires
mobilization and awareness of both rights holders and service providers for them to prepare well to
participate physically and also mentally by sharing insights, thoughts and experiences. Preparation should
entail the following:
 Identification of the area unto which the score card will be administered;
 Selection of a facilitator(s) (preferably one who is conversant with the issue(s) as they apply in
the location and is also known by either party. He/She will play a key role in supporting the
community to identify the sector they would like to score e.g. education or health;
 Prior to the actual score card day, make formal introduction of the program to either party as
well as seek permission from the local security apparatus as protocol requires;
 Invite key stakeholders to be part of the process at this level. This will guarantee their
participation through-out the score card process and further build on the existing relationship;
 Formulation of a work plan & budget for the process. The budget should entail provisions that
can support select stakeholders that would normally be adamant to part take in the process but
are critical players in the success of the entire process;
 Formulation of a checklist of all the materials (and/or equipments) that you will need to ensure
that the process is a success. The checklist will guide you to ensure you do not forget any single
item;
 Consultatively with the critical stakeholders at service provider side and leaders at right holders’
side, select a probable date for the score card process, the most suitable location and the
estimated duration of the process. This way, either party will plan accordingly to attend and be
part of the process for the stipulated time.

10
Step 2: Administering the CSC with rights holders (Communities)
Stage 1 Sub Stage 1.0 Description
Convene a
community
gathering
Introducing the
score card
At this point, you will convene a community meeting and introduce
them to the exercise, its objective and the SC tool itself;
Clustering the
community
Group the participants into interest groups for FGDs such as: male
and female youth or as per sector e.g. health, water or education;
However, in the event that the participants are analyzing a single
sector, it is not necessary to have them into different groups, rather
they can work as a single group.
Introducing a
facilitating team
Each group will have a two-person team of facilitators (both
facilitators will have a relationship of trust with the community). One
facilitator will lead the group in generating issues and the other will
provide support and jot down notes of all discussions in a notebook.
Overtime, they can change roles as the process continues. (see a
sample of situational analysis Image 1)
Issue Analysis
Once all the issues have been cited by the participants, one facilitator
should guide the group to carry out the process of Issue-stakeholder
analysis. This will clearly point out interventions, responsible persons
etc (see a sample of Issue-Stakeholder Analysis Table 1)
Develop an
Input
Tracking
Matrix
Tracking all
inputs
Inputs in this case refer to resources allocated to a service delivery
point in order to ensure efficient delivery of that particular service.
The facilitator should explain to the groups about the purpose of
tracking inputs to the services e.g. Inputs in the context of a school
may include;
 # of students per class;
 # of desks and chairs for students; etc.
Guide the group to develop an input matrix for clarity, understanding
and participation of all. (See a sample input matrix under Table 2)
Develop
the actual
CSC tool
Generating issues
 Upon completion of input tracking, facilitators will stimulate
participants’ discussions by asking questions like, “How are things
going with service or program here? What service or program works
well? What does not work well?” etc.
 Once the groups have agreed on the issues, jot them down in a
note book and/or flip chart – not before.
 Help groups cluster similar issues together. For all problems, ask
for suggestions about how to improve on quality of delivery; and
for all strong points, discuss how to maintain them.
Prioritizing issues
More often than not, the groups will generate quite a number of
issues, and not all are relevant to your service or project. Ask the
group to agree on the most important and urgent issues to deal with
first. Let the groups give reasons for their choice. (See a sample
priority matrix on Table 3)
Close the
meeting (to
prepare for 2nd
meeting)
 Once all the issues raised have been broken down and prioritized,
thank the participants for their time and inputs.
 Explain to them that you will take the arrived at priorities and
develop indicators for them to score on.

11
 Agree on a date for the follow up visit when the issues (to be
presented as indicators) will be scored.
 Let them know that the same group members will be doing the
scoring during the next meeting.
Developing
indicators
 At this point, facilitators will develop indicators from the priority
issues.
Developing a
scoring matrix
After generating the indicators, the next step is to develop the Score
Card matrix for participants to score the indicators. (See a sample
scoring matrix under table 4 & sample score card on table 5)
Guiding the
participants to
score the score
indicators
With indicators and matrices having been formulated, the community
will convene (on the days agreed upon during the past meeting) to
continue the process. Follow the steps below during this stage;
1. Begin the community meeting by carrying out a recap of the past
meeting to ensure that everyone is clear about the process, what
has been done so far and the next steps. The facilitation team will
inform the participants that the issues they raised have been
transformed to indicators for purposes of scoring and that they
are the full representation of the community perception as a
whole as they sum up all the issues that they prioritized.
2. Group the participants into the same focus groups they were in
on the first day of the CSC process (with as many of the same
people as possible and with the same facilitators to maintain the
position of trust);
NOTE: However, in the event that the participants are analyzing
a single sector, it is not necessary to have them into different
groups; rather they can work as a single group.
3. Present the indicators that have been formulated, take the
participants through them (indicators) ensuring that they fully
understand and check that they represent their priority issues as
settled upon during the first meeting.
4. Explain to the participants how the scoring works in great detail
so that they are not confused and score wrongly as this may cause
tension or the process may lose its meaning.
5. Then, starting with the first indicator, ask the group to give it a
score. Make sure the participants have agreed on the score before
writing it up on the matrix. Also check that each score represents
the views of the more quiet people in the group.
6. After they have given the score to the first indicator, ask for the
reason(s) for the score, and write it on the matrix.
7. If it is a low score, ask for any suggestions for improvement and,
similarly, for high scores, ask for suggestions on how to maintain
those aspects of the service. Make notes of all these discussions in
your notebook.
8. Repeat the process for all the other indicators on the scoring
matrix.
Consolidating the
score card
1. Facilitators will support the participants to develop a scoring
matrix that will record scores so that the scores can be
consolidated (to have a combined score for each indicator) to
present a general consensus for the indicators.
2. When the participants agree on a consolidated score for each

12
Image 1: Sample situational analysis models – diamond and problem tree
Diamond Model Problem Tree Model
indicator, the facilitators will guide them to fill it into the matrix.
Facilitators should challenge the groups to be clear about their
reasons for the scores and to write these reasons down on the
matrix.
3. On completion of the scoring, the facilitators will guide the
participants in a discussion by asking questions such as; “Looking at
the different scores, what is the real picture? Which score can represent
all scores and the real situation?” This is to guide the participants to
see the bigger picture of the issues that they are addressing.
NOTE: However, in the event that the participants are analyzing
a single sector, it is not necessary to have them into different
groups; rather they can work as a single group.
Preparing
for
interface
meeting
Setting up the
meeting
1. At the end of the consolidation exercise, once again remind the
representatives about the purpose of the CSC process and the
need and relevance of the interface meeting - proposing the dates,
venue and participation for the meeting.
2. The facilitators nominate two representatives - will a focus on
gender representation, who will present the scores on behalf of
participants to the service providers during the interface meeting.
These representatives should be literate and active in the
community.
3. Facilitators and community representatives should follow up on
invitations to ensure good attendance. People at the interface
meeting should include but not limited to:
 Residents Associations
 CBOs
 Councilors
 MPs
 Pastoral Fraternity
 Informal Traders Associations
 Business Community
 Representatives from Ministry of youth and local government

13
Table 1: Sample issue and Stakeholder Analysis
Issue Victim Sign Perpetrator
Remedial
Action
Expectation
Responsible
Department
Allies
Table 2: Sample input tracking matrix
Indicators
Input Entitlement (This is what
the situation should be, guided by
government policies and frameworks)
Actual (This is what is
actually happening based
on community perception)
Remarks
Teachers 1:45 1:70
Observed
over-crowding
Table 3: Priority matrix sample
Issue Priority Reason
Table 4: Scoring matrix sample
Group
Name
Date
District /
Ward
Score
Indicator Very Bad =1 Bad = 2 Okay = 3 Good = 4 Very Good = 5 Reason
Indicator
Table 5: Sample community score card
Indicators
Entitlements
(these are the
provisions in place
by Gov.)
Actuals (these
represent the
situation as it on
ground)
Scores (out
of 100%)
Observations (here,
communities explain
briefly the reason for their
scores)
Ratio of Teachers
to students
Step 3: Administering the CSC with duty bearers (Service Providers)
Initiating
the duty
bearer
score card
The duty bearer score card can be administered after or concurrently
to that of rights holders. The indicators generated by the providers
are usually similar to those of the community because the service
providers often identify the same issues but from a different angle.
The pace is also quicker because of the literacy levels and that it is
usually not necessary to consolidate scores since the service provider
generally come from only one group (i.e., one institution). However,
it is important to clearly explain to the service providers that the
Score Card process is not to point fingers at individuals but to
improve service delivery problems. This requires a shift or change in
attitude of the staff to be open minded and critical thinkers while
taking part in the scoring process.

14
Organizing &
preparing the
duty bearer
Score Card
 Choose a facilitator who is most suited to lead the Scoring exercise.
This should be someone who is trusted by other staff and is
sufficiently mature to lead.
 Agree on a date and venue for the exercise; try to meet
somewhere the staff will not be disturbed to attend to other issues.
 Explain the benefits and purpose of the Score Card and make sure
they understand and don’t feel threatened.
PS: If the community Score Card process has already been
conducted, let the facilitators explain to the rest of their colleagues
what was done, how and why.
Developing
the duty
bearer
Score Card
Generating
issues
1. Explain to the group that they will start their session by sharing some
general issues about certain aspects of their program or service. For
instance, they will respond to such questions as: What are the types of
services we offer? How do we offer them? What are the main challenges?
2. Note all the issues generated by the group on flipchart paper, BUT
only when they have been agreed upon. For the problems or
challenges listed, ask for suggestions to improve them and for the
strong points, discuss how to maintain them. Note all the discussions.
Developing
indicators
After issues have been generated, identify the major ones, develop
indicators and list the issues related to each indicator under it. Similar
issues might generate related indicators which can be clustered e.g.
indicators concerning management of the services, delivery of the
service, staff attitudes toward clients, availability of equipment to
deliver the service, etc. (A sample of clustered issues for indicator
formulation table 5)
Creating the
duty bearer
score card
matrix
After the indicators have been developed (by facilitators at the office),
the service provider group will now have to score each indicator.
Explain the different scoring methods and agree on a method
(preferably use a method similar to that used in the community).
Starting with the first indicator, ask the service provider group to give
it a score using the identified technique. Make sure the group has
agreed on the score before writing it on the matrix. Check that each
score includes the views of the quieter staff members in the group.
Include reasons for the scores.
Table 5: A sample of clustered issues for indicator formulation
Issues Components to form
the indicator
“The community leaves litter in the grounds of the health centers.”
“There is not always water to wash the floors in the center and clean the
bed linens.”
“The cleaner has left & the MOH has not given us permission to appoint a
new one.”
Cleanliness of the health
facility & surroundings.

15
Step 4: Interface meeting – service providers & duty bearers
Conducting
the joint
interface
meeting
Commencing the
Interface
Meeting
 Welcome everyone.
 Explain the purpose of the meeting and expectations.
 Explain the methodology – this will be a participatory dialogue
between service users and providers.
 Call the representatives of community service users to present the
consolidated scores. Presentations should include recommendations
for how to improve where there were low scores and suggestions
about how to maintain the high scores.
 Next, the service providers will present their scores and
suggestions for improvement or sustaining performance, as well as
their recommendations based on the suggestions for improvement
made by the service users.
 At this point, allow for an open and participatory
dialogue/discussion and questions for clarity with each side given
ample time to respond to and question the other.
 Out of the discussions, identify burning issues to resolve and
prioritize into action for change.
Developing a
joint action plan
 After the discussions, let the members jointly decide the order in
which the indicators/issues should be dealt with, and list them in
order of priority on a separate flipchart with their suggestions for
improvement. Remember to be realistic about any suggestions for
improvement. What is the most possible and realistic? What is short-
term and what is long-term?
 Group similar priorities together and agree on an overall theme or
name/heading for group
 Discuss each priority theme as follows and record in the planning
matrix (A sample of a planning matrix table 6)
 It is best to keep the duration of the action plan to a minimum of 6
months and a maximum of one year for proper follow up and
evaluation.
Table 6: A sample of a planning matrix table
Priority
Issue
Action
(activities
needed to
address
the issue)
Who will lead
it (name &
institution)
With whom
(name &
institution)
Completion
date
(be realistic)
Resources
(what is
needed
to do the
action)
Cleanliness
of the health
Centre
More staff
Community to
use bins
District official
Health center
committee
- Health center
clinician
- Health center
grounds cleaner
June 2015 to
Dec 2015

16
Step 5: Action planning, reporting and monitoring
It is important to recognize that the Score Card process does not stop immediately after generating a
first round of scores and joint action plan. Follow-up steps are required to jointly ensure
implementation of plans and collectively monitor the outcomes. Repeated cycles of the Score Card
are needed to institutionalize the practice - the information collected needs to be used on a sustained
basis, i.e., to be fed back into the service providers current decision-making processes as well as its M&E
system. The Score Card tool generates issues which can be used in advocacy efforts to raise awareness
of the problems and push for solutions. These advocacy efforts can also help integrate the solutions into
local policies and systems for the sustainability of results.
Some of the key follow-up activities may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Compile a report on the Score Card process including the joint action plan. Most of the
information is already recorded in the note books;
 Use the outcomes and action plan to inform and influence any current plans concerning
delivery of the concerned service (e.g., planning processes for the district implementation plan,
as well as budgeting processes to take into consideration the needs of the people and the staff).
 Monitor the action plan implementation as it is the responsibility of the service providers
and community to implement the plan – they have to own it.
 Plan a repeat Score Card cycle ahead of time and inform both service providers and
communities. The repeat cycle will provide an opportunity to assess if there has been any
improvement from implementing the joint action plan. The repeat cycle involves the same
process with the same communities and service providers. Ask participants to check if the joint
action plan has been implemented and if there are improvements in the service delivery process.

17
The Public
Expenditure
Tracking Survey
(PETS)
Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) are designed to
achieve the primary need of improving governance and reducing
corruption in public service delivery. They constitute a
quantitative survey of the supply side of public services. They
therefore differ from the other mechanism (Community Score
Card) as presented in this report - nonetheless, it complements
the CSC which mainly focuses on the demand side mechanisms.
PETS seek to answer questions such as: Do public funds and
material resources end up where they are supposed to? If they don’t,
the survey may go further and ask: Why are those funds being
diverted? Such surveys are typically implemented at the sector
level, usually in health or education. By providing exact
information about how many of the resources allocated to public
service provision actually reach the users, PETS provide
important input for informing citizens about their rights and
entitlements to public services.
Furthermore, the testimony of citizens regarding the services
they have actually received constitutes an important source of
information as compared with more ordinary reports.

18
B. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS)
The first step in conducting PETS is defining its objective as this is the most significant step in
determining whether implementation succeeds in conducting a valid and valuable study and whether the
work has a short-term or long-term impact on public spending and service delivery. Defining a clear
objective for PETS will drive not only the scope of the study, but will also determine what will be done.
That said, thinking about the way in which the research results will be used can also be a powerful tool
for determining the objective and scope of the study. For either category of PETS - analytical or
monitoring - defining the objective involves making critical decisions about the study, including selecting
the topic, scope, developing research questions and identifying target audiences.
Step 1: Mapping resources
The logic behind Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys is that government officials and facilities have an
incentive to misrepresent the amount of resources going to service users if some fraction of these
resources is being used for purposes for which the funds are not intended. To deal with this problem of
incentives, PETS implementers triangulate budget data by looking at records from all of the places where
money changes hands for particular resource flows. Viewing district level records of money allocated to
a primary school by itself cannot identify potential corruption; comparing these records to ones kept by
the primary school itself and seeing that the two records do not match, however, can point to a place
where money may have leaked.
Most public social sector funds go through many hands before reaching the service user, and accurately
determining both the level and location of leakages requires that project practitioners start with a
complete and correct picture of what the expenditure chain looks like. This exercise is in itself a major
contributor to the PETS process. Though various entities (government ministries and agencies)
understand their own budgets and transfers systems, very few, if any, truly understand how frontline
service providers are actually funded in such a case, a well-mapped PET can serve as a vehicle for
establishing this information.
Mapping the flow of resources also provides a good list of sources from which to gather the data
needed to conduct the PETS. Practitioners should also note that different entities along the expenditure
chain that contribute to a pool from different sources, potentially making data collection and analysis
more challenging if not noted and accounted for at early stages.
Image 2: Sample Resource Chain
Below is a chain of how resources come from the highest level all the way to the schools.
For practioners, this kind of supply chain information/knowledge, they are in a position to
better plan for the PETS process.
Central
Government
Min of
Education
District
Education
Office
Provincial
Education
Office
Primary &
Secondary
Schools

19
a) Gathering Data
After completing the map of resource flows, the practioners have a complete list of budget sources to
check and compare in order to provide an accurate picture of inefficiencies in the expenditure chain.
When officials see that the study is being conducted out in the open and not under the radar of
policymakers, they sometimes feel more comfortable providing access to data. However, in many cases,
and despite all efforts, practioners are faced with the challenge of lacking access to data.
Gathering budget data itself, however, can also reveal interesting trends in public expenditure
management. Key to these being;
 First, the challenges is that civil society and practioners generally face more huddles in gaining
access to data from government officials demonstrates the lack of transparency that exists in the
system and the need for a remedy to opaque budgeting procedures.
 Second, without looking at the numbers, many practioners find from the process of collecting
budget records that there is significant miscommunication between different levels of
policymakers about budgeting responsibilities and funding requests.
b) Following the money
At this point, we have begun exploring how practioners can determine what budget data they need to
collect and from where (e.g. which Ministry, Department, Unit etc.) and begin analysis and compilation.
Following the money generally requires the collection of secondary and primary data, including:
1. Sub-national level budget data (This is at District level);
2. Facility budget data (This can either be at District or Ward level); and
3. Data on spending and service delivery on the ground (This is at Ward level).
Once the resource flow has been determined and mapped, the process of tracking the money can begin
by preparation of a simple tool for the facility survey and coupled by a questionnaire.
Note: Gaining access to necessary data can require
some amount of finesse. On the one hand, engaging with
government officials from the beginning can help
practioners overcome the problem of uncooperative
government office holders; on the other, it can serve as
a signal to government officials that it is time to start
keeping an extra set of budget books.

20
Note:
The facility tool will guide what the practioners/communities want to see/address, WHILE,
the questionnaire framework will generate the information to guide the objective of the
PETS process.
Table 1: A sample facility Tool (with sample issues)
Objective Question Interest Source
Data
Collection
Method
Data
Collection
Tool
To understand
the mechanism
of
resource
allocation
in the
education
sector in
Epworth &
Chitungwiza
Districts
What are the
procedures
with regard
to resource
allocation
& transfers?
What are the
spending
Patterns at
each level?
What was
budgeted?
What was
approved?
What was
released to the
sector?
What are the
methods
of
disbursement
National budget
District budget
Ward budget
Desk
Reviews &
Analysis
Checklist(s)
Questionnaires
Table 2: A sample questionnaire framework ((with sample issues)
Facility
Traits
Inputs Outputs Quality Financing
Accountability
mechanisms
This includes
size of the
facility, how
many
students use
the facility,
what type of
facility it is
(public, or
private),
competition
etc.
This needs
to be
measured in
monetary
terms.
Measurable
outputs to
calculate cost-
efficiency
include;
# of students
enrolled in a
school,
# of patients
seen,
etc.
In the case of
PETS, quality
can be
measured
through
observation
and FGD
deliberations
Focus should be
on;
Where
is the money
coming from?
e.g. Gov.,
donors
Amounts should
also be
recorded.
Because
different types of
facilities operate
under different
types of
accountability
structures e.g.
private schools are
not bound to
the same rules as
public schools - it is
important to
collect data on
management,
reporting
mechanisms,
and record keeping
Step 2: Collecting and Analyzing the data
The first step outlined in this guidebook has dealt with preparing for PETS implementation. Practioners
are well advised to put significant time and effort into this step; carefully articulating objectives,
developing a strong work plan, and crafting a clear set of instruments will make the step of collecting
and analyzing the data simpler and more successful.

21
Once the practioners have completed the preparatory step, they can begin implementing the PETS. This
step (step two) involves several sub-steps including training the survey team, facility visits, entering and
cleaning the data, and data analysis.
a) Establishing a team
This step focuses on identifying a team of enumerators who understand the basics of the project and,
preferably, have some experience with social accountability or surveying. Many PETS practioners face
obstacles in administering the survey instruments themselves, as such, recruiting and training a team of
temporary staff or community members to serve as enumerators can be a cost-effective means of
administering the survey and also an angle for ownership. Once a team has identified/selected
enumerators, the next step is to adequately train them. Training on the survey instruments can be a
timely process, but its importance cannot be overstated. Note: If enumerators are not well trained and
as such are unfamiliar with the questions they are asking, the data they will collect faces the possibility of
being unusable as factual or relevant.
b) Data input and cleaning
While practioners wait until completing the survey, there is a case to be made for entering data as they
are collected. Although piloting a survey should uncover many of the potential problems with an
instrument, additional problems with relaying answers can arise when entering the data. Entering data
can also uncover trends that can be added to the survey.
c) Data analysis
This process entails analyzing collected information and seeking to flag out any kind of leakage(s) of
funds, delays and areas where problems with priorities may exist in the expenditure chain. Leakages can
be identified (if they exist) at each stage of the expenditure chain by comparing the amount disbursed by
the higher link in the chain and the amount received by the lower link in the chain. On instances, the
exact source of leakage may not be identified but the practioners should be in a position to cite
evidence that there is leakage.
Different offices/departments keep different forms of data. In such a situation, the kind of data being
kept can either make it clear or harder for practioners to establish a trend, or cite a probable situation.
These kinds of data are in two forms: Aggregated and Disaggregated.
Table 3: Disaggregated Data
School DEO Disbursement
Amount received at
school
Leakage
A USD. 100, 000 USD. 90, 000 USD. 10, 000
B USD. 100, 000 USD. 100, 000 USD. 0
C USD. 100, 000 USD. 40, 000 USD. 60, 000
USD. 300, 000 USD. 230, 000 USD. 70, 000
A scenario: Take for example the case of a District
Education Office (DEO) that conveys MOE funding for
textbooks to five primary schools in the District. If the
district office keeps disaggregated budget records, PETS
should be able to identify the level of leakage occasioned
on disbursement at each school.

22
Table 4: Aggregated Data
School DEO Disbursement
Amount received at
school
Leakage
A No Data USD. 90, 000 No Data
B No Data USD. 100, 000 No Data
C No Data USD. 40, 000 No Data
USD. 300, 000 USD. 230, 000 USD. 70, 000
Step 3: Flagging out issues
The preceding steps have provided the framework needed to identify and answer questions regarding
the flow of public resources. However, in order to utilize the results to improve policies, spending, and
human development outcomes, the practioners must translate numbers into actual answers. In
particular, there are three types of questions that the quantitative results, combined with supporting
qualitative evidence, can be used to answer:
Step 4: Setting recommendations
The final question that PETS must tackle is the question of how to remedy the problems uncovered.
From the issues identified, practioners can now develop specific recommendations. This part of the
process is project-specific however. For CSOs, it is important to keep a few things in mind;
What should I
consider while making
recommendations?
What are the problems? What are the leakage levels or delays in
fund disbursement?
What are the trends in problem occurrence? These are the
“who,” “where” and “when” of the problems. Where is the leakage
higher (rural schools or urban schools)? When are school meals
most likely to be delayed in arriving at schools (early in the school
year or later)?

23
Table 5: Sample PETS
Critical Focus Questions
Entitlements
(these are the
provisions in place
by Gov.)
Actuals
(these
represent the
situation as it
on ground)
Scores
(out of
100%)
Observations
(here, communities
explain briefly the
reason for their
scores)
Indictors determinants
When was the decision to build
the school arrived at?
Who are the people who
participated in the decision
making?
When was this decided?
Quality Determinants
What are the details of the
materials used?
Resource Determinants
What is the source of the
funding? (Gov., Donor Aid or
community)
What was the planned cost of
the entire project?
How much did the entire
project cost?
How many disbursements were
made for this project?
Are there records for each
disbursement? And actual
expenditure?
a) CSOs can be well-positioned (depending on country context); to target
recommendations to specific audiences and take advantage of their local status to
influence policy at a level that large organizations may not be able to accomplish.
b) Recommendations can be targeted not only at the central Government and ministries,
but also at local government, service users, service providers, and stakeholders-at-large.
c) Practioners and CSOs should target their recommendations according to the audience. In
an effort to not only disseminate the PETS evidence but also recommend solutions to
identified problems, different strategies can be employed, ranging from press releases to
media campaigns.
d) Recommendations do not necessarily have to be exclusively policy-based; some of the
best recommendations can call for action related to specifically identified issues of leakage
or delays.
e) Practioners can advantageously highlight qualitative findings to examine the underlying
issues of leakages, delays, problems of priorities and service delivery issues.

Social Accountability Guide

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Social Accountability Guide

Similar to Social Accountability Guide (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Social Accountability Guide