1. Social Development Department The World Bank Understanding demand side governance: An Overview by Chris Finch March 23, 2011

2. Session Agenda Presentation (35 minutes) ▫DFGG tools & approaches that work ▫Selecting the right tool/approach Q & A Session (25 minutes)

3. Demand-side governance

4. Transparency Accountability Participation Information Disclosure Disclosure of project documentation (project websites, info shop, operational portals,) Right to Information Acts Citizen charters Demystification and Dissemination Community radio programming Community awareness- building campaigns Grievance Redress Mechanisms Formal measures: Ombudsman Citizen grievance committees Complaint boxes Citizen juries Beneficiary/multi- stakeholder involvement in design and Implementation Multi-stakeholder committees Participatory planning and budgeting Structured consultation processes Community-driven development Third Party Monitoring Integrity pacts/social contracts Local oversight committees Participatory expenditure tracking Community scorecards, citizen report cards Consumer satisfaction surveys Social audits Elements of Demand-side Governance…

5. Basic elements of social accountability – empowering communities Transparency–information, communication Do citizens knows rules of game? ▫What services are they entitled to? According to what criteria? At what cost? ▫What are program rules, procedures? Who is responsible for what service, at what level, in what timeframe? Is information on program rules, resources, staff, complaint numbers, available on- demand in accessible locations and understandable formats? (not just via newspaper, radio, TV) Participation Do citizens have a role in providing or monitoring services? Accountability Where can citizens raise questions, comments, complaints without fear of retribution?

6. Demand-side Tools and Approaches focus on… A. Participatory planning and management  Participatory Planning [workshops; participatory rural appraisals]  Participation in Decision Making Bodies [User Management Committees] B. Participatory monitoring by third parties or communities  Citizen Report Cards  Community Scorecards  Social Audit  Integrity pacts C. Budgeting and tracking expenditures  Participatory Budgeting  Independent Budget Analysis & Simplification  Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys D. Grievance redress E. Performance Standards  Citizens Charters 6

7. A. Participatory Planning & Mgmt. Participatory planning convenes a broad base of key stakeholders, on an iterative basis, in order to generate a diagnosis of the existing situation/sector, brainstorm and develop appropriate strategies to solve jointly identified problems. Key Steps in Participatory Planning: 1.Conduct public meetings to identify the needs of the people 2.Assess local resources and problems (situation analysis) 3.formulate development reports (strategy setting) 4.Prepare project proposals through specific task forces 5.Formulate local plans by elected bodies 6.Formulate plans at higher levels 7.Appraise and approve plans by an expert committee Main Participatory Planning Tools: 1.Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) 2.Participatory planning workshops 7

8. Membership in Decision-Making Bodies This is a way to ensure accountability is to allow people who can reflect users’ interests to sit on committees that make decisions about project activities under implementation (project-level arrangement) or utility boards (sector-level arrangement). ▫ User management committees refer to consumer groups taking on long- term management roles to initiate, implement, operate, and maintain services. ▫ Empowerment through citizens’ involvement is particularly effective in the management of local public goods such as water supply, sanitation, forests, roads, schools, and health clinics. ▫ E.g. Mexico, Parent School Management  Parent associations receive small grants—$500-$700 per year, depending on the size of the school— which they can use as they see fit (except for teacher wages) in exchange for greater involvement.  Parents participating in focus groups and surveys of school principals indicated increased parent engagement with schools; 95 percent of principals reported increased parental interest in and monitoring of the work of teachers  The proportion of students failing decreased by 5 percent. 8

9. B. Participatory Monitoring ▫Independent monitoring conducted by  NGOs, universities, think tanks, academia and research institutes. ▫Community monitoring conducted through  committees that include community representatives  public monitoring meetings to discuss concerns raised by citizens. ▫Key Tools:  Community Scorecards  Citizen Report Cards  Social Audits

10. Citizen Report CardCommunity Scorecard  Unit of analysis: household/individual  Information collected via a survey  Relies on formal stratified random sampling to ensure representative data  Output is perceptions assessment of services in the form of the report card  Media plays major role  Conducted at a more macro level (city, state or even national)  Often used in urban settings  Time horizon 3-6 months  Intermediary conducts survey and data analysis  Technical skills are needed  Feedback to providers and the government is at a later stage after media advocacy  Unit of analysis: the community  Information collected via focus group  No explicit sampling. Aim is to ensure maximum local participation  Emphasis less on scorecard, more on immediate response, joint decision-making  Relies on grass-roots mobilization  Conducted at a micro/local level (village cluster, and set of facilities)  Often used in rural settings  Time horizon 3-12 weeks  Intermediary serves mostly as facilitator of the exercise  Facilitation skills are needed  Feedback to providers more immediate and changes are arrived at through dialogue Citizen Report Card vs. Community Scorecard

11. Community Scorecards What? Community Score Cards (CSCs) are a community based monitoring tool that assess services, projects and government units by analyzing qualitative data obtained through focus group discussions with the community. Why?  To track inputs or expenditures  To generate benchmark performance criteria  To monitor the quality of services over time  To compare performance across facilities and districts  To generate direct feedback between service providers and users  To build local capacity  To strengthen citizen voice and empower communities

12. How? The CSC Methodology 2. Performance Scorecard by Community 3. Provider Self Evaluation Scorecard 4. Interface Meeting 5. Action/Follow-up 1. Input Tracking

13. Citizen Report Card What? A Citizen Report Card (CRC) is an assessment of public services by the users (citizens) through client feedback surveys. It goes beyond data collection to being an instrument for exacting public accountability through extensive media coverage and civil society advocacy that accompanies the process. How? The main elements of a CRC are:  Information is collected at a city, state or national level via a survey questionnaire of individuals or households.  Indicators are determined by researchers.  Formal stratified random sampling is used to ensure that the data is representative of the underlying population.  Actual perceptions about assessment of services is recorded as an output.  Feedback is given to service providers and the government. 13

14. Case Study in Citizen Monitoring: Citizen Report Card in Bangalore, India Context  Public dissatisfaction with public agencies responsible for the provision of basic services, such as water, sewage, electricity, and solid-waste removal. Intervention  In 1993, a CSO developed and launched the first citizen report card to assess citizens’ attitudes on quality of public services and citizens’ interactions with public agencies  Survey: Randomly selected cross-section of residents/clients; 1993 survey is first of three; others in 1999 and 2003; N= 1200  CSO worked with the media to disseminate results and with government to address problems. Results  “Glare effect,” pressure on government to improve performance.  All agencies included received satisfaction ratings above 70 percent. 14

15. Social Audits What? Social Audit is a monitoring process through which project information is collected, analyzed and shared publicly in a participatory fashion. In a social audit, community members conduct investigative work at the end of which findings are shared and discussed publicly. How? A Social Audit has 8 key steps: 1.Define the scope of the audit 2.Identify stakeholders 3.Decide on indicators and consultation process 4.Choose mechanism for data collection 5.Involve stakeholders in data analysis 6.Preparation of report 7.Advocacy for service improvement and changes 8.Feedback and institutionalization of social audit

16. Case Study of Social Audit: Local Road Construction, Sonsonate, El Salvador DFGG Intervention  Community leaders formed the Social Audit Committee.  The community at large conducted ongoing evaluation of the physical progress of the public works project. Results  Municipal authorities are more receptive to citizen oversight of other public works projects.  The company that built the road was able to save money—due to transparency in the purchase of supplies and citizen participation—and extend the project even further.  The number of active members of the Local Development Committee has increased by 100%, including an increase in women’s participation.  The increased number of days per year in which the road is passable and the decrease in travel time have fueled the population’s interest in participating in future municipal public works projects. 16

17. Integrity Pacts What? An IP is a transparency tool that allows participants and public officials to agree on rules to be applied to a specific procurement. An IP often includes an “honesty pledge” by which involved parties promise not to offer or demand bribes. Bidders agree not to collude in order to obtain the contract and, if they do obtain the contract, to avoid abusive practices while executing it. Any entity that violates these terms is liable to sanctions which could include blacklisting, contract revocation or forfeiture of bids. A third party, in principle a civil society organization, monitors compliance with IP terms. Why?  Promotes transparent procurement and contracting processes  Discourages corruption and reduced project costs  Generates confidence and credibility 17

18. Case Study of Integrity Pact: Karachi Water Scheme, Pakistan Actions  The Karachi government office worked with Transparency International- Pakistan to develop mechanisms to ensure costs were not inflated by corruption and collusion.  The Integrity Pact was signed between the government office and all the participating consultants and contractors in the Karachi Project to ensure avoidance of corruption and collusion. Results  The government office was able to award a consultancy contract with a net savings of about US $3 million.  Tendering for the construction contracts was concluded on time and all major construction contracts were awarded at a cost less than the estimate. 18

19. C. Budgeting & Tracking Expenditures Participatory Public Expenditure Management (PPEM) tools:  Participatory Budgeting  aims to involve citizens in the decision-making process of public budgeting. It creates a channel for citizens to give voice to their priorities and is instrumental in making the allocation of public resources more inclusive and equitable.  Independent Budget Analysis & Simplification  is a process where civil society stakeholders research, explain, monitor and disseminate information about public expenditures and investments to influence the allocation of public funds through the budget.  Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS)  involve citizen groups tracking how the government spends funds with the aim of identifying leakages and/or bottlenecks in the flow of financial resources or inputs.

20. Case Study in Participatory Budgeting: Peru Context  2003 National Participatory Budgeting Law requires all municipal-level districts (1,821) to use participatory budgeting processes DFGG Intervention  All districts required to form local coordination councils to implement PB programs and Oversight Committees, geared toward enhancing social accountability over the implementation phase.  Districts of Villa El Salvador (pop. 344, 657), Santo Domingo (pop. 10,200) and Huaccana (pop. 11, 200) are actively involved in the process, linking citizen participation to policy discussions. Results  Increase in exchange of information, public discussions, and ongoing government-citizens dialogue. 20

21. Case Study in Independent Budget Analysis: Publishing Budget Allocations in Nigeria Actions  The government published monthly summaries of how much each administrative unit received in major national newspapers and on the Finance Ministry website.  This was complemented by reforms in public procurement and expenditures, transparency in the oil and gas sector, and prosecution of corruption. Impacts  Nigeria’s corruption ranking by Transparency International improved six places.  The newly available information has helped to pursue perpetrators of corrupt practices in all three tiers of government.  Civil society has taken a more active role in public debate about budgets.  The media’s ability to analyze and interpret budgets and government performance was greatly enhanced. 21

22. SCHOOL XYZ - 2009 Achievements CLASSROOMSNEW TEACHERS NEW STUDENT BENCHESNEW TEACHER DESKS BUDGET SIMPLIFICATION Expected Obtained Expected Obtained Expected Obtained Expected Obtained

23. SCHOOL XYZ - 2010 Targets CLASSROOMSNEW TEACHERS NEW STUDENT BENCHESNEW TEACHER DESKS BUDGET SIMPLIFICATION (contd.)

24. Case Study on Public Expenditure Tracking : Schools in Uganda Actions  Every month, the government published data on how much money had been allocated to each school.  The government required schools to maintain public notice boards to post monthly transfers of funds, required districts to deposit all grants to schools in their own accounts, and delegated authority for procurement from the center to the schools. Impacts  In 2001, the average school received more than 80 percent of its entitlement (compared with 2 percent in 1991).  The median school received 82 percent of its entitlement in 2001 (compared with 13 percent in 1995)  Capture remains a problem in some schools; about 30 percent still received less than two-thirds of their entitlements. 24

25. D. Grievance Redress A Grievance Redress Mechanism is a system by which queries or clarifications about the project are responded to, problems with implementation are resolved, and complaints and grievances are addressed efficiently and effectively. Common Characteristics of Effective GRMs: multiple complaint uptake locations and multiple channels for receiving complaints fixed procedures for complaint resolution prompt and clear processing guidelines (including reviewing procedures and monitoring systems) an effective and timely complaint response system to inform complainants of the action taken

26. Designing a GRM  Uptake: How are complaints collected? At how many locations and through what channels?  Sorting and Processing: How are complaints categorized, logged and prioritized? Who are they referred to? How are they addressed?  Acknowledgement and Follow Up: Are complainants provided receipts? How are they provided progress updates?  Verification, Investigation and Action: How is information about the complaint gathered to resolve it? How are complaints escalated to higher levels?  Monitoring and Evaluation: How are complaints tracked? How is complaints data analyzed?  Feedback: How are CHM users and the public at large informed about the results of investigations and the actions taken on complaints? 26 Uptake (Locations & Channels) Sort & Process Acknowledge & Follow Up Verify, Investigate & Act Monitor & Evaluate Provide Feedback

27. Online Complaint Submission Example: Australia & India Centrelink, Australia – ▫http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/about_us/complaints.htmhttp://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/about_us/complaints.htm Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation, India – Complaint submission and tracking features ▫http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/portal/anonymous?NavigationTarget=navurl://b18 ceb5638456acadb877561ba613cf7#http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/portal/anonymous?NavigationTarget=navurl://b18 ceb5638456acadb877561ba613cf7# Karmayog, an NGO, Mumbai – Facilitates collection of suggestions and complaints for all government departments in MumbaiKarmayog,  SATYA (Suggest an Action to Transform Your Area) - a follow-up complaint and suggestion form for civic issues SATYA (Suggest an Action to Transform Your Area)  Corruption ROKO (Corruption Report On Karmayog Online) - a complaint and suggestion form to reduce corruption in any government department in India Corruption ROKO (Corruption Report On Karmayog Online)  WARN (Write A Report Now) - a complaint and suggestion form to improve systems in any commercial or govt. organization in India WARN (Write A Report Now)

28. The Power of ICT for DFGG: Case Study - Check My School, Philippines Covers 8,000 out of 44,000 schools nationwide Geo-mapping to record school specific information (e.g. budgets, teacher/student ratio, equipment/textbooks, furniture available, etc.) SMS sent by NGOs, PTAs, and regular citizens to report on the actual on- the ground school level use of resources, quality of education facilities and the level of teacher engagement Agreement with the Department of Education to follow up on the complaints within the specified period of time and commitment to share updated information on the financial and educational performance of schools allows for the accountability loop to be closed. Website - http://www.checkmyschool.org/http://www.checkmyschool.org/ 28

29. Citizens Charters What? Citizens Charters are public agreements made between citizens and service delivery providers that clearly codify citizen’s rights, expectations and standards for service delivery. Why?  Enhance accountability by providing citizens with a clear understanding of service delivery standards.  Increase organizational performance by making a public commitment to measurable service delivery standards.  Provide a means to objectively monitor service delivery performance.  Promote a culture of courteous and helpful service from public servants and service providers.  Decrease opportunities for corruption and graft by increasing transparency. 29

31. How Do I Know Which DFGG Tool/Approach is Right for Me? “DFGG is 80% political and 20% technical: the process is as much about changing mentalities, building relationships, and developing capacities as it is about technical tools.”

32. DFGG Tools: Some Questions to Ask  What is the mechanism and how does it work?  Who or what interests initiated and supported it?  Whose voice was articulated and by whom?  What sector or service is addressed and at what level of government?  What factors promote success or limit impact?  To what extent does the mechanism build citizen voice?  What are the prospects for institutionalizing the mechanism? 32

33. 4 Critical C’s CooperationCapacityComplexityCost Context Other factors to consider – Champion(s); Timing; Outreach; Quality of Participation

34. Understanding the Context

35. DFGG Tools – Complexity vs. Costs Low Medium High Low Medium Complexity Citizens' Charters; Grievance Redress Hotline Public Hearings; Input Tracking Community Radio Transparency Portal Community Score Card Alternative Budgets Participatory Budgeting Citizen Report Card/Survey Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys E-Procurement Citizens' Juries Independent Budget Analysis Social Audit

36. DFGG Tools – Cooperation vs. Capacity Low Medium High Low Medium Capacity Citizen Report Card/Survey Independent Budget Analysis Alternative Budgets Community Radio Transparency Portal Social Audit Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys E-Procurement Citizens' Juries Public Hearings Citizens' Charters Grievance Redress Mechanism Participatory Budgeting Community Score Card

37. DFGG Tools – Outreach vs. Participation Low Medium High Low Medium Outreach Transparency Portal Independent Budget Analysis Input Tracking Citizens' Charters Citizens' Awareness Campaigns Community Radio Participatory Budgeting Grievance Redress Mechanism Citizens' Juries Public Hearings Social Audit Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys Citizen Report Card/Survey Community Score Card

38. Selecting the appropriate DFGG tool Level/ActionLocal Sector or National Policies/plansParticipatory needs assessment, participatory planning Participatory policy-making, public consultations Public revenuesPublic posting/dissemination of local revenues/transfers Monitoring of public revenues (e.g. “publish what you pay”) Government budgets Participatory budgetingIndependent budget analysis Public expenditures Public reporting of expenditures Participatory expenditure tracking Citizen feedback on services Community Scorecards, Citizen Report Cards; GRMs Citizen Report Cards; GRMs Public oversightCitizen oversight committees, citizen juries Ombudsman, integrity pacts, citizen charters 38 So Yes! It Depends.

39. Questions? Comments?