www.gsdrc.org
helpdesk@gsdrc.org
Helpdesk Research Report
CSOs supporting accountability in cash
transfer programmes
Brigitte Rohwerder
22.11.2016
Question
What experience is there globally of civil society organisations providing / supporting
accountability mechanisms in cash transfer programmes, at national scale?
Contents
1. Overview
2. Civil society and accountability mechanisms
3. Country case studies
4. General lessons and best practice
5. References
6. Appendix: Overview of citizen engagement and social accountability tools
1. Overview
Cash transfer programmes, like most social protection programmes, are vulnerable to fraud, errors,
corruption and misuse of funds, which undermine their achievements (Perron, 2012: 1; Bhargava & Raha,
2015: vi).1 Effective mechanisms for transparency, accountability and participation help minimise those in
need being wrongfully excluded from programme rolls; discourages clientelism and abuse of programmes
from state actors for political and private gain; contributes to programme credibility; and enables
programmes to more effectively serve their intended beneficiaries (Gamba, 2016: 5; Bassett & Blanco,
1
Risks result from: lack of transparency in key systems (e.g. targeting, compliance verification); weakness in
internal control and accountability systems; beneficiary falsification or concealment of information required
for eligibility; bribes demanded from compliance verification officers to overlook non‐compliance or validate
compliance; unavailable or ineffective grievance redress processes; and interference with program design and
implementation to derive political advantage (e.g. inappropriate inclusion or exclusion of eligible households)
(Bhargava and Raha, 2015: vi).
2011: 1).2 Latin American countries developed two types of citizen oversight mechanisms for cash
transfer programmes: individual3 and collective mechanisms, as a way of protecting the cash transfer
programmes from corruption and vote‐catching behaviour (Eng & Perron, 2013: 8). Collective
mechanisms bring together civil society, in particular beneficiaries, with public sector representatives to
‘monitor that there are no mistakes in terms of inclusion and exclusion of beneficiaries, guarantee that
the programme functions according to its initial objectives, and monitor that the cash transfers are not
captured by elites or political interests, nor affected by corruption or votecatching behaviour’ (Eng &
Perron, 2013: 8). However, many cash transfer programme accountability mechanisms seem to favour
individual approaches rather than collective action, which can result in individual beneficiaries being less
able to combat abuses of power (Hevia de la Jara, 2008; Hevia, 2010; Jones & Shaheen, 2012).
This five day rapid review looks at the experiences of civil society organisations (CSOs) providing or
supporting accountability mechanisms in cash transfer programmes. Bhargava and Raha’s (2015: 12)
review of civil society engagement with cash transfer programme accountability found few studies,
suggesting to them that there is a significant knowledge gap. A mixture of academic and grey literature
was available.
CSOs have supported accountability in cash transfer programmes: by working to improve transparency to
help citizens hold authorities accountable; by vetting beneficiary lists for errors; by encouraging
compliance by highlighting benefits; by gathering feedback to improve services; by assessing programme
vulnerability to integrity risks and advocating to improve matters; and by gathering grassroots level
information on the programmes.
CSOs have supported, or provided, accountability mechanisms in a number of different countries around
the world. This report looks at case studies from Mexico; Brazil; Philippines; Mozambique; Occupied
Palestine Territories; Peru; Kenya; Turkey; and Paraguay.
Emerging lessons and good practice in relation to CSOs supporting or providing accountability
mechanisms in cash transfer programmes include:
CSOs’ support for, or provision of, accountability mechanisms for cash transfer programmes
should complement, not substitute, government accountability mechanisms. A combination of
top‐down and bottom‐up approaches is most effective in mitigating risks.
CSOs can assess availability of information and advocate for greater transparency. Accessible
Management Information Systems provide civil society organisations with the means to hold
programmes accountable.
CSOs can provide independent third party monitoring of cash transfer programmes and
government oversight mechanisms.
2
Assessments suggest that ‘the most important risk‐mitigating improvements to conditional cash transfer
programmes are the existence of clear criteria for beneficiary identification, registry, and eligibility (both for
entering and exiting the program); the utilisation of well‐designed Management Information Systems to carry
out the main conditional cash transfer programmes processes (registration, eligibility, verification of co‐
responsibilities, payments, complaints and appeals, and monitoring); and the existence of internal control
mechanisms, which provide information to make necessary changes within programs’ (Bassett and Blanco,
2011: 3).
3
Allow individual citizens to make complaints or report irregularities (Eng and Perron, 2013: 8). Eng and Perron
(2013: 8) find that such mechanisms are ‘highly dependent on the human and financial resources and
mandates of the public agencies that are responsible for collecting and processing the complaints’.
2 Helpdesk Research Report 17
CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes
CSOs can be important facilitators in the implementation of cash transfer programmes by better
linking authorities and beneficiaries. They can encourage targeted populations to participate at
all stages of the programme design and implementation in order to prevent fraud and
corruption.
Participation of CSOs in grievance reporting can improve its responsiveness through raising
awareness and facilitating grievance filing and follow‐up.
Well‐managed collaboration and coordination with all actors, including CSOs and beneficiaries,
in cash transfer programmes decision‐making processes is good practice.
CSOs support for, or provision of, accountability mechanisms for cash transfer programmes
should be operationally and financially independent of the agencies implementing the cash
transfer programmes for greater effectiveness.
Developing good relationships with those responsible for the cash transfer programmes can
help CSOs to encourage them to improve the quality of the programme.
Rights education by CSOs can empower beneficiaries to hold programme implementers to
account.
CSOs can use a methodology developed by Transparency International consisting of a risk
assessment of the process of the cash transfer programme, a risk map of stakeholders, reporting,
and monitoring and advocacy, to detect risks to integrity, possible exclusion errors, and a
programme’s effective capacity.
Efforts should be made to strengthen and support local level CSOs’ oversight and control of
accountability mechanisms.
CSOs can provide technical advice to political parties on how to avoid and prevent political
abuse of the programmes.
CSOs are not necessarily representative of beneficiaries, who may lack time and other resources
to get involved. Their effectiveness can be challenged by coordination challenges, funding
constraints, limited scale, the political economy, and donor priorities.
Lack of willingness by public officials to provide information, set up citizen oversight
mechanisms, and correct and sanction corruption and mismanagement can pose problems for
setting up civil society accountability mechanisms. CSOs cooperating with audit institutions to
perform social audits could help overcome this.
2. Civil society and accountability mechanisms
A review of citizen engagement and social accountability mechanisms4 in cash transfer programmes
found a number of ways in which civil society organisations support accountability in cash transfer
programmes (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: vii):
4
According to the Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA), social accountability mechanisms are
programmes that feature citizen and civil society organisations engagement ‘with policymakers and service
providers to bring about greater accountability for and responsiveness to citizens’ needs’ (in Bhargava and
Raha, 2015: 12).
3
Assess awareness, access, and quality of information and provide feedback to authorities to
further improve transparency, setting the basis for engaging citizens to hold the implementing
authorities accountable.
Support communities to vet lists of beneficiaries to minimise obvious errors of inclusion,
exclusion and exit.
Help to improve compliance with conditions by working with beneficiaries to help them
understand benefits.
Help with beneficiary feedback collection and use it to constructively engage with service
providers to improve access, quality, and responsiveness of the supply‐side services (e.g.
education, health) thereby enhancing impact.
Independently assess vulnerability of conditional cash transfer programmes to integrity risks5,
performance of state run integrity risk management systems, and follow up with evidence‐based
constructive dialogue and advocacy to improve matters in vulnerable areas.
Gather information at the grassroots level on conditional cash transfer programmes outcomes
(e.g. changed motivations, attitudes, and aspirations).
Examples of social accountability tools used by civil society can be found in the Appendix at the end of
this report.
3. Country case studies
Mexico
In Mexico, the conditional cash transfer programme, the Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades
(Programme for Human Development Opportunities) was founded in 1997 and first called PROGRESA
(Hevia de la Jara, 2008: 65). The family was the target of the programme, bypassing existing civil society
organisations such as peasants’ cooperatives, rural workers’ unions and community associations (Hevia
de la Jara, 2008: 64). Hevia de la Jara (2008: 64) suggests that ‘the exclusion of community organisations
and the strengthening of direct links with the beneficiaries aimed to prevent the reproduction of the old
distortions of social policies in Mexico: corruption, authoritarian corporatism and political clientelism’.
However, Hevia de la Jara (2008: 64, 67‐68) finds that the inadequate design of the mechanisms intended
to empower the beneficiaries to oversee the programme, as well as the Mexican government’s inability
to set mechanisms of direct communication with the millions of covered families, meant that local
institutions were needed as intermediaries, which resulted in the continuation of authoritarian and
clientelistic practices.6
5
Integrity is the ‘capacity to prevent any deviations from its intended use and any change in the designated
beneficiaries resulting from exclusion errors, clientelism, or abuse of power for personal gain’ (Bhargava &
Raha, 2015: vi).
6
For example, those in charge of confirming the fulfilment of obligations controlled the amount of money that
went to each family, which led to many programme’s beneficiaries being forced to carry out community work,
such as sweeping the streets or healthcare posts, or to give part of the money they received to the authorities
as a condition to keep receiving it (Hevia de la Jara, 2008: 68). They risked losing their benefits altogether if
they challenged such practices as a result of the way in which the control of co‐responsibilities worked (Hevia
de la Jara, 2008: 68).
4 Helpdesk Research Report 17
CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes
The institutional design of Oportunidades allowed for individual complaints and suggestions but
discouraged collective action, which meant individual beneficiaries were less able to combat abuses of
power (Hevia de la Jara, 2008: 68‐69). Hevia de la Jara (2008: 64‐65) suggests that civil society
organisations did little to challenge these practices or oversee the programme as a result of engaging in
the same practices themselves or being involved in the programme’s management. In addition civic
associations ‘did not push or fight either for public overseeing or for stopping abuses of power at either
the federal or the local level’ (Hevia de la Jara, 2008: 65). In 2005, the ‘civic stream’ created a Programme
of Incentive for Civil Society Organisations to provide information to these organisations, develop
experiments of social supervision concerning the programme results and hold an annual meeting for
accountability of the actions performed during the year (Hevia de la Jara, 2008: 68). However, Hevia de la
Jara (2008: 68) reports that only a few organisations engaged with the programme.
Beneficiaries themselves created Committees for Community Advancement/Community Promotion
Committees to monitor the programme’s activities in more than 95,000 towns (Gamba, 2016: 28). The
committees ‘represent beneficiaries within the programme, pressure institutions to provide quality
service to recipients, channel concerns and complaints and promote actions to strengthen social audits’
(Gamba, 2016: 28). They benefit from the country’s extensive and strong network of judicial and legal
frameworks that regulates and oversees monitoring of the Oportunidades programme (Eng & Perron,
2013: 9). These are held up as an example of good practice by Transparency International’s review of
cash transfer programmes in seven Latin American countries (Gamba, 2016: 28).7 However, beyond these
committees and periodic feedback collection by the programme, Oportunidades is regarded as having
very weak relations with civil society organisations, possibly as a result of the inadequate design of citizen
participation and oversight mechanisms (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: 17).
This experience suggests that ‘effective prevention, control and punishment of abuse of authority
requires an institutional structure capable of embodying both direct and collective actions to oversee the
programme’s performance’ (Hevia de la Jara, 2008: 65, 70). In addition, there needs to be independent
‘collective actors enabled to and concerned with overseeing public policy’ if abuse of power is to be
prevented (Hevia de la Jara, 2008: 65, 70‐71).
Brazil
In Brazil, the conditional cash transfer programme, Bolsa Família, was started in 2003 (Sugiyama, 2016:
1193). The accountability mechanisms used within the Bolsa Familia Programme include hotlines (toll‐
free call numbers), controls through the Public Audit Network, and Social Control Committees or councils
(Bassett and Blanco, 2011: 10; Sugiyama, 2016: 1194, 1198).
These social control units are enshrined in legislation and nearly 6,000 have been created since 2005,
operating in every municipality (National Secretary for Citizen Income, no date: 3; Bhargava and Raha,
2015: 17; Gamba, 2016: 28). Civil society, alongside members of the community and government, make
up these committees or councils that are responsible for: verifying if the programme reaches the most
vulnerable and poor; validating the accuracy of beneficiary data and the frequency of the recertification
process; following the payment process; and ensuring monitoring of beneficiary compliance with co‐
responsibilities (Bassett & Blanco, 2011: 10; National Secretary for Citizen Income, no date). They report
irregularities to the municipal government and, if these are not addressed in an appropriate and timely
manner, to the Ministry of Social Development (which will follow up through the Public Audit Network)
(Bassett and Blanco, 2011: 10). They are also felt to be an example of good practice by Transparency
7
Latin American countries covered: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Honduras
and Peru.
5
International (Gamba, 2016: 28). However, Bhargava and Raha (2015: 17) suggest that in practice, social
control committees and beneficiaries have only weak powers to represent themselves and their interests,
with many observers agreeing that the process for selecting members is not transparent and social
control of the cash transfer programme is largely ineffective.
Like in Mexico, the designers sought to prevent the programme from being used for clientelistic purposes
through eliminating any type of social intermediation (through social organisations) and political
intermediation (through the participation of political parties or other political actors) (Hevia, 2010: 1).
However, unintended consequences of this included that beneficiaries found it difficult to receive
information, and to oversee and monitor the programme from the bottom, as well as engage in collective
action to combat the power imbalances they faced (Hevia, 2010: 1). In addition, Hevia (2010: 1) argues
that local civil society groups did not represent these beneficiaries, and, as a result, the social control
committees were ‘decorative’ rather than participative.
Sugiyama’s (2016: 1192) recent review of the programme found that ‘citizen‐ and community‐driven
participatory mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and accountability are relatively weak’, although top‐
down accountability processes, such as programmatic transparency and random audits, have ‘largely
worked to protect the integrity of the programme’. There was ‘scant evidence that civil society
organisations or Bolsa Família beneficiaries sought councils or committees as vehicles for social control of
the programme’ and there appeared to be no civil society (or beneficiary) demand for it (Sugiyama, 2016:
1198, 1199). Sugiyama (2016: 1201) suggests the relatively low levels of community driven monitoring of
the programme may be due to the ‘presence of a rather clean and well run social programme’.
Sugiyama (2016: 1200) finds a positive example of how the provision of information and institutional
channels for feedback encouraged programme monitoring by a community organisation that led to
government action to make sure the grants were received by those who needed them. However,
availability of this information is not sufficient if civil society organisations are not prepared to use that
information to monitor the programmes (Sugiyama, 2016: 1200).
Philippines
In the Philippines, the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino conditional cash transfer (P4) programme started in
2007 (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: x). There are a variety of control and accountability mechanisms in place
and the government has sought to collaborate with civil society to improve the integrity of the
programme (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: 27‐28). The cash transfer programme’s grievance redress
mechanism involves civil society organisations’ involvement in advisory/grievance committees at the
provincial and city/municipal levels (Patel et al., 2014: 4). Complaints about the programme can also be
filed directly to independent NGO monitoring teams (Patel et al., 2014: 5).
The Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA) is supporting the Concerned Citizens of Abra for
Good Government (CCAGG) with USD 800,000 between 2013 and 2018 to improve existing feedback
mechanisms of the cash transfer programme to improve its targeting (GPSA, 2016: 26). CCAGG engages
with national and local government to trigger their responses (GPSA, 2016: 27). Without CCAGG
intervention in relation to noting exclusion errors, about 10 per cent of poor households in the project
area would have been left behind (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: ix). In addition, there were ‘improvements in
compliance with co‐responsibilities and grievance resolution and enhanced public trust and support due
to independent third‐party monitoring’ (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: ix).
6 Helpdesk Research Report 17
CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes
The Department of Social Welfare and Development regards civil society organisations as its “third eye”,
acting as watchdogs against corruption in projects and activities and facilitating action, feedback, and
monitoring (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: 33‐34). However, Bhargava and Raha (2015: 34, xii) find that there is
scant evidence that civil society organisations perform this “third eye” role, with ‘very little evidence of
citizen engagement and social accountability initiatives in the P4 Programme of the Philippines despite an
impressive number of civil society organisations signing a pledge to do so’.
Bhargava and Raha (2015: 34) suggest that civil society organisations could: validate beneficiary lists,
report on targeting errors and assist with recertification; collect beneficiary feedback on access and
quality of supply‐side services in health or education programmes, along with advocating and assuming
co‐responsibility for overcoming supply bottlenecks; improve their involvement in the P4 programme by
broadening awareness and sustaining public and political support for it; and help dispel the
misconception that it is a dole‐out rather than a development programme (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: xii).
It is important when funding civil society organisations for social accountability initiatives to ensure the
credibility of their participation, including safeguarding their independence while potentially criticising
the government (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: xiii). Ways to overcome this challenge may include keeping the
funding source for third‐party monitoring entirely separate from the Department of Social Welfare and
Development and putting in place rules to ensure that those engaged in the implementation process
cannot also be selected for independent third party monitoring of the programme (Bhargava & Raha,
2015: xiii).
Bhargava and Raha (2015: 35‐36) recommend improving and expanding civil society engagement to
strengthen state‐led integrity mechanisms in the cash transfer programme by disclosing more
information on the programme website; carrying out periodic beneficiary satisfaction and feedback
surveys; monitoring and improving the functioning of Municipal Advisory Committees; and setting up
incentives and funding for civil society organisations to engage in social accountability activities.
Mozambique
In Mozambique, the Basic Social Subsidy Programme (PSSB) has been in place since 1992. A new M&E
system was being developed in 2013, in conjunction with a new management information system and
supported by the launch of a pilot Civil Society Platform on Social Protection to promote community‐
based monitoring systems (Jones et al., 2013: 51; Selvester et al., 2012: 13). The aim is for these
community‐based monitoring systems to allow community members to work with the National Institute
for Social Action, cash transfer programme beneficiaries and other stakeholders, to improve the
functioning of the cash transfer programme through creating a demand for greater accountability from
beneficiaries (Selvester et al., 2012: 47).
Occupied Palestine Territories
Women’s organisations have been active in identifying people in need of support, sending them to the
relevant ministry in the West Bank and encouraging them to exercise their rights in relation to the
Palestinian National Cash Transfer Programme (PNCTP) (Jones et al., 2013: 47‐48). NGOs have fostered a
strong rights based culture, making programme beneficiaries aware that they are entitled to the cash
transfers (Jones et al., 2013: 50). NGOs are involved in collecting citizen’s complaints about the
programme and challenging them to the PNCTP Complaints Unit, which is responsible for responding to
citizens’ grievances about the programme (Jones & Shaheen, 2012: 39). However, complaints tend to be
individual rather than group based and two reports on the West Bank and Gaza make little mention of
7
civil society organisations supporting accountability in the cash transfer programme (Jones & Shaheen,
2012: 66; Hamad & Pavanello, 2012, 53). There were also concerns that ‘the recently established
community social protection committees (designed to channel community feedback into the targeting
process) could be susceptible to clientelistic practices, especially as they tend to function as a collection
of individuals who are consulted by MoSA on an ad hoc, individual basis, rather than as a group with a
strong collective identity and sense of responsibility’ (Jones et al., 2013: 48).
Peru
The conditional cash transfer programme Juntos is monitored by the National Committee for Supervision
and Transparency (Eng & Perron, 2008: 8). The Committee is autonomous and made up of
representatives of the executive branch, the Church, regional and local governments, the private sector
and the National Roundtable for the Fight Against Poverty (Eng & Perron, 2008: 8).8 There are also 638
local committees, although lack of proper preparation for communities has hampered their efforts (Eng &
Perron, 2008: 8; Bhargava & Raha, 2015: 21). The committees identify implementation issues through
surveys and complaints, and provide recommendations to the programme’s Executive Council (Eng &
Perron, 2008: 9). Between 2006 and 2009, nine recommendations for improvement were made, and in
2009, almost half of the complaints were resolved (Eng & Perron, 2008: 9).
Zoë Reiter, an expert working for Transparency International, reports that, in 2014, use of the
methodology it developed (see Section 4 below) to support civil society organisations to tackle corruption
risks in cash transfer programmes resulted in the ‘Government of Peru reinforcing the power and the role
of the Human Rights Ombudsmen to be able to receive and support corruption cases that involve the
mismanagement of public resources within social programmes. Additionally, the new Ministry for Social
Development will soon launch a campaign to educate public officials and candidates to local parliaments
to avoid promoting social programmes during electoral campaigns for personal and private gain’.
Kenya
In Kenya, HelpAge International headed the Social Protection Rights Component of the Kenya Hunger
Safety Net Programme which was responsible for informing the communities and beneficiaries of their
rights and responsibilities and providing a transparent grievance mechanism (Fitzgibbon, 2014: 7). They
planned to support local civil society organisations around rights education in order to empower
community members to hold duty bearers accountable, and to serve as channels for complaints and
other information about programme operations (Barrett, 2008: 152).
Beneficiary welfare committees (BWCs) are supposed to enable the community to input more into the
Cash Transfer for Orphans and Vulnerable Children programme and since they have been put in place
information flows about the programme regulations and entitlements seem to be smoother (Jones et al.,
2013: 48).
Turkey
Turkey’s conditional cash transfer programme established provincial‐level Boards of Trustees to provide
independent oversight and deal with complaints and appeals, as well as a national unit which receives
and classifies appeals for further handling (Barrett, 2008: 144). Members of the boards included locally
elected representatives, provincial social service directors, NGOs and police (Barrett, 2008: 144).
8
Multi‐sector government‐civil society forum.
8 Helpdesk Research Report 17
CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes
However, the boards have been criticised for being insufficiently connected with the grassroots and
inaccessible to the most vulnerable (Barrett, 2008: 144). The beneficiaries of the programmes often
lacked the resources to protect their rights and provide necessary feedback to policy makers (Barrett,
2008: 144). Greater focus was placed on the mechanics of appeal and complaint submission and
resolution than on proactive beneficiary empowerment (Barrett, 2008: 145).
Paraguay
The GPSA is supporting Fundación Comunitaria Centro de Información y Recursos para el Desarrollo
(CIRD) with USD 600,000 between 2014 and 2018 to strengthen the social accountability mechanisms of
the Cash Conditional Transfer Programme (TEKOPORÃ) to improve its targeting and the quality of health
and education services linked to the programme (GPSA, 2016: 28). CIRD is working with citizen‐led
municipal roundtables and beneficiary families to gather and systemise feedback on the programme’s
performance, including supply gaps in health and education, to share with the relevant government
ministries to strengthen the targeting, transparency and performance of the programme (GPSA, 2016:
28).
4. General lessons and best practice
A review of control and accountability mechanisms in cash transfer programmes found a number of
emerging good practices and lessons for greater engagement of citizens, civil society organisations, and
the use of social accountability initiatives, including (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: vii‐ix):
Complementary to state mechanisms, not a substitute: Social accountability initiatives can be
an effective complement to state mechanisms, but such accountability mechanisms engaging
citizens/civil society organisations should not substitute existing internal management
information systems of the cash transfer programmes already in use. A combination of top‐down
(e.g. supreme audit institutions, evaluation, spot checks) and bottom‐up (e.g. beneficiary and
civil society participation in key processes) approaches is most effective in mitigating risks
(Bhargava & Raha, 2015: viii). A review of World Bank supported conditional cash transfer
programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean also notes that social accountability
mechanisms should be complementary to formal audits and internal monitoring, rather than a
substitute for it (World Bank, 2007: 14).
Assessing availability of information and advocating for greater transparency: Quality and
accessibility of information disclosed on conditional cash transfer programmes is important for
social accountability initiatives. Civil society organisations should assess the availability of
information and advocate for greater transparency (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: viii). A seven
country Latin American study also finds that civil society organisations can play an important role
in the public dissemination of information to help citizens monitor the programme (Gamba,
2016: 27).9 A review of conditional cash transfer programmes in Latin America looking at
accountability and information management practices found that management information
systems can provide civil society organisations with the means to hold the programme
accountable, provided they have timely access to those systems (Baldeon & Arribas‐Baños, 2008:
36).
9
Countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Honduras and Peru.
9
Independent third‐party monitoring by civil society organisations on the effectiveness of state‐
led integrity assurance systems is essential to enhance the integrity of conditional cash transfer
programmes. Government tends to establish the major mechanisms to oversee, monitor, and
audit cash transfer programmes. Typically, these are not sufficient and/or function poorly, and
need to be complemented by civil society organisations’ monitoring, both of the delivery of the
conditional cash transfer programmes and the performance of governments’ own oversight
mechanisms for conditional cash transfer programmes (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: viii).
Civil society organisations as facilitators: Civil society organisations and civil society volunteers
can be important facilitators in implementation of the conditional cash transfer programmes
through better linking authorities and beneficiaries. The effectiveness of civil society
organisations can vary depending on the facilitators’ caseload, skills, and knowledge.
Effectiveness can be undermined when authorities within the programmes have weak relations
with civil society organisations, since both sides may be wary of collaborating with each other
due to the time and skills required. Authorities need to take measures to ensure civil society
organisations can genuinely participate in programme design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: vii). A rapid literature review looking at corruption
prevention strategies in cash transfer schemes suggests for example, that civil society can play an
important role in encouraging the participation of targeted populations at all stages of the
programme design and implementation in order to prevent fraud and corruption (Chêne, 2010:
8). The author uses the example of the Peruvian cash transfer programme, which has established
a board with a balanced representation of involved ministries and local civil society organisations
(Chêne, 2010: 8).
Participating in grievance reporting: Civil society participation improves the responsiveness of
grievance reporting and other beneficiary feedback mechanisms by raising awareness and
facilitating grievance filing and follow‐up (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: viii).
Collaboration and coordination in programme decision making processes: Collaboration with
beneficiaries and civil society organisations in conditional cash transfer programmes decision‐
making processes is good practice but has risks that need to be managed. Such collaboration can
help beneficiaries access relevant programme information, comply with their responsibilities,
monitor programme performance, provide feedback, and seek remedial actions against unjust
practices. Experience suggests that collaborative decision‐making bodies can only be effective
when the oversight of local government is limited, political interference is limited, and
performance‐monitoring indicators are used (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: vii‐viii). A study looking at
beneficiary and community perceptions of five unconditional cash transfer programmes in Gaza
and the West Bank, Yemen, Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda, found that there is a need for
strengthened coordination across government agencies, NGOs and religious organisation service
providers, facilitated by the national registry system, a mapping of complementary services and
programmes, and strengthened management information systems, for improved programme
governance and accountability (Jones et al., 2013: 59).
Independent of implementing agencies: Social accountability initiatives should be operationally
and financially independent of cash transfer programmes implementing agencies for greater
effectiveness. If civil society organisations are part of implementation (or, for example, paid by a
government cash transfer programmes implementing agency) they are not in a position to hold
the implementing agency accountable. Funding from external sources such as the GPSA gives
civil society organisations operational and financial independence. Countries could adopt this
10 Helpdesk Research Report 17
CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes
good practice by considering collaborating between state oversight agencies and civil society
organisations to carry out social accountability work that complements the work of oversight
agencies. A good practice example is the growing practice of participatory audits sponsored by
Supreme Audit Institutions (Bhargava & Raha, 2015: viii‐ix).
Forging relationships to improve the quality of cash transfer programmes
The seven country Latin American study suggests: ‘the relationship that civil society organisations can
forge with those responsible for the programmes, in order to develop efficient protocols and systems for
handling citizen enquiries, presents a significant opportunity to improve the quality of [conditional cash
transfer programmes] management in the region’ (Gamba, 2016: 21).
Rights education can empower beneficiaries
A HelpAge International review of international experiences in the design and implementation of
grievance mechanisms for cash transfer programmes carried out suggests that ‘comprehensive rights
education involving civil society organizations is a pre‐requisite for achieving accountability’, as well as
sufficient resourcing of accountability mechanisms to make them accessible at community level (Barrett,
2008: 145, 153).
Using tools to ensure that cash transfer programmes implement effective transparency and
accountability mechanisms
The report, based on participatory assessments carried out in seven countries in Latin America between
2008 and 2014, and involving more than 14,000 beneficiaries, 700 public officials and many civil society
organisations, found that ‘many [cash transfer] programmes have established social accountability
mechanisms in at least some stages, in addition to adopting effective rules governing access to
programme information’ (Gamba, 2016: 5). Despite this, many of the programmes were designed in ways
which left them vulnerable to corrupt and clientelistic behaviour (Gamba, 2016: 5).
In response, in 2008, Transparency International (2014: 16) began developing a methodology for civil
society organisations to ensure that conditional cash transfer programmes implemented effective
transparency and accountability mechanisms. The methodology focuses mainly on detecting risks to
integrity (programme's capacity to prevent any deviations from intended use and any changes in the
designated beneficiaries, whether these result from exclusion errors, clientelism or abuse of power for
personal gain), possible exclusion errors, and a programme’s effective capacity (Gamba, 2016: 5;
Transparency International, 2014: 16). It seeks to ‘amplify the voice of those most affected by corruption
– female heads of poor and extreme poor households – for stronger advocacy impact at the national and
regional policy level’ (expert comment). The methodology has been tested in Argentina, Colombia,
Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Guatemala, Peru and Honduras during 2012‐2014 to develop concrete
evidence‐based measures to drive changes and improvements, which in turn could make cash transfer
programmes more transparent and effective (Transparency International, 2014: 20). The methodology
consists of a risk assessment of the process of the cash transfer programme; a risk map of stakeholders,
reporting, and monitoring and advocacy (Transparency International, 2014: 32). Achievements of
implementation of this methodology include the creation of female committees in Guatemala to provide
citizen oversight, which improved services; public events to publicise to features of the cash transfer
programme to beneficiaries in Colombia; supporting indigenous communities to access the cash transfer
programme in Argentina; and putting in place significant improvements in the complaints and public
accountability mechanism of the cash transfer programme in the Dominican Republic (expert comment:
Zoë Reiter).
11
Local level civil society led oversight and control
Gamba (2016: 29) suggests that, because the grievance and complaints procedures in cash transfer
programmes in Latin America were found to be weak, it is important that there is civil society led
oversight and control, especially at the local level. Their involvement in strengthening beneficiary
engagement and complaints should involve fact checking programme promises and citizen appeals
against exclusion from programmes, as well as technical support to all those interested in the control and
oversight of the programmes (Gamba, 2016: 29). Grassroots organisations should strive to develop an
ongoing dialogue with oversight bodies to apply positive pressure in relation to close monitoring of
programme activities (Gamba, 2016: 29). The social audit functions of existing local and grassroots
organisations should also be strengthened and supported, as these allow oversight and vertical control of
the components and relationships most exposed to integrity risks (Gamba, 2016: 28). A review of World
Bank supported conditional cash transfer programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean also notes that
in many programmes, special emphasis is placed on strengthening the capacities of community
organisations and/or parents’ associations to participate in the monitoring or “social auditing” of
programme operation (World Bank, 2007: 6).
Technical advice for political parties
Civil society organisations can also provide technical advice to political parties to aid them to take steps
to avoid and prevent political abuse of the programmes (Gamba, 2016: 31).10 Monitoring and assessment
methodologies for tracking social programmes, in particular during election years, could help ensure
constant monitoring by civil society organisations, to help prevent the programmes being used as a
bargaining chip in vote‐buying and coerced voting activities (Gamba, 2016: 31).
Civil society organisations face challenges to be effective and representative
Jones et al. (2016: 1209) warn that excluded groups may not get involved with civil society organisations
due to a lack of time and other resources, while clientelism and rent‐seeking can sometimes plague civil
society itself. In addition, civil society may face challenges related to coordination, funding, scale, the
political economy, and donor priorities (Jones et al., 2016: 1215).
Lack of political will
Participants in an online module on citizen oversight of public policies suggest that challenges in creating
citizen oversight committees included reluctance by public officials to disclose information; create citizen
oversight mechanisms; and correct and sanction corruption and mismanagement (Oropeza, 2014: 6).
They suggested that in this case civil society organisations could form partnerships with Supreme Audit
Institutions (SAIs) to perform social audits, which could involve things like crossing‐check their
institutional databases to verify data on beneficiary lists and budget allocation, for example (Oropeza,
2014: 6).11 A good example of this is suggested to be in Mexico, where Fundar, together with the Mexican
SAI, monitored beneficiaries of the Farm Subsidies Programme to reveal inconsistencies in the targeting
process (Oropeza, 2014: 6).
10
Unlawful and illegitimate actions such as bribery (vote‐buying in exchange for guaranteed admission in the
programmes) or extortion (the threat of excluding beneficiaries based on their voting behaviour) (Gamba,
2016: 30).
11
SAIs are responsible for overseeing public spending and, in most cases, for reporting to and advising
congress (Oropeza, 2014: 5).
12 Helpdesk Research Report 17
CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes
5. References
Baldeon, C., & Arribas‐Baños, M.D. (2008). Management information systems in social safety net
programs: A look at accountability and control mechanisms (SP Discussion Paper N. 0819).
Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from:
http://www.developmentpathways.co.uk/downloads/mis‐systems‐for‐social‐safety‐nets.pdf
Barrett, S. (2008). Achieving accountability in cash transfer programmes: The case of the social protection
rights component of the Kenya Hunger Safety Net Programme. International Social Protection
Conference, 8 – 10 September 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.kulima.com/wordpress/wp‐
content/uploads/2011/03/Conference‐proceedings.pdf#page=140
Bassett, L., & Blanco, G. (2011). Control and accountability in conditional cash transfer programs in Latin
America and the Caribbean: Key topics and areas for further improvement. Washington, DC: World
Bank. Retrieved from:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSAFETYNETSANDTRANSFERS/Resources/CCTs_Accountability
_Note_Web.pdf
Bhargava, V., & Raha, S. (2015). Citizen engagement and social accountability approaches in enhancing
integrity of conditional cash transfer programs. Washington, DC: Partnership for Transparency Fund.
Retrieved from: http://ptfund.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2015/10/CCTpaper_PhilippinesFinal_20SEptdocx‐1.pdf
Chêne, M. (2010). Corruption prevention strategies in cash transfer schemes. Bergen: Anti‐corruption
Resource Centre, CMI. Retrieved from: www.goo.gl/h86OVz
Eng, J.O., & Perron, M. (2013). Citizen participation in Latin America: innovations to strengthen
governance. Lima: Evidence and Lessons from Latin America (ELLA). Retrieved from:
http://ella.practicalaction.org/wp‐content/uploads/files/130516_CitPar_GOV_GUIDE.pdf
Fitzgibbon, C. (2014). HSNP phase II registration and targeting ‐ Lessons learned and recommendations.
London: DFID. Retrieved from: www.goo.gl/7DA24G
Gamba, J. (2016). Conditional cash transfers in Latin America ‐ Promoting equality through transparency
and accountability. Berlin: Transparency International. Retrieved from:
http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/conditional_cash_transfers_in_latin_america_
promoting_equality_through_tran
GPSA. (2016). GPSA in review. Washington, DC: Global Partnership for Social Accountability. World Bank.
Retrieved from:
https://www.thegpsa.org/sa/Data/gpsa/files/field/documents/gpsa_in_review.compressed.pdf
Hamad, B.A., & Pavanello, S. (2012). Transforming cash transfers: Beneficiary and community
perspectives on the Palestinian National Cash Transfer Programme ‐ Part 1: The Case of the Gaza
Strip. London: ODI. Retrieved from: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi‐
assets/publications‐opinion‐files/8180.pdf
Hevia, F. (2010). Direct or mediated relationships? Civic involvement and social accountability in the Bolsa
Família Programme (One Pager N. 106). Brasilia: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.
Retrieved from: http://www.ipc‐undp.org/pub/IPCOnePager106.pdf
13
Hevia de la Jara, F. (2008). Between individual and collective action: Citizen participation and public
oversight in Mexico’s Oportunidades Programme. IDS Bulletin, 38: 6, 64‐72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1759‐5436.2007.tb00420.xView
Jones, N., Abu‐Hamad, B., Pereznieto, P., & Sylvester, K. (2016). Transforming cash transfers: Citizens’
perspectives on the politics of programme implementation. The Journal of Development Studies,
52:8, 1207‐1224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1134772
Jones, N., Samuels, F., & Malachowska, A. (2013). Holding cash transfers to account: beneficiary and
community perspectives. London: ODI. Retrieved from:
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi‐assets/publications‐opinion‐files/8372.pdf
Jones, N., & Shaheen, M. (2012). Transforming cash transfers: Beneficiary and community perspectives on
the Palestinian National Cash Transfer Programme ‐ Part 2: The case of the West Bank. London: ODI.
Retrieved from: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi‐assets/publications‐opinion‐
files/8179.pdf
Oropeza, J. (2014). ELLA Learning Alliance on Citizen Oversight – Module 3: Improving Government
Accountability through Mechanisms for Citizen Participation. Lima: Evidence and Lessons from Latin
America (ELLA). Retrieved from: http://ella.practicalaction.org/wp‐
content/uploads/files/140320_GOV_CitOve_LEA2_Module3.pdf
Patel, D., Okamura, Y., Rogan, S.E.B., & Agarwal, S. (2014). Grievance redress system of the conditional
cash transfer program in the Philippines. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/111391468325445074/pdf/901780BRI0P14600Philippi
nes0Final02.pdf
Perron, M. (2012). Spotlight on publications: citizen oversight of conditional cash transfer programmes.
Lima: Evidence and Lessons from Latin America (ELLA). Retrieved from:
http://ella.practicalaction.org/knowledge‐spotlight/spotlight‐on‐publications‐citizen‐oversight‐of‐
conditional‐cash‐transfer‐programmes/
Secretaria Nacional de Renda de Ciudadania (National Secretary for Citizen Income). (no date). Social
oversight of the Bolsa Familia programme. Retrieved from: http://www.ipc‐
undp.org/doc_africa_brazil/10.SENARC_Social_%20Control_PBF.pdf
Selvester, K., Fidalgo, L., & Taimo, N. (2012). Transforming cash transfers: Beneficiary and community
perspectives on the Basic Social Subsidy Programme in Mozambique. London: ODI. Retrieved from:
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi‐assets/publications‐opinion‐files/8178.pdf
Sugiyama, N.B. (2016). Pathways to citizen accountability: Brazil’s Bolsa Família. The Journal of
Development Studies, 52:8, 1192‐1206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1134779
Transparency International. (2014). Protecting social programmes – Anti‐corruption Toolkit: Economic
equality in Latin America. Berlin: Transparency International. Retrieved from:
http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/protecting_social_programmes_anti_corruptio
n_toolkit
World Bank. (2007). Control and accountability mechanisms in conditional cash transfer programs: A
review of programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, D: World Bank. Retrieved from:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLACREGTOPLABSOCPRO/Resources/CCTReview_FINAL.pdf
14 Helpdesk Research Report 17
CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes
Expert contributors
Zoë Reiter, Transparency International
Suggested citation
Rohwerder, B. (2016). CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes (K4D Helpdesk
Research Report 17). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.
About this report
This report is based on five days of desk‐based research. It was prepared for the UK Government’s
Department for International Development, © DFID Crown Copyright 2016. This report is licensed under
the Open Government Licence (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open‐government‐licence). The views
expressed in this report are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GSDRC, its
partner agencies or DFID.
The GSDRC Research Helpdesk provides rapid syntheses of key literature and of expert thinking in
response to specific questions on governance, social development, humanitarian and conflict issues. Its
concise reports draw on a selection of the best recent literature available and on input from international
experts. Each GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report is peer‐reviewed by a member of the GSDRC team.
Search over 400 reports at www.gsdrc.org/go/research‐helpdesk. Contact: helpdesk@gsdrc.org.
15
6. Appendix: Overview of citizen engagement and social
accountability tools12
Tool Definition/uses
Budget literacy campaign Budget literacy campaigns are efforts—usually by civil society,
academics, or research institutes—to build citizen and civil society
capacity to understand budgets in order to hold government
accountable for budget commitments and to influence budget
priorities.
Citizen charter Citizen charter is a document that informs citizens about the
service entitlements they have as users of a public service, the
standards they can expect for a service (timeframe and quality),
remedies available for non‐adherence to the standards, and the
procedures, costs, and charges of a service. The charters entitle
users to an explanation (and in some cases compensation) if the
standards are not met.
Citizen report card Citizen report card 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.
Citizen satisfaction surveys Citizen satisfaction surveys provide a quantitative assessment of
government performance and service delivery based on citizens'
experience. Depending on the objective, the surveys can collect
data on a variety of topics ranging from perceptions of
performance of service delivery and elected officials to desires for
new capital projects and services.
Citizen/user membership Citizen/user membership in decision‐making bodies is a way to
ensure accountability by allowing 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).
Citizens’ juries Citizens’ juries are a group of selected members of a community
that make recommendations or actions participatory instruments
to supplement conventional democratic processes.
Community contracting Community contracting is when community groups are contracted
for the provision of services, or when community groups contract
service providers or the construction of infrastructure.
12
Taken from Bhargava & Raha, 2015: 39‐41.
16 Helpdesk Research Report 17
CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes
Community management Community management is when services are fully managed or
owned by service users or communities. Consumers own the
service directly (each customer owns a share) when they form
cooperatives.
Community monitoring Community monitoring is a system of measuring, recording,
collecting, and analysing information, and communicating and
acting on that information to improve performance. It holds
government institutions accountable, provides ongoing feedback,
shares control over M&E, engages in identifying and/or taking
corrective actions, and seeks to facilitate dialogue between
citizens and project authorities.
Community oversight Community oversight is the monitoring of publicly funded
construction projects by citizens, community‐based and/or civil
society organizations participating directly or indirectly in exacting
accountability. It applies across all stages of the project cycle,
although the focus is on the construction phase.
Community scorecard A community scorecard is a community‐based monitoring tool
that assesses services, projects, and government performance by
analyzing qualitative data obtained through focus group
discussions with the community. It usually includes interface
meetings between service providers and users to formulate an
action plan to address any identified problems and shortcomings.
Focus group discussions Focus group discussions are usually organized with specific goals,
structures, time frames, and procedures in mind. Focus groups are
composed of a small number of stakeholders to discuss project
impacts and concerns and consult in an informal setting. They are
designed to gauge the response to the project's proposed actions
and to gain a detailed understanding of stakeholders'
perspectives, values, and concerns.
Grievance redress mechanism Grievance redress mechanism (or complaints‐handling
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.
Independent budget analysis Independent budget analysis 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.
Input tracking Input tracking refers to monitoring the flow of physical assets and
service inputs from central to local levels. It is also called input
monitoring.
17
Integrity pact An integrity pact is a transparency tool that allows participants
and public officials to agree on rules to be applied to a specific
procurement. It 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, they must avoid abusive practices while executing it.
Participatory budgeting Participatory budgeting is a process through which citizens
participate directly in budget formulation, decision making, and
monitoring of budget execution. It creates a channel for citizens to
give voice to their budget priorities.
Participatory physical audit Participatory physical audit refers to community members taking
part in the physical inspection of project sites, especially when
there are not enough professional auditors to inspect all facilities.
Citizens measure the quantity and quality of construction
materials, infrastructure, and facilities.
Participatory planning Participatory planning convenes a broad base of key stakeholders,
on an iterative basis, in order to generate a diagnosis of the
existing situation and develop appropriate strategies to solve
jointly identified problems. Project components, objectives, and
strategies are designed in collaboration with stakeholders.
Procurement monitoring Procurement monitoring refers to independent, third‐party
monitoring of procurement activities by citizens, communities, or
civil society organizations to ensure there are no leakages or
violation of procurement rules.
Public displays of information Public displays of information refers to the posting of government
information, usually about projects or services, in public areas,
such as on billboards or in government offices, schools, health
centers, community centers, project sites, and other places where
communities receive services or discuss government affairs.
Public expenditure tracking Public expenditure tracking surveys involves citizen groups tracing
surveys the flow of public resources for the provision of public goods or
services from origin to destination. It can help to detect
bottlenecks, inefficiencies, or corruption.
Public hearings Public hearings are formal community‐level meetings where local
officials and citizens have the opportunity to exchange
information and opinions on community affairs. Public hearings
are often one element in a social audit initiative.
Public reporting of expenditures Public reporting of expenditures refers to the public disclosure
and dissemination of information about government expenditures
to enable citizens to hold government accountable for its
18 Helpdesk Research Report 17
CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes
expenditures.
Social audit Social audit (also called social accounting) is a monitoring process
through which organizational or project information is collected,
analysed, and shared publicly in a participatory fashion.
Community members conduct investigative work at the end of
which findings are shared and discussed publicly.
User management committees User management committees refer to consumer groups taking
on long‐term management roles to initiate, implement, operate,
and maintain services. User management committees are for
increasing participation as much as they are for accountability and
financial controls.
19
Brigitte Rohwerder