But social accountability is not only a solution to inform the public about development projects. Actors in development programmes are held accountable for their activities towards the project's beneficiaries, donors and internal staff, among others. Holding these actors accountable improves the programme's effectiveness, governance and enhances its credibility.
In its first years of operation, the GSFP was confronted with several administrative and structural deficiencies. Poor coordination, limited understanding of the programme, over-politiziation, and poor financial management were complicated further by an absence of monitoring and evaluation systems and inadequate information to improve decision-making processes. In response to these challenges, the Social Accountability project was born.
Programmes suffering problems, such as the GSFP did in its initial years, need strengthened management systems, increased access to information, improved collaboration among actors and independent monitoring by civil society organizations. After collecting essential information on the implementation of the programme, SNV-Ghana and 50 local partner development organizations identified supplementary activities needed to make the programme achieve its objectives. The resulting Social Accountability Project was initiated by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development with support from the Dutch Embassy, SNV-Ghana and SIGN.
As we learnt from the Social Accountability Project, effective accountability calls for developing functional management systems, such as monitoring and evaluation, management information systems, financial management and facilitating multi-stakeholder engagements at both the supply and demand sides. Chaos arose when the GSFP was initiated without these systems in place. The Social Accountability Project has helped to improve the understanding of GSFP among implementing partners, the media and citizens. Currently, civil society organisations are participating in the whole process and their results being accepted by state actors (which is encouraging in a developing country like Ghana). Consequently, the programme can continue and expand with continuing government support.
However, the acceptance of accountability initiatives within programmes depends on the message used to communicate the initiative. In the Social Accountability Project, our message was that social accountability is not about criminalization or catching a thief, but about strengthening systems and institutions that guarantee sustainability in development results. We learnt that this effective packaging of communication messages led key stakeholders in the country to commit to strengthening accountability mechanisms.
We must also not forget the importance of civil society in making social accountability work. Social accountability is aimed at strengthening systems and institution for effective delivery. The technical expertise of civil society organisations helps to improve this delivery by engaging state actors in a fruitful and result-oriented manner.
Paying attention to social accountability can greatly improve programmes such as the GSFP. After its implementation, the programme's coverage increased to over 2000 schools and 973,313 pupils in all the 170 District Assemblies in September 2011. For SNV, the experiences with the social accountability project in GSFP laid a foundation for accountability initiatives in programmes in other countries. Considering the results achieved, I recommend that the principles of Social Accountability should be mainstreamed in all programmes to promote partnership, ownership, collaboration and transparent and effective communication.
Written by: Sarah Agbey Dedei (SNV-Ghana)
Dear Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThe social accountability program used in the HGSF program seems to focus on the effects for the operational results of the program in terms of scope and on management information to improve the internal control of the program. I totally agree on the importance of operational feedback and communication in every program and project; however I hesitate to put them under a label of social accountability. I am convinced social accountability adds an extra dimension, next to the financial accountability and organizational accountability that most companies, programs and projects are used to work with. Quotes like for example People, Planet, Profit or keywords like open, transparent and reliable can be put under this label. They address a certain way - or you could say: - culture of work in which the program isn’t only accountable in term of her own mission and objectives but also in terms of other public values.
This extra dimension has a lot to do with seeking public legitimacy for the way in which one does its work or produces its products. In almost every society the public is highly interested in the way their tax money has been spent. As money is always scarce the public legitimacy will be decisive whether projects will be continued or not. Therefore I think social accountability should not only focuses on the in-, through-, and output of an organization but should include also aspects of governance and integrity. Looking at the HGSF website I think there is still a lot to gain. There are for example no financial statements open for download to the public and there is no governance code in which a code of conduct for managers and (sub-)contractors has been agreed.
Regards,
Frank Meurs,
local politician and eco farmer, The Netherlands
Dear Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThe social Accountability Project (SAP) on the GSFP came as a mechanism to enhance the implementation of the programme. We have since seen improved communication from the national to regional levels,coordination among stakeholders, building partnerships and provision of logistics.
However, l wish we acknowledge that much work still needs to be done even in the areas that we said much achievements have been made. For us to realized the dream of Social Accountability, we should see the various stakeholders performing their roles effectively. Most DICs and SICs are still not living up to expectations. The erroneous impression that GSFP is for government and government should do and provide all needs is difficult to erase. Our monitoring system should be better than it is. Communities need to implement this SAP project.
Again, collaboration at the the inter-ministerial level needs improvement. Many of the decentralized stakeholders are not performing simply because at the ministerial level, there is no collaboration. Ghana Health Service, Ghana Education Service, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Community Water and Sanitation Agency and many other stakeholders at the policy levels have voice to make. Unfortunately those voices are silent.
CSOs are stakeholders of GSFP. The establishment of the Civil Society Platform on GSFP is a step to harmonized CSOs coordinated effort at supporting the government to effectively implement the programme.However, CS Platform and other CSOs coordination need improvement. CSOs need to support in policy advocacy, complementary service delivery, and establishing an enable environment to link agriculture to the GSFP.With these, the dream of SAP will be realized.
The previous contribution is made by John Issah, coordinator of the Civil Society Platform in Ghana.
ReplyDeleteA short explanation of some of the abbreviations John used:
SIC stands for School Implementation Committee: a committee consisting of parents, teachers, traditional- religious- and administrative representatives at the community level responsible for implementation and oversight of the GSFP in the school.
DIC stands for District Implementation Committee a similar entity responsible for implementation and oversight at the District level. Administrative representatives in the DIC include representatives of the ministries of agriculture, education and health operating at district level.
Andrea Haverkort
SIGN project officer
I have just finished carrying out district level fora on the SAP in the northern and Upper East regions of Ghana. Guess what!! The GSFP needs to get back to basics. Who actually owns the programme? Is the programme supposed to be community driven or district driven or nationally driven? Who takes decisions about the programme and in what form? Are the decisions bottom-up? Are the decisions partisan motivated? What is the role of a poor community member in a contractual relationship between a caterer and the district in which he/she was not privy to and or involved?
ReplyDelete