Participation During the Audit

The use of Social Accountability Tools

CSC— Community Score Card


Community Score Cards (CSCs) are participatory, community-based monitoring and evaluation tools that enable citizens to assess the quality of public services (such as health care, education, public transport, water, or waste disposal systems), including projects and the performance of government administrative units.

CSCs are used to inform community members about available services and consumers’ rights and also to obtain immediate feedback about the accessibility and quality of those services. The process also includes a meeting between service providers, the community, and local government.

In the Philippines, a CSC tool was implemented by COA and ANSA-EAP with Marikina parent leaders and barangay health center providers. An inventory check was also conducted. Those measures enabled the beneficiaries and service providers rate the performance of their health center based on the quality standards set by the Department of Health. The results of the community scorecard were then melded with the results of the inventory activity conducted by COA. The final audit report is being drafted.

For more on the experience in Philippines, please read Case study Philippines

  • CSCs generate information through focus group interactions and enable the maximum possible participation by the local community.

  • By providing an opportunity for direct dialogue between service providers and the community, the process empowers citizens to voice their opinion and demand improved service delivery.

  • CSCs bring together all stakeholders so as to mutually generate solutions toward quality improvement.

  • Efforts can be jointly monitored to track the effectiveness of those agreed solutions.



See more here and here


The Community Score Card (CSC): A generic guide for implementing CARE’s CSC process to improve quality of services. (CARE Malawi)

See more here-

Community Score Card Process in Gambia: Read document

Gambia (brochure): Read document

INDIA: Andhra Pradesh, India: Improving Health Services through Community Score Cards:

Read document




Community Score cards- Empowering Communities/Interact Worldwide

Watch video

General Readings

General Case Studies

PETS— Public Expenditure Tracking Survey


Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) are quantitative surveys of the supply side of public services. The unit of observation typically is a service facility or local government. The survey collects information on facility characteristics, financial flows, outputs (services delivered), accountability arrangements, and so forth. PETS are aimed at checking for leakage of funds, estimating the amount of funding not reaching its intended beneficiaries, and detecting the origin and causes of the leakage.

PETS are distinct, yet they complement qualitative surveys of users’ perception of service delivery. PETS highlight not only the use and abuse of public money but also give insight into cost efficiency, decentralization, and accountability.

  • PETS can serve as powerful diagnostic tools in the absence of reliable administrative or financial data. 

  • By tracing the flow of resources from origin to destination, PETS can determine the location and scale of anomalies.

  • The publication of PETS results through mass media can significantly contribute to reducing leakage of funds by promoting social entitlement and generating public pressure.


In Uganda, a PETS was carried out to assess how much of the money that left the exchequer actually reached schools between 1991 and 1995. Data on income, expenditure, and enrollment in schools were collected, largely by former teachers. Forms used were standardized, and provision was made for collection of qualitative information, as well.

Results were quite shocking, as the survey revealed the following:

  • The average amount of capitation grants received by the schools in 1991 was just 2 percent of the total allocation; although some schools received up to 25 percent of the allocation in a good year, the median was zero.

  • Expenditures on salaries between 1991 and 1995 increased by 200 percent, whereas expenses on nonsalary, instructional items went up by only 20 percent.

  • Blockage in the system was occurring at the local governments, which retained much of the grant, arguing that the children may have enrolled at schools but had not paid their fees—a substantial part of which was supposed to be remitted to the districts to cover education office expenses.

  • Although attempts at decentralization were inspired by a desire to improve democratic participation and service delivery, schools that were receiving money from districts empowered to make funding decisions themselves, following decentralization, were receiving less money (by about 9 percentage points) than those that continued to receive money from the central government with districts only serving as a conduit.

Once revealed that, on average, less than 30 percent of allocated capitation money was reaching the schools, at the end of 1995, the government acted immediately to improve the flow of information and make budget transfers transparent by: (a) publishing amounts transferred to the districts in newspapers and on radio broadcasts; (b) requiring schools to maintain public notice boards to post monthly transfer of funds; (c) legally provisioning for accountability and information dissemination in the 1997 Local Governance Act; and (d) requiring districts to deposit all grants to schools in their own accounts, and delegating authority for procurement from the center to the schools. By 1999, capitation grants received by the schools had reached almost 100 percent, although delays in transfers persisted.

The Ugandan case is an example of a cost-effective survey that demystified a governmental process, prompting a smoother flow of information to enhance transparency in budget allocation and improve outcomes in public service delivery.

Infographics on the steps involved in the survey

Uganda: Tracking Public Expenditure in Primary Education: See Here



Survey Tools for Assessing Performance in Service Delivery”. Authors: Jan Dehn, Ritva Reinikka, and Jakob Svensson:

See here


See here



Public Expenditure Tracking, Program for Accountability in Nepal (PRAN) / The World Bank

Watch Video

PPT: Boost Tanzania

Social Audit


Social auditors check government records and vouchers to determine the difference between what is actually happening in the community versus what is supposed to be happening per the guideline and existing policy document. A social audit ensures that people receive information about their entitlements as defined in both government policy documents and specific mechanics of implementation. The very nature of social audits—the dissemination of information, the physical space they provide for citizens to interact with officials, the public and collective form of interaction, and the presence (which in some cases is mandatory) of government officials—has the necessary ingredients for ensuring action from national or state agencies.

Over the years, various studies have found that increased public awareness was the most significant contribution of social audits. This increased awareness, coupled with the public nature of the audit, encourages public debate on different aspects of the implementation of government programs. As a result, the social audit brings out a range of complaints or issues faced by beneficiaries. Critical to note is that social audits not only expose corruption but also reveal a range of governance issues related to day-to-day administration, such as policy bottlenecks and difficulties in accessing information about the program because of the absence of information. More important, access to information through the audits enables citizens to pin-point actions that the government has to take.

  • Social audits generate information that is perceived to be evidence based, accurate, and impartial.

  • They help raise awareness among beneficiaries and local service providers about public projects or services.

  • They improve citizens’ access to public information and can be a valuable tool for exposing corruption and mismanagement.

  • They can allow stakeholders to better influence the government’s behavior and to monitor progress.


“Social audits triggering transformation in public administration toward improvement in service delivery in India”

See here


Andhra Pradesh

Kenya: See here


The Social Audit Cookbook. Recipes for auditing the way we connect

Script m4 4


See ppt social audit Tanzania

Kenya “It's Our Money. Where's It Gone?” Watch video

Any comments? Please notify us here.


Nino, E. (2009): “Access to Public Information and Citizen Participation in Supreme Audit Institutions”, Buenos Aires, ACIJ.

IDI-INTOSAI (2013): “How to increase the use and impact of audit reports”.

DESA & INTOSAI (2011): “Effective practices of cooperation between SAIs and citizens to enhance public accountability”.

UN (2006):“Dialogue on Civil Society Engagement in Public Accountability”, Workshop Report, Manila, Philippines.

Cornejo, C. (2012): “Citizenship and Supreme Audit Institutions: Transparency, Civic Participation and Accountability”, report on the Expert´s Forum, coordinated on behalf of the TPA INITIATIVE (April 16th to 27th, 2012) in the Journal of the Ibero- American Experts’ Network Nº 9, pp. 42-47, Madrid, 1st semester.

TPA INITIATIVE – ACIJ, (2013): “Information Technologies and Public Control in Latin America. Contributions and Best Practices for the Strengthening of Supreme Audit Institution Websites”.

Castro, M., Cornejo, C. et al (2013): “Transparency, Participation and Accountability in Public Oversight: advancing Latin American SAIs agenda at the subnational level” in Supreme Audit Institutions. Accountability for development, NOMOS, INTOSAI-GIZ.

UN-INTOSAI (2011): “Audit and Advisory by SAIs: Risks and Opportunities, as well as Possibilities for Engaging Citizens”, Conclusions of the 22nd Symposium held in Vienna, March 5–7.

Van Zyl, A. (2013): “Greasing the Wheels of the Accountability System: How Civil Society Organizations close the Gap between Transparency and Accountability”, Washington D.C., International Budget Partnership.

Dassen, N. Arias, J. et al (2009): “Strengthening responsibility from public officials: building bridges between oversight agencies and civil society”.

Ramkumar, V. &Krafchik, W. (2006): “The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Auditing and Public Finance Management”, The International Budget Project.

Guillan Montero, A. (2012): “Building bridges: Advancing transparency and participation through the articulation of Supreme Audit Institutions and civil society”, Paper presented at the 2nd Transatlantic Conference on Transparency Research, Utrecht, June 7-9.

ELLA (2012): “The Latin American Approach to Improving Public Spending Oversight”.

OLACEFS – GIZ/BMZ (2012): “Citizen participation in public oversight: good practices for strengthening relationships between SAIs and citizenship”, Commission on Citizen Participation, San José.

INTOSAI (2013): “Challenges of SAIs regarding Sustainable and Efficient Ways to Communicate their Audit Findings and Recommendations”, INTOSAI Basic Paper, 22nd UN/INTOSAI Symposium, Vienna, March 5-7.