Ethiopia

Protection of Basic Services

Social Accountability
Program

Internal Assessment
October, 2016

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was written by a team of CARE Consulting staffs, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. Information and inputs were generously collected from and provided
by the ESAP2 MA, SAIPs, government officials, sector offices, SACs and
citizens. In addition, contributions are acknowledged from MA staff:
Meskerem Girma, Rolf Hunink and Lucia Nass.

CARE consulting wishes to thank all for their inputs, support and advice.

The MA office proving this assignment to us is very gratefully acknowledged.

1
Acronyms
BoFED Bureau of Finance and Economic Development
BPS Basic Public Service
CBO Community Based Organization
ChSA Charities and Societies Agency
CRC Citizen Report Cards
CSC Community Score Cards
CSO Civil Service Organizations
DFID Department for International Development - Government of UK
DP Development Partners
ESAP2 Ethiopia Social Accountability Program 2
EU European Union
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FTA Financial Transparency and Accountability
GRB Gender Responsive Budgeting
GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism
IGA Income Generating Activities
INGOs International non governmental organizations
KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
KII Key Informant Interview
MA Management Agency
MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund
MoFEC Ministry of Finance and Economic Cooperation
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PBS Promoting of Basic Services
PETS Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys
PPB Participatory Planning and Budgeting
PSNP Productive Safety Net & Household Asses Building Program
PV Participatory Video
PwD Person with Disability
SA Social Accountability
SAC Social Accountability Committee
SAIP Social Accountability Implementing Partners
SC Steering Committee
SP Service Provider
SPSS Statistical package for Social Science
VNG Association of Municipalities in the Netherlands
WB World Bank
2
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 1
ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 5
1. ESAP2 PROGRAM BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 13
1.1 P r o g r a m o v e r v i e w ............................................................................... 13
1.2 E S A P 2 m a j o r a c t i v i t y a c h i e v e m e n t s ...................................... 15
1.3 O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d S t r u c t u r e o f t h e R e p o r t ........................ 16
1.4 O b j e c t i v e s o f t h e i n t e r n a l a s s e s s m e n t ................................ 17
2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 18
2.1 S u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t s ............................................................................ 18
2.2 D a t a c o l l e c t i o n m e t h o d s ................................................................ 19
2.3 M e t h o d s u s e d f o r D a t a A n a l y s i s .............................................. 21
2.4 D a t a q u a l i t y m a n a g e m e n t .............................................................. 21
2.5 L i m i t a t i o n s ............................................................................................... 21
3. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................. 23
3.1 R e s p o n d e n t ’ s p r o f i l e ........................................................................ 23
3.2 E f f e c t i v e n e s s ......................................................................................... 24
3.3 C a s e s t u d y ................................................................................................ 53
3.4 U n i n t e n d e d r e s u l t s ............................................................................. 56
3.5 E f f i c i e n c y .................................................................................................. 56
3.6 R e l e v a n c y .................................................................................................. 58
3.7 S u s t a i n a b i l i t y ......................................................................................... 60
3.8 L e s s o n l e a r n e d ...................................................................................... 62
3.9 F a c t o r s t h a t d r o v e E S A P 2 o v e r a l l p e r f o r m a n c e ........... 63
4. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................... 67
5. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................ 69
APPENDEX-1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ......................................................................................... 73
APPENDEX-2: ASSESSMENT MATRIX .................................................................................................... 79
APPENDEX-3: SURVEY SAMPLING FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 83
APPENDEX-4: LIST OF KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWEES .................................................................... 85
APPENDEX-5: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS................................................................................................... 90
APPENDIX-6: SELECTED CASE STUDIES .............................................................................................. 116

3
List of tables

Table 1: Distribution of demographic characteristics ................................................................................. 23

Table 2: Percentage of users of basic services ........................................................................................... 25
Table 3: Percentage of application of SA tools, approaches and mechanisms by service providers and
local government officials........................................................................................................................... 27
Table 5: Major action taken by government and service providers on quality service improvement......... 30
Table 6: Percentage of citizen satisfaction on service improvements ......................................................... 32
Table 7: Percentage of citizens reported to quality of service improvement .............................................. 33
Table 8: percentage of female response to quality of service improvements ............................................. 34
Table 9: Percentage response to implementation of action plan by service providers................................ 35
Table 10: Percentage of citizen responses who feel that service provision by local officials is responsive
to their basic needs ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 11: Percentage of citizen participation in meetings .......................................................................... 40
Table 12: Percentage of citizens who reported that officials actively responded to their needs and
challenges to improve the quality of public services .................................................................................. 44
Table 13: Percentage of citizens who participated in planning, implementation and monitoring .............. 45
Table 14: Number of organizations that approached government officials ................................................ 46
Table 15: Citizens consider that their participation in service improvement and planning ........................ 48
Table 16: Percentage of participation in planning and monitoring ............................................................. 50
Table 17: Summary of case studies............................................................................................................. 53
Table 18: Statement of Financial Resources and Fund Expenditures ......................................................... 57

List of figures

Figure 1: Percentage of citizens who reported that woreda officials & service providers have actively
sought their views on quality of services and methods of reporting ........................................................... 29
Figure 2: Percentage of citizens reported to quality of service improvement ............................................. 33
Figure 3: Percentage of citizens who approached and/orcomplained to service providers/government
officials ....................................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4: Percentage of program outcomes results compared to the baseline values and targets ............... 52

4
Executive summary

Overview
ESAP2 is part of the Promoting of basic Services (PBS) program, which is financed through a
US $25.0 million World Bank (WB) administered Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF). The project
started in November 2011 and ended in December 20151. A Management Agency (MA),
delegated by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Commission (MoFEC), is in charge of
program coordination, capacity development and training, technical guidance, support and
monitoring of the progress of SAIPs. The program was implemented by 49 SAIPs in 223
woredas. The overall objective of the program was to strengthen the use of Social Accountability
(SA) tools, approaches and mechanisms by (a) citizens and citizen groups, (b) SAIPs, (c) local
government officials and (d) service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more
equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable. This objective is achieved through the
use of SA tools. ESAP2 learning benchmark reports, progress reports, assessment reports,
research and field assessments proved that remarkable and promising results have been achieved
since the program is operational. This internal assessment is therefore aimed to investigate
changes as a result of program interventions and check on effectiveness, efficiency, relevancy,
sustainability and scalability of the program as well as to draw lessons from the intervention.

The overall objective of the assessment was to investigate changes as a result of program
interventions between the beginning of 2013 and end of 2015 and check on effectiveness,
efficiency, relevance, sustainability and scalability of the program as well as to draw lessons
from the intervention based on OECD evaluation standards. As a methodology, a mix of
qualitative and quantitative methods of data-collection and analysis was used. The assessment
was carried out from March to August 2016 with data collection conducted from late April
through end of June 2016. Data information and case studies were collected from 38 survey
woredas. The main source of data information was document review, citizen interview, FGDs
and KIIs. Structured questionnaire interviews with 480 citizens were used to collect information
from 28 selected woredas. Woredas are selected in areas where baseline information has been

1
The so called bridging phase of ESAP2 started in January 2016.

5
conducted in 2013. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, one FGD from each woreda and KIIs
with 28 government officials, 20 SAIP representatives and 51 service providers were conducted.
In addition, 10 case studies were collected from purposefully 10 selected woredas. Quantitative
data was analyzed using SPSS and qualitative analysis was made using context analysis. During
analysis and reporting OECD evaluation standards i.e. Effectiveness, Efficiency, Relevance and
Sustainability were applied.

Key findings
Effectiveness
 The program has produced different documents/fact sheets/booklets and facilitated and
shared learning. It produced information and created an understanding about SA at different
level within communities, SP (Service Providers), officials, CSOs and CBOs;
 The biggest impact is the increased awareness of community members and targeted groups
on their rights, on how to hold SP accountable, on whom to go to for claiming their rights,
and understanding the obligations regarding service delivery of the supply side and their own
responsibilities to participate and take action for their own development as citizens;
 With the support of SAIPs, the proportion of users of basic services increased by 75% as
compared to 33% at the baseline. Higher values were recorded for the education and health
sectors. The highest figures were recorded in Tigray, Addis Ababa and Amhara regions.
Application of SA tools has greatly improved. Application of SA tools, approaches and
mechanisms by service providers increased to 83% against 24% being the baseline value and
by local government to 73% against 33% being the baseline value. This has improved the
way in which citizens, service providers and the government work, plan and measure citizen
satisfaction. Because of the increase in the application of SA tools, 75 % of citizens had
greatly accessed and benefited from at least one basic service. The baseline value was 33%;
 More than 190,000 citizens are supported to make own choices, have control over their own
development, and hold decision makers accountable for the services. The use of SA tools,
participation during joint planning and monitoring by the citizens and the massive awareness
created by SAIPs has greatly contributed to this outcome;
 The percentage of citizens who report that woreda officials and service providers have
actively sought the views of people in their kebele on improving the quality of basic services
6
 has increased to 56% as compared to the baseline value of 38%. This has contributed to the
qualitative improvement of the services. Further to these findings, the percentage of citizens
that judge the quality of the provided services as good increased to 78% as compared to the
baseline value of 62%. There are many improvements in the quality of services especially
because of joint monitoring for corrective actions;
 Women highly benefited from service quality improvements. The percentage of women that
judge the quality of the services provided as good is 81% as compared to 41% as the baseline
value. This is mainly because a vast majority of women participated in the SA process review
with sector offices;
 The implementation of many action plans by service providers incorporated citizen needs.
92% of the citizens reported that implementation of action plans by the service providers are
according to citizen needs. The baseline value was 76%. One important contribution of the
SA process is joint planning and implementation that critically considered citizen needs;
 Government officials’ responsiveness to citizen needs has increased. The percentage of
citizens who feel that service provision by the local officials is responsive to their basic needs
increased to 72% as compared to 37% being the baseline value;
 93% of the joint action plans developed under ESAP2 are gender sensitive and addressed the
needs of women. The baseline value was 0. This was because, women actively participated in
kebele and woreda level joint action plan preparation, project implementation and monitoring
and they were part of the kebele SAC and actively participated in interface meetings and
started demanding their needs;
 In all the ESAP2 woredas, SACs with participation of citizens and CBOs in basic service
delivery are established. 16,154 representatives of local government and basic service
providers implementing the ESAP2 program are trained by SAIPs on SA tools including
participatory budget planning and gender mainstreaming. On average, four regular structured
meetings related to ESAP2 between citizens, SAIPs, woreda representatives and service
deliverers were conducted in each woreda. All 223 SAIPs woredas have developed joint
action plans for service quality improvement and 90% of the action plans have been
implemented. 114 project staffs and 196 project staffs with different training period from 49
SAIPs taking part in the ESAP2 program are trained on how to encourage local governments
to use SA tools;

7
 The percentage of citizens and citizens groups that have actively engaged with one or more
service providers demanding for better public basic services increased to 77% as compared to
44% being the baseline value. The highest percentage (98.4%) was reported in Tigray region.
Furthermore, the percentage of citizens who report that woreda officials have actively sought
the views of citizens in their kebeles on improving the quality of public services increased to
84% as compared to 36% being the baseline value. The main reason being the fact that
ESAP2 developed strong linkages between woreda officials and citizens through the SACs;
 The number of citizens and citizen groups indicating that they have been involved in
planning, budgeting, implementing and monitoring the quality of basic public service
delivery has increased to 54% as compared to the 16% being the baseline value. These
initiatives have been instrumental in influencing woreda plans, budgets and making the
planning process more inclusive, responsive, result oriented, and community centred;
 A system is established for participation of citizens, citizens groups and CBOs in basic
service delivery. 39,872 citizens are trained on how to approach basic service providers. A
total of 749 training sessions were organized. The sessions included gender mainstreaming in
woreda planning, implementation and monitoring. Because of this, the percentage of citizens
who are able to explain the basic components of their rights and responsibilities on the
provision of basic services has increased by 91% as compared to 20% being the baseline
value. In line with this, the percentage of citizens who consider that their participation in
service improvement and planning are essential parts of their rights and responsibilities as
citizens has increased to 98%. The baseline value was 83%. Furthermore, the percentage of
citizens and citizen groups who participated in the budget formulation and action plan
development has increased to 58% (baseline value was 21%);
 2,238 meetings (i.e. meetings between citizens, citizen groups, public service providers
and/or woredas/kebeles) were conducted. 157,168 people participated in these meetings. The
meetings focused on woreda development planning, budgeting, M&E. The meetings were
organized by service providers, government officials and SAC
 49 SAIPs have conducted meetings and 338,296 participants attended the meetings. These
meetings greatly contributed to sensitizing citizens and citizen groups on their rights and
responsibilities to plan, budget, implement and monitor basic services delivery. These
meetings were mainly organized by SAIPs

8
Efficiency
 All financial transactions were made according to the plan and time except for some budget
transfer delays to SAIPs at the start of the project;
 According to the planned budget allocation a significant amount (US$14,288,797) was
allocated for SAIPs program implementation. Of this budget US$ 11,435,247 was disbursed;
 Of the total allocated budget for SAIPs, the remaining variance (US$2,853,550) is very
minimal that can be easily managed and settled before the program phases out i.e. during the
bridging phase;
 The MA has a well functioning and clear reporting line and sharing system. The
collaboration and partnership between the MA and SAIPs was good. Further to this, the MA
M&E system was good and has the basic components. However, the SAIPs M&E system
was weak.

Relevancy
 The project concept and design were highly relevant to the country policies and strategic
objectives and priorities. ESAP2 objectives and strategy aligned to the key government
accountability policy reforms i.e. the government decentralization policy and the civil service
reform programs. Furthermore, the program was highly relevant to the sector offices, woreda
plan and community felt needs. Beneficiary support processes were uniformly done and
made in close consultation with woreda officials, SACs and sector offices;
 The program design i.e. the problem analysis and the project intervention logic model (log
frame) was coherent and logically interlinked. The overall program objective was achievable
and measurable;
 The government and SAIPs participation in the ESAP2 design process was limited;
 Marginalized groups and women were represented in kebele and woreda SACs. The overall
design of ESAP2 and the approach and strategies promoted and used at different levels were
appropriate given the types of changes to which ESAP2 tried to contribute.

9
Sustainability
 There is a high likelihood that the ESAP2 activities and benefits will continue beyond the
lifespan of the project. As a result of policy support, the program has improved institutional
capacity and supported basic structures, for instance the program has established and
supported SACs at woreda and kebele levels;
 The program created massive awareness about SA and citizens became aware of their rights
and responsibilities in getting basic services, and started asking service providers more about
it. The program has improved the capacity of SAIPs. 196 SAIPs staffs and 114 SAIPs staffs
with different training period trained on how to encourage local governments to use SA tools.
In return, many SAIPs have developed the capacity of the SACs to implement SA tools.
Further to this, many SACs have already developed linkages with different government
offices at all levels. Some SACs already signed a MoU with sector offices or the woreda
administration, making them a legitimate structure to work beyond the SA project period.
The program also supported and involved different CBOs organization in the SA process and
system;
 The program has developed Sustainability Guidance for SA Implementing Partners. SAIPs
are considering this to sustain social accountability with continued activity of SACs after the
end of the project;
 The program has improved the FTA-SA linkage model which may be exemplary for the
development of linkages with other sectors. SAIPs have created a viable linkage with FTA.
This will continue activities of the SA process; and
 The program has established strong linkages and partnerships between SAIPs, service
providers and government officials. There are testimonials that SA has helped SAIPs to
improve their relationship with government counterparts. It is therefore important for SAIPs
to continue to be on board with SA even after the end of their SA project.

Learning
 The SA process interface meetings considered to be a breakthrough platform for joint
planning and budgeting by all actors;
 In addition to service improvement, the SA process can address social problems such as
integration of marginalized communities, household income increase through IGA program,

10
 offering shelter for Person with Disabilty (PwD) and elderly and raising community
matching fund;
 The program can have effect in improving other services such as electricity and PSNP;
 Social accountability is more than just the tools. Methods and tools are important but success
depends on the context in which the tools are used, the principles and values that guide their
use, and who is involved for instance GRB was more effective in Tigray for women
initiative;
 SA tools improved their relationship and networking with different organizations and service
providers;
 Social accountability approaches require time, money, and expertise to implement and be
accepted;

Conclusion and recommendation

 The intervention has contributed to the program outcome and increased the dilevery of basic
services. The use of SA tools by citizens and the massive awareness created by SAIPs has
supported citizens to make their own choices, have control over their own development, and
hold decision makers accountable for the services provided. Furthermore, the application of
SA tools has enhanced the ability of woreda sectors officials to improve access and quality of
basic services with greater equity development;
 The program promising results and innovative initiatives must be properly institutionalized
and scaled-up to other similar project areas. Meeting the overall program objectives requires
further efforts i.e. to institutionalize the program with government structures, with defined
government office roles, responsibilities and commitments;
 Most SAIP interventions on agriculture and rural roads were limited. For combined effective
outcomes, SAIP involvements in these limited sectors have to be improved;
 Inclusion of marginalized groups and women participation in the overall program
implementation were encouraging. This has to be scaled up and strengthened;
 For the purpose of simplicity, measurement of cost and effectiveness, it is highly
recommended to reduce the number of outcome indicators from the current 17 to a maximum
of 8. Baseline value shall be disaggregated by sex and region. The program should improve

11
 the current “Theory of Change”. Because the nature of the program it is highly influenced by
different assumptions, domains and pathways;
 Further testing of SA tools is recommended to identify drawbacks, challenges and
application of each SA tool;
 Government root structures such as water committees, youth committees etc, should not be
overlooked. They have to be included and participate in the SA program. In addition,
regional, zone and woreda councils have to be engaged and should be part of the program.
The role of the SACs has to be elaborated in detail.

12
1. ESAP2 Program Background

CARE Consult is pleased to submit this internal assessment report of the “Ethiopian Social
Accountability Program phase 2”. The program is part of the citizen engagement component of
the Promoting of Basic Services (PBS) program. The internal assessment is intended to
investigate changes as a result of program interventions and check on relevancy, effectiveness,
efficiency, sustainability and scalability of the program as well as to draw lessons from the
intervention.

1.1 Program overview

ESAP2 is part of the PBS program, which is financed through a US $25.0 million World Bank
(WB) administered Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF). The program received support from the
European Union (EU), the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID),
Irish Aid and the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (Reconstruction Credit Institute, German
government-owned development bank – KfW). The program started in November 2011 and field
activities ended in December 2015, after which the program has been extended until 2017. The
program was guided and supervised by a Steering Committee (SC). The SC included
representatives of the Government of Ethiopia (GoE), Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and
Development Partners (DP).

VNG International (Association of Netherlands Municipalities) in partnership with GOPA and

Yem Consultants was competitively selected to implement ESAP2. The program was
implemented by 49 competitively selected CSOs referred to as Social Accountability
Implementing Partners (SAIPs)2. The program was implemented in 223 woredas representing all
regions of Ethiopia focusing on citizen engagement with local public service providers regarding
access to basic public services. At technical level, a Management Agency (MA), delegated by
MoFEC, was in charge of program coordination, capacity development and training, technical
guidance, support and monitoring of the progress of SAIPs.

2
The agreement with one SAIP was terminated in November 2014.

13
The overall objective of the program was to strengthen the use of Social Accountability (SA)
tools, approaches and mechanisms by (a) citizens and citizen groups, (b) SAIPs, (c) local
government officials and (d) service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more
equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable.

The specific objectives of the program were:

i) Public basic service providers deliver improved quality public basic services in education,
health, agriculture, water and sanitation and rural roads responding to community and citizen
needs;
ii) Citizens and citizen groups are empowered and increasingly demand better quality public
basic service delivery;
iii) Citizens and citizen groups are aware of their responsibilities to plan, budget, implement and
monitor public basic service delivery.

The program objectives are achieved through the use of SA tools: Community Score Cards
(CSC), Citizen Report Cards (CRC), Participatory Planning and Budgeting (PPB), Gender
Responsive Budgeting (GRB), Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS), Community
Mapping (CM) by citizens and citizen groups, local government officials and service providers.

ESAP2 learning benchmark reports, progress reports, assessment reports, research and field
assessments proved that remarkable and promising results have been achieved since the program
was operational. Therefore, this assessment investigates changes as a result of program
interventions and checks on:

i) How basic service delivery in the education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture,
and rural roads sectors were equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable by
the use and application of Social Accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms;
ii) How the program was efficient in the use of financial resources, program management,
coordination, reporting, monitoring and evaluation;

14
iii) How the program was relevant to the government, SAIPs, citizens and citizen groups
capacities, policies, structures, needs and implementation approaches; and
iv) How the positive outcomes of the project and the flow of benefits are likely to continue
after the project.

In addition, the assessment extracts lessons learned and checks on the unforeseen (unintended)
results. The assessment investigated and checks on these using document reviews, field
observations and interviews with various program stakeholders.

1.2 ES AP2 major activity achievements

Below points provide a brief review of the main activities implemented by the MA. The
information and data are compiled from ESAP2 progress reports.
 49 SAIPs (+ more than 60 sub partners) capacity strengthened and SAIPs perform
activities according to the their program operational plan, requirements and standards in
line with the SA guides and procedures;
 Organized and participated in different technical meetings (SAIPs, DPs, government,
SACs, community etc.) and shared views and information for learning and next program
action;
 Regularly produced quarterly reports and shared to DPs and SC. The reports were used as
basis for discussion and sharing learning including bi-annual multiple-stakeholder
learning events (learning benchmarks);
 Facilitated and participated in independent internal and external auditing processes of the
MA office and SAIPs;
 Produced the SAIPs operational manual that contains adjusted instructions and guidelines
for grant management;
 Organized and facilitated presentations and/or field trips for external groups like DPs and
sector ministries interested to learn more about SA;
 Conducted regular monitoring on the progress of SAIPs activities and checked on grants,
timely disbursement and agreement compliance;
 Improved the quality and content of SAIPs monitoring quarterly reports based on
suggestions and advice;

15
  Facilitated the ESAP2 impact assessment implemented by the WB and the program mid-
term review;
 Made progress in SA-Financial Transparency and Accountability (FTA) linkage and final
arrangements on the institutional structure and working relations between FTA, SA and
Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) (which are the three entwined mechanisms of the
citizen engagement component of the PBS program);
 Organized an international experience sharing visit for SC members. Participants used the
acquired knowledge for policy instruments and SA guidance;
 Facilitated a wide dissemination of the SA concept using: the ESAP2 Website, Facebook
(8,000 followers), ESAP2 Quarterly Newsletter (6,000 copies circulated), Participatory
Video (PV) on a dedicated YouTube channel, SA documentary film, radio programs,
calendars with SA hero stories and most significant story booklets;
 Piloted ‘theatre for social accountability for a systematic and artistic way of SA message
dissemination;
 Produced research on: i) service improvement results achieved in the SA-PBS sectors
and how SA stakeholders contributed; ii) Citizen engagement and the future role of CSOs
(or SAIPs); and iií) SA process as an element in sector and public investment strategies,
including FTA-SA linkages; and
 Produced regular SA booklets/updated SA manuals and national conference publications.

1.3 Organization and Structure of the Report

Following the methodology, introduction and context information, this report is divided under
the main criteria as defined in the terms of reference: Relevancy, Effectiveness, Efficiency,
Sustainability and Scalability. The report presents the review conclusions and recommendations
which provide pathways for future thinking beyond ESAP2 as well as the lessons learned and
ways to improve the quality of SA program implementation. The recommendations are those
which could be implemented post-ESAP2, at the time of the next program stage of SA and the
bridging phase at hand. Appendices include the ToR, the assessment matrix, survey sampling
framework, list of Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and survey instruments.

16
1.4 Objectives of the internal assessment

The overall objective of the assessment was to investigate changes as a result of program
interventions and check on effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, sustainability and scalability of
the program as well as to draw lessons from the intervention based on OECD evaluation
standards. In this assessment impact (one of OECD evaluation standards) was not considered.
The assessment was specifically intended to:
 Measure how far the program results were attained and the program specific
objectives achieved, or are expected to be achieved i.e. the extent that the program
achieved results in terms of defined indicators;
 Measure how well the various activities transformed the available resources into the
intended results/outputs, in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness i.e. the extent of
efficient plan and utilization of money, management, coordination, monitoring and
evaluation; reporting and sharing information;
 Measure whether the positive outcomes of the program and the flow of benefits are
likely to continue after the program;
 Measure whether the program is relevant to the different stakeholders capacity,
policy, structure and needs; and
 Identify key challenges and lessons learned that might inform the design of a program
that will scale up the SA practice.

The review focused on 28 ESAP2 survey woredas and 10 case study woredas. The 28 woredas
were selected because baseline information was collected from these areas. Purposefully, an
additional 10 woredas were selected to capture basic services cases due to SA process such as:
electricity supply, Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), gender analysis efforts, etc. The list
of woredas can be found in appendix-3.

Information was collected on five sectors: education, health, water & sanitation, agriculture &
rural roads. In addition, information on cross cutting themes that have emerged due to SA efforts
such as PSNP, gender and social inclusion were included. The effect of the program on
improving the capacity of SAIPs and MA effectiveness was also checked.

17
2. Methodology

The internal assessment was carried out from March to August 2016 with data collection
conducted from late April through the end of June 2016. The assessment was based on an
assessment matrix (shown in appendix-2). The assessment review was undertaken by a team of:
one team leader, four senior consultants, four senior surveyors, four surveyors including one
enumerator from each survey woredas. The team used a mix of qualitative and quantitative
methods of data-collection and analysis. The assessment process consisted of the following three
phases:

1) Review inception phase (March to April 2016): The objectives of this phase were to
develop an initial understanding of the ESAP2 program, assessment objectives, and of its
context through document review; to validate review purpose, scope and expected
outcomes; and to refine and develop survey instruments, methodology and work plan
with the input of the MA;
2) Data collection/field phase (April to June 2016): This phase included in-depth SAIPs
and sector offices data and document review; field visits to 38 survey woredas in the nine
regions and two city administrations, interview and consultations with citizens exposed to
ESAP2, key stakeholders at federal, regional and woreda levels; and
3) Analysis and reporting phase (June to August 2016): This phase focused on
developing findings and on formulating conclusions and recommendations.

2.1 Survey instruments

Survey instruments have been prepared and included in appendix-5. These are:
 Tool-1: Citizen survey questionnaire, used to collect responses from citizens exposed to
the ESAP2 program i.e. the demand side;
 Tool-2: Local government key informant questionnaire, used to collect data and
information from government administrations and elected council members i.e. the
supply side;

18
  Tool-3: Service providers key informant questionnaire, used to collect sector offices and
front line service providers responses i.e. the supply side;
 Tool-4: Focus group discussion questionnaire, used to collect responses from
communities exposed to ESAP2 i.e. the demand side;
 Tool-5: SAIP-MA key informant interview questionnaire, used to collect SAIPs and MA
responses about project effectiveness, coordination, capacity building and management;
 Tool-6: Case study verification and assessment, used to collect cases and special insights
from 10 additional selected woredas; and
 Tool 7: Federal/regional key informant interview questionnaire, used to collect MoFEC
and BoFEC responses.

2.2 Data collection methods

The assessment team used a variety of data-collection methods. These include documents and
files review, citizen interview, FGD and KII with relevant stakeholders in the survey woredas.
As compared to the total population benefited in the target woreda a small number of kebeles and
sectors were consulted and discussed per woreda. The full list of survey woredas and
stakeholders consulted is provided in appendix-3. During data collection the team followed the
OECD “Norms and Standards for Evaluation ethics”.
 D o c u m e n t a n d file re v i e w : The assessment team systematically reviewed the
documents and the secondary data listed on the basis of the identified assessment criteria,
foci and questions. The list of documents and the files used for the assessment are as
follows:
 ESAP2 Baseline survey report;
 Learning benchmark workshop 1 cluster report;
 Learning benchmark workshop 2 cluster report;
 Quarterly progress report (11, 13, 15 and 16);
 Regional learning benchmarks workshops and executive directors’ report;
 Learning benchmark and FTA-ESAP2 linkage workshop report;
 Finding from the ESAP2 program: Agriculture sector interventions;
 Rapid assessment sustainability and institutionalization report;
 SAIPs final/closing reports;
 MA budget and expenditures/SAIPs budget and expenditures; and
 Government sectors data/information

19
 C i t i z e n i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w : Structured key informant interviews with over
480 citizens were used to collect information from the 28 woredas under review. In each of
the woredas, a list of citizens exposed to ESAP2 to be interviewed was developed by the
assessment team and SAIP staff, government officials and SACs. For a fair and
representative distribution of respondents a proportional combination of youth, women,
disabled, elderly and persons with HIV/AIDS was considered. For the selection of
respondents those who were involved during the baseline information were considered.

 F o c u s g r o u p d i s c u s s i o n ( F G D ) : A semi-structured questionnaire survey on

the main assessment questions and coordination aspects of ESAP2 was conducted for
communities who were exposed to the program. One FGD in each woreda (total 28 FGD)
was conducted. The FGD consisted of representatives of: i) the community - elderly,
religious leaders, CBO groups of men, women, youth, people with HIV/AIDS and disabled
persons and ii) Citizen participation structures- citizen representatives from relevant sector
specific structures like PTA, education board, health board, model farmers, water
committees, or rural roads committees.

 Key i n f o r m a n t i n t e r v i e w s ( K I I ) : Semi-structured key informant interviews with

over 28 government officials, 20 SAIP representatives and 51 service providers were used to
collect information at federal, regional and woreda levels. A list of key persons to be
interviewed was developed by the consultant in close coordination with the MA. During the
field visits the team carried out additional interviews with MoFEC, BoFED, and regional
FTA. The full list of those interviewed is provided in appendix-4.

 S u c c e s s s t o r i e s /C a s e s t u d i e s : In addition to the 28 survey woredas, case

studies were collected from 10 purposively selected woredas. The focus of the survey was to
capture results emerged due to SA efforts such as electricity supply, PSNP, inclusion of
gender etc.

20
2.3 Methods used for Data Analysis
The analysis and report writing phase incorporated varied approaches suited to the components
of the assessment design including: i) descriptive/comparative analysis i.e. description of ESAP2
in terms of context, objectives and expected results of SAIPs, government offices and service
providers; ii) content analysis i.e. analysis of qualitative information using a framework
developed for this purpose including a context summary, comparison and special insights; and
iii) quantitative analysis i.e. all quantitative data from the survey questionnaire was analyzed
using SPSS-version 10 and presented in tables.

2.4 Data quality management

Training and pre-testing the questionnaires with the full survey teams were conducted in Addis
Ababa. Senior surveyors were required to keep records and make spot checks on where the
interview took place, on the approximate duration of the interview, proper administration of the
various sections of the questionnaires and interviewers’ general adherence to professional
standards. The surveyor in each team conducted field editing to review every completed
questionnaire on the same day of data collection to check for adequate completion of all fields by
enumerators, presence of missing data and legibility of open-ended questions. During the
analysis, missing data points were excluded from the denominator and numerator for all specific
indicator calculations.

2.5 Limitations
As with any assessment, the followings are limitations that affected the assessment.
 Documentation: in few cases it was hard to get documents from SAIPs i.e. DEC in
Assayeta woreda, ADA in Kalu woreda, AFM in Termaber woreda, HUNDEE in Lume
woreda, EDA in Jima Harro woreda, LIA in Misha woreda, PICDO in Arbeguna woreda
and VECOD in Gambela town and Gambela zuria woreda. This was because the
organizations offices were closed. This affected measuring SAIPs capacity, coordination
and management. In these cases, the assessment was therefore made on the basis of the
perceptions of the government officials, the SACs and the service providers;

21
 Government meetings: In some cases (4 out of 28 woredas), it was difficult to consult
relevant and concerned woreda officials due to the fact that these employees were
occupied in other meetings; and
 Attribution effects: during the last five years the GoE has introduced many reforms,
capacity building programs and initiatives to mobilize communities and raising locally
available resources. Therefore, implementation of these activities along with ESAP2 had
a significant attribution effect. To find out the distinct contribution of ESAP2 the
consultant used triangulation and in depth probing.

22
3. Findings

This chapter, after briefly describing respondent profiles, presents the main findings that emerge
from the review questions indicated in the survey instruments. The answers to the review
questions are based on the analysis of available data at the level of the indicators (taking into
account all information collected on each indicator) and at the level of the review questions
(aggregating information collected for each question and respondents view/opinion).
3.1 Respondent’s profile
Out of 480 citizen respondents collected for the purpose, 39.8% (n=191) was female; most interviewees
(66.7%) are found within the age category 26-45; 26% had completed primary level education; and 72.5%
of the respondents are married. In total 198 citizens exposed to the ESAP2 program participated in FGDs.
Of this number, 31% were female and 7% were from a marginalized community. For details see table-1
below.
Table 1: Distribution of demographic characteristics
Male Female Total
Education # % # % # %
Unable to read write 44 15 61 32 105 21.9
Able to read and 55 19 20 10 75
write 15.6
Primary 79 27 46 24 125 26.0
Secondary 38 13 25 13 63 13.1
College and above 73 25 39 20 112 23.3
Marital status
Married 229 79 117 61 346 72.1
Single 43 14 30 14.2 73 15.2
Widowed 4 1 29 15 33 6.9
Divorced 13 4 14 7 27 5.6
Separated 0 0 1 1 1 0.2
PwD and Living with HIV/AIDS
Disabled 3 1 4 2 7 1.5
Living with HIV 1 0 2 1 3 0.6
Age category
18 -25 28 10 34 18 62 12.9
26-45 185 64 135 71 320 66.7
46-65 67 23 20 10 87 18.1
>65 9 3 2 1 11 2.3

23
3.2 Effectiveness
The question of effectiveness3 touches on whether or not the primary objectives of the ESAP2
interventions have been achieved. For this chapter of the assessment, a heavy reliance was placed
on an assessment of the results of the program as outlined in the ESAP2 documents as well as on
what was seen and reviewed during the field missions. The findings are organized and presented
following the ESAP2 log frame.

Overall objectives-1: To strengthen the use of social accountability tools, approaches and
mechanisms by (a) citizens and citizens groups, (b) SAIPs, (c) local government officials and (d)
service providers as a means to make basic service delivery more equitable, effective, efficient,
responsive and accountable.

 Impact indicator: 1.1 Proportion of users of basic services in the ESAP2 program
woredas increased by 20% at project end
 Baseline value: 33%
 Target value: 40%
 Assessment result: 75%

This indicator was measured using a citizen survey questionnaire B-101 “have you ever
approached a service provider in the past year in the following sectors with the support of
CSO/SAIPs”. The survey shows that, 75 % of citizens exposed to the ESAP2 program responded
that they ask better service and had greatly accessed and benefited at least from one basic
service. As compared to the baseline value (i.e. 33%) the intervention increased the users of
basic service with 42% (i.e. 75%-33%). See table-2 below. This was because more people start
asking for service improvement as a result of ESAP2 interventions.

3“Effectiveness: The extent to which the development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into
account their relative importance. Also used as an aggregate measure of (or judgment about) the merit or worth of an activity, i.e. the
extent to which an intervention has attained, or is expected to attain, its major relevant objectives efficiently in a sustainable fashion and
with a positive institutional development impact.” Source: OECD Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management.

24
Quite similar and higher values were recorded for the education and the health sectors (83% and
80% respectively). The highest figures were recorded in Tigray, Addis Ababa and Amhara
regions. Oromia region reported the lowest figure. This was because most SAIPs were involved
in the education and the health sectors. Despite the fact that rural roads as sector was absent in
ESAP1, promising results have been achieved during ESAP2. This has been a strong message
delivered by ESAP2, showing how the program improved basic service delivery where SAIPs
participation was more active i.e. good results were achieved compared to the sectors where
SAIPs did not intervene. In other words, the ESAP2 program was strategic and played a catalytic
role aimed at enhancing citizen participation in the basic service delivery by supporting existing
efforts of service sectors and actors at different levels. The remaining 25% (i.e. 100%-75%) did
not approach or used any of the services through SAIPs or SA process. During the survey, as a
follow up question citizens were asked with citizen survey questionnaire B-103 “if no,” ….”why
you have not approached any service provider”? The majority reported that, their say and
decisions during joint planning were not respected. During FGDs (5 out of 28 FGDs), some
citizens said that, they were unable to influence public decisions, particularly on budget
allocation. Further to this, in some woredas (i.e. Bako Tibe, Meki Town, Kalu and Misha
woredas), citizens do not trust government officials and are suspicious or there is mutual distrust.
For instance in Meki Town one citizen said that “during SA process we agreed and proposed to
allocate part of the block grant agricultural budget for new nursery establishment for
environmental rehabilitation program but the office shifted the budget for other activities that we
did not know ”.
Table 2: Percentage of users of basic services
Education Health Water & Sanitation Agriculture Rural Road Average
Afar 85.3 77.6 81.2 0 0 81.36
Amhara 69.7 71.8 67.6 89 83 76.22
Benshangul 65.4 67.8 69.7 70 0 68.22
Gambela 94.1 71.3 65.3 0 0 76.90
Harari 82.4 58.6 78.6 0 0 73.20
Oromia 81.6 70.5 61 43.2 47.1 60.68
Somali 89.6 91.3 72.3 52.9 71 75.42
SNNP 77.9 86.7 54.6 68 61 69.64
Tigray 95.4 96.7 88.6 88.5 91.2 92.08
Addis Ababa 89.6 96.3 79.5 0 0 88.46
Deredawa 82.4 93.6 78.4 0 0 84.80
Average 83.03 80.20 72.43 68.60 70.66 75.00

25
 Impact indicator 1.2: Application of social accountability (SA) tools, approaches and
mechanisms increased by 40% (service providers) and 30% (local government officials)
in the ESAP2 program to assess client/customers satisfaction at project end;
 Baseline value: service providers=24% and local government 33%
 Target value: service providers=34% and local government 43%
 Assessment result: service providers=82.54% and local government 72.86%

This indicator was measured using a service provider structured questionnaire A-108“have you
used/applied social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms for measuring
client/customer satisfaction” and a government structured questionnaire “if you used social
accountability (SA) tools approach and mechanisms for measuring client/customers satisfaction,
for which sectors”. The survey shows that, there is evidence of an improved use of SA tools
application, approaches and mechanisms by service providers and local government officials.
With SAIP collaboration, 82% of the service providers and 72% of the woreda officials applied
SA tools. Against the baseline value there is an 58.54% (i.e. 82.54%-24%) increase in the
application of social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms by service providers.
Similarly, there is a 39.86% (i.e. 72.86%-33%) increase by local governments. Both percentage
increases are higher than the target values. For details, see table-3 below.

In addition, as a follow up question citizens were asked about how the satisfaction of the
clients/customers was when using the tools. The survey shows that, 83.5% of the citizens were
highly satisfied. This was mainly because they plan, implement and monitor the woreda and the
kebele plans together. This has improved the way in which citizens, service providers and the
government work, plan and measure citizen satisfaction. During KII, the survey shows that, the
use of SA tools enhanced the ability of the woreda sector offices and administrations i.e.WoFED,
Health offices, Education offices, Agriculture offices, Water offices.

26
The most widely used tool was CSC. Despite the above achievement, service providers and
government officials in Amhara-Tarmaber woreda, Afar-Asayeta woreda and SNNPR in Misha
woreda did not fully apply SA tools. This was mainly because they prefer to use the government
appraisal and assessment checklist, they lack practical experience on how to use the tools and in
most cases staff left the office after receiving SA tools application training.
Table 3: Percentage of application of SA tools, approaches and mechanisms by service providers and local
government officials

No Yes
Service providers
Education 10.1 90.2
Health 13.5 87.4
water and sanitation 12.6 88
Agriculture 23.3 77.4
Rural road 31.5 69.7
Average 18.2 82.54
Government officials
Education 15.2 85.6
Health 13.2 87.4
water and sanitation 27.6 73.2
Agriculture 37.3 63.8
Rural road 46.1 54.3
Average 27.88 72.86

 Impact indicator: 1.3 Number of citizens supported to make own choices, have control
over their own development, and hold decision makers accountable for the services
 Baseline value: 0
 Target value: 40, 328
 Assessment value: 191,657

In the 38 survey woredas 18,625 citizens were supported to make own choices, have control over
their own development, and hold decision makers accountable for the services. The survey team
can state that the use of SA tools, participation during joint planning and monitoring by citizens
and the massive awareness created by SAIPs has supported citizens to make own choices, have
control over their own development, and hold decision makers accountable for the services. Data
27
from the ESAP2 document review showed that, in all the 223 woredas the program has
supported 191,657 citizens to make their own choices, have control over their own development,
and hold decision makers accountable for the service. This figure is much higher than the target
value (40,328).
This finding was also further explored using a citizen questionnaire D-104 “do you feel that
service providers/local governments are more accountable to the community as compared to 3
years ago the service they delivered” to which 94.2% of the respondents say yes. In fact, during
FGD and field observation the survey shows that communities are aware of the funds and
activities for which the sector offices and the government offices are accountable sometimes
with signboards outside of the government offices. Furthermore, the joint action planning has
helped citizens to prioritize their plan and put more pressure to government officials and service
provider responsiveness to citizen needs including budget allocation. This has improved
government and service provider accountability to citizens.

This again has improved government legitimacy and credibility. As it was reported from Somali
region KII, the community knows and participated in each and every government program. This
has plaid an important role being government to be more open, transparent and accountable.
Similar to this During KII health service sectors representative indicated said that, “before
ESAP2 program, we were doing independently without systematically participating the
community and their representative. Due to this reason, eventually we were end up with piles of
comments and dissatisfaction from the community. But after ESAP2 we enjoy our success and
failure together. This enhanced government credibility, legitimacy and accountability. This could
again improve citizen-government relations”.

 Impact indicator: 1.4 Percentage of citizens who report that woreda officials and service
providers have actively sought the views of people in their kebele on improving the
quality of basic services.
 Baseline value: 38%
 Target value: 50%
 Assessment value: 56%

28
This indicator was measured using a citizen survey follow up questionnaire B-112 “did service
providers/officials/council/others accept/acknowledge your complaints”. The survey shows that,
there is strong substantial evidence in the overall response to citizen needs on improving the
quality of basic services. Out of the 368 respondents, 56% reported that woreda officials &
service providers have often actively sought their views on the quality of the services. There is
an 18% increase as compared to the
baseline value (i.e. 56%-38%). See
table-4 and figure-1.

As a follow up question they were

asked using a citizen survey
questionnaire B113 “if they did not
react to your complaints on time?
What did you do?” and 70.2%
reported that they appeal for a
superior. A higher percentage of Figure 1: Percentage of citizens who reported that woreda officials &
service providers have actively sought their views on quality of services and
female did not take any action as methods of reporting

compared to male respondents.

This implies that the majority of citizens know how to report when they found the quality of the
service being poor. Further to this finding, service providers and government officials were
asked quite similar questions using a government and service provider questionnaire A-116
“Have you ever received complaints by service users/citizens for the service your institutions
delivered”. Almost all government officials (98.7%) and 92.3 % service providers responded yes
to this question. The majority of the questions were related to service quality improvements.

29
 Table 4:Percentage of citizens who reported that woreda officials & service providers have actively sought
their views on quality of services and methods of reporting

F M Both
 Yes often 43 61 56
 Yes sometimes 53 35 38.9
 Not at all 1.7 2.1 3
 Don’t know 2 2 2.2
Methods reporting if woreda officials & service providers have not actively sought their views on quality of
services
F M Both
 I Appealed for a superior 62 78 70.2
 I fielded a complaint with the grievance redress/complaint box 8 16.4 12.9
 I went to court 0.4 0.1 0.4
 I did not take any action 23 4 12.9
 Others 6 2 3.7

In fact, the nature of the program itself, as well as the application of SA tools, has enhanced the
ability of woreda levels to improve the quality of basic services. This was mainly because as was
observed during 5 FGDs (3 FGDs in Amhara region and 2 FGDs in Oromia region), citizens
played a key role in matching funds for quality development activities. Evidence during FGDs
and KIIs showed that many quality improvement suggestions proposed by citizens during the
initial SA tools application process action were implemented. For details, see table-5 below.

Table 5: Major action taken by government and service providers on quality service improvement

Sectors Proposed by citizen for quality improvement

Education  Increase number of student subject books;
 Independent toilet for girls and boys;
 Increase number of class rooms;
 Fencing school compound;
 Increase number of teachers;
 Reparse/purchase ITC materials like Plasma;
 Purchase laboratory equipment and chemicals;
 Electricity supply for schools and laboratories,
Health  Increase the supply of drugs in each health post;
 Water supply to each health post;
 Repair ambulances on time;
 Provide special attention to needy groups (children, elders,
women, PWD and persons with HIV/AIDS);
Water and Sanitation  Fencing water points;
 Increase availability of quality water;
 Make available and monitor water maintenance budget;

30
  Improve capacity of water committee;
 Water point site selection together with community;
Agriculture  Improve quality and timely supply of seeds;
 Timely supply of fertilizer, seeds, and chemicals;
 Quick and quality response to incidence of pest and diseases;
 Increase veterinary services and veterinary health technicians;
Rural road  Improve rural access to schools and health posts;
 Construction of water ways and canals;
 Rehabilitate/improve roads using gully rehabilitation (gabions);

Specific Objective-2: Public basic service providers deliver improved quality public basic
services in education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads
 Outcome 2.1 In ESAP2 involved woredas, improvements reported in at least 2 basic
services based on satisfaction surveys;
 Baseline value: zero
 Target: Two per sectors
 Assessment value: There is improvement in all the sectors

Much of this evidence was derived by comparing citizen satisfaction on the provision of basic
services using a follow up citizen survey questionnaire B-104 “if you have been approached,
according to your judgment, are you satisfied with the services”. Although citizen satisfaction
with service sectors has different outcomes, the survey results showed remarkable improvements
in all the sectors. Respectively, 83% and 76% of the citizens are satisfied with education and
health services. Compared to male participants female are more satisfied. These findings were
triangulated and more probed during FGDs and KIIs. During these discussions on all the sectors
more than two basic service improvements were observed. For instance i) in the education sector
the number of text books increased, separate toilets for girls and boys were constructed and the
number of classrooms increased, ii) in the health sector, the supply of drugs increased, water
points (hand dug wells) are constructed to health post and a special treatment room is arranged
for needy people, iii) in the water and sanitation sector, water access and quality improved and
water points are fenced, iv) in the agriculture sector the timely supply of fertilizer and seeds and
veterinary drug supply improved, and v) in the rural roads sector, road access to schools and
timely maintenance improved.

31
In addition, the survey shows services improved for the majority of the marginalized groups. For
instance, in Addis Ababa a special medical treatment room is arranged for persons with
HIV/AIDS. In Baherdar in kebele 14, PwD woman groups are able to access credit and in Tigray
Endemehone woreda a women group participated in the IGA program (Income Generating
Activities) and has improved their income status and accessed better credit facilities.

Table 6: Percentage of citizen satisfaction on service improvements

Water and
Education Health Sanitation Agriculture Rural Road
M F Both M F Both M F Both M F Both M F Both
Highly Satisfied 28 36 33 23 39 30 9 15 11 29 17 21 9 12 10
Satisfied 46 58 50 51 38 46 36 54 44 34 49 40 23 37 31
Total 74 94 83 74 77 76 45 69 55 63 66 61 32 49 41
Not Satisfied 16 4 10 15 7 10 41 26 37 19 18 20 33 22 29
Don/t know 10 2 7 11 16 14 14 5 8 18 16 19 35 29 30

 Outcome indicator 2.2. Percentage of citizens in ESAP2 woredas that judge the quality of
the services provided as good (increase through ESAP2 intervention by 50%)
 Baseline value: 62%
 Target value: 93%
 Assessment result:77.5%
This indicator was measured using a citizen survey questionnaire B-105 “as compared to the
past period (before a year), how is the quality of the service?” There is strong evidence that the
program has brought significant change in improving the quality of the services. In all the sectors
the program has improved the quality of the services. The percentage of citizens, who reported
an improvement (improved very well and improved) in the quality of the services as compared to
the period before the program, is 77.5% with a wide range from 45.3% in the case of rural roads
to 94.3% for the education sector (see table-7 below and figure-2). The survey result (i.e. 77.5%)
is less than the target value (93%). But this does not mean that the program did not improve the
quality of services, because as compared to the baseline value, there is a 15.6% increase (i.e.
77.5%-62.0%). Female response to quality of improvement is higher than male response.

32
During FGDs it was observed that there are
many improvements in the quality of services
especially because of joint monitoring for
corrective actions. For instance in Addis
Ababa Lideta Kefele Ketema kebele 05, a
health centre was rehabilitated to

accommodate PwD. In Oromia Kersa woreda Figure 2: Percentage of citizens reported to quality
of service improvement
Jima zone, education quality improved through
the supply of ITC materials and in Tigray region, Saesetsada woreda the quality of agricultural
services improved through the rehabilitation of irrigation and veterinary drug supply. All these
qualities were made because of active participation of the SAC. SACs played a key role in
facilitating and implementing the SA process, making government and service providers more
accountable and responsive through dialogue and repetitive meetings.

Table 7: Percentage of citizens reported to quality of service improvement

Water and Rural
Education Health Sanitation Agriculture Road M F Both
Improved very well 37.5 31.5 33.6 24.3 11.5 24.2 31.6 27.6
Improved 56.8 51 52.9 55.3 33.8 43.1 53.2 49.9
Total 94.3 82.5 86.5 79.6 45.3 67.3 84.8 77.5
Not Improved
5.2 3.7 6.3 5.9 21.4 9.7 5.4 8.5
Decreased 0 1.4 1.3 3.6 8.1 3.4 1.3 2.8
Don/t know 1 12.3 5.8 10.9 25.2 19.6 8.5 12

 Outcome indicator: 2.3. Percentage of women in ESAP2 woredas that judge the quality
of the services provided as good (increase through ESAP2 intervention by 50%)
 Baseline value: 41%
 Target value: 61%
 Assessment result:81.32%

This indicator was measured using a survey questionnaire B-106 “if the quality of the service in
any of the “…” sectors was poor/not satisfying, did you approach/complain to service
providers/government officials”. Out of 480 respondents 191 female respondents answered this
survey question and the result is indicated in table-8 below. A key benefit of ESAP2 is to
33
contribute to greater equity in services and the enhanced well-being of women through the
inclusion of women in the SA process. As evidenced by survey results, despite on-going
challenges, the results were impressive. 81.32% of women reported that there is improvement on
the quality of the services (to the level of very well and improved) as compared to the past
(before the program). This result is higher than the anticipated 61% target value. None of the
female respondents reported a decrease in the quality of all the services which is quite different
to male respondents. For inistance, women were highly satisfied with health service quality. In
most cases, special rooms and attentions were provided to pregnant women and new born baby.
This was mainly because, as was reported by SAIPs during KIIs, a vast majority of women
participated in the SA process review with sector offices.

Table 8: percentage of female response to quality of service improvements

Education Health Water and Agriculture Rural Average

Sanitation Road
Improved very well 35.2 38.2 32.3 13.2 28.9 29.56
Improved 58.6 54.1 58.9 55.2 32 51.76
Total 93.8 92.3 91.2 68.4 60.9 81.32
Not Improved 4 0 3.3 16.5 13.1 7.38
Decreased 0 0 0 0 0 0
Don/t know 3.1 7.1 5.8 15.9 25.2 11.42

 Outcome indicator: 2.4. Implementation of action plans by service providers incorporate

citizen needs (increased through ESAP2 by 10% at project end)
 Baseline value: 76%
 Target value: 84%
 Assessment result: 92.6%

This indicator was measured using a survey questionnaire B-117 “do you think that,
implementation of action plans by service providers are according to your needs”. As indicated
in the table-9 below, 92.6% of the respondents reported that the implementation of action plans
by service providers is (often and sometimes) in accordance with citizens’ needs. This result is
higher than the target value (=84%). As compared to the baseline value there is a 16.6% increase.
One important contribution of the SA process is joint planning and implementation that critically
considered citizen needs. In addition, as evidenced by FGDs, compared to the past three years of

34
program implementation, sector offices considered community needs, especially for the most
marginalized communities which were not an issue before the ESAP2 program. For instance in
Amhara region in Tarmaber woreda and Debresena-02 kebeles, small scale water spring
construction and Baherdar kebele 14, shelter construction for elderly were among the major
plans demanded by women and elderly and implemented by service providers. In some cases,
due to budget limitation and technical capacity service providers did not implement the woreda
plan according to community needs. During KII it was proved that, in 5 cases (2 in Oromia, 1 in
Amhara, 1 in Afar and 1 in SNNP) a lack of funding, and in 2 cases (1 in Addis Ababa and 1 in
Gambella) the spreading of limited funds across too many activities, minimized the realization of
community needs. For instance in Gambella Kebele-03, due to budget restrictions, the provision
of a water tanker plan was not implemented. In Addis Ababa Akaki Kefele Ketema, the
provision of a special book for blind people for the Hebret Chebo School was not implemented
due to too many community needs against a small budget.

Table 9: Percentage response to implementation of action plan by service providers

Education Health Water and Agriculture Rural Both M F

Sanitation Road
Yes often 87.6 71 81 73.9 63.8 75.46 79 63
Yes a few times 10.1 25.4 16.2 20.7 13.3 17.14 13 28
Total 97.7 96.4 97.2 94.6 77.1 92.6 92 91
No 1.1 2.3 1.3 3.2 14.1 4.4 3 8
Don/t know 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.1 8.2 2.86 5 2

 Outcome indicator 2.5: Percentage of citizens in the ESAP2 program that feel that service
provision by local officials is responsive to their basic needs has increased by 25% at project end
 Baseline value: 37%
 Target value: 46%
 Assessment value: 71.9%

This indicator was measured using a citizen survey questionnaire B-116 “do you feel that service
provision by local officials is responsive i.e. is on time and plans are according to your needs?”
The survey shows that 71.9% of the citizens feel that service provision by local officials is (often
and sometimes) responsive. In summary, there is a 34.9% increase against the baseline value (i.e.
71.9%-37%). This increase is much higher than the target value (=46%). In fact, there is a
35
pressing need to better understand the various factors that influence the responsiveness of basic
needs. For instance, as indicated in the above section, services have improved because the
service providers were responsive. It is clear that, as citizens better understand their entitlements,
the demand will increase. Initially, they feel less satisfied, as it may be more difficult for the
government to respond. The demand also has to fit within the means of the government. It is not
about asking for more, it is about asking for an explanation of performance. As flagged during
KIIs, local officials are committed to respond to community needs but due to budget limitation,
technical capacity coupled with inefficient staff, it often results in a poor response.

There is evidence that in at least 3 cases (1 in Tigray, 1 in Somali and 1 in SNNP), the ESAP2
program opened up channels of communication and put citizens in direct contact with local
officials which is enough to overcome barriers that hinder local officials responses. For instance,
in SNNP Region in Merab azernet woreda Silte zone, local officials quickly responded (within 2
weeks) to a citizen request for the construction of 16 water points in each village after SAC
intervention. In Tigray, during regional KII it was proved that SA resulted in improved relations
and greater mutual trust and appreciation between citizens and the local government. This
consequently resulted in often a pro-active response to community needs and service quality
improvements.

Table 10: Percentage of citizen responses who feel that service provision by local officials is responsive to their
basic needs
Water and
Education Health Sanitation Agriculture Rural Road M F Both
Yes often 35.5 27.2 13.1 30.4 13.2 24.6 21.7 23.88
Yes a few times 52.4 54.6 56.4 44.2 32.6 54.7 45.2 48.04
Total 87.9 81.8 69.5 74.6 45.8 79.3 66.9 71.92
No 5.4 3.2 23.5 6.5 30.8 5.3 16.5 13.88
Don/t know 6.5 14.7 7 18.8 23.3 15.4 16.6 14.06

 Outcome indicator 2.6: At least half of the joint action plans developed under ESAP2 are
gender sensitive and address the needs of women at project end.
 Baseline value: 0%
 Target value: 50%
 Assessment value: 93%

36
This assessment was made after careful examination and review of the joint action plans
developed during the SA process and after consultation through KII. 15 joint action plans were
reviewed. Although there is variation among woredas, there is strong evidence that most of the
plans (93%) have considered gender elements. This increase is much higher than the baseline
value (0%) and target value (50%). During consultation and review of the plans, the major
criteria were: who participated, whose priority (male or women) was taken into account, what
kind of decision was taken, what was the first priority for women and was this priority included
and how much budget was allocated for this priority.

During KII in Tigray, Endemehone woreda, the application and use of the GRB (Gender
Responsive Budgeting) tool has helped the joint action plan to be more gender responsive. For
instance, in this woreda, out of the total amount of Birr 480,000 allocated for kebele
development programs, Birr 280,000 was allocated for water spring rehabilitation due to women
priorities and needs. In all FGDs, women participation was enhanced due to the SA process. As
stated, women actively participated in kebele and woreda level joint action plan preparation,
project implementation and monitoring. Also, as emphasized, women were part of the kebele
SAC, actively participated in interface meetings and started demanding their needs. All this
indicated that woreda development plans consider women needs that were not evident before
ESAP2 interventions. For instance, in Gambela region, Gambela zuria woreda (Abol) where
women are marginalized, the woreda SAC chairman is a woman. She participated and led the
joint action plan implementation and monitoring.

In relation to the above outcome, the ESAP2 has delivered the below key outputs.
Output 2.1: A system is established for participation of citizens, citizens groups and CBOs in
basic service delivery at woreda level.
 Output indicator: 2.1 Social Accountability committees for participation of citizens and
CBOs in basic service delivery are established in at least 90% of the participating
woredas in the ESAP2 program, at project end.
 Baseline value: 0%
 Target value: 90%
 Assessment value: 100%
37
Though the functionality varies between areas, in all the survey woredas, SACs for the
participation of citizens and CBOs in basic service delivery are established. During KIIs and
FGDs, in all the woredas SACs are very active and efficient. However, in Oromia lume woreda
the SAC was not functional 7 months after the establishment, mainly because of committee
member internal conflicts. In Jima Haro and Kebere Beyaho woredas, SACs functionality is
weak compared to other woredas. Overall, based on document review and field verification,
SACs are created in all ESAP2 woredas (100%). SACs played key roles for an effective
participation of citizens, citizens groups and CBOs in basic service delivery at woreda level.

 Output indicator: 2.2 At least 50% of the established Joint Service Action Committees
developed a sustainability plan at project end.
 Baseline value: 0%
 Target value: 50%
 Assessment value: 75%

ESAP2 document review indicated that 75% of the ESAP2 woredas developed a sustainable
action plan. During field assessment the survey team reviewed 12 of these plans. During the
review, the consultants gave due attention whether the plan includes sufficient budget
(operational and maintenance), responsibility of each actor including the community,
implementation duration, management, coordination and capacity of the different actors,
activities, inclusiveness and reflecting community needs and ownership. Based on these criteria
the sustainable plans are good as compared to past woreda sustainable program/strategy. For
instance in Gambela zuria woreda, the Bonga kebele sustainable plan includes major community
needs and an implementation strategy. The plan includes health centre water supply, staff,
budget, drug supply, staff benefits package, operational budget, roles and responsibilities of each
actor. The plan was prepared in close coordination with the woreda administration and the SAC.

Output 2.2: Local government/basic service providers are trained on SA tools including
participatory budget planning and gender mainstreaming by SAIPs.

38
  Output indicator: 2.2 About 9,897 representatives of local government and basic service
providers implementing the ESAP2 program are trained by SAIPs on SA tools including
participatory budget planning and gender mainstreaming at project end.
 Baseline value: 0%
 Target value: 9,897
 Assessment result: 16,154

ESAP2 document review shows that 16,154 representatives of local government and basic
service providers implementing the ESAP2 program received training. Further to this finding,
during structured questionnaire interviews with service providers and government officials the
survey shows that they have participated and received the training. This has improved their
capacity and contributed to the overall program effectiveness, coordination and management.

Output 2.3: Regular interface consultative meetings between citizens, SAIPs and service
deliverers are institutionalized

 Output indicator: 2.3 Regular structured meetings related to ESAP2 between citizens,
SAIPs, woreda representatives and service deliverers take place at least three times a
year.
 Baseline value: 0
 Target value: three times
 Assessment result: Four times and 75.15% citizens regularly participated

FGDs proved that, on average, the majority of citizens participated in four structured meetings
related to the ESAP2 program. This includes meetings related to joint action planning, budgeting
and monitoring. This finding was also further measured using a citizen survey questionnaire C-
101 “have you ever participated in a meeting with service providers/local government service
provision”. The survey shows that 75.15% of citizens (often and sometimes) regularly
participated in meetings. This does not mean that the remaining number did not participate in any
meeting; rather they participated in one or two meetings. From the ESAP2 documents it has been
proven that in all ESAP2 woredas a total of 882 interface meetings were conducted.

39
Table 11: Percentage of citizen participation in meetings

Water and Rural

Meetings Education Health Sanitation Agriculture road Average
Yes often 47.9 40.8 36.12 37 24.9 37.344
yes a few times 40.2 43.7 41.14 37 27 37.808
Total 88.1 84.5 77.26 74 51.9 75.152
No 9 7.2 21.74 20.7 38.2 19.368
Don/t know 2.9 8.3 1 5.4 9.9 5.5

Output 2.4: Joint Service Improvement Action Plans incorporating citizens and CBOs needs are
developed and implemented
 Output indicator: 2.4 Number of SAIP woredas that have developed joint action plans for
service quality improvement based on interface meetings between service users and
providers
 Baseline value: 0
 Target value: 272
 Assessment value: 223

During KII and field observations it became clear that in all the 38 survey woredas joint action
plans for service quality improvement were developed following interface meetings between
service users and providers. In addition, ESAP2 document review indicated that all program
intervention woredas (223) have developed joint action plans. This is the first step for the
implementation of the joint action plans.

 Output indicator: 2.5 From 392 joint action plans for service quality improvement in the
ESAP2 program at least 50% of the actions have been implemented at project end
 Baseline value: 0
 Target value: 50%
 Assessment value: 90% in survey woreda and 76% in all ESAP2 woredas

For the purpose of this assessment, the consultant reviewed 23 joint action plans and had in-

40
depth consultations with the service providers. The assessment shows that, except for three joint
action plans, all the plans were implemented according to community needs and priorities. The
action plans that were not implemented include: environmental rehabilitation program in Lume
woreda, water access and quality improvement in Babile woreda and additional classroom
construction in Deredawa town. Environmental rehabilitation program in Lume woreda was not
implemented because the woreda agricultural office shifted the budget to other activities.
Similarly, due to budget limitation additional class room construction in Deredawa town was not
implemented. Due to technical feasibility problems, water access and quality improvement in
Babile woreda was not implemented. This indicator was further measured using a citizen
structured questionnaire C-109 “are the plans implemented?” In the survey woreda, 90% of the
joint action plans have been implemented. Similarly, ESAP2 document review shows that in all
ESAP2 woredas 76% of the plans are implemented.

Output 2.5 SAIPs taking part in the ESAP2 program are trained on how to encourage local
government to use SA tools
 Output indicator: 2.5.1 a total of 196 project staff representatives of the first group of 30
SAIPs taking part in the ESAP2 program are trained on how to encourage local
governments to use SA tools by March 2013.
 Baseline value: 0
 Target value: 196
 Assessment value: 208

In the survey areas all SAIPs project staff involved in the program have received training on how
to encourage local governments to use SA tools. In the ESAP2 program area 208 participated in
the training program.
 Output indicator: 2.5.2. A total of 114 project staff representatives of the second group of
19 SAIPs taking place in the ESAP2 program are trained on how to encourage local
government to use SA tools by November 2013.
 Baseline value: 0
 Target value: 114
 Assessment value: 139
41
In the ESAP2 program area 139 project staff representatives of the 19 SAIPs, that started project
implementation in October 2013, received training on how to encourage local government to use
SA tools.
In addition, the above two indicators were measured using government officials and service
providers questionnaires. All respondents proved that they have received basic and practical
training. This has improved the capacity of SAIPs to implement and coordinate SA program in
their respective sectors.

Specific Objective-3: Citizens and citizen groups are empowered and increasingly demand
better quality public basic service delivery.
 Outcome indicator: 3.1 The percentage of citizens and citizens groups in the project
woredas that have actively engaged with one or more service providers in the last 24
months demand for better public basic services has increased by 25% at project end.
 Baseline value: 44%
 Target value: 55%
 Assessment value: 76.7%

This indicator was measured using a survey questionnaire B-106 “if the quality of the service in
any of the above sectors was poor/not satisfying, did you approach/complain to service
providers”. The survey shows that, 76.7% of citizens complained to/approached service
providers/government officials. There is an increase against the baseline and target values. There
is a 32.3% increase against the baseline value (i.e. 76.7%-44%). The highest percentage
(98.04%) was reported in Tigray region and the lowest was recorded in Oromia region (62.79%).
This implies that the majority of citizens are well aware about their entitlements. The remaining
percentage (23.3%) did not complain/approach service providers. This was mainly because, 83%
reported that they feel they do not expect to get a response. Similarly 73% reported thatthey are
afraid of reprisal, respectively. For instance during the FGD in Oromia, Sude woreda it was
proved that, citizens did not receive replies to their complaint on water quality improvement.

42
Figure 3: Percentage of citizens who approached and/orcomplained to service providers/government officials

Percentage of citizens who approached and/orcomplained to service providers/government

officials

Average 76.7

Dredawa 82.35

Addis Ababa 84.38

Tigraye 98.04

SNNP 91.8

Somali 88.24

Oromia 62.79

Harari 94.12

Gambela 64.71

Benshangul 88.24

Amhara 69.01

Afar 67.65

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

 Outcome indicator: 3.2. Percentage of citizens who report that woreda officials have
actively sought the views of citizens in their kebeles on improving quality of public
services increased by 40% at project end
 Baseline value: 36%
 Target value: 50%
 Assessment value: 84%

This indicator was measured using a survey questionnaire C-102 “did woreda officials actively
responded to your needs and challenges on improving the quality of public services”. The
survey shows that 84% of the citizens feel that woreda officials actively responded to their needs
and challenges on improving the quality of public services often and sometimes. As compared to
the baseline value (36%) there is a 48% increase. From FGD discussions, it was proved that,
woreda officials improved their accountability and administrative responsibility to seek citizens’
views because ESAP2 developed strong linkages between woreda officials and citizens through

43
the SAC. For instance in Tigray, Mekele town service providers (women, youth and children
affairs office) actively responded to women needs and priorities. The office facilitated credit
access to needy beneficiaries.

Table 12: Percentage of citizens who reported that officials actively responded to their needs and challenges to
improve the quality of public services

F M Both
Yes 18.3 29.1 23.8
Yes sometime 63.2 57.1 60.2
Total 81.5 86.2 84
No 14.4 10.2 10.4
Don/t know 5.0 4.1 5.6

 Outcome indicator: 3.3 The number of citizens and citizen groups in the ESAP2 program
indicating that they have been involved in planning, budgeting, implementing and
monitoring the quality of basic public services delivery has increased by 100% at project
end
 Baseline value: 16%
 Target value: 32%
 Assessment result: 53.8%

This indicator was measured using a citizen survey questionnaires C-104 “have you ever been
part in the development of the joint action plan regarding service provision”, C-110 “have you
participated in the implementation of the joint action plans following sectors” and C-111 “have
you participated in monitoring the implementation of the joint action plans and service delivery
of the sectors”.
The survey shows that 53.8% of the citizens participated in the planning, implementation and
monitoring the quality of basic public services delivery. As compared to the baseline value
(16%) there is a 37.8% increase (i.e. 53.8%-16%). From the FGD and KII it was proved that the
majority of ESAP2 citizens participated in the woreda/kebele planning, implementation,
budgeting and monitoring of different activities. All argued that these initiatives have been
instrumental in influencing plans and budgets and making the planning process more inclusive,
responsive, result and community oriented. Some cited a number of cases where citizen action

44
has brought about concrete improvements in the design and implementation, specifically in the
health and education sectors. For instance, in Benishangul Gumuz region, Guba woreda, in Ised
kebele because of citizen and SAC engagement in the planning, implementation and monitoring
of activities, Ised primary school plan improved and more classrooms were constructed. As a
follow up question, citizens were asked a survey questionnaire C-107 “were the needs of
vulnerable groups (women, youth, elderly, people living wish HIV/AIDS, PWD), taken into
account in these actions”. 70.8% of the respondents reported that vulnerable group needs were
considered and they have participated in the planning, implementation and monitoring of the
JAPs.

Table 13: Percentage of citizens who participated in planning, implementation and monitoring

Education Health Water and sanitation Agriculture Rural road M F Both

Participation in planning
Yes 68 61 63 57 40 53.6 63 57.8
No 28 28 34 38 49 39.2 34.4 35.4
Don't know 4 11 3 6 11 7.2 2.6 7
Participation in implementation
Yes 73 60 61 49 35 62.4 48.6 55.6
No 25 30 38 47 57 36.5 38.6 39.4
Don't know 2 9 2 4 8 1.2 12.8 5
Participation in monitoring
Yes 65 51 49 44 31 43.6 55.2 48
No 32 39 50 53 61 48.2 43.5 47
Don't know 3 10 1 3 8 8.2 1.3 5
Average (all above)
Yes 68.67 57.33 57.67 50 35.33 53.2 55.6 53.8
No 28.33 32.33 40.67 46 55.67 41.30 38.83 40.6

In addition to the above results, participation of citizens in the planning, implementation and
monitoring of the project reduced corruption. This was because citizen participation and
information access to kebele/woreda budgeting, joint planning, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of the program created more citizen control and open space for discussion. This was
mentioned during FGD and KII in Tigraye region. After the region exercised Participatory
Planning and Budgeting the level of corruption, specifically in health and education sectors
reduced.

45
 Outcome indicator: 3.4 The number of community based organizations (e.g. iddirs,
women associations) in the project woredas that collectively demand for an improvement
of basic public services has increased by 50% at project end.
 Baseline value: 32%
 Target value: 48%
 Assessment result: 90%

Much of this evidence was derived from consultations and reviews of sector offices and woreda
officials information/database after compiling the FGDs. Overall, a significant number (on
average 3 per woreda) of community based organizations approached government officials and
sectors offices. The organization demanded basic services, specifically youth groups and women
associations. These associations are officially recorded at the woreda sector office database/file
for different purposes. There is mixed evidence. Estimates made by sector offices and woreda
officials indicate that 90% of these organizations had approached and demanded for basic service
improvements. For instance youth groups approached woreda administration office and women,
youth and children affairs office for better access to micro credit facilities.

This finding was further explored using a local government survey questionnaire A-121”if yes,
how many women organizations and/or networks have approached you regarding the quality of
the service you provided”. The survey shows that 28 organizations approached government
officials. In addition to this, the majority of the organizations (39.3%) approached more than 10
times.
Table 14: Number of organizations that approached government officials

Number of
Times the organization approached
organization Percent
1 to 3 times 8 28.6
4 to 5 times 9 32.1
More than 10 time 11 39.3
Total 28 100.0

46
Output 3.1: Citizens and citizens groups are trained on how to demand for better public basic
services
 Output indicator 3.1 A 17,140 citizens are trained on how to approach basic service
providers at project end
 Baseline: 0
 Target: 17,140
 Assessment value: 39,872

Document review proved that 39,872 citizens are trained on how to approach basic service
providers. Further to this finding, with a citizen survey questionnaires D-100 “have you or your
group been trained on your right and responsibility to plan, budget, implement and monitor
basic service delivery” citizens were asked. 98.5% of the citizens responded yes to this question.
The training increased the capacity of citizens to demand for an improvement of basic public
services and facilitated the way in which citizens and service providers communicate and work.

Output 3.2: A gender-sensitive approach has been adopted in the training sessions

 Output indicator 3.2. A total of 305 training sessions implemented by ESAP2 included
gender mainstreaming on public basic service provision at project end.
 Baseline: 0
 Target: 305
 Assessment value: 749

Document review proved that a total of 749 training sessions are implemented by ESAP2. The
sessions included gender mainstreaming on public basic service provision. Further to this,
citizens were asked with a survey questionnaire D-102 “if yes, has the training paid attention to
the needs of men and women, girls and boys”. 97.3% of the respondents responded yes to this
question. During FGDs and KIIs, citizens and service providers understanding about gender
inclusion in joint planning, implementation and monitoring was better.

47
Specific Objective-4: Citizens and citizen groups are aware of their responsibilities to plan,
budget, implement and monitor public basic service delivery

 Outcome indicator: 4.1 Percentage of citizens in the targeted woredas who consider that
their participation in service improvement and planning are essential parts of their rights
and responsibilities as citizens has increased by 8% at project end.
 Baseline: 83%
 Target: 91%
 Assessment value: 98.2%

This indicator was measured using a citizen survey questionnaire D-102 “do you think you
should participate in the development of kebele-woreda development plans” and D-105 “do you
have responsibility for service provision”. The survey shows that, 99.1% of the citizens exposed
to the ESAP2program considered that their participation in planning is an essential part of their
rights and responsibilities. Similarly, 97.5% considered their participation in service
improvement an essential part of their responsibilities. On average, 98.2% considered their
participation in service improvement and planning an essential part of their rights and
responsibilities. As compared to the baseline value there is a 15.2% increase (98.2%-83%).
During FGDs, all participants considered that it is their responsibility to plan, implement and
monitor kebele development.

Table 15: Citizens consider that their participation in service improvement and planning
Yes No Don’t Know
Citizens who consider that their participation in planning is 99.1 0 0
essential part of their rights and responsibilities.
Citizens who consider that their participation in service
improvement is essential part of their rights and 97.5 2.5 0
responsibilities.
Citizens consider that their participation in service 98.2 3 0
improvement and planning

48
 Outcome indicator: 4.2. Percentage of citizens in the program area who are able to
explain the basic components of their rights and responsibilities on the provision of basic
services has increased by 50% at project end.
 Baseline: 20%
 Target: 40%
 Assessment value: 91%

This indicator was measured using citizen survey questionnaire D-103 “can you mention/explain
some of your responsibilities/accountabilities for services that are delivered to you and others”.
The survey shows that, 97% of the respondents clearly mentioned more than three roles and
responsibilities. This increase is much higher than the program target and baseline values. There
is a 71% increase against the baseline value. The key and major responsibilities mentioned by the
citizens were: participation in joint action planning, joint monitoring and implementation.

 Outcome indicator: 4.3. Percentage of citizens and citizen groups in the ESAP2 program
that participate in: a) budget formulation and b) action plan development has increased by
60% at project end.
 Baseline: 21%
 Target: 34%
 Assessment value: 58.6%

This indicator was measured using a citizen survey questionnaire D-107 “have you participated
in kebele/woreda plan development during budget formulation” and C-104 “have you ever been
part of the development of joint action plan regarding service provision with citizen and local
governments”. The survey shows that, 58.6% of the citizens participated in the planning and
budget formulation. Further to this finding, the team examined the participation of citizens in the
monitoring and evaluation of budget formulation and action planning. For this purpose, the team
used a citizen survey questionnaire C-111 “have you participated in monitoring the

49
implementation of the joint action plan and service delivery performance of the sector”. 41.7%
of the citizens participated in this monitoring process.

FGD and KII findings proved that citizen and citizen groups participated in monitoring activities
but it is not well organized and systematic i.e. except joint field monitoring missions they do not
have a proper monitoring action plan, records, reporting and feedback/response system.

Table 16: Percentage of participation in planning and monitoring

Education Health Water and sanitation Agriculture Rural road

Participation in planning
Yes 68 61 63 57 40
No 28 28 34 38 49
Don't know 4 11 3 6 11
Participation in budget formulation
Yes 64 67 58 53 52
No 32 29 39 45 42
Don't know 4 4 3 2 6
68 71 61 55 58
Participation in planning and budget formulation Both M F
Average
Yes 66 65 60 55 47 58.6 54.2 62.6
No 30 28 35 40 44 35.4 43.1 31.0
Don't know 4 7 5 5 9 5 2.7 6.4

Output 4.1: Meetings between citizens, citizen groups, public service providers and/or
woredas/kebeles were held on planning, budgeting, implementation and monitoring of basic
service delivery.

 Output indicator: 4.1.1 A total of 723 meetings have been held by 49 CSOs in which
46,728 citizens, service providers and local government officials participated at project
end (July 2015).
 Baseline: 0
 Target: 495 meeting /46,728 people participated
 Assessment value: 2,238 meetings

50
In all the survey woredas a number of meetings were conducted and on average 50 to 75 people
participated in each meeting. Document review proved that a total of 2,238 meetings (meetings
between citizens, citizen groups, public service providers and/or woreda/kebele officials) were
conducted. In these meetings 157,168 people participated.

Output 4.2 SAIPs have performed regular /sensitization sessions for citizens and citizen groups
on their rights and responsibilities to plan, budget, implement and monitor basic services
delivery.

 Output indicator: 4.1.2 All SAIPs in the ESAP2 program have sensitized citizens and
citizen groups on a regular basis on their rights and responsibilities to plan, budget,
implement and monitor basic service delivery at project end
 Baseline: 0
 Target: 49 SAIPs
 Assessment value: 49 SAIPs

In the survey woreda all SAIPs have organized and held meetings with citizens, service
providers and local government officials. In the ESAP2 program area, 49 SAIPs conducted
meetings and 338,296 participants attended the meetings. These meetings greatly contributed to
sensitizing citizens and citizen groups on their rights and responsibilities to plan, budget,
implement and monitor basic services delivery. These meetings are different from meetings
organized by CSOs which focused on woreda planning, budgeting and monitoring.

51
Summary of program outcome effectiveness:

Figure 4: Percentage of program outcomes results compared to the baseline values and targets

Citizens and citizen groups that participate in budget 58

34
formulation and action plan development 21
Citizens who are able to explain the basic components of 91
40
their rights and responsibilities 20
CBOs that collectively demand for an improvement of 90
48
basic public services 32
Citizens & citizen groups that they have been involved in 53
32
planning, budgeting, implementing and monitoring 16
Citizens who report that woreda officials have actively 84
50
sought the views of citizens 36 Result
Citizens & citizens groups that have actively engaged 76
55 Target
with one or more service providers 44
Joint action plans developed are gender sensitive and 93
50 Baseline
address the needs of women 0
Citizens that feel that service provision by local officials 71 2 per. Mov.
46
is responsive to their basic needs 37 Avg. (Result)
Implementation of action plans by service providers 92
84
incorporate citizen needs 76
Women that judge the quality of the services provided as 81
61
good 41
Citizens that judge the quality of the services provided as 77
93
good 62
Citizens who report that woreda officials and service 56
50
providers have actively sought the views of people. 38
Application of SA tools, approaches and mechanisms by 72
43
Got officials 33
Application of SA tools, approaches and mechanisms by 82
34
SP 24
75
Users of basic services 40
33

0 20 40 60 80 100

52
3.3 Case study
10 case studies were collected and compiled. The case studies are the result of SA efforts in
improving PSNP, electricity supply, quality of health services, education services, agriculture
services and the inclusion of marginalized communities. A summary of the case studies is
presented in table-17 below. In addition, for Oromia region, Kuyu woreda, the PSNP case is
presented in detail below. Annex 6 contains the selected case studies in detail.

Table 17: Summary of case studies

Region Woreda Cases: impact of the SA process

Tigraye Saeseitsdaeda Due to the SA process, a veterinary health centre is constructed. During joint
-emb action planning the community prioritized the construction of a veterinary
health centre. After budgeting and planning process the woreda allocated 1.3
million Birr. The SAC facilitated and coordinated the construction,
implementation and monitoring of the health centre. The centre provides
services to 5 kebeles (about 3,500 people).
Amhara Baher dar The SAC coordinated the construction of elders and PwD shelter. During the
Kebele-14 interface meeting, the SAC and the community identified shelter need for
elders and PwD. After thoughtful discussions and consultations, the
community agreed to approach the municipality through the SAC. The SAC
submitted the request to the town municipality. The municipally provided
land and allocated 83 million Birr. The SAC, together with the municipality,
implemented and monitored the construction. The shelter provides free shelter
to 621 elders and 101 PwD.
Oromia Jima Kersa The SAC and the community improved education quality and raised funds.
After the SA process, the education office and community identified and
prioritized problems in Serbo secondary school. The major problems were
limited number of classrooms, electricity supply and the availability of ICT
materials. However, the woreda budget was limited to address all these
problems. After repeated meetings and discussions, the community
contributed Birr 2 million. 5 classrooms are constructed, 50 computers are
purchased and supplied. The electricity problem is solved.
Oromia Kersa-East The education quality improved through the supply of electricity and
Hararge construction of separate toilets for girls and boys. During joint action
planning, Ketembele first cycle school persistent problems were raised and
discussed. The major problems were the availability of laboratory equipment
and chemicals. The education office, the woreda administration, the SAC and
citizens discussed the problems and reached consensus. The education office
purchased and supplied important equipment and chemicals.
Beneshan Mao Komo The Mao health centre facility improved. The SA process improved pre-natal
gul and post-natal mother health care and facilities. During interface meetings,
Gumuz the community raised major health centre problems i.e. poor supply and
availability of drugs, qualified health staff, clean water and ambulance. After
consultations with the SAC and community, the woreda health office
recruited 2 qualified health staff, allocated sufficient budget and arranged the
53
 timely supply of drugs. Due to limited budget, the office plan to supply an
ambulance and the construction of a water point are covered in the next
planning and budgeting period (2017).
SNNP Merab Water points constructed in each village. During the interface meeting, the
Azernet community requested water point construction in their village. After
consultation with the community the sector office allocated 75% of the
construction cost. The community raised 25% additional funds and 8 water
points were constructed.
SNNP Hadro Tunto Education quality improved and marginalized communities were encouraged
to attend schools. The community and the SAC discussed Donga Tuntu high
school problems. The major problems were the lack of separate toilets,
shortage of laboratory equipment, chemicals, ICT materials, limited number
of qualified teachers and the exclusion of marginalized communities “Fugas”
at schools. The SAC brought these issues to the attention of the education
office and woreda administration office. During community meetings the
woreda officials and education office discussed the problem in detail.
Accordingly, ICT materials, laboratory equipment and teacher problems were
solved. Bad attitudes towards “fugas” reduced through school clubs and
community awareness. The SAC played a key role in creating awareness
about the inclusion of marginalized communities.
Harari Shenkor The education quality improved. During the interface meeting, the
community education quality problem in Yeshemebet Secondary Cycle
school was raised and discussed repeatedly. The major problems identified
were the electricity supply, qualified laboratory technician, damaged
laboratory equipment and expired laboratory chemicals. The SAC discussed
the problems with the education office and the Harari teachers training
college. The education office recruited a laboratory technician. The Harari
teachers training college provided technical assistance, repaired damaged
laboratory equipment and safely discarded expired laboratory chemicals.
Amhara Enarji Persons with disabilities empowered and getting access to credit. During SAC
enawga and community meetings, PwD income problem was discussed. The SAC
flagged this problem to the Women, Youth and Children Affairs Office and
woreda administration. The offices arranged special credit facilities and
provided Birr 2,000 to each person. The credit facility helped PwD to get
engaged in petty trading, poultry and fatting.

54
 Case study
SAC effort proving PSNP - the case of social accountability effort in Kuyu Woreda

Basic information
 Name of intervention: Agriculture development
 SAIP: HUNDEE
 Location: Kuyu Woreda, Kebele 02
 Type of engagement: SAC engaged in PSNP program considering the need for
transparent, accountable local bodies by deepening local accountability through
citizen access to information and responsive appeals process

Background:
In 2011, the Kuyu woreda agricultural office introduced participatory responsive and transparent PSNP
program. The agricultural office leads the program which is monitored by a PSNP committee. The key
task of the committee was to emphasize transparency measures (speciallyespecially during the selection of
beneficiaries), deepen local accountability, monitor performance to verify that resources are used for the
intended purposes i.e. rapid response, internal accountability (looking payroll and attendance sheets,
which development agents prepare and woreda officials approves). However, the community complains
about transparency during the selection of beneficiaries and efficient service delivery.

Given this context, HUNDEE, a SAIP in the area, exercised SA program and ensured pro-poor service
delivery through responsive and accountable local governance. As part of the ESAP2 activities, HUNDEE
improved citizen’s awareness on SA, provided SA training to the SAC and facilitated woreda joint action
planning. During the planning process different issues and problems were raised. Among many others, the
issue of poor service delivery and selection of beneficiaries were thoroughly elaborated and selected for
further action. As it was reported by the SAC, the PSNP committee did not practice transparent systems
like fair and open beneficiary selection. They rarely consulted the communities and agricultural services
were of poor quality i.e. poor fertilizer and seed quality supply due to poor storage facilities and poor FTC
service. Following problem identification, the SAC in collaboration with respective service providers
achieved remarkable results.

The SAC facilitated a transparent PSNP targeting and publicly disclosed PSNP budget i.e. due to SAC,
annual safety net budget and public works plan posted for public review, PSNP beneficiary list reviewed
and additional marginalized and the poorest communities were included inon the list. As reported by the
SAC, “now, almost all PSNP beneficiaries are the poorest communities”. The SAC also participated
during joint monitoring missionmissions in each of the PNSP kebelekebeles and improved internal
accountability. The SAC chairman said “now each Kebelekebele knows their budget, inputs and quality
of serviceservices”. In addition, the SAC after lengthy discussiondiscussions with service providers
improved 3 FTCs (the centers provided quality and timely training to farmers), the woreda agricultural
input storage facilities are fixed, PSNP beneficiaries received quality seeds on time and the SAC
participated during PSNP-4 beneficiary targeting and reduced the exclusion of the marginalized groups.

55
3.4 Unintended results

ESAP2 has contributed to raising community funds and enhanced service quality. As indicated in
this report more money was raised from the community. For instance in Jima Kersa woreda after
the SA process the community raised Birr 2 million for education quality improvements. In Sude
woreda Birr 400,000 was raised for water supply and in East Harerge Kersa woreda the
community contributed Birr 250,000 for additional class room construction. During the Oromia
KII, it turned out that before ESAP2, funds raised by the community was the most challenging
government task. After ESAP2 however, it is quite easy because of budget transparency and joint
action planning.

3.5 Efficiency
The total ESAP2 program budget was US$25,012,616. All financial transactions were made
according to the plan and time except for some budget transfer delays to SAIPs at the start of the
project. This was because SAIPs did not start immediately right after signing the contract with
the MA due to Charities and Societies Agency (ChSA) administrative problems. Based on
document review and KII discussions, the delay did not significantly affect the program
implementation. According to the planned budget allocation a significant amount
(US$14,288,797) was allocated for SAIPs program implementation. Of this budget US$
11,435,247 was disbursed. More resources were allocated to grants for sub projects rather than to
MA administration. Of the total allocated budget for SAIPs, the remaining variance
(US$2,853,550) can be easily managed and settled before the program phases out i.e. during the
bridging phase4. For details, see the below table 18.

4
These figures were recorded by the end of December 2015. After this date the 49 SAIPs submitted their final
financial reports to the ESAP2 MA which made that the final expenditures of the ESAP2 program reached a
overall total amount of US$ 13,415,786, which is 935 of the total contract amount of US$ 14,288,794. The
remaining variance, being US$ 873,008 has been automatically carried over to the ESAP2 Bridging Phase which
started in April 2016.

56
Table 18: Statement of Financial Resources and Fund Expenditures 5

Budget in US$ Actual Variance

Sources
Total Source of Fund 21,875,323

Expenditure by Component
1. Goods 488,697 435,408 53,289
2. Consultants' Services 2,522,236 2,088,732 433,504
2.1 Consultants' Services Capacity Building 414,397 359,591 54,806
2.2 Consultants' Services M&E 1,124,336 852,248 272,088
2.3 Consultants' Services General Operations 983,503 876,894 106,609
3. Management and Coordination Services Fee 6,752,076 6,088,508 663,568
4. Training & Workshops 960,811 649,279 311,532
5. Grants for Sub-projects 14,288,797 11,435,247 2,853,550

Total Expenditure 25,012,616 20,697,174 4,315,442

The survey shows that the MA has a well functional and clear reporting line and sharing system.
During KII with the MA it became clear that 90% of the MA reports are shared with SAIPs.
During field visits many SAIPs lacked proper recording of documentation and information. In
some cases it was difficult to obtain SAIPs monitoring reports from SAIPs offices. The
collaboration and partnership between the MA and SAIPs was good, for instance field
monitoring missions were made jointly. However, some SAIPs collaboration with government
sector offices and administration was weak. In Tarma ber woreda, Lume woreda and Asayeta
woreda the linkage between the government and SAIPs was weak.

In fact, it goes without saying that the quality of the relationship and resulting coordination
between these organizations depended largely on personalities of the respective focal points as
well as on institutionalized relationships. Other factors influencing the quality of coordination
among partners included the turnover of staff as focal points (both in the cases of government
partners as well as SAIPs representatives, with departures posing challenges to the institutional

5
Source: ESAP2 Interim Financial Report (IFR) 13, 11 February 2016.

57
memory), and the amount of time both SAIPs and government focal points were able to devote
to ESAP2. During consultations with MoFEC, evidence shows that there is a strong coordination
between the offices. For instance MoFEC receives regular quarterly reports, compiled and
informed the SC for high level decisions. MoFEC has effectively coordinated in linking region
FTA with woreda FTA, endorsed support letter to ChSA that help SAIPs to effectively
implement the work, participated in joint region and woreda monitoring mission and made
informed advise to the SC, SAIPs and woreda officials and share taped other country experience
and learning during learning workshops.

The program coordination and operation management was good. Annual plans were agreed with
SAIPs and relevant stakeholders and aligned to relevant woreda government offices. There was a
genuine participatory effort behind the annual plan because there were regular meetings and
learning review forums. Most of the SAIPs activities were implemented according to the
operational time. At implementation level, the project was highly regarded and in compliance
with government policy and plan. For instance, sector offices and government officials used their
own structure and budget during joint planning, and monitoring and evaluation.

The MA developed a strong monitoring and evaluation framework and combined regular
monitoring missions. In general, the MA monitoring and evaluation system has basic monitoring
components: baseline, defined logical framework matrix, database, monitoring plan, monitoring
tools. However, the SAIPs monitoring and evaluation system was weak. Many SAIPs (9 out of
28 SAIPs) did not have the basic M&E components.

3.6 Relevanc y
The program is relevant to the citizen needs and national policy requirements and priorities. The
program contributed to address citizen basic service need. Especially the program contributed to
address core basic service problem of the marginalized groups (gender, PwD, elders) and plaid
significant role for contributing to the national inclusive development strategy. The
interventions comply with the country development policy and planning. ESAP2 objectives and
strategy aligned to the key government accountability policy reforms i.e. the government
decentralization policy and the civil service reform program policy. For instance, i)
decentralization at the sub-national level is characterized by dual accountability: upwards
accountability to higher levels of government, often referred to as administrative accountability,
58
and downward accountability to the electorate, ‘political accountability’ and ii) reforms have
been made to streamline business processes in the public sector; to achieve effective and efficient
public service delivery outcomes and to provide opportunities for local level service providers to
become more receptive to citizen requests and feedback. During the survey process, it was found
that the contribution of councils at region and woreda level were significant, particularly working
with SAC to address citizen service quality improvement request. Similarly, service providers
and government officially involvements were high. Service providers and government officials
were actively involved in the SA process (joint planning, budgeting and monitoring) and during
the formation of SAC. This made the woreda/kebele plan more relevant to citizen plan.

The program design, the problem analysis and the intervention logical model (log frame) were
coherent and logically interlinked. The overall objective of the program “strengthen the use of
social accountability tools, approaches and mechanisms by (a) citizens and citizens groups, (b)
SAIPs, (c) local government officials and (d) service providers as a means to make basic service
delivery more equitable, effective, efficient, responsive and accountable” was achieved and is
measurable.
The government and SAIPs participation in the ESAP2 design process was limited. As stated by
MoFEC representatives, the bureau was involved after program design. The bureau received the
program document and informed to implement according to the procedures and activities stated
in the document. Before commencement of the program, the MA conducted an introduction
workshop. This allowed the government office and SAIPs to comment and forward their inputs
to the program document. The survey shows that the program design was highly relevant to the
sector offices, woreda plan and community felt needs. For instance, in most FGDs, citizens
appreciated and expressed the program design and approaches. They proved that the design was
consistent with the local conditions particularly supporting the inclusion of marginalized groups
during the interface meeting and joint action planning exercise. In addition, beneficiary support
processes were uniformly done and made in close consultation with woreda officials, SAC and
sector offices. For instance marginalized groups and women were represented in the kebele and
woreda SAC. In sum, the overall design of ESAP2 and the approach and strategies promoted and
used at different levels were appropriated given the types of changes to which ESAP2 tried to
contribute.

59
3.7 Sustainability
As mentioned in the section 3.2 on effectiveness, ESAP2 started to demonstrate improvements in
service delivery provided by woredas and the way in which woredas are thinking about their
planning in an organized and transparent way. There is a high likelihood that the ESAP2
activities and benefits will continue beyond the lifespan of the project. This is mainly because of:

 Policy support: The program is aligned with government (national, regional, woreda)
priorities and strategies. For instance government interventions on good governance and
FTA share a similar strategy with ESAP2 principles and program objectives. Therefore,
government officials and service providers ideally continue the program objectives and
results;

 Supported institutions: ESAP2 established basic functional interlinked structures i.e.

from grassroots level (village FGDs, kebele SAC and woreda SAC) up to federal level.
Therefore, these structures continue the program results, implementation strategy and
approaches after completion of ESAP2. For instance SACs members at woreda level can
implement and exercise the SA process. SA tool practical training and manuals provided
to this structure can be used as a good reference and implementation manual;

 Financial sustainability: the assessment was conducted 6 months after the SAIPs
completion of major activities (31 December 2015). This gave the survey team a good
opportunity to look into the possible challenges. It was encouraging to see the motivation
of kebele SACs in continuing SA activities. Furthermore, the sustainability plan
developed by SACs is a key element to continue after the project phased out. The
sustainability plan contains detail implementation strategy, required resources (budget
and technical expertise), operational plan and M&E. This plan will continue after the end
of the operational program;
 Institutional capacity: The program has been designed as a sustainable initiative because
of the integrated capacity building components i.e. training at different levels and
organizing learning benchmark meetings. This guarantees the sustainability of the
prrogramt. Evidence during field visits suggested that the technical leadership to continue
some activities exists. However, the financial means through which certain activities can

60
 be continued is limited. Moreover, regions have expressed an interest in scaling up some
of the ESAP2 initiatives. However it is unclear whether the regions will have its own
means to do so.
In addition to the above key points, to sustain the program with continued activity the MA has:

 Created massive awareness about SA and citizens became aware of their rights and
responsibilities in getting basic services, and started asking service providers more about
it. For instance 16,154 representatives of local government and basic service providers
are trained by SAIPs on SA tools including participatory budget planning and gender
mainstreaming. In addition, MA has 8,000 followers through Facebook;
 Developed sustainability guidance for SAIPs. SAIPs are considering this to sustain SA
with continued activity of SACs after the end of the project. The guidance contains a
detailed sustainable implementation strategy and activities;
 Supported and involved different CBOs organizations in the SA process and system. This
contributes to the sustainability of the SA program in the future. For instance some SAIPs
have already included Edir leaders in their SACs, associations representing vulnerable
groups such as PWD, People Living with HIV, and elderly people are strengthened and
participated in the SA process;
 Improved FTA / Public Finance Management (PFM). The FTA-SA linkage model may
be exemplary for the development of developing linkages with other sectors. SAIPs have
created a viable linkage with FTA. This will continued activities of the SA
process/activities;
 Established strong linkages and partnerships between SAIPs, service providers and
government officials. There are testimonials that SA has helped SAIPs to improve their
relationship with government counterparts. It is therefore important for SAIPs to continue
to be on board with SA even after the end of their SA project; and
 During FGD with SAC, it proved that citizens were much more comfortable and
interested to hold meetings through the SAC as compared to woreda councils. During the
survey process it proved that the SAC has earned a high acceptance degree by the
community, and a great potential for sustainability. It has started small with a possibility
of scaling up, given the current support, to regional and ultimately national coverage in a
short period of time.
61
3.8 Lesson learned
The assessment team identified the following key learning lessons:

 The SA process interface meetings considered to be a breakthrough platform for joint

planning, budgeting and monitoring by all actors. The interface meeting greatly helped,
government officials and service providers go to / reach out to citizens, rather than
citizens being “called” to meetings in government offices, government officials and
service providers listen and respond to citizens, citizens discussed performance and
budget information as well as results. In many woredas, interface meetings were
constructive events with skilled facilitators mediating the discussion between government
officials, service providers and citizens. During the meetings, actions that citizen can
undertake themselves (e.g. cleaning up health centre compound, or monitoring hours of
health workers) were easily identified, and, actions that service providers can undertake
themselves with small or negligible changes in budget was critically identified (e.g.
school principals taking action over teacher performance, health workers treating patients
with respect, improving cleanliness) and actions required by higher government officials
were identified and forwarded to concerned offices;
 In addition to service improvement, the SA process can address social problems such as
integration of marginalized communities, household income increase through IGA
program, offering shelter for PwD and elderly;
 In addition to basic service delivery, the ESAP2 program has resulted in raising
community funds and inclusive development;
 SA has helped to deepen the commitment of service providers and service users and to
promote budget transparency;
 Improved capacity of citizens (i.e. SACs) to hold and conduct development meetings and
result in meaningful recommendations;
 The program created development and dialogue space to youth i.e. created safe space for
dialogue (being heard), engaged them in debates with government officials and
development process (decisions);
 The program can have an effect in improving other services such as electricity and PSNP;

62
  SA is more than just the tools. Methods and tools are important but success depends on
the context in which the tools are used, the principles and values that guide their use, and
who is involved. An example is that GRB was more effective in Tigray for women
initiatives. SA is as much about changing mentalities, building relationships, and
developing capacities as it is about technical tools. During FGD with SACs, it proved that
the SA tools improved their relationships and networking capacities with different
organizations and service providers.
 Social accountability approaches require time, money, and expertise to implement and
become accepted. Community mobilization and awareness generation, especially those
that are at the margins of development, is a resource intensive process requiring extensive
capacity building.

3.9 Factors that drove ESAP2 overall performance

The MA, in close coordination with government officials, CSOs, service providers and citizens,
supported, strengthened and developed strong implementation approaches and systems. These
approaches and systems greatly contributed to the overall effective performance of the program
objectives and results. The following were the key approaches and systems identified during the
survey process:

i) MA supported and developed strong coordination and networking

The MA supported and created strong coordination mechanisms at different levels. The MA
created/facilitated strong coordination linkages between SAIPs, government administrative
offices and service providers which developed a smooth working environment for the overall
implementation of the SA process. For example, the MA together with MoFEC contacted the
ChSA to endorse a support letter to each ESAP2 target woreda administrative office. The
letter was meant to allow SAIPs to get engaged in the SA program (i.e. to introduce/promote
SA tools and create citizen rights and entitlements about access and quality of basic
services). This communication provided ample space to SAIPs to coordinate the SA program
and work with citizens, service providers and government officials.

63
At leadership level, the establishment of a Steering Committee made up of representatives
from the Ethiopian Government, DPs, networks of CSOs, and the World Bank, chaired by
the State Minister of MoFEC, was a key guiding instrument. The SC meetings played a
significant role in directing program implementation.

At regional and woreda level, the MA, together with MoFEC and the BoFED offices
facilitated and supported the networking/coordination between regional and woreda FTA
contact point, FTA-SA linkages and SAIPs-FTA linkages. At woreda level, the MA together
with SAIPs supported the establishment of the SAC. SACs developed strong linkages with
different government offices and service providers. Some SACs signed a MoU with sector
offices or the woreda administration, making them a legitimate structure to work. For
instance, during FGD it proved that the SAC, operating at community level and holding
government officials and service providers accountable is unique as compared to woreda
councils because they are using SA tools and members are a legitimate representative of
different groups. The formation of the SAC was also unique because members were formed
from different groups; they were motivated local representatives/citizens and received special
adjusted training about theSA set up, content and methods in their own local language.

ii) Using SAIPs for program implementation was effective

In the past, CSOs have led the way to improving economic growth and advocacy campaigns
for access to basic services in different woredas. The MA has selected CSOs based on their
plan of action, their financial viability and their management capacity. MA selected CSOs to
create synergy and effectively implement the SA program. This was because: CSOs are
already based at local level with their own programme; it was easy to capitalize CSOs
experience in reaching and addressing community basic services, CSOs are holding the rights
of marginalized community and plaid catalytic role in bringing service providers,
government officials, citizens and other actors together. The MA added on and enriched their
approach with SA into their “normal” work, igniting “interest” in SA and capitalized SAIPs
representation of rights holders (women, elders, disabled, etc.). Therefore, MA by using this
approche created a better relationship and enabled environments for effective implementation
64
 of the SA process. In fact, during KII with SAIPs and government officials it proved that
SAIPs easily expanded SA approaches (i.e. CBOs, FBOs) and successfully implemented SA
tools and brought on board citizens, government and service providers under the same
umbrella. This collective action by SAIPs was a very useful ally and ensured the SA
approach to be built into the government system. Further to this, all SAIPs successfully
engaged both the supply and demand sides of social accountability. For instance, SAIPs
regularly coordinated and organized meetings and training. In total 2,238 meetings were
organized in which 157,168 people participated. These meetings were better prepared and
have improved transparency and information communication among the different actors.
In addition, the MA supported and capitalized on the existing SAIPs experience to reach to
the marginalized community. Many SAIPs already focused on either one or more of the
vulnerable groups (gender, elderly, person with HIV) when their voices were not represented
and who did not have any influence on decisions pertained to their lives. The program
acknowledged the need for considering these groups. Through the application of SA tools,
the SAIPs have grown and become stronger. Meaning, SAIPs have got new elements of SA
tools into their approach and were easier for them to reach the marginalized groups.

iii) Gradual involvement of other target groups and program compoents

(councillors, FTA and GRM)

In addition to SAIPs intervention, during KII it proved that, it was quite unique that many
government officials and service providers were actually collaborative partners by facilitating
the work and in some cases allocating resources for SA joint monitoring and evaluation. The
linkage established between region FTA and woreda FTA was also anather key factor.
Furthermore, counciler involvement in addressing SAC request and GRM were significantly
contributed to better performance of the program.

iv) MA has made great effert in dissiminating SA messege

The fact that ESAP2 put so much effort in disseminating the SA message through the
involvement of the media is another important factor. MA has produce different documents/fact
sheets/booklets and facilitated and shared learning. This created and deepened citizen, SAIPs,
service providers, government officials and other actor information and understanding about SA.

65
For instance, MA through Facebook reached 8,000 followers, circulated 6,000 Quarterly
Newsletter copies, developed Participatory Video on YouTube channelel, produced SA
documentary film and made radio programs, calendars stories/most significant story booklets.
All this communication means had improved program results

66
4. Conclusion

The assessment team concluded the following key points:

 The intervention has severely contributed to the outcome and increased the use of basic
services;
 The biggest impact is the increased awareness of community members and targeted
groups on their rights, on how to hold service providers accountable, on whom to go to
for claiming their rights, and understanding the obligations regarding service delivery of
the supply side and their own responsibilities to participate and take action for their own
development as citizens;
 The application of SA tools, approaches and mechanisms by service providers and local
government officials has improved the way in which citizens, service providers and
government work, plan and measure citizen satisfaction;
 The use of SA tools by citizens and the massive awareness created by SAIPs has
supported citizens to make their own choices, have control over their own development,
and hold decision makers accountable for the services provided;
 Application of the SA tools has enhanced the ability of woreda sectors officials to
improve access and quality of basic services with greater equity development. It
promoted and improved joint planning, budgeting and monitoring and evaluation by all
actors. It encouraged government responsiveness.
 The program has a strong potential to contribute to enhancing the capacity of citizens and
citizen groups to actively get engaged with one or more service providers for better
public service delivery;
 The MA has well functioning and clear reporting lines and system sharing. Many SAIPs
lack a proper recording system and documentation of information;
 The collaboration and partnership between the MA and SAIPs was good;
 Most of the SAIP activities were implemented within the operational timeframe. At
implementation level, the program is highly regarded and in compliance with government
policy;
67
 The MA developed a strong M&E system. However, some SAIPs had a weak M&E
system;
 The program concept and design were highly relevant to country policies and strategic
objectives and priorities;
 The program design, the quality of the problem analysis and the intervention logic
(logical framework matrix) was coherent and logically interlinked;

 There is a high likelihood that ESAP2 activities and benefits will continue beyond the
lifespan of the program. Becouse the program strengthend the capacity of different actors
involved in the program, established strong basic functional interlinked structures,
developed sustainability plan that can continued the program, created massive awareness
about SA and citizens became aware of their rights and responsibilities in getting basic
services, and started asking service providers more about it, developed sustainability
guidance for SAIPs, improved FTA / Public Finance Management (PFM) and
established strong linkages and partnerships between SAIPs, service providers and
government officials.

 The ESAP2 program and approach can result in more inclusive and equity development,
because the program supports the inclusiveness of women, PwD, marginalized
community and elderly. Similarly, the program supports community priority plans and
implementation approaches;
 Training and repeated exposure using different techniques and examples deepened the
understanding of the use of SA tools, approaches and citizen engagement.

68
5. Recommendations

The followings are key recommendations:

 The program promising results and innovative initiatives must be properly
institutionalized and scaled-up to other areas. Meeting the overall program objectives
requires further efforts i.e. to institutionalize the program within government structures.
Define government office roles, responsibilities and commitments at different levels. For
instance, MoFEC can officially endorse SA tools to be integrated as accountability and
monitoring tools at different levels. For a better impact, a program like ESAP2 needs
strong institutional arrangements, government support and 4 to 5 year implementation
period;
 The program should continue to build a strong network and platform that can positively
influence and enhance SA program to different actors, such as INGOs, universities and
research institutes. This could be a good opportunity to share learning and scale up the
impact of the program;
 Learning benchmark meetings were the most effective program elements that should be
strengthened and scaled up. Learning bench mark shall also be conducted at woreda and
region level. For evidenced documentation and learning develop learning agenda during
future programming and capture the learning during M&E system rollout.
 Each SAIPs has to scale up and realize the approach in their field of operation and
implementation area;
 Most SAIP interventions on agriculture and rural roads were limited. For combined
effective outcomes, SAIP involvement in these limited sectors has to improve. Use of SA
tools in other sectors such as electricity and the PSNP program will bring more added
value;
 Inclusion of marginalized groups and women participation in the overall implementation
program was encouraging. This has to be scaled up and strengthened;
 For the purpose of simplicity, measurement of cost and effectiveness, it is highly
recommended to reduce the number of outcome indicators from the current 17 to a

69
 maximum of 8. All SAIPs shall adopt and share all or part of the outcomes. Measuring
some program indicators is not easy and time consuming for instance measuring
indicator 3.4 “the number of community based organizations (e.g. iddirs, women
associations) in the project woredas that collectively demand an improvement of basic
public services has increased by 50% at project end”;
 Program indicators have to be disaggregated by sex and qualitative indicators have to be
included in the log frame matrix;
 The program has organized learning forums and developed learning outcomes. For the
purpose of systematic compilation and evidence based learning extraction, it is advisable
to develop a “Program Learning agenda” during the design of the next program;
 Develop a more comprehensive standard M&E framework that can be easily applied and
used by all SAIPs. As a minimum requirement, the framework should contain: an M&E
skeleton plan, common indicators, an indicator matrix and definition, database, standard
tools and monitoring reporting forms specific to this project. Partners can use their own
system for other projects.
 Provide a practical M&E system setup training system for the rollout of SAIPs M&E
system. Link the training with deliverables i.e. use SAIP documents under
implementation (log frame, indicator matrix etc.);
 Continue to test SA tools. Identify the drawbacks, challenges and application of each
tool. This will improve the use and application of the tools and its linkage with other
similar tools such as the sector office checklist, social audit, community mapping,
participatory review and reflection and others;
 The linkage with FTA is good and has to be scaled up, and SAIPs and government office
linkages have to be improved. During implementation it has to be regularly verified;
 During program design, MoFEC participation is very crucial and mandatory. The role
and responsibility of MoFEC (focal person), regional FTA and MA has to be clearly
defined and revisited. These roles and responsibilities have to be clearly communicated
with all implementing actors. The M&E capacity of MoFEC has to be strengthened. In
addition to the current MoFEC staff, as a minimum one M&E seconded or outsourced
staff member is highly recommended;
 The SAC has to be strengthened through more training. Linking them with different
70
 actors has to be considered. Sustainable sources of funds for SAC administration cost has
to be guaranteed. For instance part of community funds mobilized or government funds
allocated during joint planning could be used for this purpose;
 Government root structures such as water committees, youth committees etc, should not
be over looked. They have to be included and participate in the SA program. In addition,
regional, zone and woreda councils have to be engaged and should be part of the
program. Their role and the role of the SAC have to be clearly elaborated; and
 All SAIPs, in addition to SA program funds, have to explore and raise funds through
other sources. SAIPs should not suspend the program immediately after the SA program
ends its funding.

71
Appendices

72
 Appendex-1: Terms of reference

1. OVERVIEW

The Management Agency (MA) has been implementing the Ethiopia Social Accountability
Program phase 2 (ESAP2), financed through a World Bank administered Multi Donor Trust Fund.
To assess changes due to program interventions as compared to the benchmark, to check effectiveness,
efficiency, reliability, sustainability and scalability of the program as well as to draw lessons from the
interventions, an internal assessment shall be conducted on the status of Social Accountability (SA) in the
field of public basic service delivery in 223 intervention woredas.

The MA outsourced a baseline assessment on ESAP2 in the period May-July 2013 in 28

selected operational woredas. The baseline values have been used in the ESAP2 logical framework
matrix to define the target levels. The internal assessment will help to populate the higher-level outcome
indicator targets as defined in the logical framework matrix at project end. Now that project activities
are nearing completion, the MA is seeking the services of a qualified firm to carry out an internal
assessment on ESAP2 to compare the outcome level changes with the benchmark by using a cross
sectional method. The assessment will qualitatively assess the attribution of the changes to the ESAP2
program. The exercise will also aim to evaluate the key intervention areas of both the MA and
the Social Accountability Implementing Partners (SAIPs). The assessment will help identifying key
challenges and lessons learned that might inform the design of a program that will scale up the SA
practices.

2. BACKGROUND

ESAP2 is part of the Protection of Basic Services (PBS) program, which has been implemented by
the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) at regional, woreda and kebele level in cooperation with the World
Bank. The program has a countrywide scope and articulates the needs and concerns of citizens regarding
their access to education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads. Working through
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), the program opened up channels of communication between
citizens, responsible government bodies and public service providers.

The overall objective of the ESAP2 is to strengthen the capacities of citizens, citizen groups
and government to work together in order to enhance the quality of basic public services delivered to
citizens. The program seeks to give voice to the needs and concerns of all citizens on the delivery and
quality of basic public services in the areas of education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and
rural roads. Finally, the use of SA tools, approaches and mechanisms by citizens and citizen groups,
CSOs, local government officials and service providers should result in more equitable, effective,
efficient, responsive and accountable public basic service delivery.

The ESAP2 MA is responsible for the overall program coordination, capacity development and training,
technical guidance, support and monitoring of the progress of the SAIPs.

3. OBJECTIVES

3.1. Overall objective:

To investigate changes as a result of program interventions, to check on effectiveness,

efficiency, reliability, sustainability and scalability of the program as well as to draw lessons from the
intervention.
73
3.2. Specific Objectives:

a) Collect follow-up data in selected communities of the 28 sampled woredas. The findings will help
to compare changes against the baseline assessment implemented in 2013, which served as
benchmark. The baseline values have been used in the ESAP2 logical framework matrix to define the
target levels. The internal assessment will help to populate the higher-level outcome indicator targets
as defined in the logical framework matrix at project end. The evaluation will qualitatively assess the
attribution of the changes to the ESAP2 program.
b) Assess service improvements that the ESAP2 intervention contributed to in the targeted public basic
service sectors (education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture, and rural roads).
c) Identify what the effect has been of the MA support to SAIPs in areas of capacity building,
monitoring and evaluation, financial and grant management, communication, and public relation
interventions. This includes training, supportive supervision, reporting, learning benchmark events,
as well as the use of social media and other communication activities aimed at improving,
documenting, and spreading the SA practice and the service improvement results that emerged.
d) The evaluation will also assess the effectiveness of the MA and the SAIPs on program management
in meeting its targets, reflected in the day-to-day processes and mechanisms for operation
and coordination between the MA and the 48 SAIPs, and a wider audience of citizens as
well as professionals (MoFEC and BoFEDs/FTA, Development Partners, other CSO programs,
PSNP etc).
e) Identify key challenges and lessons learned that might inform the design of a program that will scale
up the SA practice.

4. METHODOLOGY

The successful applicant is expected to develop a concise methodology for undertaking this assessment.
The proposed methodology should clearly articulate the assessment design, tools, work plan, schedule
and budget to carry out the assignment. A cross sectional methodology2 shall be used in line with
the baseline assessment (specific objective a), with additional tools that enables to show changes
and document appropriate information and processes (specific objectives b-e). The methodology
should include:
• A concise scope of work to undertake the internal assessment that meets the objectives as stipulated
under point 3 above.
• Verification of the data collected during the baseline, which covered 28 sampled woredas selected
from all regions of Ethiopia. The baseline survey instrument is available at MA level and needs to
be refined. The methodology for the sampled woredas shall remain the same as used for the baseline.
• Purposive selection of additional 10 woredas (e.g. based on regions, sectors and SA tools)
where ESAP2 has been implemented to collect additional data at field level from key stakeholders.
The field data shall be collected in the five sectors of ESAP2 (i.e. education, health, water and
sanitation, agriculture and rural roads), and any other sectors that may have emerged in the SA
process (e.g. electricity). The applicant shall purposefully select other key stakeholders at
regional and federal level, to obtain a diverse enough picture about the results achieved by the
program.
• A strategy on field visits with Focus Group Discussants (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews,
with citizens, SA Committee members, SAIPs and local authorities in the sampled regions and
woredas3, as well as organized discussions with strategic ESAP2 partners (donors GoE
representatives and the ESAP2 MA) will be presented. A range of other tools can be proposed, but
74
 must include an Audience Analysis Survey to assess the effectiveness of communication efforts of
ESAP2.

The applicant shall develop and clearly state the methodology to be used during the internal assessment,
including sampling, and qualitative methodologies.

The statistical package to be used to sample additional woredas and respondents is SPSS. For qualitative
analysis, the consultant may wish to note that the MA is licensed for Quality Data Analysis (QDA) miner.

5. SPECIFIC TASKS

Specific responsibilities of the applicant include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Review of secondary documents on ESAP2 and other related materials(ESAP2 operational

manual, SA implementation guideline, SA manual, M&E Data Base, Learning Benchmark
Reports, ESAP2 Quarterly reports, research reports, etc);
 Refine internal assessment instruments in line with the ESAP2 logical framework matrix
and baseline survey, including appropriate methods to identify unforeseen results at various
levels;
 Develop internal assessment instruments: that address the specific objectives of this
ToR; Translate questionnaires into local languages of the sampled areas;
 Pre-test the questionnaires and other tools;
 Compose a team of interviewers, enumerators and supervisors who have a solid record of
conducting surveys, including qualitative survey expertise;
 Train interviewers and enumerators for the field work;
 Organize all field logistics (team composition, transportation, accommodation, appointments
etc.);
 Conduct the field surveys based on the pre-defined questionnaires and other tools Enter
data into appropriate data entry software and export it to SPSS database. Use appropriate
software to compile qualitative information (e.g. QDA miner);
 Verify/clean SPSS and qualitative datasets;
 Analyze data, identify specific gaps/deficits in the SA process and mechanisms, and clarify
training and other specific needs to be met in the future;
 Systematically compile promising stories, quotes, and service improvements achieved due to
the SA interventions;
 Prepare and present a draft report on survey design, implementation and major findings,
discussion of findings, lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations to the ESAP2 MA,
the Transparency and Accountability Group (TAG), and MoFEC representatives;
 Prepare and submit an internal assessment report with relevant Annexes and a
comprehensive dataset, incorporating all feedback from stakeholders involved.

6. OUTPUT/DELIVERABLES

Four main outputs are expected from this evaluation:

a) Inception Report
An inception report shall be submitted not later than one week after commencement of the assignment
and before starting primary data collection. It shall highlight adjustments to the methodology presented
in the original technical proposal and contain the work plan, organization and composition of the teams

75
(incl. contact details), the detailed time schedule and all other logistical and organizational matters for
the field mission.

b) Regular weekly reporting

The supervisors of each data collection team will contact the ESAP2 MA M&E officer on a weekly basis
to report on the progress made compared to the plan. Any difficulty encountered shall be
communicated immediately to this ESAP2 MA representative.

c) Draft Internal Assessment Report

A draft internal assessment report shall be produced and submitted to the MA no later than six weeks
after submission of the inception report. The report shall be in line with the MA internal assessment
reporting format, made available to the applicant upon contract signature. It follows a systematic chapter
format including executive summary, background, literature review, methodology, key findings in each
of the areas specified in this ToR in section 3 above(objectives), conclusions, and recommendations for
future program design, related annexes and all other topics required as indicated in this ToR. The
applicant will submit the draft report to the MA and facilitate a validation workshop. Questions by the
MA and/or other related stakeholders will be answered following the, TAG and MoFEC
presentation workshop

d) Internal Assessment Report

The final internal assessment report will be submitted within two weeks after submission of the draft
report and include comments and observations made by the MA and/or other stakeholders during the
validation workshop or shortly afterwards in writing. The final report shall be submitted in four bound
hard copies and a soft/electronic copy. The raw, clean dataset shall be annexed to the report in both hard
and soft copy.

The final report shall be written in the English language.

7. TIMEFRAME

The internal assessment will cover a period of maximum two months (i.e. 60 calendar days) starting
from the date of the contract. The following proposed plan will be used to guide the evaluation:

Step 1: Initial Review (1-2 weeks)

This phase will involve initial review of documents and the presentation of an inception report. The
inception report shall include an elaborated plan, methodology, draft data analysis instruments, and
sampling strategy of the field survey.

Step 2: Field Survey (3-4 weeks)

The main activity of this phase will be the training of data collectors, the pretesting of tools and the actual
data collection in line with the agreed plan, methodology, and sampling strategy from phase.

Step 3: Analysis, Reporting, Validation, and Finalization (2-3 weeks)

Following the data collection, this phase will involve data entry, analysis of information, report
writing, and packaging of all collected information into an accessible format for future use by the MA. A
validation workshop as indicated above.

76
8. BUDGET

Interested firms shall submit their competitive technical and financial proposal in line with this ToR. The
budget shall be calculated following the format presented below. The detailed schedule of activities
shall indicate how the internal assessment will be implemented covering a maximum period of 60
calendar days from the date of commencement of agreement.

The applicant shall submit a clear and high quality technical and financial proposal. The maximum
budget for the entire assignment as described in these ToR has been fixed at US$ 45,000 (including all
costs and taxes).

Expenditure Items

Activity Unit Cost Units Total

(working cost in
days) birr

Review of program documentation

Development of evaluation instruments
Pre-testing of the questionnaires and other tools
Training of interviewers and enumerators, Field work and Interviews (
primary data collection)
Data processing and Analysis
Report Writing
Validation with the Management Agency, TAG and MoFEC
representatives
Other
OVERALL TOTAL max. 60
calendar
Equivalent to days-2
USD months

9 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS

Based on the proposed methodology and the period of implementation, the successful applicant shall
present an adequate number of staff to cover the tasks mentioned in this ToR. Senior evaluators shall
be part of the team. The team composition shall reflect all languages spoken in the target regions.

Qualifications for senior evaluators:

 At least a Master Degree in social sciences, statistics, development, project management,
monitoring and evaluation or equivalent;
 At least 10 years of experience in carrying out/supervising surveys and NGO
evaluations;
 Prior experience in supervising at least 3 large surveys in Ethiopia;
 Very good knowledge of governance, in particular SA in public service
77
 provision;
 At least basic knowledge of the five ESAP2 sectors;
 Excellent analytical skills;
 A combination of excellent SPSS skills, and qualitative data
analysis skills;
 Excellent English skills (oral and report writing).

Note: The composition of the senior survey supervisors shall represent the major languages of the
country (Amharic, Oromifa, and Tigrinya), meaning that the survey supervisors cover ALL three of these
main languages.

Qualifications for interviewers and enumerators:

 Degree in social sciences and/or statistics, capacity development, monitoring and
evaluation or equivalent;
 At least 3 years of experience with data collection, interviewing and FGD, or participation in at
least 5 surveys including government officials and civil society representatives;
 At least basic knowledge of the five
ESAP2 sectors;
 Good analytical skills;
 Good knowledge of English language.

Note: the team of interviewers/enumerators shall cover all major languages spoken in the target regions.

10 PROFILE OF THE FIRM

 The selected firm shall have a proven track record in conducting large surveys and
qualitative evaluations in Ethiopia (at least 5 national surveys above 500 interviewees,
covering senior government officials, civil society organizations/community-based organizations
and citizens);
 The selected firm shall have experience in measuring SA and/or governance, social change;
 The selected firm shall have experience in measuring consumer satisfaction (ideally with
public service provision), and effectiveness of communication strategies for reaching large
audiences;
 The selected firm shall have survey experience in at least 3 of the ESAP2 target sectors (i.e.
education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and rural roads) and can easily mobilize
experts for the remaining 2.

11 APPLICATION PROCEDURE

Interested applicants should submit a detailed proposal regarding their understanding of the ToR,
methodology, work plan, proposed budget, and staffing profile to the MA. Applicants should
strictly follow the application template.
Clarifications can be asked by interested parties in writing only. Please request the clarification before
…………….. to info@esap2.org.et with the subject “clarification on the internal assessment”. We
will process your question(s) as quickly as possible.
Please visit our website www.esap2.org.et for additional information.
Interested and qualified applicants can send their full proposal and application with necessary
documents to the following address:
78
 Appendex-2: Assessment Matrix
Indicators. (The targets projected from the Assessment questions Source of Survey
baseline) information/method instrument
s

Derived from project logical framework

Impact/ultimate outcome
If there are, how many citizens have Citizen interview Tool-1
benefited from ESAP2 quality and Service providers
Proportion of users of basic services in the access of basic service due to SA interview and checking
ESAP2 program woredas increased by 20% program, actual data collected on
at project end. service use, e.g. comparing
before and after attendance
To what extent Application of in the sameprovides,
Service month local Tool-2 and
Application of social accountability
(SA) tools, approaches and mechanisms social accountability (SA) tools, government officials, Tool-3
increased by 40% (service providers) and approaches and mechanisms increased
30% (local government officials) in the by 1)service provides, 2)local
ESAP2 program to assess client/customers government officials,
satisfaction at project end.
If
Howthere any citizens
many evidence,make own choices? MA Database
Number of citizens supported to make
How many citizens have control
own choices, have control over their
own development, and hold decision over their own development,
makers accountable for the services. How many citizens hold
decision accountable for the services?
Percentage of citizens who report that How many citizens report the quality Citizen interview, Tool-1
woreda officials and service providers have of services to Woreda officials have
actively sought the views of people in actively sought the views of people in
their kebele on improving the quality of their kebele on improving the quality
basic services. of basic services?
How many citizens report the quality
of services to service providers have
actively sought the views of people in
their kebele on improving the quality
of basicOutcome
services indicators
In ESAP2 involved woredas, How many citizens are strongly Citizen interview, Tool-1, Tool-
improvements reported in at least 2 basic satisfied with at least 2 basic services 2 and Tool-3
services based on satisfaction surveys
Percentage of citizens in ESAP2 woredas that How many citizens judge the quality Citizen interview Tool-1
judge the quality of the services provided of the service is improved (good) due
as good (increase through ESAP2 to SA program
intervention by (50%)
Percentage of women in ESAP2 woredas How many women judge the quality Citizen interview Tool-1
that judge the quality of the of the service is improved (good) due
services provided as good (increase to SA program
through ESAP2 intervention by 50%)
Implementation of action plans by Number of implementation action Social accountability Tool-3, Tool-4
service providers incorporate plan developed and implemented by committee
citizen needs (increased service providers using SA process
through ESAP2 by 10% at project end)

79
Percentage of citizens in the ESAP2 program How many citizens strongly feels Citizens interview, Tool-1
that feel that service provision by that service provision (ESAP-2 services
local officials is responsive to their basic only) by local officials is responsive
needs has increased by 25% at project end. (on time) to their basic needs
At least half of the joint action plans How many JAPs are gender sensitive Service provides, Tool-1 and
developed under ESAP2 are gender sensitive and addressed needs of women (is Citizens, government Tool-3, Tool-
and address needs of women at project end. there a difference with plans developed officials 4

using Gender Responsive Budgeting and Social

Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys?). accountability
How many women were participated committee
and satisfied with JAP?
Output indicators
Social Accountability Committees How many numbers of functional Document review, Tool-4, Tool-
for participation of citizens and Social Accountability MA database, service 2 and Tool-3
Committees is providers, government FGD with
CBOs in basic service delivery are
established in at least 90% of the established? officials CITIZENS! CBOs
participating woredas in the ESAP2 Are Social Accountability CBOs
program, at project end. Committees facilitates
Using SA program, how many the Document review, Tool-2
At least 50% of the established Joint participation of citizens and CBOs in
Service Action Committees sustainable plans are developed by Joint Government
basic service delivery
Service Action Committees? / officials
developed a sustainability
plan at project Social Accountability Committees , service providers
About 9,897 end.representatives of How many representatives of MA
local government and basic local government and basic service monitorin
service providers implementing the providers received training about g database,
ESAP2 program are trained by SAIPs the use and application of SAP tools? Progress reports
on SA tools including participatory
budget planning and gender How many structured meetings were MA monitoring Tool-2, Tool-3
Regular, structured
mainstreaming meetings
at project end.related to conducted (between citizens, SAIPs, database, Progress
ESAP2 between citizens, SAIPs, woreda
woreda representatives and service report, citizen
representatives and service deliverers take
providers)? And which interview, service
place at least three times a year.
meetings/how many continue to be providers, government
Number of SAIP woredas that How
planned? many Woredas developed MA
officials Tool-2, Tool-3
have developed joint action plans for joint action plan for monitorin
service quality improvement based on service quality improvement g database,
interface meetings between service based on interface meetings Progress report, citizen
users and providers between service users and providers interview, service
From 392 joint action plans for service How many joint action plan for Service Tool-2, Tool-3
providers, government
quality improvement in the ESAP2 service quality improvement based on providers
officials
program at least 50% of the actions have interface meetings between service , government
been implemented at project end. users and providers are implemented officials, document
A total of 196 project staff How many SAIP project staff MA database, Progress
review, progress report
representatives of the 30 SAIPs taking representatives received training on report
part in the ESAP2 program are trained on how to encourage local governments to
how to encourage local governments to use use SA tools?
SA tools by March 2013.
A total of 114 project staff How many SAIP project staff MA database, Progress
representatives of the 19 SAIPs taking representatives received training on report
place in the ESAP2 program are trained how to encourage local governments to
on how to encourage local government use SA tools?
to use SA tools by November 2013.
Outcome indicators

80
The percentage of citizens and citizens How many citizens actively Citizens interview Tool-1
groups in the project woredas that have engaged with one or more service
actively engaged with one or more provides and demanded better public
service providers in the last 24 months services?
demand for better public basic services has How many citizens actively
increased
Percentagebyof25%citizens
at project
whoend. report engaged with one or more service Citizens interview Tool-1
How many citizens report
that woreda officials have actively provides and demanded
woreda officials better sought
have actively public
sought the views of citizens in their services?
their the views in their kebeles on
kebeles on improving quality of improving quality of public services
public services increased by 40% at project
The number of citizens and citizen groups in How many citizens reported they Citizens interview Tool-1
end.
the ESAP2 program indicating that they have have been involved in planning,
been involved in planning, budgeting, budgeting, implementing and
implementing and monitoring the quality of monitoring the
basic public services delivery has increased quality of basic public services delivery?
by 100% from the baseline at project end.
How many citizens reported they
have been involved in planning,
budgeting, implementing and
monitoring the
The number of community based quality of basic
How manypublic services
numberdelivery?
of FGD, progress report, Tool-4
organizations (e.g. iddirs, community based organizations (e.g. MA database
women associations) in the project iddirs, women associations)
woredas that collectively demand an collectively demand an improvement
improvement of basic public services has of basic public services?
increased by 50% at project end. Outcome indicators
How many citizens trained on how Citizens interview, Tool-1
to approach basic services MA database, Progress FGDs to
Citizens are trained on how to approach
report qualify
basic service providers at project end.

A total of 305 training sessions How many training sessions Citizens interview, Tool-1
implemented by ESAP2 included gender include gender mainstreaming MA database, SAIPs
mainstreaming on public basic service public basic service provision? Progress report,
provision at project end. Outcome indicators
Percentage of citizens in the targeted How many citizens report Citizens interview/FGD Tool-1 and
woredas who consider that their participation (planning, Tool-2
their participation in service implementation and monitoring) in
improvement and planning are essential service improvement are essential
parts of their rights and responsibilities as parts of their rights and
citizens has of
increased responsibilities?
Percentage citizensbyin8%theat project
programend.
area
How many citizens are able to Citizens interview/FGD Tool-1 and
who are able to explain the basic explain the basic components of their Tool-2
components of their rights and rights?
responsibilities on provision of basic How many citizens are able to
services has increased by 50% at project end. explain the basic
Percentage of citizens and citizen groups in How many citizens/groups Government meeting Tool-2
components of
the ESAP2 program that participate in: participate in: budget formulation? attendance data / FTA
their responsibilities?
a) budget formulation and b) action How many citizens/groups participate or WoFED
plan development has increased by in action plan development?
60% at project end.
Output indicators

81
 How many meetings have been held MA database, progress
A total of 723 meetings have been held by (consist of citizens, service report
48 CSOs/SAIP in which 46,728 citizens, providers and local government
service providers and local government officials) have conducted by
officials have participated at project end CSOs/SAIP
(July 2015)[7].
How many citizens/citizen groups MA database, progress Tool-6, tool
All SAIPs in the ESAP2 program have are regularly sensitized (to plan, report, SAIP, citizen 1+4
sensitized citizens and citizens groups on a budget, implement and monitor basic interviews, FDGs
regular basis on their rights and service delivery) by SAIP
responsibilities to plan, budget, implement
and monitor basic service delivery at
project end.
Derived from assessment objectives
What changes, if any, SAIPs capacity is SAIP interview, Tool-6 and
improved (monitoring and evaluation, Audience analysis survey Tool-5
financial and grant management,
communication, and public relation
interventions)
How was the effectiveness of the MA SAIP-MA interview, Tool-6
and the SAIPs program management in
meeting the program objectives
How was the effectiveness of the MA SAIP-MA interview, Tool-6 & 8
and the SAIPs program management in
coordinating with citizens, MoFED/
BoFED/FTA, Development Partners,
other CSO programs, PSNP etc
What factors contributed to success or Document review, Tool-6, Tool-
failure (challenges and lessons) of SAIP-MA interview, 1, Tool-2,
particular program strategies/activities? Citizen interview, Tool-3, Tool-
service provides 4
interview and Tool 8
How can we improve the effectiveness government officials
Document review, Tool-6, Tool-
and efficiency of these interview
SAIP-MA interview, 1, Tool-2,
strategies/activities (e.g. media, social Citizen interview, Tool-3, Tool-
media and engagement with service provides 4, Tool-5
policymakers)? interview and Tool 8
government officials
interview, Audience
analysis survey

82
 Appendex-3: Survey sampling framework

Regions Selected Woreda SAIP Zone Source of information/instruments

Distribution

Interview FGD KII-Gov KII-SP KII-SAIP

Endamehoni Mums for Southern 17 1 1 2

Mums Tigray
1
Mekele Mums For Special Zone 17 1 1 2
Mums
1
Kola Tembein TYA Central 17 1 1 2
Tigray
Tigray 1
3 51 3 3 6 3
Total
Awash Fentale Redeem Zone 3 17 1 1 2
the
Generation 1
Asayita WCAT Zone 1 17 1 1 2
Afar 1
2 34 2 2 4 2
Total
Debre Markos ADA East Gojjam 17 1 1 2
1
Debre Tabor Town WCAT South 17 1 1 2
Gondar
1
Tarma Bir EOC- North Shewa 17 1 1 2
DICAC 1
Kalu ADA South Wollo 17 1 1 2
Amhara 1
4 68 4 4 8 4
Total
Meki Town UEWCA East Shewa 17 1 1 2
1
Bako Tibe Hope for West Shewa 17 1 1 2
Children
1
Jimma Horo WCAT Kelem 17 1 1 2
Wellega
1
Sude2 EOC- Arsi 17 1 1 2
DICAC 1
Babile Hope For East Harerge 17 1 1 2
Children
1
Lume3 East Shewa 17 1 1 2
1
Jima Rare Hundee Horo Gudru 17 1 1 2
Oromia 1
7 119 7 7 14 7
Total
Kebri Beyah Jijiga Zone 17 1 1 4
Somali 1
1 17 1 1 4 1
Total
Benshang 1 NEWA Metekel 17 1 1 2
ule Zone 1
1 17 1 1 2 1
Total
Gorche4 PICDO Sidama 17 1 1 2
1
Misha Love in Hadiya 17 1 1 2
Action
Ethiopia
1

83
 Shebedino Hope for Sidama 17 1 1 2
Children
SNNP 1
Kachibira SOS Sahel Kembata 17 1 1 2
Timbaro
1
4 68 4 4 8 4
Total
Gambella town VECOD Ajnewak 17 1 1 2
1
Gambella Zuria VECOD Ajnewak 17 1 1 2
Gambella 1
2 34 2 2 4 2
Total
Sofi PDN Harari 18 1 1 1
Harari 1
1 18 1 1 1 1
Total
Woreda 05 PADET Lideta 18 1 1 2
1
Woreda 06 UEWCA Akaki Kaliti 18 1 1 2
Addis Sub city
Ababa 1
2 36 2 2 4 2
Total
Dire Dawa City JeCCDO Dire Dawa 18 1 1 2
Dire Dawa 1
Total 1 18 1 1 2 1
G.total 28 480 28 28 57 28

84
 Appendex-4: List of Key Informant interviewees

Woreda officials and sector offices

SN. Name of participants Responsibility Region Wereda Cell phone
1. Kebede Mohamed Administrator Amhara Tarmaber 0912679470
2. Ashine Kebele admin head Amhara Tarmaber 0913635073
3. Berhanu Mekuriaw Amhara Tarmaber 0913262164
4. Yeshalem Water officer Amhara Taramber
5. Mamush Hulumter Rural road officer Amhara Tarmaber 0921744005
6. Tesfaye weldekinfu Health officer Amhara Tarmaber 0937630537
7. Kifle Hailu Education office head Amhara Tarmaber 0911290348
8. Mekibib Kebede Water office head Amhara Tarmaber 0912463453
9. Mulat Mengistie Mayor Amhara Debretabor 0932858215
10. Kindalem Tsega Planer and customer Amhara Debretabor 0918378572
coordinator
11. Berhanu Zelalem Amhara Debretabor 0918713997
12. Zewudu Aderaw Health Center head Amhara Debretabor 0913069347
13. Abayinesh Head of admin Amhara Kalu 0921436874
14. Munaye Mesfin Head of security office Amhara Kallu
15. Neima Ibrahim Administration expert Amhara Kallu 0913853417
16. Ali Ibrahim Water office head Amhra Kalu 0926138676
17. Ahimed seid Vice/education office Amhara Kallu 0913691305
18. Kefale Takele Administrator Amhara Derbremarkos 0921573961
19. Eyobel Abebe Mayor office manager Amhara Deberemarkos 0913603633
20. Yihune Melese School Director Amhara Deberemarkos 0913142862
21. Lakachew Water office head Amhra Debremarkos 0913051062
22. Desalegn Tadese Finance head Oromia Sude 0921084772
23. Anuar negash FTA department head Oromia Babile 0921157598
24. Mesfin Birhanu Water office head Oromia Babile 0913276164
25. Hindisa Suleiman Agriculture expert Oromia Babile 0912366631
26. Biniam Ayalew FTA head Diredawa DireDawa town 0920468554
27. Habtu Teka School Director Diredawa Diredawa town 0913388391
28. Argaw Retu School Teacher Diredawa Diredawa 0915763820
29. Bona David Planning and program Harari Sofi 0963885809
head
30. Belisa Mohamed School director Harari Sofi 0920463534
31. Asefa Hailu PM&E coordinator Oromia Lume 0910146691
32. Taye Gebisa FTA Oromia Jimarare 0917723743
33. Dejene Mekonen Health Center head Oromia Dugda/Meki 0912858093
34. Kelemwork Werdofa HR manger Oromia Dugda/Meki 0912047181
35. Berhanu Negusie Health office Oromia Sude 0912813052
36. Fanos Umer Water office Oromia Sude 0910764089
37. Bedassa Dugasa Family Health Coordinator Oromia Bako Tibe 0921918136
38. Temesgen Gudeta Administrator Oromia Bako Tibe 0910369856
39. Tadese Amanu Planning, M&E Oromia Jima rare 0912919273
40. Abdurabib Yesuf Planning and budget Somali Kberibeyah 0915769826
expert
41. Mesele Yilma M&E planning officer Afar Awas fentale 0911931711
42. Mustefa Mohamed Health officer Somali Kebribeyah 0915774528
43. Ayan Sheh Ibrahim EBI focal person Somali Kebribeyah 0915052422
44. Abdulwuhab Ashim Food security head Somali Kebribeyah 0915065804

85
 45. Abdulhusein Ali House speaker Afar Assayita 0965059527
46. Mesele Yilma M&E planning officer Afar Awas fentale 0911931711
47. Tadele Tamiru House speaker Tigray Kola temben 0938159788
48. Tadele mariam WoFED head Tigray Hawulti/mekele 0914700400
49. Mebrat WoFED head Tigray Endamehoni 0912986963
50. Tilahun Water office head Tigray Endamehoni 0914047305
51. Kidusan Redae Rural road office head Tigray Endamehoni 0914705426
52. Abrahama Health Center Head Tigray Hawultey 0914015152
53. Hailemariam School Vice principal Tigray Hawultey 0914397766
54. Omod Adjack Health center HR Gambella Gambella zuria 0932145976
55. Abdul Fetah Health center head Gambella Gambella zuria 0925482842
56. Azeb Gezahegn School teacher Gambella Gambella town 0923430165
kebele 03
57. Cham Gumiro School Director Gambella Gambella town 0917483031
kebele 03
58. Bogale Girma School director Gambella Gambella zuria
59. Ojulu Omede Ochala Gambella zuria wereda Gambella Gambella zuria 0917317856
administrator wereda
60. Omade Omade Bonga Kebele Gambella Gambella zuria
administrator
61. Kassu Tesfaye Wereda 05 executive Addis Abeba Lideta subcity 0913597697
Wereda 05
62. Kiros Kahisay School Director Addis Abeba Akaki-Kaliti
Subcity wereda
06
63. Endalkachew Abebe Health center head Addis Abeba Lideta subcity 0911025753
wereda 05
64. Feseha Bedada Wereda 06 executive Addis Abeba Akaki-Kalti 0923926067
subcity wereda
06
65. Somal Mengesha Administrator B/Gumuz Guba
66. Henok Gebreyes Mujejeguwa Loka women B/Gumuz Guba 0910642831
development Association
representative
67. Behita Mehamed Wereda Women officer B/Gumuz Guba 0917176621
68. Hajar Mehamed Facilitator B/Gumuz Guba

SAIPs
s/n Lead Implementing Region Survey Kebles SAIP contact person
Partner woredas targeted by and Telephone
ESAP2
program
1 Mums for Mums ACSOT Tigray Endameho Akojara Berihu ACSOT-
ni Waja Timuga 0914720002
Layilay Dayu
2 Mums For Mums QESDA Tigray Mekele Hadnet Kiros QESDA-
Hawlti 0914720672
semen
3 Tigray Youth - Tigray Kola simret Girma TYA-
Association Tembein merere 0914705655
awet-bakalsi
4 Redeem the - Afar Awash sabure Asaminew -
Generation Fentale deho 0930098219
Dudub

86
5 Wabe Children Aid Development & Afar Asayeta Berga Contact
Training (WCAT) Enterprise Center Asayita 01 Misganaw(WCAT) at
(DEC) Asayita 02 920754989 to liaison
with DEC

6 Amhara - Amhara Debre Keble

Development Markos, 01,02,03,04,
Association(ADA) 05,06,07 Yeshimebet ADA -
0918053875
7 Wabe Children Aid - Amhara Debre Debretabor Contact
Training (WCAT) Tabor keble Misganaw(WCAT) at
01,02,03,04 920754989 or Mestika
- 0911642538
9 Union of Ethiopian MSMDO Oromia Meki Town Keble 01 Hirut-MCMDO -
Women Charitable Keble 02 0930012683
Association Keble 03
(UEWCA)
10 Hope for Children New Vision in Oromia Bako Tibe Bako 01 Zelelew HFC =
Education Guto metii 0911563074
Association Gudina biya
11 Wabe Children Aid Education For Oromia Jima Horo Lakku Ibu Contact
Training (WCAT) Development Abi dulecha Misganaw(WCAT) at
Association (EDA) Gitilo dale 920754989 or
Mestika - 0911642538
to liaison you with
EDA
13 Hundee - Oromia Lume Momo shoki Teshome -
Dara dambla 0911840154
Dangogie
Bakala
Mude sankele
Biyyo bisikke
14 EOC-DICAC - Oromia Sude Ashmiraquren Birhanu EOC-
a 0922149238
Gesachisa
Merinagarjela
15 Hope For Children - Oromia Babile Babile 02 Zelelew HFC =
Kito 0911563074
Likale
16 NEWA Mujejeguwa Loka B/Gumuz Guba Aicid Tirhas- Mujejeguwa
Women Basahata Loka
Development Alemahel 0911508564
Association Aswar
17 Professional Save Your AA Lideta sub woreda 05 Henok - SYGA-
Alliance for Generation city 0911204617
Development Ethiopia
(PADET)
18 Union of Ethiopian Marefia Children's AA Akaki sub woreda 06 Contact Haddis
Women Charitable Center (MCC) city (UEWCA) -
Association 0931088418
(UEWCA) Office 0116184964 to
liaison with Marefia
Children's Center
(MCC)

87
19 Hope for Children BICDO SNNP Shebedino Fura Contact Zelelew
Remedan mamuye (911563074)
Teremes to liaison with BICDO
Director, Jemal
If not contact SNNP
BOFED FTA focal-

Tesfahun -912078743
21 PICDO - snnp Arbegoina Roko Taye PICDO -
Beto 0911406551
Yaye
22 SOS Sahel - SNNP Kacha bira Bugi Tamrat – KMG-
Awaye 0911382706
Walana
Kachabira
24 PDN Development and Harari Sofie Kile Elias Jemal -DRA –
Relief Association Aw-omar 0911785625
(DRA) Lomeshira E mail:
elmeya3@gmail.com
25 JeCCDO Dire Dawa Dire Dawa Dira Dawa Keble Birhanu Woldie-
community Action city 01,02,04,05 DDCA -
Charity 0915073455
Association

Case studies woredas

s/n Region Implemen Survey woredas(for SAIP contact person and Telephone
ter case studies)
1. Tigray ADCS Saeseitsaeda-emba Tewodros -0913784184
2. Amhara Migbare Enarji enawga Mulu Alamire - 093410909
senay
3. Amhara JeCCDO Bahir Dar Tigist JECCDO - 911878855
4. Oromia EMRDA Jimma Kersa Maru Suleman- 911036924
5. Oromia Hundee Kuyyu Teshome Hundee - 0911840154

6. Oromia PSDP Kersa – East Hararge Tshay Deresse- Focal (??) 0911-1311462

7. B/Gumuz EWLA Mao Komo EWLA- Tesfaye - 911146508

Or Tekie Aregawi from B/Gumuz BOFED -
0921467175
8. SNNP ADV Mirab azernet Bilal Kemal- 0934-205191
Or Ato Adane, Director -'0913250257
9. SNNP KMG Hadoro Tunto KMG- Tamrat -0911382706
10. Harari APAP Shenkor Wongel- APAP- 0911218446
Or Nuredin Mohamed -Harari BOFED - 0915763440

Regional level- BOFEDs FTA focal

S.r Regions Name Email cell phone no Office

Eyerusalem
1 Tigraye Tesfaye eyerushilina@yahoo.com 0914754028

88
 Kedir
2 Afar Mohammed kedir00251@yahoo.com 0911797509
Wondifraw
3 Amhera Yigzaw wondeifraw@yahoo.com 0918769445
4 Oromia Mulugeta Asefa - 0911820938
5 SNNP Tsefahun Bairu edenatesfafhun@yahoo.com 0912078743 0462201728
6 Somali NURE AWOL 0915746666

Solomon
7 Gambella Tsegaye solotsgy@yahoo.com 0911946399
Nuredin
8 Hareri Mohammed nur.mhmd@yahoo.com 0915763440
9 DeriDewa Biniyam Ayehu benyam.ayehu@yahoo.com 0920468554
Getachew channel 1
10 B/Gumuz Disassa getachew_dis@yahoo.com 0911761186 Coordinator

Federal level- MoFEC

1 Addis Ababa Demile Yismaw demileyismaw@yahoo.com 0911397784 AA

2 Addis Ababa Belay Asrat asratbelay@gmail.com 0911401960 AA

89
 Appendex-5: Survey instruments

Tool-1: Citizens survey questionnaires

Date of the Interview: _______________________ DD MM YYYY
ቃለመጠይቅ የተደረገበት ቀን፡ ቀን ወር ዓ.ም
Name of Enumerator:_______________________
ቃለመጠይቅ ያደረገው ሰው ስም፡
Enumerator: Signature:________________________________
ቃለመጠይቅ አድራጊው ሰው ፊርማ፡
To be completed at the field after interview has been done ቃለመጠይቅ ከተደረገ በኋላ በሱፐርቨይዘሩ የሚሞላ
Name and signature of the consultant/supervisor: ________________________________________
የሱፐርቫይዘሩ ስምና ፊርማ
Date: _____________________________________
ቀን.
FOR OFFICE USES ONLY………………………..
ለቢሮ አገልግሎት ብቻ
Encoded by: _________________ Entered by: ________________
ኮድ የሰጠው መረጃውን ወደ ኮምፒውተር ያስገባው

Module A: Identification and background

መለያ ቁጥርና

A-100 Survey Identification number:

መለያ ቁጥር
A-101 Name: ሙሉስም Sex ፆታ Age Education Leve lየትምህርት ደረጃ
እድሜ
A-102 M ወንድ F ሴት Unable Able to Primary Second Above
1= 2= to read read and school ary secondary
and write አንደኛ school school (above
write ማንበብና ደረጃ ሁለተኛ grade 10)
ማንበብና መጻፍ 3= ደረጃ ኩለተኛ ደረጃ በላይ
መጻፍ 2= 4= 5=
የማይችል
1=
A-103 Telephone number:ስልክ ቁጥር፡

A-104 Woreda: ወረዳ፡ Code ኮድ

A-105 Kebele: ቀበሌ Code ኮድ

1=Married 2=Single 3=Widowed 4=Divorced 5=separated;

1=ያገባ 2= ያላገባ 3= ባል የሞተባት 4= አግብቶ የፈታ 5= ከትዳር የተለያዩ
Status (marital status and
vulnerable groups) (multiple 6=Disabled, 7=living with HIV/AID
answer is possible) 6= አካል ጉዳተኛ 7= ከኤች አይ ቪ ኤድስ ጋር የሚኖሩ
A-106
የጋብቻ ሁኔታና ተጋጭነት

(አግባብ ያለውን ሳትጠይቅ አክብብ)

A-107 Sector of ESAP2 SAIP Sector Yes=1 No=2

involvement አገልግሎት ሰጪ ተቋማት አዎ የለም
የማህበራዊ ተጠያቂነት Education ትምህርት

90
 ትግበራ የሚካሄድባቸው Health ጤና
ዘርፎች የትኞቹ ናቸው
Water and sanitation ውሃ
አግባብ የሆነውን Agriculture ግብርና
መልስ ክበብ Rural road ገጠር መንገድ

In which of the following areas Sector አገልግሎት ሰጪ ተቋማት Yes =1 አዎ No=2 የለም
do you use services Education ትምህርት
Health ጤና
A-108 በየትኛዎቹ ዘርፎች ተገልጋይ ነዎት ? Water and sanitation ውሃ
Agriculture ግብርና
(multiple answer is possible
ከአንድ በላይ መልስ ይቻላል) Rural road ገጠር መንገድ

B-100 Are you entitled to demand/voice for proper provision of basic 1=Yes, 2=No, 3=don’t know
services like education, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and 1, አዎ 2, የለም 3, አላውቅም
rural road
ትምህርት ፣ ጤና፣ ውሃና ንጽህና ፣ገብርና እና ገጠር መንገድ የመሰሉትን መሠረታዊ
አቅርቦቶች በሚመለከት የመጠየቅ /ሃሳብ የማቅረብ መብት አለዎት?
B-101 Have you ever approached Sector 1=Yes አዎ 2=No የለም
a service provider in the አገልግሎት ሰጪ ተቋማት
past year in the following Education ትምህርት
sectors with the support of Health ጤና
the CSO/SAIP? Water and sanitation ውሃ
በአለፈው ዓመት ከሚከተሉት Agriculture ግብርና
ዘርፎች በበጎ አድራጎት
Rural road ገጠር መንገድ
ድርጅት/ማህበራዊ ተጠያቂነት ን
ከሚተገብሩ ድርጅቶች ታግዘው
ያውቃሉ?
Circle the appropriate
answer
አግባብ የሆነውን መልስ አክብብ
B-102 If yes? Why and how you 1=
approached the service 2=
providers 3=
ቀርቤ ነበር ካሉ ለምን አገልግሎት
ነበር? ምን አደረጉ ? (መረጃ
ሰብሳቢዎች በአጭሩ መልሱን
በክፍቱ ቦታ ጻፉ )
B-103 If no, in any of the above 1=
(B-101), why you have not 2=
approached any service 3=
providers ( please skip to
Question
ከላይ ከተጠቀሱ ት በአንዱም
ቀርበው የማያውቁ ከሆነ
ለምንድን ነዉ?
B-104 If you approached, Sector Highly Satisfied=2 Not satisfied=3 Don’t
according to your አገልግሎት ሰጪ satisfied=1 እረክቻለሁ Poor አልረካሁም know=4
judgment, are you satisfied ተቋማት በከፍተኛ ሁኔታ አላውቅም
with the service? እረክቻለሁ
Education
በርስዎ እይታ ወይም አመለካከት ትምህርት
በአገኙት አገልግሎት እረክተዋል? Health
ጤና
Water and
sanitation
91
 ውሃ
Agriculture
ግብርና
Rural road
ገጠር መንገድ
B-105 As compared to the past Sector Improved Improved= Not Decre Don’t
period (before a years), አገልግሎት ሰጪ very well=1 2 improved ased= know=5
how is the quality of the ተቋማት በጥሩ ሁኔታ በመጠኑ =3 4 አላውቅም
service? ተሻሽሏል ተሻሽሏል አልተሻሻለም ቀንሷል
Education
አገልግሎቱን ከአንድ አመት በፊት ትምህርት
ከነበረው ሲያወዳድሩት Health ጤና
የአገልግሎት ጥራቱን እንዴት ነው? Water and
sanitationውሃ
Agriculture
ግብርና
Rural road
ገጠር መንገድ
B-106 If, the quality of the service Yes =1 No =2
in any of the above sectors አዎ የለም
was poor/not satisfying, did
you approach/complain to
service providers/ ከቀረቡት
የአገልግሎት መስኮች ጥራቱ ደካማ
ኮነ/ካልረካችሁበት ለአገልግሎት
ሰጪዎች?
B-107 If you have not 1=because I do not know how to complain እንዴት ቅሬታ እንደሚቀርብ አላውቅም
complained, why not? 2=because I feel I do not get responses ለቅሬታዬ መልስ አላገኝም ብዬ ስለማስብ
3=because I am afraid of reprisal አጸፋው መጥፎ ይሆናል ብዬ ስለምፈራ
ካላቀረባችሁ ለምን? 4=because I do not feel the need to complain አስፈላጊነቱ ስለማይታየኝ
5=others ሌላ ካለ ይግለጹ………………………………………………………..
B-108 If, yes how many times did Sector 1-2=1 3-5=2 6-10=3 >10=4 Don’t know=5
you approach/complain in አገልግሎት ሰጪ አላውቅም
the different sectors ተቋማት
Education
ምልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ ለስንት ጊዜ ትምህርት
ቀረቡ/አቤቱታ ቀረቡ Healthጤና
Water and
sanitationውሃ
Agriculture
ግብርና
Rural road
ገጠር መንገድ
B-109 If yes, to whom did you 1= directly to the service provider (facility level) በቀጥታ ለአገልግሎት በሰጪው አካል
complain 2= Kebele officials; ለቀበሌ አመራሮች
(multiple coice possible) 3= Woreda officials; ለወረዳ አመራሮች
መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ ቅሬታዎን ለማን 4= elected council member ለምክር ቤት ተመራጮች
አቀረቡ 5=Others (please specify) ለሌላ ከሆነ ይግለጹ__________________

(ከአንድ በላይ መልስ ይቻላል)

B-110 If yes, how did you 1=Write a letter በደብዳቤ
complain 2=Talk to the concerned person የሚመለከተውን ግልሰብ በማነጋገር
መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ እንዴት 3=Other (please specify)_ሌላ ካለ ይግለጹ_________________________
አድርገው አቀረቡት
B-111 If yes, what did you 1=
complain about? (nature of 2=

92
 complaints/problems) 3=
probe verbatim
ቅሬታዎ ምን ምን ጉዳዮችን የያዘ
ነበር? (የቅሬታውን ባህሪ በቃል
ለማውጣጣት ሞክሩ)
B-112 Did service providers/ 1=Yes, often, 2=Yes sometimes, 3=not at all4 =Don’t know
officials/council/others 1= አዎ ሁልጊዜ 2, አዎ አንዳንድ ጊዜ 3, ምንም አልተቀበሉንም 4, አላውቅም
accept/aknowledge your
complaint?
አገልግሎት ሰጪዎች/ ለአመራሮች/
ለምክር ቤት አባላት/ ቅሬታችሁን
ተቀብለዋችሐዋል
B-113 If they did not react to your 1=I Appealed for a superior ለበላይ አካል አመለከትኩ
complaint on time? What 2= I filed a complaint with grievance redress / complaint box
did you do? ቅሬታ ሰሚ ጽፈት ቤት ሄድኩ/ ቅሬታ ሳጥን ውስጥ ቅሬታዬን ጽፌ አስገባሁ
3= I went to court ፍርድ ቤት ሄድሁ
ቅሬታዎን ካልተቀበሉዎት ምን 4=I did not take any action ምንም አይነት እርምጃ አልወስድኩም
አደረጉ 5=Other_ሌላ ካለ ይግለጹ_________________________
B-114 Did you participate/ sector Yes often=1 Yes a few times=2 No =3 Don’t know=4
consulted in the የአገልግሎት ሰጪ አዎ፣ ሁልጊዜ አዎ፣ አንዳንድ ጊዜ የለም አላውቅም
planning/decision of the ተቋማት
type of services and quality Education
you required with the ትምህርት
service providers? Have Healthጤና
you used the SA tools? Water and
በምትፈልጉት አገልግሎትና የአሰራር sanitationውሃ
ጥራት ላይ በእቅድና በውሳኔ Agriculture
ሰጭነት ተሳትፎ አድርጋችኋል ግበርና
Rural road ገጠር
መንገድ
B-115 If no for all sectors? Why 1=
you did not participate? 2=
require? Probe 3=
መልስዎ ለሁሉም ዘርፎች የለም
ከሆነ ለምን አልተሳተፉም
Do you feel that service Sector Yes often=1 Yes a few No =3 Don’t know=4
B-116 provision by local officials የአገልግሎት ሰጪ አዎ፣ ሁልጊዜ times=2 የለም አላውቅም
is responsive i.e. is that on ተቋማት አዎ፣ አንዳንድ ጊዜ
time and plans are Education
according to your needs? ትምህርት
Health ጤና
አገልግሎት ሰጪዎች በተገቢው Water and
ጊዜና በእቅድ መሰረት ምላሽ sanitation ውሃ
ይሰጣሉ ብለው ያስባሉ? Agriculture
ግብርና
Rural road
ገጠር መንገድ
B-117 Do you think that, Sector Yes Yes a few No =3 Don’t
implementation of action የአገልግሎት ሰጪ ተቋማት often=1 times=2 የለም know=4
plans by service providers አዎ፣ ሁልጊዜ አዎ፣ አንዳንድ ጊዜ አላውቅም
are according to your Education ትምህርት
needs? Health ጤና
Water and sanitation
የድርጊት መርሐ ግብሩ አተገባበር ውሃ
በፍላጎትዎ መሰረት ተካሂዷል Agriculture ግብርና
ብለው ያስባሉ Rural road ገጠር መንገድ

93
B-118 Do you have access to 1=Yes አዎ
information on your 2=No የለም
Woreda/Kebele’s 3=Don’t know አላውቅም
development plan,
የወረዳዎን ወይም የቀበሌዎን
የልማት እቅድ መረጃ ያገኛሉ?
B-119 Do you have access to 1=Yes አዎ
information on your 2=No የለም
Woreda/Kebele’s budget 3=Don’t know አላውቅም
allocation
ስለወረዳዎ / ቀበሌዎ የበጀት
አመዳደብ መረጃ የገኛሉ?
B-120 Do you have access to 1=Yes አዎ
information on your 2=No የለም
Woreda/Kebele’s budget 3=Don’t know አላውቅም
expenditure
ስለወረዳዎ / ቀበሌዎ የበጀት
አጠቃቀም መረጃ የገኛሉ?
B-121 Do you use the information 1=Yes አዎ
for planning, evaluation 2=No የለም
and monitoring? 3=Don’t know አላውቅም
ያገኘኸውን መረጃ ለእቅድ፣
ክትትልና ግምገማ ተጠቅምበታለህ?

Module-C-
C-101 Have you ever participated in Sector Yes, Yes a few No=3 Don’t
meeting with service አገልግሎት ሰጪ often =1 times =2 የለም know=4
providers/local government ተቋማት አዎ ሁልጊዜ አዎ አንዳንድ አላውቅም
service provision ጊዜ
ከአገልግሎት ሰጪዎች ወይም ከ አካባቢ Education ትምህርት
የመንግስት አገልግሎት ሰጪዎች ጋር Health ጤና
ስብሰባ ላይ ተገኝተው ያውቃሉ Water and
sanitation ውሃ
Agriculture ግብርና
Rural road ገጠር
መንገድ
C-102 Did Woreda officials actively 1=Yes, 2=Sometimes, 3=No, 4=don’t know
responded to your need and 1, አዎ 2. አንዳንድ ጊዜ 3. የለም 4. አላውቅም
challenges on improving
quality of public services
የአገልግሎቱን ጥራት ፍላጎትዎን
ለማሻሻል የወረዳ አመራሮች ትኩረት
ሰጥተው በመከታተል ለችግሮች መልስ
ይሰጣሉ?

C-103 How are service delivery 1=Meetings, 2=Notice on board 3=Mass media 4= not reported to me 5 =
performance and challenges do not know
reported to you by service 1, በስብሰባ 2. በማስታወቂያ ሰሌዳ 3. በብዙኃን መገናኛ 4. ሪፖርት አይደረግም 5. አላውቅም
providers/local government
አገልግሎት ሰጭዎች ወይም የመንግስት
አካላት የአገልግሎት አሰጣጥ ክንውንና
ተግዳሮቶች በምን ሁኔታ ሪፖረት
ያደርጉላችኋል?

94
C-104 Have you ever been part of the Sector አገልግሎት ተቋማት Yes=1 No=2 I don’t know=3
development of a joint action አዎ የለም አላውቅም
plan regarding service Education ትምህርት
provision in --------- with Health ጤና
citizens and local governments Water and sanitation ውሃ
እርስዎ ከዜጎችና ከአካባቢ የመንግስት Agriculture ግብርና
አመራሮች ጋር ሆነው የአገልግሎት Rural road ገጠር መንገድ
አሰጣጥ ማሻሻያ የጋራ እቅድ ዝግጅት
ላይ ተሳታፊ ሆነው ያውቃሉ?
C-105 If yes, how many times 1= once, 2=Twice 3=3- 5 times, 4=6 to 10 times 5=Don’t know
መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ ለስንት ጊዜ ተሳተፉ 1. አንድ ጊዜ 2. ሁለት ጊዜ 3. 3-5 ጊዜ 4. 6-10 ጊዜ 5. አላውቅም

C-106 Could you briefly describe 1=Who participated……… ተሳታፊዎች እነማን ናቸው…………………….
how these plans were 2=which idea were taken into account የትኛው ሐሳብ ትኩረት አገኘ
elaborated? 3=Did citizens participate in the discussions ዜጎች በውይይቱ ተሳትፈዋል
ይህ የአገልግሎት ማሻሻያ እቅድ እንዴት 4=Where decision taken and if yes, what kind of decision? ውሳኔ ተሰጥቷል፣
እነደተዘጋጀ ሊገለጹ ይችላሉ? ምን አይነት ውሳኔ
5=Was there any follow up to these meetings ስብሰባው ተከታታይነት ነበረው
ግብርናC- Were the need of vulnerable 1=Yes አዎ
107 groups (women, youth, 2=No የለም
elderly, people living with 3=Don’t know አላውቅም
HIV/AIDS, people with
disability) taken into account
in these action
ልዩ ፍላጎት ለሚሹ ዜጎች
(አዛውንቶች፣ወጣቶች፣ ሴቶች፣ አካል
ጉዳተኞች፣ ከኤች አይ ቪ ኤድስ ጋር
የሚኖሩ) የሁሉም አካላት ፍላጎት በጋራ
እቅድ ዝግጅቱ ተካቷል?
C-108 If yes, how were the need of 1=
vulnerable groups taken into 2=
account 3=
መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ ልዩ ትኩረት የሚሹ
ዜጎች በጋራ እቅድ ፍላጎት እንዴት ነው
የተካተተው?
C-109 Are these plans implemented 1=Yes all of them አዎ ሁሉም እቅዶች ተግባራዊ ሆነዋል
እቅዶች ተተግብረዋል 2=Yes, partly አዎ፣ በከፊል
3=Only very few በጣም ትንሽ
4=No እቅዶቹ ተግባራዊ አልተደረጉም
5=Don’t know አላውቅም
C-110 Have you participated in the Sector Yes=1 No=2 I don’t know=3
implementation of the joint አገልግሎት ሰጪ አዎ የለም አላውቅም
action plans following sectors ተቋማት
Education ትምህርት
በሚከተሉት ዘርፎች የጋራ እቅድ Health ጤና
ትግበራ ላይ ተሳትፈዋል? Water and
sanitation ውሃ
Agriculture ግብርና
Rural road ገጠር
መንገድ
C-111 Have you participated in the Sector Yes=1 No=2 I don’t know=3
monitoring of the አገልግሎት ሰጪ አዎ የለም አላውቅም
implementation of joint action ተቋማት
plans and service delivery Educationትምህርት
Health ጤና

95
 performance of the sector Water and
በሚከተሉት ዘርፎች የጋራ እቅድ sanitation ውሃ
የአገልግሎተር አሰጣጥ ትግበራና Agriculture ግብርና
ክትትል ላይ ተሳትፈዋል? Rural road
ገጠር መንገድ
C-112 Have you contributed in cash Sector Yes=1 No=2 I don’t know=3
or labor during implementation አገልግሎት ሰጪ አዎ የለም አላውቅም
of delivery of the following ተቋማት
sectors Education
በአገልግሎት ሰጪ ተቋማት አተገባበር ትምህርት
ወቅት የገንዘብ ወይም የጉልበት Health ጤና
አስተዋፅዖ አድረገው ያወቃሉ Water and
sanitation ውሃ
Agriculture
ግብርና
Rural road
ገጠር መንገድ

Module-D

D-100 Have you or your group been trained on your 1=Yes 2= No 3=don’t know
right and responsibility to plan, budget, 1. አዎ፣ 2. የለም 3. አላውቅም
implement and monitor basic service delivery
በመሰረታዊ አገልግሎት አሰጣጥ እርስዎ ወይም ቡድንዎ እቅድ
የማቀድ፣ በጀት የመበጀት ተግባራዊ የማድረግና የመከታተል
መብታችሁ ላይ ስልጠና ወስደዋል ዌም ወስደዋል?
D-101 If yes, has the training paid attention to the needs 1=Yes 2= No 3=don’t know
of men and women, girls and boys? 1. አዎ፣ 2. የለም 3. አላውቅም
መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ ስልጠናው ወንዶችን፣ ሴቶችን፣
ልጃገረዶችንንና ወንድ ልጆችን ፍላጎት ትኩረት የሰጠ ነበር ?
D-102 Do you think you should participate in the 1=Yes አዎ
development of kebele woreda development 2= No የለም
plans. 3=don’t know አላውቅም
እርስዎ በቀበሌዎ ሆነ በወረዳዎ የልማት እቅድ ላይ ተሳትፎ
ማድረግ አለብኝ ብለው ያስባሉ?
D-103 Can you mention/explain some of your 1=
responsibility/ accountability for service that are 2=
delivered to you and others 3=
ለእርስዎ ሆነ ለሌሎች ዜጎች በሚሰጡ አገልግሎቶች ላይ
የእርስዎ ሃላፊነት ምን ምን እንደሆነ ቢያብራሩልኝ?
D-104 Do you feel that service providers/local 1=Yes አዎ
governments are more accountable to the 2= No የለም
community as compared to 3 years ago for 3=don’t know አላውቅም
service they deliver
አገልግሎት ሰጪዎች እና የመንግስት አካላት ከ3 ዓመት በፊት
ከነበረው በተሸለ ተጠያቂ ሆነዋል ብለው ያስባሉ?
D-105 Do you have responsibilities for the service 1=Yes አዎ
provision? 2= No የለም
ለአገልግሎት አሰጣጡ ሃላፊነት አለብኝ ብለው ያውቃሉ 3=don’t know አላውቅም

D-106 What has helped you to participate in 1=

development planning? 2=
ለልማት እቅድ ተሳትፎ እንዲያደርጉ የረዳዎት ምንድን ነው? 3=

D-107 Have you participated in Kebele/Woreda during Sector አገልግሎት Yes=1 No =2 I don’t
96
 budget formulation of: ሰጪ ተቋመት አዎ የለም know=3
አላውቅም
በሚከተሉት ዘርፎች በቀበሌ ወይም በወረዳ በጀት ቀመር Education
አሰራር ላይ ተሳትፈዋል? ትምህርት
Health ጤና
Water and
sanitation ውሃ
Agriculture
ግብርና
Rural road
ገጠር መንገድ
D-108 Can you mention/explain some of your 1=
responsibility/ accountability for service that are 2=
delivered to you and others 3=
እርስዎና እና ለሌሎች ዜጎች በሚሰጡ አገልግሎቶች ላይ የእርስዎ
ሃላፊነትና ተጠያቂነት ምን ምን እንደሆነ ቢያብራሩልኝ?
D-109 Do you think that you are more 1=Yes አዎ
accountable/responsible now as compared to three 2=No የለምልግሎት አሰጣጥ ዙሪያ
years? 3=The same በተመሳሳይ
ከዛሬ 3 ዓመት በፊት በአገልግሎት አሰጣጥ ዙሪያ ከነበረው ሃላፊነት እና
ተጠያቂነት አንጻር አሁን በበለጠ ሃላፊነትና ጠጠያቂነት አለብኝ ብለው
ያስባሉ?
D-110 If yes or No to Q109, in what ways or how? please 1=
specify with key evidenced/ examples 2=
ለጥያቄ ቁጥር 109 መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ በምን መንገድ ወይም እንዴት፣ 3=
እባክዎ በማስረጃ ወይም በምሳሌ ያረጋግጡልን፡፡

E= Audience analysis

Respondent participation in the SA process

በማህበራዊ ተጠያቂነት ላይ የመልስ ሰጭዎችን ተሳትፎ ለማዎቅ የቀረቡ ጥያቄዎች
E-100 Has regular contact with a SAC member 1. Yes አዎ 2.No የለም
ከማህበራዊ ተጠያቂነት ኮሚቴ ጋር መደበኛ ግንኙነት አላችሁ ?
E-101 If yes, who is it? መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ እነማን ናቸው ? 1=

E-102 Participated in an organized effort to solve a 1. Yes አዎ 2.No የለም

basic public service problem ?
በአገልግሎት አሰጣጡ ዙሪያ ላይ በተደራጀ ሁኔታ ተሳትፎ
አድርገዋል ?
E-103 If yes, what issue was solved? 1=
መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ ምን ምን ጉዳዮችን ላይ መፍትሄ ሰጣችሁ 2=
? 3=
E-104 Attended an interface or monitoring meeting to discuss citizens’ assessment of services 1. Yes አዎ
with service providers and government officials. 2.No የለም
እርስዎ በዜጎች የአገልግሎት አሰጣጥና አተገባበር ላይ ከአገልግሎት ሰጪዎችና ከመንግስት ሃላፊዎች ጋር በስብሰባ
ወይም በክትትልና ቁጥጥር አሰራር ውይት ላይ ተሳትፈዋል?

97
E-105 Contacted a service provider (SP) or council member (CM) to comment on the quality of
services - positive and/or negative comments. (yes/no, and SP and/or CM) 1. Yes አዎ
በአገልግሎት አሰጣጡ ጥራት ላይ አዎንታዊ ወይም አሉታዊ አስተያየት ለመስጠት ከአገልግሎት ሰጪ ተቋመት 2.No የለም
ወይም የምክር ቤት አባላት ጋር ተገናኝተዋል?

E-106 If yes, what was the comment? 1=

መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ ምን ምን አስተያየት ተሰጠው 2=
ነበር? 3=
E-107 Uses personal connections to get contact with a service provider, council member or 1. Yes አዎ
government official 2.No የለም
አገልግሎት ሰጪዎችን ወይም የምክር ቤት አባላትን በግል ደረጃ አግኝተው አነጋግረው ያውቃሉል?
E-108 Donated money or contributed other resources, labor for service improvements 1. Yes አዎ
ለአገልግሎት አሰጣጡ እርስዎ በበኩልዎ የገንዘብ ድጋፍ ወይም እንደጉልበትና ሌሎች ጥሬ እቃዎች አቅርበው 2.No የለም
ያውቃሉ?
E-109 If yes, how much (indicative), and what was it for? 1=
መልስዎ አዎ ከሆነ ምን ያህልና ለምን ተግባር እንዲውል ረድተዋል? 2=
በዝርዝር ቢገልጹልኝ፡፡ 3=

Online participation of the respondent in the SA process

በማህበራዊ ተጠያቂነት ላይ በማህበራዊ ድረ-ገጽ አጠቃቀመወ ላይ ያላቸውን ተሳትፎ ለማዎቅ የቀረበ ጥያቄ
E-110 Posted comments, queries or information online (e.g. Facebook) about social accountability 1. Yes አዎ
or basic public service ትissues (yes/no) 2.No የለም
በማህበራዊ ድህረገጽ ወይም በሌላ መገናኛ ብዙሃን ስለማህበራዊ ተጠያቂነትና አገልግሎት አሰጣጥ መረጃዎችን
ጠይቀው ወይም አስተያየት ሰጥተው ያውቃሉ?
E-111 Read about social accountability or watched photos or videos (e.g. Facebook or You Tube) 1. Yes አዎ
online about basic public service issues (yes/no) 2.No የለም
ስለማህበራዊ ተጠያቂነትና ስለ መሰረታዊ የመንግስት አገልግሎት አሰጠጥ አንብበው፣ በቪዲዮ ተመልክተው፣ ወይም
በማህበራዊ ድረ-ገጽ ላይ ሰምተውና አይተው ያውቃሉ?

98
 Tool-2: Local government key informant questionnaires
(For elected officials, Woreda and keble administrators, Woreda Finance (WOFED), sector officials, Regional
BOFED etc)

Instruction: After greetings, introduce yourself, state the objective of the survey in accordance with the information
you received from the trainers. Then, proceed with the questions. For all the questions, circle or mark the number (s)
of the answer(s) provided by respondent or write answers in the space provided under “other specify” for those
answer(s) which are provided by the respondent, but not listed in the choice. Follow the consecutive instructions and
the training given to you.
Please, be patient to collect reliable data. At the end, do not forget to THANK the respondent.

Date of the Interview: _______________________ DD MM YYYY

Name of supervisor/consultant:_______________________
Enumerator: Signature:________________________________

To be completed at the field after interview has been done

Name and signature of the consultant/supervisor: ________________________________________
Date: ______________________________________
FOR OFFICE USES ONLY………………………..
Encoded by: _________________ Entered by: ________________

Module A: Identification and background

A-100 Survey Identification number:

A-101 Name: Sex Age
A-102 Position
A-103 Telephone number: E-mail address:

A-104 Woreda: Code

A-105 Sector (for administration) 1= Education

2=Health
3=Water and sanitation
4=Agriculture
5=Rural road
Council member

99
Module-A=

A=100 Have you ever received any kind of training 1= yes

on social accountably? 2= No
A=103 Are there any processes or forums for 1= yes
determining citizens and communities 2= No
priorities with respect to specific services in 3= Don’t know
your sector?
A=104 If yes, how often do these processes/forums 1= At least every month
take place? 2= Every second to fourth month
3= Bi-annually (2x per year)
4= Yearly
5= Very irregularly
6= Don’t know
A=105 If yes, could you briefly explain how this
structure works?
A=106 On a scale of 1-4, how would you honestly 1= very good
rank the quality of the service your 2= good
institution (school, health center, road 3=mediocre
authority etc. ) provides? 4= very bad
A=107 How do you assess/monitor the quality of the
service you provide?
A=108 Have you ever applied social accountability 1= yes
tools? 2= No
3= Don’t know
A=109 Can you briefly explain which ones and how
you use them?
A-110 If you used social Sectors Yes=1 No=2
accountability (SA) tools, Education
approaches and mechanisms Health
for measuring client/customers Water and sanitation
satisfaction, for which sector; Agriculture
Rural road

A-111 If you used, according to your Sectors Highly Satisfied Not I don’t
judgment, how was the satisfie satisf know
satisfaction of the d ied
clients/customers on the Education
following sectors? Health
Water and sanitation
Agriculture
Rural road
A-112 If not, why you did not 1=
applied/used the SA tools 2=
3=
A-113 Have you been approached by Sectors Yes No
citizens regarding the service Education
that you provide in sectors of Health
Water and sanitation
Agriculture
Rural road
A-114 If no, do you know why? 1=
2=
100
A-115 If yes, could you please
explain why and how you
were approached?
A-116 Have you ever received complaints by 1=Yes, many times;
service users/citizens for the service your 2=Yes few times
institutions delivers 3=No
4=Don’t know
A-117 If yes, how did service 1=Written 2=In person 3= social accountability 4=others
users/citizens complain
A-118 If yes, how did you react to 1=
these complaints of service 2=
users/citizens 3=
A-119 Do you feel citizens are actually able to 1=Yes, 2=A little/some services
assess the quality of the services delivered in 3=No 4=Don’t know
your sectors
A-120 If yes, how do they assess the 1=
quality of the services? 2=
3=
A-121 If yes, how many women’s 1= No one, 2=1 to3, 3=4 to5, 4=6 to10, 5=morethan10
organizations and/or networks
have approached you regarding
the quality of the service you
provided
A-122 If yes, how do you interact 1=one on one 2=During meeting 3=When they come to appeal
with citizens to learn about 4=Other specify
their needs and demand
A-123 Have you ever developed a joint action plan Sector 1=Yes 2=No 3=Don’t
regarding service provision with citizens and know
service providers Sectors
Education
Health
Water and
sanitation
Agriculture
Rural road

A-124 If yes, how many times in the past? 1= Once, 2= Twice , 3= 3-5 times, 4= 6-10 times, 5= don’t know

A=125 Were the needs of vulnerable groups 1= yes

(women, youth, elderly, people living with 2= No
HIV/AIDS, people with disabilities etc.) 3= Don’t know
taken into account in these action plans?
A=126 If yes, how were the needs of vulnerable
groups taken into account?

A=127 Do you report your service delivery 1= yes

performance and challenges to citizens? 2= No
3= Don’t know
A=128 If yes, how do you report your service 1=Meetings, 2=Notice on board 3=Mass media 4= not r3ported
delivery performance and challenges to to me 5 = do not know
citizens?
A=129 If yes, how often did these meetings taken 1= Once, 2= Twice, 3= 3-5 times, 4= 6-10 times, 5= don’t know
place in the past year?

101
 A=130 What is your suggestion on how to (better) 1=
include citizen’ and community priority need 2=
in service delivery? 3=
A=131 What were the main collaborative activities 1=
of Financial Transparency and 2=
Accountability (FTA) and Social 3=
Accountability? Please explain how the two
initiatives were linked?
A= 132 What was the added value of the Financial 1=
Transparency and Accountability (FTA) and 2=
Social Accountability programs 3=
collaboration? Elaborate in detail.
A=133 What results brought due to the collaboration 1=
between Financial Transparency and 2=
Accountability (FTA) and Social 3=
Accountability. Please explain in detail
A=134 What worked well in the linkage between 1=
Financial Transparency and Accountability 2=
(FTA) and Social Accountability? 3=
A=135 What are the challenges of implementing 1=
Financial Transparency and Accountability 2=
(FTA) and Social Accountability linkage 3=
activities?
A=136 What do you recommend to improve the 1=
linkage and coordination between Financial 2=
Transparency and Accountability (FTA) and 3=
Social Accountability at regional and woreda
level ?

B= Audience analysis

Media use and access of the respondent:

B-100 Has access to mobile at home or elsewhere 1=yes 2=no
B-101 Has access to internet at home or elsewhere 1=yes 2=no
B-102 Has visited social media sites like Facebook and YouTube 1=yes 2=no
B-103 Uses internet at least once a week 1=yes 2=no
B-104 Has undertaken at least one online activity related to social accountability in 1=yes 2=no
the last three months
B-105 Has access to at least one form of traditional media outlet, such as newspaper, 1=yes 2=no
radio, TV
B-106 Uses at least one media outlet for 1= Newspaper
information about social accountability 2= Radio
(bring samples of MA and SAIP media, 3= TV
and tick everything that applies): 4= ESAP2 Flash – newsletter
5= ESAP2 Facebook page
6=ESAP2 You Tube channel
7=ESAP2 website
8=SAIP Flyer, brochure
9=SAIP Poster
10=Printed Joint Action Plan
11=T-shirt with SA slogan
12=others (spesifay)

102
B-107 Does not use any media outlet for 1= Newspaper
information about social accountability: 2= Radio
3= TV
4= ESAP2 Flash – newsletter
5= ESAP2 Facebook page
6=ESAP2 You Tube channel
7=ESAP2 website
8=SAIP Flyer, brochure
9=SAIP Poster
10=Printed Joint Action Plan
11=T-shirt with SA slogan
12=others (spesifay)

B-108 If respondent receives information 1=

about social accountability through
media outlets, what message or 2=
story does the respondent
remember from the last 3 months 3=

B-109 Through which media outlet did it 1=

reach the respondent? (among stated 2=
above ) 3=
4=
5=
6=
7=
8=

Finally please collect data/ information about

 Collect service user data before and after the SA project in the same facility in the same month for each of
the intervention kebeles; compared with non-intervention kebeles.

 Take a copy/picture of meeting data/minutes and sample sector reports before the SA project and after. etc

These verify service improvements and participation.

103
 Tool-3: Service provides key informant questionnaires
( for front line staff interacting directly with citizens, so those working in facilities like schools, health posts,
centers (including HEW), water committees/engineers, DAs and animal technicians, rural roads constructors (hired
by gvt), etc…,)

Instruction: After greetings, introduce yourself, state the objective of the survey in accordance with the
information you received from the trainers. Then, proceed with the questions. For all the questions, circle or
mark the number (s) of the answer(s) provided by respondent or write answers in the space provided under
“other specify” for those answer(s) which are provided by the respondent, but not listed in the choice. Follow
the consecutive instructions and the training given to you. Please, be patient to collect reliable data. At the
end, do not forget to THANK the respondent

A-100 Have you ever received any kind of training on 1= yes

social accountability? 2= no
A-101 Are there any processes or forums for determining 1= yes
citizens’ and communities’ priorities with respect 2= no
to specific services in your sector? 3= don’t know
A-102 If yes, how often do these processes/forums take 1= at least every month
place? 2= every second to fourth month
3= Bi-annually (2x per year)
4= Yearly
5= Very irregularly
6= don’t know
A-103 If yes, could you briefly explain how these
structure works?
A-104 On a scale of 1-4, how would you honestly rank to 1= very good
quality of the service your institution (school, 2= good
health center, road authority etc) provides? 3= mediocre
4= very bad
A-105 How do you assess/monitor the quality of the
services you provide?
A-106 Have you ever applied social accountabilities 1= yes
tools? 2= no
3= don’t know
A-107 Can you briefly explain which ones and how you 1=
use them? 2=
3=
A-108 Have you used/applied social accountability (SA) Sectors Yes=1 No=2
tools, approaches and mechanisms for measuring Education
client/customers satisfaction for; Health
Water and
sanitation
Agricultur
e
Rural road
A-109 If yes, according to your judgment, how was the Highly satisfied=1
satisfaction of the clients/customers with your Satisfied=2
services? Not satisfied=3
I don’t know=4
A-110 If not, why you did not applied/used the SA tools 1=
2=
3=
A-111 Do you agree that implementation of 104 joint action 1=Yes, always
plans for your service incorporate citizen needs 2=Yes, in some cases
3=Not at all
A-112 Have you ever participated in a (interface) 1= yes
meeting with citizens and local government on 2= no
service provision? 3= don’t know
A-113 If yes, how often did these meetings take place in 1= once (1)
the past year? 2= twice (2)
3= 3-5 times
4= 6-10 times
5= don’t know
A-114 Have you been approached by citizens regarding 1= Yes
the service that you provide? 2=No
3=Don’t know
A-115 If no, do you know why? 1=
2=
3=
A-116 If yes, could you please explain why and how you 1=
were approched? 2=
3=
A-117 If yes, how many citizens have approached 1= No one
regarding the quality of the service you provide in 2= 1- 10 person
the sector/s? 3= 10 to 30 person
4= over 30person

A-118 Have you ever received complaints by service 1= yes, many times
users/citizens for the services your institution 2= yes, few times
delivers? 3= no
4= don’t know
A-119 If yes, how did service users/citizens complain? 1= written
2= in person
3= social accountability sessions/ meetings
3= other specify
A-120 If yes, how did you react to these complaints of
service users/citizens?
A-121 Do you feel citizens are actually able to assess the 1= yes
quality of the service delivered in your sectors? 2= a little/some services
3= no
4= don’t know
A-122 If yes, how do assess the quality of the service?
A-123 If yes, how many women’s organizations and/or 1= No one
networks have approached you regarding the 2= 1-2
quality of the service you provide during the last 3= 3-5
year? 4= 5-10
5=>10
6= Don’t know
A-124 Have you ever developed a joint action plan Yes
regarding your service provision with citizens and No
local government? Don’t know
A-125 If yes, how many times in the past year? 1= once(1)
2= twice (2)
3= Don’t know
A-126 Were the needs of vulnerable groups (women, 1= yes
youth, elderly, people living with HIV/Aids, and 2= no
people with disabilities etc) taken into account in 3= don’t know
these action plans?
A-127 If yes, how were the needs of vulnerable groups
taken into account?
A-128 Do you report your service delivery performance 1= yes
and challenges to citizens? 2= no
3= don’t know

105
 A-129 If yes, how do you report your service delivery 1= notice on board
performance and challenges to citizens? 2= general assembly
3= through mass media
Other specify
A-130 What is your suggestion on how to (better) include 1=
citizens’ and communities' priority needs in 2=
service delivery? 3=

B= Audience analysis

Media use and access of the respondent:

B-100 Has access to mobile at home or elsewhere 1=yes 2=no
B-101 Has access to internet at home or elsewhere 1=yes 2=no
B-102 Has visited social media sites like Facebook and YouTube 1=yes 2=no
B-103 Uses internet at least once a week 1=yes 2=no
B-104 Has undertaken at least one online activity related to social accountability in the 1=yes 2=no
last three months
B-105 Has access to at least one form of traditional media outlet, such as newspaper, 1=yes 2=no
radio, TV
B-106 Uses at least one media outlet for information about 1= Newspaper
social accountability (bring samples of MA and SAIP 2= Radio
media, and tick everything that applies): 3= TV
4= ESAP2 Flash – newsletter
5= ESAP2 Facebook page
6=ESAP2 You Tube channel
7=ESAP2 website
8=SAIP Flyer, brochure
9=SAIP Poster
10=Printed Joint Action Plan
11=T-shirt with SA slogan
12=others (spesifay)

B-107 Does not use any media outlet for information about 1= Newspaper
social accountability: 2= Radio
3= TV
4= ESAP2 Flash – newsletter
5= ESAP2 Facebook page
6=ESAP2 You Tube channel
7=ESAP2 website
8=SAIP Flyer, brochure
9=SAIP Poster
10=Printed Joint Action Plan
11=T-shirt with SA slogan
12=others (spesifay)

B-108 If respondent receives information about social 1=

accountability through media outlets, what
message or story does the respondent remember 2=
from the last 3 months
3=
B-109 Through which media outlet did it reach the 1=

106
 respondent? (among stated above ) 2=
3=
4=
5=
6=
7=
8=

GOVERNMENT DATA COLLECTION – to verify service improvements and participation:

 Collect service user data before and after the SA project in the same facility in the same month.

 Take a copy/picture of meeting data and sample sector reports before the SA project and after

107
 Tool-4 : Focus group discussion questionnaires
Instruction: After greetings, introduce yourself, state the objective of the survey in accordance with the information
you received from the trainers. Then, proceed with the questions. For all the questions, circle or mark the number (s)
of the answer(s) provided by respondent or write answers in the space provided under “other specify” for those
answer(s) which are provided by the respondent, but not listed in the choice. Follow the consecutive instructions and
the training given to you.
Please, be patient to collect reliable data. At the end, do not forget to THANK the respondent.

Date of the Interview: _______________________ DD MM YYYY

Name of Enumerator:_______________________
Enumerator: Signature:________________________________

Note-taker’s name
Facilitator’s name

Location Woreda Kebele

Location of interview

Date Start time Finish time

Participants name Responsibility Age Representative of

social group,
CBO, facility
management
structure

Specific note (i.e. what is the condition/event when you take this note:

Guiding questions
 Do you know about the Social Accountability program?
 When did the project start in this kebele?
 Did the community participated in the SA program i.e. SA training, SA tool application, interface
meeting, joint action plan development and implementation?
108
  Have you made your own choices, and control Kebele/Woreda development plan and
implementation? How?
 Have you complain about the quality of service? How do you complain? Where did you
complain?
 Did the government officials/service providers respond to your complain on time, always?
 Do you know how to approach basic service providers? Please explain to us;
 Do you know your entitlement and responsibility with regards to basic services? What are your
entitlements? What are your responsibilities?
 Do you know how to claim/complain basic service access and quality? Please discuss?
 Have you participated in regular and structured meetings/training with SAIPs, Woreda and service
providers? How many times did you participate in the such meetings/training?
 Do you agree that, after the use and application of SA tool, the quality and access to basic services
improved/are you satisfied, how?
 Do you know about the basic service standards i.e. water access and use, schools, health?
 Have you raised issues about basic service standards?
 Do you agree that vulnerable groups (PWD, people with HIV/AIDS, physically challenged
(disabled), elderly) are benefited for the social services? How? Are these people participated and
engaged in Kebele/Woreda development planning , implementation and monitoring
 How was the participation of Women in the Kebele/Woreda Joint action planning, implementation
and monitoring during the SA program (compare before the project and after)?
 What factors contributed to success or failure (challenges and lessons) of quality and access of
basic services?
 Do you know the SAC members? What do you think are their roles and responsibilities?
 What do you think are the major challenges of SACs?
 What do you like most in the program? Why?
 What do you like least in the program? Why
 How can we improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the SA program?
Media use and access of the respondent:
 Do you have access to mobile at home or elsewhere (yes/no)
 Do you have access to internet at home or elsewhere (yes/no)
 Have you visited social media sites like Facebook and YouTube (yes/no)
 Do you use internet at least once a week (yes/no)
 Have you undertaken at least one online activity related to social accountability in the last three
months (yes/no)
 Do you have access to at least one form of traditional media outlet, such as newspaper, radio, TV
(yes/no)
 Do you use at least one media outlet for information about social accountability (bring samples of
MA and SAIP media, and tick everything that applies):
 Does not use any media outlet for information about social accountability such as Newspaper,
Radio, TV, ESAP2 Flash – newsletter, ESAP2 Facebook page, ESAP2 You Tube channel, ESAP2
website, SAIP Flyer, brochure, SAIP Poster, Printed Joint Action Plan, T-shirt with SA slogan,
109
 Other, namely…

If respondent receives information about social accountability through media outlets, what message or story
does the respondent remember from the last 3 months?

 Through which media outlet did it reach the respondent? (among the above listed media outlets)?

 Other than information source of the ESAP2 , from what other information sources/medias have
you got information on SA related topics? And what were those messages related to SA that you
have heard through other media or source information,

 What other media sources could have been used to disseminate SA in your locality or in the region
(if any)

110
 Tool-5: SAIP key informant interview questionnaires

Instruction: After greetings, introduce yourself, state the objective of the survey in accordance with the information
you received from the trainers. Then, proceed with the questions. For all the questions, circle or mark the number (s)
of the answer(s) provided by respondent or write answers in the space provided under “other specify” for those
answer(s) which are provided by the respondent, but not listed in the choice. Follow the consecutive instructions and
the training given to you.
Please, be patient to collect reliable data. At the end, do not forget to THANK the respondent.

Date of the Interview: _______________________ DD MM YYYY

Name of supervisor/consultant:_______________________
Enumerator: Signature:________________________________

To be completed at the field after interview has been done

Name and signature of the consultant/supervisor: ________________________________________
Date: ______________________________________
FOR OFFICE USES ONLY………………………..
Encoded by: _________________ Entered by: ________________

Module A: Identification and background

A-100 Survey Identification number:

A-101 Name: Sex Age
A-102 Position
A-103 Telephone number: E-mail address:

A-104 Woreda: Code

A-105 Sector 1= Education

2=Health
3=Water and sanitation
4=Agriculture
5=Rural road
A-106 Full legal name of the
organization
A-107 If partner organization, please
indicate name of lead
organization

111
B-100 Did you consult someone before or during
drafting/finalizing your ESAP 2 action plan?
B-101 Do you have an M&E system? 1= yes
2= no
3= don’t know

B-102 If so, of what does it consist of? 1= log frame

2= Monitoring plan (incl. means of
verification, data collection tools,
frequency of monitoring)
3= Most significant change stories
4= Participatory video
5= Others (please specify):

B-103 What is a transparent financial management system 1= Regular reporting to stakeholders.

for you? 2= Double approval system for
expenditures
3= Clear categorization of expenditures
4= Supporting documents associated to
expenditures
5= Regular recording in accounting system
(with clear coding)
6= others (please specify)
B-104 Do you have a financial management system? 1= yes
2= no
3= don’t know
B-105 If so, of what does it consist of? 1= Regular bookkeeping/recording of
incomes and expenditures
2= Reporting system
3= Division of responsibilities
4= Internal control system (e.g. internal
auditing, double signatures etc)
5= Clear chart of accounts and budget
codes
6= Bank reconciliation procurement
112 systems
7= Others (please specify):
B-106 After/during implementation of ESAP-2 program
have you adopted new or improved grant
management? Please discuss to us

B-107 After/during implementation of ESAP-2 program

have you improved communication/public relation
interventions with other stakeholders? How? Please
discuss

b-108 What are the major challenges during

implementation of ESAP2 program?

B-119 What factors contributed to success or failure

(challenges and lessons) of ESAP 2 program?
Some probing questions shall be asked
a) Local level
b) Enabling environment / policy
C) Role of Management agency

113
 Tool-6: Case study assessment and verification

 List all relevant proposed case studies (make sure the date and direct exposure to SA)

 Identify and list one or more relevant cases/inputs that ESAP-2 contributed to the cases/findings

 Select true to type cases only and list why you select the cases

 Identify similar intervention implemented by other program (make sure the counterfactual effects)

 Identify your objective of the cases- give case objective

 Collect profile/background of the case study including what was/were before ESAP-2 intervention

 State/quiet beneficiary/participants word by word and summarize in one box

 Link the summary with the case study objective

 Make your analysis pertinent to the box

 Make analysis and triangulate with other relevant cases (if available)

 Make your recommendation and conclusion

 Case study profile write up and conclusion:

 Objective of the case study

 Profile/background of the case study
 Effect of ESAP-2 i.e. quite the respondents word
 Synthesis
 Summary and conclusion with triangulation

114
 Tool 7 – MA, MoFEC/BoFEDs, SCM, TAG

Guiding questions

 What changes, if any, SAIPs capacity is improved (monitoring and evaluation, financial and grant
management, communication, and public relation interventions);

 How was the effectiveness of the MA and the SAIPs program management in coordinating with citizens,
MoFED/ BoFED/FTA, Development Partners, other CSO programs, PSNP etc;

 What factors contributed to success or failure (challenges and lessons) of particular program
strategies/activities?

How can we improve the effectiveness and efficiency of these strategies/activities (e.g. media, social media and
engagement with policymakers)?

115
 Appendix-6: Selected case studies

.
Case study-1:
SA process helped citizens to claim and ensure entitlements for service they demand

Basic information:
 Name of intervention: Agricultural service
 SAIP: ADCS
 Location: Saesetsada Woreda ,Tigray region
 Type of engagement: SAC in collaboration with service providers and Woreda offices
developed an irrigation scheme and construction of a veterinary post.
Background:

ADCS is working in Saesetsada Woreda of Tigray region. Like other SAIPs, ADCS performed
awareness creation and trainings and established SAC. SAC assisted by ADCS conducted review
meetings with citizens and identified irrigation facilities and veterinary service as top priority
development problem. SAC conducted interface meeting. During this meeting JAP developed. The
JAP includes major problems identified during interface meeting i.e. irrigation facility and veterinary
health post. According to the SAC and community priorities, the woreda allocated 1.3 million birr for
these activities. SAC in collaboration with service providers and woreda offices developed the
irrigation scheme in Kebele 1 and veterinary services in Kebele 5.

As a result, the case story proved that SA Program encouraged communities to claim their entitlements with
respect to quality services improvement. In addition, the government officials and service providers became
aware of every activity responsible for the betterment of the society and accountable for their decisions

116
 Case study2:

Shelters constructed for Elders and PwD

Basic information:
 Name of intervention: Building construction to elders and PwD
 SAIP: JeCDO
 Location: Bahirdar town, Kebele14, Amhara region
 Type of engagement: Identify helpless poor elders, mobilized fund from government and
community, building construction for most vulnerable elders and disability groups.

Background:

JeCDO was among ESAP2 SIAP operating Bahirdar town Kebele 14. JeCDO started SA
process i.e. sensitizations and training activities on citizen’s entitlements and responsibilities on
basic service delivery.

The SAC and the community improved education quality and raised funds. After the SA process, the
education office and community identified and prioritized problems in Serbo secondary school. The
major problems were limited number of classrooms, electricity supply and the availability of ICT
materials. However, the woreda budget was limited to address all these problems. After repeated
meetings and discussions, the community contributed Birr 2 million. 5 classrooms are constructed, 50
computers are purchased and supplied. The electricity problem is solved.

117
 Case study-3:

Improved quality of education through community participation

Basic information:
 Name of intervention: Education Service
 SAIP: EMRDA
 Location: Kersa wereda, Jima zone, Oromia region
 Type of engagement: Identify education problems and to solve three schools teaching-learning process
problems and to improve the services quality on education.
Background:
EMRDA implemented SA program in kersa woreda of Jimma zone in Oromia region. EMRDA conducted SAP entry
activities like launching workshop and consultation meetings with the stakeholders, established SACs, provided
trainings on use of community score card, and facilitated joint action plan development and implementation. The
focus of SAC intervention was on education sector taking Serbo second cycle, first cycle schools.
After the community was trained in SA program, the SAC in collaboration with different FGD facilitators held
different focus group discussions on varieties of problems, which need solutions by service providers and Woreda
officials. For example, SAC identified non-functionality of ICT/plasma services, malfunction of library, reference books
shortage, inadequacy of schools compound clean water supply facilities, unavailability of separate latrine/toilet for girls,
boys and staffs (female and male), class room shortage, shortage of students desk and teachers chair and table
problems in Serbo second cycle school. Similar problems were also identified for the two primary schools with two
additions, i.e., electricity and school compound land problem.
Following problems identification, SAC in collaboration with respective service providers achieved remarkable results.
SAC and service providers prepared JAP and shared the responsibility to solve the above-mentioned problems and
improve the services quality problem. The JAP development and implementation of the plan engaged students, school
community, government officials, Jimma University and SAIP. Except additional classrooms construction, the indicated
problems were solved by the contribution of the stakeholders and communities. For example, before this
intervention, the Serbo second cycle primary school has had only 3 non-functional computers. Thanks for the joint
action plan prepared by SAC and service providers, the school got 50 computers where all computer having e-book,
chair and table. The other two first cycle schools also received 15 computers each, which were donated by other
NGO. Nearly, 2 million birr was covered by community contribution, which account for 25% of the budget, while the
remaining balance (75%) was covered by government.

The above case proved that, SAC had had the rights to attend interface meetings and did provide comments for service
improvement. Overall, there are indications that SAC provides more opportunities for the citizen entitlements and have
voice to raise the quality service.

118
 Case Study:4

SAC effort in improving education quality

Basic information
 Name of intervention: Education service
 SAIP: PSDP
 Location: Kersa wereda, East Harerge zone, Oromia region
 Type of engagement: Identify problems of quality education resulted from poor facilities,
infrastructures, and unsatisfactory education services.

Background:
PSDP was a SAIP in Kersa Woreda, East Harergie zone in Oromia region. It conducted SAP entry
activities like launching workshop and consultation meetings with the stakeholders, established SACs,
provided trainings, and facilitated to develop joint action plan. The focus of JAP was on education sector
taking Kitimbile first cycle schools.

PSDP helped citizen to identify problems that improve education quality in selected primary schools. It was
resulted from poor facilities, infrastructures and unsatisfactory services provisions. The identified problems
were poor infrastructures and facilities like shortage of textbooks and reference books and unavailability of
separate toilets for girls & boys. shortage of class rooms and unavailability clean water, problem of electricity
connection to ICT (plasma) in class rooms, inadequacy of laboratory equipments, lack of first aid service and
the kits were others problems identified by SAC and service providers. Communities pointed out regular
teacher’s absence from school, lack of teachers, absences of adult education and absence of separate
education system for special need education and lack of parent supervision. Thus, SAC conducted interface
meeting on identified gaps with school community and education office and prepared JAP where all actors
took own share responsibility to unlock the problems.

Given to the above problems, PSDP together with SAC conducted interface meeting with school community,
education offices and parents committee and prepared JAP in solving major problems. Interface meeting
participating individuals and institutions plagued and accomplished their respective role and responsibility.
Consequently, most problems were solved. For example, ICT (plasma) classes connected to electricity by
education office. As a result plasmas started function, teachers admitted their problem and stopped being
absent and delay, walk ways constructed and activities are going on to solve other problems.

This case study proved that SAP intervention is encouraging and SAC that received admiration from right
holders (citizens), Woreda offices (including administration) and service providers. SAP helped communities
to practically demonstrated accountability and transparency in the wereda. SA intervention particularly the
joint action plan and interface meeting enhanced the linkage between service providers and citizen.

119
 Case Study :5

SAC increased commitments and created links with stakeholders

Basic information:
 Name of intervention: Health services
 SAIP: EWLA
 Location: Mao Komo Woreda ,Benshangul Gumuz Region
 Type of engagement: To improve Mao health center service problems like shortage of
medicine supplies, lack of water to the health post, lack of qualified health staffs, and lack of
prenatal and postnatal facilities and services in the health post.
Background:
Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association (EWLA) implemented SA program in Mao Komo
wereda in Benashangul Gumuz region. As an entry, EWLA established SAC and provided
trainings on SA program. Woreda SAC members were pulled from sector offices. SAC was
established by EWLA with members included wereda FTA representative, council spokesperson,
and woreda vice administrator, in addition to sector offices, disability groups, and HIV/AIDS
positive persons. This Woreda SAC helped citizens to complain on service provisions and to get
support from government offices and officials.

Wereda scheduled regular interface meetings at quarterly base. As SAP issues are development
issues, the wereda cabinet and council debate on complains on interface meetings. Wereda SAC
meet in monthly base to discuss on progress of development activities and quality service provisions.
Woreda SAC identify problems and submit the prioritized problems to the Wereda council for
decision to enhance access and quality services provision to the communities provide. Woreda SAC
also involve joint action plan development on identify problems on health centre. They identified lack
of medicine supplies, shortage of water to the health centre, lack of qualified health staffs, and lack of
prenatal and postnatal facilities and services.

Following problems identification, SAC, wereda administration, and FTA coordination and
collaborating actions, critical problems in Mao Komo health centre was solved. Because of the SAP,
water supply facility installed, health staffs fulfilled, medicines supplies improved, daily service rate of
health staff improved prenatal and postnatal facilities improved.

This case study proved that mothers are benefited from the health centre prenatal and postnatal
services, which were previously suffering from quality health services. The SAC and weredas council
and sector officials developed practices of accepting issues raised by citizens on JAP. Citizens also
understand that collaborative engagement of citizens and concerned stakeholders and if citizens
continue to express their entailment, SA program can be sustained. Moreover, they thanks to SA
program, Health services in Wereda capital (Mao town) was improved and women are benefited
from the quality services.

120
 Case-Study-6:
SA process improved access to water
Basic information:
 Name of intervention: Water and Sanitation
 SAIP: ADV
 Location: Mirab Azernet wereda,Silte zone, SNNPRS
 Type of engagement: Construction of water points in each village.
Background: Addis Development Vision (ADV) is one of the implementing partners of Social
accountability program. ADV performed the following major activities: Project launching
meeting, SA tools application and facilitated the formation of SAC at Kebele and
Woreda level. In addition, ADV facilitated experience-sharing visit with others
woreda.

During interface meetings the community, SAC and service providers identify and priorities
construction of water points in each village. Because, citizens were travelling 5-8 Km every day
and waiting long hour at water points due to long queue. This workload affected girls and
women. During the interface meetings all agreed to construct water points in each village.
Woreda water office agreed and allocated 75% of the construction budget. The community
contributed the remaining balance. SAC facilitated the implementation and monitoring of the
construction. 8 water points constructed in major and common villages areas. The water point
serves about 2500 people and reduced women workload. Water points constructed in each
village.

121
 Case study-7
SAC helped quality education service provision and enhanced golden hands
children school enrolment
Basic information:
 Name of intervention: Education services
 SAIP: KMG
 Location: Adero Tunto Woreda , Kembata zone, SNNPRS
 Type of engagement: Awareness creation and trainings to provide knowledge on citizen’s
entitlement, responsibility of citizens and motivated citizens to claim their entitlement and
deliver own responsibility.

Background:
KMG-Ethiopia participated on SA program at Hadero Tunto Woreda, Kembata zone, SNNPR. KMG-
Ethiopia facilitated the formation of SAC that includes the most marginalized community in the woreda
called-Fugas (golden hand). Consequently, KMG provided trainings to SAC members and awareness
creation to citizens through meetings. The SAC trainings and awareness creations were focused on role
and responsibility of citizens and service providers, and education standards to achieve education quality. In
addition, KMG with SAC facilitated experience-sharing visits within KMG intention areas about how to
address the most marginalized community and gender rights problems such as FGM
SAC with Kebele administration and SPs discussed and prepared joint action plan. The plan focused on
education quality improvement and how to address the most marginalized community-fugas. This plan
includes improving the linkage between service providers such as school administration, PTA, community
and Wereda education office. Awareness creation and trainings on SA helped citizens to understand basic
education standards, citizen’s entitlement, responsibility of citizens and motivated citizens to claim their
entitlement and deliver own responsibility. The Kebele SAC together with service provider’s such as
school administration and woreda education office, citizens and NGOs identified the problems i.e number
of teachers in schools, clean water for schools, access to library and laboratory facilities, and inclusion of
Fugas in the schools were discussed. After JAP implementation teacher number increased from 17 to 30,
water access increased proportional to student number, number of books increased, and library opened
throughout a week and serves the whole day. Laboratories and pedagogy classes equipped with basic
facilities, 3 separate toilets (for teachers, girls and boys) constructed in different corners in the compound.
Teachers providing tutorial class to girls and teachers fixed computers and plasma and brought back to
service for quality education. SAC follow up and support golden hand family’s children and encouraged
parents to send their children to school. Total 34 Fugas registered in the school.

122
 Case Study-8
School laboratory back to service after SA program intervention in Shenkor woreda
Basic information:
 Name of intervention: Education services
 SAIP: APAP
 Location: Shenkor wereda Harrari regional state
 Type of engagement: Supply laboratory facilities (equipments and chemical) and hired
qualified technician to Yeshimebet second cycle school (Grade 5-8)
Back ground:
 Action Professional Association for the People (APAP) was operating in Shenkor Woreda of
Harari Regional State. APAP was undertaken rapid assessment, conducted sensitization and
training about SA, established SAC and implemented SA tool. Exercised community scorecard
on education sector.
During SA process, the core identified problems were: lack of laboratory technician, laboratory
equipments and chemical (some chemicals are expired). As the result of SA process, laboratory
equipments and facilitation improved. Students attend practical session. Furthermore, the school
Yeshimebet second cycle school got solar panel from the regional education office, which motivated
school community to work their level best in delivering quality education.

Generally, the case story tells that SA Program encouraged communities to claim their rights and fulfil own
responsibilities with respect to quality services improvement. In addition, the government officials and service
providers became aware of that each activity is responsible for the betterment of the school society and that
they are accountable for their decisions. Students and school communities benefited from the activities
implemented.

123
 Case Study9:

Person with disability empowered and get access to credit

Basic information:
 Name of intervention: Empowered disable groups
 SAIP: Migbaresenay
 Location: Enarjienawuga wereda, east Gojjam zone, Amhara region
 Types of engagement: To empower PwD

Background:
Migbaresenay is one of implementing partner in Enarjienawuga wereda, Esat Gojjam zone in Amhara
Region. SAC and Migbaresenay linked with Services providers to develop the JAPs. They discussed with
council members to consider monitoring of JAPs implementation as one important activity of the council,
which has brought change in the wereda. They quarterly monitoring JAPs and reported to the wereda
council interface meeting. The SAC and wereda council has taken project review and service provision.
They plan to monitor the activities and the way in which community issues are addressed as one of its
sectors implementing activities. The council reviews JAPs implementation on a quarterly basis, provides
direction for the coming quarter, and agrees on how to get support from woreda administration. Heads
of woreda sector offices, the woreda administration office, and speakers of woreda councils attend the
JAPs monitoring meetings on quarterly basis. PSs presented reports on woreda level implementation of
JAPs, including budget allocation, and activities in annual plans of the government, and follow-up on
institutionalization of JAPs implementation.

During this discussion, community members demand for information, present complaints on service
provision, and reach an agreement with service providers on future directions. The joint ownership of
the community, council, local administration, and service providers to follow-up on service
improvements is a meaningful process, which has assisted implementation on agreed development
agenda using government budget and local resources.
Following problems identification, SAC in collaboration with respective service providers achieved
remarkable results. Social accountability program benefited disabled people and women to complain
their entitlements more on education, IGAs, and health sectors. A sense of ownership has developed on
service providers institutions. For example; i) Due to SAC participation on JAPs, Women group was
trained and asked their entitlements to support disabled groups in the wereda. The wereda women
affairs office with SAC identified disabled women and supported to engage on IGAs. One disabled girl
can be an example to this case study such that the girl started trading and changed her attitude how to
live among the communities and disability is not been obstacle to participate on IGAs.

The case study proved that due to SAC participation on JAPs, Disables group was empowered and asked their
entitlements to support in the wereda. It seems like waking up from a dream. Every disable groups is on their
needs to bring changes on their life in the wereda, which is a great success to SAC implementation.

124