1.8 Citizens’ involvement in the evaluation of public sector performances : Public hearing, social audit, public testing and third party evaluation

0

Citizens’ Involvement in the Evaluation of Public Sector Performance in Nepal

Concept and Introduction

In a democratic system, sovereignty stems from the people, and the government and administration exercise it on their behalf, as per the Public Contract Theory. In such systems, public administration must fulfill social accountability by ensuring services meet societal needs.

Citizens’ evaluation of public sector performance is a key mechanism to ensure maximum public participation, ownership, control, and trust in governance. It aligns with the principles of open, transparent, citizen-friendly, and inclusive governance, necessitating widespread use of evaluation tools to maintain the principal-agent or accountor-accountee relationship.

This evaluation involves assessing the appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, citizen-friendliness, and effectiveness of public services and development projects. It also ensures that aid from donor agencies is used purposefully and ethically, benefiting targeted communities and improving their quality of life and service satisfaction.

Main Objectives

  • Make public services citizen-friendly, accountable, transparent, and result-oriented.
  • Improve the state’s service delivery.
  • Ensure citizens receive services of expected quality.
  • Prevent misuse of public resources.

Tools for Ensuring Accountability

  • Public Hearing
  • Social Audit
  • Public Testing
  • Implementation of Citizen Charter
  • Citizen Satisfaction Surveys
  • Citizen Score Card
  • Exit Poll
  • Grievance Redressal System

Public Hearing

A public hearing is an open discussion held in a public place between citizens and public officials on matters of public interest. It involves addressing questions, grievances, and suggestions from stakeholders, citizens, civil society, and media regarding public services, development projects, and public concerns. It is a direct, participatory interaction tool to gauge public opinion, collect feedback, and present factual information.

Types of Public Hearings

  1. Project-Based: Related to development projects.
  2. Service-Related: Focused on public service delivery.
  3. Event-Based: Addressing conflicts or incidents.
  4. Legislative: Feedback on law-making processes.
  5. Quasi-Judicial: Feedback on semi-judicial matters.
  6. Issue-Based: Addressing contemporary issues of national importance.

Legal Provisions for Public Hearings in Nepal

1. Good Governance (Management and Operation) Act, 2064 BS, Section 30:
  • Public office heads at provincial, district, or local levels must conduct public hearings as prescribed to ensure transparent, objective, and lawful operations and address stakeholders’ concerns.
  • Invite experts, stakeholders, civil society, and local officials.
  • Judicial matters are exempt from public hearings.
2. Good Governance (Management and Operation) Rules, 2065 BS: Public hearings must be conducted quarterly.
3. Local Government Operation Act, 2074 BS: Rural and urban municipalities must conduct public hearings, social audits, and public testing to ensure transparent and accountable service delivery.
4. Local Bodies: Develop and implement public hearing guidelines.

Public Hearing Process

Preparation

  • Assign responsibilities and form a coordination committee.
  • Coordinate with security and administration if needed.
  • Prepare an agenda of topics.
  • Select a suitable date, time, and venue.
  • Disseminate information through notices, announcements, local FM, and newspapers.
  • Invite stakeholders, experts, elected officials, NGOs, and media.

On the Day of the Program

  • Coordinator briefs on previous hearing decisions and implementation status.
  • Facilitate discussions, record questions, opinions, suggestions, and grievances.
  • Address concerns immediately if possible or outline how they will be resolved.
  • Document key points, commitments, and responses, and authenticate records.
  • Conclude with thanks and announce the tentative date, time, and venue for the next hearing.

Report

  • Prepare a report including participants’ questions, grievances, suggestions, official responses, and commitments.

Importance of Public Hearings

  • Understand public sentiments, grievances, and opinions through direct interaction.
  • Facilitate immediate resolution of shortcomings.
  • Enhance service quality and equitable benefit distribution.
  • Strengthen government-citizen relations.
  • Promote public participation and trust in governance.
  • Enhance public awareness, access to information, and empowerment.
  • Make service delivery and development accountable, transparent, and reliable.
  • Strengthen inclusive democracy and public faith in the system.

Topics for Public Hearings

  • Public duties, services, and facilities.
  • Development projects and programs (quality, cost, achievements).
  • Public perceptions, grievances, and issues with public entities.
  • Follow-up on previous hearing issues.
  • Efforts to fulfill prior commitments to citizens.
  • Evaluation of positive or negative local impacts of public entities or projects.
  • Other contemporary issues of significance.

Risks/Challenges of Public Hearings

  • Political bias or prejudiced behavior in questioning.
  • Limited coverage of key entities, projects, or issues; partial practice at local levels.
  • No penalties for officials or entities not conducting hearings, leading to low adoption.
  • Low participation from marginalized or weaker sections of society.
  • Non-compliance with code of conduct by participants, raising irrelevant issues.
  • Misrepresentation of information by media.
  • Perception among some local officials that hearings are unnecessary, as they are elected representatives.

Social Audit

A social audit evaluates the performance, service delivery, and development outcomes of public entities over a specific period, focusing on results, impacts, records, processes, efficiency, and quality. It involves stakeholders, service recipients, service providers, and experts auditing the social performance of public institutions or projects, assessing their social responsibility.

It analyzes the overall contribution of public entities’ plans, policies, programs, and services to economic and social development, with mandatory citizen and expert participation. Social audits pressure officials and project heads to make decisions that are rational, objective, and result-oriented.

Social Audit Report

The report is prepared after study, observation, analysis, and research, incorporating stakeholder discussions, issues raised, resolutions, challenges, and suggestions.

Objectives of Social Audit

  • Review contributions to societal and community development.
  • Assess efficiency and effectiveness of services and programs.
  • Evaluate fulfillment of social responsibility.
  • Pressure officials to perform objectively and accountably.
  • Improve performance levels of public entities.
  • Make public entities citizen-friendly.
  • Raise public awareness and encourage participation.
  • Enhance trust by making services effective, accessible, transparent, and reliable.

Legal Provisions for Social Audit in Nepal

  1. Local Government Operation Act, 2074 BS: Rural and urban municipalities must conduct social audits, public testing, and public hearings for transparent and accountable service delivery.
  2. Local Bodies: Develop social audit guidelines; audits cover all activities of a fiscal year, completed within the first quarter of the next fiscal year.
  3. References: Local Bodies Social Audit Guidelines, 2067 BS, and Local Bodies (Financial Administration) Rules, 2064 BS.

Basis for Social Audit

  • Organizational structure of the public entity.
  • Objectives and scope of the entity/project.
  • Public policies, strategies, programs, and budgets.
  • Monitoring and evaluation reports of performance and services.
  • Contribution to environmental protection and sustainable development.
  • Role in inclusive development.
  • Impact on education, health, and employment of marginalized groups.
  • Role of private sector, NGOs, and civil society.
  • Citizen Charter.
  • Annual/quarterly progress reports.
  • Public hearing reports.

Social Audit Process/Steps

Prepare a report by analyzing realistic quantitative and qualitative data.

  1. First Phase:
    • Select a team including experts.
    • Study references (laws, guidelines, objectives, plans, achievements, Citizen Charter, progress reports).
    • Conduct on-site observations and interviews with entity/project heads and relevant officials.
    • Review and audit office records.
  2. Second Phase: Data Collection
    • Study or conduct surveys and data reports.
    • Organize discussions with target groups.
    • Interact with stakeholders and collect feedback.
  3. Third Phase: Open discussion on draft report, ensuring participation from all groups.
  4. Fourth Phase: Analyze and evaluate results, achievements, and impacts.
  5. Fifth Phase:
    • Prepare and submit the report.
    • Ensure implementation by relevant entities.

Social Audit Presentation and Discussion

  • Announce date, time, and venue through appropriate media.
  • Maintain a mandatory attendance register.
  • Share and agree on the program schedule.
  • Facilitator explains objectives, methods, timing, and code of conduct.
  • Present draft report (priorities, achievements, expenses, risks, issues, improvement efforts, suggestions).
  • Allow all participants to share views and experiences.
  • Provide time for officials to clarify and respond to feedback.
  • Record participants’ feedback and suggestions.
  • Use simple, local language for presentations.

Risks/Challenges of Social Audit

  • Unorganized or unreliable data and difficulty accessing records.
  • Conflicting statements or data from stakeholders.
  • Complex and cumbersome audit process.
  • Risk of non-inclusive methods.
  • Limited to local bodies or specific projects.
  • Personal biases or local political pressures affecting audits.
  • Lack of universal adoption by public entities.
  • No accountability for entities not conducting audits.

Public Testing

Public testing involves stakeholders directly reviewing investments in development programs, evaluating programs/projects for equitable resource distribution, and assessing objectives, budgets, results, and expenses. It ensures programs are efficient, effective, cost-effective, and result-oriented, while upholding citizens’ right to information.

Objectives and Need for Public Testing

  • Expose factual information about projects.
  • Promote participatory monitoring and evaluation.
  • Prevent corruption and financial irregularities, ensuring optimal resource use.
  • Provide feedback to correct shortcomings.
  • Foster two-way communication, transparency, trust, and stakeholder ownership.
  • Inform stakeholders about all project aspects.
  • Maintain institutional good governance.
  • Promote social harmony by valuing stakeholders.

Main Topics of Public Testing

  • Decision-making processes.
  • Budget and expenditure.
  • Implementation and monitoring aspects.
  • Project rationale, beneficiaries, and target groups.
  • Representation of consumers and stakeholders.
  • Communication and coordination arrangements.
  • Quality and cost-effectiveness.
  • Result achievement and distribution.

Public Testing Phases

  1. First Phase: After project selection and agreement (objectives, importance, processes, activities, quality, budget, implementation methods).
  2. Second Phase: After first installment payment (review progress through stakeholder discussions).
  3. Third/Final Phase: After project completion (evaluate results, quality, processes, and expenditure for final payment).

Public Testing Process and Methods

  • Clarify the objectives of public testing to participants.
  • Fix the date, time, and venue.
  • Publicize program details, expenses, activities, costs, and projected outcomes.
  • Inform about officials’ responsibilities and duties.
  • Ensure mandatory stakeholder participation through invitations.
  • Provide opportunities for all to share opinions, suggestions, and grievances.
  • Clarify project rationale, implementing agency, and all aspects.
  • Avoid formalities and encourage constructive participation.
  • Document and report participants’ views, queries, and grievances.

Third Party Evaluation (TPE)

Third Party Evaluation involves an independent team of experts analyzing all aspects of a policy, project, or program. It collects data through group discussions and surveys with beneficiaries, ensuring impartiality. TPE assesses overall success and effectiveness, examining the relationship between policies, strategies, budgets, and outcomes, and can be conducted during or after project completion.

Practice in Nepal

  • National Planning Commission’s Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines, 2075 BS: Includes provisions for TPE.
  • TPE is conducted for selected multi-year or annual programs/projects, often by NGOs.

Types of Evaluation

  • Formative Evaluation (Ongoing): Assesses whether projects are on track (e.g., PMEP).
  • Summative Evaluation (End/Post): Evaluates outcomes and impacts after completion (e.g., PAF).

Basis for Evaluation

  • Relevant policies and laws.
  • Program formulation, implementation, and monitoring processes.
  • Budget, expenditure, and efficiency.
  • Performance quality.
  • Integrity and cost-effectiveness.
  • Result levels and overall impact.
  • Changes in beneficiaries’ quality of life.

Evaluation Indicators

  • Effectiveness
  • Efficiency
  • Result Levels
  • Impact
  • Sustainability
  • Performance Levels
  • Inclusiveness
  • Beneficiary Satisfaction

Third Party Evaluation Methods

  • Descriptive analysis of policies, laws, objectives, and goals.
  • Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed evaluations.
  • Process or outcome evaluation.
  • Data collection from primary (group discussions, surveys, questionnaires, field observations) and secondary sources (activities, manpower, beneficiaries, budget, expenditure).
  • Change evaluation or randomized control tests.

Challenges of Third Party Evaluation

  • Risks from data inaccuracies.
  • Difficulty identifying specific program impacts.
  • Costly method, challenging to implement widely.
  • Difficulty mobilizing qualified experts.
  • Challenges in accurately capturing citizens’ experiences.
  • Non-implementation of evaluation recommendations.

Way Forward: Recommendations

  • Define clear policies on which entities use which tools under what conditions.
  • Enact unified laws ensuring social accountability alongside financial accountability.
  • Link tool usage to budget/grant allocations for local bodies.
  • Establish reward-punishment systems to hold officials accountable for non-implementation.
  • Provide training to public entity and project heads.
  • Develop clear operational standards.
  • Define participants’ code of conduct.
  • Promote widespread public awareness and education.
  • Implement reward systems to increase marginalized groups’ participation.
  • Create an open environment with skilled facilitators for free expression.
  • Use simple, local languages for programs.
  • Maintain a roster of qualified experts at national, provincial, and local levels, and enhance their capacity.
  • Develop systems to ensure feedback and commitments are addressed.
  • Eliminate superficial implementation, making processes meaningful and effective.
  • Enhance ICT use for systematic and secure record-keeping.
Tags:

Post a Comment

Dear Readers, thanks for choosing to Post a Comment. Please keep in mind that all comments are moderated according to our Comment Policy, and your email address will NOT be published. Let's have a meaningful conversation relevant to the post topic.

Previous Post Next Post