Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys(PETS)

1. Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys(PETS) Zerubabel Ojoo Management systems and Economic Consultants Jan 25 2005

2. Design and implementation of PETS • Stakeholder consultations and scope of the study • Purpose of the study • Who is in charge of what? How do resources flow? • Only 1 or 2 sectors at a time • Rapid data assessment • Determine sketch of information flow • Assess available information at frontline units (schools and clinics) • Use simple questionnaires. • Questionnaire design for PETS • Each level needs its own instrument • Recorded data to be cross-checked against the same information from another source

3. Design and implementation of PETS • Data kept by facilities for own use are typically most reliable • Questionnaires for • School director / head teacher • local governments • relevant central government ministries • Data sheets for the same • Training, field testing, and data entry • Requires significant time (several weeks each activity) • Local participation essential • Test instruments at each level separately as record-keeping differs

4. Design and implementation of PETS • After translation instruments need to be re-tested in the field • Data management • Important to reduce time required through data cleaning after the survey • Take into account the instrument design • CSpro the preferred data entry program http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/cspro • Survey implementation (1-3 months) • Analysis, report, and dissemination

5. Key implementation issues • Who can do it? • Local or international consultant? • Capacity building objective? • Who does the analysis? • Getting quality data • Field test and supervision extremely important • Proper data management for high quality data • Promoting impact • Strategic partnerships (between ministries, using local universities or research institutes, civil society involvement) • Linking into existing instruments and systems

6. Sampling • School census for sampling frame, but often census on private and/or community schools not available • How to overcome? • Draw sampling units randomly from an existing set • enumerate all private and/or community facilities in these sampling units • randomly draw private and/or community facilities from the obtained enumeration list • Stratified random sample (region, urban-rural, ownership, etc.) • Links to other surveys can complicate sample design

7. Ugandan schools received more of what they were due after a newspaper campaign Source: Reinikka and Svensson (2001), Reinikka and Svensson (2003a)

8. Newspaper campaign to cut capture in Uganda • Main national newspapers (2) and their local language editions • Monthly transfers of capitation grants to districts published in newspapers since 1996 • Parents will know what there entitlements are • Posters required at district HQs announcing the date and amount funds received • Schools required to maintain public notice boards/posters displaying receipts • Parents will know what the actual receipts are • Subsequently expanded to other sectors

9. Lessons from Uganda • Through an inexpensive policy action, mass information through the press, Uganda has managed dramatically to reduce capture of a public program aimed at increasing primary education • Because the poor were less able than others to claim their entitlement from district officials before the campaign, but just as likely in 2001, they benefited most from it • Public access to information is a powerful deterrent of local capture

10. Concluding remarks • With proper survey techniques it is possible to collect useful quantitative data on frontline service provision to help • Policymaking • Supervision • Generate “client power” and strengthen “voice” • Conventional mechanisms, such as audits, inspections, and legislative reviews not enough • Need to complement by enhancing client power, i.e., parents’ ability to monitor performance of schools and improve the clients’ bargaining power • Information is crucial

11. References on PETS • Survey reports, instruments, and documentation on • www.publicspending.org • http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/pe/trackingsurveys.htm • References: • Dehn, Reinikka, and Svensson. 2003. “Survey Tools for Assessing Performance in Service Delivery.” In Bourguignon and Pereira da Silva, eds. Evaluating the Poverty and Distributional Impact of Economic Policies. Oxford University Press and the World Bank. Forthcoming • Lindelow and Wagstaff. 2002. “Health Facility Surveys: An Introduction.” Policy Research Working Paper 2953. The World Bank