Egypt scores 3 out of 10 on rule of law, 3 out of 7 on executive constraints and 1.72 out of 7 on transparency and anti-corruption. These scores signify the need to strengthen the accountability framework.
Solution: Mainstreaming Social Accountability (SA) in the Emergency Labor Intensive Investment is a mechanism of introducing accountability framework into government operations and holding public service providers accountable through a common platform, on which different actors, including government, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), media, private sector, can work together to ensure improvement of service delivery.
Goals and objectives: The overall aim of the project is to generate better governmental responsiveness to the needs of the target population. SA aims to lead to opening a dialogue between citizens, CSOs, youth groups, and media outlets on one hand and also to increase the degree of responsiveness of the government authorities (MSMEDA headquarters and regional offices and implementing partners.
Implementation: The solutions was launched by CARE International in cooperation with the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency (MSMEDA) in Egypt in August 2014 in Beni-Suef, Assiut and Sharkeya Governorates of Egypt. The implementation was built on on CARE International in Egypt’s TPM model, which includes different phases and SA tools summarized by the input tracking, site visits, public hearings and review meetings that represent transparency, participation, accountability and responsiveness for good governance indicators.
The 1st phase starts by clarifying with the MSMEDA exactly what information we should expect to receive, so that we are tracking information that is useful to our key stakeholders, including the headquarters itself. Once the most relevant information is clarified, each party ought then to release information for the monitoring groups. The monitors then track the release of this information against stipulated obligations.
The 2nd phase includes input tracking. In order to track inputs from project-related data and budgets, the team first had to design an input tracking and reporting format, effectively an extraction format in excel in order to elicit and order key information. Youth were then trained on how to use the reporting format. The monitors then collected and compiled information into the reporting format, and periodically updated them. Monitors were then charged to write up observations on the data in their reports.
At the 3rd phase, joint site visits take place. These field site visits take place where the relevant stakeholders from the monitoring groups, CARE, the MSMEDA, the media, and others were able to corroborate or challenge the data published by CSOs and public works agencies.
Through the 4th phase, monitors were supported by CARE’s field supervisors to analyze commonalities and discrepancies between input tracking and site visits – data validation and to write a report with observations and recommendations. These observations were then shared with the EDA and local CSOs from whom data was gathered. The reports illustrate whether there were discrepancies between the input tracking reports and the field visits.
At the 5th phase, public hearings take place; such that it is worth having a meeting to redefine the key stakeholders and key issues to be addressed, as these may change over the course of the initiative. The team had specific meetings with individual stakeholders. These were designed as pre-meetings before the forum, briefings for media partners and focus group discussions with other key actors. Invitations were then sent out to different stakeholder groups, including CSOs, the local MSMEDA office, media, and direct and indirect project beneficiaries. The public hearing was then carried out. Following the public hearing, a report was written with a summary of the findings, a monitoring plan was developed to track commitments, and a press release was prepared for journalists.
The MSMEDA had implemented 24 corrective actions based on the recommendations resulting from implementing the SA model; while its implementing partners had applied 174 corrective actions. For the remaining recommendations, the MSMEDA and its implementing partners either clarified the non-applicability of these recommendations, are still debating them or considering other means of applying these recommendations.
MSMEDA SA Leaders started to have conviction for this experience and to take the lead at some SA model’s activities and most importantly facilitate the last-held public are cooperating to share their knowledge and experience and transfer them to other regional offices in Qena and Minia governorates.
Youth Monitoring Groups as the main implementers of SA-ELIIP, by the end of the project, youth monitoring groups were conducting the SA model activities on their own and facilitating public hearings. This had shown concrete building at their capacities.
TPM model was fine-tuned during the duration of the project and tested to be used and replicated by other entities within Egypt and/or within other countries.
Budget: USD 730,000
Partners: Ford Foundation, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
CARE International in Egypt
Mays Abou Hegab