Examples of promising practices

As mentioned earlier, given the complex web of institutions, actors and processes involved in the delivery of basic services, the most promising practices in this area are those which use multiple methods at multiple levels.

• Triangulation involves the use of multiple methods to compare the consistency of findings and hence increase the validity of the assessment. Confidence in the evidence is gained by the observation of patterns and correlations between various sources of information. One good example of triangulation is CIET’S Social Audits of Governance and Delivery of Public Services (Pakistan), which includes: (1) a household survey with over 50,000 respondents, (2) focus groups, (3) key informant interviews with teachers, health facility staff, elected government representatives and public officials, and (4) institutional reviews of health facilities and schools. Data from all these sources was then analysed in consultation with communities to elicit their views on areas for improvement, and findings were discussed among all stakeholders to develop consensus on planned changes22. Likewise, a key focus of TI’s Africa Education Watch (AEW) project was on the relationships between different stakeholders (head teachers, representatives from school governance bodies, local governments and parents). Respondents from each group were interviewed about the same topics, including: (1) the existence and efficiency of voice and accountability structures, (2) the use of these mechanisms by parents, and (3) experiences with and perceptions of corrupt practices in the education system. Results were compared from all parts of the school community to give a more complete picture of the most pertinent governance challenges23.
• Multi-level analysis: Conducting an assessment at multiple levels helps to identify which areas of the service delivery process are most prone to corruption and hence require the most attention from policy makers. TI Kenya’s Education Sector Integrity Study, for example, assesses the key governance risks in the education sector at the various levels of decision-making, resource allocation and utilisation. Through a combination of legal-institutional analysis and case studies, it investigates: (1) the key role of local stakeholders in ensuring integrity, (2) the key constraints to accountability and transparency in the education sector, (3) theft, embezzlement/fraud, and leakage of public funds in the education sector, (4) flawed tendering and procurement processes, (5) violation of admission procedures to colleges and schools, and (6) inconsistent registration of schools24. This approach has been adapted to the health sector in Kenya, where an assessment was conducted across three levels (donor level, ministry of health - from national to health centre level, and rural/community level). As with the above assessments a range of methods were used (key informant interviews, focus group discussions, review of integrity monitoring tools and assessment reports, and other existing literature/reports/studies) and findings were triangulated25.

22 Social Audits of Governance and Delivery of Public Services: Pakistan
23 Africa Education Watch
24 Kenya Education Sector Integrity Study
25 Kenya Health Sector Integrity Study