“Community-‐Based Monitoring Prac6ces” Planact Learning Event
Thandiwe Zulu – Regional Manager – Gauteng, NorthWest, Limpopo
19 March 2013
Insights and Lessons from the Black Sash’s Community Monitoring and
Advocacy Project (CMAP)
What is CMAP? (see brochure/ website) www.blacksash.org.za
www.blacksash.org.za/index.php/sash-‐in-‐ac6on/community-‐monitoring-‐and-‐advocacy-‐programme
• 2010: Black Sash, and Social Change Assistance Trust (SCAT) -‐ implemen'ng partner of CMAP project in WC and EC -‐ to help improve government service delivery, with par'cular focus on poor and vulnerable communi'es in South Africa. • CMAP trained community monitors, nominated by local organisa6ons, to maintain a regular and disciplined presence at service delivery points, such as SASSA pay and service points, primary health care facili'es, Home Affairs – RRO and civic offices and for municipal basic services. • Interviews and observa'ons recorded against standardised monitoring ques6onnaires à Black Sash analysed the data and produced the report which were shared with organisa'ons to used for advocacy to improve service delivery at local, provincial and na'onal levels.
“Making Human Rights Real”
Key elements and insights from of CMAP methodology
• Codes of conduct signed with CMAP monitors through their organisa'ons – and implemented • Simultaneous lobbying required with key government/public en''es/ state services to broker permission to monitor services • Standardised ques6onnaires developed – cannot be changed/amended aMerwards
• Predetermined and data capturing and management system to be in place. • Regular needs-‐based training, communica6on and feedback – through mentoring to monitoring organisa'ons on skills such as advocacy, facilita'on etc • Diverse organisa6ons who serve poor and vulnerable communi'es – CMAP ac'vely avoided poli'cal par'es, or even poli'cally affiliated organisa'ons
“Making Human Rights Real
Lessons from CMAP implementa6on
• Regularised report wri6ng – for credibility the reports must reflect the actual facts as reported by the monitor, must be fair in making inferences thus needs careful analysis • Be careful of generalisa6ons, poli6cising issues (with party poli6cs), Iden'fy stakeholders early. • Choice of sample popula6ons/ areas to be monitored must be carefully considered – e.g. not just in one ward – otherwise can be accused of choosing to monitor one ward councillor’s ward and not another’s if e.g. you choose to monitor a local government service. • Addi6ons or edi6ng of reports cannot be influenced poli6cally – requires careful, mature management – however, be fair in reques'ng responses from officials – 'me and content. Other tools for monitoring i.e. Digital monitoring can be considered – as alterna6ve tools, • Request for formal feedback from the relevant department / agency service – a fair amount of 'me to respond required.
“Making Human Rights Real”
CMAP Ques6onnaires SASSA PAYPOINTS: • Monitoring Questionaire for officials at SASSA Paypoints • Monitoring Questionaire for clients at SASSA Paypoints SASSA SERVICE POINTS: • Monitoring Questionaire for officials at SASSA Service Points • Monitoring Questionaire for clients at SASSA Service Points DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS: • Monitoring Questionnaire for clients at DHA Service Delivery Points • Monitoring Questionnaire for officials at DHA Service Delivery Points CLINICS: • Monitoring Questionaire for patients at Primary Healthcare Providers (Clinics) LOCAL GOVERNMENT: • Monitoring Questionaire for the delivery of basic services
“Making Human Rights Real”
CMAP Ques6onnaires – tallied and analysed
“Making Human Rights Real”
Reports dra]ed, discussed and sent to state en6ty for comment/feedback
“Making Human Rights Real”
Reports dra]ed, discussed and sent to state en6ty for comment/feedback
“Making Human Rights Real”
Community Agency for Social Enquiry CASE -‐ Evalua6on of CMAP
• A comprehensive 126 Page Report • SubmiUed late 2012 to Black Sash and SCAT • Based on visi'ng 20 CMAP organisa'ons across SA Ques6ons-‐ Key Themes: 1. Is CMAP “bo-om-‐up”? 2. Has CMAP led to more advocacy and private lobbying? 3. Has CMAP inculcated a sense of volunteerism? 4. Has CMAP built linkages and networks? 5. Has CMAP built capacity? 6. Has CMAP built effecJve communicaJon strategies?
“Making Human Rights Real”
CASE Findings Is CMAP “bo`om-‐up” and has it led to more advocacy and private lobbying?
“Making Human Rights Real”
• Most salient view by most respondents à CMAP was “boUom up” and some said it was conJnuaJon of their work related to rights educaJon, monitoring and advocacy -‐ did not require them to deviate from the work that they were doing. • Created space for monitors and fieldworkers to make input into the programme through the provincial workshops but requested these be held more frequently • Upward sharing of informa'on created the poten'al for local issues to be elevated to higher levels of aUen'on within government. • Findings of this evalua'on confirm that it is indeed advantageous that the programme was designed to be driven by civil society organisa'ons, as a structured approach to monitoring -‐ enabled higher meaning, exposure and advocacy to happen.
CASE Findings: has CMAP inculcated a sense of volunteerism?
• Based on 20 case study findings, there was an indica'on that the most of the respondents are commi-ed to the work that they do since they have been ac'vely involved in serving their communi'es, oMen on a voluntary basis, prior to joining the CMAP.
• Acknowledged CMAP as volunteer programme, CMAP monitors wanted to go beyond what was expected of them in the CMAP à as evident by people wan'ng to extend monitoring to other geographical areas but could not due to resource constraints. • Ignited in some of the organiza'ons visited an interest to monitor ‘new’ government departments i.e. that did not fall within the scope of the CMAP.
• Some of the respondents noted that monitors, due to the mulJple roles which they fulfil within their communi'es, went beyond monitoring because community members approach them as individuals and their organisa'ons for assistance on social issues.
“Making Human Rights Real”
CASE Findings: has CMAP inculcated a sense of volunteerism?
• Some government officials, at sites where the CMAP was posi'vely received, pleased with the monitors’ presence at the sites, and regarded them as an extra “pair of eyes” to ensure that service delivery occurred accordingly. In two provinces, the Departments of Health and SASSA respec'vely requested more monitors be appointed to be deployed to all their service delivery sites in order to obtain a ‘representa've’ picture of service delivery.
• Although several organiza'ons visited were willing to con'nue monitoring, they were concerned that monitoring might not be expanded and sustained due to resource constraints. • A general sense of unhappiness that monitors were not paid s'pends to cover expenses to travel to the service delivery sites, and to purchase lunch meals. Some respondents suggested that the Black Sash and SCAT paid s'pends either directly or indirectly (i.e. via organisa'ons) to monitors to cover expenses related to travelling and lunch meals.
“Making Human Rights Real”
CASE Findings: Has CMAP built linkages and networks?
• CMAP is not poli6cally aligned -‐ some considered it a good founda'on on which to build and strengthen rela'onships amongst role players. Was driven by CBOs -‐ thus an advantage because majority of these organiza'ons had exis'ng rela'onships with role players, including CBOs and government. • There were a few cases where respondents referred to animosity between monitors and ward commi`ees and local government authori6es -‐ oMen aUributed to a view that the laUer stakeholders felt threatened by the CMAP. • Sharing of monitoring informa6on occurred amongst role players at community level (too li`le though) à monitors gained credibility because they were speaking from an informed perspec've as they had sta's'cs to substan'ate their arguments. • Provincial CMAP workshops served as an important plaborm that promoted sharing, learning and strengthening of networks amongst monitors, but more so, CBOs. • Where organisa'ons were grouped, some mentoring visits also offered opportuni'es for peer exchange. Rela6onships between CBOs and government departments were collabora6ve and posi6ve in those cases where the CMAP was sufficiently introduced to the na'onal, provincial and local departments.
“Making Human Rights Real”
CASE Findings: Has CMAP built capacity and effec6ve communica6on strategies?
• Provincial workshops provided useful informa6on regarding service delivery legisla6ve frameworks. e.g. the Promo'on of Administra've Jus'ce Act (PAJA) and policies and legisla'on related to local government and provided monitors the chance to share their various monitoring experiences. • CMAP Monitors oMen transferred knowledge and skills acquired to other staff members in their respec've organiza'ons, other CBOs not necessarily par'cipa'ng in the CMAP as well as community members during the process of monitoring à suggests individual and organisa'onal capacity building • A number of monitors felt more confident to confront government officials subsequent to the CMAP training workshops and mentoring visits.
• Some of the specific skills that monitors said they acquired through the provincial workshops and mentoring visits included donor proposal wri6ng, financial management, conflict resolu6on and communica6on.
“Making Human Rights Real”
CMAP Achievements
• CMAP monitors par'cipated in a total of 36 workshops, carried out 477 field visits and submiUed more than 8 900 ques'onnaires that were developed into 44 reports.
• SASSA pay points and service points, Department of Home Affairs, primary healthcare providers (clinics) and basic services.
• Black Sash sought permission from the relevant government department, but the level of engagement and feedback was disappoin'ng, especially from the Department of Home Affairs and the district departments of health.
• The lack of response from more than 280 municipali'es in South Africa was even worse. However, a significant breakthrough came when the CEO of the Social Security Agency (SASSA) gave permission for monitoring at all SASSA pay points and service points.
“Making Human Rights Real”
Achievements
“Making Human Rights Real”
Other achievements
• Published 2x in State of Local Governance Report of Good Governance Learning Network – Case Study and Paper (2012/3 and 2013/14)
• Published in ESR Review (UWC Publica'on) and SPARK Magazine (PMG)
• CMAP used as a significant reference for Community Monitoring Framework being tabled in April 2013 – Department of Performance Monitoring and Evalua'on (DPME) in Presidency
“Making Human Rights Real”
In closing • Planact is a “premier, people-‐centred, community development organisa'on in Gauteng -‐ directly build the capacity of civil society to engage with government and become partners in development, targe'ng the most marginalized and disadvantaged communi'es.”
• The CMAP methodology– if contextualised, moulded and owned to serve the groups you work with – it is an ideal tool for monitoring and local advocacy – if you so wish.
• Consider lessons to Black Sash in such a project (now prac'ce)
Thank you!
“Making Human Rights Real”