Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys in Uganda (PETS)

							Public Expenditure Tracking
Surveys in Uganda (PETS)
Zerubabel Ojoo
Management Systems and Economic Consultants
Ltd.
Uganda
Email:stalight@africaonline.co.ug
May 3 2005
What is PETS?
• Diagnostic or monitoring tool to understand
  problems in budget execution.
     delays/ predictability of public funding.
     leakage/ shortfalls in public funding.
     discretion in allocation of resources.
What PETS does?
• Collect data from different levels of
  government, including service delivery units
• Rely on record reviews, but also head
  teacher/health facility manager interviews
• Vary design depending on perceived
  problems, country, and sector.

                                                  2
    Background: What motivated the PETS
    in Uganda?
•   Pioneer study in 1996.
•   Motivated by observation of stagnant enrolment
    despite substantial increase in public spending on
    education
•   Increased public spending on education was
    expected to translate into improvement in social
    indicators;enrolment,Pupil/Teacher and Pupil/
    classroom ratios etc.
•   This was not the case.
•   Study was designed to compare budget alloca-
    tions to actual spending at various levels of
    governments and primary schools.
                                                         3
Process and Steps of the Survey
Formation of Task Force comprising of key ministries;
 finance, education and local government working with
 independent consultants and WB staff. Consultants
 reported to the Task Force.
Sample of 250 schools from 18 districts out of a total
 of 39 districts at the time. About 100 health facilities
 were visited.
Collect data from different levels of government;
 relevant central ministries, 18 districts and 250
 schools
Based on availability of data, focus of the study was
 on capitation grants disbursed to primary schools.
Duration of 6 months to complete the assignment.
                                                            4
Main Findings of the Survey

On average 13 percent of annual capitation grant
 (per student) from central government reached
 schools during 1991-1995
87 percent captured by district officials for
 purposes unrelated to education; and considered
 “leakage”. This proved initial suspicion of failing
 finance link.
Schools in poor areas were less able than others
 to claim their entitlements of capitation.
Poor quality services in comparison to public
 spending.


                                                       5
What Happened after the Survey?

Mass public information campaign was launched by
 government reducing capture to 20 percent.
What made a significant difference was the campaign and
 willingness by government to accept the results and make
 the necessary policy changes to improve service delivery.
Information campaign empowers beneficiaries and
 strengthens accountability relationships between service
 providers and users at little cost.
The replication of the study in other sectors; health and
 water as well as public information campaign in other
 programs.
Institutionalization of PETS as a standard tool of public
 expenditure management several sectors.
Over 4 focused PETS undertaken; results disseminated to a
 very a wide audience and follow up action plans decided.
                                                             6
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
                                                       7
8
9
Ugandan schools received more of what they
were due after a newspaper campaign




                                                                      10
Source: Reinikka and Svensson (2001), Reinikka and Svensson (2003a)
Outcome

Generated a lot of concern about public spending in
 relation to outputs, outcomes and impact especially among
 the donors.
Invitations to present the findings of the survey were
 received.
Accordingly presentation of survey results were made to
 EU countries represented in Uganda, NGOs; and senior
 cabinet ministers including the Prime Minister and the Vice
 President.
Report was widely circulated; requests for it were received
 one year after the study.
WB documented the study.
To assist other countries to use this diagnostic tool,
 International training on PETS conducted in
 Cambodia(2004) and South Africa(2005); facilitated by WB
 and IIEP in Paris.
                                                               11
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
                                              12
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
                                                     13