Enhance social accountability approach in PDM

On August 24, the media reported that more than a dozen officials in Kitgum District were arrested over allegations of misappropriating Shs526m Parish Development Model (PDM) cash.

The PDM as it is known is a very good initiative. But headlines on the obvious abuse that was bound to happen are rather appalling. This will not stop. The remedy is entailed in social accountability mechanisms that are key in preventing, responding to and acting on abuses.

The idea of social accountability implies that the government deliberates to work with communities to support people’s actions to claim the right to access, use, own and account for PDM funds.

In brief it focuses on use of participatory methodologies and the end result is improved service delivery and, in most cases, ensuring value for money in the respective parishes.

Normally, in all other models, and particularly where government grants are involved, the first fear is ‘elite capture’.

Those in-charge take all that they receive or determine who can access. For many that I have talked to; PDM funds are not their right but a favour from the duty holders - or government.

Social accountability has four pillars – and PDM must utilise them if it is to survive and achieve intended goals.

First pillar is organised and capable community groups. This in effect means that all beneficiary parishes have village groups that were formed prior to the PDM initiative. Forming a group because you expect money is a recipe for disaster.

These village groups (though) informal are usually powerful because they have a mechanism to prevent abuse and also respond in case of theft. They keep basic records and their leaders are normally chosen on merit and trust.

Another pillar is a responsive government. PDM was initiated and advanced by the government. So in a way there is clearly good will. However, this seems to be more at the centre than at Local Government levels. The danger is then undermining central government efforts through mechanisms that either delay or facilitate corruption as it happened in Kitgum recently.

To counter this, the PDM policy must be designed with clear guidelines on each responsibility centre.  In public expenditure frameworks it is necessary to reduce these centres to avoid bureaucracy. I suggest the centre becomes the parish itself.

The villages would then constitute a parish development committee whose work would be to scrutinize proposals, appropriate, monitor and account for the resource.

The third pillar is access to information. Periodic press releases and display on released funds ought to be done. This should happen at the lowest parish centres. If posted at village levels, it should be done in places where notices are easily seen. Community radios and worship centres and/or schools can be essential in helping citizens access information. This information must be timely and accurate.

The risk of course is people having knowledge that certain amounts of money are in a certain household and therefore attack to steal.

The last pillar is very complicated. It is about sensitivity to culture and context. Each region and sub-region has unique challenges and engagements in terms of what to use government money for, how to access it, why one should account and who should get first.

Unfortunately, this is so threatening where many cultures think that the government gives and never demands back. This coupled with corruption will make PDM reality difficult. Agencies must be trained to deal with these various contexts. Multi sector approach is the best as was done in NUSAF III. For example, the Karamoja and Kisoro approach ought to be different, this applies to the Arua and Busia approach. That is what complicates rolling out PDM and other government projects uniformly. Even the amounts may seem a lot in one part but in city settings what is Shs100m especially per parish, per person?

In conclusion, the social accountability approach organises people especially at the grassroots to monitor, evaluate and assess service delivery. It encourages democratising knowledge and using participatory tools and methods for building public accountability and transparency.

Jasper Tumuhimbise

[email protected]

Clergy of Anglican Church, Statistician and Activist formerly working with the Inspectorate of Government.