SAc 2.0 [Amplifying Social Accountability through ICT]

1. SAc 2.0[Amplifying Social Accountability through ICT] MARLON CORNELIO Convenor for ICT Global Youth Anti-Corruption (GYAC) Network cornelios25@gmail.com www.voices-against-corruption.com Presentation Outline: • Social Accountability (SAc) • Global Youth Anti-Corruption (GYAC) Network • The Experience of CheckMySchool and Universidad Coherente • SAc and ICT

2. Social Accountability (SAc) Organized and capable citizens constructively engaging with government to monitor its decisions and actions toward better delivery of public services, improvement of people’s welfare, and protection of people’s rights. 4 enabling environment for SAc to be effective: • organized and capable citizens • government openness • access to information • cultural sensitivity and context appropriateness PILLARS

3. The Global Youth Anti-CorruptionNetwork • young activists, journalists, artists, musicians&ICT enthusiasts from all over the globe • Platform for learning from and sharing experiences, strategies, tools, and lessons in fighting corruption and promoting good governance through social accountability Initiatives of GYAC Members in amplifying social accountability through ICT • CheckMyShool (Philippines) • Universidad Coherente (Peru)

4. 1 2 3 Start up • Access to information law • Vibrant student movements • Process • Students complain about education services • School admin cites lack of budget (clash between students and school admin) • UC collects finance reports from government • UC organizes and popularizes reports • Students reflect on reports • Students inquire from their school admin • Risks • Technical financial reports; Disinterest among students • infographics; thought provoking comparisons; CB • Resistance from school admin  use of official reports; TA • Results • Budget transparency mechanisms; Greater demand for budget efficiency and rationalization • Information-based engagement between gov’t and students • Increased awareness and interest among students; debates • Sustained monitoring of public university budgets

5. Start up • active CSO consortium for education • long-time partnership with DepEd; champions Process • Field offices submit reports to national office • National office collates data and uses it for evaluation and planning (internal data) (complaints from clients) • Gov’t provides data to CMS • CMS processes, organizes, and publishes data • Volunteers validate; submit feedback to CMS • CMS collates feedback, forwards to DepEd, local partners • DepEd/local artners respond to feedback • CMS publishes reports • Risks • Report integrity  local partners • Center-heavy operations  local partners; CB • Digital divide local ICT infra-based design; infomediary • Results • Greater transparency; client-validated data • Quicker feedback, shorter response time • Greater coverage (initial 8/44 T schools; tap new constituency) • Community ownership, competition and empowerment • Reduced resource req’t for monitoring (outsourcing) Show video

7. Guide questions • Do the flexibility and novelty of technical platforms restrict substantive engagement between stakeholder groups? • What are the risks posed by technology in terms of inclusiveness in social accountability initiatives?   - How can technology enhance the quality of partnership in social accountability initiatives.  restrict partnership-building and multi-stakeholder participation? • Are public officials more reluctant to engage with new technologies than with traditional modes of stakeholder engagement? • What kind of impact does a client-based business model have on assessment work for social accountability?  • How can government leverage existing channels of interaction with the public to increase the effectiveness of public service delivery?