• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Bulletin
  • Privacy policy

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Social protection
    • Poverty & wellbeing
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • Indicators
    • Learning
    • M&E approaches
  • Blogs
Home»GSDRC Publications»Community Monitoring of Service Delivery

Community Monitoring of Service Delivery

Helpdesk Report
  • Claire Mcloughlin
February 2008

Question

Please provide examples of community (participatory) monitoring and evaluation projects for holding government accountable for service delivery and expenditure management.

Summary

Community involvement in the systematic collection of information to assess the quality of public services can take many forms. Mechanisms include citizen report cards (survey-based quantitative assessments of services) community scorecards (quantitative surveys combined with qualitative meetings), social audits (combination of the two) or participatory expenditure tracking. Community monitoring ultimately aims to provide a stock of information/data which can be used to advocate for improved services and better align them towards the needs of local people. The case studies in this report highlight that participation is complex and needs to be set in an understanding of local context, local ownership is crucial, dissemination of monitoring data must be aligned to influence policy, and that ultimately, monitoring is a political process which needs high level support to gain legitimacy.

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Increasing Birth Registration for Children of Marginalised Groups in Pakistan
Helpdesk Report
2021
Water for the urban poor and Covid-19
Helpdesk Report
2020
Humanitarian Access, Protection, and Diplomacy in Besieged Areas
Helpdesk Report
2019
Water Management/Governance Systems in Pakistan
Helpdesk Report
2019

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".