• 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
Home»GSDRC Publications»CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes

CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes

Helpdesk Report
  • Brigitte Rohwerder
November 2016

Question

What experience is there globally of civil society organisations providing / supporting accountability mechanisms in cash transfer programmes, at national scale?

Summary

Cash transfer programmes, like most social protection programmes, are vulnerable to fraud, errors, corruption and misuse of funds, which undermine their achievements.  Civil society organisations (CSOs) have supported, or provided, accountability mechanisms in countries around the world: working to improve transparency to help citizens hold authorities accountable; checking beneficiary lists; encouraging compliance by highlighting benefits; gathering feedback to improve services; assessing programme vulnerability to integrity risks and advocating improvements; and gathering grassroots level information on the programmes. This report looks at case studies from Brazil, Kenya, Mexico, Mozambique, the Occupied Palestine Territories, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines and Turkey.

Bhargava and Raha’s (2015) review of civil society engagement with cash transfer programme accountability found few studies, suggesting a significant knowledge gap. Nevertheless, emerging lessons in relation to CSOs supporting or providing accountability mechanisms in cash transfer programmes include the following:

  • CSOs’ support for, or provision of, accountability mechanisms for cash transfer programmes should complement, not replace, government accountability mechanisms. A combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches is most effective in mitigating risks.
  • CSOs can assess availability of information and advocate for greater transparency. Accessible Management Information Systems help CSOs hold programmes accountable.
  • CSOs can be important facilitators in the implementation of cash transfer programmes by better linking authorities and beneficiaries. They can encourage targeted populations to participate at all stages of the programme design and implementation to prevent fraud and corruption.
  • Participation of CSOs in grievance reporting can improve its responsiveness through raising awareness and facilitating grievance filing and follow-up.
  • Efforts should be made to strengthen and support local CSOs’ oversight and control of accountability mechanisms.
  • CSOs can provide technical advice to political parties on how to avoid and prevent political abuse of the programmes.
  • CSOs are not necessarily representative of beneficiaries, who may lack time and other resources to get involved. Their effectiveness can be hindered by coordination challenges, funding constraints, limited scale, the political economy, and donor priorities.
  • Lack of willingness by public officials to provide information, set up citizen oversight mechanisms, and correct and sanction corruption and mismanagement can pose problems for setting up civil society accountability mechanisms. CSOs cooperating with audit institutions to perform social audits could help overcome this.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF - 455 KB]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Suggested citation

Rohwerder, B. (2016). CSOs supporting accountability in cash transfer programmes (K4D Helpdesk Research Report 17). Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham.

Related Content

Trends in Conflict and Stability in the Indo-Pacific
Literature Review
2021
Faith-based organisations and current development debates
Helpdesk Report
2020
Responding to popular protests in the MENA region
Helpdesk Report
2020
Support for civil society engagement in peace processes
Helpdesk Report
2019
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2023; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2023; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2023