A realist assessment of the facilitation process for improving social accountability by community based organizations

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of the key contextual domains and sub-dimensions that influence social accountability.

Contextual domain	Key domain sub-dimensions
Civil society	Technical and organisational capacity Capacity to build alliances across society Capacity to build alliances/networks with the state Authority, legitimacy, and credibility of civil society with citizens and state actors The willingness of civil society to challenge the accountability status quo The capacity of citizens to engage in Social Accountability (SAcc) The willingness of citizens to engage in SAcc
Political society	The willingness of political/elected elites to respond to and foster SAcc The willingness of state bureaucrats to respond to and foster SAcc State and political elite capacity to respond to SAcc Democratisation and the civil society enabling the environment The nature of the rule of law The capacity and willingness of political parties to support SAcc
Inter-elite relations	The developmental nature of the political settlement The inclusiveness of the political settlement The organisational and political capabilities of the political settlement Elite ideas/norms of accountability underpinning the political settlement
State-society relations	The character and form of the social contract History of state-citizen bargaining (long- and short-term) State-society accountability and bridging mechanisms (formal and informal) The nature and depth of state-society pro-accountability networks
Intra-society relations	Inequality Social exclusion and fragmentation
Global dimensions	Donor-state relations International power-holder accountability International political and economic drivers

Source: Adopted from O’Meally (2013:xiii).

Figure 1. Target sites for the REPAIR project.

Table 2. Expected outcomes from the REPAIR project.

Knowledge	Attitudes	Practices
CRMC member know their roles and responsibilities The community increased understanding of CRMC key roles and responsibilities in public resource management/ service delivery Increased understanding of local government authorities on their role to support inclusive resource management Service providers learn directly from communities, through feedback mechanisms about what is right and bad to the communities on services provided.	Community members feel that they are able to influence local resource management through engagement in the CRMCs Traditionally marginalised groups, including women and youth, feel that CRMCs serve their needs and interests Frontline service providers’ attitude towards service user needs improves More receptive to dialogue in grievance handling	Inclusive and interactive participatory decision-making and consultations for service provision at a community level. Accommodating & empathising with service providers' Strengthened service user voice in decision making Purposeful use of feedback looks at community and district level for effective service delivery

Source: IRC (2016).

Figure 2. The REPAIR Theory of Change.

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework.

Table 3. Key action research sessions.

Type of session	Time period
Participatory selection of target wards	July 2016
Baseline survey of PMP Plan	July 2016
Participatory monitoring	October 2016-December 2017
Functionality assessment and training of CBOs	September 2016-October 2016
Monthly CRMC meetings	November 2016-December 2017
Stakeholder mapping	May 2017
Development of resource management strategies	June 2017
Development of score cards by communities and CBOs: Data collection for input tracking matrix Community meetings and focus group discussions Service provider meetings Interface meeting and elaboration of the Joint Service Improvement Plan (JSIP) Community endorsement of the JSIP Local / Ward / District authorities’ endorsement of JSIP Implementation of the JSIP	May 2017
Developing self-assessment tools and community monitoring meetings	November 2016
Community Identified significant Change Story (CISCS) development	August 2017-December 2017
Public awareness campaigns	February 2017-August 2017

Table 4. The consolidated Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations.

Contextual Drivers	Key Generative Mechanism (GMs)^a	Outcome (s)
Enhancing community ownership and buy in of the process Maintaining political neutrality Reducing reticence and improving participation of marginalised groups	GM6; GM2; GM8; GM9; GM11	Inclusive decision making
Enhancing community ownership and buy in of the process Building faith in the process	GM1; GM2; GM3; GM4; GM5; GM7	Commitment to improved service delivery from the supply side
Enhancing knowledge of entitlements Enhancing community ownership and buy in of the process	GM6; GM7; GM8	Appreciation of the level of deterioration in service delivery and improved appreciation of service provider constraints.
Maintaining political neutrality Building faith in the process	GM6; GM7; GM8	Improved relationships, trust and communication between service users and service providers
Enhancing community ownership and buy in of the process Reducing reticence and improving participation of marginalised groups Enhancing knowledge of entitlements	GM9; GM10; GM11; GM12	Improved community understanding of rights and responsibilities
Enhancing community ownership and buy in of the process Maintaining political neutrality Reducing reticence and improving participation of marginalised groups Enhancing knowledge of entitlements Appreciating local leadership dynamics	GM4; GM5; GM6; GM7; GM8; GM9; GM10; GM11; GM12	Community empowerment

^aFull details of GMs are given in section 5.3.

O’Meally, SC, 2013. Mapping context for social accountability: A resource paper. Social Development Department, the World Bank, Washington DC.

 Google Scholar

International Rescue Committee (IRC), 2016. Resilience through Peaceful and Inclusive Relationships (REPAIR) Concept Document. Unpublished Mimeo.

 Google Scholar