Social auditing, also known as ‘civic auditing’, involves the monitoring and evaluation of policy and programs by members of the public.
Problems and Purpose
The evaluation of regulatory frameworks has traditionally been led by academic researchers and think tanks. However, determining whether a policy is well implemented and is meeting its desired objectives presents an opportunity for public engagement. Social auditing is the practice of citizen-led efforts to define measures of impact, monitor policy or project implementation, and gather evidence on service delivery. By leveraging the public to undertake policy evaluation, social auditing has the potential to improve existing service delivery and guide future policy formulation.[1] Social auditing is typically used by civil society or non-governmental organizations to evaluate the external and internal performance of their programs and services and to monitor government corruption at the grassroots level.[2]
Origins and Development
The term ‘social auditing’ has been in use since the 1950s, but the practice has only recently seen as increase in popularity, especially within developing nations.[3] In recent years, new technology has facilitated the use of social auditing by enabling policy makers to crowdsource citizen feedback on a larger-scale and in real-time.[4]
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Participants in the social audit are members of the public. The point of performing a social audit is to go to the population base and find out what people need and what they’re getting.[5] The scope of participation can vary based on the organizing entity and their objectives. One audit may involve asking students to collect data about their local school environments, while another may enlist the help of every citizen in monitoring the progress of local development projects.[6]
How it Works: Process, Interaction, and Decision-Making
Social auditing is typically led by a governmental or non-governmental body and involves enlisting members of the public in the measurement and performance of policies and programs.[7] According to Neil Andersson at the Autonomous University of Gerrero, the process can be broken into two phases:
Phase 1: design and data collection
- clarify the strategic focus
- analyse existing data to identify gaps and generate operational questions
- define population sample, design instruments, and conduct pilot test
- collect information from households, institutions, and key informants in a panel of representative communities
- link public service and household data, analyse in a way that points to action
Phase 2: socialising evidence for participatory action
- take findings back to the communities for their views about how to improve the situation
- summarise information for policy and management (e.g. score cards)
- evidence-based training of planners, service-providers and media
- partnerships with civil society[8]
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
By enlisting the help of the public in auditing of policies and programs, organizations get valuable, on-the-ground feedback from end users. The process itself can help build public trust by facilitating accountability and transparency, while the results enable policy makers and project managers to monitor and improve their performance.[9]
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Yale University’s CrowdLaw offers the following advice to ensure social auditing is successful:
- Tie the audit to measurable outcomes, such as increasing the number of problems fixed in schools or derelict land use sites to be cleaned up
- Make sure audit participants understand what is being asked of them
- Have an institutional actor ready and willing to respond to the results, otherwise the efforts of the social auditing community will not lead to outcomes[10]
See Also
The Black Sash Model of Community Based Monitoring (CBM)
References
[1] “Study Group: Putting the Public Back in Government Session 3,” Harvard Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, accessed April 30, 2019, https://ash.harvard.edu/event/study-group-putting-public-back-government-session-3.
[2] Ritesh Dwivedi and Kirti Vikram Sing, “Social Audit and its Methodology,” in (paper presented at the Conference on Rural Development Problems, Changing Prospects and Implementation Strategies, DAV College Kanpur, 2010), 1, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290899588_Social_Audit_and_its_Methodology.
[3] S.P. Jain and Wim Polman, “Training module on social auditing,” in A Handbook for Trainers on Participatory Local Development (Bangkok, Thailand: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 2003), http://www.fao.org/3/ad346e/ad346e09.htm.
[4] “Study Group: Putting the Public Back in Government Session 3.”
[5] Neil Andersson, “Building the community voice into planning: 25 years of methods development in social audit,” BMC Health Services Research 11, no. 2 (December, 2011), 3, https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1472-6963-11-S2-S1.
[6] “Social Auditing,” CrowdLaw, accessed April 30, 2019, http://congress.crowd.law/case-social-auditing.html.
[7] “Social Auditing,” http://congress.crowd.law/case-social-auditing.html.
[8] Andersson, “Building the community voice into planning: 25 years of methods development in social audit,” 3.
[9] Obidimma Ezezika, Fiona Thomas, Abdallah Daar, Peter Singer, “A Social Audit Model for Agro-biotechnology Initiatives in Developing Countries: Accounting for Ethical, Social, Cultural, and Commercialization Issues,” Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Vol. 4, no.3 (October 2009),
[10] “Social Auditing,” http://congress.crowd.law/case-social-auditing.html.
External Links
Government of Kerala’s Social Audit: https://socialaudit.kerala.gov.in/
‘Social Audits,’ CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation
