Using Government Budgets as a Monitoring Tool (English)

by Lerato Kgampheedited by Liam Mahony

Using Government Budgets as a Monitoring ToolThe Children’s Budget Unit in South Africa

A Tactical Notebook published bythe New Tactics Project

of the Center for Victims o f Torture

Published byThe Center for Victims o f TortureNew Tactics in Human Rights Project717 East River RoadMinneapolis, MN 55455 USAw w w.cvt.org, w w w.newtactics.org

Notebook Series EditorLiam Mahony

Design and CopyeditingSusan Everson

The Leadership Academy of the Desmond Tutu Peace Centre and the Center for Vict ims o f Torture wish toackno wledge the follo wing inst itu tions that provided support for the Ne w Tact ics in Human Rights A fricanregional training w orkshop , o f w hich this and other tact ical notebooks are a product:

· The Rockefeller Foundation· The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict· Norw egian Church A id· The European Union Conference , W orkshop and Cultural Initia tives Fund in conjunct ion with the

South A frican National Trust· The United Sta tes Department o f Sta te· The United Sta tes Inst itu te o f Peace· Donors w ho wish to remain anonymous.

W e are also greatly indebted to the w ork o f numerous in terns and volunteers w ho have contributed theirt ime and expertise to the advancement o f the project and o f human rights.

The Ne w Tact ics project has also benefited from more than 2000 hours o f w ork from individual volunteersand in terns as w ell as donations o f in-kind support . Some of the inst itu tional sponsors o f this w ork includeM acalester College , the Universi ty o f Minnesota , the Higher Education Consortium for Urban A f fairs, theMinnesota Just ice Foundation and the public rela tions f irm of Padilla Speer Beardsley.

The opinions, f indings and conclusions or recommendations expressed on this si te are those o f the Ne wTact ics project and do not necessarily re f lect the vie ws o f our funders For a full list o f project sponsors seew w w.newtact ics.org .

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the New Tactics in Human RightsProject . The project does not advocate specif ic tactics or policies.

© 2004 Center for Victims of TortureThis publication may be freely reproduced in print and in electronic form as longas this copyright notice appears on all copies.

75

4

The Center for Victims o f TortureNew Tactics in Human Rights Project

717 East River RoadMinneapolis, MN 55455 USA

w w w.cvt.org, w w w.newtactics.org

Editor’s preface & author biography

Letter from the New Tactics project manager

Introduct ion

8 What is the Children’s Budget Unit?

1110

1010 Children’s rights & child poverty

Role players in the implementation of child rights

Five steps o f the tactical approach

Case study

14Follow-up

1616

15The budget process

Outcomes: What progress have we made?

Dif ficulties

Transferring the tactic

18Conclusion

15

19Budget monitoring publications

Lerato KgampheLerato Kgamphe joined Idasa in 2002 under the PublicPolicy Participation Program initiated by the WoodrowWilson Foundation (USA). Beginning with the Children’sBudget Unit (CBU) as an intern, she focused primarily onresearch and fieldwork for the Impact Assessment of theMulti-disciplinary Management of Child Abuse and Ne-glect in three South African provinces. Lerato was alsoinstrumental in disseminating information from the CBU's2001 study “Budgeting for child socio-economic rights”(Cassiem, Streak 2001: Idasa) at a provincial level, andplayed a key role in preparing and organizing both theCBU’s National Training Workshop and first meeting ofthe Child Rights Network, held in Cape Town 2002. Shehas since become a research assistant in the unit, partici-pating in ground-breaking research for its 2003 annualstudy and developing ideas for future research. Leratoalso responds on behalf of the CBU to requests for infor-mation by other organizations and interested parties.

Lerato holds an undergraduate degree in economics andfinance from the University of Cape Town. She is currentlystudying towards her master’s degree in financial analysisand portfolio management.

Contact InformationLerato Kgamphe6 Spin street, Cape Town 8000, South Africaphone: 021 467 5600/37fax: 021 462 0162web site: www.idasa.org.zaemail: [email protected]

AcknowledgementsMany thanks to the members o f the Children’sBudget Unit for their continued support . Thisproject would not have happened without yourhard work making the tactic a reality, as well asyour enthusiasm in sharing it with others.

September 2004

Dear Friend,

Welcome to the New Tactics in Human Rights Tactical Notebook Series! In each notebook a humanrights practitioner describes an innovative tactic used successfully in advancing human rights. Theauthors are part of the broad and diverse human rights movement, including non-government andgovernment perspectives, educators, law enforcement personnel, truth and reconciliation processes,and women’s rights and mental health advocates. They have both adapted and pioneered tactics thathave contributed to human rights in their home countries. In addition, they have utilized tacticsthat, when adapted, can be applied in other countries and situations to address a variety of issues.

Each notebook contains detailed information on how the author and his or her organization achievedwhat they did. We want to inspire other human rights practitioners to think tactically—and tobroaden the realm of tactics considered to effectively advance human rights.

In this notebook, we learn about following the money. Budgets are used everywhere—from localagencies, to non-governmental organizations, to governments and international bodies. They providea concrete tool for evaluating how programs and policies actually fulfill their financial and legalobligations. In South Africa, Idasa’s Children's Budget Unit (CBU) has used budget analyses tomonitor the government’s legal obligations, commitments, and progress in advancing child-specificsocioeconomic rights and programs. The CBU monitors and evaluates these programs by looking atthe government’s budget allocations, spending of funds, and program expenditures andimplementation. The power of this tactic lies in its ability to reveal, in black and white, the extent ofa government’s efforts towards its human rights obligations and commitments.

The entire series of Tactical Notebooks is available online at www.newtactics.org. Additionalnotebooks are already available and others will continue to be added over time. On our web site youwill also find other tools, including a searchable database of tactics, a discussion forum for humanrights practitioners, and information about our workshops and symposia. To subscribe to the NewTactics newsletter, please send an e-mail to [email protected].

The New Tactics in Human Rights Project is an international initiative led by a diverse group oforganizations and practitioners from around the world. The project is coordinated by the Center forVictims of Torture (CVT), and grew out of our experiences as a creator of new tactics and as atreatment center that also advocates for the protection of human rights from a unique position—oneof healing and of reclaiming civic leadership.

We hope that you will find these notebooks informational and thought provoking.

Sincerely,

Kate KelschNew Tactics Project Manager

6

Editor’s PrefaceFollow the money! How often have human rights cam-paigns and social change movements won concessionsand reforms from governments, only to find a fewyears later that their hard-fought gains were neverimplemented in the government’s budget? Prevent-ing human rights abuse depends on government ac-t ion , and government act ion requires governmentspending. Human rights groups, therefore, cannot fullyascertain how well a government is fulfilling its obliga-tions unless they learn how to carefully monitor gov-ernment budgets and spending .

Unfortunately, human rights and social change orga-nizations are often grievously ill-prepared for the tech-nical demands o f monitoring government budgets.Trained economists are employed primarily in the cor-porate world , while it is not uncommon for politicalactivists and humanitarian organizations to have acertain level of “math-phobia ” and “money-phobia ”preventing them and their organizations from plac-ing a suf ficiently high priority on understanding theeconomics o f human rights protection .

Consider some examples: Securing prisoners’ rights isinextricably related to the details of prison budgets.Protecting immigrants’ rights will be af fected by thespending priorities in immigration departments. Pre-venting discrimination against ethnic groups in a jus-

tice system depends on how much money is spent ontranslators. Getting adequate treatment for torturesurvivors depends on budget priorities in health poli-cies. When we look at the realm of economic and so-cia l righ ts, t he connect ion is even more obvious:whether a government is progressively implementingthe right to education or the right to health is largely aquestion of spending priorities, rather than rhetoric oreven legislation . For a government to implement theprotection of almost any right at all, the right must bereflected in government budget and spending .

In this tactical notebook, the Children’s Budget Unit(CBU) of the South A frican NGO Idasa provides us witha promising model of NGO-based budget monitoring .They argue that children’s rights can be protected onlyif a government’s fulfillment of those rights is moni-tored through careful analysis of its budget and spend-ing . W ith minimal t echnical resources, t hey havepublished high-quality budget analyzes complete withthorough recommendations that have had a notableimpact on governmental policies. Their meticulous at-tention to budget monitoring has earned them therespect of the government , and they now play therole of influential consultant in some government fi-nancial policy debates.

In addition, Idasa and the CBU have been actively train-ing NGOs in other countries to develop budget-moni-toring units. Their training approach starts a t thegrassroots, o f fering capacity-building sessions to fa-miliarize activists with the budget process and the ana-lytical concepts needed for budget analysis. They haveaided organizations in the entire process o f research ,recommendations, and implementation .

This notebook demonstrates not only how importantbudget monitoring can be for implementing change ,but also that it is a feasible challenge even for rela-tively small NGOs. The CBU has broken the task downinto steps, which should encourage other organiza-tions to tailor a budget-monitoring approach to theirown capacity and their own human rights goals.

Using government budgets as a monitoring tool 7

1 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. 1996s28(1)(c).

IntroductionThe budget is government’s operational plan to deliver a better life forour people. It sets out what you will pay in taxes, how we will spendthat money, and what we will deliver. It is a synthesis of all ourgovernment policies. The budget is our contract with the nation.Trevor Manual, South African Minister of Finance, 1998 BudgetReview

Since 1995 the Children’s BudgetUnit (CBU) of the Institute forD e m o cr a cy i n So u t h A f r ica(Idasa), based in Cape Town, hasbeen using national and provin-ci a l g overn m e n t b u d g e ts asmonitoring mechanisms to ad-vance child-speci f ic socio-eco-nomic rights. Budget monitoringallows us to analyze how govern-m e n t co nce p t u a lises, im ple-ments, and allocates budgets tofulfil its legal obligation to helprealize these rights.

The rights of the child are explicit,and the government is legallybound to fulfil them: in the SouthAfrican Constitution, the UnitedNations Convention on the Rightsof the Child (CRC), and the A fri-can Charter, the child has theright to political, socio-economic,cultural, economic, and environmental rights. In addi-tion, the South A frican Constitution specifies that thechild has the right to basic nutrition, shelter, basic healthcare services, and social services.1

Why use budgets? The budget is the key policy instru-ment used by a government to ensure that things hap-pen, and thus shows a government’s true priorities. Agovernment’s programs that fulfil its obligations thathelp realize socio-economic rights must be included inits budget, and it must account not only for the amountbudgeted , but also the amount actually spent . Bud-gets, therefore, are instruments that allow us to moni-t o r h o w s e rv ic e s a r e d e l i v e r e d a n d p o l ic i e simplemented. The monitoring of government budgetscan lead to policy reform, establish a path for “ trans-parent, ef fective and efficient ” budgeting principles,and make it possible to provide concrete recommen-dations for program evaluation and improvement.

Information gleaned from budget analysis can be usedto educate people about their rights, and help themaccess these rights. Advancement of human rights is atwo-way stream. People in need of help must commu-nicate their needs to those in power, and articulatesustainable solutions. And those in power need toknow if their methods and programs are ef fective to

ensure that a win-win situation is created . The bud-get-monitoring tactic works to aid both sides.

O ur w ork has proven tha t a budget-monitoringproject, used effectively, can be an important tool inchanging policy. South A frica, for instance, has an ex-tensive social security program for children. The CBU

has conducted numerous studies o f the accessibilityand effectiveness of this program, discovering discrimi-natory access in undeveloped and rural areas, and agovernmental lack of administrative capacity that alsohindered access to the program . In our 2001 study,“Budgeting for child socio-economic rights: Govern-ment obligations and the child’s right to social securityand education” (Cassiem, Streak: 2001, Idasa), we rec-ommended that that age limit of children accessingone of the social security grants be raised from six to14. This recommendation was put into practice by thegovernment in its 2003/04 budget, and we, togetherwith other civil society organizations, are now focus-ing on proposals that the program include all childrenunder 18.

In this tactical notebook, after a brief introduction toIdasa and the Children’s Budget Unit , we present acase study of how budget monitoring was used to seehow the South A frican government fulfilled its obli-gation to provide social security to children. We thengeneralize the monitoring approach , outlining keyquestions, and summarize some of the tactic’s posi-tive results. Finally, we offer some discussion of thetactic’s complexity, which should help others thinkabout how to apply it in their own situations.

Shaamela Cassiem transferring applied budget analysis skills to Chance Chagunda from the CatholicParliamentary Liaison Office, Connie Mpokotho of the Children’s Institute, Nceba Mafonyosi of BlackSash, and Augustus (Matt) Dludlu from DUSA

8

What is the Children’s Budget Unit?IDASA ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORYThe CBU is a project o f Idasa , a South A frican NGOwhose mission is to promote a sustainable democracyin South Africa by building democratic institutions, edu-cating citizens, and advocating social justice. Our cur-re n t prim ary o b ject ive is t o b u ild ca p aci t y f ordemocracy in civil society and government.

Idasa was established in 1987 to build confidence in anegotiated solution to the South A frican conflict , agoal it pursued by facilitating several influential gath-erings and conferences outside of South A frica withdifferent communities and leaders. With the legaliza-tion of resistance movements and the establishmentof negotiation opportunities, Idasa became a criticalally of the transition, interpreting it for ordinary citi-zens as it unfolded, providing capacity for a myriad oflocal initiatives, supporting strategies to end violence,and introducing the parties to one another — espe-cially in the police and military arenas. In the early1990s Idasa was deeply involved in electoral supportand training, the monitoring of national and local gov-ernmental processes and accountability, and the train-ing of officials, educators and NGOs.

In its analysis of South A frican society and its capacityfor democracy, Idasa identified three general areasof focus. Each area contains a civil socie ty and statecomponent, and each demands equal attention. Idasadoes not believe that it alone can do this work , butconsiders capacity building here critical to the achieve-ment of its mission and primary objectives:I Representation of voters, and community and

public participation;II Delivery of state services and constitutional obli-

g a t io ns, a n d a p pro pria t e ly ar t icula t e d a n dorganised citizen demands;

III Enforcement of laws, regulations, by-laws and theconstitution, and informed compliance and con-sent by citizens.

The organization is founded around national pro-grams, objective-oriented projects, and associated bod-ies. The national programs are:• Budget Information Service• Political Information and Monitoring Service• Local Government Centre• Public Opinion Service• Southern A frican Migration Project• All Media Group

The Children’s Budget Unit is a sub-project of Idasa’sBudget Information Service , established in 1995. Itsmission is to contribute to the realization of child rightsand the reduction of child poverty through research,training , and the sharing of information on govern-ment budget allocations and service delivery in rela-tion to legal obligations.

In the early 1990s the South African government madea firm commitment to alleviate poverty by implement-ing various programs and establishing the National

Program of Action (NPA), createdto advance child rights by helpingensure that they are prioritised inpolicymaking, budget allocations,and the delivery of public services.

The birth of the CBU came at atime of dramatic transformationin the country’s political landscape.South Africa’s first democratic gov-ernment, elected in April 1994, in-herited a legacy of extensive anddeep poverty—including child pov-erty. A t this time it was estimatedthat, at a minimum, 60 percent ofSouth A frican children were in-come poor. During the first fewyears of democratic rule, the newgovernment took a number of sig-n i f ican t st eps t ha t re f lect ed astrong commitment to reducingchild poverty and advancing socio-

economic rights. These included:• Certification of a new Constitution (in June 1996),

which includes a broad range of civil, political,socio-economic, and cultural rights for everyone,and specifically for children.

• The government’s ratif ication (in June 1995) ofthe Convention on the Rights of the Child.

• The design and initial in troduction of a broadrange of government programs aimed at fulfill-ing everyone’s socio-economic rights, particularlythose of children.

Godwin Booysen of the Free State Christian Church Leaders Forum, Leonie Caroline of Black Sash andMama Darlina Tyawana of New Women’s Movement working together


South A frica’s ne w democracy has been furtherstrengthened by an active NGO sector and many in-dependent agencies conducting research and advo-cacy work aimed at promoting socio-economic rights.However, no research was being conducted on thegovernment’s budgeting for children and how it shouldbe improved. The CBU was established to fill this gapand hold the state accountable to its legal obligationsrelated to child rights.

Relevance to budget monitoring

The government should consider study rec-ommendations during its process of policyreform.

Helps directly with budget monitoring andensuring progressive realization of the right

Ensures that government is legally obliged torecognize the rights. Should the governmentfail in its obligation, these rights can be soughtin the courts

The commissions use budget monitoring toadvocate for change and improvement in re-alization of the right.

Through education, parents can learn therights of children. Budget monitoring canensure the provision of programs to help re-alize these rights.

Can use budget monitoring to advocate forchange and improvement in realization of theright.

These organizations can use budget moni-toring to advocate for change and improve-ment in realization of the right.

Can use monitoring to ensure that funds al-located to programs are used in the most ef-fective and efficient manner possible forrealization of the right.

Budget monitoring gives information on theextent to which programs have been imple-mented and are in line with the obligationsset out in the CRC.

Role players

A country’s government(executive branch)

A country’s parliament

A country’s judiciary

Human rights commissions

Parents

Civil society

Research organizations

The international financialcommunity

UN Committee on the Rightsof the Child (the UN supervi-sory body of the CRC)

Children (rights bearers)

How they help give effect to child rights

By developing laws, conceptualizing andimplementing programs (with the related al-location and use of resources), and usingpolicy to establish an environment in whichthe market creates income opportunities forthe poor.

By monitoring fulfillment of government’sobligations related to child rights.

By making and enforcing laws pertaining tochild rights.

By monitoring the measures governmentsimplement to realise child rights.

By helping provide the material goods, love,protection, and psychological support chil-dren need to meet their basic needs and livehealthy and secure lives.

By assisting in the provision of public or otherservices to children, conducting research onthe fulfillment of child rights obligations, andpromoting child rights.

By monitoring the implementation of childrights and helping define rights, obligations,and implementation strategies.

By making loans to governments in state par-ties, giving aid that finances specific childrights programs, and offering technical sup-port.

By overseeing the implementation of theCRC, and accepting related state and NGOreports.

By being aware of and claiming their rights.

The CBU currently consists o f three permanent sta f fmembers and an assistant researcher, who generallycomplete one central study each year, along with “Bud-get Briefs,” newspaper articles, submissions to parlia-ment, and responses to major policy documents, radiointerviews, training, capacity building and project sup-port.

10

2 Act 108 of 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Constitution).

3 An important point about socio-economic rights—particularly ina country like South Africa, where the level of inequality in access toresources is high—is that their main purpose is not to reduceincome inequality, but to meet everyone’s basic needs (Brand, inCreamer 2002:29–30). In other words, the real problem beingaddressed through the realization of socio-economic rights is that ofreducing absolute poverty (including child poverty), as opposed torelative poverty. Of course, progress in realization of socio-economicrights may reduce absolute and relative poverty at the same time,but this need not be the case. This confluence would require thepoor becoming better off more rapidly than the rich getting richer.

4 Taken from: “Towards a monitoring framework for child socio-economic rights in the South African constitution,” by J. Streak andJ. Wehner, in Monitoring child socio-economic rights in South Africa:Achievements and challenges, E. Coetzee and J. Streak (eds), Idasa,Cape Town, 2003.

5 Extract from the CBU Budget Guide to NGOs.

6 In Article 4, the CRC also implicitly refers to obligations of theinternational community, suggesting that in some cases developingcountries may need to draw on international assistance forrealization of child socio-economic rights.

7 Streak J, Kgamphe L: Brief #107 Idasa, Cape Town.

Children’s rights and child povertyAll children in South A frica are entitled to a compre-hensive set of human rights, enshrined in the SouthAfrican Constitution2 and in international and regionalchildren’s rights treaties. These rights entitle childrento basic socio-economic necessities such as adequate

health care , education , water,shelter, sanitation , food ,

and income.3 The Con-stitution also insists

on a dimension ofp r o g r ess iv e im-provement in thee n j o y m e n t o fsocio-economicrigh ts, and im-poses legal obli-g a t io ns o n t h e

state and parentsto give e f f ect to

these rights, whichare le g a lly e n f orce-

able through the courts.4

The socio-economic realities experi-enced by most of South Africa’s people, including chil-dren, dif fer widely from the ideals advanced by thechild-specific socio-economic rights in the Constitution.Child poverty remains extensive and deep. Millions ofSouth African children go to bed hungry, lack the mate-rial means to attend school or health clinics, and find itimpossible to live healthy and secure lives. Millions ofparents in South A frica cannot fulfil their primary re-sponsibility to meet the basic needs of their children. Inthis context it is crucial that the state responds ef fec-tively to its obligations to deliver socio-economic rightsto children and their caregivers.

Approximately 42 percent of the South African popu-lation is comprised of children under age 18 and, de-pending on the income level used , 43–65 percent ofthe children—between 10.5 and 14.3 million—are poor.More than five million children under the age of sevenlive below the poverty line of R400/month per capita,and 11 million under age 18 can be classified as des-perately poor, living with less than R200 (1999 Rands).Exacerbated by the impact of HIV/AIDS, child povertyis concentrated primarily in the poorer provinces orregions, namely K w a-Zulu Na ta l , East ern Cape ,Limpopo, and North West Province.

Role players in theimplementation of child rights5

To become meaningful, the child rights that exist onpaper must be transla ted into tangible benefits. It isuseful in doing so to distinguish between the peopleand institutions given explicit obligations in domesticlaws (such as constitutions) and international humanrights instruments, and those that are not .

In most relevant human rights treaties, states (re-ferred to as “state parties” in the CRC) and parentsare explicit ly given such obligations.6 Internationaltreaties, including the CRC, say nothing about the rela-tive role of dif ferent state organs—the executivebranch, the parliament, or the courts—in fulfilling stateparty obligations, while constitutions, including SouthA frica’s, are more precise in explaining how variouscomponents o f the state are required to give ef fectto child rights. These role players are described in thetable on the next page.

Five steps of the tactical approachThe budget monitoring tactic can be broken into fivesteps, which we will illustrate through the example ofmonitoring the fulfilment of the child’s right to socialsecurity.• determine the nature of the government’s legal

obligations to advance the right• measure the extent of the problem addressed by

the right (i.e. child poverty)• review program conceptualization & design:• program existence and design• budget allocations and expenditures• b u d g e t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d s e rv ic e

delivery• analyze national and provincial government bud-

gets• make recommendations on how the government

can better fulfil its obligations to advance the right

These same steps can be applied to monitor the fulfil-ment of socio-economic rights for other populations,and of civil and political rights, to the extent that thefulfilment of such rights requires responsible govern-ment expenditure (in the justice system , in police ormilitary training, and so on).

SECTION 27(1)(C)OF THE CONSTITUTION

STATES THATEveryone has the right to have access to … so-

cial security, including, if they are unable to sup-port themselves and their dependents, appropriate

social assistance.

SECTION 28 (1)(C) STATES THATEvery child has the right to basic nutrition, shel-ter, basic health care services and social services

Constitution of the Republic ofSouth Africa, 1996


UNDERSTANDINGBUDGET TERMINOLOGY• Nominal amount: the actual monetary

value in terms of purchasing power,i.e., without taking inflation into ac-count.

• Real terms: the nominal amount ad-justed for inflation over time.

• Five steps to follow when adjustingnominal budget allocations:• Choose a base year• Identify inflation rates for the

conversion• Calculate a price index and price

deflators• Use the price deflators to con-

vert nominal values to real values• Work out the real ___ (year-on-

year and average annual growthrates)

UNDERSTANDING BUDGETSChoosing a base year:• The year for which you assume there is no inflation.• The easiest approach is to use the first year for which data is available.

Inflation rates:• Consumer Price Index (CPI)/Product Price Index (PPI)/Gross Domestic Product

(GDP): which one to use, and the differences among them.

Calculating the price index and deflators:• The price index is a set of index numbers showing how the average price of a bundle

of goods has changed over time.

Year Price index Note

One: 2002/03 = 100 The price index is always100 in the base year

Two: 2003/04 = 100 + 100 * (6.6 / 100) = 106.6 Projected GDP inflationrate: 6.6

Tthree: 2004/05 = 106.6 + 106.6 * (5.1 / 100) = 111.7 Projected GDP inflationrate: 5.1

USING DEFLATORS TO CONVERTNOMINAL DOLLARS INTO REAL DOLLARSReal budget allocation = nominal / deflator

Growth rate calculation: growth rate = [(year 2 - year 1) * 100] / year 1

Calculated deflators 2003:

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

GDP inflation 0.072 0.075 0.077 0.066 0.049 0.049

Deflator 79.23032 85.3775 92.3 100 106.6 111.8234 117.3027

Deflator 0.792303 0.853775 0.923 1 1.066 1.118234 1.173027

The Budget Information Service was begun with thebelief that everyone can perform basic budget analy-sis. It is not necessary to have prior budgetary or eco-nomics knowledge before embarking on a study, asthe aim is to build capacity in the field of budget moni-toring . Things that do need to be clarified at the be-ginning are the study objectives, any obligations o fthe government to realize the rights in question, andwhether there are gaps in the realization of the rightsrelating to budgetary allocation, access, and account-ability. Asking these questions early on will help youformulate pertinent questions during the research ,and later make informed recommendations on howto positively change the situation.

Case study: Right of childrento social securityAs an example of our tactic, we describe here one ofour budget briefs, entitled “Government’s recent per-formance in budgeting for the child’s right to socialassistance in South A frica” (2002).8

Two sta ff members wrote the brie f , using data col-lected through various methods over a period of sixmonths. The easiest method involved using annualgovernment budget books, policy statements, andother articles; staff members also telephoned variousgovernment ministries to clarify and request in for-mation. Qualified professionals were hired to conductsome of the required research, such as the analysis ofchild poverty data , and , f inally, sta ff members con-ducted telephone and in-person interviews with re-search agencies and government officials.

This process took some time , as not all governmentof ficials were willing to disclose the dif ferences be-tween budgets and expenditures, particularly in prov-inces t h a t h a d n o t u t i l i z e d t h e e n t ire b u d g e t .Unfortunately, these tended to be the poorer prov-inces, whose children have the most need . With co-operation from the National Department of SocialDevelopment, who also needed the budget data, weeventually pressured the of ficials to submit the fig-ures.

8 All reference to “the Constitution” is made with respect to Act 108of 1996.

12

eCONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2001STUDY, “BUDGETING FOR CHILD SOCIO-ECONOMICRIGHTS”• There is urgent need for the following data:

• Income status breakdown of the child support grant (CSG).• Information on whether CSG amounts are sufficient to en-

sure fulfilment of basic needs.• Information on how the CSG target population is spread

across the provinces, and on the real demand for the grants.• Information about how the total provincial budget alloca-

tions in each province are spread across the districts, and theintra-provincial spread of children targeted for allocations.

• Government must in the future meet its obligation to maintain thereal value of social security grants flowing to poor children in pa-rental care.

• It is recommended that the age limit of the child support grant beexpanded beyond 6 years, even if not to 17.

• It is hoped that the growing real resources available for spending onservices are distributed in a way that gives every poor child in SouthAfrica an equal chance of realizing his/her right to social security,regardless of where s/he lives.

• It is recommended that the government allocate resources to effec-tive distribution channels for child security in remote rural areas,helping ensure that difficulties in accessing the grants do not under-mine the realization of child social security rights in South Africa.

We stressed to of ficials that the purpose of the re-search was not to discredit the government, but ratherto help improve policy formulation, budget planning,child advocacy and lobbying, and the delivery of ser-vices for children. We now use measurable objectivesin the budget reports, which simplifies the process foreveryone , as all required information is made avail-able in the budget books.

STEP 1: DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THEGOVERNMENT’S LEGAL OBLIGATIONSThe child’s right to social services, as set out in Section28(1)(c) of the South A frican Constitution,8 implies a“basic” social service. The Constitution is not explicit instating that social assistance is part of this right, butfor the purpose of monitoring we assume that it is. It isclear from the drafting of Section 27(1)(c) that socialsecurity includes both contributory forms of social in-surance, and needs-based assistance received from pub-lic funds (social assistance).9

The W hite Paper for Social Welfare in South A frica(February 1997) defines the scope of covered socialsecurity:• A wide range of public and private measures that

provide cash, in-kind benefits, or both, in the eventof an individual’s earning power permanently ceas-ing, being interrupted, never developing, or beingexercised only at unacceptable social cost, and sucha person being unable to avoid poverty.

• Social welfare policies and programs which pro-vide for cash transfers, social relief, and develop-men tal services t o ensure tha t people haveadequate economic and social protection during

periods of unemployment , ill-health , maternity,child-rearing, widowhood, disability, old age, andso on.

Social welfare programs of this nature contribute tothe development of human resources by enabling im-poverished households to provide adequate care fortheir members, especially children and those who arevulnerable. When such programs are combined withcapacity building , people can be released from thetrap of poverty.

In essence , social security is understood to consist o fthose measures aimed at guaranteeing a certain mini-mum subsistence level, and protecting the income ofpeople in situations where it is imperilled owing tovarious contingencies.

The right to social security should consist of universal-ity, equality, adequacy, and appropriateness. Withoutincreasing dependence on social assistance , the pro-gram should at least meet a defined minimum stan-dard, with the recipient not falling below an acceptedpoverty line.

If progress is to be measured, the Ministry should putin place a transparent plan of action for realizing theright. This plan of action should include benchmarks(targets) tied to specific time frames. Without this planof action, there is real risk that policy commitmentswill simply remain noble sentiments on paper.

STEP 2: MEASURE THE EXTENTOF CHILD POVERTYWe measured child poverty to ascertain the potentialimpact of a social assistance program if accessed by allchildren entit led to it . See the sect ion above onChildren’s Rights and Child Poverty for a description ofthe extent of child poverty in South A frica.

“If I don’t have money for the bus I don’t go to school. Sometimes thereis no money for more than two weeks.” (Girl, 16)

“My family had no money for food. When I was alone sometimes Ithought that I am a problem at home and maybe it’s better to leavehome and get my food alone.” (Street child, 16)10

HIV/AIDS, a f fecting income earners in many house-holds, is exacerbating poverty levels, and in additionthe South African economy has not shown favourablegrowth or an increase in employment opportunities,both key factors for household security and the sus-tained alleviation of poverty.

9 Liebenberg, S., 2002, “The right to social security: response” inBrand, D. and Russell, S. (ed.), Exploring the core content of socio-economic rights, Protea Book House, Pretoria.

10 Quotes from the ACESS (Alliance for the Children’s Entitlementto Social Security) Child Participation Project, 2001.


STEP 3: REVIEW PROGRAMCONCEPTUALIZATION & DESIGNIn the next step , we examined the design , delivery,and implementation of the social security programs,as well as the budget allocations and expenditures.

Social security is defined as non-contributory incomesupport paid to cit izens by the state to help ensurethat everyone has enough income to meet basic needs.This means that it is a monetary outcome that is givenover and above the current household income.

The government has instituted several programs thatcontribute to the realization of a child’s right to socialsecurity, namely the Child Support Grant , the FosterCare Grant, and the Care Dependency Grant, all con-ditioned on passing means tests and being a SouthA frican citizen in possession of a bar coded “IdentityDocument.”

We asked if the scope of the program ensured non-discrimination and a rapid provision of services to allchildren in need . Our findings, published in a studyentitled “Budgeting for child socio-economic rights:government obligations and the child’s right to socialsecurity and education ” (Cassiem , Streak: Idasa),showed that the government had not been meetingits obligation to ensure , in budget allocations, non-discrimination against particular groups of children .Some provinces, particularly the poorest, were not re-ceiving equitable shares, many because they lackedinfrastructure and physical access to the grants. In ad-dition, we showed that the government was obligedto deliver “progressively and subject to available re-sources.” The rights to social security, as well as othersection 28 rights in the South A frican Constitution ,have been deemed “unqualified” rights by the SouthAfrican Constitutional Court, implying that the SouthA frican government was obliged to deliver them , ir-respective of resource availability.

The following questions should be asked while imple-menting this step of the tactic:• Has the government put in place a program (or

programs) to give effect to the right? If yes, whatis the content of the program, including the imple-mentation plan? Look at the description of theprogram, as well as the implementation agency.

• If yes, does the scope of the program ensure non-discrimination , and does the time frame envis-age a rapid roll out of services (particularly basicones) to all intended beneficiaries?

• If the program does not cater to all intended ben-eficiaries (there may be arguments about limitedresources and time) or envisages a slow rollout ofservices, or if there is no program in place, what isgovernment’s plan to ensure that all those cov-ered by the right can be reached quickly in thefuture?

STEP 4: ANALYZE THE BUDGETALLOCATIONS AND EXPENDITURESWe next examined the country’s budgeting process,budget allocations, and expenditure figures for theexisting social security programs. This process includesdetermining trends over time in the proportionalshare of the program’s allocation as compared to thatof other fiscal priorities, and helps illustrate the levelof government commitment to the right in question.

We then questioned whether there had been a real11

growth in the allocation over time . Such growth im-plies that government is fulfilling obligations to ad-minister programs in a progressive manner (over themedium term expenditure framework period) andsubject to available resources (depending on the totalfiscal envelope available). One can thus ascertain thegovernment’s priorities, given the assumption that themore money allocated for a program, the higher thepriority given to it . The allocation can also be com-pared with the proportional share received by otherprograms—in our case , by a program to purchasearms—and , when necessary, the government can betaken to task about its priorities and commitmentsrelated to more pertinent issues in the economy.

Several additional questions should be addressed atthis point:Budget allocation (budget input)• How much has been allocated annually to the pro-

gram since its implementation , and what is allo-cated for future years?

• What proportion of the total budgeted expendi-ture has been allocated to the program each year?

• What is the trend over time (growth rates year-on-year and annual averages) in nominal and realbudget allocations to the program?

Budget implementation and service delivery• Are the allocated funds reaching their intended

destination, and what proportion of the budgetallocated to the program is being spent? Look atthe intended number of beneficiaries, calculatethe sustainability of the program, look at govern-

Budget formula tion

Budget execution

Budget auditing & assessment

Budget enactment

11 Real terms: the nominal amount adjusted for inflation and othereconomic factors that cause the value of the currency to depreciate,i.e. purchasing power. Nominal amount: the actual value stated inmost budgets, not taking into account inflation and other deflatorypressures that occur in the economy (i.e. trade and exchange ratecontrols) and that affect the value of the currency.

14

ment budget alloca-tions versus budgetexpenditures, ana-lyze the under/overspending trends.• What aretrends in access toprogram services?

Is access broaden-i n g q u ic k ly, a r e

there inter and in-t r a-r e g io n a l va r i a-

tions in access, is thereracial or gender discrimi-

nation , and are the mostvulnerable being provided

for? Compare the budget expen-diture to the number of beneficiaries;

using the assumption that all those with accesswill have received the grant, this helps determineaccessibility. To answer questions regarding dis-crimination, examine budget allocations in poorversus rich provinces.

• What is the quality and efficiency of service deliv-ery in the program, and have they been improv-ing over time? If there is a continued trend of lackof delivery, what is being done about it? (In ourcase , government had imple-mented various training and ca-pacity-building techniques toimprove accessibility and lowtake-up rates. It has also pro-posed plans for the future ad-ministration of grant systems inSouth A frica, basically througha National Agency.)

• What type of service deliveryproblems (financial and non-fi-nancial) need to be addressedto facilita te a rapid roll-out ofservices? Ask relevant govern-mental o f ficials about imple-mentation and problems. Lookinto how these can be improvedover time . (We found that ca-pacity and administration con-s t ra in ts w i t h in g overn m e n tdepartments led to problems inservice delivery in certain ar-eas—primarily poor areas with higher child pov-erty rates.)

• Does the government’s plan for program devel-opment and implementation address the prob-le ms (f in a nci a l a n d n o n-f in a nci a l) t h a t areundermining universal access to services, and helprealize the right in question?

STEP 5: MAKE RECOMMENDATIONSWhen the budget analysis is completed, the final stageis to synthesize the analysis in to a set of recommen-dations and conclusions that can be presented—in aform that is not too technical—to the public and topolicy-makers. In the case of our 2001 study on childsocio-economic rights, we made a comprehensive setof recommendations, summarized on the previouspage.

Follow-upAfter completing the study, provincial training work-shops were conducted with organizations and otherinterested parties that could use our findings to im-prove the situation of their province’s children , andstudy results were also distributed in printed form tomany institutions on the Budget Information Service’smailing list. Because our poverty data is still the mostrecent data available , many NGOs continue to use itfor advocacy purposes

Policy makers, government of ficials, and any inter-ested parties were involved in publicizing the studyresults. Some of our recommendations were takeninto consideration, and resulted in policy changes. Priorto 2003, for example, the CSG was limited to childrenunder seven years of age. We recommended , in con-

junction with other organizations, that all childrenunder 18 and in need have access to the grant , and ,though not including older children, in 2003 the gov-ernment did agree to include children up to age 14.

An ef fective research study must have a strategy fordisseminating its results. To reach varied audiences,this strategy usually involves publications (books, book-

NUTRITION INMDUKATSHANIThe CBU conducted a case study of imple-mentation problems plaguing the IntegratedNutrition Program in the Mdukatshani Com-munity Garden project. This region is one of thepoorest in South Africa, and children in the Msingadistrict suffered as the program awaited moneypromised by the government. These funds wereearmarked from money set aside, via the condi-tional grants system, for spending on the Inte-grated Nutrition Program-money that thegovernment was having difficulty spending! Byusing our tactic, we were able to make find-ings available to the necessary parties, andmoney was eventually paid out to thebeneficiaries.

Leonie Caroline from Black Sash, changing the nominal figures into real ones


lets, brochures, and newspaper and magazine articles),radio interviews, and information posted in electronicmedia . The Children’s Budget Unit , for instance , haspublished four books encapsulating our work’s con-ceptual basis (see appendix). Idasa’s Budget Informa-tion Services also produce shorter “Budget Brie fs,”which provide more easily accessible analyzes of thepoints that emerge from our budget research , andare available on our website.

Research results can also be communicated to a morespecif ic target audience through workshops and di-rect correspondence. This involves collaboration witha spectrum of organizations and groups that will lobbyor change policy using information generated in thestudy.

The ultimate aim of the research is to provide policymakers and government of ficials with informationthey can use to improve the design and implementa-tion of programs that fulfil human rights obligations.The research can also provide advocacy organizationsand parliamentarians with data that adds legitimacyand weight to their calls for bet ter implementationand extension of these programs .

Active networking and alliance-building are thereforean important complement to the tactic. CBU has closepartnerships with organizations such as the PeopleParticipating in Poverty Reduction project , the Na-tional Committee for the Management of Child Abuseand Neglect , the Alliance for Children’s Entitlementto Social Security, and the Child Justice Alliance, amongothers. CBU also networks with other internationalbudget monitoring organizations.

The budget processThe budgeting process includes the following steps:• Budget formulation• Budget enactment• Budget execution• Budget audit and assessment

This process includes collation of the budget by theexecutive branch, the approval process by the legisla-tive branch , the implementation process, and the fi-nal audit and assessment. Knowledge of these stagesis particularly important if you are trying to partici-pate in the budget process. In South A frica, hearingsand debates about the proposed budget occur duringthe enactment stage, and civil society can participatethrough hearings and advocate for change in budgetallocations. This participatory process does not hap-pen in all countries, however, so the best time to ad-vocate for policy change in the budgets is during budgetformulation, when information is being collated andprioritized into the budget document.

Outcomes:What progress have we made?We have found how dif ficult it can be to bring twotraditionally separate disciplines closer together. Bud-get planning may respond to the need to alleviatepoverty, but can fail to address, for example, childrenin especially dif ficult circumstances. Budgeting priori-ties, therefore , do not necessarily address rights pri-orities, and the government still lacks a rights-basedapproach to planning and budgeting . The CBU mustconstantly re-examine the rights of the child and themeaning of a rights-based approach to budgeting.

Measuring the direct impact of our budgetary work isalmost impossible. The Budget Information Service re-sponds to many requests from both the government’sexecutive branch and civil society organizations, pro-viding data used to substantiate advocacy from aninformed and holistic view of government policy andpriorities. Some new policies have contained direct ref-erences to our studies, while others have used CBUdata without acknowledging its source; in both cases,at least, we are certain that the government is payingattention to our work.

“I particularly draw on the CBU’s budget work, as it enables me topresent the numbers that are needed to back up the facts to social policyarguments.” Isobel Frye (Black Sash)

“I have used work done by the CBU in a number of materials thatI’ve produced, for training purposes, as well as lecturing on socio-economic rights.” Teresa Guthrie (Children’s Institute)

We believe that children’s well-being is now beingframed more and more in terms of “children’s rights”and the obligations o f government and civil socie tyorganizations to protect, promote, fulfil, and respectthese rights. We have contributed to this trend.

Our studies are viewed as accurate and reliable re-search on outcomes related to child socio-economicrights. Looking at how programs are conceptualisedand implemented, and at how budgets are allocated,reveals whether or not the system is working . Ourrecommendations of fer a way forward.

The CBU continues to use this tactic. New informationis constantly being generated , and is used widely bypolicy makers, advocacy groups, and the general pub-lic. We have also formed closer partnerships with otherorganizations. Because we had the right informationat a time when the government needed it , we havedeveloped a good working relationship with the Na-tional Treasury, which has led to our participation ingovernment task forces, increasing our in fluence inpromoting our policy recommendations.

Government departments are now recognizing theirneed for such research , and asking more directly forinformation that will help them achieve rational policy

16

implementation. This networking ensures that thereis an outside, expert perspective to help with the deci-sion-making processes. The CBU has also formed agood relationship with the Community Law Centre ,which helps us take careful account in our analyses ofthe legal aspects of socio-economic rights.

Difficulties we facedPeople are particularly hesitant to do the researchbecause of negative perceptions about understand-ing the budget-a task that can appear quite dauntingand cumbersome.

It can be costly and dif ficult to obtain the data . Tomeasure the impact of services rendered by the Home-Based Caregivers, for example, researchers must workhands-on with the communities af fected by the pro-gram . This means that they will be faced daily withpatients dying from AIDS, extreme poverty, and hun-ger.

There are few child poverty indicators used to mea-sure and monitor child well-being , which makes set-ting comparative measures particularly dif ficult.

Many programs need to be monitored , but there islimited capacity and skill within both the CBU and thegovernment itself. It is one thing to make recommen-dations, but you must also ensure that implementa-tion is e f fective and helps solve the initial problemwithout creating additional ones.

Transferring the tacticIn using this tactic you need to focus on the end result.Budget monitoring has the advantage of providing asolution to problems, and recommending better pathstowards future development. We do not simply focuson the wrongs, but rather examine all sides and giveconstructive recommendations.

South Africa’s turbulent history, filled with gross injus-tice and human rights violations, is not so dif ferentfrom that of many other countries. Likewise, povertyoccurs worldwide , and all governments have madecertain commitments to the upholding of rights—com-mitments that require expenditures in order to beresponsibly fulfilled . A ll that is needed for this tacticto work is law or policy that can be used to hold gov-ernment accountable for its actions.

TRAINING FOR BUDGET MONITORINGThe Children’s Budget Unit and the Budget Informa-tion Service of fer two types o f training . In the first ,our objective is to disseminate information. Once wehave completed studies, we host workshops and one-day meetings for our advocacy partners, civil socie tyorganizations, and government officials.

We also hold capacity-building workshops. These areusually longer, and are designed to equip participants

with the basic tools o f budget analysis. Our budgett r a i n i n g m a n u a l is o n t h e CB U w e b s i t e(www.idasact.org.za/bis), and is a good source of theo-retical information . It is important for grass roots or-g a n iz a t io ns t o k n o w b asic b u d g e t ary a n a lysis.Organizations report that our workshops have helpedtremendously in terms of their own internal budget-ary needs, as well as access to government funds. A f-ter all, if you know how much is “supposedly” going toNGOs, as per budget books, you have a stronger casein arguing for increased allocations.

TRAINING IN OTHER COUNTRIESVarious units within the Budget Information Serviceconduct international training, aiming to build the ca-pacity of civil society budget groups to participate intheir countries’ budgetary processes. These units alsowork with legisla tures and other stakeholders thatshare a vision of transparent, participative, and demo-cratic budgeting to relieve poverty. For example, theA frica Budget Project is a regional partner of the In-ternational Budget Project at the Center for Budgetand Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C.

Examples of CBU assistance in other countries:• Through training and joint research projects the

CBU assists organizations in learning the techni-cal language required to access budget processes.

• In joint research projects and information man-agement activities the CBU provides research in-struments and analysis frameworks that groupscan apply to gain a credible voice, and has createda user-friendly training manual to aid analysts intheir research .

• Through networking and facilitating contact, theCBU helps organizations share their success sto-ries and thereby stimulate growth in applied bud-get work.

• The CBU provides one-on-one technical supportto organizations a t critical points in their devel-opment.

• By working with international organizations theCBU aims to improve the transparency of bud-gets and build the credibility of civil society in bud-getary debates.

Units using this tactic have now been developed allover the world . Child budget projects have been de-veloped in Zambia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, andthe CBU assists in child budget studies and providessupport for other projects that are applying the tac-tic, such as our partners at the Save the Children UK inGhana. A fter attending a national training workshopin Cape Town, members of the Zambia Children Edu-cation Foundation asked us for assistance in their ownstudy. We helped them with proposal writing, projectdesign , and project implementation . They pulled to-gether a research team including a university econom-ics lecturer and tutors, a statistician, and a governmentof ficial from the budget of fice , and spent eighteen


months on a study, whose results are to be releasedlater in 2003.

Eight countries attended SADC regional training work-shop on child budget analysis, held in Cape Town: SouthA frica , Sw aziland , Namibia , Zimbab w e , Zambia ,Malawi, Mozambique, and Angola; two law advisorsalso came from Uganda.

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS:ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SKILLSOur team includes one person with a master’s degreein Development Studies and adult education, anotherwith a history degree and economics honours, anotherwith a master’s degree in gender networking, and anassistant researcher with an undergraduate degreein finance and economics who is currently completingher master’s in financial analysis and port folio man-agement . Budget monitoring requires a small teamof people who have basic economics training alongwith a willingness to acquire other necessary knowl-edge and skills. The tactic does not require a team ofPhD economists, but an NGO considering the tacticwill need to think about the skills it requires.

PhD economists, in any case, would not be sufficient,because for this tactic to work you need a team ofactivists who are able to of fer the necessary follow-up to sustain an impact—and that follow-up requirespolitical commitment, networking, lobbying, and skillsin disseminating information. We found, for instance,that in cases outside South Africa in which professionalconsultants with economic backgrounds were em-ployed to conduct a study, subsequent disseminationwas incomplete , and the process did not help to de-velop the necessary skills capacity to sustain the moni-t o r in g w ork w i t h in t h eNGO . This is one of the rea-sons Idasa and CBU place ahigh priority on capaci tybuilding and on de-mystify-ing the budget process forNGO activists.

TRADEOFFS: QUALITY,TIMELINESS, AND COSTTo produce efficient workwith this tactic is time con-suming and costly. More of-t e n t h a n n o t w e a r eresearching virgin territory,which means a lack of ex-isting data. In helping NGOsin other countries we haveseen that the availability ofand access to in formationcan determine both the fo-cus and the extent of stud-ies.

For your work to be ef fective , it is crucial to ensurethat it is t imely. If there is a budget being tabled be-fore parliament, recommendations must be presentedmonths prior to the budget enactment. Otherwise thework is wasted; since all the statistics will have changed,it cannot be used the following year. This need fortimely work increases costs because skilled sta f f—ascarce commodity in South Africa—must be acquired.There is also the balancing act of logistical costs, suchas trips to interview key individuals, versus savings.Better data yields a better product, and greater speedresults in more timely policy pressure. But both speedand quality mean higher costs.

RELATIONS WITH GOVERNMENTThe budget-monitoring tactic is not one-sided. The goalis not merely to criticize what a government is failingto do, but to assess government capacity and progressin reducing poverty. Sometimes a government is do-ing a great deal to reduce poverty, but the process istaking longer than expected due to other factors. In avery poor country, a government might claim that itlacks resources for the progressive implementationof economic and social rights. The entire point of thistactic is to be holistic. There is no point in demandingspending when money is clearly not available; it might,in such a case , be bet ter to advocate for changes inpolicy priorities so that more money could be spentwhere it is needed.

We had a government committed to reducing pov-erty, and we had strong advocacy organizations, whichmade it easier to implement the tactic. South A frica’sefficient treasury, and liberal and rights-conscious con-stitution , also made it easier to access data . In fact ,we found that the government recognized the need

for the kind of analysis wewere doing , and in somecases was itself the clientemploying our services.

In the case of a governmentwith limited transparency,a denial of individual rightsto information, or a lack ofcommitment to rights-asso-ciated expenditure, the re-l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h egovernment might be quitedif ferent. The collection ofin format ion w ould be amore painstaking process,perhaps requiring a varietyof political pressures andthe support of other allies,including those within theinternational community.A pplication o f the tact icmay provide ways to makethe government process

Lerato Kgamphe demonstrating how the government budgetsystem works

18

more transparent, andhelp organizations andin d iv i d u a ls b eco m emore active in the gov-erning process.

Experience has shownthat political will playsan important role inw hether a study canbe conducted and itsextent. A study in Viet-nam, for instance, wasco n d uc t e d o n ly b e-cause the governmentwas engaging in a pro-cess t o m a ins t r e a meducation for childrenwith disabilities. In thisinstance, it was impor-tant to develop an alli-a n c e w i t h t h egovernment . In Palestine, the work of the child bud-get study has been halted because of the Intifada in2001, and the study’s recommendations cannot be dis-cussed or implemented.

After a critical report is released, a government mustbe held accountable. We have found that it is difficultto determine who should be held accountable for theissue at hand. Roles and responsibilities in governmentcan be ill defined, and one often finds officials passingthe buck or sweeping matters under the table. Thereare also , o f course , many political plays in terwoveninto choices about public policy.

ConclusionWe are certain that the human rights movement canbenefit a great deal and achieve its objectives withgreater certainty if NGOs make greater use of bud-get monitoring . As we have stressed above , only byholding the government accountable for its spendingcan we be sure that even a well-intentioned govern-ment is fulfilling its obligations.

If your NGO is interested in budgeting monitoring, weurge you to look at our website and to get in touchwith other organizations doing this kind of work. Wewould be happy to hear from you and to offer advice.

Group Photo of participants of the annual NGO workshop held in Cape Town. Lerato Kgamphe is inthe front row, second from right.


Appendix: Budget monitoringpublications by IdasaBudget Watch is a regular newsletter, each edition ofwhich examines a specif ic aspect o f public sector fi-nance and economics. The printed edition of BudgetWatch is available on subscription.

Budget Briefs is an e-mail service that responds withinhours to any current budget and poverty issues. Thebrie fs are distributed to a 1,000-person databasewhich includes national and provincial parliamentar-ians and members o f government , civil socie ty, andthe media.

Idasa also publishes Occasional Papers, longer articleswith an in-depth focus on key issues, as well as full-length books.

SAMPLES OF BUDGET BRIEFS(ALL ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEB):Budget Brief #125: “Child poverty, child socio-economicrights and Budget 2003 - The ’right thing’ or a smallstep in the ’right direction’?” by Judith Streak , com-piled in March 2003. This brief looks at the budget asa crucial instrument through which the governmentcan address South Africa’s extensive child poverty anddeliver socio-economic rights. It acknowledges that the2003 budget included a range of spending and taxinitia tives that will stimulate economic growth , andmay even lead to job creation for the parents of poorchildren . The brie f also asks, however, whether thenational treasury could and should have done morefor poor children . On the ’direct measure’ front , thetreasury could perhaps have allocated more to theChild Support Grant program, through the new condi-tional grant introduced in the budget , to finance amore rapid rollout of the CSG to children age 7–14.The treasury could also have raised the value of thestate old age pension by more than R60, as this alsobenefits children . As noted in the brie f , for the na-tional treasury to be able to take further steps toreduce child poverty and provide children with thegoods and services to which they are constitutionallyentitled , the capacity to deliver must be improved inother government departments.

Budget Brief #95: “The Child Support Grant and Bud-get 2002: The implications for child poverty relief ” byShaamela Cassiem, Paula Proudlock, and Judith Streak,compiled in March 2002. Budget 2002 claimed to of-fer considerable poverty relie f and reduction mea-sures for the poor, including children. This brief arguesthat while the budget introduced new measures thatcould help reduce child poverty in the medium to longrun, it did not go far enough, particularly with regardto income support for children.

Budget Brief #86: “The fourth Children’s Budget Book:Budgeting for child socio-economic rights” by JudithStreak, compiled in February 2002. This brief summa-

rizes the study’s key findings on the government’s le-gal obligations and performance in budgeting for childsocio-economic rights, including social security and ba-sic education. The brief’s conclusion also highlights thevagueness of the budget obligations, which allow thegovernment’s minimal use of the budget to advancechild socio-economic rights, and examines the chasmbetween questions asked with a methodology basedon legal obligation and the availability of data to withwhich to answer them.

BOOKS BY CBU ON BUDGET MONITORINGBudgeting for child socio-economic rights: Governmentobligations and the child’s right to social security andeduca t ion , Shaamela Cassiem and Judith Streak(2001). This book describes government obligationsto budget for the realization of child socio-economicrights. It develops a methodology for evaluating gov-ernment budget performance in relation to humanrights, and examines delivery of the child’s right tosocial security and education in South A frica.

Child poverty and the budget 2000: Are poor childrenbeing put f irst?, Shaamela Cassiem , Helen Perry,Mastoera Sadan , and Judith Streak (2000). Focusingon government obligation in relation to child poverty,this book introduces a new framework for understand-ing the various dimensions o f poverty amongst chil-d r e n , a n d m a k e s p a r t icu l a r r e f e r e n ce t o t h eConvention of the Rights of the Child, the South A fri-can Constitution, the Growth Employment and Redis-tribution Strategy, and the government’s NationalProgram of Action for Children.

Where poverty hits hardest: Children and the budgetin South Africa, Shirley Robinson and Mastoera Sadan(1999). This book illustrates significant trends in howbudgets have been allocated , on both national andprovincial levels, to address issues of education , wel-fare, justice, and health as they relate to children. Foreach sector in each province the book presents an “In-dicator Report Card ,” showing whether children’ssocio-economic rights have been realized or povertyreduced. It also comments on problems in service de-livery that undermine how effectively budgets are al-located . The budget analysis focuses on 1995/96 to1998/99.

First Call: The South A frican children’s budget, ShirleyRobinson and Linda Biersteker (1997). The first CBUbook on budget monitoring, this describes children’srights as contained in the Convention of the Rights ofthe Child and the South African Constitution. It consid-ers government spending on children in the areas ofsocial welfare, education, health, and justice, and alsoexamines service delivery problems that hamper therealization of child rights. The budget analysis focuseson 1996/7, but also comments on the early 1990s.

The Center for Victims o f TortureNew Tactics in Human Rights Project

717 East River RoadMinneapolis, MN 55455

w w w.cvt .org / cvt@cvt .orgw w w.newtactics.org / [email protected]

To print or download this and other publications in the Tactical Notebook Series,go to www.newtactics.org.

Online you will also find a searchable database of tactics andforums for discussion with other human rights practit ioners.

Using Government Budgets as a Monitoring Tool (English)

Documents