A Ghana Case-study of Decentralisation

northcarolinasweekΔιαχείριση

10 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 9 μήνες)

64 εμφανίσεις

A Ghana Case
-
study of Decentralisation
and Institutional Reforms for Basic
Education

(i) What is the model of decentralisation in the education sector
and how well does it support technical and
allocative

efficiencies
in achieving education objectives?

(ii) What changes in financial management systems and
education management are necessary for a successful
performance orientation? And

(iii) What can other countries learn from the Ghanaian case and
what are the differences in context which need to be
accommodated?


CABRI DIALOGUE on Value for
Money in Education Financing

Outline


Context of institutional reforms


Profile of Ghana’s Basic Education


Ghana’s Decentralisation Model
and Strategies


Model of decentralisation in the Education Sector


Impact on Education Outputs


Financing, Budget Predictability and Accountability


Monitoring and Evaluation


FMIS and EMIS


Challenges in implementation in sector


Closing remarks

2

Context of institutional reforms

Profile of Basic Education in Ghana today


Ghana is in the forefront of basic education reform in Africa.


Allocates 24 % of total public expenditures on education


3rd
highest on the continent and double the average for SSA



Strong shift in governance down to districts and schools.


Rate of primary aged children out of school dropping by 10% (2006
-
2009) and children increasingly complete the primary cycle


87%
in 2009 (an increase of 15% on 2006)


Similar increases in JSS enrolment (now 80%), especially among
girls


But mixed education outcomes at basic and junior secondary levels


Less than a third of primary school children reach proficiency levels
in English or in Mathematics
-

NEA tests of 2005, 2007, 2009 and
2011


3

Ghana’s Decentralisation Model

4

Decentralisation has the potential to improve efficiency
in mobilising scarce national
resources
,meet local needs, greater accountability
and good governance

Intergovernmental Fiscal
Decentralisation Framework


(2008)


structures and
funding

S
ervices
are transferred from the centre to local
governments that raise their own revenues and
have the authority to make investment decisions.

Abolition of sector departments at district level.

All local development and
governance thru the
metropolitan
, municipal
and district
assemblies
(MMDAs)

Income
-

7% of
total central government revenues
+
locally levied taxes


paid by
MoFEP
. Covers salaries
and DACP


district development fund.

P
rovide
and maintain school buildings, supply of
furniture, stationaries
, bursaries and
school feeding
programmes. MMDA can issue
penalties to compel
parents to send their children to school.

The
district oversight
committee sits and plans
district education
programmes.

Challenges to Current Ghana
Decentralisation Model

Incomplete implementation: funding, accountability and
authority


Disputes
about local government boundary demarcations;


Are MMDAs
economically
viable? Poor funding flows.


Uncertainties
about the role of traditional
rulers.


Many
administrative procedures have not yet been revised to
reflect the needs of fiscal decentralization.


Funds
continue to be retained at the centre when functions have
been devolved to the local level.


Some sectors using “decentralised
departments

-

the responsibility
for hiring, transferring, payroll and staffing rests with these central
government
ministries although MMDA remain responsible
for staff
evaluation and
discipline.


5

Decentralisation Model for
Education

6


‘improve
planning
and management in the delivery of education by devolving
resource management and decision
-
making to regions, districts and institutions,
while retaining central responsibility for establishing norms, guidelines and system
accountability
”. Education Sector Plan 2010 reflects Education Act 2008

SMC and BOG and Parent Associations are
responsible for producing SPIPs and SPAMS.
Designed to reflect community priorities
.

S
chool level
management structures

Districts
to be the main loci of implementation
of centrally driven policies and strategies but
not subject to their control
.

Centrally
driven
de
-
concentrated
administrative system

The school, circuit, district, regional, national
GES level (implementation) and Ministry level
(
policy, norms and standards).

6 tiers
of responsibility
for the management
of
schools

Impact of “Devolution” on
Education Outputs


Implementation from 2008 onwards of Education Act has
seen concurrent overall improvements in the system.


Improved efficiencies in providing greater access to basic
education


18% increase in enrolment in primary with the
abolition of fees. Girls enrolment increased significantly


Competencies and proficiency in NEA test scores in
mathematics and
E
nglish increase steadily from 2007
onwards.


Deterioration in
allocative

resource expenditure as quality of
basic education is perceived as weakening


22% in
enrolment in private schools at basic level
. 19% at secondary

7

Financing, Budget Flows and
Accountability in Basic Education

8

No control over teacher payments,
allocations and transfers. Enormous
variation in teacher pupil ratios


deepens
inequity among districts and rural/urban

Districts not cost
centres

Increased school autonomy, community
ownership of schools and better financial
management of school resources.

Capitation Grant

Disbursements of grants delayed by 4
months and incomplete transfers in 2012

Budget Flows

Promotes flexibility, higher
sustainability but weakens
predictability and accountability

Multiple funding
sources


Monitoring and Evaluation


Intro of GIFMIS will allow
sector ministries, for the first time, to assess
expenditure activities against their budgets on a monthly basis


GIFMIS “clumsy and cumbersome”


7 templates for capturing the same
data; items at sub
-
sub level useful for district financial management.


Dependent on e
-
connection


unstable and does not cover all districts


GIFMIS and general budget system running parallel


confusion on codes


GES pilots own district expenditure system in “deprived districts” in 2014


GES own
resource allocation model for non
-
salary expenditures at the
district level. This data dependent model
relies
on EMIS, poverty and
national census
statistics but
data is only available for 134 of the 212
districts because of new demarcations and divisions of
districts


EMIS “ too aggregated and not timely”

data seldom fe
e
dback
in real time
.
But increasing improvements


Performance Assessment Framework and
MDBS targets, Sector Reviews


data driven.




9


Challenges with implementation
in sector


Gap
between the planned and executed payroll has widened from about
10 per cent to over 35 per
cent in last years.


S
chool
heads
tend to
over
-
estimate the enrolment in their
schools


5
-
15%. The incentive is to obtain higher grant allocations


M
any
communities are ill equipped to fully participate in the SPIP
process and hold schools accountable for their
performance


Poorly trained school heads challenged by ad hoc funding flows


Planned reduction of non
-
productive staff in District and Regional
Offices


a 60 per cent target is expected. Implications for management?


Currently
, as a result of the underfunding of basic schools, about
7,900
under
trees or sheds;
800,000 school children are out of school.
Additionally the existing 8,557 Junior High Schools cannot absorb the
primary six pupils from 14,360 primary
schools.


North South inequities are perceived to be growing despite efforts.

10

Closing remarks


Premature to link the form of decentralisation with basic education
performance improvements but both have deepened their
efficiencies in terms of local level capacity


schools and districts;
and per capita expenditure and improvements in education test
scores have moved co
-
jointly upwards. Questions remain is it
sufficient value for money?


Applicability to other countries?


Good lessons learnt from the new financial management systems and the
capacity building training


finance and administration for local level. GES
budget office has driven interesting innovation in this.


Increasing demand for data driven performance evaluation and
disaggregated data for improved operations at local level.


Dependency on effective communication, ICTs and predicable funding
flows.


Investment in human resource capacity and system procedures essential


11

Questions for Group Work




What value does the education sector obtain from its current hybrid form of
deconcentration

and devolution? Would it be more effective to follow a deeper
decentralised model?


Would you advise the Ministry of Education to rapidly decentralise its functions to
the management of District Assemblies? What if any are the implications for
schools?


What would you suggest are the requirements to ensure greater technical and
allocative efficiencies in achieving education objectives at the district level?


What are your conclusions about the cost
-
effectiveness of decentralised
governance? What recommendations would you make to ensure greater value for
money?


How could Ghana improve learning outcomes without substantially increasing its
budget allocations to education?


What evidence did you gain from the Ghanaian case study on the value of
information management systems? What recommendations would you make to
strengthen this?


What can other countries learn from the Ghanaian case and what are the
differences in context which need to be accommodated?


12

Thank You

Angela Arnott

Policy Analyst

ADEA Working Group on Education Management and Policy
Support

Email:
a.arnott@afdb.org


13