CSA’s predecessor was the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM), which played a watchdog role, focusing on individual cases of government maladministration and misconduct.  After 2004 PSAM decided to undertake more systematic monitoring.  CSA, which came into being in 2007, continues to develop and implement the PSAM monitoring methodology, with a particular focus on the Eastern Cape Provincial Administration.  With the use of the PSAM methodology, the Centre aims to improve public service delivery and the realisation of socio-economic rights to basic services (such as healthcare, education and housing), through the strengthening of social accountability processes (including resource allocation, strategic planning, performance monitoring, expenditure management, integrity and oversight processes).

Education has always been a central focus for PSAM (and CSA), because education has the largest single allocation in the national budget, and is also allocated 50% of the budget of Eastern Cape Province.  The PSAM methodology comprises the following components:

• A Planning and Budget Evaluation (that is, what resources are available to public service providers, whether government departments or private companies, to address social and economic needs and how do they plan to use these resources?)

An analysis is made of the consistency between state policy priorities and the budget allocations to service providers in the context of the needs and challenges confronting them.  In addition, the responsiveness of service providers' strategic plans is evaluated against pressing social and economic needs and their own internal organisational challenges.  Use is made of strategic plans, business plans, outsourcing contracts, service level agreements, and infrastructure development and maintenance plans. Oversight bodies and civic groups are informed of deficiencies in budget allocations and strategic plans.

• Expenditure Tracking (Are public funds effectively spent?)

Spending is tracked against allocations. Emphasis is placed on whether service providers can account for expenditures against budget allocations and whether narrative explanations provide an adequate justification for any over- or under-expenditure. Questions are also asked about whether public resources were effectively managed and necessary financial controls were adhered to. Particular attention is paid to expenditure on infrastructure and maintenance and on human resource expenditure management. Use is made of quarterly and annual financial statements and internal audit and external audit (Auditor-General’s) reports. Oversight bodies and civic groups are informed of over- or under-spending and its impact on service delivery.

• Performance monitoring (How do officials/service providers perform in implementing their strategic plans? Do they produce needed services?)

This involves monitoring performance of service providers in implementing the strategic plans. Use is made of quarterly and annual performance reports produced for management purposes, internal audits, external audits (i.e. performance reports by the Auditor-General), and reports by constitutional oversight bodies. Comparisons are also made between infrastructure development and maintenance plans, and reports on the implementation of infrastructure and maintenance projects. Oversight bodies and civic groups are informed of performance challenges and failures and their impact on service delivery and other accountability processes.

• Integrity System Evaluation (Is effective corrective action taken in response to the misallocation or abuse of public resources?)

This involves the monitoring of disciplinary structures. In addition, the functioning of disciplinary processes in key service delivery departments is evaluated along with their capacity to respond. Use is made of annual reports by service delivery departments and reports from internal disciplinary databases. Advocacy is conducted around high profile cases of the abuse and/or misuse of public resources (including public office). Oversight bodies and civic groups are informed of challenges and weaknesses faced by integrity processes in public service departments and their impact on service delivery and other accountability processes.

• Monitoring of Oversight (Do service providers account effectively to oversight bodies; what recommendations do these bodies make to improve the performance of service providers and the executive; and, are these recommendations implemented?)

An evaluation is made of the degree to which service providers and the executive make themselves accountable to constitutional oversight bodies. Emphasis is placed on whether committee recommendations/resolutions are implemented. Use is made of Auditor-General’s financial (and where possible, performance and forensic) audit reports. These reports are evaluated in order to establish the consistency of the audit opinion reached with regard to findings on the effective implementation of financial management and control systems. The findings and resolutions of Legislature oversight committees are also closely monitored. Oversight bodies are reminded of previous performance issues and recommendations and Legislature committees and civic groups are informed of accountability issues.

While CSA has seen certain improvements in the education sector in recent years, including more efficient spending, more schools being build and more textbooks available, pass rates are still too low.  PSAM/CSA has concluded that, while the education budget is inadequate, the size of the budget is only one of a number of factors contributing to the under-performance of schools.  Other factors include poor financial management, a lack of leadership, a low caliber of teaching and political interference in education decisions (for example, when the Department of Education tries to sack poorly-performing teachers).

While CSA does some field research, it does not work with communities.  It instead focuses much of its work on legislatures, as well as on equipping and providing constructive criticism to the Department of Education, which is inadequately staffed.  It also works closely with other organizations, such as the Legal Resources Centre, with whom it develops and pursues test cases in the courts.

November 2009