IThough there are different methods to promote Social Accountability (e.g. Right to Information Act, 2005), very often, the initial focus is on evaluation of the impact or effectiveness of ongoing and completed activities, esp. in terms of the benefits that were supposed to flow to the people directly or indirectly, so that the accountability for a weak impact or poor performance may be fixed.

In Social Accountability initiatives, the traditionally popular M&E tools (log frame, computer tracking, and budgetary control) are increasingly giving way to more flexible and participative tools which are context specific and aimed at ensuring the involvement of end beneficiaries in the impact evaluation process. However, the validity and rigor of the new approaches and the difficulty in reconciling them with the existing M&E tools poses big challenge for the development practitioners. The common M&E tools used in the Social Accountability initiatives are the participatory methods like Community Based Performance Monitoring, Community Score Cards, Social Audits, etc.

The major repository of documentation on social accountability is the World Bank and allied institutions. A number of key documents in the realm of M&E for development interventions have been produced by institutions like Governance and Social Development Resource Centre (GSDRC), Asian Development Bank (ADB) etc. as well.

Impact Evaluation as an Accountability Tool

An impact evaluation can be used to attribute an impact not only to a program but further, to the specific agents (managers or agencies) responsible for the program. When the evaluation is used as a tool to establish the social accountability of public officials, it helps in identifying the agents that led to a poor impact or performance of the program and thus, can provide grounds for their scrutiny, interrogation or even removal.

Impact evaluation is integral to the process of establishing the accountability of managers of development programs towards the beneficiaries and the public at large. A scientifically done evaluation clearly links an impact with an input (program or policy) based on which one can comment on the overall program performance and thus define it as good or bad, vis-à-vis the program objectives set at the beginning. In the case of poor performance, the program managers responsible for it can be questioned. That is how an impact evaluation becomes a strong accountability tool.