Report: University Youth Leadership Workshops for Social Audit

Report: University Youth Leadership Workshops for Social Audit, October 11, 2018 1

Report: University Youth Leadership

Workshops for Social Audit Urban Municipal Governance Project –

UMG

August-September 2018

Antigua, Chiquimula, Zacapa and Quetzaltenango

Guatemala

Prepared and submitted by

Gerardo Berthin and Ernest Bove1

to the Urban Management Governance (UMG) Project

1Utmost gratitude is expressed to Leslie Sequeira, Lucy Lewis, Vilma Ogáldez, Luis Ramirez, and Winfred Peña from

the UMG Project, who strategically assisted the team during the workshops.


Table of Contents

1. Background and Rationale ...................................................................................................... 3

2. Overview of Workshops and Training Provided .................................................................... 5

3. Outputs of the Workshops ...................................................................................................... 8

Knowledge .................................................................................................................................. 8

Skills ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Draft Social Audit Strategies .................................................................................................... 10

Democratic Values Survey ....................................................................................................... 12

Experience and Dynamic of Participation ............................................................................ 12

Knowledge of Key Concepts and Topics related to Social Audit ......................................... 15

Perceptions of Opportunities and Challenges for Social Audit and Participation .............. 16

Trust in Institutions, Organizations and Social Media ......................................................... 19

4. Feedback from Participants on Experience and Outcomes ................................................... 21

5. Recommendations for the Way Forward .............................................................................. 30

6. Annexes................................................................................................................................. 33

Annex 1: Program for Workshops ........................................................................................... 33

Annex 2: Evaluation Form for Workshop ................................................................................ 35

Annex 3: Democratic Values Survey ....................................................................................... 37


1. Background and Rationale

Increased citizen participation has been identified as a critical element in improving democratic

governance and human development in Guatemala.2 The five-year Guatemala Urban Municipal

Governance (UMG) project is funded by the United States Agency for International Development

(USAID) and began on January 27, 2017. It is managed by the USAID Guatemala Democracy and

Governance Office and is part of a group of citizen security projects funded by the Central

American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). The UMG project seeks to reduce levels of

violence in municipalities most at risk of violent crime through enhanced municipal governance,

increased coverage and quality of municipal services, and greater citizen participation and

oversight. The project provides municipal governments with technical assistance to achieve

transparent and participatory planning, improve financial management, and effective service

delivery implementation. The UMG project also provides technical assistance, capacity building

support, and resources for direct improvements to local civil society groups (youth clubs, citizen’s

associations, community organizations, and university student organizations) to monitor and

evaluate public policies and expenditures, including working in partnership with municipalities to

improve basic services, transparency and accountability.

Against that background, the UMG project is devoting efforts to ensure that civil society and

communities are actively involved in municipal decision-making and accountability processes.

The UMG project’s Component 3 in particular seeks to strengthen the ability of citizens living

within the target communities to improve their representation and relationship with municipal

officials, knowledge of their rights, and capacity to advocate for positive changes within their

communities. A key pillar for achieving Component 3 results is employing successful engagement

strategies to ensure improved access to information regarding municipal performance, greater

influence, improved services, and ultimately accountability.

In that regard, a team of Tetra Tech consultants3 was engaged by the UMG project to provide

technical assistance and training to target youth university students in Social Auditing – which is

a tool for promoting transparency and accountability in democratic governance. The consultants

designed and implemented five workshops of two days for social science students from San Carlos

(public) and Rafael Landivar (private) universities. The workshops4 were conducted according to

the following schedule:

2Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (Base de Datos), 2017; Red de Protección Social. “La Juventud en Guatemala:

entre la des-protección y el olvido,” 2017. PNUD. Guatemala: ¿Un país de oportunidades para la juventud? Informe

Nacional de Desarrollo Humano 2011/2012. 3Gerardo Berthin is a Senior Associate in the Democracy and Governance sector of Tetra Tech. He designed and

implemented throughout Latin America and the Caribbean the original workshop on social audit for youth during his

tenure at the United Nations and adapted it to the specific needs of the UMG project. Ernest Bove is an Associate of

the Democracy and Governance Sector of Tetra Tech. He supports implementation of transparency and accountability

projects being implemented by Tetra Tech. 4In addition, on Saturday August 26, Gerardo Berthin offered a presentation on social audit at and event entitled “Fair

on Social Audit,” which was organized by the Rafael Landivar University in Antigua. This event allowed reaching a

different target population than the participants of the workshops. The presentation was videotaped and will be one

of the tools that will be used by the UMG project, through a webinar or virtual course, to engage youth outside the

San Carlos and Rafael Landivar Universities partnerships, in particular youth that are not necessarily university

students.

https://www.ine.gob.gt/index.php/estadisticas/fuente-base-de-datos

https://www.proteccionsocialparatodos.org/single-post/2017/04/24/La-Juventud-en-Guatemala-entre-la-des-protecci%C3%B3n-y-el-olvido

https://www.proteccionsocialparatodos.org/single-post/2017/04/24/La-Juventud-en-Guatemala-entre-la-des-protecci%C3%B3n-y-el-olvido


1. August 24-26, 2018 in Antigua for students from the Rafael Landivar University.

Participants came from Antigua, Escuintla and Chimaltenango.

2. August 27-28, 2018 in Chiquimula for students from the San Carlos University’s Centro

Universitario de Oriente (CUNORI). Participants came from Chiquimula, Esquipulas, and

Jocotán.

3. August 31-September 1, 2018 in Zacapa for students from the Rafael Landivar University.

4. September 4-5, 2018 in Quetzaltenango for students from the San Carlos University’s

Centro Universitario de San Marcos (CUSAM). Participants came from Colomba,

Coatepeque, and Malacatán.

5. September 7-8, 2018 also in Quetzaltenango for students from the Rafael Landivar

University. Participants came from Colomba and Coatepeque.

The main objectives of the workshops were to:

• Promote the development and/ or strengthen management, leadership and practical skills

for social audit, including capacity for political, social, technical and collective action; and

• Strengthen and enhance management, policy and technical skills, for the design,

implementation, communication and evaluation of social audit processes, and share

specific analytical tools for immediate application.

Altogether one hundred and ninety-nine (199) mostly undergraduate students from social science

careers (social workers, law, public administration, sociology, political science) participated in the

workshops. A summary of their profiles can be found in Table 1. The participants were carefully

selected by the respective universities and based on guidance and advice from the UMG project’s

technical personnel. Some workshop participants had previous academic and practical experience

on social audit, but the majority were new to the topic of social audit and were selected based on

their potential to advance a social auditing process in Guatemala, their own individual interest on

the subject, and their interest in being part of a civic movement in favor of more youth participation

in local and national policy affairs.

As can be seen in Table 1, participants of the workshops averaged 24.3 years of age, with

participants from the CUSAM/San Carlos in Quetzaltenango registering the lowest average age

(20.8 years), while the Antigua-Rafael Landivar participants registered the highest average age

(26.6 years). Although there were participants with previous university experience (having already

gone through a licenciatura or even Masters degree programs), an overwhelming majority of

participants in all five workshops were first time university students.

This report provides an overview of the workshops and training provided, compiles the feedback

from participants on their experiences in the workshops and their commitments for the future, and

offers a brief summary of the results related to the Democratic Values Survey applied to


participants in the context of the workshops. In the concluding section, the report offers

recommendations to move forward and support social audit work in Guatemala.

Table 1: Profile of Social Audit Workshops Participants

(by Gender and Average Age)

Location-University Men

Numbers &

(%)

Women

Numbers &

(%)

Total

(Numbers)5

Average

Age

(years)

Antigua-Rafael Landivar 9 (19%) 39 (81%) 48 26.6

Chiquimula -CUNORI/San Carlos 19 (54%) 16 (46%) 35 23.7

Zacapa – Rafael Landivar 4 (8%) 45 (92%) 49 25.2

Quetzaltenango I-CUSAM/San

Carlos

21 (54%) 18 (46%) 39 20.8

Quetzaltenango II-Rafael

Landivar

2 (7%) 26 (93%) 28 25.2

Grand Total 55 (28%) 144 (72%) 199 24.3

Source: Participants’ Survey Results

2. Overview of Workshops and Training Provided

Each intensive two-day training workshop was designed to be lively, dynamic and interactive to

achieve a careful balance between meeting the workshop learning objectives on the one hand and

engaging the participants to build and strengthen leadership and teamwork skills through a number

of practical exercises, on the other hand. The blended learning methodology and approach of the

workshops involved engaging the participants with short and focused oral and audio-visual

presentations to enhance knowledge of key concepts and promote critical thinking; as well as

plenary and group discussions and debates; analysis of case studies; and practical group exercises.

The workshop content was divided into six Modules and seven Case Studies as outlined in Table

2 below (see full agenda in Annex 1). Participants received binders in which they placed printed

copies of an abridged version of the PowerPoint slides for each Module, in order to maximize their

active participation without the distractions of having to take detailed notes. The Case Study

Activities required participants to work individually at first, then in pairs, then in trios and finally

in larger groups. This helped to build skills in working with others which is critical to a social audit

process.

Table 2: Overview of the Social Audit Workshop Content

Modules Case Study Activities Objectives/Purpose

Case 1: The Traffic

Light (individual) • To build skills in critical enquiry and

thinking as a foundation for social audit.

5The total number of participants according to Evaluations and Survey submitted to facilitators at the beginning and

end of the workshop is 199. The total number by location has a slight variance. Antigua and Chiquimula have the

same numbers in evaluations and surveys. In the case of Zacapa 46 participants submitted the evaluation and 49 the

survey; in the case of Quetzaltenango I -CUSAM 40 submitted the evaluation and 39 the survey; and in the case of

Quetzaltenango II 30 participants submitted the evaluation and 28 the survey. The variance could be explained either

by participants arriving late and/or leaving early or simply not submitting the survey and evaluation form.


As an ice-breaker the case focuses on the

gaps between the ideal reality and the

actual reality.

Module 1: The

Context and

Dynamics of Social

Audit

Case 2: Guarachin (in

pairs)

• To introduce the principles of democratic

governance and provide a brief and macro

political economy analysis to understand

challenges and trends, as well as locate

social audit in the context of a dynamic

and complex macro environment; and to

build skills in analyzing a case related to

election campaign promises that were not

fulfilled and corruption scandals and

analyzing the views and potential roles of

different stakeholders in responding to the

issues raised by the case which was

loosely based on current events in

Guatemala.

Module 2: Social

Audit: Why, What,

and for Whom?

Case 3: What is the

Crime? (in trios) • To define social audit and identify the

rationale for its application and analyze

the types of stakeholders which should be

involved, and the requisite skills required

by social auditors.

• To build skills in critical thinking about

fictitious scenarios (Case 3) which

may/may not be considered corrupt,

unethical, immoral or illegal practices.

• To strengthen skills in working with more

than one partner.

Module 3: Elements

to Consider when

Analyzing Corrupt

Practices

Case 4: “Let´s Find the

Crime” (in groups of

more than 8)

• To introduce analytical tools for defining

and analyzing how corruption is defined

in the Guatemala context and build team

working skills in an outdoor Treasure

Hunt exercise (Case 4).

Module 4: ¿How?

and tools

Case 5: On Twitter

(in groups of more than

10)

• To introduce participants to the

mechanics of a social audit using

examples from Brazil and Guatemala and

to engage participants in discussion on the

pros and cons of using social media in a

social audit process in Guatemala and

Latin America.

Case 6: Express Audit

(in groups of more than

8)

• To provide a practical assessment of what

has been learned through practice in

conducting a public expenditure audit of

the four major cities in Central America

(Panama City, Guatemala City,

Tegucigalpa and San Jose.


• To expose participants to the challenges

which may be faced in getting access to

information.

• To promote team work and solutions to

find information.

Module 5: Political

Dialogue and Social

Audit

Case 7: Towards a

Social Audit Strategy

(in groups based on

affiliation or career)

• To engage participants in a discussion of

how the results of an audit are

communicated to other stakeholders as a

means of contributing to social change.

• To provide participants with a basic and

practical framework for planning a social

audit and with an opportunity to prepare a

draft strategy for a social audit to be

potentially conducted after the workshop.

Module 6: What did

I learn? Takeaways

and My Action Plan

• To provide an opportunity for the group to

reflect on the lessons learned in the

workshop and make commitments to

work as a group to implement social audit

initiatives. These commitments were also

reflected in the comments made by

participants on the evaluation form.

The blended methodology of alternating theory-based engagement with practical exercises worked

well to keep the participants interested and actively engaged during the two days of the workshop.

The most impactful elements of the workshop (from participants’ feedback on Question 2 of the

evaluation) were as follows:

• Presentations and facilitation of Modules

• Cases

• Methodology

• Group work

• The practical aspect of the workshop

At the end of each workshop, each participant who completed the full two days of training, was

awarded a Certificate. The facilitators also provided to the UMG Project a Digital Resource

Library with over 80 relevant documents and materials, including articles, case studies, legislation,

international and regional reports, manuals/guides 6 and pertinent conventions and global

initiatives (Open Government Partnership), all related to social audit. The UMG project will

provide access to this digital library to all the participants of the workshops through a digital link.

In addition, the UMG project Team distributed to all workshop participants printed copies of a

Compendium of Guatemalan laws and norms that are pertinent to social audit processes. The

printed materials were well-received by workshop participants.

6For example Gerardo Berthin’s Practical Guide to Social Audit as a Participatory Tool to Strengthen

Democratic Governance, Transparency, and Accountability, which served as basis for the design of the

workshop.

https://www.academia.edu/13287350/A_Practical_Guide_to_Social_Audit_as_a_Participatory_Tool_to_Strengthen_Democratic_Governance_Transparency_and_Accountability

https://www.academia.edu/13287350/A_Practical_Guide_to_Social_Audit_as_a_Participatory_Tool_to_Strengthen_Democratic_Governance_Transparency_and_Accountability


3. Outputs of the Workshops

There were four immediate outputs of the workshops. Participants gained 1) new knowledge and

2) new skills, 3) developed a draft social audit strategy, and 4) responded to a brief survey on

democratic values that could serve as a base line and reference for continuing support. Below a

representative sample of some of the feedback provided by participants.

Knowledge

“This workshop has been of utmost importance for my development and to acquire new

knowledge, which I was honestly completely unaware.” – Antigua Workshop Participant

“I now know what is, how it can be applied and what is the purpose of social audit.” –

Chiquimula Workshop Participant

“Now I understand better what social audit is, to better manage tools, to work in teams, and to

be always observant.” – Zacapa Workshop Participant

“I understand the importance of legal frameworks, which complemented my current knowledge,

but most importantly I now know how to influence actions for change.” – Quetzaltenango

Workshop Participant

Source: Evaluations by Participants

For most of the participants, “Social Audit” was a new concept and tool. Nonetheless, even for

those participants who have had previous training and practical experience on social audit, the

workshop provided new and expanded knowledge. In that regard, the workshops contributed to

the acquisition of new knowledge, it strengthened and expanded existing knowledge, and sought

to make connections to broader concepts of democratic governance, transparency, accountability,

and participation. The Modules focused on explaining to participants, and generating discussions

in these key topics:

• The role of democratic governance in human development and the difference between

government and governance;

• The challenges facing democratic governance and the role of voice and participation as key

ingredients for resilient democratic governance;

• The role of social auditing as a collective action process within the context of democratic

governance and why and when should be implemented; by whom and how;

• The difference between transparency and accountability and the role each has for social

audit processes;

• The challenges of citizen participation in the public policy cycle; and

• The ways in which corruption is perceived and manifest in society; how to analyze

scenarios and cases to be specific about the nature of different types of corrupt practices or

corrupt actions; and what can be done to promote transparency and accountability in order

to discourage corrupt practices.


In their feedback, participants identified as a key outcome of the workshops the acquisition of new

knowledge and/or the strengthening of current knowledge, particularly in relation to social audit,

corruption and democratic governance. For both scenarios, the knowledge acquired was valuable

either as a completely new area of knowledge and/or as a complement to the current stock of

knowledge. Table 3 below offers representative samples of some of the lessons gained, as

expressed by participants.7

Table 3: Lessons Learned by Participants of the Social Audit Workshops (Knowledge)

Social Audit

“The workshop has proved that social audit is not only about investigating corruption but creating

awareness and informing key stakeholders in a democracy.”

“I completed my learning about social audit. I managed to visualize it in a global perspective and to

locate it at the micro level.”

“I learned who can perform a social audit, as before I did not know concretely who could.”

“I learned to differentiate several terms and concepts, which we are constantly getting them confused,

and I learned about the opportunities to get involved in social audit processes.”

“I learned to differentiate financial from social audit.”

“Of course, I learned new things. I'm seeing social problems and solutions through a different lens.”

“Social auditing was new to me, but also learning that the aim is not only to tear down or fight corruption

but also to build or help improve society and institutions was a new perspective.”

Democracy and Governance

“That democracy and governance can contribute to improve the conditions in our country and to be able

to change and improve the Human Development Index.”

“The topic of resilience is no longer related only to the environment, but now it is also related to

democracy.”

“Change will not come from government unless there is demand from society and active participation

by the citizenry.”

“As young people we have so much power, we can be the catalyst for change if we make an effort to

know our rights as citizens of a country.”

“How to connect democratic governance, monitoring and evaluation and the policy analysis process to

people empowerment via social audit.”

“I realize now that even as an individual, I can make a difference.”


7These are some of the responses given by participants to the question on the evaluation form: Which specific aspects

of the workshop do you think best contributed to your understanding of democratic governance and social auditing?”

And, “Did you learn something new or see something from a new angle, as a result of participation in the Workshop?

Questions 2 and 3 respectively of the evaluation (see Annex 2).


Skills

By the end of the workshops, participants had built and/or strengthened the following skills:

• Critical thinking; enquiry and analysis (the learning axis of the workshop encouraged

discovery and curiosity).

• Project design and management (project cycle and the role of social audit).

• Use of social media (twitter) as a tool for mobilization, access to information and

communication.

• Communication, dialogue and oral presentations (peer exchange and compromising).

• Working in groups and diverse teams (negotiation and finding consensus).

In their feedback, participants identified as a key outcome of the workshops the acquisition of new

skills and/or the strengthening of current skills. Table 4 below offers representative samples of

some of the lessons gained, as expressed by participants (see more details in Section 4).

Table 4: Lessons Learned by Participants of the Social Audit Workshops (Skills)

Social Skills and

Teamwork

“I have learned the value of teamwork, participation, dig deeper, more about

government and governance.”

“I know now the different ways to access information.”

“I learned that technology can contribute a lot to accessing public

information.”

“I have learned that team work is always better. Diversity of opinion and

points of view are an advantage for social audit.”

“It enhanced my social skills and my patience to deal with others. Important

to manage frustrations.”

“The workshop gave me an opportunity to learn how to analyze perceived

corruption or corruption cases.”


Draft Social Audit Strategies

The knowledge and skills with which participants were equipped as a result of the workshops,

enabled them to prepare draft social audit strategies to identify and initiate social audit processes,

which are ideas that are ready to be refined and advance to implementation with potential support

of the UMG project and/or other organizations. Altogether 20 draft social audit strategies were

produced (4 per workshop). Participants were grouped according to shared geographical, career

or institutional affiliations to increase the likelihood of common interest and ownership, and

therefore greater feasibility of each strategy. Each group was asked to identify a focused issue for

social audit and outline objectives, strategies and human, technical and financial resources required


for implementation. Participants presented their strategies to their peers and obtained in most cases

instant feedback, inputs and advice.

As can be seen in Table 5, the topics selected were meaningful to the socio-economic well-being

of their respective communities. While some of the proposed topics had been already subject of

some form of social audit process, and each draft strategy still merits further analysis for feasibility,

all the elaborated draft strategies offered useful and potential policy entry points for future social

audit processes. This element of the workshops promoted a healthy discussion among workshop

participants. A list of the topics/entry points for the draft Social Audit Strategies is presented in

Table 5 below.

Table 5: Topics/Entry Points of Draft Social Audit Strategies

Workshop 1: Antigua

• Audit of the Transmetro public transportation system

• Audit of water distribution

• Audit of Municipal procurement processes

• Audit of education quality in schools

Workshop 2: Chiquimula

• Audit of fertilizer distribution/prices

• Audit of energy/electrical distribution

• Audit of improvements project for important road

• Audit of distribution of medical supplies

Workshop 3: Zacapa

• Audit of public park project

• Audit of boleto de ornato (Annual local tax for embellishment of the municipality)

• Audit of public waste management system

• Audit of a municipal budget and plan

Workshop 4: Quetzaltenango I- (CUSAM)

• Audit of construction of municipal building

• Audit of telephone service contract between Claro and the municipality of San Marcos

• Audit for determining who is responsible for Pan-American highway maintenance near

Chimaltenango

• Audit to understand why there are frequent electricity cuts in the city and the costs to

business and economic activities

Workshop 5: Quetzaltenango II- Rafael Landivar

• Audit of fertilizer distribution/prices

• Audit of energy/electrical distribution

• Audit of maintenance of roads

• Audit of boleto de ornato (Annual local tax for embellishment of the municipality)

Source: Participants workshops presentations


Democratic Values Survey

Before the start of the workshop, the participants completed a survey (see Annex 3) which posed

26 questions about their views, perspectives and values in respect of:

• Experiences and Dynamics of Youth Participation

• Knowledge of Key Concepts and Topics related to Social Audit

• Perceptions of Opportunities and Challenges for Social Audit and Participation

• Trust in Institutions, Organizations and Social Media

The results of the survey can serve as a base line, as well as inputs to design future assistance and

interventions through the UMG project and/or their respective universities and/or organizations.

Below we offer a brief summary of the main results in each of the thematic areas of the survey.8

Experience and Dynamic of Participation

The results of the survey revealed that the participants of all 5 workshops participate in distinct

types and multitude of activities, including religious, sports and university. For example, 25% of

respondents indicated that they participate in university activities, another 24% that they are

involved in religious activities, and nearly 16% volunteer and/or participate in community

organizations respectively. Similarly, the results of the survey also show that there are slight

differences among participants in each of the 5 workshop locations. For example, while in Antigua

the majority (29%) indicated participation in religious activities, the majority (28%) of the

participants in the Quetzaltenango II workshop said they participate in university activities. When

analyzing survey data in terms of gender, there is no significant difference between men and

women when it comes to the main tendencies.

The results of the survey also point to distinct perspectives on the challenges and opportunities of

participation. Two dimensions of participation are detected: one linked specifically to the political

aspect of participation (political parties and demands for accountability and transparency) and the

other linked to a broader platform of community and social activities. The overwhelming majority

(82%) of all the workshop participants are involved or have been involved in the second

dimension; that is helping their communities and universities, collecting money for social causes,

and advocating for environmental issues. Only 13% of all workshop participants indicated they

participate or have participated in political parties and are or have been involved in advocating for

accountability and transparency. No significant differences were detected in the results across

workshop locations or across gender.

Moreover, the results of the survey also showed that the motivation of workshops participants to

become activists is not only necessarily a response to altruistic and/or collective goals. As Graph

1 shows, an average of 47% of all workshop participants recognized more individualistic motives

for getting involved, while on average 19% and 22% respectively hoped to become activists in

order to generate collective benefits for their communities and/or immediate social and country

context. As can be seen in Graph 1, there is some slight intensity variation by workshop location,

8Please refer to the data base set, submitted separately, for full results.


but the main tendency sustains. No significant differences between men and women responses

were detected, beyond a relatively greater intensity of collective/community motivations registered

in women participants. As it was important to identify the motives for participation, it was also of great importance to

probe the reasons for which workshop participants do not participate more actively in their

respective communities. The survey asked for respondents to evaluate a series of possible reasons.

As shown in Graph 2, the majority (40%) of the surveyed believed that “there were more

opportunities to influence outside their immediate arena,” and 23% reinforced this perception in

terms of not believing in participation as a means to attain genuine impact. In addition, for 15% of the respondents, lack of resources was singled out as a reason for which they do not participate,

and 14% felt that in a cost-benefit analysis, participation involved intensive investment of time

and resources that did not necessarily translate into better outputs and/or outcomes, not enough to

make it worthwhile. In general, no major differences were detected in the responses between men

and women.

In the survey, workshop participants were also asked to self-evaluate themselves on a scale (low

to high) their involvement in several distinct categories of participation, such as national elections,

subnational/local elections, political parties and public policy processes. On average, the self-

evaluations were mostly low in particular as related to political parties and public policy processes.



On average, 70% of the respondents rated their own participation in political parties and public

policy processes as low. With respect to participation in elections, participants had divergent

evaluation according to workshop location. For example, the majority (41%) of workshop

participants in Quetzaltenango II rated their participation in subnational/local elections as high,

while the majority (35%) of workshop participants in Antigua rated theirs medium respectively.

Workshop participants in Quetzaltenango I (CUSAM) were more ambivalent and split their rating

50/50, between low and high respectively, while the majority of Chiquimula (37%) and Zacapa

(33%) workshop participants rated their participation in subnational/local elections as low. On

average, for national elections, workshop participants in Antigua, Quetzaltenango II, and Zacapa

rated their participation high, averaging 57%. Responses from Quetzaltenango I (CUSAM)

workshop participants again were ambivalent, as their self-evaluation split 50/50, between low and

high respectively, while the majority (44%) of Chiquimula workshop participants rated their level

of participation in national elections as low. The comparative analysis of results between men and

women did not, in general, yield significant differences.

Workshop participants were also asked how they obtain their news about politics and public policy.

According to the overall survey results, the majority (52%) of workshop participants said they

obtain their news from social media, while 19% said their main source was television, and only

15% and 11% respectively said their main source was the newspapers and official government

sources. This tendency sustained across all 5 locations. While not statistically significant, women

responses to this question showed a slightly more inclination than men to have diverse sources of

obtaining news about politics and public policy.

There are other

important things

that demand less

effort and give

more benefits

14%

Lack of time

6%

Lack of resources

15%

(4) The

opportunities to

influence change

are elsewhere

40%

I do not believe in

participation as a

means to make

impact

23%

DK/NR

2%

Graph 2: Why do you think that young people of your age don´t

participate in civic activities? (in %)


Knowledge of Key Concepts and Topics related to Social Audit

The survey also wanted to find out the level of knowledge of workshop participants of key concepts

and topics related to democratic governance and social audit. Due to current technological

advances, and the knowledge offered by their social science university academic programs, the

workshop participants enjoy greater access than non-university students and older age groups to

sources of information, technology and knowledge with respect to key issues concerning

democratic governance. At the same time, they often also demand participation and inclusion into

a complex and multi-dimensional democratic governance processes. Yet according to the results

of the survey their level of knowledge of the basic details related to the decision-making processes

is relatively low. For example, when workshop participants were asked to name the most

important decision the government makes each year, the majority (57%) mentioned that it was the

approval of the annual budget plan and budget. In contrast, the implementation of relevant

projects/public policies and/or the subject of taxation received relatively low responses (7% and

10% respectively). Similarly, when asked what they believe to be the greatest expenditure of the

government, the overwhelming majority (86%) believed it to be the wages/salaries of those elected

to office and civil servants. By contrast, only 6% and 2% respectively believed that investments

and public services were the greatest expenditure.

Workshop participants surveyed were also asked if they could specify or guess, approximately,

what they thought were the values of the national and municipal budgets. An overwhelming

majority of all respondents did not know or could not provide an answer for either the national

(average 84%) or municipal (average 90%) budgets. Additionally, they were asked to assess

themselves on a scale of 1-4 (low to high) with respect to their own level of knowledge on eight

critical issues related to social audit. As shown in Graph 3, the aggregate overall result of the self-

evaluation shows relatively low (52%) and medium (40%) ratings. Only 8% of all workshop

participants self-evaluated their knowledge as high in all eight areas. The highest overall areas of

knowledge according to the results of the self-evaluation were citizen participation, public policies

and democratic governance. Workshop participants self-evaluated their level of knowledge in

human development as medium, and their level of knowledge in social audit, transparency and

accountability, anticorruption conventions and budget as low.

These knowledge tendencies were somewhat corroborated by the workshop participants self-

assessment responses in the survey related to normative and legal aspects. The workshop

participants were asked if they were aware of the rights that citizens in Guatemala possessed, and

if they could name a few. At the same time, they were asked if they could mention some important

laws referring to transparency and accountability approved by the National Assembly in the last

10 years. The vast majority (97%) claimed to know the rights they possess as citizens. With respect

to naming some of these rights, an overwhelming majority of surveyed workshop participants cited

important civic and political rights (participation, universal suffrage, human rights, freedom of

expression, freedom of religion), and social rights (health, education, housing, gender,

indigenous). In contrast, 66% of the respondents did not know or could not answer the question

regarding laws on transparency and accountability approved by the National Assembly in the past

10 years. The remaining 34% of respondents who confirmed they knew, listed as examples: access

to public



information law; anti-corruption laws, citizen participation law; civil service law; and procurement

and acquisition law.

The results above could be identifying both challenges and opportunities as knowledge is a key

ingredient to effectively influence the public policy cycle. Given their university status,

participants of the workshops manage and exchange more information than non-university cohorts.

However, the results of the survey also show they lack the knowledge and/or basic skills needed

to operate the increasingly complex environment of politics, public policy, democratic governance

and social audit. This tension poses challenges and opportunities not only for future support in

strengthening and expanding their current capacities and knowledge, but also for future support to

engage in social audit processes at any stage of the public policy cycle.

Perceptions of Opportunities and Challenges for Social Audit and Participation

Public policies are part of a dynamic process which is constantly moving. They are usually

multidimensional and involve processes, tools and results. Public policies are defined based on a

series of factors such as population demands, available resources, socio-political capital of

23

2

7

39

36

34

16

31

39

21

28

38

39

46

41

45

34

56

55

19

21

16

36

20

4

21

10

3

5

4

8

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Democratic Governance

Citizen Participation

Human Development/Poverty/SDGs

Social Audit

Transparency and Accountability

Anticorruption Conventions

Public Policies

Budget

Graph 3: In a scale from 1-4, where 1 is low and 4 high, how would you

grade your level of knowledge with regard to the following topics?

(in %)

1 (Low) 2 3 4 (High)N=199


organized groups, and institutional design. One of the first challenges for social audit processes is

to visualize and understand the enabling environment and/or context for social participation. Thus,

it is not sufficient to focus solely on the institutional aspects of social audit (laws, legal norms,

public policies), or on the institutional arrangements of local governments in promoting

participation. It is also important to ascertain to what extent future social auditors feel included in

public policy processes and how they perceive not only their potential contribution but also their

ability to impact public policies through participation. Many questions in the survey were designed

to measure from the perspective of workshop participants the opportunities and challenges for

social audit and participation.

The vast majority of the workshop participants surveyed do not believe their governments (national

or local) take into account the demands of the population. As can be seen in Graph 4, only 8% of

all the respondents believe that governments have “high” or “some” sensibility to the demands of

the population. In contrast, 41% believe that governments do not take “at all” into account the

demands of the population, and 49% believe the governments take “little” the demands of the

population into account. Similarly, the general perception of the level of transparency in

government decision-making is relatively low. None of the respondents believe that the decisions

made by their governments are “very transparent.” Only 4% believe that the decisions made by

their governments are “somewhat transparent,” while 44% of the respondents said that there is

“little transparency.” Half of the respondents (50%) believe that the decisions made by their

governments are “not at all transparent.” The tendency sustains across all 5 workshop locations

and between male and female participants.


A lot

1% Some

7%

Little

49%

Not at all

41%

DK/NR

2%

Graph 4: How much do you think the public demands have been taken

into account by the current government? (in %)


The perception of workshop participants of the government´s human development policies is

another indicator highlighting both opportunities and challenges. Two-thirds (61%) of the

respondents did not give high grades to their government work on human development policy

issues and sustainable development goals, rating the work as “bad” or “very bad.” Almost one-

third of workshop participants surveyed gave a “regular” rating, while only 4% said the work of

the government in human development and sustainable development goals was “good” or “very

good.” This tendency holds across workshops locations and among men and women. Workshop

participants were also conscious about the challenges of inequality. When asked to assess

inequality in Guatemala, the majority of survey respondents (61%, on average) believed that it is

on the rise. On average, nearly one-third (29%) of total respondents indicated that conditions of

inequality are the same, while only 6% indicated that inequality is decreasing. Women

respondents were more skeptical about the decrease and/or the stability of inequality, highlighting

with more intensity than men the increasing aspect. It is assumed that these results might be related

to the workshop participants perception of how capable the government is in attending to their

demands.

Complementing the above, workshop participants were also asked in the survey to rate the

effectiveness of the participatory instruments that exist in the Guatemalan local space. According

to the results of the survey, workshop participants do not perceive that the participatory instruments

which exist at the local level are functioning. On average, only 17% of those who responded

believe that such mechanisms are effective. Nonetheless, respondents identified potential

mechanisms. For example, 26% said that Community Assemblies have a potential, 22% said

Municipal Development Committees (COCODES), and 17% other localized participatory

mechanisms (such as CDURs).

Similarly, workshop participants were asked what they thought was the best form for the

population´s interests to be taken into account by the government. Of the responses, two stand out

in particular: organized, collective petitions (38%) and engagement with local congresses/local

councils (45%). The more traditional forms of action involving political parties, individual

connections and lobbying received little attention from workshop participants (11%, 1.2% and

0.8%, respectively).

Workshop participants also identified the strengthening of local governments as a key strategy to

make government more effective. In response to the survey question of whether the local

governments should be given greater responsibility and resources, or the national government

should assume more responsibility in local life, 41% of the respondents chose the option of

providing more resources to local governments, so long as they provide better services. Another

36% believed that more responsibility and resources should be allocated to local governments,

but without conditions (see Graph 5).

Overall, 77% of all the workshop participants surveyed favored a greater role for local government

in the public policy cycle. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of respondents displayed

a high level of mistrust towards the management of public funds on the part of the government in

general (both national and local). Less than 1% expressed that they have significant confidence in

the management of public funds on the part of the government, while 98% expressed that they did

not have any confidence and /or had very little confidence.



Trust in Institutions, Organizations and Social Media

In relation to trust, through a series of questions workshop participants were asked in the survey

to give their opinions (in a scale of 1/agree -3/disagree) about government, politics, and social

media. In general, the respondents expressed a relatively higher level of trust in their systems of

government (including local levels) than in politics and politicians, although there was both

ambivalence and divergence in responses across workshop locations. For example, the majority

of workshop participants in Zacapa (52%) and Quetzaltenango II (52%) agreed with the statement

that “one generally cannot trust government,” while participants from Antigua, Chiquimula and

Quetzaltenango I were more ambivalent and neutral in their responses to the same question (25%

on average were in agreement). Similarly, while the majority of workshop participants in

Chiquimula (46%) and Quetzaltenango I (43%) agreed with the statement that “government is fine,

but politicians are the problem,” respondents in Antigua, Zacapa, and Quetzaltenango I1 were

more ambivalent and neutral in their responses to the same question. Only one-third on average

agreed. See aggregated averages in Graph 6.

However, when asked to agree and/or disagree with two additional statements about trust; 1)

“people in power only want to help themselves,” and 2) “the majority of politicians are corrupt,”

responses were less ambivalent. For example, the majority of overall workshop participants

surveyed, 72% and 69% respectively, were in agreement with the two statements. Similarly, a

majority (71%) of all workshop participants surveyed were in agreement with the statement that

“it is important to vote and to think well who to vote for” (Graph 6). Moreover, when asked the

More to the local

governments

36%

More to the

national

government

15%Don´t change

anything

5%

More to the local

governments if

they offer better

services

41%

DK/NR

3%

Graph 5: Do you think that local governments should get more

responsibilities and resources or should we accept that the central

government assumes more responsibilities for the local life? (in %)


general question, “governments are always for the few and do not benefit everyone,” two-thirds

(62%average) of all workshop participants surveyed agreed.


The survey included three more qualifying questions where respondents needed to agree or

disagree (in a scale of 1/agree -3/disagree): 1) “national governments cannot do a lot due to global

forces;” 2) “local government cannot do a lot because they are weak;” and 3) “revolutionary

governments always end-up benefiting only a few.” Responses for question 1 were somewhat

ambivalent and muted, as on average only 42% of respondents in 4 (Antigua, Zacapa,

Quetzaltenango I and II) of 5 workshop locations agreed with the statement. The majority (49%)

of respondents from Chiquimula remained neutral, neither agreeing or disagreeing. For question

2, on average, 47% of workshop respondents in Antigua, Zacapa and Quetzaltenango I, agreed

with the statement, while the majority of respondents from Chiquimula and Quetzaltenango II

remained neutral at 46% each respectively. Lastly, responses for question 3, were more diverse by

location. For example, the majority (50%) of workshop participants surveyed in Zacapa, as well

as the majority (42%) of participants from Quetzaltenango I, agreed with the statement. The

majority of responses to question 3 from Antigua and Quetzaltenango II workshop participants

remained neutral at 48% and 52% respectively. The majority of responses to question 3 from

Chiquimula workshop participants were virtually tied, as almost half (46%) agreed and another

almost half (46%) remained neutral.

36

38

71

72

69

39

29

7

15

21

25

33

22

13

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Generally you cannot trust government

The government is fine, but the politicians are the

problem

It is important to vote and think well who to vote for

Powerful people just want to help themselves

The majority of politicians are corrupt

Graph 6: Do you agree or not with the following statements? Answer

every question in a scale from 1-3, where 1 is you agree and 3 that you

don´t agree (in %)

1 (Agree) 2 3 (Do not Agree)N=199


Workshop participants were also asked in the survey about their level of trust towards government,

religious organizations and social media. With respect to the question as to whether workshop

participants “trusted religious organizations over the government,” one-third (35%) of all

respondents agreed, while another one-third (29%) disagreed. Thirty-six (36%) percent remained

neutral. There were interesting contrasts among workshop locations. Whereas nearly two-thirds

(57%) of the respondents in Zacapa agreed with this statement, almost half (48%) of respondents

from Quetzaltenango I disagreed. The majority of workshop participants from Chiquimula and

Quetzaltenango II remained neutral in their responses to this question, 49% and 44% respectively.

There were no significant differences in responses between women and men.

On the other hand, the question as to whether workshop participants “trusted social media over

religious organizations,” overall two-thirds (61%) of respondents disagreed, while 16% agreed.

Almost one-fourth (23%) of overall respondents remained neutral. The highest rate of agreement

(30%) for this statement was registered among workshop participants from Quetzaltenango I.

Finally, on the question as to whether workshop participants “trusted social media over more

traditional media,” overall the majority (42%) of respondents remained neutral, while one-third

(29%) agreed and 25% disagreed.

4. Feedback from Participants on Experience and Outcomes

Overall the high evaluation scores shown in Table 6 below suggest that participants were highly

satisfied with the extent to which the workshops met the stated objectives; with the relevancy of

the content and themes covered; with the appropriateness of the workshop methodology; with the

usefulness of the presentations; and the helpfulness of the instructional materials. For an

overwhelming majority of participants, the workshop met their expectation. Graphs 7-11 below

summarize the responses by each workshop location (Antigua, Chiquimula, Zacapa and

Quetzaltenango I and II).

Table 6: Average Degree of Satisfaction with Elements of the Workshop in a

Scale of 1 (Highly Dissatisfied)- 5 (Highly Satisfied)

Question 1 in the Evaluation (N=199) Average in

Scale 1-5

Workshop Objectives were Met 4.8

Content was Relevant 4.9

The Methodology was Appropriate 4.9

Presentations were Useful 4.9

Instructional Materials that were Handed were Helpful 4.9

Workshop Met my Expectations 4.9





0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Workshop

Objectives

were Met

Content was

Relevant

Methodology

was

Appropriate

Presentations

were Useful

Instructional

Materials were

Helpful

Workshop Met

my

Expectations

0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0

14

6

13

1

6

34

42

4745

47

41

Graph 7: Total Degree of Satisfaction with Elements of the Workshop

Antigua ( N=48)

1 (Highly Dissatisfied) 2 3 4 5 (Highly Satisfied)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Workshop

Objectives

were Met

Content was

Relevant

Methodology

was

Appropriate

Presentations

were Useful

Instructional

Materials were

Helpful

Workshop Met

my

Expectations

0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 02

9

46 5 4

33

26

3129 30 31


Chuiquimula (N=35)





0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Workshop

Objectives

were Met

Content was

Relevant

Methodology

was

Appropriate

Presentations

were Useful

Instructional

Materials were

Helpful

Workshop Met

my

Expectations

0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 03 1 0 0 0 1

43 45 46 46 46 45


Zacapa (N=46)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Workshop

Objectives

were Met

Content was

Relevant

Methodology

was

Appropriate

Presentations

were Useful

Instructional

Materials were

Helpful

Workshop Met

my

Expectations

0 0 1 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 01 0 1 1 0 0

12

6

10 9 97

27

34

2830 31

33


Quetzaltenango I-CUSAM (N=40)




Similarly, overall workshop participants were highly satisfied with various other aspects of the

workshop. As can be seen in Table 7 below, participants provided high grades to the overall

organization of the workshop, the facilitators, the meeting rooms in the venues where workshops

took place (hotels), the materials, and the catering service provided in the venues where workshops

took place (hotels). Graphs 12-16 below summarize the responses by each workshop location

(Antigua, Chiquimula, Zacapa and Quetzaltenango I and II).

Table 7: Satisfaction with Workshop Inputs

in a Scale of 1 (Deficient)- 5 (Excellent)

Question 6 in the Evaluation (N=199) Average in

Scale 1-5

General Organization of Workshop 4.9

Facilitators 4.9

Meeting Rooms 4.8

Materials Provided 4.9

Catering/Coffee/Lunch 4.8


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Workshop

Objectives

were Met

Content was

Relevant

Methodology

was

Appropriate

Presentatioins

wer Useful

Instructional

Materials were

Helpful

Workshop Met

my

Expectations

0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 1 0 0 1 0

53 3 2 2

4

25 26 27 2826 26


Quetzaltenango II-ULR (N=30)





0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

General

Organization

Facilitators Meeting Rooms Materials

Provided

Catering

0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0

6

0 1 13

41

4846 47

45

Graph 12: Total Degree of Satisfaction with Workshop Inputs

Antigua (N=48)

1 (Deficient) 2 3 4 5 (Excellent)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

General

Organization


Provided

Catering

0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 10 0

4

1

442

7

1

4

3133

24

33

26


Chuiquimula (N=35)





0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

General

Organization


Provided

Catering

0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 1 0 01 03 2

7

44 45

4143

38


Zacapa (N=46)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

General

Organization


Provided

Catering

0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 12 2 20 1

4 3

6 6 5

34 35

32 33 32


Quetzaltenango I-CUSAM (N=40)




In relation to what participants achieved at the end of the workshops, as can be seen in Graph 17

below, on average all participants rated the workshop with a score of 4.7 or higher in all three

dimensions (based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest level of

satisfaction). That is, the overwhelming majority of participants in all 5 workshops agreed that

the workshops: 1) improved their knowledge and interest in social audit, 2) it has motivated them

to act, and 3) provided ideas to apply what was learned. There was on average a 94% level of

satisfaction with what they learned and took as an outcome. Depending on location and evaluation

variable, the scale of satisfaction with the workshop outcomes was 88%-100%.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

General

Organization


Provided

Catering

0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 01 1 1

4

0

3

02

26

30

26

2927


Quetzaltenango II-URL (N=30)




Additional feedback provided by participants reinforces the assessment of positive outcomes and

also offer recommendations for future engagement on social audit processes. Representative

comments are showcased below.

“More complementary workshops,

perhaps 3 days instead of 2 to maximize

learning and discussions.”

“Training on social audit for civil servants and public officials,

so they also know how to contribute to transparency and accountability.”

“Experiences/lessons from social audit process in Guatemala.”

4.9

4.8

5.0

4.9

4.9

4.9

4.7

4.4

4.9

4.5

4.9

4.7

4.8

4.7

5.0

4.9

5.0

4.9

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 5.1

Antigua (N=48)

Chuiquimula (N=35)

Zacapa (N=45)

Quetzaltenango I (N=40)

Quetzaltenango II (N=30)

Total Average Scores (N=198)

Graph 17: Overall Levels of Satisfaction with Outcomes of Workshops

Evaluation Question 5

(1= Highly Dissatisfied, 5= Highly Satisfied)

N=198

Improved Knowledge of and Interest in Social Audit

Motivation to Act

Ideas gained on application of lessons


“The creation of a cadre of Guatemalan trainers in social audit.”

“The workshop has opened awareness

and more demand to know and learn more.”

“Hope this technical assistance continues with more

support to expand knowledge and practice.”

“I congratulate and thank USAID for the opportunity

to acquire new knowledge through its facilitators, people

with great knowledge and excellent human quality and simplicity.

Thank you very much for taking me into account.”

“An excellent workshop, very dynamic, very important topics

and excellent didactic material, thanks for the opportunity to enrich our knowledge.”

“More books and pertinent technical materials for distribution. We need them.”

“Great overall workshop organization,

but hotel/venue did not have the adequate facilities and logistics.”

“I take with me one more experience, I know that

I invested my time in something very productive

and effective for my life. I am happy and satisfied to

have been part of something like this and even more

because I actively participated, which is something that

I do not do often. My attention span was constant, so I only say thanks.”

“One of the best workshops I attended.

Excellent how they approached the topics.”

“To get an earlier exposure to the learning materials

so we can read and analyze them and come

prepare for discussions.”

“The workshop was dynamic, strategic,

fun and well designed and implemented.”

“I think the workshop is useful as a tool for democratic participation;

improved accountability and more transparent decision-making.

It should be offered to as wide a sector of society as is practical”

“Critical to the process has to be a follow-up

that consistently engages university students

in social auditing.”



The comments which outline areas for improvement suggest that participants felt that they needed

more time in order to grapple with some of the specifics of the social audit process. Participants,

nonetheless, made some suggestions related to themes to be included in future and complementary

trainings. A representative list of those suggestions is listed below:

• Social audit in indigenous communities.

• Social audit and gender/women.

• Social audit for the disabled.

• How to sustain social audit processes.

• Access to information process in the

Guatemala context, including appeal

process when denied.

• Role of COCODES and COMUDES.

• Complaints systems/witness or

whistleblower protection.

• Social audit and conflict prevention.

• Specific tools of social audit, like budget

tracking, civil service, open government.

• Strategic planning, risks management as

tools for social audit.


5. Recommendations for the Way Forward

The social audit workshops, based on the foregoing, were highly successful initiatives that have

planted a seed for continuing work in support of transparency activities at the local level. The

UMG project now has a group of social audit advocates and activists linked to two of the major

universities in Guatemala, who have received some basic training in social auditing which will be

sufficient for them to begin planning and implementing more strategic activities. This social audit

activity is aligned with Objective 3/Activity 3.5 of the current UMG Project Workplan. As such,

moving forward with the support of the UMG project for this group of social auditors and their

activities will be essential. Critical to any social audit exercise is to ensure small victories and

demonstrate the value of the tool to improve, participation, performance and/or accountability, and

also to promote ownership.

In that regard, the following recommendations for future action are made:

1. Further replication of the workshop will be important to ensure that all UMG project

municipalities/locations have the opportunity to build their capacities for social audit.

Efforts at replication should take into account the following considerations:

a. Future workshops may extend beyond two days, if more in-depth learning is

required.

b. Future workshops should engage members of this first cohort of trained students as

facilitators of future workshops.

c. Future workshop could be linked to specific municipal services that have been

prioritized for improvement under other components of the UMG project.


2. Complementary training and capacity building for this cohort of trained students in areas

such as access to information, open government, budget tracking (targeting violence

prevention projects and prioritized services under the UMG project), and leadership and

management.

3. Advanced training for this first cohort of social auditors is recommended to solidify their

knowledge and skills in applying specific research methodologies in social auditing. Such

training should also equip them to train others within their universities and/or communities.

4. Training on social audit for civil servants/municipal units (in the 30 prioritized

municipalities under the UMG project) of access to information who have specific

responsibilities related to transparency and citizen participation.

5. The 20 draft social audit strategies which have been formulated through the workshops

offer good blueprints for the UMG project to further expand them into action. A

focalization, prioritization and planning session/workshop is recommended to enable

these social auditors to revise, refine and finalize the strategies, including feasibility of

access to pertinent information and identification and management of risks. Feasible social

audit strategies could be implemented with UMG project support over the next 3 years.

The number of strategies to be supported would be determined by their feasibility and

support from local stakeholders. One small pilot, followed by a second larger audit

exercise should be attempted within the next couple of years.

6. Explore the use of social audit strategies as a cross cutting activity in the UMG project,

in particular related to the UMG project Workplan activities 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,

2.4, and others. Potential linkages could be: compliance of the Law on Access to Public

Information at the municipal level; engaging COMUDES and COCODEs; implementation

of municipal violence prevention policies; service delivery improvement plans; municipal

public service projects; and implementation of small infrastructure projects.

7. Support the creation of integrated interuniversity and multidisciplinary platforms for

social audit. Taking advantage of the two university partnerships and given the key role

of San Carlos and Rafael Landivar universities, the installation of a social audit observatory

could be considered as a strategic collaborative initiative. This will also help to articulate

existing youth university networks through transparency and social auditing, as well as

strengthen a key partnership with these two major universities.

8. Systematization of youth-led social audit processes in Guatemala and peer-to peer

exchange workshops to understand the planning, implementation, the impact and lessons

of social audit experiences.

9. The visual/video report that accompanied the workshops (currently under production),

can serve as an advocacy tool and evidence for future activities and social auditors and to

share the experience widely within and outside Guatemala. The link between youth-

university-transparency is new and has tremendous potential to advocate for reforms,

policies, and initiatives.


10. Regional exchanges of youth-led social audit and transparency processes. Identifying

experiences and best practices from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua,

Panama, Belize, and Costa Rica and showcasing them in a regional event. USAID

Missions and their projects would be invited to participate. The event would offer an

opportunity to encourage policy dialogue and to focus on measuring impact and scalability

of this type of initiatives.


6. Annexes

Annex 1: Program for Workshops

Generic Two-Day Agenda

University Youth Leadership Workshop for Social Audit Urban Municipal Governance Project – UMG



Guatemala

DAY 1

08:00 - 08:30 Registration of participants, provision of materials/survey

08:30 - 09:00 Welcome

Opening Remarks

09:00 - 09:15 Overview of Workshop Objectives, Scope and Methodology

09:15 – 10:00 Case 1: The Traffic Light

Discussion of Case 1

10:00 – 10:15 Coffee Break

10:15 - 11:15 Module 1: The Context and Dynamics of Social Audit

Questions and Discussion

11:15 - 12:30 Case 2: Guarachin


12:30 – 14:00 Lunch

14:00 – 15:15 Module 2: Social Audit: Why, What, and to Whom?


15:15 – 16:00 Case 3: What is the Crime?



16:15 - 16:45 Module 3: Elements to Consider when Analyzing Corrupt Practices


16:45 - 18:00 Case 4: “Let´s Find the Crime”


18:00 - 18:30 Summary and Lessons from Day 1


DAY 2

08:30 - 09:30 Welcome and Recap

Case 5: On Twitter


09:30 – 10:30 Module 4: ¿How? and tools



10:45 – 12:30 Case 6: Express Audit

Presentations

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – 13:45 Questions and Discussion of Case 6

13:45 – 14:30

Module 5: Political Dialogue and Social Audit


14:30 – 15:30 Case 7: Towards a Social Audit Strategy


15:45 – 16:45 Presentations of Case 7

16:45 – 17:30

Module 6: What did I learn? Take Aways and My Action Plan

17:30 – 18:00 Evaluation and Closing Ceremony


Annex 2: Evaluation Form for Workshop

University Youth Leadership Workshop for Social Audit

Urban Municipal Governance Project – UMG



Guatemala

To help us improve this Workshop in the future, we would appreciate your feedback on your

experience. Your responses will be invaluable.

1. Please read the statements below and provide a score of 1 – 5 by checking the appropriate

box for each statement.

1

Strongly

Disagree

2

Disagree

3

Neither Agree/

Nor Disagree

4

Agree

5

Strongly

Agree

I believe the stated objectives of

the workshop were met.

The content and themes covered

were relevant to my work.

The workshop methodology

was appropriate for the group.

The facilitators’ presentations

were helpful.

The instructional materials

provided were useful.

Overall, the workshop has met

my expectations.

2. Which specific aspects of the workshop do you think best contributed to your understanding

of democratic governance and social auditing?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

_______________

3. Did you learn something new or see something from a new angle, as a result of participation

in the Workshop? Tell us about that.

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________


4. What other themes or topics do you think should be incorporated in future workshops? Please

be as specific as possible.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

5. Please read the statements below and provide a score of 1 – 5, by checking the appropriate

box for each statement.

1

Strongly

Disagree

2

Disagree

3

Neither Agree/

Nor Disagree

4

Agree

5

Strongly

Agree

The workshop has improved

my knowledge of social

auditing.

The workshop has motivated

me to act as soon as possible.

The workshop has given me

ideas of how to apply what I

have learned.

6. Please rate the following aspects of the workshop on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=Deficient; 5

=Excellent)

1

Deficient

2

3

4

5

Excellent

General Organization of the

Workshop

Facilitators

Meeting Room

Materials Provided

Catering

7. Please provide us with additional specific observations or comments about your experience

in the workshop.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________


Annex 3: Democratic Values Survey

BRIEF SURVEY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN THE UNIVERSITY YOUTH

LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP FOR SOCIAL AUDIT

During the framework of the workshop, the facilitators are implementing a brief survey to the

participants. The answers are confidential. Thank you.

PERSONAL

Q1. Sex:

(1) Male

(2) Female

Q1

Q2. Age:____________

Q2

Q3. What is the highest education level you have? (Pick just one answer)

(1) I completed Primary School

(2) I completed High School

(3) I completed Primary University Studies

(4) I completed a Master’s Degree

Q3

EXPERIENCE

EXP1. Principal activities in which you participate (Mark the 3 principal)

(1) Sport Activities

(2) Religious Activities

(3) Art and Cultural Activities

(4) Charity or Volunteering

(5) University Activities

(6) Organizations of the Municipality or Neighborhood

(7) None

(8) Other (specify)____________________________________________________________

EXP1

EXP2. In what kind of organizations do you participate, or have you once participated? (Mark every

possibility that can be applied)

(1) Collaboration in the Community

(2) Groups that collect money for social causes

(4) Environment Organization

(5) Organization in favor of Transparency

(6) University Organizations

(7) Political Party

EXP2

EXP3. What is your principal motivation for participating? (Please give a specific answer)

________________________________________________________________________________

EXP3


EXP4. Why do you think that young people of your age don´t participate in civic activities? (Mark just

one option)

(1) There are other important things that demand less effort and give more benefits

(2) Lack of time

(3) Lack of resources

(4) The opportunities to influence change are elsewhere

(5) I do not believe in a participation as a means to create impact

EXP4

EXP5. In a scale from 1-4, where 1 is low and 4 high, how would you grade your participation level in

politics according to the following categories?

Low High

1 2 3 4 (1) National Elections

1 2 3 4 (2) Subnational Elections (local/state)

1 2 3 4 (3) Political Parties

1 2 3 4 (4) Incidence (Public Politics)

EXP5

EXP6. What is the principal sources where you find out about politics and public policies? (Mark just

one option)

(1) Written Press

(2) Television

(3) Social Media

(e) Official sources

EXP6

KNOWLEDGE

KNO1. In a scale from 1-4, where 1 is low and 4 high, how would you grade your level of knowledge

with regard to the following topics?

KNO2. Do you have knowledge about the citizen´s rights in your country?

(1) Yes

(2) No

Low High

1 2 3 4 (1) Democratic Governance

1 2 3 4 (2) Citizen´s Participation

1 2 3 4 (3) Human development/Poverty/SDGs

1 2 3 4 (4) “Social Audit”

1 2 3 4 (5) Transparency and Accountability

1 2 3 4 (6) Anticorruption Conventions

1 2 3 4 (7) Public Policies

1 2 3 4 (8) Budget

KNO1

KNO2

KNO3. In the case of a positive answer, could you name any?

_______________________________________________________________________________

KNO3


KNO4

KNO4. What kind of citizen participation mechanisms or spaces do you think work in your country?

(Mark all the options that can be applied)

(1) Municipal Council

(2) Community Assembly

(3) Assemblies with Mayor or Council people

(4) Public Sessions of the Municipal Council

(5) Municipal Development Committees

(6) Citizen participation Committees or their similar (COCODEs oversight groups.)

(7) None

(8) Other

______________________________________________________________________

KNO5. In your opinion, what is the most important decision that the government takes every year?

(Pick just one option)

(1) Approval of the annual plan

(2) Approval of the budget

(3) Approval of the annual plan and its budget

(4) Carry out relevant projects

(5) Collect taxes

(6) Organizing local festivals and holidays

(7) Other (specify)

____________________________________________________________

KNO5

KNO6. What kind of important laws related to Transparency and Accountability could you mention

that have been approved by the National Assembly during the last 10 years in your country? (Name

at least the subjects)

_______________________________________________________________________________

KNO6

KNO7. Generally do you think that the work of the current government in transparency and

accountability is: (Mark just one option)

(1) Very Good

(2) Good

(3) Regular

(4) Bad

(5) Very Bad

KNO7

KNO8. Could you tell the approximate National Budget in USD of your country?

US$________________ I do not know/Have no idea________________

KNO8

KNO9. Could you tell us the approximate Budget in USD of your municipality?

US$___________________ I do not know/Have no idea________________

KNO9


KNO10. In what does the actual government spend most of its budget? (Mark just one option)

(1) Salaries of the elected persons (President, Assembly persons/Delegates, Mayor, Council)

(2) Salaries of the Civil Service

(3) Public Services (education, health)

(4) Investments

(5) Others (specify)________________________________________________________

(6) I don´t know

KNO10

KNO11. In general, how do you think the current government in your country is doing in terms of

human development, SDGs?

(1) Very good (2) Good (3) Regular (4) Bad (5) Vey Bad

KNO12. Would you say that the decisions made by the current government are:

(1) Very Transparent

(2) Transparent

(3) Little Transparent

(4) Not at all Transparent

KNO12

KNO13. How much do you think the public demands have been taken into account by the current

government?

(1) A lot

(2) Some

(3) Little

(4) Not at all

KNO13

PERCEPTION

PER1. What is the best way, in your opinion, for the population´s interests to be taken into account by the

governments? (Pick just one option)

(1) Making an individual request

(2) Making a request through the organized community

(3) Acting through political party

(4) Making use of connections or padrinos

(5) Acting through the Assembly, Congress/ Local Councils

(6) Other form (specify)________________________________________________________

PER2. Do you think that local governments should get more responsibilities and resources, or should we

accept that the central government assumes more responsibilities for the local life? (Pick just one option)

(1) More to the local governments

(2) More to the national government

(3) More to the local governments if they offer better services

(4) Don´t change anything

PER1

PER2

KNO11


PER3. What level of trust do you have related to the good management of funds/resources on the part of

government in your country?

(a) A lot of trust

(b) Little Trust

(c) No Trust

PER3

EQUALITY

EQU1. Do you think that in your country…

(a) Inequalities are being reduced?

(b) Inequalities are staying stable?

(c) Inequalities are increasing?

EQU1

CIVIC TRUST

CITR1. Do you agree or not with the following statements? Answer every question in a scale from 1-

3, where 1 is you agree and 3 that you don´t agree.

Agree Don´t

agree

1 2 3 (1) Generally, you can´t trust in the governments

1 2 3 (2) The government is fine, but the politicians are the problem

1 2 3 (3) It is important to vote and think well who to vote for

1 2 3 (4) The national governments don’t do much because of global forces

1 2 3 (5) The local governments don´t do a lot because they are weak

1 2 3 (6) The governments always benefit few people not everyone

1 2 3 (7) Revolutionary governments always end up benefiting the few

CITR1

CITR2. With which of the two approaches do you best identify yourself? (Mark just one option)

(1) I talk more than I do

(2) I do more than I talk

CITR2

CITR3. Do you agree or not with the following statements? Grade every statement from 1-3, where 1

is you agree and 3 that you don´t agree.

Agree Don´t

agree

1 2 3 (1) Powerful people just want to help themselves

1 2 3 (2) The majority of politicians are corrupt

1 2 3 (4) I don´t trust government, I trust more in religious institutions

1 2 3 (5) I don´t trust social organizations, I trust more social media

1 2 3 (l) I don´t trust social media (Facebook, Twitter) I prefer the news media

CITR3

Report: University Youth Leadership Workshops for Social Audit

Documents

Transcript of Report: University Youth Leadership Workshops for Social Audit