DDI_PER_2001_PETSE_v01_M Antonina Redko 2011-10-11 NADA v01 (October 2011) Public Expenditure Tracking Survey in Education 2001 PETSE 2001 PER_2001_PETSE_v01_M World Bank Inter-American Development Bank Vice Ministry of Regional Development Ministry of Economics and Finance Ministry of Education NADA Inter-American Development Bank World Bank Hooman Dabidian Cindy Audiguier Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) A Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) is a diagnostic tool used to study the flow of public funds from the center to service providers. It has successfully been applied in many countries around the world where public accounting systems function poorly or provide unreliable information. The PETS has proven to be a useful tool to identify and quantify the leakage of funds. The PETS has also served as an analytical tool for understanding the causes underlying problems, so that informed policies can be developed. Finally, PETS results have successfully been used to improve transparency and accountability by supporting "power of information" campaigns. PETS are often combined with Quantitative Service Delivery Surveys (QSDS) in order to obtain a more complete picture of the efficiency and equity of a public allocation system, activities at the provider level, as well as various agents involved in the process of service delivery. While most of PETS and QSDS have been conducted in the health and education sectors, a few have also covered other sectors, such as justice, Early Childhood Programs, water, agriculture, and rural roads. In the past decade, about 40 PETS and QSDS have been implemented in about 30 countries. While a large majority of these surveys have been conducted in Africa, which currently accounts for 66 percent of the total number of studies, PETS/QSDS have been implemented in all six regions of the World Bank (East Asia and Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa). Education Primary Education The Government of Peru with the assistance of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank launched a Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) to study weaknesses of the budget execution system in education and health sectors. The study also aimed to analyze effects of these weaknesses on service delivery and to assist in the generation of policy recommendations. Documented here is the Public Expenditure Tracking Survey conducted in Peru education sector. The study was designed to evaluate the process by which resources were transferred to schools. In order to achieve this, the study focused on: - An analysis of the different organizational models of the education sector in Peru; - Identification and analysis of the governmental procedures and mechanisms for the budgeting, allocation, assignment, and transfer of funds in the education sector; - Determination of the delays, inefficiencies, and leakages associated with these resource transfers; - Characterization of the education implementing units and analysis of the mechanisms by which they channel resources to schools. (The Peru education sector is organized into education implementing units (IU) or “unidades ejecutoras” - government entities, which have an education budget and the authority to execute resources.); - Characterization and analysis of the sources and uses of transfers at the school level (from the IUs, the Ministry of Education, parents associations, municipalities and others). The fieldwork was carried out from April 25th to May 15th 2002. The survey covered 25 education UIs, four urban and rural schools in each IU (100 schools total) and five Regional Administrative Councils (CTARs). Peru Ancash, Arequipa, Cajamarca, Cusco, Lima, Loreto and Piura regions. The universe of this study was defined as education implementing units with the following characteristics: 1) According to the official definition, implementing units of the education sector are those government entities, which have an education budget and the authority to execute resources. According to this definition, an implementing unit can be a Regional Directorate, Regional Sub-Directorate, Educational Services Unit, or an Education Development Unit. 2) Implementing units in existence in 2001 were taken into consideration. 3) The universe was further restricted to those implementing units which managed a budget for the Primary Education Program since this program has the greatest share of the education budget (according to 2001 figures). This effectively restricted the universe to 81 implementing units (18 in Metropolitan Lima and 63 elsewhere). Sample survey data [ssd] Instituto Apoyo For the purposes of executing resources, the education sector of Peru is organized into Implementing Units (IU) or "unidades ejecutoras". The IUs vary considerably depending on which one of the different organizational models they belong to. Some models such as the one in place in the department of Ancash have numerous IUs all in charge of a small number of schools while the IUs of Arequipa and Cusco stand alone having all the schools within the respective department in their jurisdiction. The sample design had the objective of selecting a group of Implementing Units (IU) of the education sector of Lima and the rest of the country that is representative of all the IUs of Peru. The universe was restricted to those IUs, which managed a budget for the Primary Education Program. This effectively restricted the universe to 81 implementing units. In addition, in order to make the sample representative of Peru with regard to geography, seven regions were chosen: Ancash, Arequipa, Cajamarca, Cusco, Lima, Loreto and Piura. Within these seven regions there were 39 eligible implementing units. Once the universe was defined, it was stratified according to size in three groups in order to ensure proper representation both in terms of size and geographic location. The size of the individual strata was selected to achieve the same proportionality as the universe and thereby create a self-weighted sample. In order to define the sample size, the targets of 90% confidence levels and 10% error margins were selected. According to these parameters, 25 implementing units were selected. For the selection of the implementing units researchers used PPS (probability proportional to size) with respect to the IU's 2001 budget for the Primary Education program. The implementing units were classified according to the following rule: • Small: those with annual budgets between S/. 1,292,724 and S/. 26,874,573 • Medium: those with annual budgets between S/. 26,974,574 and S/. 52,456,421 • Large: those with annual budgets between S/. 52,456,422 and S/. 78,038,270 Four schools were selected from each of the IUs jurisdiction. These four schools were selected from the latest distribution rosters of each IU visited in order to track four goods identified in situ. In each case researchers attempted to select two rural schools and two urban schools in order to better understand and contrast geographic differences. Fifty five urban and 45 rural schools were chosen. Face-to-face [f2f] In many cases enumerators had to visit implementing units (IUs) and schools several times in order to schedule interviews with IU employees and school directors and complete collecting data. A team of 24 survey specialists, mostly social science professionals, was selected to conduct the fieldwork. Twelve experts were in charge of the interviews with Regional Administrative Councils (CTARs) and IUs, and 13 evaluators were in charge of the school survey. Prior to the fieldwork the team received special training from the project technical team. Two training sessions were conducted. Given difficulty of the survey, the training included sessions on the study approach and characteristics of the education organizational models, in addition to detailed training on the use of the survey instruments. Prior to the fieldwork, it was necessary to obtain credentials (introductory letters of presentation) as well as general support from the Vice Ministry of Regional Development (the Ministry of the Presidency), the Ministry of Economics and Finance, and the Ministry of Education. The use of this survey must be acknowledged using a citation which would include: - the identification of the Primary Investigator (including country name) - the full title of the survey and its acronym (when available), and the year(s) of implementation - the survey reference number - the source and date of download (for datasets disseminated online). Public use file The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.