Design of Questionnaires. XXXX and PDN/OSD developed household questionnaires, and conducted key informant interviews, while XXXXXX used FGDs and key informant interviews. The FGDs were a mix of service users and service providers, because they also served to inform citizens and raise their awareness about budget and expenditures. It may have been more appropriate to have separate groups for service users and providers, as there may be issues that people and officials do not want to reveal in front of each other. In the case of PETS, to get truthful answers it is best to use data triangulation, where diverse actors are interviewed on the same question. The triangulation was not prepared in a structured way. The resource flow map developed in phase 1 should guide the design of questions and the identification of informants who can answer the same questions so that information can be verified (see the example in table 6). The PETS facilitators tried to ask the users about the service they obtained and their level of satisfaction, to reconcile data from WoFED and sector offices as well as service providers in the facilities. In all cases the community awareness and participation on budget flow proved to be very poor, so the information from the general community was focussed on their participation, resource contribution and quality of services. To get access to expenditure information, purposeful selection of key informants and verification of accounts and stock records, are more relevant methods than household questionnaires. The questionnaires designed by the SAIPs with support from an external consultant upon request were fairly broad and general, which initially made it difficult to come to relevant findings. The PETS manual has very simple and specific sample questions focused on a very specific fund flow, e.g. the construction of teacher houses (see box 3). XXXXXX’s experience shows that this level of survey is more appropriate for PETS in future: the drugs budget, the school grant, a water project, and rural roads work that were funded from the community contribution are good examples of instances in which PETS can be manageable for citizens, and can lead to practical improvements. Box 4: PETS for construction of teachers houses Let’s say, you want to know whether or not the money allocated for construction of teacher houses in a Woreda was properly managed, the sample questions would be: • What were sources of funds? • What was the amount of funds allocated for construction of...
