primary school budgets in cambodia: a public...
TRANSCRIPT
Page | 1
Primary School Budgets in Cambodia: a Public Expenditure Tracking Survey Authors: Romina de Jong, Leng Theavy, Gordon Conochie
September 2013
© NGO Education Partnership (NEP)
# 41, Street 464, Toul Tumpoung II, Chamkar Morn, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Website: www.nepcambodia.org Email: [email protected]
Page | 2
Table of contents
1. LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................... 3
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 4
3. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ...................................................................................................... 9
3.1. EDUCATION FINANCE AND THE PROGRAM BASED BUDGET ....................................................................... 9
3.1.1. Program‐based Budget (PB) .................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2. World Bank Public Expenditure Tracking Survey .................................................................. 10
3.1.3. Situation in 2012 ................................................................................................................. 11
3.2. CURRENT STUDY ........................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1. Research need and objectives .............................................................................................. 11
3.2.2. Research questions .............................................................................................................. 12
3.2.3. Method ............................................................................................................................... 12
4. KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................ 15
4.1. TIMELINESS OF PB REQUESTS .......................................................................................................... 15
4.2. TIMELINESS OF PB BUDGET INSTALMENTS .......................................................................................... 17
4.3. PB BUDGET PAYMENTS .................................................................................................................. 20
4.4. EXPLANATIONS FOR DELAYS AND SHORTAGES ...................................................................................... 24
4.5. MONITORING AND INSPECTION ....................................................................................................... 24
4.5.1. Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 25
4.5.2. Inspection ............................................................................................................................ 27
4.6. TRANSPARENCY OF PB DISTRIBUTION AND SPENDING ........................................................................... 30
4.7. SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING & DECISION MAKING PB BUDGET .............................. 31
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 35
5.1. TIMELINESS OF BUDGET REQUESTS ................................................................................................... 35
5.2. PB BUDGET INSTALMENTS – TIMING AND AMOUNTS ............................................................................ 36
5.3. BUDGET MONITORING AND INSPECTION ............................................................................................ 38
5.4. TRANSPARENCY AND SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ..................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX 1 ‐ PB BUDGET LINES .......................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX 2 – PRAKAS 508 ON EXPENDITURE FOR IMPLEMENTING PROGRAM‐BASED BUDGET
(SUMMARY) ............................................................................................................................................... 41
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 43
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 44
Page | 3
1. List of tables, figures and acronyms
List of Tables
TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF PROVINCES AND DISTRICTS IN THE SAMPLE ............................................................................... 12
TABLE 2. DESCRIPTIONS OF RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................................... 14
TABLE 3. PROPORTION OF ANNUAL PB BUDGET DISBURSED TO THE PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT BY THE END OF 2012. ................... 19
TABLE 4. PB BUDGET 2012: REQUESTED, RECEIVED AND DIFFERENCE IN US DOLLARS (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT) .......................... 21
TABLE 5. AMOUNTS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED BY SCHOOLS, BY PROVINCE (US DOLLARS) ..................................................... 22
TABLE 6. LEVEL AND CAUSE OF DELAYS IN PB INSTALMENTS (REASONS GIVEN BY SCHOOL MANAGEMENT) .................................. 24
List of figures
FIGURE 1. PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOLS THAT SUBMITTED PB REQUEST TO DOE IN TIME (DOE) .................................................. 16
FIGURE 2. NUMBER OF PAYMENTS PER MONTH AS % OF TOTAL NUMBER OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED IN 2012 (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT)
................................................................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 3. TIMELINESS OF PB BUDGET PER INSTALMENT (TEACHERS) ................................................................................. 19
FIGURE 4. AVERAGE PB BUDGET IN US DOLLARS FOR 2012 (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT) .......................................................... 20
FIGURE 5. RECEIVED AMOUNT PER MONTH AS % OF TOTAL RECEIVED AMOUNT IN 2012 (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT) ...................... 23
FIGURE 6. TOTAL PAYMENTS RECEIVED AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL EXPECTED BUDGET FOR RURAL AND URBAN SCHOOLS (SCHOOL
MANAGEMENT)............................................................................................................................................. 23
FIGURE 7. MEMBERS OF THE PB COMMITTEE (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND TEACHERS) ......................................................... 26
FIGURE 8. USE OF PB COMMITTEE IN SPENDING PB BUDGET (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND TEACHERS) ..................................... 26
FIGURE 9. NUMBER OF EXPENDITURE REPORTS TO THE DOE ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS ..................................... 27
FIGURE 10. FINANCIAL INSPECTIONS BY DOE PB COMMITTEE IN 2012 (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND TEACHERS) ........................ 28
FIGURE 11. INTERVIEWS DURING PB INSPECTIONS (POE AND DOE) .................................................................................. 28
FIGURE 12. INTERVIEWS DURING PB INSPECTIONS (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT) ....................................................................... 29
FIGURE 13. DOCUMENTS CHECKED DURING INSPECTION (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT) ............................................................... 29
FIGURE 14. WAYS IN WHICH PB REQUEST IS SHARED WITH TEACHERS (SCHOOL MANAGEMENT) .............................................. 30
FIGURE 15. WAYS IN WHICH THE PB BUDGET IS SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC (TEACHERS) ......................................................... 31
FIGURE 17. PERSONS INVOLVED IN PLANNING OF THE PB BUDGET (TEACHERS) .................................................................... 32
FIGURE 18. KIND OF INVOLVEMENT IN CREATING THE PB BUDGET (SSC) ............................................................................ 33
FIGURE 16. RECEIVED VERSUS ALLOCATED AMOUNT (SSC) ............................................................................................. 34
Acronyms and terminology
Acronym Long Form
EC European Committee
MoEYS Ministry of Education Youth and Sport
PT Provincial Treasury
PoE Provincial Office of Education
DoE District Office of Education
PAP Priority Action Program
PB Program‐based Budget or Budgeting
PETS Public Education Tracking Survey
SSC School Support Committee
EMIS Education Management Information System
Page | 4
2. Executive summary
The Program‐based Budget (PB) is the source of government funding for all school operational
costs. A survey conducted by the World Bank in 2005 revealed that although schools received most
of the funding to which they are entitled, disbursements were late and unpredictable.
The overall objective of our survey was to analyze the process by which schools requested the
PB and the process by which schools received the PB budget, in terms of timeliness and
completeness of PB payments. Apart from the budget flow, another objective was to shed light on
the prevalence and quality of control and monitoring; transparency and accountability mechanisms;
and the level of involvement of teachers, SSC and community.
Interviews were conducted with three representatives of Provincial Offices of Education (PoEs),
nine representatives of District Offices of Education (DoE), 50 school directors, 93 teachers, and
members from 44 School Support Committees. These interviews were conducted in five provinces
and nine districts. The five provinces were: Battambang, Kampong Cham, Kampot, Kratie,
Ratanakkiri. Each of those people participated in a semi‐structured interview, based on a
questionnaire with mostly close ended questions. The interviews were conducted in January 2013,
with questions directed at PB issues in the calendar year 2012.
Most schools submit PB requests accurately and on time
According to 31 out of 40 school managers and five out of nine DoE representatives, school PB
requests always reached DoEs in time (15th of October). The three PoE representatives stated that all
DoEs in their provinces (not just our sample) submitted the aggregated DoE requests on time (15th of
November). Also, the quality of the request seemed to be acceptable as no amendments were made
according to 43 out of 50 (86%) school managers and five out of nine DoE representatives.
Whenever amendments were needed, it was related to student statistics used to calculate the
requested PB amount. According to DoE representatives, such amendments were needed in less
than 25% of all PB requests.
These PB requests are not used by MoEYS to calculate the national PB budget however, as
planning for that starts in May and is agreed by the Council of Ministers in October. Thus, whilst
what schools should receive is based on a clear formula, what MoEYS receive as a budget for school
PB activities, is not based on the total requested by all schools according to the formula. This could
mean that MoEYS receive a budget lower than the total amount of PB requested by schools, causing
some schools to not receive less than expected, which is what occurred in 2012 (details below).
However, if this does happen, schools are not advised, so the amount approved in their request is
the amount that they expect.
PB payments are disbursed irregularly
School should receive four payments a year in January, April, July and October however PB
payments to schools in 2012 were irregular and unpredictable. March and December were the
months during which the largest proportion of payments were made, with few payments between
April to June and between September to November,This is unfortunate since the school year begins
on 1st October.
Page | 5
Graph: Number of payments per month as % of total number of payments received in 2012
There were no payments in January despite schools advising this is when the first payment
should be made. 25% of schools received their first instalment in February, 55% received their first
instalment in March, 7% received their first instalment in April, 13% received their first instalment in
June or later. The greatest delay was found in Rattanakiri. PoEs are disbursing money at different
times from each other. Also, it was observed that when DoEs are distributing money to schools, not
all schools in that district will receive a payment.
Schools received 65% of what they requested
Schools in our research received an average of three payments, rather than four, and on
average they only received 64.7% of their total requested budget. The averages for urban and rural
schools are shown below. The graph shows the growth of money received through the year. A steep
rise in the line indicates that larger amounts were received by schools in that month, such as in
March and in December.
Graph: Total payments received as a % of total expected budget for rural and urban schools
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
31.4%
62.4%
29.1%
69.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Rural (n=34)
Urban (n=10)
Page | 6
According to MoEYS, 83.52% of the annual amount for the program‐based budget was spent by
Provincial Offices of Education1. These amounts received by PoEs include program‐based budgets for
their own activities as well as for distributing to schools. The five provinces in our sample spent
79.82% of their expected annual budget, higher than what schools received as a percentage of their
expected annual budget (64.7%). This indicates that the activities of PoEs are being prioritised ahead
of activities of schools.
It appears that the late disbursement of the PB is causing problems. As at 30th November,
schools in our sample had received 51.7% of their expected annual PB amount and POEs in our
sample had received 52.4%. Therefore the difference emerges during December when there are
large amounts of PB disbursed to POEs. It could be that POEs feel that they do not have time to
distribute PB money to DOEs and then to schools before the financial year ends on 31st December.
Indeed, schools are meant to return any unspent funds before 25th December but some schools
actually received payments on 27th December.
Payments were delayed and lower than expected due to cash shortages
School managers thought that the reason for delays were because other schools were not
completing forms properly. However, our survey suggests that schools are submitting information
correctly and on time and most DOE representatives advised that provincial treasuries disbursed
money as soon as it arrived and that it was a lack of funds in provincial treasuries that caused delays
and shortages. POE representatives also advised this and the large disbursement in December,
which is also the month which has greatest tax income, would support cash shortages as being the
cause of delays and shortages.
DOEs need a system to distribute to schools equitably
34% of schools received less than 50% of what was expected whereas 16% of schools received
over 80% of what was expected, and four schools received their full allocated budget (100%). This, in
addition to some schools not receiving a payment when others in the district do, indicates that DoEs
do not have an equitable system for distributing cash. For instance, one rural school in Sambo
district (Kratie) received 24% of their expected annual budget while another rural school in the same
district reported they received 100% of the allocated budget.
When funding is distributed to DOEs, it is already divided amongst separate accounts and sub‐
accounts. For example, the DOE will receive a specific amount for electricity and that money is then
distributed to schools to be spent on electricity. The division of funding among the different
accounts appears to cause difficulties for DOEs and schools, as illustrated by this quote:
“DOEs help schools to manage the budget flexibly. For instance, all schools get the same for
electricity even if some schools do not use electricity. DOEs help to take money from schools that
don't need electricity to give to schools that do. This is done because the PB has no flexibility and has
set amounts for certain items, regardless of the needs of the school. The budget should arrive on time
and there should be less specific line items.”
For DOEs to know how to divide PB funds received amongst schools, the DOE would have to
keep a record of how much each school requested for each sub‐account. The DOE would then have
to calculate how much each school had requested as a percentage of the total requested for that
1 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2013). The Education, Youth and Sport Performance in the Academic Year 2011/12 and Goals for the Academic Year 2012/13. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
Page | 7
sub‐account. Then when the DOE received PB funds, each school would receive that percentage of
what the DOE had received.
Such processes are quite complex, especially without the use of computers or computing
software. Accounts and sub‐accounts are being used to prepare school budgets but these are not
being used systematically to decide how much each school will receive. Interviewees at all levels
advised that distributing PB according to sub‐accounts was creating problems for effective spending,
and can cause schools to mis‐report spending as their priorities differed from the funding that they
had received. Even if a school received funding exactly as it had requested, it is reasonable to expect
that needs may change throughout over a 12 month period. Interviewees at all levels advised to
increase the flexibility that schools have to manage the PB.
Schools want fewer payments and money transferred using the banking system
Interviewees at school, district and provincial level all advised that fewer payments would
reduce the burden of managing disbursements and reports. This could also help to increase the
regularity of payment disbursement. However, if there is a lack of cash available, as discussed above,
then it could be difficult for the Government to have sufficient funds to disburse all amounts in only
two disbursements. One solution could be to disburse payments to schools at different times of the
year. For instance, all schools in 12 provinces could receive two payments in March and September
and schools in the other 12 provinces could receive payments in May and November. School
managers and DOE representatives recommended disbursing payments using the banking system
which should promote a system that leads to all schools receiving money at the same time and for
equitable amounts. ACLEDA is the bank with the most numerous offices (238) in approximately 80%
of districts.
Monitoring and inspection
It was reported that over 80% of schools have a PB committee, comprised of school principal,
school accountant, teachers and SSC. Parents were least likely to be members of the PB committee.
The PB committee is always used in spending, according to 94% of school managers and 77% of
teachers. The majority of respondents agreed that expenditure reports are sent to DoE at least 1‐2
times, but mostly 3‐4 times a year, which is linked to the number of payments received. 60% of
teachers and school managers reported 1‐2 financial inspections, conducted by the DoE, in 2012 and
six out of nine DoE and two out of three PoE representatives indicated that they were able to
conduct PB budget inspections for at least 50% of all schools in their areas, at least once a year.
During these inspections, school directors were mostly likely to be interviewed, then school
accountants, followed by SSC members. 77% of teachers said they were not given the opportunity to
be interviewed during inspections. Recommendations after the inspections, if any, are given to
school directors verbally and directly after the inspection. Notably, 86% of teachers said that they
were not notified about recommendations following inspections.
Transparency, accountability and satisfaction
Sixty‐four percent of teachers, (64.5%), advised that the PB spending plan is shared with them
through a staff meeting and 26.9% advised that they received a copy of the budget. Fourteen
percent of teachers said it was not shared with them at all. Interestingly, only 25% of teachers
believed that they knew the PB amount that their school should have received, but when asked
exactly to give the amount, they were usually incorrect. . We also asked teachers if they knew how
Page | 8
much their school actually received in 2012 and 32% said they did, but again most were unable to
give the figure when asked. 49.5% said they were told but could not remember.
93% of teachers and 90% of SSC members reported to be satisfied with PB management.
However, 32% of teachers had in the past filed a complaint about PB management, with 70% of the
complaints concerning the use of the PB budget.
Even though teachers and SSC members reported to be satisfied with the PB management of
their schools, with quite some involvement on their own parts, there is reason to doubt the quality
of their involvement in and knowledge of PB matters. For instance, the vast majority of teachers
said that they were involved a lot in planning of the PB budget, and were satisfied with how the
school manages the PB transparently and efficiently. However, over 75% of teachers reported not to
be involved in PB inspections, 86% were not informed about recommendations after inspections,
and even though over 50% of teachers knew PB payments were received late, only 20% were told
reasons for this. Furthermore, in thirteen out of 42 SSC interviews (31%), all SSC members thought
the full amount of PB had been received by their school, and in another twelve interviews (28.6%)
more than 50% of SSC members thought the full PB budget had been received. This is in contrast to
the reality. This indicates that SSCs do not have key information without which it would be difficult
for them to hold school management to account for the use of PB money.
Recommendations
MoEYS should collect expected student numbers for the following school year in March
(when schools are already submitting mid‐year EMIS data) so that the numbers can be used
in the budget planning process. Once the MoEYS budget has been confirmed, each school
should be told officially how much their PB will be in the following financial year.
The PB should not be disbursed to schools already divided into sub‐accounts, giving schools
flexibility to spend according to their needs. Expenditure could still be reported using the
sub‐account codes. Alternatively, schools could have some flexibility to change what they
planned to spend by sub‐account.
A system should be created that POEs/DOEs can use to calculate how much each school
should receive when PB is being disbursed. All schools should have bank accounts and
payments made using the banking system.
Schools should receive their PB in either one amount in October or November, or in two
amounts. To mitigate cash shortages, all schools in 12 provinces could receive two payments
in March and September and schools in the other 12 provinces could receive payments in
May and November.
Standardize the process of school PB inspections and writing of recommendations. The
recommendations should be shared with all staff and SSC members.
DOEs request that all schools post the amount of PB approved, received and spent on the
school notice‐board. This would be updated every two months and SSC members would
receive their own copies. SSC meetings should include a discussion about the PB and related
spending.
Page | 9
3. Background to the study
3.1. EDUCATION FINANCE AND THE PROGRAM BASED BUDGET
The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports currently receives just over 15% of all Government
expenditure, which has fallen as a proportion of Government expenditure from 19.2% in 2007.
Although the share of the national budget has fallen, the total MoEYS budget has increased by an
average of 13% per annum on average in the same time period2. A reason that the MoEYS budget
may not have increased as much as others is that MoEYS has reported significant under‐spending,
which in 2012 was $25,705,4983. This could indicate a gap between planning and delivery or be
explained by funding allocated for MoEYS being used to fund expenditure by other Ministries; other
ministries have overspent their budget in the same years that MoEYS has underspent4.
The allocation for MoEYS is decided annually at the end of the year fiscal year, which runs from
January to December. For instance, the Budget Law for 2012 was published on 27th December 2011
and in 2012, the 2013 budget was adopted by the National Assembly on 7th December, by the Senate
on 14th December and published on 26th December5.
In response to weaknesses in Cambodia’s public expenditure management system, the Royal
Government of Cambodia implemented the Priority Action Program (PAP) in 2000, with the
intention to diminish or resolve problems of rigidities, delays, and uncertainties created by an over‐
centralized regular budget system. It was launched in 10 provinces in 2000 and expanded to cover all
provinces in 2001. The primary education Priority Action Program (PAP 2.1) provides for schools’
operational budgets and is by far the largest source of public funding of primary schools6. In 2007,
the Ministry of Economic and Finance changed the name “PAP” to “PB” or Program‐based
Budget. Despite the change of name, there are a lot of similarities in the guidelines concerning
spending and clearance of this budget.
3.1.1. Program‐based Budget (PB)
The PB budget is the source of government funding for all school operational costs, excluding
staff salaries. All staff in schools, including administrative staff, receive their salaries and other re‐
numeration directly from another budget. The amounts of their salaries and benefits are calculated
using a national pay structure that covers all civil servants; therefore, schools have no control over
the salaries received by their staff.
There are different types of expenditure that the PB can be used for and the budget is divided
according to these different parts. Eligible types of expenditure should be assigned to a specific sub‐
account code within the financial expenditure structure of the Royal Government of Cambodia. The
financial structure is separated into various chapters with chapters having accounts and sub‐
2 Presentation given by the European Union to the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports Joint Technical Working Group, 2nd February 2012. 3 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. (2013). The Education, Youth and Sport Performance in the Academic Year 2011/12 and Goals for the Academic Year 2012/13. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. 4 Presentation given by the European Union to the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports Joint Technical Working Group, 2nd February 2012. 5PDF copies of Budget Law documents from 2004 ‐ 2013 are available at: http://cambodianbudget.org/budget_law_series.php. Accessed on 25th April 2013. 6 World Bank (2005). Cambodia – Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) in Primary Education. Report No. 34911‐KH.
Page | 10
accounts (see Appendix 1 ‐ PB budget lines). For instance, Chapter 60 is for purchases with account
601 being for supplies and sub‐account 6011 is meant for materials for cleaning and hygiene. The
official guidelines highlight some of the sub‐accounts that they advise the PB could be used for. The
guidelines do not specify how many or when schools should receive instalments, although in
practical examples given in the guidelines the annual amount for a school is divided into four rounds
of payments with the first round being received by schools in January7. The guidelines also make it
clear that schools should receive the entire allocated budget before December as schools are
advised to return unspent amounts with a letter by 25th December to the DoE so that the DoE can
send it to the PoE.
In addition to government funding for personnel costs and through the PB budget, many schools
receive money from their local communities, Cambodian diaspora, NGOs or international
development agencies. Of the 11046 primary, lower secondary and high schools in Cambodia, 1152
reported receiving funds from the community, 141 from abroad and 247 from NGOs. 299 also
reported receiving school‐earned income, which could come from businesses/sellers paying the
school to be able to sell food or drink on the school grounds8.
3.1.2. World Bank Public Expenditure Tracking Survey
In 2004 the World Bank conducted a Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) to assess the
primary education Priority Action Program (PAP 2.1)9. A PETS is used to study the flow of public
funds from the centre to service providers and has successfully been applied in a number of
countries where public accounting systems function poorly or provide unreliable information. The
World Bank PETS survey consisted of two hundred primary schools in seven provinces in Cambodia.
The main results were:
1. Schools receive most of the funding to which they are entitled.
a. Disbursements are however delayed and unpredictable.
2. With regard to control and monitoring
a. DoEs, and a greater number of schools, fail to comply with record‐keeping
requirements. Documentation of preparation of spending reports and records of
expenditures was practically non‐existent.
b. School inspections do not follow standard procedures and do not result in any official
report being issued. Since inspections are carried out by MoEYS officials, external
oversight is not a regular feature of the system.
3. With regard to social accountability mechanisms
a. School Support Committees (SSCs) seemed not to have an adequate oversight of school
management and spending
b. Teachers, SSC members, and parents have limited knowledge about PAP
c. Failure of the accountability relationship between school management and parents;
effective parental representation in SSCs seems limited
7 Department of Finance (2011). Guidelines on Program Based Budget Management for Implementing in MoEYS. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. 8 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Department of planning (2012). Education Statistics and Indicators, 2011‐2012. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. 9 World Bank (2005). Cambodia – Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) in Primary Education. Report No. 34911‐KH.
Page | 11
3.1.3. Situation in 201210
Although there are a lot of similarities in the guidelines concerning spending and clearance of
the PB budget, an important difference between the former “PAP” and the current “PB” is that the
clearance documents are no longer required to be submitted to the Ministry of Economic and
Finance, but to the Provincial Treasury and POE instead.
Each school receives a PB budget from the government for the school operation based on the
number of students in their school. During the vacation before the new school year starts, the school
director, teachers, SSC and parents are supposed to meet to discuss the planning for the new school
year. The detailed plan is related to deciding how to spend the PB budget. After finalizing the plan,
the school director should submit it to the District Office of Education (DoE) to check and verify the
plans. The DOE then submits it to the Provincial Office of Education (PoE), who in turn submits the
information to the central level in Ministry of Education Youth and Sport (MoEYS). This all takes
place between October and December.
The guidelines provide some flexibility by setting a flexible budget scale for each primary
student of 7000 Riel to 8000 Riel. This allows a greater budget per student if the approved budget is
relatively large, or it can be less if the approved budget is relatively low. Additionally, each school,
regardless of their size also receives the same fixed amount between 500,000 and 700,000 Riel
($175) per annum11. In 2012, amounts of 8000 Riel per student and 700,000 Riel per school were
used.
3.2. CURRENT STUDY
3.2.1. Research need and objectives
The overall objective of the current PETS is to analyze the process of schools requesting the PB
budget and the process for schools to receive the PB budget. Apart from the budget flow, another
objective is to shed light on the state of affairs concerning management of the program‐based
budget at school level, the prevalence and quality of control and monitoring, and transparency and
accountability mechanisms.
Previous research by the NGO Forum in 200912 indicated that there is a lack of clarity and
problems regarding allocation and timely disbursement of program‐based budgets. Also, as was
found by the WB PETS in 200513, social accountability mechanisms, especially involvement and
knowledge of SSC and parents with PB budget, were inadequate.
MoEYS reported to the Education Congress 201314 that in the academic year 2011/12 only 15
PoEs, 42 DoEs and 172 educational institutions had an administrative and financial inspection, which
includes inspection against regulations and financial rules, revenue‐expenditure transactions, all
10 The Government released Prakas 508 on 20th May 2013, which prescribes different amounts for primary schools. This is included in Appendix A new government policy on amounts has been announced, Prakas 508. 11 Department of Finance (2011). Guidelines on Program Based Budget Management for Implementing in MoEYS. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. 12 NGO forum (2012). Mapping of budget information in Education. Phnom Penh: NGO Forum. Report published April 2009. 13 World Bank (2005). Cambodia – Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) in Primary Education. Report No. 34911‐KH. 14 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2013). The Education, Youth and Sport Performance in the Academic Year 2011/12 and Goals for the Academic Year 2012/13. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
Page | 12
chapters of the state budget, personnel management and use of state properties. Assuming that all
172 education institutions were either primary, lower secondary or upper secondary schools, this
would equal 0.02% of all schools. MoEYS also reported that 474 education institutions received an
auditing visit which would include recommendations being made. Assuming that these education
institutions were all schools and different from the 172 that were inspected, this would mean an
additional 0.05% of schools received an auditing visit.15 All of the inspections mentioned above are
carried by out by national level staff in MoEYS and do not include visits to schools by DOEs. In this
survey, respondents were asked about PB inspections as carried out by DoE PB staff.
3.2.2. Research questions
1. Are there delays in preparing the PB requests?
2. Are there delays in disbursement of PB budget to schools?
3. Does the received budget match the requested budget?
4. How is the budget monitoring and inspection of the budget spending organised?
5. How transparent is the budget spending?
6. How are teachers, SSC/community involved in planning and decision making of PB?
3.2.3. Method
The research method used was a mix of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Document
reviews and semi‐structured interviews were conducted to collect the data necessary to answer the
research questions. In this report, NEP has used a currency exchange value of US$1 = 4000 Riels.
SAMPLE
Five provinces were selected and those selected were based on two considerations:
1. To ensure a geographical spread that included diversity among the provinces to ensure rural
and urban sampling
2. The presence of partner NGOs in those areas who would assist us to arrange interviews
Location could be influential because rural schools are generally smaller and therefore receive a
lower amount of PB budget, which is based on the number of pupils in the school. Also, because
money is usually transferred to schools by cash, distance from the provincial office of education
could also affect the flow of PB to schools.
The five provinces selected were: Battambang, Kampong Cham, Kampot, Kratie and Rattanakiri.
Battambang is a province in the north west of Cambodia, relatively affluent and it has a provincial
capital, Battambang, one of Cambodia’s largest towns. Kampong Cham is a large province in central
Cambodia that also has one of Cambodia’s largest towns, Kampong Cham, whereas Kampot is a
relatively small province with a rural population in the south coast. Kratie is a province in the north
east of Cambodia, as is Rattanakiri which is one of the most rural and poorest provinces in
Cambodia.
Districts were chosen to ensure that there was a mix of rural and urban districts that reflected
the reality that Cambodia is predominantly rural. Particular districts, such as Kampong Trach in
Kampot or O’Chum in Rattanakiri, were chosen because they had schools that were mostly rural.
Table 1. Distribution of provinces and districts in the sample
15 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2013). The Education, Youth and Sport Performance in the Academic Year 2011/12 and Goals for the Academic Year 2012/13. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports., pp. 99‐101
Page | 13
Province District Characteristic Number of schools
Percentage of schools
Battambang Battambang city Urban 3 6%
Sangkert Rural 7 14%
Kampong Cham
Batheay Urban 3 6%
Rural 7 14%
Kampot Kampot city Urban 5 10%
KampongTrach Rural 5 10%
Kratie Sambo Rural 5 10%
Snoul Rural 5 10%
Rattanakiri Banlung Urban 1 2%
O’Chum Rural 9 18%
Total 50 100%
The specific schools within those districts were selected based on the ability of our partner
NGOs to arrange interviews. This meant that 72% of schools are currently receiving support from
NGOs and a further 18% of schools had received support within the last three years. It could be
expected that schools that have been working with NGOs or have received NGO support recently
that they would be more likely to prepare and use budgets transparently involving SSCs and
teachers. We did ensure a rural/urban split when identifying schools with NGOs. Thus, thirteen
schools (26%) were urban and 37 schools (74%) were rurally located.
At each school, we interviewed the school director and requested that the school accountant, if
there was one, join the interview as well. The reason for this was that these two people would be
able to provide the most detailed information about PB budget receipts and engagement with DoEs
or PoEs regarding the PB budget.
We decided to interview teachers since they could provide additional information, for instance
regarding the challenges they may face if there is a problem with the flow of budgets to schools.
Furthermore, teachers could give us a perspective about the planning and spending of the PB budget
within the school, and their own involvement in PB budget planning and spending. We were not able
to select teachers randomly or based on particular characteristics; school management chose the
teachers that we were able to interview.
Four to seven members of the SSC were intended to be interviewed; however in practice many
schools did not have that many active members. Furthermore, not all SSC members were able to
attend the interview at the day we were there. On average, there were three people present at the
SSC interviews (minimum of one, maximum of nine people). We wanted to interview SSC members
because they have a responsibility for assisting school governance and could offer a perspective on
their and general participation in PB budget planning and spending.
We decided to interview people in DoEs and PoEs to give us a more general overview of the flow
of the PB budget and the performance of schools in terms of planning and reporting use of PB
budgets.
All in all, the sample consisted of five subgroups (PoE, DoE, school management, teachers and
SSC). Within each of these subgroups we conducted the following amount of interviews: three PoE
interviews, nine DoE interviews, 50 school management interviews, 93 teacher interviews, and 44
SSC interviews. Since for most of the interview groups (except teachers) more than one person was
Page | 14
present at the interview, in Table 2 we describe the distribution of males, females and position
(three categories: Head/chair; Vice‐head and other) within the interview groups.
Table 2. Descriptions of respondents
Interview group
Gender Position
male female Head/chair Vice‐head Other
PoE 6 ‐ 1 ‐
1 head of planning; 1 vice head of planning & accounting; 1 head of Finance; 1 head of primary office; 1 accountant
DoE 21 5 5 11 3 administrators, 5 accountants and 2 cashiers
School management
65 29 50 0 44 accountants
Teachers 38 55 N/A N/A
SSC 38 6 37 2 4 members and 1 treasury
Total 168 95 93 13 157
QUESTIONNAIRES Three sources of information were used in designing the questionnaires:
1. A desk review of the existing related documents, for instance, the guideline for PB usage
issued by MoEYS16, the World Bank PETS research17 and some PETS documents18 provided by
the Institute for Innovation, Participatory Development and Governance, and Bandung
Institute of Governance Studies.
2. Input was collected from various key stakeholders and relevant related persons, including
representatives from EC, UNICEF, MoEYS, staff of the Primary Department and Results for
Development.
3. Feedback and comments on the questionnaires by the district education officers, members
of SSC, school management and the local authority members were used.
The questionnaires were designed to investigate the flow of the PB budget to schools and the
process of spending the budgets. The questionnaires were tested with people currently involved in
managing or spending PB budgets, as noted above. The questionnaires were amended slightly during
training with data collectors to ensure that the questions were clear.
SELECTION & TRAINING OF DATA COLLECTORS
Data collectors were selected based on three characteristics: knowledge of education, experience in
data collection and proficiency in English as data would have to be entered in English.
16Department of Finance (2011). Guidelines on Program Based Budget Management for Implementing in MoEYS. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. 17 World Bank (2005). Cambodia – Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) in Primary Education. Report No. 34911‐KH. 18 Institute of Social and Policy Sciences (2010), ‘Public Expenditure Analysis and Service Delivery Assessment of Primary and Elementary Schools’. Pakistan; Alvarado & Moron (2008), ‘The Routes of Expenditures and Decision Making in the Health Sector in Peru’. Lima: Universidad del Pacifico.
Page | 15
It was a great honour that a former pedagogical school inspector and three head or deputy
heads of district education offices facilitated interviews and conducted interviews. They did not
conduct interviews in the districts that they originated from. Two NGOs also provided data collectors
who have extensive education knowledge. Other data collectors were graduates from the Royal
University of Phnom Penh with experience in data collection and high levels of English proficiency.
All data collectors were provided with one full day’s training on all of the questionnaires and a
further day for those who would be entering data.
DATA ENTRY
Paper questionnaires were completed in Khmer and then entered in English into an electronic
program with a replica version of the questionnaire (Survey Monkey). Most of the data entry was
done during data collection in the field to enable the person entering the data to consult with the
interviewers shortly after the interview occurred. After data collection and data entry had been
completed, the paper and electronic copies were then cross‐checked to ensure accuracy. Native
English speakers were involved in this to ensure that the English was accurate for data analysis.
DATA ANALYIS
A strong point of this survey is that several groups of stakeholders (e.g., government
representatives, school directors, teachers and SSC) were interviewed to obtain a detailed view of PB
matters in reality. However, sample sizes of each of these groups ranged between twelve and 93.
Opinions of different groups of stakeholders can therefore not easily be compared, and the
representativeness of these groups for the total population cannot be assumed. The authors wish to
caution the reader not to generalize findings without care.
For the analysis of timeliness and amounts of PB disbursements, we drew upon data derived
from 44 school managers. Of these 44, only ten were based in urban areas. This made it difficult to
compare rural and urban schools and we were therefore not able to formulate robust conclusions or
recommendations with regard to PB matters in urban versus rural schools.
4. Key findings
4.1. TIMELINESS OF PB REQUESTS
Since 2010, the process of clearance of PB documents has been changed so it is simpler for
school directors to work with. Before 2010, the PB clearance documents had to be sent to the
national treasury bank for clearance, but recently the documents only need to be sent and reviewed
by the provincial treasury bank.
Seven of the nine DOE representatives gave answers that varied between mid September and
mid October when advising when schools were expected to submit details for their PB request.
Another said 10th November and the ninth said at the end of December. It is likely that the correct
time is mid October at the latest as the POE representatives advised that DOEs should submit all PB
documents to them during November.
DoE representatives and school managers appeared to be positive about the timeliness of PB
requests: asked about lateness of the PB request, 31 out of 40 school managers (77.5%) replied that
the request was never sent late. DoE representatives were asked for their opinion on all schools in
their district, not just those in our sample, regarding whether PB requests were submitted late or
Page | 16
not (see Figure 1). According to five out of nine DoE representatives, all schools were always on time
with submitting their PB request to the DoE. Those DOEs who advised that some schools explained
that this was either due to the school being far, approximately 40km‐ 50km, from the DOE or
because there is a new school director who is lacks experience in preparing a school development
plan and PB request.
Figure 1. Percentage of schools that submitted PB request to DoE in time (DoE)
n=9
All three POE representatives advised that five DOEs in our sample and in their province (Krong
Banlung, Snoul, Kampong Trach, Sambo, Krong Kampot) all provided the requests from schools
before the 15th November.
We also asked DoE representatives that if schools were late submitting their PB requests, how
late were they. According to one of the three representatives who advised some PB requests arrived
late, they arrived within one week that it was due to arrive, another representative said they arrived
one to two weeks late, and the third said they arrived more than four weeks late.
Five out of nine DoE representatives indicated that it was necessary to make revisions to PB
requests, but only in 1‐25% of all submitted requests for that district or province i.e. including those
schools not in this sample. Except for one representative, the reason to amend the PB request was
that the student numbers were inconsistent with EMIS (Education Management Information
System). The one other reason given was because “some schools asked for money [...] which the PB
is not meant to be used for.” However, the examples the DoE representative gave (improve school
environment, repairing school buildings and infrastructure) only infrastructure is not on the PB
budget item list, but improving school environment and maintenance of buildings are provided for in
subaccount 6152 and 6151 (see Appendix 1 ‐ PB budget lines and paragraph 3.1.1 for types of
expenditure that the PB can be used for).
Regarding amendments to PB requests, school managers hold the same view as DoE
representatives: only 14% (7 out of 50) indicated that amendments were made to their original PB
requests. The most mentioned reasons for changes in the request were changes in the amount
and/or student statistics. The responses from POEs verify all of these responses as all three POE
representatives advised that they only had to make amendments to requests from between 1% and
25% of all schools in their province, and that this was always due to student numbers not matching
EMIS statistics that the POE holds.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
26%‐50% of schools
51‐75% of schools
76%‐99% of schools
All schools
Page | 17
4.2. TIMELINESS OF PB BUDGET INSTALMENTS
Based on this survey, school management advised that first instalments should be received in
January, second instalments around April, third instalments around July, and fourth instalments
around October. POE responses matched those of school directors apart from Ratanakiri POE which
advised that schools should receive two instalments (January and September). A total of 44 school
managers from ten urban (23%) and 34 rural schools (77%) provided us with specific dates of PB
budget instalments in 2012. For this sample a total of 122 dates of payments were reported, with on
average three payments per school per year, and a minimum of 1 payment and a maximum of 5
payments. There was little difference between the averages of urban and rural schools ‐ 2.9 and 2.7
payments respectively.
There were no payments in January and only 25% (11 out of 44) of school managers reported to
have received their first payment in February. Schools expect to receive their second instalment in
April, but by the 1st of April, 9 of 44 of schools (20%) had still not received their first payment. 7 of
these schools were in Ratanakiri, whilst two were in Battambang. The two schools in Battambang
both received their first payment in April, whereas only one school did in Ratanakiri with other
schools waiting until June.
All DOEs involved in this study advised that they had received the first payment to be given to
schools between 20th February and 14th March so it could be expected that all schools should have
received money before 1st April. However, four DOEs advised that they received a second payment
on 27th March because the first amount received was not the full first instalment, which could
explain why some schools did not receive money until April. However, this does not explain the
situation in Ratanakiri where many schools waited until June.
We found greater variance in terms of when payments were disbursed between provinces
rather than between districts. In Kampong Cham (all schools from Batheay district) all schools
received their first payment in March, all but one received a second payment in July and then all
received a payment in December. Schools in Kratie (two districts) all received a payment in late
February or March, all bar one in August and then all in December. For the schools in Kampong
Cham and Kratie who did not receive a second payment when others did, they had to wait until the
next round of disbursements in December for what became their second payment. Schools in
Kampot all received a payment in March, all bar two received the second payment in May (one in
June, one in July), then all received a payment in December.
There was greater variation in the months of disbursement to schools in Ratanakiri and
Battambang, and sometimes even within the same district. For instance, in Sangkert district
(Battambang), all schools received the first payment in late February or March, but the second
payment was made to schools over a period of three months ‐ July, August and September.
These results show that some POEs are disbursing money at different times from each other,
which may be an indication that money is becoming available to them at different times. It also
apparent that in some cases when DOEs are distributing money to schools, not all schools in that
district will receive a payment. This raises the question of how DOEs are deciding which schools
should and which should not receive a payment.
It is important to note that the individual payments received by schools do not usually equal
expected instalments if each instalment should equal one quarter of the annual budget. The
payments actually received are usually less. Indeed, a few schools in our sample received five
Page | 18
payments, although the total amount was still less than the expected annual budget. This can make
it difficult to analyse the situation in terms of comparing payments to expected instalments as
payments were often made at times different to when instalments were expected and were for
different (i.e. lower) amounts. For instance, the first payment was usually lower than 25% of the
annual expected amount so schools were not sure if the second payment they received included the
remainder of the first instalment that they did not receive or not.
The irregular nature of payments makes it easier to analyse the flow in terms of months when
payments were received. In Figure 2 we see disbursements of PB per month, as a percentage of the
total number of disbursements, specified for schools in rural and urban areas. Clearly, the payments
are irregular and unpredictable, with March and December being the months that have most
payments disbursed; 23.8% and 22.1% of all payments respectively. Nobody reported any payments
in January and from April‐June, September and November very few payments were disbursed. There
does not appear to be any consistent geographical trend to when payments are received by schools.
For instance, urban schools were more likely to receive their first payment earlier than rural schools,
but a greater percentage of the annual total payments to rural schools were made before July than
was the case for urban schools.
Figure 2. Number of payments per month as % of total number of payments received in 2012 (school management)
Rural n= 34; Urban n=10
As we can see in Figure 3, teachers are generally aware of delays in their school receiving PB
payments when we asked them about each of the four instalments. This is a positive indication that
school directors are sharing information with teachers. Interestingly, most teachers did not know
whether the fourth instalment was received on time, late or never, which is different to responses
for other instalments. This could reflect potential confusion caused by some schools receiving a
fourth payment between October and December but the total received for the year still did not total
even 75% of the expected annual amount.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Rural Urban All
Page | 19
Figure 3. Timeliness of PB budget per instalment (teachers)
According to MoEYS report to Congress 2013, in 2012 83.52% of the annual amount for the
program‐based budget was spent by Provincial Offices of Education19. These amounts received by
PoEs include program‐based budgets for their own use as well as for distributing to schools. As at
30th November, only 55% of the annual budgeted amount had been disbursed to PoEs meaning that
a large amount was transferred to PoEs in December (see Table 3). This indicates that PoEs
themselves are receiving payments later and less than planned from the national level.
Consequently, schools have very little time to spend a large proportion of PB and prepare clearance
documents as all documents and any unspent funds are meant to be returned by 25th December20,
although some schools actually received payments after this date.
Table 3. Proportion of annual PB budget disbursed to the provincial department by the end of 2012.
Provincial Office of
Education Proportion of annual budget
(30/11/12)
Proportion of annual budget
(31/12/12)
Battambang 45.66% 65.72%
Kampong Cham 44.14% 73.72%
Kampot 56.02% 80.87%
Kratie 50% 90.12%
Ratanakiri 66.04% 88.65%
Average for 5 provinces in
the study 52.37% 79.82%
Average for all 24
provinces 55.09% 83.52%
19 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2013). The Education, Youth and Sport Performance in the Academic Year 2011/12 and Goals for the Academic Year 2012/13. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports 20 MoEYS (2012). Guidelines On Formation and Functionality of School Support Committee in Primary
Schools.Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
64.5%
56.2%58.0%
26.7%
18.4%20.6% 24.6%
56.7%
17.1%23.3%
17.4% 13.3%
3.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1st (n=76) 2nd (n=73) 3rd (n=69) 4th (n=30)
Late
Don't know
On time
Never
Page | 20
4.3. PB BUDGET PAYMENTS
In Figure 4 we can see the average requested and received PB budget in US dollars, and the
difference between these amounts, specified for rural and urban schools. It shows that the average
PB requests for urban schools in 2012 were higher than for rural schools, and that urban schools, as
would be expected, also received higher PB amounts in 2012.
The average requested PB budget for 2012 was $972.98 per school, ranging from $340.00 to
$2,717.75 (see Table 4 for all data, including minimum and maximum). The large range has to do
with the fact that the PB budget depends on the number of students: smaller, rural schools request
far less than urban schools that could have over 1,000 students (the maximum PB request was
submitted by an urban school with 1,441 students). The average received total amount was $629.04
with a range from $97.00 to $2,175.73. Based on Figure 4, it seems that the difference in cash terms
between requested and received amounts was slightly higher for urban than for rural schools.
Figure 4. Average PB budget in US Dollars for 2012 (school management)
Rural n=34;Urban n=10
Table 4, which is again based on interviews with school managers, shows not just averages, but
also median, minimum and maximum amounts. The mean and median of the requested amount are
close to one another (mean = $972.98 and median = $977.00), which signifies that there is a normal
distribution of requested amounts: even though there are some outliers, the general tendency is
that 50% of school PB requests are centred close to the mean of $972.98. However, this is not the
case with the received amounts: the median ($500.23) is $128.81 less than the mean ($629.04). In
other words: the distribution of received PB budget is positively skewed, indicating that compared to
the mean received amount there are more schools with lower received PB amount than schools with
higher received PB amounts.
With regard to the difference between the requested and the received amount, the data
derived from school management interviews is conclusive: it was reported that only four out of 44
schools received what had been requested. In all other cases schools received less than they
requested. The average difference between requested amount and received amount was $343.94.
The average difference is larger for urban than for rural schools ($400.09 versus $327.43), but this
‐
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1,000.00
1,200.00
1,400.00
Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total
Requested Received Difference
Page | 21
also has to do with the larger range for urban schools. The largest difference was as much as
$1,158.25 for the urban school that also had the largest PB request of $2,717.75.
Table 4. PB budget 2012: requested, received and difference in US dollars (school management)
USD Requested Received Difference
Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total
Total 29,572.39 13,238.90 42,811.29 18,439.92 9,237.98 27,677.89 11,132.47 4,000.93 14,582.55
Average 869.78
1,323.89 972.98 542.35 923.80 629.04 327.43 400.09 347.20
Median 880.00 1,249.00 977.00 467.63 810.06 500.23 327.63 377.10 337.29
Min 340.00 355.00 97.00 360.50 (4.30) (5.50)
Max 1,655.00 2,717.75 1,220.48 2,175.73 705.95 1,158.25
n=44
On average, what schools receive as the total PB budget is 64.7% of the total requested budget
(62.4% for rural schools and 69.8% for urban schools). When considering that four schools advised
that they received their entire expected PB budget (and in two cases, a few dollars more), it appears
that some schools are being unaffected by cash shortages whilst others are receiving much less than
expected. This wide variation is even seen within districts. For instance, one school in Krong Kampot
advised that they received 37% of what was expected but another actually received $5.50 more than
what they expected. One rural school in Sambo district (Kratie) advised that they only received 24%
while another rural school in the same district advised it received 100% of what was expected.
These figures indicate that if POEs or DOEs are unable to disburse all of what was expected to be
disbursed to schools, they do not apply the same formula when deciding what each school should
receive. For instance, if only 65% of what was expected will be distributed, then it could be assumed
that each school would receive 65%. However, it appears that some schools are getting 100% of
what was expected whereas others are getting 30%. This indicates that DOEs do not have an
equitable system for distributing cash raising the question of how they decide how much they
disburse to each school.
A cause of this inequitable system could be that when funding is distributed to DOEs, it is
already divided amongst separate accounts and sub‐accounts. For example, the DOE will receive a
specific amount for electricity (sub account 6061), and that money is then distributed to schools to
be spent on electricity. The division of funding among the different accounts appears to cause
difficulties for DOEs and schools, as illustrated by this quote:
“DOEs help schools to manage the budget flexibly. For instance, all schools get the same for
electricity even if some schools do not use electricity. DOEs help to take money from schools that
don't need electricity to give to schools that do. The schools who don't receive their electricity
budget then receive money from the schools who receive extra to ensure that each school receives
the total that they should do. This is done because the PB has no flexibility and has set amounts for
certain items, regardless of the needs of the school. The budget should arrive on time and there
should be less specific line items.”
For DOEs to know how to divide the PB funds they receive amongst schools, the DOE would
have to keep a record of how much each school requested for each sub‐account. They would then
have to calculate how much each school had requested as a percentage of the total requested for
Page | 22
that sub‐account. Then when the DOE received PB funding, they would give that percentage of what
they have received to the relevant schools. POEs would have to do likewise in order to calculate how
much to give each DOE when they receive PB funding.
Such processes are quite complex and difficult to complete, especially without the use of
computers or knowledge of computing software that could help. This means that whilst schools
prepare the PB request according to accounts and sub‐accounts, such information is not used to:
1. Calculate how much PB funding MoEYS need to provide to all schools as the MoEYS
budget formulation has already been completed
2. Calculate how much each school should receive when DOEs receive funding
Accounts and sub‐accounts are being used to prepare school budgets on paper but these are
not always being used as a basis by the various levels of MoEYS to decide how much each school will
receive. Interviewees at all levels advised that distributing PB according to sub‐accounts was creating
problems for effective spending, and can cause schools to mis‐report spending as their priorities
differed from the funding that they had received..
“Expenditure is not always based on the approved budget line”
Even if a school received funding exactly as it had requested, it is reasonable to expect that the
needs of a school may change throughout over a 12 month period. Currently, schools do not have
flexibility to manage this. Interviewees at all levels advised to increase the flexibility that schools
have to manage the PB.
“Give DoEs more power in decision making regarding expenditure management”
“Reduce the number of budget line items and spending of the PB budget should have more
flexibility because now it seems quite rigid.”
Table 5. Amounts requested and received by schools, by province (US dollars)
Total requested Total received Percentage received
Battambang $10,736.00 $6108.60 56.9%
Kampong Cham $12,147.42 $8423.80 69.3%
Kampot $7518.90 $4443.82 59.1%
Kratie $6613.46 $4504.18 68.1%
Ratanakiri $5795.50 $4197.50 72.4%
Figure 5 depicts the received PB amounts as monthly proportion of the total received amount in
2012 (depicted percentages are for all schools). The ‘all’ bar is the monthly proportion of total
received PB budget for all schools, whereas the rural and urban bars represent the monthly
proportion for the total PB budget received by rural and urban schools respectively. As we can see,
the greatest amounts are disbursed in March and December (respectively 22.2% of the total
received amount in March and 20.0% in December). By the end of March, schools had received
34.6% of their total received budget for 2012 and this is comparable for rural and urban schools,
although urban schools received more in February, and rural schools more in March. By the end of
June, rural schools had received 50% of their annual receipt, but at that point urban schools still only
had received 42% of their annual receipt. This situation changes in the next quarter; by 30th
Page | 23
September, urban schools had received 71% of their annual total and rural schools had received
70%.
Figure 5. Received amount per month as % of total received amount in 2012 (school management)
Rural n= 34; Urban n=10
We must keep in mind that Figure 5 displays how the total annual receipt was disbursed over
the year, but it does not give an indication of what schools should have received. As we have seen,
on average schools receive only 64.7% of their requested PB budget. Figure 6 shows the growth of
payments received as a percentage of the requested budget, broken down into totals for rural and
urban schools. Urban schools were slightly more likely to receive a greater share of their expected
budget although the sample is small.
Figure 6. Total payments received as percentage of total expected budget for rural and urban schools (school management)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Rural
Urban
Total
31.4%
62.4%
29.1%
69.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Rural (n=34)
Urban (n=10)
Page | 24
4.4. EXPLANATIONS FOR DELAYS AND SHORTAGES
56% of school managers advised that they were given reasons for delays but this information
does not appear to be shared with teachers as only 19.5% of teachers advised that they been given
reasons for delays. School managers were asked to provide examples of the reasons they were given
for delays in PB instalments. The reasons given were categorised as being either due to problems
with administration or problems with budgets. The level at which the problem occurs was also
identified.
According to school managers, delays are mostly due to administrative issues (mentioned 17 out
of 25 times). Most mentioned are administrative issues at the school level, for example: "Because
some schools are late with submissions. Some schools have some mistakes of document and return
back.", or “Submitted financial report late because some schools are from remote area.” Reasons
regarding budgetary constraints are mostly at the level of the provincial treasury, for instance
“Provincial treasury does not have the money to provide”.
Table 6. Level and cause of delays in PB instalments (reasons given by school management)
Level at which delay occurs
Administrative reasons
Budgetaryreasons Total
MoEYS 2 2 4
PT 1 5 6
PoE 3 3
DoE 2 1 3
School 9 9
Total 17 8 25
Only 27.7% of school managers advised that they received reasons for differences between the
allocated and received amounts. The examples of provided reasons were shortages in budget at
higher levels like MoEYS, Provincial Treasury or PoE.
DOE representatives were also asked if they had been given any reasons why there were delays
or lesser amounts received than expected. Three DOEs said that delays were caused by schools
submitting information late or with errors and four DOEs advised that they had been advised
informally by the POE that it was due to delays at the level of MoEYS and/or Provincial Treasury. Two
further advised that the Provincial Treasury lacked funds and distributed what it could as soon as it
could. One advised that 2012 was especially difficult because there were a lot of other priorities such
as Cambodia chairing ASEAN. Responses from POE representatives support the responses from
these four as they said that delays were caused by a lack of funds being available in the provincial
treasury. Two DOEs said no reason was given to them.
4.5. MONITORING AND INSPECTION
Each time schools receive a PB budget payment, school management is required to prepare
detailed financial reports for clearance of expenditure with the DoE. DoE staff provides on‐going
supports to school director or school accountant to make sure that schools are able to prepare the
financial report correct and complete. To ensure the smooth preparation of the clearance
documents, before each disbursement budget to schools, a number of DOEs developed the practice
of inviting all schools directors to join an orientation workshop at the DoE office about the spending
Page | 25
documents required for clearance. In the experience of these DOE officers, this is a low cost and
effective way to provide more capacity building to schools directors on how to spend PB properly
and be always ready for any required documents for clearance. However, some newly appointed
school directors or those who work at small schools with limited capacity indicate that they still have
problems in preparing the financial report as it is a bit complicated for them.
In practice, after the verification of the DOEs PB committee staff that the spending documents
are complete, schools directors are required to make photocopies of the spending documents
before submitting all copies to the DoE. Normally, the DoE keeps one copy of the documents and
sends the original copy and one more copy to the PoE office. Then, the original copy will be
ultimately sent to the provincial treasury for final verification and clearance. In case of errors, the
documents might be sent back again to the PoE and DoE office for more adjustments.
4.5.1. Monitoring
The SSC is considered to be the most important school‐community network; it is expected to
support the school director in the management and development of the school, as well to provide a
link between the school and the wider community. The MoEYS guidelines for SSCs advise that they
should have a role in developing the School Action Plan and in publicising the proposed budget,
however their specific financial management responsibilities only relate to non‐governmental
budgets21 although the guidelines for PB management indicate that a SSC member should sign the
spending report along with the school director.22 We did find that most schools had SSC members as
part of their PB committee and a common role and responsibility of the PB committee is to monitor
the PB budget spending. In that sense SSC members are involved in the financial aspects of the PB
process. Furthermore, one of the responsibilities of the PB committee is to approve the use of
school PB budgets, and review and monitor expenditure reports and receipts to ensure
transparency. According to 47 out of 49 school managers (96%) schools have a PB committee; only
two said schools don’t have a PB committee. According to 73 out of 90 (80%) teachers, schools have
a PB committee, 10% said schools don’t have a PB committee, and 10% didn’t know.
According to the school managers and teachers in this survey, members of the PB committee
are in the first place school principals, school accountants, SSC and teachers (see Figure 7).
School managers seemed to hold a more positive view on teachers’ membership of the PB
committee than teachers themselves (72% versus 42%). As PB committee members, SSC is
mentioned most by school managers (92%), whereas school principals are mentioned most by
teachers (75%). Again, the least likely members of the PB committee are parents according to both
teachers and school managers.
21 MoEYS (2012). Guidelines On Formation and Functionality of School Support Committee in Primary Schools.Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. 22 MoEYS, Department of Finance (2011). Guidelines on Program Based Budget Management for Implementing
in MoEYS. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
Page | 26
Figure 7. Members of the PB committee (school management and teachers)
According to eight out of eight DoE representatives, the PB committee is always involved in
deciding how to spend the PB budget, and if agreement is needed to spend the money, the PB
committee is involved all the time. School management and teachers were also asked about the
schools’ use of the PB committee in approving spending. As we can see in Figure 8, 77.3% of
teachers indicated the PB committee is always asked to approve spending, and 93.8% of school
managers said this was the case. Of teachers, 11.4% said the PB committee wasn’t used in spending
the PB budget, an opinion shared by only 2.1% of school managers.
Figure 8. Use of PB committee in spending PB budget (school management and teachers)
Monitoring of the PB budget spending is also done by means of expenditure reports. We asked
the different groups of stakeholders how often expenditure is reported to each organization that
expenditure is reported to (for instance DoE, PoE, provincial treasury, commune council, et cetera).
Unfortunately, this only yielded reliable results for reports to DoE.
78% 76%
92%
72%75.0%
56.8% 53.4%
42.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
School principal
School accountant
SSC Teacher
School management (n=50)
Teachers (n=88)
2.1%4.2%
93.8%
11.4%4.5% 2.3%
77.3%
4.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No Depends on the amount
Sometimes Always Don't know
School management (n=48)
Teachers (n=88)
Page | 27
What is reported here are results concerning the question if and how often expenditure reports
are actually sent to the DoE on a yearly basis (see Figure 9). Of all respondents, only one
teacher answered that expenditure reports are never sent to the DoE. We consider this to be an
outlier. As is depicted in Figure 9, different groups of stakeholders appeared to hold different
opinions on the precise number of expenditure reports to the DoE but most people of all four
different types of stakeholders indicated that at least three reports are sent per year, which
corresponds to the average number of payments received per school. Interestingly, almost 50% of
the DoE and PoE representatives said expenditure reports were sent to the DoE more than four
times a year, whereas no school managers advised this. The vast majority of school managers (68%)
and SSC (68%) agreed that expenditure reports were sent to the DoE 3‐4 times a year.
Figure 9. Number of expenditure reports to the DoE according to different stakeholders
To sum up: most schools (80‐96%) seem to have a PB committee, comprised of school principal,
school accountant, teachers and SSC. Parents and DoE were the least likely members of the PB
committee, according to school management and teachers. This is an interesting result, considering
the WB recommendation23 that parents should be more involved in the PB process.
According to the majority of all interviewed groups of stakeholders, the PB committee is always
involved in the process of budget spending. DoE and PoE representatives seemed to be more
convinced about the involvement of the PB committee than school managers, who were in their turn
more convinced than teachers. Apart from the involvement of the PB committee, another way of
monitoring the PB budget spending is through expenditure reports, which should be sent to the DoE
after each disbursement. All stakeholders agreed that expenditure reports are sent to the DoE at
least one to two, but generally three to four times a year.
4.5.2. Inspection
Normally, with each disbursement, the DoE PB committee has to organize one visit to monitor
the spending documents. Since we have seen in this survey that the average number of payments
per school would be three a year, ideally the DoE PB committee would have an average of three PB
inspections a year. Note that inspections as reported in this report are financial inspections,
conducted by the DoE PB committee. Other kind of inspections, for instance concerning overall
school quality and conducted by representatives of PoE or MoEYS are not taken into consideration.
23World Bank (2005). Cambodia – Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) in Primary Education. Report No.
34911‐KH.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Never 1‐2 times 3‐4 times 5 or more times a year
DoE/PoE (n=11)
School management (n=50)
Teachers (n=64)
SSC (n=22)
Page | 28
In this survey, six out of nine DoE and two out of three PoE representatives indicated that they
were able to conduct PB budget inspections for at least 50% of all schools in their areas, at least
once a year. Of the remaining four representatives, one DoE representative indicated to be able to
conduct inspections of 1‐25% of schools, the other three representatives indicated to be able to do
inspections for 26‐50% of the schools.
School management and teachers were more or less in line with each other: according to over
60% of them, the school received financial inspections one to two times in 2012. Less than 20%
indicated that they never received financial inspections (see Figure 10).
Figure 10. Financial inspections by DoE PB committee in 2012 (school management and teachers)
According to PoE and DoE representatives, during PB inspections interviews are held with school
directors and, to a lesser extent, school accountants. According to nine out of ten PoE and DoE
representatives, parents are not interviewed at all during inspections, and the same applies to
student club/council or students. Of the SSC only the chairperson is likely to be interviewed during
inspections according to eight out of eleven PoE and DoE representatives (see Figure 11).
Figure 11. Interviews during PB inspections (PoE and DoE)
n=12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Never 1‐2 times 3‐4 times > 4 times a year
School management (n=46)
Teachers (n=61)
0123456789
101112
A lot
A little/some
Not at all
Page | 29
School managers expressed more or less the same view: according to them, the three most
interviewed persons during PB inspections are school principals (according to 98% of school
managers), the school accountant (70%) and SSC (48%). Parents are interviewed in only 10% of all PB
inspections, according to school management (see Figure 12). Teachers, who are more likely
than parents to be around when the PB inspection takes place, are interviewed during PB
inspections according to 44% of school managers. Of teachers 76% indicated that they were not
given the opportunity to be interviewed during the PB inspection.
Figure 12. Interviews during PB inspections (school management)
n=50
School managers were also asked which documents are checked during PB inspections (see
Figure 13). The budget monitoring book is by far the most mentioned (91.1%). The stock taking
record and the distribution record to staff were the least mentioned, but nevertheless each received
64.4% of votes.
Figure 13. Documents checked during inspection (school management)
n = 45
PoE and DoE representatives were asked how and to whom they presented recommendations
after the PB inspection. DoE representatives told us they usually conduct inspections using a
98.0%
70.0%
48.0%
44.0%
24.0%
10.0% 2.0%0.0%
School principal
School accountant
SSC
Teachers
Senior teachers
Administrator / secretary
Parents
Commune Council
91.1%
71.1%
66.7%
64.4%
64.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Budget monitoring book
Purchasing record
Stock putting in record
Stock taking record
Distribution record to staff
Page | 30
checklist, on which recommendations are written. If possible, they make a photo copy of the
checklist straight after the inspection and hand it over to the school management. More likely,
recommendations are discussed with the school director straight after the inspection. Indeed, 91.5%
of school directors indicated that they were given recommendations after the inspection.
Recommendations given subsequent to inspections are not shared with teachers: 62.6% of teachers
indicated that that they didn’t know whether recommendations were given to the school director,
and 20.9% said that they knew recommendations were given, but that they didn’t know what the
recommendations were.
4.6. TRANSPARENCY OF PB DISTRIBUTION AND SPENDING
In this survey, transparency was covered with questions that refer to ways in which PB issues
are shared with and between all stakeholders. According to teachers, the most common ways in
which the PB request was shared with them, was in the first place that it was discussed at a staff
meeting (64.5%), followed by receiving a copy of the budget (26.9%). Fourteen percent of teachers
said it was not shared with them at all (see Figure 14).
Figure 14. Ways in which PB request is shared with teachers (school management)
n=93
As is depicted in Figure 15, according to teachers the PB budget is mostly shared with the
public via postings on the school board (31.5%), meetings at the beginning of the school year (18%)
or meetings in which results of the first semester are shared (18%).
64.5%
26.9%
14.0%
6.5%
2.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
It was discussed at a staff meeting
Received a copy of the budget
Not shared with me
It was discussed at a public meeting
Cannot remember
Page | 31
Figure 15. Ways in which the PB budget is shared with the public (teachers)
n= 89
The vast majority of teachers (93.3%) and of SSCs (90.2%) feel the school manages the budget
efficiently and transparently. The explanations they gave belonged to three main categories:
Documentation: budget, planning and expenses are properly documented.
Communication: budget and expenses were communicated in a good manner.
Use of budget: the budget was used according to what was agreed upon.
Despite the satisfaction with the management of the PB budget, 32.3% (30 out of 93) of
teachers have at some point previously made a complaint about the transparent and effective use of
PB. The explanations that teachers gave for their complaints were categorised into the same three
categories we mentioned above (documentation, communication and use of budget). Three out of
30 descriptions were actually about late or incomplete instalments, and not about PB use. Of the
remaining 27 explanations, 70% (19 out of 27) was about the use of the PB budget, for instance: “I
used to recommend school to use the PB to spend only on the priority activities because of the
budget limitation.” Another 33% (9 out of 27) of complaints concerned communication, for instance:
“Because director has never told [us]”. The remaining two complaints (7%)24 were about
documentation, e.g. “The request for school principal: all the expenditure must have receipts.”
4.7. SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING & DECISION MAKING PB BUDGET
According to eight out of twelve POE and DOE representatives, most involved in the planning of
the PB budget, are the school principal, school accountant, PB committee and the SSC. According to
the majority of the representatives the same persons are involved with the PB spending, with the
additional involvement of the administrator and senior teachers. In planning as well as in spending,
the majority of representatives indicated parents were not involved at all.
Teachers were also asked who was involved in the planning of the PB budget, and according to
them, school principal, accountant, SSC and teachers themselves were involved (see Figure 16).
According to one third of the teachers, parents were involved as well.
24 The total doesn’t equal 100% since a number of teachers described more than one complaint.
31.5%
18.0%
18.0%
11.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Posting on the school board
Meeting beginning school year
Meeting to share results of first semester
Meeting end of school year
Page | 32
Figure 16. Persons involved in planning of the PB budget (teachers)
n=93
Teachers and SSC members were asked how much they were involved. The majority (65%) of
teachers replied that they were involved a lot, another 20% said there was some involvement from
their side, and 2% indicated they were involved a little. Of the remaining 13% of teachers, 9% of
teachers mentioned that they were not given the opportunity, and the other four percent pointed
out that they were given the opportunity, but chose not to be involved. SSC members were asked
how they were involved in creating the PB budget (see Figure 17). The majority (68.3%) of SSCs
indicated that there was a meeting with the whole SSC to plan the PB budget before it was finalised.
Only 17% of SSC answered that the SSC was not involved before the budget was finalised, or that the
SSC did not have to approve the final budget.
94%86%
81%
67%
31%25%
13%
4%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page | 33
Figure 17. Kind of involvement in creating the PB budget (SSC)
n=41
Even though teachers and SSC members reported to be satisfied with the PB management of
their schools, and with some self‐reported involvement from them, especially regarding budget
preparation, there is reason to doubt the quality of their involvement and knowledge of PB matters.
We asked teachers if they knew how much their school should have received and 25% of teachers
believed that they knew the amount, but only six of them were able to provide a precise amount,
and they weren’t always correct.
We then asked if they knew how much their school did receive in 2012 and 32% said they did,
but again most were unable to give the figure when asked. 49.5% said they were told but could not
remember. It should be noted that some of those who did not remember did advise that it was
written down somewhere, such as in the wall of the school directors office, or in a notebook that the
teacher had.
This implies that teachers may not see it as their role to monitor how much the school receives
and spends. An indication that this is a system wide assumption is that over 75% of teachers
reported not to be involved at PB inspection and 86% said that they were not informed about
recommendations after inspection.
In thirteen out of 42 SSC interviews (31%), all SSC members thought the full amount of PB had
been received, and in another twelve interviews (28.6%) more than 50% of SSC members thought
the full PB budget had been received. As we can see in Figure 18, the outcome of only 14.2% SSC
interviews was that nobody thought the full PB budget had been received. In eleven interviews
(26.2%) SSC members did not know about differences between received and allocated PB budget.
This indicates that SSCs do not have key information without which it would be difficult for them to
hold school management to account for the use of PB money.
68.3%
36.6%
34.1%
29.3%
14.6%
14.6%
14.6%
4.9%
2.4%
There was a meeting with the whole SSC to plan the budget before it was finalised
Representatives of the SSC had to sign the school budget before it was finished
The final budget was presented to the whole SSC at a meeting
There was a meeting of the SSC to approve the final budget
Only a few senior members, but not all, of the SSC were involved in the planning before it was finalised
There was no SSC involvement before the budget was finished.
There was a meeting of some senior members of the SSC to approve the final budget
The final budget was presented to a few senior members, but not all, at a meeting
SSC did not have to approve the final budget
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Page | 34
Figure 18. Received versus allocated amount (SSC)
n=42
31.0%
28.6%
26.2%
14.2% All thought that the full PB had been received
More than 50% thought that the full PB had been received
Don't know
Nobody thought that the full PB had been received
Page | 35
5. Conclusions and recommendations
5.1. TIMELINESS OF BUDGET REQUESTS
Schools should submit their PB budget requests in mid October to their DOE and 71% of school
managers advised that they did submit these on time, which was supported by responses from
DOEs. Five of nine DOEs advised that all schools in their district submit program‐based budget plans
on time (mid October), with another DOE advising that only a small percentage do not. If schools are
late, DOEs advise that it is rare that schools are more than four weeks late, with most being less than
two weeks late. Some DOEs advised that if some schools are late then this causes the DOE to be late
in sending details for all schools to the POE however, all of the three POEs representatives
interviewed in our sample advised that all districts in their provinces submitted information to them
on time before 15th November.
Five out of nine DoE representatives indicated that it was necessary to make revisions to PB
requests, but only in 1‐25% of all submitted requests for that district or province i.e. including those
schools not in this sample. If there are amendments to be made, this almost always concerns
student statistics (these are compared to students statistics derived from EMIS).
However, PB requests are not used as a basis to develop the MoEYS budget as MoEYS and POEs
are meant to submit their budget strategic plans to the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) or
Provincial Office of Economy and Finance by 15th May. The Revenue‐Expenditure Plan for MoEYS is
developed during June and July, and in August, MoEYS and MEF discuss the proposed plan with the
budget proposal being finalised in September before being submitted to the Council of Ministers in
October.
The schools’ PB request is only useful if DOEs and POEs use it to apportion PB money to schools
according to the schools’ need for each sub‐account, as POEs receive PB money divided into specific
amounts for each sub‐account. However, some DOE representatives advised that this does not
always happen, rather the amount for each sub‐account could be shared equally amongst all
schools, which can lead to some schools getting more money for a line item they need, whilst others
receive less than they needed (for instance, electricity).
Recommendations
To fit with the budget planning process, schools could submit expected student numbers for the
following school year at the same time as submitting their mid‐school year EMIS data to their DOE
(approximately in March). This would enable the national budget to be informed by local need. Once
the final budget for MoEYS has been agreed, all schools should be advised of their PB for the next
financial year.
When DOEs receive PB money for schools, it is divided into sub‐accounts. However, there is no
detail given regarding how much each school should receive for each sub‐account; it is up to the
DOE to distribute as it wishes, although it is guided to apportion the money in each sub‐account
according to need. However, DOEs do not appear to have any systems in place to make these
calculations which can result in some schools receiving much more than other schools, as discussed
below. A system needs to be created that can record how much each school has requested for each
sub‐account enabling DOEs to easily calculate how much each school should receive of PB amounts
received by the DOE.
Page | 36
Accounts and sub‐accounts are being used to prepare school budgets on paper but these are
not always being used as a basis by the various levels of MoEYS to decide how much each school will
receive. Interviewees at all levels advised that distributing PB according to sub‐accounts was creating
problems for effective spending, and can cause schools to mis‐report spending as their priorities
differed from the funding that they had received, or that their needs had changed throughout the
year.
Not dividing the PB into sub‐accounts would make it easier for schools to use the money to
meet their needs at that time. This would reduce the burden on POEs, DOEs and schools, making it
easier for distribution and spending. Expenditure could still be reported using the sub‐account
codes. Alternatively, schools could have some flexibility to change what they planned to spend by
sub‐account.
Some newly appointed school directors or school directors working at smaller schools where
there is less capacity and the director may also be teaching indicated encountering difficulties in
preparing financial reports. Some of the DOEs organise orientation workshops for school directors
about the spending documents required for clearance, which seems to be a low cost and effective
way to provide more capacity building to schools directors.
5.2. PB BUDGET INSTALMENTS – TIMING AND AMOUNTS
School management expected to receive four instalments throughout the calendar year ‐
January, April, July, and October, and POE representatives confirmed this is what should happen
(apart from Ratanakiri which advised there should only be payments in January and September).
However, schools on average received three payments not four and 20% of schools had not received
their first payment by April. March and December were the months with the greatest disbursements
in terms of value and number of payments disbursed. Receiving large amounts in December gives
schools little time to complete spending and paperwork before returning to DOEs by the due date of
25th December. Indeed some schools reported receiving payments after this date.
Schools in this sample received only 65% of what they had expected although PoEs in the five
provinces of this survey received 80% of their total PB budget (which includes provincial and district
level programs. This gap indicates that programs of POEs and potentially DOEs are being prioritised
ahead of school programs.
The gap appears during December, when there was a large disbursement to provinces. As at
30th November, schools in our sample had received 51.7% of their expected annual PB amount and
POEs in our sample had received 52.4%. Understanding why this gap arises could help improve cash
flow to schools. Nationally, MoEYS received 87% of the allocated program‐based budget, including
money for centrally administered programs25.
Our results show that some POEs are disbursing money at different times from each other,
which may be an indication that money is becoming available to them at different times. It also
apparent that in some cases when DOEs are distributing money to schools, not all schools in that
district will receive a payment.
25 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2013). The Education, Youth and Sport Performance in the Academic Year 2011/12 and Goals for the Academic Year 2012/13. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
Page | 37
The distribution of received amounts made it clear that some schools receive a greater
percentage of what was expected than other schools; 34% of schools received less than 50% of what
was expected whereas 16% of schools received over 80% of what was expected (four schools got
100%). How DOEs decide which schools receive payments and how much needs further
investigation. The variation we found was not due to a rural‐urban split.
Three DOEs said that delays or shortages were caused by schools submitting information late or
with errors, but four DOEs advised that they had been advised informally by the POE that it was due
to delays at the level of MoEYS and/or Provincial Treasury. Two further advised that the Provincial
Treasury lacked funds and distributed what it could as soon as it could. One advised that 2012 was
especially difficult because there were a lot of other priorities such as Cambodia chairing ASEAN.
Responses from POE representatives support the responses from these four as they said that delays
were caused by a lack of funds being available in the provincial treasury. Two DOEs said no reason
was given to them.
Recommendations
Interviewees at school, district and provincial level all advised that fewer payments would
reduce the burden of managing disbursements and reports. This could also help to increase the
regularity of payment disbursement. Of all interviewed school managers, 64% would prefer to have
two instalments a year, another 14% preferred one instalment a year. The preferred date for these
instalments would be January (52.1% of school managers) and/or October (41.7%).
Since the official guidelines do not specify how many or when schools should receive
instalments, there seems to be ample space to opt for disbursement of the PB year budget in two
instalments.
However, from the two peaks of disbursement noted in this study (March and December), it is
possible that it is difficult for large amounts of cash to be available for disbursement at the start of
the financial year (January) and indeed that a large proportion of the annual budget only becomes
available at the end of the financial year (December) when national tax receipts peak.
However, if there is a lack of finance available, as indicated from this research and from national
tax receipts peaking in December, then it could be difficult to have sufficient funds to disburse all
amounts in only two disbursements. One solution could be to disburse payments to schools at
different times of the year. For instance, all schools in 12 provinces could receive two payments in
March and September and schools in the other 12 provinces could receive payments in May and
November.
This would reduce the burden on schools, DOEs and POEs regarding disbursing and collecting
money, and also reporting expenditure. It would also mean that schools would have more time to
spend funds before the end of the financial year in December.
The current system for disbursing funds to school needs to be improved to reduce the variation
between schools in terms of when they receive payments and how much is received of what was
expected. School managers and DOE representatives recommended disbursing payments using the
banking system which should promote a system that leads to all schools receiving money at the
same time and for equitable amounts.
Using the banking system would reduce the expense and loss of working hours experienced by
schools and DOE staff who have to transport the cash. It would also mean that money would not
Page | 38
have to be stored in safety boxes at school or in the school principal’s home, which was a concern
raised by many interviewees at all levels.
ACLEDA is the bank with the most numerous offices (238) in approximately 80% of districts.
They also plan to have all offices connected online before the end of 2013. ACLEDA charges a
standard transaction cost for each transfer of US$0.25, although it is likely an even cheaper rate
could be negotiated for such large scale business. The Government could consider a trial with
schools in various urban and rural districts to assess the potential benefits of transferring PB
payments via the banking system.
5.3. BUDGET MONITORING AND INSPECTION
We investigated two ways of monitoring the budget flow: by means of the PB committee and by
means of expenditure reports. Of teachers and school managers, 80% acknowledged that their
school had a PB committee, of which the most likely members were school directors, school
accountants, SSC and teachers. Parents were the least likely members of the PB committee. This
may be a result of SSCs being different from a parent representative group. Parents do not have
control over selection and it is possible to have a SSC without a parent as a member.
The PB committee is always asked to approve spending, according to 77% of teachers and 94%
of school managers. Expenditure reports were usually sent to the DoE sent three to four times a
year, in line with the number of payments received.
According to the majority of school management (85%) and teachers (80%), schools received
financial inspections by the DoE PB committee at least once a year. However, DOE representatives
from three of the nine districts sampled advised that they inspected fewer than 50% of schools;
interestingly two of these three districts were in provincial capitals where the distance to the school
should not be an issue. Parents were least likely to be interviewed during financial inspections; and
although 91.5% of school management did indicate that recommendations were given to them
straight after an inspection, the communication of recommendations seems to lack any form of
standardisation and are not shared with teachers.
Recommendations
DOE staff cited a lack of budget and capacity/staff to conduct PB inspections at all schools,
however if the number of payments was reduced then this could create more time for DOEs to
conduct inspections.
There is a concern that the quality and follow‐up of PB inspections need to be improved. A first
step to achieve this might be to standardise the process of inspection and follow up, for instance
with checklists that DoEs could use during inspections, and a standard form that could be used for
recommendations after the inspection.
It was recommended in the 2005 WB report26 that parents should be more involved in the PB
progress. MoEYS could encourage schools to consider having at least two people who are parents of
current students in SSCs and that at least one of these parents sits on the PB committee.
26 World Bank (2005). Cambodia – Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) in Primary Education. Report No.
34911‐KH.
Page | 39
5.4. TRANSPARENCY AND SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
The PB request is typically shared with teachers at a staff meeting, whereas 14% of teachers said
the PB request was not shared with them at all. The most common way of sharing PB related topics
with the public is by means of a posting on the school board. In this survey, over 90% of teachers
and SSC members indicated that their school manages the PB budget efficiently and transparently,
because according to them budget, planning and expenses are properly documented; budget and
expenses are communicated in a good manner and the budget was used according to what was
agreed upon. However, one third of teachers have previously made a complaint about the
transparent and efficient use of PB budget.
The school director, school accountant, teachers and SSC were involved in planning as well as in
spending of the PB budget. Two thirds of teachers indicated that they were involved a lot and two
thirds of SSCs mentioned that there had been a meeting with the whole SSC to plan the PB budget
before it was finalised. Only 9% of teachers and 17% of SSCs indicated that they had not been
involved. These positive results may be influenced by 72% of schools currently receiving support
from NGOs and a further 18% of schools had received support within the last three years.
However, SSCs members lacked knowledge that would be expected from having been involved
in planning and spending. In 60% of SSCs, either no member knew if there had been delays or all
thought that there had not been any. Furthermore, most members in 60% of SSCs thought that their
school had received the full amount. Only a minority knew that delays and shortages were common
Most teachers were unaware about how much the school was meant to have received as a PB
and most did not know how much the school had actually received. 50% of teachers knew PB
payments were received late, but only 20% were told reasons for receiving the PB late. Over 75% of
teachers reported not to be involved in PB inspection and 86% said they weren’t informed about
recommendations after inspections.
Recommendations
SSCs appear to be lacking key information, without which it would be difficult to envisage how
they could be holding school management to account or assisting with the management of the PB.
This is worrying given that SSCs members were generally always on school PB committees. Training
on PB management could be provided to SSC members although there are nearly 7000 primary
schools meaning that this would be at best a long term strategy. In the short term, MoEYS through
DOEs and POEs must be the actors who can hold schools to account using a system of inspections
and reporting. As part of the long term strategy, we think involving parents of current students more
in SSCs could help to increase the ability of SSCs to oversee school management.
DOEs should request all schools to post the PB on the notice board and that reports to DOEs
after receiving a PB instalment should be posted too. This would enable teachers and the community
to see when funds have been received, what it was spent on and how much the school was due to
receive in future.
Page | 40
Appendix 1 ‐ PB budget lines
1. Basic materials
a. Sub account 6021: Items including paper, folder, pen, pencil, scissors, ruler, eraser,
glue, envelope, carbon paper, ink, print cartridge, notebook, student attendance
book, student performance monitoring book, printing, photocopying for semester
exams
b. Sub account 6053: blackboard, desks and chairs; teaching and learning resources
such as mobile letter & numbers, domino, pocket board, traffic signs, clock, map of
Cambodia, calendar, medium board for group work
2. Improvement on school environment and classrooms
a. Sub account 6151: Maintaining land and gardens
b. Sub account 6152: Maintaining buildings e.g. painting, fixing fences, gardens, gates
c. Sub account 6153: Maintaining roads, drainage
d. Sub account 6053: Materials for classroom decoration, such as curtains, King’s
photo, flag, pictures, notes or posters with student’s achievement, school slogan,
cleaning turn, exam subject and schedule
e. Sub account 6154: Other maintenance e.g. clean water, electricity unrelated to
building maintenance, air conditioners
3. Minor repairs
a. Sub account 6157: Maintenance of office equipment, IT, furniture repairs
b. Sub account 6152: Repairs for buildings, libraries, fixing fences
4. Life skills (all sub account 6053)
a. Materials for sports, arts, home economics, agricultural and workshop (hammers,
saws, drill) lessons
b. Other materials (door locks, door/window hinges)
5. Clean water and sanitation
a. Sub account 6011: soap, glass cleaner, brush, towel, bins, water filter, hand washing
sink
6. Utilities expense
a. Sub account 6061: electricity bill
b. Sub account 6062: water bill
7. Preparing documents for tests and semester exams
a. Sub account 6021: office supplies and printing including photocopying
8. Other expenses
a. Sub account 6031: food, drinking water, tea, coffee
b. Sub account 6041: uniforms, sports and arts clothes
c. Sub account 6051: electronic material e.g. tape recorder, computer, printer, phone,
fridge etc
d. Sub account 6068: battery charging costs
e. Sub account 6224: ceremonies such as for monks
f. Sub account 6423: extra hours for teachers teaching a remedial class on Thursdays
g. Sub account 6433: rewards for teachers or schools
h. Sub account 6578: other rewards for students and sports players
Page | 41
Appendix 2 – Prakas 508 on Expenditure for Implementing Program‐based Budget (Summary)
Kingdom of Cambodia
Nation Religion King
Ministry of Economy and Finance
No. 508 SHV.PrK
Phnom Penh, May 20, 2013
Summary of the Inter‐Ministerial Prakas
on Expenditure for Implementing
Program‐based Budget at Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
*****
The following information is an extract from Prakas 508 of the Royal Government of Cambodia
on expenditure for implementing Program‐based budget at Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
dated on 20 May 2013. This will be effective from January 2014.
I. Program‐Based budget (PB) in preschools
N0 Type of school Schools size Fix amount
for operation
(Riels)
PB for each
students (Riels)
1 Schools in typical areas Public preschool with 3 or
fewer classes
400,000 9,000
Public preschool with 3 or
more classes
450,000 8,000
2 School in remote and/or
disadvantaged areas
Public preschool with 3 or
fewer classes
450,000 10,000
Public preschool with 3 or
more classes
500,000 9,000
II. Program‐Based budget (PB) in primary education
N0 Type of school Schools size Fix amount for
operation (Riels)
PB for each
students (Riels)
1 Schools in typical areas Public primary
school with six or
fewer classes
800,000 10,000
Page | 42
Public pre‐school
with six or more
classes
1,000,000 9,000
2 School in remote and/or
disadvantaged areas
Public primary
school with six or
fewer classes
1,000,000 12,000
Public primary
school with six or
more classes
1,200,000 10,000
III. Program‐Based budget (PB) for secondary education
N0 Type of school Schools size Fix amount for
operation (Riels)
PB for each
students (Riels)
1 Schools in typical areas Schools with 10 or
less than 10
classes
1,500,000 19,000
Schools with 10 or
more classes
2,000,000 17,000
2 School in remote and/or
disadvantaged areas
Schools with 10 or
less than 10
classes
2,000,000 21,000
Schools with 10 or
more classes
2,500,000 19,000
Page | 43
References
Alvarado & Moron (2008), ‘The Routes of Expenditures and Decision Making in the Health Sector in
Peru’. Lima: Universidad del Pacifico
Department of Finance (2011). Guidelines on Program Based Budget Management for Implementing
in MoEYS. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
Department of Planning (2012). Education Statistics and Indicators, 2011‐2012. Phnom Penh:
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
Institute of Social and Policy Sciences (2010). ‘Public Expenditure Analysis and Service Delivery
Assessment of Primary and Elementary Schools’. Pakistan;
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2012). Guidelines on Formation and Functionality of School
Support Committee in Primary Schools. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2013). The Education, Youth and Sport Performance in the
Academic Year 2011/12 and Goals for the Academic Year 2012/13. Phnom Penh: Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports.
NGO Forum (2009). Mapping of budget information in Education. Phnom Penh: NGO Forum.
Sopha, A & Conochie, G (2012). Promoting rights in schools. The state of children’s rights in
Cambodian primary schools. Phnom Penh: NEP
Vire, V. (2012) Analysis of the continuous decline of MoEYS recurrent budget share in recent years.
Presentation given by the European Union to the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports Joint
Technical Working Group, 2nd February 2012.
World Bank (2005). Cambodia ‐ Public Expenditure Tracking Survey (PETS) in Primary Education.
Report No. 34911‐KH
Page | 44
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared as part of a project called Building Bridges for Better Spending in South
East Asia. This project is funded by USAID and jointly managed by Results for Development Institute
(R4D) and the Bandung Institute of Governance Studies (BIGS). We would like to thank them for their
support that has made this research possible and for valuable assistance provided by R4D and BIGS
throughout the research.
NEP would like to thank NEP’s members and USAID especially the R4D team for making this research
possible. NEP is also very grateful to all of the PoE and DoE representatives, school managers,
teachers and SSC members who participated in this research.
NEP would like to thank KAPE and VSO who greatly contributed to the data collection and
production of this report.
About NEP
NGO Education Partnership is a membership organization that promotes active collaboration
between NGOs working in education and advocates on behalf of its member organizations in policy
meetings and discussions with the Ministry of Education Youth and Sports (MoEYS) in Cambodia.
Over 100 educational NGOs working in Cambodia are members of NEP.
More information on NEP can be found at:
Website: www.nepcambodia.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/nep.cambodia
NEP is part of the Global Campaign for Education Cambodia:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cambodian‐Campaign‐for‐Education/510787345640277
Authors: Romina de Jong, external research consultant, Leng Theavy, Campaign and Advocacy
Coordinator at NEP and Gordon Conochie, VSO Adviser to NEP
© NGO Education Partnership 2013
NEP, No. 41, Street 464, Toul Tumpong II, Khan Chamkarmon, Phnom Penh, Cambodia