Community scorecard is a community based monitoring tool that assesses services, projects, and government performance by analyzing qualitative data obtained through focus group discussions with the community. It usually includes interface meetings between service providers and users to formulate an action plan to address any identified problems and shortcomings. Based on its belief in the Human Rights Based approach, TAC conducted a capacity building exercise for the community groups so as to enable them conduct Community score Card. A total of 1,620 members of community structures are currently undegoing training trained to conduct community scorecards in the service provision points in their communities. These include Grassroots Accountability Committee members, School Management Committee Members, Health Unit Management Committee Members, Youth and Women Groups. The CSC targeted precisely service provision in the Health and Education sectors because the two sectors provide are the highest contact between citizens and government in the service provision arena and directly impact more on citizen livelihoods. The Community Score Card brings together the staff and heads of service provision units like health centers and schools to interact with demand side of accountability/service users and the political leadership at the sub county level.

Community scorecards are effective when adequate information on budgets and service standards expected of a service unit. While community monitors are responsible for conducting CSCs TAC responsibility is to provide the requisite information to support the community score card process and follow up on the resolutions of the score card.

Using this approach; TAC has been able to attend to issues of service quality that have in the frontline service points especially health facilities and schools. Because the duty bearers perceive the social accountability model as more supportive than condemning; many have been positively engaged in the process. When it comes to prescribing solutions as well; the inclusive and participatory approach has been able to cause immediate responses. Key outcomes of this model in TAC social accountability have been observed in increased functionality of health facilities, improved accountability for UPE and PTA Funds, improved staff supervision and oversight by the user committees and increased public support of the functionality of schools through parental contributions.

The biggest limitation of this approach is its limitation to resolving managerial manifestations of failed accountability and not the more systemic one. In cases where corruption and failed accountability is more systemic; then a single facility or frontline service provider will not be able to prescribe adequate solutions and there should be resort to more effective models of social accountability.