Participation is not only a right in itself, but also helps ensure that government actions are effective in furthering people’s enjoyment of their ESC rights. Through consulting with people to identify where enjoyment of their rights falls short, government can do a better job of targeting its spending to meet felt needs. Government’s cladding proposal The NIHE manages social housing for the Department of Social Development of Northern Ireland. In October 2007 the Seven Towers Residents Group was briefed by NIHE on a plan it had developed to clad (fit a PVC rain screen to) the exteriors of the Seven Towers buildings. According to the economic appraisal undertaken of this plan in November 2007, the cladding would cost £7million (approx. US$14.5m). The objectives of the cladding included upgrading the health of residents and safety of the buildings, providing accommodation that met the needs of residents, and reducing the costs of future maintenance of the exterior of the buildings. When Seven Towers residents asked NIHE how the cladding would help heat retention and reduce damp in the flats, NIHE responded that it was not intended to do that, and would not greatly enhance insulation. Thus, according to the NIHE, the cladding proposal would not even fulfill its own objective of providing accommodation that met the needs of the residents. Moreover, the cladding would not improve health problems caused by dampness and cold in the buildings. At the same time, according to one of NIHE’s regular assessments into the condition of social housing stock, this one undertaken in 2009, there were no structural integrity questions with regard to the exteriors of the buildings, and thus the cladding was not essential in enabling NIHE to meet the Decent Homes Standard of structural safety. As a result of a Freedom of Information request made in August 2010, residents learned that over the previous nine years NIHE had spent £3.3million (approx. US$5.14m) on maintenance of Seven Towers. It appeared, however, that the bulk of that money had been directed to installing CCTV, replacing lifts (elevators), and maintaining the exterior of the buildings. PPR was unable to ascertain what had been spent in response to residents’ needs with regard to dampness, cold and the cost of heating. CSOs in countries around the world have difficulty in accessing budget information. Even more difficult is accessing appropriately disaggregated data as well as information about sub-national budgets. The last Open Budget Index (2012)* reveals that the national budgets of 77 of the 100 countries surveyed—countries that are home to half the world’s population— fail to meet basic standards of budget transparency. Freedom of Information Acts can be critical in enabling CSOs to get better access to important budget information. *http://internationalbudget.org/whatwe-do/open-budget-survey/