Transcript Presentation on performance indicators and setting

Republic of Uganda
Office of the Prime Minister
By:
Richard Kabagambe Tureebe
Senior Economist, Monitoring and Evaluation
OUTLINE
1.
BACKGROUND
2.
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
3.
EVALUATION
4.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT
5.
M&E POLICY
6.
INITIATIVES IN M&E
7.
CHALLENGES
8.
CONCLUSIONS
1.
Background

The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) has the Constitutional
Mandate of Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation of Government
Programmes / Projects

The Government adopted Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) as
the National Planning framework (1997 – 2009).
In 2008, PEAP was evaluated to provide a measure of what had been
achieved, and it was found that:






Despite substantial reduction in poverty, the MTEF was not clearly aligned to
the PEAP targets;
The priorities between poverty reduction and growth were not well balanced;
The Government business and its oversight was not well monitored and
coordinated;
Deficiencies in the coordination of Government business and its oversight.
In 2010, the Government adopted a new planning framework
“National Development Plan (NDP) 2010/2011 – 2014/2015”.
3
2. Performance Monitoring
 In pursuit of its mandate, OPM established bi-annual Government
Performance Assessments Mechanism.
 Assessment Reports are discussed at the retreat of Cabinet Ministers to track
performance and spending and take corrective measures.
 Generating demand on Ministries’ performance and M&E practices.
 The reports use scorecard with “Traffic Light” system to assess all
MDAs on performance indicators against set targets and spending
against budgets




Green – target has been achieved
Yellow – the level of progress against the target or action is slightly
below borderline
Red – the target has not been met
Grey – insufficient or no data and therefore assessment is not possible
 Proceedings from the Retreats include:
 The specific actions agreed upon to address performance issues.
 Progress made against these actions is tracked and reported on at the
subsequent retreat.
2. Performance Monitoring

……Cont’d
Baraza initiative (Citizens’ accountability forum)
 Seeks to strengthen citizen’s engagement with Government
 Enable them to oversee Government spending at Local Government level
 It is a critical participation evaluation activity and Presidential directive in
Uganda.

It is a “town-hall” style meeting:(Methodology)
 Government representatives present on performance during the previous year
 Present spending and the public respond with questions, queries and analysis of
their own.

Barazas as a monitoring tool help:
 To explain to the community what Local Governments do in FY
 The amount of funds received from central government how they are spent.

Through Barazas, Government leaders and implementers get to
know issues that affect their citizens and make an input.
5
3. How we plan & evaluate in Ugandan
public sector
Impacts
Development
results
Performance
Accountability
Framework
The current planning framework (BFP, MPS) does not include impact measures,
but we do evaluate to assess the impact of our interventions. We carry out
impact evaluations
Sector
Outcomes
Each sector has up to three outcomes in its BFP, each with key indicators that
measure the overall changes in the use, behaviour or satisfaction of the public
services provided as measured in the general population. This is currently not the
case for LGs
Vote level
(intermediate)
outcomes
NEW. The introduction of vote (MDA) level intermediate outcomes reflects the
fact that previously the BFP jumped from vote function outputs to sector
outcomes, which ignored the fact that MDAs/LGs can produce outcomes. Each
vote is now required to define up to two intermediate outcomes in their BPF and
MPS, with key indicators.
VF Outputs
Vote Function (VF) Outputs are the summary statements of the goods and
services provided under a particular vote function (often a department). These
statements are often general as they cover a variety of budget lines, but the VF
Output indicators should be defined as specific measures of the effectiveness or
efficiency of each key service.
Inputs
(particularly
spending)
Financial inputs are linked to VF outputs under the budget. These include the
wage, non-wage recurrent and development costs. The costs associated with
delivering particular outputs needs to be refined, to assess value-for-money.
3. The Desired Evaluation Model in Uganda
Impact evaluation
Any impact at outcome
and impact level, and why
Economic Evaluation
What are the
Costs vs-benefits?
Implementation
evaluation
- what is taking
place and
reasons
Diagnostic
what is the situation and the
problem, proposed solutions?
DESIGN
Design evaluation
Will there be any
difference?
4. Institutional Arrangement
1.
Sector Working Groups:
 National Monitoring and Technical Working Group (NM&ETWG)
Responsible for guiding and overseeing the development and
implementation of the National Policy on Public Sector Monitoring
and Evaluation - (meets quarterly)
 National Monitoring and Oversight (NM&O)
Leads in policy and coordination matters on government inspection
and monitoring activities (composed of Senior Technical officers from
all MDAs and Private sector forum)
 Evaluation Sub-Committee(ESC)
Provides management and oversight support in the implementation
of the Government Evaluation Facility (composed of Government
Institutions, Academia, Development Partners, NGOs Forum and
Uganda Evaluation Association)
5. The M&E Policy
In 2013, the National M&E Policy was passed by the Cabinet to
improve performance of the public sector, and the objectives of
the policy include: Strengthening the operation, coordination, and cost-effective
production and use of objective information on implementation
and results of national strategies, policies, programmes and
projects.
 Enhancing the basis for decision makers: Cabinet, Parliament,
Permanent Secretaries and Local Councils; to make evidencebased public policy and programmatic decisions and strengthen
accountability regarding Government policies and programmes
 Improving the confidence of the Ugandan people in the
capability of Parliament and the Government to systematically
hold MDAs and LGs to account for achieving results based on
reliable information
5. Operationalization of the Policy





Embedding monitoring and evaluation in the management
practices of MDAs and LGs
Expanding the coverage of public policy and programmes
that are subjected to rigorous evaluation to ensure policy
makers know what works and what doesn’t
Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the various actors
in the assessment of public policies and programmes
Strengthening the coordination of public and private
institutions in the supply and demand of monitoring and
evaluation.
Strengthening the capacities of MDAs and LGs in terms of
skilled personnel, requisite infrastructure, and policy
environment to manage and implement the policy
6. Current Initiatives to strengthen M&E
1.
Strengthening Monitoring Capacities in the Ugandan Public Sector
 This is a 2–year project supported by UNDP aiming at contributing to
increased effectiveness, efficiency and accountability in Uganda’s
public sector by strengthening results-oriented monitoring capacities
across Government.
 Training of top civil servants in Monitoring Government programpractical approach
 Operationalization of National M&E Policy
2. Evaluation Capacity Development (ECD) Project
 3-year Project funded by the Government of the Republic of Germany
through GIZ. The project focuses on the following four components:
 Information events, (populising evaluation)
 Gender-sensitive and development evaluation standards,
 Continuous training courses in short and medium on evaluation,
and,
 Establishment of a blended learning Master’s course in evaluation
at Makerere University
6.
Current Initiatives to strengthen M&E
….Cont’d
3. Government Evaluation Facility (GEF) (Uganda); Website : http://gef.opm.go.ug/
 Purpose:
o Design, conduct, commission, disseminate evaluations
o Oversee improvements in quality and utility of evaluations across
Government
 Four main elements of GEF:
o Rolling agenda of evaluation topics, approved by Cabinet
o Virtual fund to finance evaluations
o Ensuring Standards, process guidelines and database for guiding and
communicating findings
o Staff (drawn from various institutions) to design, implement and
design evaluations
 GEF is overseen by sub-committee made up of experts from public
sector institutions, academia, NGO and donor community
4. Government Evaluation Database
 Acts as a single storage facility for retrieval for all government
evaluations that have been undertaken for cross-referencing.
 It also enables trends to be established by comparing various evaluation
studies done in the country
6. Current Initiatives to strengthen M&E
Cont’d
5.
Prime Minister’s Integrated Management Information System (PMIS)
 This project aims at enabling interfacing with all relevant and
expected government information systems to facilitate the Office of
the Prime Minister in the fulfillment of its mandate.
6. Revitalizing Uganda Evaluation Association – UEA
 Designing standards and guidelines for Public Evaluations
 Strong and Vibrant Association
7. Strengthening of partnerships with Development Partners for
 Capacity Building in Monitoring and evaluation
 Funding monitoring and evaluation activities
8. Holding National Evaluation week every after 2 years.
7. Challenges
 Inadequate use of evidence to support policy-making and
decision-making
 Lack of an effective feedback mechanism for the
population
 Scarce coordination & coherence in Gov’t institutions &
programmes
 Weak information system for improving the quality of
the statistical production
 Insufficient capacity & funding to support the M&E
processes all the time.
8. Conclusions
 Government of Uganda is committed to improve its M&E
systems by using evidence for decision making and policy
 Resources have been committed and ring fenced for M&E
activities from Government Budget.
 Findings from evaluations are to be rolled into the bi-annual
Cabinet Retreats.
 Evaluations are beginning to be viewed positively not just as a
punitive exercise but with constructive comments & ownership
by departments & stakeholders
 We shall continue to advocate that results from evaluation are
translated into use.
Thank You!