Albert Byamugisha, PhD. Commissioner, Monitoring and & - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

by: Albert Byamugisha, PhD. Commissioner, Monitoring and & Evaluation Office of the Prime Minister

Contents of Presentation 1. Introduction 2. Context 3. Policy Framework for Monitoring & Evaluation 4. How we plan & evaluate in Uganda’s public sector 5. Governments role in coordinating and /or using evaluations 6. Institutional Framework in promoting use of credible Evaluations in Government 7. Institutional Mechanism Arrangement for M&E 8. Current Initiatives to promote M&E in Uganda 9. Planned evaluations (2012-2014) 10. Challenges 11. Conclusion and Way forward 2

1.0 Introduction  Paper will:  Highlight how Uganda is institutionalizing evaluation by linking supply and demand: Focusing on roles and responsibilities in government (especially executive)- Mention will also be made on how the executive associates with the parliament and civil society,  Highlight existing policy framework for evaluation and to what extent it clarifies roles and responsibilities on evaluation for different institutions,  Highlight role played by government in initiating, coordinating and/or using evaluations  Highlight current initiatives in promoting the use of credible evaluations 3

2.0 Context  In Uganda, over the past two decades, considerable efforts have been made to establish a strong and robust basis for assessing public spending, and its effects on development  The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) has a constitutional mandate to oversee reforms and service delivery in all Government Ministries, Departments & Agencies; and therefore has established an M&E function to support this role.  One of its key functions is to co-ordinate, monitor and evaluate the implementation of Government Policies and Programmes.  A National Strategy for Monitoring and Evaluation of Government programmes (NIMES) also exists within OPM, which inter alia, enhances M&E capacity in Uganda as well as ensuring that sound evidence based Data & Information are available to inform decision making in national policy frameworks. 4

3.0 Context…………………………………………………….. contn ’  Government introduced a series of reforms to enable Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and Local Governments (LGs) to plan and budget annually according to clear budget lines, and against the provision of products and services. MDAs report quarterly on spending and progress towards stated output targets  The political interest and pressure to monitor spending and results has increased since the re-introduction of multi-party politics in Uganda in 2006 and growing attention of domestic media, CSOs and international community  Executive and parliament have taken cognizance of these issues, and have placed increasing demands on the public service to improve its stewardship of resources and ensure effective development 5

3.0 Policy Framework for Monitoring & Evaluation  The National M&E Policy was passed by Cabinet in March 2013. • Primary purpose:  To ‘ improve the performance of the public sector ’ through the strengthening of the operational, coordinated and cost-effective production and use of objective information on implementation & results of national strategies, policies, programmes and projects. • Specific objectives:  Embed M&E in the management practices of MDAs and LGs;  Expand the coverage of public policy and programmes that are subjected to rigorous evaluation ;  Clarify M&E roles and responsibilities ;  Strengthen coordination in the supply and demand of M&E;  Strengthen capacities of MDAs & LGs to implement the policy. 6

4.0 How we plan & evaluate in Uganda’s public sector The current planning framework (BFP, MPS) does not include impact Impacts measures, but we do evaluate to assess the impact of our interventions. Sector Outcomes Each sector has up to three outcomes in its BFP, each with key indicators that Development measure the overall changes in the use, behaviour or satisfaction of the results public services provided as measured in the general population. Vote level Each vote is required to define up to two intermediate outcomes in their BPF (intermediate) and MPS, with key indicators. outcomes Vote Function (VF) Outputs are the summary statements of the goods and VF Outputs services provided under a particular vote function (often a department). Performance Inputs Financial inputs are linked to VF outputs under the budget. These include Accountability the wage, non-wage recurrent and development costs. The costs (particularly Framework associated with delivering particular outputs needs to be refined, to spending) assess value-for-money. 7

5.0 Governments Role in Coordinating and /or using evaluations  To respond to its mandate, OPM established bi-annual Government Performance Assessments.  Reports arising from the assessment are discussed at Cabinet Retreats to track performance and spending and take corrective measures.  Process generates demand pressures on Ministries to improve performance and monitoring & evaluation practices.  Government performance reports use scorecard with “Traffic Light” system to assess all MDAs on performance indicators against set annual targets and spending against budgets  Green – target has been  Yellow – the level of progress against target/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 issues raised  Progress made against these actions is tracked and reported on at the 8 subsequent retreat. UNDP signed an MoU with OPM to strengthen this initiative

6.0 Governments Role in Coordinating and /or using evaluations..cont’d  Baraza initiative:  Seeks to strengthen citizen’s engagement with the state  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:  Government representatives present on their activities during the previous year  Present spending and then the public respond with questions, queries and analysis of their own.  Barazas help the civil and political leaders:  To explain to the community what Local Government does  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- 9

6.0 Governments Role in Coordinating and /or using evaluations….cont’d Government Evaluation Facility (GEF)  Established by OPM to address the poor coverage and quality of public policies and investments by evaluation in Uganda.  Provides a systematic basis for expanding the supply of rigorous assessments to address public policy & investment questions surrounding effectiveness of Gov’t interventions.  Helps in tackling underlying constraints to improved service delivery.  Elements of GEF:  Has a two year rolling agenda of evaluation topics, approved by Cabinet [2012-2014].  Has a Virtual fund to finance evaluations [Initially with support from the development partners and government of Uganda].  Has Standards, process guidelines and database for guiding & communicating findings Seeks to address previously identified problems of ownership capacity and utility by locating the facility in Government (OPM)  Its being used to build analytical and evaluative capacity amongst its members .  Overseen by sub-committee made up of experts from public sector institutions [OPM, Ministry of Finance, National Planning Authority, Uganda Bureau of Statistics], academia, Non-Government Organization and Donor Community 10

6.0 Institutional Framework in promoting use of credible Evaluations in Government  Rigorous Public Sector Evaluations have been identified as a constraint to improving the culture of debating empirical evidence in public policy, hence OPM began an initiative to strengthen the framework and production of rigorous evaluations across the public service.  In 2008, OPM led on the design, implementation and dissemination of evaluations of the successes and failures of the PEAP over the decade of implementation ( 1997-2007).  PEAP evaluation process was managed by a steering committee composed of OPM, MoFPED, NPA and DPs (this was a good example of inter-ministry coordination. Because it was supply driven the evaluation found an audience amongst policy makers with findings and recommendations discussed by cabinet.  Results of the evaluation influenced the shape of the PEAP successor, the five-year National Development Plan and development of a national policy on M&E. 11