1. Republic of Uganda Office of the Prime Minister
Strengthening Monitoring and Evaluation in Uganda
By:
Richard Kabagambe Tureebe
Senior Economist, Monitoring and Evaluation

2. OUTLINE BACKGROUND PERFORMANCE MONITORING EVALUATION
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT
M&E POLICY
INITIATIVES IN M&E
CHALLENGES
CONCLUSIONS

3. 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”.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Vote level (intermediate) outcomes Inputs (particularly spending)
3. How we plan & evaluate in Ugandan public sector
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
Impacts
Performance
Accountability Framework
Development results
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
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.
VF Outputs
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.
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.

7. Implementation evaluation
3. The Desired Evaluation Model in Uganda
Design evaluation
Will there be any difference?
Diagnostic
what is the situation and the problem, proposed solutions?
Implementation evaluation
- what is taking place and reasons
Economic Evaluation
What are the
Costs vs-benefits?
Impact evaluation
Any impact at outcome and impact level, and why
DESIGN

8. 4. Institutional Arrangement
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)

9. 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 evidence- based 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

10. 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

11. 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 program- practical 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

12. 6. Current Initiatives to strengthen M&E ….Cont’d
3. Government Evaluation Facility (GEF) (Uganda); Website :
Purpose:
Design, conduct, commission, disseminate evaluations
Oversee improvements in quality and utility of evaluations across Government
Four main elements of GEF:
Rolling agenda of evaluation topics, approved by Cabinet
Virtual fund to finance evaluations
Ensuring Standards, process guidelines and database for guiding and communicating findings
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

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Thank You!