1. Annual Assessments of Local Authorities: Tanzania and Uganda
Matt Glasser
AFTU1
29 March 2005

2. TZ and UG: Similar Approaches
UG Local Government Development Programme I and II
LGDP I was small scale pilot, LGDP II includes all Local Government Units (LGUs)
TZ Local Government Support Programme
Supports GoT’s new LG Capital Development Grant System
Designed to be a pilot
Parallel funding from many donors led to Big bang” – no pilot!

3. TZ and UG Objective: build intergovernmental transfer system
Premise:
Local capital investment decisions are best made locally, provided there is participation, accountability, and management capacity
Link between financing and performance
Formula-based transfers subject to annual assessment
LGAs that pass with minor defects receive lower amounts
LGAs that score very high receive extra amounts
LGAs that fail completely do not receive these capital grants

4. TZ: current and future intergovernmental transfer system
Sectoral capital programmes
Sectoral operating transfers
OBJECTIVE:
Local discretion as to capital investment priorities
Operating / equalization transfers

5. Tanzania LGCDG System
“Manual for the Assessment of Participating Councils Against Minimum Access Conditions and Performance Measurement Criteria”
Initially, assessments by independent accounting firm, with participation by PO-RALG
Eventually, assessments by PO-RALG staff, with post-audit by independent accounting firm
Capital grants paired with capacity building grants
See:

6. TZ and UG: Minimum Conditions
Derived from existing laws, regulations and guidelines
Simple, quantitative, yes/no
Purposes:
Ensure minimum safeguards for public funds
Promote compliance with legal and regulatory framework

7. TZ: Performance Indicators
Reward for good performance, sanction for bad
Qualitative, evaluative, policy-driven
Financial management
Development planning
Procurement
Project implementation
Human resource development
Transparency
Accountability
Participatory planning
Pro-poor budgeting

8. TZ: Performance Indicators Weights and scoring
Functional Area
Pot’l Score
Minimum for CG
Minimum for bonus
A. Financial Management 15 7 12
B. Fiscal Capacity
C. Development Planning 20 10 14
D. Transparency / Accountability 4 8
E. Interaction with LLG. 5 2
F. Human Resource Dev’t
G. Procurement
H. Project Implementation
I. Council Functional Processes 3

9. TZ and UG: Capacity Building Grants
Only access criterion is the existence of a CB plan
Some rules about how spent:
Limited equipment
Limited degree programmes for officials
Intended to help LGAs address shortcomings identified in annual assessments

10. TZ: Initial screening vs. annual assessment
When LGSP was intended as a pilot, a universe of 47 potentially eligible was established through rough screening
First annual assessment undertaken for those 47
25 of these qualified for capital grants in the first year

11. UG: results to date 42 LGUs now qualify (vs. 19 initially)
16 now get bonuses (vs. 0 initially)
89% have functional planning committees and LT development plans (vs. 30% initially)
Improved compliance with LG Act and accounting regulations (79% vs. 38%)
Improved LG revenue performance
LGUs generally spend on Government’s national priorities
Significant benefits perceived by affected residents in both services and transparency