governance and management structures pdae evaluation, uganda

Governance and Management Structures PDAE Evaluation,

Uganda

Timothy LubangaOffice of the Prime Minister,

Uganda

February 2012

1.0 Introduction• Strong linkage with evaluation of the National

Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) 1997-2007 done to inform the NDP

• Preparations included series of international meetings (Auckland, Lilongwe and Paris and national meetings (OPM)

• Funded by Austrian Development Cooperation, DFID and GoU

• Managed principally by the Office of the Prime Minister with an established Government Policy Coordination and Evaluation Framework

2.0 The Evaluation Process

• National Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Working Group provided further quality control to IRG AND NRG

• Private Independent consultants contracted for the actual Evaluation. Continuity was important from Phase 1 of the Evaluation

• Policy makers at the level of Permanent Secretaries and Cabinet Ministers were briefed adequately

• Technical guidance from IOD PARC team was very useful

• Linkage with the preparation of a National Partnership policy was mutually enriching

3.0 Lessons• Dissemination of PD principles increased focus

on results in the Government performance management and reporting

• Strengthened Government donor coordination and assessment mechanisms through the Partnership policy and the Joint Assessments

• Capacity development in the Department for Monitoring and Evaluation

• Access to important networks, materials and resources

4.0 Challenges • Limited knowledge and interest in the PD• Complexity of the Evaluation The problem is an evaluation of the PD

is a huge task, in which it is difficult to pick out causative factors.

• Need for local studies and pre-evaluation assessments on specific issues.

• Independence of the evaluation• Dealing with emerging issues and beyond aid issues

which have not been studied• Weakness of data information sources • Timing of national fiscal calendar and the evaluation

calendar• Full use of evaluation findings, dissemination,

simplification and translation

5.0 Suggestions• The evaluations must be endorsed by the

highest policy organs, otherwise not used,• The Evaluation should be linked to some known

important national process (In Ug, PEAP Evaluations and Part Policy Preparation

• There should be tighter focus to reduce its complexity and limit coverage– Narrower questions

• Additional efforts are needed for pre-evaluation preparations and post evaluation dissemination to ensure use of results

Conclusion• Thank You