mfdr linkages and synergies in results oriented planning and monitoring - a case for uganda by...
TRANSCRIPT
MfDR Linkages and Synergies in Results Oriented Planning and Monitoring - A Case for Uganda
By Ssentongo Mukisa Peter
Assistant Commissioner for Coordination and MonitoringOffice of the Prime Minister, Government of Uganda
Presented at the High Level Forum on Managing for Development Results
Hanoi, Vietnam 4th – 8th February, 2007
The Greater Accountability and Service Delivery Framework
Improving Uganda’s development outcomes requires strengthening the accountability relationship between:
The Ugandan Citizens and Policy Makers; The Ugandan Citizens and Service Providers
(public/private); The Policy makers and Service Providers
(Public/Private)
Service Delivery MechanismsGreater Accountability Framework
Local Governments
Service Providers
(Private/Public))
Central Government
Citizens
Policy Makers
Government Executive
Service Providers
(Private/Public)
Citizens
The Greater Accountability and Service Delivery Framework
The Greater Accountability and Service Delivery Framework
Key things which the citizens value are:
Better Outcomes
Better Public Service delivery mechanism
Trust in Government
COMPONENTS OF PUBLIC VALUE
SERVICES
OUTCOMES
TRUST
Optimal Public Value that
citizens demand
The PEAP/PRSP Key Strategic Results within the Greater Accountability Framework
GOVERNANCE
1. Reduced Income Poverty and Inequality
3. Improved GDP growth
2. Improved Human Development
PEAP Key Strategic Results
Policy Makers
Central Government Executive
Citizens Service Providers
Analytical PEAP/PRSP Monitoring and Review Model
(a) Strategic Objectives (= Reduced Income Poverty and Inequality (IPI) + Human Development (HD) + Increasing GDP Growth (GDP))
(b) Outcomes (= Pillars Key Results Areas (PKRA))
Therefore: the only acceptable Analytical PEAP monitoring and review model is:
{IPI + HD + GDP } is true, if and only if P1KRAs+P2KRAs+P3KRAs+ P4KRAs+P5KRAs Indicators move in their desired directions; and if PKRA moves in the desired direction, then Sector KRA must have moved in their desired directions
PEAP Results and Policy Matrix
PEAP Annual Review
Mechanism
PEAP Outcome Indicators Monitoring
Plan
PEAP Annual Results & Policy
Model
PEAP Annual Policy
Actions Matrix
PEAP Monitoring and Review Framework
Linkages and Synergies in the PEAP Review Cycle – Annual PEAP Implementation Review (APIR)
Two main objectives of the Annual PEAP Implementation Review are i) create an understanding of the performance
of Public Policy as defined in PEAP/PRSP and also trigger a proactive management of its complexities
ii) rationalize and simplify the multiple streams of data collection and reporting mechanisms that currently exist within Government in the measurement of Public Policy.
Annual PEAP Implementation Review Feed back Mechanism
Figure 2: Sector Reviews and the Feed-Back Mechanism
Sector
Sector
Sector
Sector
Sector
Sector
Sector
Pillar 1
Pillar 2
Pillar 3
Pillar 4
Pillar 5
APIR Event
Budgeting Process
Sector work
Adjus-tments of the PEAP Results Data Base
I
den
tify
ga
ps
R
evie
w k
ey r
esu
lts
are
as
Go
U –
Dev
. p
art
ner
s d
ialo
gu
e a
nd
fin
an
cin
g
Links to the LG AssessmentsFigure 3: Links between the sector reviews of LGs and the LG comprehensive assessments
Pillar Pillar Pillar Pillar Pillar
Sectors e.g. Education
LG assessments (annual) 1) General Administrative performance and 2) Sector performance focusing on service delivery results drivers
Conclusion
Mutual Accountability is about the performance of the Greater accountability framework.
Mutual Accountability is understanding the extent of public value creation.
The APIR is the tool for measuring public value creation;
Therefore the APIR is about Mutual Accountability.
The End!
Thank you for listening to me!