Governance and Management Structures PDAE Evaluation, Uganda

1. Governance and Management Structures PDAE Evaluation,Uganda Timothy Lubanga Office of the Prime Minister, Uganda February 2012

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Conclusion • Thank You