1 / 18

COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HIV/AIDS RESPONSE

COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HIV/AIDS RESPONSE. John Rwomushana Uganda AIDS Commission Secretariat 4 TH NATIONAL AIDS PARTNERSHIP FORUM Speke Resort Munyonyo 30 Jan -1 st Feb 2006. PREAMBLE. Goal of Coordination Timely ,equitable, quality services One coordinating Authority 1992

jens
Download Presentation

COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HIV/AIDS RESPONSE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HIV/AIDS RESPONSE John Rwomushana Uganda AIDS Commission Secretariat 4TH NATIONAL AIDS PARTNERSHIP FORUM Speke Resort Munyonyo 30 Jan -1st Feb 2006

  2. PREAMBLE • Goal of Coordination • Timely ,equitable, quality services • One coordinating Authority 1992 • Source of current info • Joint Sector reviews Sept, Oct, 2005 • JAR and SCE Assessment Dec 2005 issues

  3. COORDINATION ADMINISTRATIVE LEVELS • National (central) • District • Sub district (Sub-County, Village)

  4. CENTRAL LEVEL COORDINATION • AIDS Partnership (stakeholder alignment) established 2002 • Composition • PForum • Self Coordinating Entities (SCEs) • Partnership Committee • Fund

  5. The Uganda AIDS Partnership Uganda AIDS Commission & Secretariat Media AIDS PARTNERSHIP FORUM

  6. COORDINATION AT CENTRAL LEVEL … • SCE Assessment (2005) Objectives: • Ascertain achievements gaps/challenges and emerging issues in SCE functional roles • Identify “good practice” within SCEs • Recommended steps for improvement

  7. SCE ASSESSMENT (2005) FINDINGS • Strengths/Achievements • Formal and representative platform • Regular opportunity to share strategic information for policy and program design • Identification of needs, priorities , action • Some uniformity and alignment to national processes

  8. ISSUES NOT ANTICIPATED • Performance levels and added value of SCEs to improved coordination remained limited • Low capacity to fulfill coordination tasks • Structures not fully functional

  9. SCE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS • Challenges: • Slow understanding of Partnership dynamics • SCE delegates not truly representatives • Information sharing was limited • Slow to implement work plans • PFund was sole source of funding for most SCEs • Poor follow-up on decisions • Inadequate advocacy • Reporting/ feedback format is not standard

  10. SCE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS • Recommended possible solutions • Re-orient SCE members on purpose of Partnership • Membership be of institution not by individual • Rationalize frequency of PC meetings – proposed quarterly • Intensify homogenous member group mobilization • PFund to strengthen SCEs coordination capacity • Better exchange information (inter-and intra-SCE) • Diversify resource sources • UAC to regularize, standardize and firmly establish the Partnership

  11. COORDINATION IN THE DISTRICT • Coordination Policy Guideline developed in 2002 • TWG (MoLG, MoH,ULAA,AIM,UAC and UNAIDS…) • District leaders Consensus Sept 2002 • Structures conform to decentralization framework • Taskforces (political) and Committees (Technical) system – district and Sub-county • Taskforces at Parish and Village.

  12. DISTRICT COORDINATION • Reporting channels • existing linkages with MoLG and MoPS • Direct to UAC (by Chair, CAO, AIDS FP) • Ratification and adoption • Orientation from UAC and MoLG • Establishment of structures at the various levels

  13. DISTRICT HIV/AIDS COORDINATION STRUCTURE

  14. ATTAINMENTS • Ratification of Policy Guideline (Some) • Sub district Coordination structures (few) • Functional tasks (few) • Partnership alignment (minimal)

  15. CHALLENGES • Adoption and ratification of Guidelines • Establishment of structures at the various levels • Representation and membership to the Taskforces and Committees • Joint planning, M&E • Strategic information sharing • Coordination at district & lower levels still weak • Limited resources • Linkages to central level

  16. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS • District Councils to ratify Guideline • All districts to designate AIDS Focal Persons • Appropriate participation at DAT and DAC • Intensify resource mobilization for district responses and coordination • Greater enagagement of PHAs

  17. CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITY • 4th One – Aligned funding channels • Modus operandi • Joint NSF,M&E • Tasks for coordination function • Transfer the national progress to the district • Create appropriate district partnerships ( stakeholder alignment) • Unique opportunity - Gathered district leaders

  18. CONCLUSION • Effective coordination determines successful national AIDS responses • Devolution of coordination functions to SCEs (alignment) is innovative • This forum will critique the present strategic information; identify emerging issues; and design future actions

More Related