Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
MfDR Linkages and Synergies in Results Oriented Planning and Monitoring - A Case for Uganda By Ssentongo Mukisa Peter Assistant Commissioner for Coordination and Monitoring Office of the Prime Minister, Government of Uganda [email protected] 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) The Greater Accountability and Service Delivery Framework Greater Accountability Framework Policy Makers Government Executive Service Delivery Mechanisms Central Government Local Governments Citizens Service Providers (Private/Public) Citizens Service Providers (Private/Public )) 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 OUTCOMES SERVICES Optimal Public Value that citizens demand TRUST The PEAP/PRSP Key Strategic Results within the Greater Accountability Framework GOVERNANCE Policy Makers 1. Reduced Income Poverty and Inequality Central Government Executive PEAP Key Strategic Results 2. Improved Human Development Citizens 3. Improved GDP growth 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 Monitoring and Review Framework PEAP Results and Policy Matrix PEAP Annual Review Mechanism PEAP Annual Policy Actions Matrix PEAP Outcome Indicators Monitoring Plan PEAP Annual Results & Policy Model 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 Budgeting Process Pillar 1 Pillar 3 Sector Sector Sector Sector Pillar 4 Pillar 5 Identify gaps Sector APIR Event GoU – Dev. partners dialogue and financing Pillar 2 Review key results areas Sector Sector work Adjustments of the PEAP Results Data Base Links to the LG Assessments Figure 3: Links between the sector reviews of LGs and the LG comprehensive assessments Pillar Pillar Pillar Sectors e.g. Education LG assessments (annual) 1) General Administrative performance and 2) Sector performance focusing on service delivery results drivers Pillar Pillar 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!