Oversight & Governance

This outcome addresses the backlog in parliamentary scrutiny of audit reports and audit follow up by developing an overarching action plan, support, guidance, monitoring and tracking mechanisms, particularly through the OAG’s Management Information System (MIS). This outcome also aims to evaluate the impact of audit recommendations on key sectors and to assess ‘softer’ aspects of reform by developing a better understanding of the political economy drivers for reform to inform more effective political engagement and commitment to reform.

• Key interventions (outputs) include:
  1. Develop capacity for specialised audits across the PFM processes and selected sectors. This includes greening auditing based on the principles set by International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI); Energy and Oil Audits, Inculcating climate change in audit policy
  2. MDALGs utilise a shared tracking system to monitor and report on implementation of audit recommendations. Including completion of the OAG MIS and rollout in all regional centres.
  3. Assess the impact of audit recommendations on service delivery in selected key sectors;
  4. Improve tracking oversight recommendation by MDALGs. Including implementing a training programme for Local Government Public Accounts Committees; and,
  5. Strengthen mechanisms for political engagement on PFM for accountability Including capacity building for parliamentary PFM and accountability forums; and special studies on Political Economy of Public Financial Management Reforms to inform understanding of the implications for dialogue and operational engagement of non-technical drivers such as ‘political commitment’ and inform strategies for strengthening sustainability of PFM reform.

In order to strengthen coordination of PFM reform delivery, new structures of technical sub-groups have been established under PEMCOM covering all six priority reform areas. Through closer collaboration with the Accountability Sector structures, performance against the strategy will be reviewed annually and key risks managed, with escalation to the appropriate forum for action, where necessary.

• Key interventions (outputs) include:
  1. Enhance communication and feedback mechanisms among MDAs and stakeholders implementing the PFM Reform Strategy, including a web-based monitoring system and Action Log;
  2. Improve performance reporting by MDALGs on the implementation of the PFM Reform Strategy, including detailed technical compendium of all PFM KPIs, data collection procedures and reporting guidelines;
  3. Establish new coordination structures for joint planning, implementation and monitoring of the 6 priority reform areas harmonised with the Accountability Sector; and
  4. Introduce an annual review of progress of PFM reforms in collaboration with the Accountability Sectors deepen learning from key stakeholders

This outcome will be attained through enhancement of feedback mechanisms through external reviews by BMAU, EPRC and CSO experts to ensure that learning from experiences has an impact on better policy design and delivery Similarly, this outcome aims to explore and pilot mechanisms for embedding learning from monitoring and evaluation of PFM reforms.

• Key interventions (outputs) include:
  1. Enhance awareness and feedback opportunities for LGs and MDAs in the implementation of the PFM Reform Strategy. Includes establishment of MIS to capture LG performance reporting;
  2. Effective change management and communication on PFM. Includes development of comprehensive (and attendant coordination mechanisms) needs assessment along with tracer studies to assess impact of learning on improvements in governance and service delivery;
  3. Strengthen training modules and systems for induction and in-service training of civil servants on PFM systems and standards;
  4. Establish PFM Centre of excellence for strengthening coordinated learning, research and academia institutions, CSOs as well as international PFM specialised think-tanks and sharing country experience and practices in implementing PFM reforms; and
  5. Develop mechanisms for deepening learning from budget monitoring and diagnostics. Includes strengthening systems of budget monitoring and tracking recommendations there from in the selected focus sectors and revenue monitoring

• This outcome aims to strengthen accountability to citizens through dissemination of PFM performance information and studies and to coordinate under the Accountability Sector to develop the Accountability Sector Strategic Investment Plan (ASSIP) community scorecard for measuring the assessment, planning, monitoring and evaluation of service delivery.

• Key interventions (outputs) include:
  1. Enhance public access to PFM reforms performance information and downward accountability feedback mechanisms. Includes developing a budget transparency and communications strategy and community scorecard for citizen driven accountability assessment of service delivery;
  2. Develop a strategy/citizen campaign for popularising and strengthening opportunities in the Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2010 and
  3. Establish structured engagement forums on accountability in Local Governments and CG with the objective of promoting support for change management, accountability and integrity. Includes review and improvement of mechanisms for dialogue on LG accountability

• This outcome acknowledges the constraints currently posed by rigid and out of date public administration structures by building collaborations with the Public Service Sector to undertake a comprehensive review and rationalisation of structures to ensure that they are commensurate with the current realities and needs. This should be supported by a review of PFM administrative structures to feed into development of an appropriate legal and regulatory framework. Government is committed to planning for further reform in this area and will require close policy collaboration and commitment from the wider accountability sector.

• Key interventions (outputs) include:
  1. Review of accountability public administration structures. Including a series of studies and reviews of the cost of public administration vis-à-vis service delivery, PFM structures, salary study and benchmarking;
  2. Follow-up recommendations of studies e.g. Undertake feasibility studies, establish cost effective framework of public sector operations, develop policy on rationalisation of public administration, undertake relevant process-re-engineering and supportive change management and technical support, as required; and
  3. Review legal framework to facilitate recommendations from the above studies and propose amendments, as required.

• This outcome aims to address the ‘soft’ reforms, by reviewing behavioural incentives, rewards and sanctions surrounding compliance with PFM procedures, including inspections with support provided, consultations, dissemination of information and updates and implementation of new procedures.

• Key interventions (outputs) include:
  1. Improve access to information on PFM reforms. Includes strengthening change management and communication processes to enhance ownership of reforms between AGO and Accounting units;
  2. Improve enabling environment for PFM performance management. Includes revision of Uganda Public Service Standing Orders, developing guidelines for discipline and disciplinary procedures for implementation of a comprehensive sanctions and rewards regime and, establishment of recognition and awards system to identify and highlight officers and institutions that demonstrate accountability and good PFM practice at both CG and LG level.