|
|
| |
| |
| Tuesday, 07 September 2010
|
|
Why Monitoring and Evaluation Matters to the Government of Uganda
The aim of monitoring and evaluation is to improve the quality and effectiveness of the Government and the services that it delivers to its citizens. Monitoring and evaluation is not just about collecting data and making it available. It is also about using data to make informed policy decisions. Monitoring and evaluation systems work best when reliable information and analysis is made available which can then be used to review the performance of Government programmes and strategies, to inform decisions about resource allocation, and to guide the revision of strategies and programmes In a context where resources are constrained, the Government needs to make sure that every Shilling it has at its disposal is put to the best possible use. Monitoring and evaluation is crucial in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of public resources. Why is NIMES Needed? Plans and policies are made based on what is known i.e. evidence. When information is missing, or if it is wrong, then plans made will not be effective or efficient, and policies will not address the real needs and priorities of the people. Many people are already gathering valuable information, and many institutions already have information systems in place. However, this information is not always used in the best way, and it is not pulled together anywhere. The link between the people who gather the information and the people who use the information is weak, and there is a lot of room for improvement in how information is collected and used in evidence-based planning. No single information system can provide all the data that is required to inform national policy decision making. A range of different methods have to be used and pulled together so that systematic evidence-based planning becomes possible. This means that an agreed set of structures, procedures and standards is needed so that everyone can work together towards a common goal without wasting time, money and effort. NIMES will provide an overall framework within which information will be gathered, analyzed and distributed at various levels. The Need for Evidence-based Planning and Decision-Making There are many challenges facing the Government in monitoring and evaluation. It is important for the Government to address these challenges in order to ensure that evidence of good quality is available at the right time in order to inform decisions. Apart from improving the Government's ability to ensure that its services provide value for money, this will also help the Government to become more accountable to its citizens, who can demand to see evidence of the outcome and impact of Government programmes. Evidence-based planning and decision-making encourages the Government and other data users to: - Collect and analyse data on the performance of public programmes.
- Publish and disseminate data about this performance
- Use data when designing or advocating for better public policies.
- Ensure that stakeholders work together to make sure that information generated is relevant, of good quality and available in a timely manner.
|
Monitoring & Evaluation Challenges Although a lot of progress has been made in developing Uganda's M & E framework, there are a number of challenges that need to be addressed in order to develop a national culture of evidence-based planning.
Weak M & E CoordinationA number of studies carried out during the design of NIMES showed that many different Government agencies have their own information systems which do not necessarily have consistent standards that guide them, may not be well matched with data needs of stakeholders, and may overlap with other information systems. There is no single Government agency that has a complete picture of all the information systems that are being used currently, or that are planned for future use. This means that the current systems might be duplicative, and do not always address the most important information needs. Multiple and Parallel M & E EffortsA number of national M & E systems currently exist that have been put in place to meet the needs of specific projects, programmes and policies, often funded by donors. This places a huge burden on planners and managers at sector, district and local levels, who have to fulfill many different M & E requirements. The work that is placed on data collection, inspection and reporting to a number of different M & E systems means that less time is spent on improving the quality of service delivery. Typically, the need for information has been driven from the top levels of the Government. Very little information is given back to local authorities to help them in decision making, and little information is shared across sectors. A lot of the information that is generated in this way is not used at local levels for planning purposes, and there is little incentive to improve the quality of data. Information that is generated is rarely used to inform choices - more often, it is a reporting requirement that civil servants fulfill.
Gaps in InformationIn order for decisions to be made based on evidence, decision-makers must know what data is available, and they must have an incentive to use it. Information can only be used to guide decision-making if it is made available to those who need it. The key problems with information currently produced through the various systems are that: - Data collected through sectoral management information systems (MIS) tends to stay in sector ministry databases that many stakeholders cannot easily access, and
- Even when that data is made available, it is not usually in a format that is appropriate and user-friendly.
Whilst the current M & E systems can provide a lot of information, not all of it is used the way it should be, and there are still information gaps. This is mainly because: Data Produced > Information required · Some data produced is not relevant· Some data which is needed is not produced· Some data produced is not of good quality· Some data is not produced in time to be useful· Some data produced is not disaggregated to the right level · Some data produced is not available to those who need it |
National M & E systems currently do not cover the 'missing middle' level of results - they usually provide good data on expenditure and activities, and even on the impact on poverty. They do not, however, provide information on quality and client satisfaction, or on specific beneficiaries of programmes. This type of information is very important when policies are measured for success. Weak Performance-based Public Management Culture Although progress has been made on embedding performance management within the public sector, current management practices are not geared towards long term objectives. Most ministries still base their planning exercises on inputs and activities, rather than on outcomes and results. Impact evaluation, and understanding causality and attribution are still not a part of the Government's management practices. There is also an obvious lack of skills and capacity within Government systems on the entire planning cycle. This affects the quality of data collected, as well as the importance given to the task. The lack of up to date equipment, and the knowledge of its use also affects data collection, and the quality of its analysis. Many evaluations and surveys that are carried out are not a regular part of Government management practice, and their timing, frequency and content have tended to be driven by those who finance them. This means that the findings of these evaluations and surveys do not necessarily feed into the national decision-making system, and are sometimes carried out in a random and uncoordinated way. Although these challenges focus mainly on Government weaknesses in M & E, there is also a weakness in the demand for public accountability by Uganda's citizens. Whilst many people are dissatisfied with Government service delivery, most citizens still do not feel that they are able to question their leaders, whether at local, district or national levels. Although some measures have been taken by the Government and civil society to address this lack of 'bottom-up' accountability, this has not been followed through. The demand for accountability of Government programmes must be initiated by citizens in order to create incentive to perform within the Government.
|
|
|
