Local Government Performance Assessment
Mukono Municipal Council
(Vote Code: 772)
Assessment Scores
Crosscutting Minimum Conditions 66%
Education Minimum Conditions 70%
Health Minimum Conditions 70%
Water & Environment Minimum Conditions 0%
Micro-scale Irrigation Minimum Conditions 0%
Crosscutting Performance Measures 62%
Educational Performance Measures 61%
Health Performance Measures 45%
Water & Environment Performance Measures 0%
Micro-scale Irrigation Performance Measures 5% 772 Crosscutting Performance Mukono Measures 2020 Municipal Council
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 0 Service Delivery • Evidence that infrastructure There was evidence that 2 out of the 3 DDEG Outcomes of DDEG projects implemented using projects completed below were being used by investments DDEG funding are functional the beneficiaries as per their profiles: and utilized as per the purpose Maximum 4 points on of the project(s): 1. Completed a Maternity ward at Goma Health this performance Centre III at a cost of Ugx 12 Million aws measure • If so: Score 4 or else 0 functional;
2. Procured medical assorted specialized equipment for Mukono general hospital at Ugx 40.7million , which was being used; and
3. A phased construction of a youth Centre at Ntawo at a cost of Ugx 99.4 million, which is not yet functional.
2 0 Service Delivery a. If the average score in the This Performance Measure was not applicable Performance overall LLG performance until LLGs are assessed. assessment increased from Maximum 6 points on previous assessment : this performance measure o by more than 10%: Score 3
o 5-10% increase: Score 2
o Below 5 % Score 0
2 3 Service Delivery b. Evidence that the DDEG There was evidence that the project planned to Performance funded investment projects be implemented in the LG Annual Approved implemented in the previous FY budget for the year 2019/20 (page 19), and were Maximum 6 points on were completed as per all completed 100%, quarter 4 Performance this performance performance contract (with AWP) report page 47: measure by end of the FY. 1. Completed a Maternity ward at Goma Health • If 100% the projects were Centre III at a cost of Ugx 12 Million; completed : Score 3 2. Procured medical assorted specialized • If 80-99%: Score 2 equipment for Mukono general hospital at Ugx 40.7million; and • If below 80%: 0 3. A phased construction of a youth Centre at Ntawo at a cost of Ugx 99.4 million.
Planned projects were 3, completed 3 which was 3/3x100%= 100%. 3 2 Investment a. If the LG budgeted and spent There was evidence that the LG budgeted and Performance all the DDEG for the previous FY spent all the DDEG for the previous FY on on eligible projects/activities as eligible projects/activities as per the DDEG grant, Maximum 4 points on per the DDEG grant, budget, and budget, and implementation guidelines: The LG this performance implementation guidelines: DDEG budgeted funds were Ugx 378.0 million measure (page 19 of Approved Annual Budget Estimates) Score 2 or else score 0. and it was spent (page 47 of Annual performance report) as below:
1. Completed a Maternity ward at Goma Health Centre III at a cost of Ugx 12.0 Million;
2. Procured medical assorted specialized equipment for Mukono general hospital at Ugx 40.7million;
3. A phased construction of a youth Centre at Ntawo at a cost of Ugx 99.4 million;
4. ICT equipment at Ugx 17 million;
5. Capacity building at Ugx 21.2 million;
6. transfer to LLGs 164.7 million
7. Furniture at Ugx 14.2 million; and
8. Monitoring at Ugx 8.8 million.
3 0 Investment b. If the variations in the contract There was no evidence that all the variations in Performance price for sample of DDEG the contract price for sample of DDEG funded funded infrastructure infrastructure investments for the previous FY Maximum 4 points on investments for the previous FY were within +/-20%. A phased construction of a this performance are within +/-20% of the LG youth Centre at Ntawo at a cost of Ugx 99.4 measure Engineers estimates, million; the cost of the awarded contract for the previous FY was Shs.30,000,000. This was a score 2 or else score 0 variation of -69.4%
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 4 The MC had two LLGs. The positions at Goma 0 Accuracy of reported a. Evidence that information on Division were filled in accordance with the information the positions filled in LLGs as customised staff structure and the division staff per minimum staffing standards list examined. However. infirmation for Maximum 4 points on is accurate, verification of filled positions was not availed at this Performance the Central Division. Measure score 2 or else score 0 4 2 Accuracy of reported b. Evidence that infrastructure There was evidence that infrastructure information constructed using the DDEG is constructed using the DDEG funds was in place in place as per reports produced as per LG Annual Performance report pages 47 Maximum 4 points on by the LG: and 66 and were completed 100% in the this Performance financial year 2019/20 as planned: Measure • If 100 % in place: Score 2, else score 0. 1. Completed a Maternity ward at Goma Health Centre III at a cost of Ugx 12 Million; Note: if there are no reports produced to review: Score 0 2. Procured medical assorted specialized equipment for Mukono general hospital at Ugx 40.7million; and
3. A phased construction of a youth Centre at Ntawo at a cost of Ugx 99.4 million.
5 0 Reporting and a. Evidence that the LG This Performance Measure was not applicable Performance conducted a credible until LLGs are assessed. Improvement assessment of LLGs as verified during the National Local Maximum 8 points on Government Performance this Performance Assessment Exercise; Measure If there is no difference in the assessment results of the LG and national assessment in all LLGs
score 4 or else 0
5 0 Reporting and b. The District/ Municipality has This Performance Measure was not applicable Performance developed performance until LLGs are assessed. Improvement improvement plans for at least 30% of the lowest performing Maximum 8 points on LLGs for the current FY, based this Performance on the previous assessment Measure results.
Score: 2 or else score 0
5 0 Reporting and c. The District/ Municipality has This Performance Measure was not applicable Performance implemented the PIP for the 30 until LLGs are assessed. Improvement % lowest performing LLGs in the previous FY: Maximum 8 points on this Performance Score 2 or else score 0 Measure
Human Resource Management and Development 6 2 Budgeting for and a. Evidence that the LG has The LG consolidated and submitted the staffing actual recruitment and consolidated and submitted the requirements for the coming FY to the MoPS as deployment of staff staffing requirements for the per the submission letter MMC/PS/135 dated coming FY to the MoPS by 30th September 2020 Maximum 2 points on September 30th, with copy to the this Performance respective MDAs and MoFPED. Measure Score 2 or else score 0
7 2 Performance a. Evidence that the As per the report examned, "Staff Adendance management District/Municipality has Analysis Report for the fiirst and second quarters conducted a tracking and - 2019/20", compiled by the Planning Unit, the Maximum 5 points on analysis of staff attendance (as municipality conducted a tracking and analysis of this Performance guided by Ministry of Public staff attendance. Measure Service CSI):
Score 2 or else score 0
7 The municipal Council had eight HoD. The 1 Performance i. Evidence that the LG has appraisal reports examined indicated that they management conducted an appraisal with the were all apprtaised on the following dates; 1. following features: CFO - 15th July 2020, 2. Deputy Town Clerk - Maximum 5 points on 28th July 2020. 3. Principal Commerccial Officer this Performance HODs have been appraised as - 7th July 2020. 3. Principal Community Measure per guidelines issued by MoPS Development Officer - 14th July 2020, 5. during the previous Municipal Engineer - 15th July 2020, 6. Principal FY: Score 1 or else 0 Education Officer - 15th July 2020. 7. Production Officer - 15th July 2020 and 8. Municipal Health Officer - 17th July 2020 7 1 Performance ii. (in addition to “a” above) has The MC implemented administrative rewards and management also implemented administrative sanctions as per the minutes of the rewaeds and rewards and sanctions on time sanctions committee meeting helld on 12th Maximum 5 points on as provided for in the September 2o19, minute number MMC/R & S (iii) this Performance guidelines: 09 2019 Measure Score 1 or else 0
7 1 Performance iii. Has established a The Consultative Committee for staff grievance management Consultative Committee (CC) for redress, composed of six members, was staff grievance redress which is established as per the appointment letters Maximum 5 points on functional. MMC/TS/10C dated 27th June 2019 which were this Performance examined. The Committe was functional as per Measure Score 1 or else 0 the minutes of the committee meeting held on 12th September 2019 minute number MMC/R & S III 09/ 2019 8 The MC recruited nine (9) new employees as per 1 Payroll management a. Evidence that 100% of the the DSC meeting extracts contained in the letter staff recruited during the HRM/159/1 dated 9th July 2019, minute number Maximum 1 point on previous FY have accessed the MMC/173/2019 and MMC/167/2019 to this Performance salary payroll not later than two MMC/179/2019. They all accessed the payroll Measure or else score months after appointment: within two months of their appointment as per the 0 IPPS payroll examined Score 1.
9 Seven (7) employees of the MC retired during the 1 Pension Payroll a. Evidence that 100% of staff previous FY as per the municipal retirement list, management that retired during the previous they all accessed the pension pay roll as per the FY have accessed the pension IPPS payroll examined Maximum 1 point on payroll not later than two months this Performance after retirement: Measure or else score 0 Score 1.
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 10 2 Effective Planning, a. If direct transfers (DDEG) to There was evidence that DDEG funds to LLGs Budgeting and LLGs were executed in were transferred in full as per the requirements in Transfer of Funds for accordance with the the budget for the year 2019/20. Copies of Service Delivery requirements of the budget in warrants submitted to MoFPED for the FY previous FY: 2019/20 indicated that all DDEG funds were Maximum 6 points on transferred in full to LLGs. A total of UGX this Performance Score 2 or else score 0 164,713,000 as budgeted in the 2019/20 Measure Approved Annual Budget page 4, was fully transferred quarterly to LLGs as below:
Quarter 1 warrant of Ugx 54,904,333 was transferred on 22/7/2019;
Quarter 2 warrant of Ugx 54,904,333 was transferred on 8/10/2019; and
Quarter 3 warrant of Ugx 54,904,333 was transferred on 15/1/2020.
10 0 Effective Planning, b. If the LG did timely warranting/ The LG did not warrant in time of direct DDEG Budgeting and verification of direct DDEG transfers to LLGs as below: Transfer of Funds for transfers to LLGs for the last FY, Service Delivery in accordance to the Quarter 1 warrant of Ugx 54,904,333 was requirements of the budget: transferred on 22/7/2019; Maximum 6 points on this Performance Score: 2 or else score 0 Quarter 2 warrant of Ugx 54,904,333 was Measure transferred on 8/10/2019; and
Quarter 3 warrant of Ugx 54,904,333 was transferred on 15/1/2020. 10 0 Effective Planning, c. If the LG invoiced and The LG did not invoice nor communicate in time Budgeting and communicated all DDEG to LLGs about DDEG releases: Transfer of Funds for transfers for the previous FY to Service Delivery LLGs within 5 working days from Quarter 1 invoicing was on 20/8/2019, release the date of funds release in each date was 9/7/2019, 41 days; Maximum 6 points on quarter: this Performance Quarter 2 invoicing was on 15/10/2019, release Measure Score 2 or else score 0 date was 2/10/2019, 13 days; and Quarter 3 invoicing was on 17/1/2020, release date was 8/1/2020,9 days.
11 2 Routine oversight and a. Evidence that the There was evidence that the LG supervised and monitoring District/Municipality has mentored all LLGs . This was verified from the supervised or mentored all LLGs TPC meeting of 15 October 2019 that included Maximum 4 points on in the District /Municipality at all LLGs. this Performance least once per quarter consistent Measure with guidelines:
Score 2 or else score 0
11 2 Routine oversight and b. Evidence that the There was evidence that the reports of support monitoring results/reports of support supervision and monitoring visits were discussed supervision and monitoring visits in the TPC, was seen from the TPC minutes of Maximum 4 points on were discussed in the TPC, 15 October 2019, MMC/TPC/07/Oct/2019. this Performance used by the District/ Municipality Measure to make recommendations for corrective actions and followed- up:
Score 2 or else score 0
Investment Management 12 2 Planning and a. Evidence that the The LG maintained an up-dated assets register budgeting for District/Municipality maintains an covering details on buildings, vehicle, Land etc. investments is up-dated assets register as per format in the accounting manual and was conducted effectively covering details on buildings, updated as of June 30, 2020. vehicle, etc. as per format in the Maximum 12 points on accounting manual: Assets breakdown were on page 37 of the this Performance Financial statements for the financial year Measure Score 2 or else score 0 2019/20, Summary statement of stores and other assets (Physical assets) as at June 30, 2020: Note: the assets covered must include, but not limited to: 1. Land Ugx 6,483,000,000; land, buildings, vehicles and infrastructure. If those core 2. Building and structures: assets are missing score 0 a) Non Residential buildings Ugx 1,553,206,617;
b) Residential buildings Ugx 266,671,835;
c) Roads and bridges Ugx 2,213,669,343;
3. Transport Equipment:
a) Motor vehicles Ugx 350,761,821 ;
4. ICT equipment Ugx 12,354,445 ;
5. Furniture and fittings Ugx 36,711,625; and
6. Other assets Ugx 1,122,343,694 .
12 1 Planning and b. Evidence that the budgeting for District/Municipality has used the There was evidence that the LG used the Board investments is Board of Survey Report of the of Survey Report of the year 2018/19 dated conducted effectively previous FY to make Assets 13/8/2019 to make Assets Management Management decisions decisions. Maximum 12 points on including procurement of new this Performance assets, maintenance of existing Gutters were fixed at Katikolo dumping site and Measure assets and disposal of assets: broken windows were fixed for IFMS server room at the Municipal headquarter as Score 1 or else 0 recommended by the board of survey. 12 2 Planning and c. Evidence that The LG Physical Planning Committee was in budgeting for District/Municipality has a place and functioning, at least 4 sets of minutes investments is functional physical planning were submitted to MoLHUD as follows: conducted effectively committee in place which has submitted at least 4 sets of 1. Meeting held on 6/8/2019,minutes submitted to Maximum 12 points on minutes of Physical Planning MoLHUD on 16/11/2020; this Performance Committee to the MoLHUD. If so 2.Meeting held on 27/11/2019,minutes submitted Measure Score 2. Otherwise Score 0. to MoLHUD on 16/11/2020;
3. Meeting held on 14/5/2020,minutes submitted to MoLHUD on 16/11/2020; and
4. Meeting held on 16/6/2020,minutes submitted to MoLHUD on 16/11/2020; .
The committee had a Physical development plan, it was fully constituted with 7 members and submission of new investments were considered within 30 days of submission. The LG Physical Development Plan was neither in place nor approved, but Town Divisions development plans were approved.
12 0 Planning and d.For DDEG financed projects; There was no evidence that the LG conducted budgeting for desk appraisals for projects. investments is Evidence that the conducted effectively District/Municipality has conducted a desk appraisal for Maximum 12 points on all projects in the budget - to this Performance establish whether the prioritized Measure investments are: (i) derived from the LG Development Plan; (ii) eligible for expenditure as per sector guidelines and funding source (e.g. DDEG). If desk appraisal is conducted and if all projects are derived from the LGDP:
Score 2 or else score 0
12 0 Planning and For DDEG financed projects: There was no evidence that the LG conducted budgeting for field appraisals for projects. investments is e. Evidence that LG conducted conducted effectively field appraisal to check for (i) technical feasibility, (ii) Maximum 12 points on Environmental and social this Performance acceptability and (iii) customized Measure design for investment projects of the previous FY:
Score 2 or else score 0 12 1 Planning and f. Evidence that project profiles There was evidence that the project profiles with budgeting for with costing have been costing were discussed by TPC for all investments is developed and discussed by investments in the AWP. The 3 sampled projects conducted effectively TPC for all investments in the for the current year below were reviewed in the AWP for the current FY, as per TPC meeting of 7/10/2019 minute Maximum 12 points on LG Planning guideline and MMC/TPC/07/Oct/2019:Construction of 3 in one this Performance DDEG guidelines: staff house at Kirowooza Primary School. Measure Score 1 or else score 0. 1.Construction of 3 in one staff house at Kirowooza Primary School budgeted at Ugx 110,000,000/= ;
2.Construction of a 7 stance lined pit latrine at Mukono Town Moslem Primary School budgeted at Ugx 50,000,000/= ; and
3.Completion of 3 in one staff house at Misindye C/U Primary School and Ugx 30,937,000.
12 0 Planning and g. Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence that the Municipal budgeting for screened for environmental and Council screened for environmental and social investments is social risks/impact and put risks/impact and put mitigation measures where conducted effectively mitigation measures where required before projects funded by the DDEG are required before being approved approved for construction Maximum 12 points on for construction using checklists: this Performance It was claimed that two DDEG projects were Measure Score 2 or else score 0 screened for the previous FY. These were:
1) Re-roofing the general Fish stall in Kame Valley market; and
2) Contribution to the construction of Youth Centre in Nakabago.
But apart from a summary of projects proposed to be screened dated 14th August 2019, the actual Screening Forms were not filled.
13 0 Procurement, contract a. Evidence that all infrastructure There was no evidence that all infrastructure management/execution projects for the current FY to be projects for the current FY to be implemented implemented using the DDEG using the DDEG were incorporated in the LG Maximum 8 points on were incorporated in the LG approved procurement plan. The there is no this Performance approved procurement plan culumn on the procurement plan to show source Measure of funding Score 1 or else score 0
13 0 Procurement, contract b. Evidence that all infrastructure There is no evidence that all infrastructure management/execution projects to be implemented in projects to be implemented in the current FY the current FY using DDEG were using DDEG were approved by the Contracts Maximum 8 points on approved by the Contracts Committee before commencement of this Performance Committee before construction Measure commencement of construction: Score 1 or else score 0 13 0 Procurement, contract c. Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence that the LG has properly management/execution properly established the Project established the Project Implementation team as Implementation team as specified in the sector guidelines Maximum 8 points on specified in the sector this Performance guidelines: Measure Score 1 or else 0
13 1 Procurement, contract d. Evidence that all infrastructure There was evidence that all infrastructure management/execution projects implemented using projects implemented using DDEG followed the DDEG followed the standard standard technical designs provided by the LG Maximum 8 points on technical designs provided by Engineer . The phase construction of the Youth this Performance the LG Engineer: centre followed the Engineers designs. The Measure sampled rooms were the library of 9.5m x 6.0 m, Score 1 or else score 0 which was per the design drawings.
13 0 Procurement, contract e. Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence that the LG has provided management/execution provided supervision by the supervision by the relevant technical officers of relevant technical officers of each infrastructure project prior to verification and Maximum 8 points on each infrastructure project prior certification of works in previous FY. there is no this Performance to verification and certification of evidence that the technical officers (DE/ME, Measure works in previous FY. Score 2 or environmental officer, CDO) have supervised else score 0 each project (site meetings with contractors) prior to verification and certification of work
13 1 Procurement, contract f. The LG has verified works There was evidence that the LG verified works management/execution (certified) and initiated payments (certified) and initiated payments of contractors of contractors within specified within specified timeframes as per contract. The Maximum 8 points on timeframes as per contract sampled payments were: this Performance (within 2 months if no Measure agreement): 1. the Phased Construction of a Youth centre at Nakabago. The invoice was received on Score 1 or else score 0 23/9/2019 and payment of Shs. 29,790,000 was effected on 19/11/2019 on voucher no. 2579055; and 2. 5. Phased Construction of OPD at Mukono HC IV. The invoice was received on 3/9/2019 and payment of Shs. 246,738,932 was effected on 6/5/2020 on voucher no. 3346. 13 1 Procurement, contract g. The LG has a complete There was evidence that the LG has a complete management/execution procurement file in place for procurement file in place for each contract with each contract with all records as all records as required by the PPDA Law. Maximum 8 points on required by the PPDA Law: this Performance 1. Construction of 7 stance pit latrine at Measure Score 1 or else 0 Mother Kevin P.S, file number MMC772/WRKS/19-20/00003 the procurement request was on 1/08/2110 , the approval of procurement was on14/08/2019 , the advert date was 9/9/2019 the completion evaluation was on 20/9/2019, the letter of award 30/10/2019, the signing of contract was 11/11/2019 and the completion certificate was 6/5/2020; and 2. The construction of a 3 in 1 Staff quarters in Misindye P.S , the file number is MMC772/WRKS/19-20/00001, the procurement request was on 23/8/2019 the advert date was 14/9/2019 the completion evaluation was on 17/10/2019 the letter of award 27/1/2020 the contract signing was on 6/2/2020
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 2 Grievance redress a. Evidence that the There was evidence that the Municipality has i) mechanism District/Municipality has i) designated a person to coordinate response to operational. designated a person to feed-back (grievance /complaints) and ii) coordinate response to feed- established a centralized Grievance Redress Maximum 5 points on back (grievance /complaints) Committee (GRC), with optional co-option of this performance and ii) established a centralized relevant departmental heads/staff as relevant. measure Grievance Redress Committee This was revealed from: (GRC), with optional co-option of relevant departmental A letter written by the Town Clerk Mukono dated heads/staff as relevant. 27th June 2019 appointed members of the Municipal Council Rewards and Sanctions Score: 2 or else score 0 Committee. This is the same committee used as GRC. Members included:
- Principle education Officer,
- Senior Assistant Town Clerk,
- Senior Internal Auditor,
- I/c Mukono Health Centre IV, and
- Senior Health Educator.
On 10th August 2016, the Town Clerk, Mr. Richard K. Monday appointed Mr. Masengere George, Senior Environment Officer as Coordinator for Grievance and Complaint Management in Mukono Municipal Council. The letter reference was MMC/SM/10. 14 2 Grievance redress b. The LG has specified a There was evidence that the Municipal Council mechanism system for recording, had a specified a system for recording, operational. investigating and responding to investigating and responding to grievances, grievances, which includes a which includes a centralized complaints log with Maximum 5 points on centralized complaints log with clear information and reference for onward this performance clear information and reference action. measure for onward action (a defined complaints referral path), and A clear Complaints Register was available at the public display of information at Municipal Councils showing the Serial Number, district/municipal offices. Date, Particulars of Complaint, Action Taken and remarks. The first entry was made on 26/08/2016 If so: Score 2 or else 0 and the latest entry was on 13/11/2020.
14 1 Grievance redress c. District/Municipality has There was evidence that the Municipal Council mechanism publicized the grievance redress had Municipality has publicized the grievance operational. mechanisms so that aggrieved redress mechanisms so that aggrieved parties parties know where to report and know where to report and get redress. Among Maximum 5 points on get redress. methods used included: this performance measure If so: Score 1 or else 0 1) The Municipal Council has a website: www.mukonomunicipalcouncil.go.ug; and
2) Radio adverts on Radio Dunamis on the programme "agafa ewa'Meeya" announce Complaint procedures to be followed in case of any complaints.
15 1 Safeguards for service a. Evidence that Environment, delivery of investments Social and Climate change Environment, Social and Climate change effectively handled. interventions have been interventions were integrated into LG integrated into LG Development Development Plans, annual work plans and Maximum 11 points on Plans, annual work plans and budgets. Page 23 of the LG Development Plan this performance budgets complied with: Score 1 indicated a budget of Ugx 500,000 for capital measure or else score 0 projects spent on environmental concerns.
15 1 Safeguards for service b. Evidence that LGs have There was evidence that the LG disseminated delivery of investments disseminated to LLGs the the enhanced DDEG guidelines in the TPC effectively handled. enhanced DDEG guidelines meeting of15 October 2019. (strengthened to include Maximum 11 points on environment, climate change this performance mitigation (green infrastructures, measure waste management equipment and infrastructures) and adaptation and social risk management
score 1 or else 0 15 3 Safeguards for service (For investments financed from There was evidence that the Municipal Council delivery of investments the DDEG other than health, incorporated costed Environment and Social effectively handled. education, water, and irrigation): Management Plans (ESMPs) into designs, BoQs, bidding and contractual documents for DDEG Maximum 11 points on c. Evidence that the LG infrastructure projects of the previous FY, for this performance incorporated costed investments financed from the DDEG other than measure Environment and Social health, education, water, and irrigation. Management Plans (ESMPs) into designs, BoQs, bidding and A Partnership between Mukono Municipal contractual documents for DDEG Council and Sanitation 5 Finland for a self- infrastructure projects of the sustaining briquette/fertilizer factory from sewage previous FY, where necessary: sludge was signed on 01 October 2020. It was costed at US$650,000 score 3 or else score 0
15 3 Safeguards for service d. Examples of projects with There was an example of a project with costing delivery of investments costing of the additional impact of the additional impact from climate change. effectively handled. from climate change. There was a cooperation agreement signed Maximum 11 points on Score 3 or else score 0 between the Municipal Council and the National this performance Environment Management Authority (NEMA) for measure a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project in solid waste management in the Municipality. It was costed at US$600,000, under funding from the World Bank.
15 1 Safeguards for service e. Evidence that all projects are There was evidence that all projects were delivery of investments implemented on land where the implemented on land where the Municipal effectively handled. LG has proof of ownership, Council had proof of ownership, access, and access, and availability (e.g. a availability. The evidence was presented as Maximum 11 points on land title, agreement; Formal follows: this performance Consent, MoUs, etc.), without measure any encumbrances: 1) The Youth Centre is located on Plot 2470, Block 107, Mukono, Kyaggwe. Score 1 or else score 0 2) The Fish Market is on Plot 31 - 33 and 2G - 2H, Block 530 Kame Road, Mukono Municipality, Mukono District; and
3) CDM Waste management facility is located on Plot 139, Block 119, Kyaggwe. 15 0 Safeguards for service f. Evidence that environmental There was no evidence that the Environmental delivery of investments officer and CDO conducts officer and CDO conducted support supervision effectively handled. support supervision and and monitoring to ascertain compliance with monitoring to ascertain ESMPs; and provided monthly reports. The two Maximum 11 points on compliance with ESMPs; and reports produced were: this performance provide monthly reports: measure 1) Supervision and monitoring report dated Score 1 or else score 0 6th/November/2019 signed by both the Senior Environmental Officer and Principal Community Development Officer for the municipality; and
2) Supervision report dated 10th August 2020 was produced, signed by both the Senior Environmental Officer and Principal Community Development Officer for the municipality.
Clearly, supervision was not done on a regular basis. It was neither monthly, nor quarterly, but took one year for the officers to return and check on the activities being implemented.
15 1 Safeguards for service g. Evidence that E&S There was evidence of E&S compliance delivery of investments compliance Certification forms Certification forms are completed and signed by effectively handled. are completed and signed by Environmental Officer and CDO prior to Environmental Officer and CDO payments of contractors’ invoices/certificates at Maximum 11 points on prior to payments of contractors’ interim and final stages of projects. They were as this performance invoices/certificates at interim follows: measure and final stages of projects: Construction of Kyungu HC II, dated 1st June Score 1 or else score 0 2020 was signed by both Environment Officer and PCDO;
Other reports were only signed by the Environment Officer, and were as follows:
1) Phased construction of Youth Centre, dated 12/09/2019;
2) Upgrading of Serado road, dated15/09/2019;
3) Re-roofing of 4 classroom blocks, dated 4/10/2019;
5) Construction of 2-in-one classroom block, dated 4/10/2019
Financial management 16 2 LG makes monthly a. Evidence that the LG makes All the bank accounts sampled had their monthly Bank reconciliations monthly bank reconciliations and reconciliations done up to October 31, 2020. are up to-date at the point of time These were: Maximum 2 points on of the assessment: this Performance 1. MUWRP ; Measure Score 2 or else score 0 2. TSA; and
3. General fund. 17 2 LG executes the a. Evidence that LG has The LG produced 4 quarterly internal audit Internal Audit function produced all quarterly internal reports in the FY 2019/20 as below: in accordance with the audit (IA) reports for the previous LGA Section 90 FY. Quarter 1 report was prepared on 29/11/2019;
Maximum 4 points on Score 2 or else score 0 Quarter 2 report was prepared on 2/3/2020; this performance Quarter 3 report was prepared 18/6/20; and measure Quarter 4 report was prepared on 2/9/2020.
17 1 LG executes the b. Evidence that the LG has The LG had provided status of implementation of Internal Audit function provided information to the internal audit findings to the LG PAC for all the 4 in accordance with the Council/ chairperson and the LG quarters: LGA Section 90 PAC on the status of implementation of internal audit Quarter 1 status of implementation of internal Maximum 4 points on findings for the previous FY i.e. audit findings provided to LG PAC on 6/12/2019; this performance information on follow up on audit Quarter 2 status of implementation of internal measure queries from all quarterly audit audit findings provided to LG PAC on 4/3/2020 ; reports. Quarter 3 status of implementation of internal Score 1 or else score 0 audit findings provided to LG PAC on 18/6/2020; and
Quarter 4 status of implementation of internal audit findings provided to LG PAC on 4/9/2020.
17 The LG did not discuss any of the 4 quarter 0 LG executes the c. Evidence that internal audit internal audit reports of the year 2019/20. Internal Audit function reports for the previous FY were in accordance with the submitted to LG Accounting LGA Section 90 Officer, LG PAC and that LG PAC has reviewed them and Maximum 4 points on followed-up: this performance measure Score 1 or else score 0
Local Revenues 18 0 LG has collected local a. If revenue collection ratio (the The actual/budget local revenue collection ratio revenues as per percentage of local revenue for the FY 2018/19 was 64.8% budget (collection ratio) collected against planned for the (UGX3,026,724,090 /4,670,562,532). This was previous FY (budget realization) budget variance of -35.2% which is lower than Maximum 2 points on is within +/- 10 %: then score 2 or than -10%. Therefore scoring 0. this performance else score 0. measure (Source: LG Final accounts for FY 2019/20 page 15 and Budget Estimates for 2019/20 page 1.) 19 2 The LG has increased a. If increase in OSR (excluding The LG OSR increased by 108.3% from UGX LG own source one/off, e.g. sale of assets, but 1,453,273,384 in the FY 2018/19 to UGX revenues in the last including arrears collected in the 3,026,724,090 in the FY 2019/20. (Source: LG financial year year) from previous FY but one audited accounts for Financial Year (FY) 2018/19 compared to the one to previous FY page 15 and draft accounts for the year 2019/20 before the previous page 15. financial year (last FY • If more than 10 %: score 2. year but one) • If the increase is from 5% -10 Maximum 2 points on %: score 1. this Performance • If the increase is less than 5 %: Measure. score 0.
20 2 Local revenue a. If the LG remitted the There was evidence that the mandatory share of administration, mandatory LLG share of local sharable local revenues of Ugx 2,635,296,426 allocation, and revenues during the previous was remitted to the 2 Divisions at 50% , Goma transparency FY: score 2 or else score 0 received Ugx 781,467,000 and Central received 536,181,213. Maximum 2 points on this performance measure.
Transparency and Accountability 21 2 LG shares information a. Evidence that the procurement There was evidence that the procurement plan with citizens plan and awarded contracts and awarded contracts and all amounts are all amounts are published: Score published. There was on a notice board at the LG Maximum 6 points on 2 or else score 0 head quarters displaying the procurement plan this Performance and awarded contracts for the current FY as Measure follows:
1. Project: Management of Katikolo Composite Site
Contract NO MMC772/Srves/20-21/00056
Contract Price: UGX 4,495,130 per month
Date of display was 30/07/2020;
2. Project: Management Services for garbage management fee along Kampala ,Seeta, Nantabulirwa , Masindye ,Njenje
Contract NO MMC772/Srves/20-21/00052
Contract Price: UGX 885,000 per month
Date of display was 30/07/2020; and
3. Project: Supply of fuels, Oils, and lubricants under frame work contract
Contract NO MMC772/Srves/20-21/00027
Contract Price: as per pump price
Date of display was 04/08/2020.
21 2 LG shares information b. Evidence that the LG There was evidence that the LG performance with citizens performance assessment results assessment results for the year 2018/19 together and implications are published with the implications were available on the LG Maximum 6 points on e.g. on the budget website for website this Performance the previous year: Score 2 or http://www.mukonomunicipalcouncil.go.ug/ at the Measure else score 0 time of the assessment.
21 1 LG shares information c. Evidence that the LG during There was evidence that the LG conducted with citizens the previous FY conducted discussions with the public on service delivery discussions (e.g. municipal and got feed back. Evidence was radio Maximum 6 points on urban fora, barazas, radio programs that were conducted for six months this Performance programmes etc.) with the public from January to June 2020 on DUNAMIS (103.0 Measure to provide feed-back on status of FM) RADIO STATION FOR AGAFA EWA activity implementation: Score 1 MAYOR RADIO PROGRAM. or else score 0 21 1 LG shares information d. Evidence that the LG has There was evidence that the LG publicized tax with citizens made publicly available matters on the LG website information on i) tax rates, ii) http://www.mukonomunicipalcouncil.go.ug/ at the Maximum 6 points on collection procedures, and iii) time of the assessment. this Performance procedures for appeal: If all i, ii, Measure iii complied with: Score 1 or else score 0
22 The LG did not have any IGG case in the 1 Reporting to IGG a. LG has prepared an IGG financial year 2019/20. report which will include a list of Maximum 1 point on cases of alleged fraud and this Performance corruption and their status incl. Measure administrative and action taken/being taken, and the report has been presented and discussed in the council and other fora. Score 1 or else score 0
772 Education Performance Mukono Measures 2020 Municipal Council
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 2 Learning Outcomes: a) The LG PLE pass rate has The LG PLE pass rate had improved by 1% The LG has improved improved between the previous between the previous school year but one and PLE and USE pass school year but one and the the previous year as shown below: rates. previous year 2018: Div. one was 1,875, Div two was 2,591, Maximum 7 points on • If improvement by more than 5% and Div. three was 491. The total pass, this performance score 4 therefore, was 4,951 while the total number of measure candidates that sat exams was 5,320. • Between 1 and 5% score 2 The calculated percentage for 2018 was, • No improvement score 0 therefore, 4,951/5320x100=93%
2019: Div. one was 1,765, Div two was 3,075, and Div. three was 489. The total pass, therefore, was 5,329 while the total number of candidates that sat exams was 5,693 The calculated percentage for 2019 was, therefore, 5,329/5,693x100=94%
Therefore 94%-93%=1% percentage improvement.
1 2 Learning Outcomes: b) The LG UCE pass rate has The LG UCE pass rate had improved by 3.3% The LG has improved improved between the previous between the previous school year but one and PLE and USE pass school year but one and the the previous year as shown below: rates. previous year 2018: Div. one was 303, Div two was 227, and Maximum 7 points on • If improvement by more than 5% Div. three was 225. The total pass, therefore, this performance score 3 was 755 while the total number of candidates measure that sat exams was 969. • Between 1 and 5% score 2 The calculated percentage for 2018 was, therefore, 755/969x100=78% • No improvement score 0 2019: Div. one was 401, Div two was 283, and Div. three was 245. The total pass, therefore, was 929 while the total number of candidates that sat exams was 1,142. The calculated percentage for 2019 therefore, was 929/1142x100=81.3% Therefore 81.3%-78%=3.3% percentage improvement. 2 0 Service Delivery a) Average score in the This performance measure was not applicable Performance: Increase education LLG performance has until the LLGs are assessed. in the average score in improved between the previous the education LLG year but one and the previous performance year assessment. • If improvement by more than 5% Maximum 2 points score 2
• Between 1 and 5% score 1
• No improvement score 0
3 2 Investment a) If the education development There is evidence that the education Performance: The LG grant has been used on eligible development grant has been used on eligible has managed activities as defined in the sector activities as defined in the sector guideline. They education projects as guidelines: score 2; Else score 0 were approved in the annual work plan and are per guidelines listed as output 078182 in the Budget performance report for Teacher's house Maximum 8 points on construction and rehabilitation on Page 50. this performance measure
3 2 Investment b) If the DEO, Environment There was evidence that the DEO certified Performance: The LG Officer and CDO certified works works on Education construction projects has managed on Education construction implemented in the previous FY before the LG education projects as projects implemented in the made payments to the contractors:- per guidelines previous FY before the LG made payments to the contractors score 1. A Contract for the construction of a 3 in 1 staff Maximum 8 points on 2 or else score 0 house at Misindye Primary school by this performance Restoration 2010 ltd worth Ugx 94,259,517 was measure certified and approved by the Engineer and the DEO on 16/6/2020 and before payment on 17/6/2020;
2. A Contract for the construction of a 7 stance latrine at Mother Kevin Primary school by Isaki co ltd worth Ugx 47,598,453 was certified and approved by the Engineer and the DEO on 10/2/2020 before payment on 14/5/2020; and
3. The retention on a Contract for the construction of a 2 classroom block at Bajjo Primary school by Restoration 2010 ltd worth Ugx 3,419,234 was approved by the Engineer and the DEO on 28/4/2020 before payment on 17/6/2020. 3 2 Investment c) If the variations in the contract There is evidence that the variations in the Performance: The LG price are within +/-20% of the contract price are within +/-20% of the LG has managed MoWT estimates score 2 or else Engineer's estimates. The sampled contracts education projects as score 0 were: per guidelines 1. Construction of 7 stance pit latrine at Maximum 8 points on Mother Kevin P.S the estimated was this performance 49,000,000 and the award was 47,598,453 measure hence the variation was 2.86%; and 2. Construction of a 3 in 1 Staff quarters in Misindye P.S, the estimate was 90,000,000 and the award 88,694,228 hence the variation was 1.5%.
3 2 Investment d) Evidence that education There is evidence that education projects were Performance: The LG projects were completed as per completed as per the work plan in the previous has managed the work plan in the previous FY FY. The project are listed on the Page 52 of the education projects as Budget performance report of the FY 2019/20. per guidelines • If 100% score 2 The projects were: construction of 7-stance water borne toilet with water harvesting facility at • Between 80 – 99% score 1 Maximum 8 points on Mother Kevin P/S ; and the Construction of a 3 in this performance • Below 80% score 0 1 teachers house with a 3 stance pit latrine at measure Misindye Primary School. The score was 100%.
4 2 Achievement of a) Evidence that the LG has From the staffing structure for schools, the standards: The LG has recruited primary school teachers teaching staff list it was evident that the LG had met prescribed school as per the prescribed MoES recruited 481(98) out of 491 primary school staffing and staffing guidelines teachers as per the prescribed MoES staffing infrastructure standards guidelines. • If 100%: score 3 Maximum 6 points on this performance • If 80 - 99%: score 2 measure • If 70 – 79% score: 1
• Below 70% score 0
4 From the consolidated assets register, it was 3 Achievement of b) Percent of schools in LG that evident that all (100) the 33 UPE and the 3 USE standards: The LG has meet basic requirements and in the municipality met the prescribed DES met prescribed school minimum standards set out in the minimum standards. staffing and DES guidelines, infrastructure standards • If above 70% score: 3 Maximum 6 points on this performance • If between 60 - 69%, score: 2 measure • If between 50 - 59%, score: 1
• Below 50 score: 0
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 5 2 Accuracy of reported a) Evidence that the LG has From the teacher deployment list, the LG had information: The LG accurately reported on teachers deployed 481 teachers in the 33 UPE schools , has accurately reported and where they are deployed. this information was consistent with what was on teaching staff in found from the sampled schools as shown place, school • If the accuracy of information is below: infrastructure, and 100% score 2 service performance. Sseeta C/U in Goma division had an enrolment • Else score: 0 of 1,022 pupils had 27 teachers; Bishop east Maximum 4 points on Primary school in the central division with an this performance enrolment of 646 pupils had 15 teachers and measure Mukono town Moslem P/S in the central division with an enrollment of 966 pupils had 25 teachers.
5 2 Accuracy of reported b) Evidence that LG has a school There was evidence that LG had a school asset information: The LG asset register accurately register accurately reporting on the infrastructure has accurately reported reporting on the infrastructure in in all registered primary schools. The information on teaching staff in all registered primary schools. on the LG consolidated assets register was place, school consistent with what was obtained from sampled infrastructure, and • If the accuracy of information is schools as shown below: service performance. 100% score 2 Seeta C/U P/S had 529 desks;22 toilet Maximum 4 points on • Else score: 0 stances;04 teachers' houses;10 classrooms. this performance measure Bishop East P/S had 510 desks;12 toilet stances;02 teachers' houses;8 classrooms.
Mukono Town Moslem P/S had 140 desks;13 toilet stances;00 teachers' houses;11 classrooms.
6 0 School compliance a) The LG has ensured that all There was no evidence from the three sampled and performance registered primary schools have schools which were: Seeta C/U P/S; Mukono improvement: complied with MoES annual town Moslem P/S and Bishop East P/S to show budgeting and reporting that the LG had ensured that all registered Maximum 12 points on guidelines and that they have primary schools have complied with MoES this performance submitted reports (signed by the annual budgeting and reporting guidelines and measure head teacher and chair of the that they have submitted reports (signed by the SMC) to the DEO by January 30. headteacher and chair of the SMC) to the DEO Reports should include among by January 30. Reports should include among others, i) highlights of school others, i) highlights of school performance, ii) a performance, ii) a reconciled reconciled cash flow statement, iii) an annual cash flow statement, iii) an budget and expenditure report, and iv) an asset annual budget and expenditure register. report, and iv) an asset register:
• If 100% school submission to LG, score: 4
• Between 80 – 99% score: 2
• Below 80% score 0 6 2 School compliance b) UPE schools supported to Only Seeta C/U P/S (33%) out of the three and performance prepare and implement SIPs in sampled schools was had a school improvement improvement: line with inspection plan in line with inspection recommendations. recommendations: Maximum 12 points on this performance • If 50% score: 4 measure • Between 30– 49% score: 2
• Below 30% score 0
6 4 School compliance c) If the LG has collected and It was evident that the LG had collected and and performance compiled EMIS return forms for compiled EMIS return forms for all registered improvement: all registered schools from the schools (100%) from the previous FY year with a previous FY year: total enrolment of 20047 pupils. Maximum 12 points on this performance • If 100% score: 4: measure • Between 90 – 99% score 2
• Below 90% score 0
Human Resource Management and Development 7 4 Budgeting for and a) Evidence that the LG has From the LG Performance Contract, it was actual recruitment and budgeted for a head teacher and evident that the LG has budgeted 1,858,687,708 deployment of staff: LG a minimum of 7 teachers per UGX to cater for a head teacher and a minimum has substantively school or a minimum of one of 7 teachers per school or a minimum of one recruited all primary teacher per class for schools with teacher per class for schools with less than P.7 school teachers where less than P.7 for the current FY: for the current FY. there is a wage bill provision Score 4 or else, score: 0
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
7 3 Budgeting for and b) Evidence that the LG has From the teachers' deployment list, list of school, actual recruitment and deployed teachers as per sector and from the three sampled schools, it was deployment of staff: LG guidelines in the current FY, evident that the LG had deployed teachers as has substantively per sector guidelines whereby all the 33 UPE recruited all primary Score 3 else score: 0 school s had a headteacher and a minimum of 7 school teachers where teachers per school or a minimum of one teacher there is a wage bill per class for schools with less than P.7 in the provision current FY. The total number of teachers deployed is 481. The following number of Maximum 8 points on teachers were found in the sampled schools: this performance Seeta C/U had 27 teachers; Mukono town measure Moslem had 25 teachers while Bishop East P/S had 15 teachers which was in line with the deployment list. 7 1 Budgeting for and c) If teacher deployment data has From the sampled schools, the teacher actual recruitment and been disseminated or publicized deployment data had been disseminated or deployment of staff: LG on LG and or school notice publicized on LG and or school notice boards as has substantively board, shown below: recruited all primary school teachers where score: 1 else, score: 0 Seeta C/U had 27 teachers; Mukono town there is a wage bill Moslem had 25 teachers while Bishop East P/S provision had 15
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
8 2 Performance a) If all primary school head The MC had thirty three (33) Primary Schools management: teachers have been appraised and therefore 33 Primary School Head Appraisals have been with evidence of appraisal Teachers. The 10 sampled and examined conducted for all reports submitted to HRM with appraisal report indicated that the Head education copt to DEO/MEO Teachers were appraised on the following dates; management staff, head teachers in the Score: 2 or else, score: 0 1. Bajjo CoU PS - 21st July 2020, 2. St Peter registered primary and Nantabulilirwa PS - 23rd July 2020, 3. secondary schools, Ssekiboobo PS - 3rd August 2020, 4. Kiwanga and training conducted CoU PS - 23rd july 22020, 5. Mukono Town to address identified Muslim PS - 1st July 2020, 6. Takajjunge PS - capacity gaps. 2nd July 2020, 7. Kiwanga UMEA PS - 1st July 2020, 8. Namilyango Junior Boys PS - 30th June Maximum 8 points on 2020, 9. Namilyango Day PS - 26th June 2020 this performance and 10. Kyaserela PS - 3rd August 2020 measure
8 2 Performance b) If all secondary school head he MC had four (4) Secondary Schools and management: teachers have been appraised therefore 4 Secondary school Head Teachers. Appraisals have been with evidence of appraisal They were appraised on the following dates; conducted for all reports submitted by D/CAO (or education Chair BoG) to HRM 1. Bishops Senior Secondary School - 2nd July management staff, 2020, 2. St. Charles SS Bukerere - 1st July head teachers in the Score: 2 or else, score: 0 2020, 3. Mukono High School - 30th June 2020 registered primary and and 4. Namilyngo College - 26th June 2020 secondary schools, and training conducted to address identified capacity gaps.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure 8 2 Performance c) If all staff in the LG Education The Education Department had four (4) management: department have been appraised members of staff. They were appraised on the Appraisals have been against their performance plans following dates; 1. Principal Education Officer - conducted for all 15th July 2020, 2. Senior Inspector of Schools - education score: 2. Else, score: 0 2nd July 2020, 3. Education Officer - 2nd July management staff, 2020 and 4. Inspector of Schools - 2nd July head teachers in the 2020 registered primary and secondary schools, and training conducted to address identified capacity gaps.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
8 The LG had a training plan dated 30/06/2020. 2 Performance d) The LG has prepared a management: training plan to address identified Appraisals have been staff capacity gaps at the school conducted for all and LG level, education management staff, score: 2 Else, score: 0 head teachers in the registered primary and secondary schools, and training conducted to address identified capacity gaps.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 9 0 Planning, Budgeting, a) The LG has confirmed in There was no evidence to confirm that LG had and Transfer of Funds writing the list of schools, their confirmed in writing the list of schools, their for Service Delivery: enrolment, and budget allocation enrolment, and budget allocation in the The Local Government in the Programme Budgeting Programme Budgeting System (PBS) by has allocated and System (PBS) by December 15th December 15th annually. spent funds for service annually. delivery as prescribed in the sector If 100% compliance, score:2 or guidelines. else, score: 0
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure 9 2 Planning, Budgeting, b) Evidence that the LG made It was evident that the LG made allocations of and Transfer of Funds allocations to inspection and 13,741,881 UGX to inspection and monitoring for Service Delivery: monitoring functions in line with functions like support supervision,ensuring The Local Government the sector guidelines. compliance to basic minimum requirements, in has allocated and line with the sector guidelines. spent funds for service If 100% compliance, score:2 else, delivery as prescribed score: 0 in the sector guidelines.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
9 0 Planning, Budgeting, c) Evidence that LG submitted The LG did not submit warrants for school’s and Transfer of Funds warrants for school’s capitation capitation within 5 days for the last 3 quarters as for Service Delivery: within 5 days for the last 3 below: The Local Government quarters has allocated and Quarter 1 warrant was on 22/7/2019, release spent funds for service If 100% compliance, score: 2 else date was 9/7/2019; 13 days delivery as prescribed score: 0 Quarter 2 warrant was on 8/10/2019, release in the sector date was 2/10/2019; 6 days and guidelines. Quarter 3 warrant was on 15/1/2020 , release Maximum 8 points on date was 8/1/2020;7 days. this performance measure
9 0 Planning, Budgeting, d) Evidence that the LG has From the sampled schools there was no and Transfer of Funds invoiced and the DEO/ MEO has evidence to show that MEO for Service Delivery: communicated/ publicized communicated/publicized within three working The Local Government capitation releases to schools days of the release. has allocated and within three working days of spent funds for service release from MoFPED. delivery as prescribed in the sector If 100% compliance, score: 2 guidelines. else, score: 0
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
10 The inspection plan dated 2019/2020 was in 2 Routine oversight and a) Evidence that the LG place. monitoring Education department has prepared an inspection plan and Maximum 10 points on meetings conducted to plan for this performance school inspections. measure • If 100% compliance, score: 2, else score: 0 10 0 Routine oversight and b) Percent of registered UPE On average 51.3% of the 33 registered UPE monitoring schools that have been inspected schools from PBS where inspected in the and monitored, and findings previous three terms as shown below: Maximum 10 points on compiled in the DEO/MEO’s this performance monitoring report: Term 11 (2019) 11 (33%) schools were measure inspected out of 33. • If 100% score: 2 Term 111 (2019) 22 (67%) schools were • Between 80 – 99% score 1 inspected out of 33.
• Below 80%: score 0 Term 1 (2020) 18 (54%) schools were inspected out of 33
10 In the departmental meeting held on 4/10/2019 0 Routine oversight and c) Evidence that inspection inspection reports from the two divisions were monitoring reports have been discussed and discussed , however, there was no evidence used to recommend corrective from the sampled schools to show that the DIS Maximum 10 points on actions, and that those actions followed up on inspection recommendation. this performance have subsequently been measure followed-up,
Score: 2 or else, score: 0
10 2 Routine oversight and d) Evidence that the DIS and From the DES acknowledgments dated: monitoring DEO have presented findings 26/08/2019;1/4/2020 and 08/08/2020, it was from inspection and monitoring evident that the MIS and MEO had presented Maximum 10 points on results to respective schools and findings from inspection and monitoring results this performance submitted these reports to the to respective schools and submitted these measure Directorate of Education reports to the Directorate of Education Standards Standards (DES) in the Ministry (DES) in the Ministry of Education and Sports of Education and Sports (MoES): (MoES). Score 2 or else score: 0
10 2 Routine oversight and e) Evidence that the council There was evidence that the council committee monitoring committee responsible for responsible for education met and discussed education met and discussed service delivery issues including inspection and Maximum 10 points on service delivery issues including monitoring findings and performance this performance inspection and monitoring assessment results as below: measure findings, performance assessment results, LG PAC 1. Minutes of the social committee meeting dated reports etc. during the previous 6/8/2019; FY: score 2 or else score: 0 2. Minutes of the social committee meeting dated 3/12/2019 ;
3. Minutes of the social committee meeting dated 21/5/2020; and
4. Minutes of the social committee meeting dated 27/11/2019. 11 0 Mobilization of parents Evidence that the LG Education There was no evidence to show that the LG to attract learners department has conducted Education department had conducted activities activities to mobilize, attract and to mobilize, attract and retain children at school. Maximum 2 points on retain children at school, this performance measure score: 2 or else score: 0
Investment Management 12 2 Planning and a) Evidence that there is an up- The LG had an assets register which was budgeting for to-date LG asset register which updated in March 2020 which sets out school investments sets out school facilities and facilities and equipment relative to basic equipment relative to basic standards, the information on the consolidated Maximum 4 points on standards, score: 2, else score: 0 assets register was found to be consistent with this performance that from the sampled schools as shown below: measure Bishop East P/S in the central division had 10 classrooms;510 desks;12 latrine stances and 2 teachers' houses.
Mukono town Moslem P/S in the central division had 11 classrooms;140 desks;13 latrine stances and 0 teachers' houses
Seeta C/U P/S in Goma division had 10 classrooms;247 desks;22 latrine stances and 4 teachers' houses.
12 0 Planning and b) Evidence that the LG has The LG did not conduct any desk appraisal for budgeting for conducted a desk appraisal for the education sector projects for the year investments all sector projects in the budget to 2019/20. establish whether the prioritized Maximum 4 points on investment is: (i) derived from the this performance LGDP; (ii) eligible for expenditure measure under sector guidelines and funding source (e.g. sector development grant, DDEG). If appraisals were conducted for all projects that were planned in the previous FY, score: 1 or else, score: 0
12 0 Planning and c) Evidence that the LG has The LG did not conduct any field appraisal for budgeting for conducted field Appraisal for (i) the education sector projects for the year investments technical feasibility; (ii) 2019/20. environmental and social Maximum 4 points on acceptability; and (iii) customized this performance designs over the previous FY, measure score 1 else score: 0 13 1 Procurement, contract a) If the LG Education department There was evidence that the education management/execution has budgeted for and ensured department budgeted for and ensured that that planned sector infrastructure planned sector infrastructure projects have been Maximum 9 points on projects have been approved and approved and incorporated into the procurement this performance incorporated into the plan. The projects are listed under the measure procurement plan, score: 1, else EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPARTMENT score: 0 Sr. Number 1-4:
1. Construction of a 7 stance lined pit latrine at Mukono Town Moslem P/S; 2. Completion of a staff house at Misindye P/S; 3. Renovation of a classroom block at Seeta C/U P/S; and 4. Construction of a 3 in 1 staff house at kirowooza P/S.
13 1 Procurement, contract b) Evidence that the school There was evidence that the minutes of the management/execution infrastructure was approved by procurement committee meeting on 30th JULY the Contracts Committee and 2020 under minute MMC.15.07.2020 approving Maximum 9 points on cleared by the Solicitor General the sector projects. this performance (where above the threshold) measure before the commencement of construction, score: 1, else score: 0
13 0 Procurement, contract c) Evidence that the LG There was no evidence of the establishment of a management/execution established a Project Project Implementation Team (PIT) for school Implementation Team (PIT) for construction projects constructed within the last Maximum 9 points on school construction projects FY as per the guidelines. this performance constructed within the last FY as measure per the guidelines. score: 1, else score: 0
13 1 Procurement, contract d) Evidence that the school Mukono Municipality Council did not have an management/execution infrastructure followed the infrastructure project for seed schools. However standard technical designs the assessor sampled some other education Maximum 9 points on provided by the MoES projects, There was evidence that the school this performance infrastructure followed the standard technical measure Score: 1, else, score: 0 designs provided by the MoES. The sampled project included the staff house at Misindye where the bed room (3.5m x 4.0m) was measured and found to be the required size.
13 0 Procurement, contract e) Evidence that monthly site There was no evidence that monthly site management/execution meetings were conducted for all meetings were conducted for all sector sector infrastructure projects infrastructure projects planned in the previous Maximum 9 points on planned in the previous FY FY. this performance score: 1, else score: 0 measure 13 0 Procurement, contract f) If there’s evidence that during There was no evidence that during critical management/execution critical stages of construction of stages of construction of planned sector planned sector infrastructure infrastructure projects in the previous FY, at least Maximum 9 points on projects in the previous FY, at 1 monthly joint technical supervision involving this performance least 1 monthly joint technical engineers, environment officers, CDOs was measure supervision involving engineers, conducted. environment officers, CDOs etc .., has been conducted score: 1, else score: 0
13 1 Procurement, contract g) If sector infrastructure projects There was evidence that Education management/execution have been properly executed and infrastructure projects were properly executed payments to contractors made and payments to contractors made within Maximum 9 points on within specified timeframes specified timeframes within the contract as this performance within the contract, score: 1, else below: measure score: 0 1. A Contract for the construction of a 3 in 1 staff house at Misindye Primary school by Restoration 2010 ltd worth Ugx 94,259,517 was properly executed:, a suppliers request of Ugx 94,259,517 and the certificate was approved by the Engineer and the DEO on 16/6/2020 and was paid on 17/6/2020 as per contract;
2. A Contract for the construction of a 7 stance latrine at Mother Kevin Primary school by Isaki co ltd worth Ugx 47,598,453 was properly executed:, a suppliers request of Ugx 47,598,453 and the certificate was approved by the Engineer and the DEO on 10/2/2020 and was paid on 14/5/2020 within 2 months as per contract; and
3. The retention on a Contract for the construction of a 2 classroom block at Bajjo Primary school by Restoration 2010 ltd worth Ugx 3,419,234 was approved by the Engineer and the DEO on 28/4/2020 and was paid on 17/6/2020 as per the earlier contract.
13 0 Procurement, contract h) If the LG Education department There was NO evidence that the LG Education management/execution timely submitted a procurement department timely submitted a procurement plan plan in accordance with the in accordance with the PPDA requirements to Maximum 9 points on PPDA requirements to the the procurement unit. Submission was done on this performance procurement unit by April 30, 01 July 2019. It was signed by Nakitto Margaret measure score: 1, else, score: 0 and received by the the Head of procurement Unit on the same day. 13 1 Procurement, contract i) Evidence that the LG has a There was evidence that the LG has a complete management/execution complete procurement file for procurement file for each school infrastructure each school infrastructure contract with all records as required by the Maximum 9 points on contract with all records as PPDA Law. The sampled files were: this performance required by the PPDA Law score measure 1 or else score 0 1. Construction of 7 stance pit latrine at Mother Kevin P.S, File Number MMC772/WRKS/19-20/00003 the Procurement Request 1/08/2110 Form 2 for approval of procurement method was completed on 14/08/2019, Advert date 9/9/2019 Evaluation Completion was on 20/9/2019, ward letter was given on 30/10/2019 and Contract signing was on 11/11/2019. 2. Construction of 3 in 1 Staff quarters in Misindye P.S , File Number MMC772/WRKS/19-20/00001, Procurement Request was received on 23/8/2019 Form 2 for approval of procurement method was completed on 14/9/2019, the advert date was 27/8/2019, evaluation Completion was on17/10/2019, award was confirmed on 27/1/2020, and contract signing was made on 6/2/2020
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 3 Grievance redress: LG Evidence that grievances have The municipality council handles all complaints Education grievances been recorded, investigated, generally, not under different departments. The have been recorded, responded to and recorded in separation is done when the GRC sits and investigated, and line with the grievance redress decides who handles what. responded to in line framework, score: 3, else score: 0 with the LG grievance redress framework.
Maximum 3 points on this performance measure
15 0 Safeguards for service Evidence that LG has There was no evidence from the sampled delivery. disseminated the Education schools to show that LG had disseminated the guidelines to provide for access Education guidelines to provide for access to Maximum 3 points on to land (without encumbrance), land (without encumbrance), proper siting of this performance proper siting of schools, ‘green’ schools, ‘green’ schools, and energy and water measure schools, and energy and water conservation. conservation
Score: 3, or else score: 0 16 0 Safeguards in the a) LG has in place a costed There was no evidence availed indicating that delivery of investments ESMP and this is incorporated the municipality had in place a costed ESMP within the BoQs and contractual and that this was incorporated within the BoQs Maximum 6 points on documents, score: 2, else score: and contractual documents this performance 0 measure
16 0 Safeguards in the b) If there is proof of land There was no proof of land ownership, and delivery of investments ownership, access of school access for school construction projects. construction projects, score: 1, Maximum 6 points on else score:0 The Titles for schools are kept by the Founding this performance Bodies like Church of Uganda, Roman Catholic measure or Uganda Muslim Education Association.
16 0 Safeguards in the c) Evidence that the Environment There was no evidence that the Environmental delivery of investments Officer and CDO conducted officer and CDO conducted support supervision support supervision and and monitoring to ascertain compliance with Maximum 6 points on monitoring (with the technical ESMPs; and provided monthly reports. The two this performance team) to ascertain compliance reports produced were: measure with ESMPs including follow up on recommended corrective 1) Supervision and monitoring report dated actions; and prepared monthly 6th/November/2019 signed by both the Senior monitoring reports, score: 2, else Environmental Officer and Principal Community score:0 Development Officer for the municipality; and
2) Supervision report dated 10th August 2020 was produced, signed by both the Senior Environmental Officer and Principal Community Development Officer for the municipality.
Clearly, supervision was not done on a regular basis. It was neither monthly, nor quarterly, but took one year for the officers to return and check on the activities being implemented.
16 0 Safeguards in the d) If the E&S certifications were No evidence was produced to the effect that delivery of investments approved and signed by the E&S certifications were approved and signed by environmental officer and CDO the environmental officer and CDO prior to Maximum 6 points on prior to executing the project executing the project contractor payments. this performance contractor payments measure Score: 1, else score:0
772 Health Performance Mukono Measures 2020 Municipal Council
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 The increase in service use did not increase by 20% 0 Outcome: The LG has a. If the LG registered or more for all the sampled health facilities. The registered higher Increased utilization of change in use between 2018/19 and 2019/20 was percentage of the Health Care Services (focus as follows: 1. Mukono HC4/Hospital - Deliveries: population accessing on total OPD attendance, 2018/19 – 7789; 2019/20 – 8199: 5.2%; OPD: health care services. and deliveries. 2018/19 – 27,617; 2019/20 – 27310 – 1.1% decrease; 2. Goma HC3 - Deliveries: 2018/19 – Maximum 2 points on • By 20% or more, score 2 482; 2019/20 – 627 – 30%; OPD: 2018/19 – 12,226; this performance 2019/20 – 14,153 – 16%; and 3. Kyungu HC2 - measure • Less than 20%, score 0 OPD: 2018/19 – 5,529; 2019/20 – 6,796 – 23%.
2 0 Service Delivery a. If the average score in This performance measure was not applicable until Performance: Average Health for LLG performance the LLGs are assessed. score in the Health LLG assessment is: performance assessment. • Above 70%; score 2
Maximum 4 points on • 50 – 69% score 1 this performance • Below 50%; score 0 measure
Note: To have zero wait for year one
2 2 Service Delivery b. If the average score in the The average performance attained by the Performance: Average RBF quarterly quality facility participating health HC3/4 was 88.8%. The score in the Health LLG assessment for HC IIIs and individual scores were as follows: performance IVs is: assessment. 1. Mukono Hospital – 91.9%; 2. Mukono CoU • Above 75%; score 2 Hospital – 90.8%; and 3. Goma HC3 – 83.7%. Maximum 4 points on this performance • 65 – 74%; score 1 measure • Below 65% ; score 0 Note: To have zero wait for year one 3 2 Investment a. If the LG budgeted and There was evidence that the LG budgeted and spent performance: The LG spent all the health all the health development grant of Ugx 419 million has managed health development grant for the for the year 2019/20 on eligible activities as per the projects as per previous FY on eligible health grant and budget guidelines. The activities guidelines. activities as per the health included were : grant and budget guidelines, Maximum 8 points on score 2 or else score 0. 1. CCTV cameras for Mukono General hospital at this performance Ugx 35.6 million; measure 2. Specialised medical equipment at Ugx 293 million;
3.Renovation and facelift on Nantabulira health Centre II at Ugx 40.9 million; and
4.A Perimeter wall on Mukono General hospital at Ugx 49.3 million
3 2 Investment b. If the DHO/MMOH, LG There was evidence that the LG Engineer, performance: The LG Engineer, Environment Environment Officer and CDO certified work on has managed health Officer and CDO certified health projects before the LG made payments to the projects as per works on health projects contractors. guidelines. before the LG made payments to the contractors/ 1. A contract by Kiwologoma general contractors for Maximum 8 points on suppliers score 2 or else renovation of Nantabirwa heath Centre II, Goma this performance score 0 division at a cost of Ugx 40,885,820 was certified by measure the LG Engineer and the Municipal Health Officer on 28/1/2020 and paid on 21/2/2020;
2. A contract by Circular suppliers U ltd of a dental unit to Mukono general hospital worth Ugx 40,792,000 was certified by the LG Engineer and the Municipal Health Officer on 27/1/2020 and paid on 21/2/2020; and
3. A contract by Elasico co ltd for fencing Mukono general hospital at a cost of Ugx 49,274,440 was certified by the LG Engineer and the Municipal Health Officer on 16/4/2020 and paid on 30/4/2020.
3 2 Investment c. If the variations in the There is evidence that variations in the contract performance: The LG contract price of sampled price of sampled health infrastructure investments has managed health health infrastructure are within +/-20% of the MoWT Engineers estimate. projects as per investments are within +/- guidelines. 20% of the MoWT Engineers The sampled contract was for the Renovation of estimates, score 2 or else Kyungu health centre II, where the estimate was Maximum 8 points on score 0 30,000,000 and the contract award was 34,968,699 this performance hence the variation was 16%. measure contract by Kiwologoma general contractors for renovation of Nantabirwa heath Centre II, Goma division the estimate was 48,000,000 and the award was 40,885,820 and hence the variariation was 14.8%. 3 2 Investment d. Evidence that the health There was evidence of the Annual budget performance: The LG sector investment projects performance report (page 47) for the previous that has managed health implemented in the previous health projects where contracts were signed were projects as per FY were completed as per completed. The signed contracts were for: guidelines. work plan by end of the FY Renovation of Kyungu HC II; Renovation of Nyanja HC II; and Renovation of Nantabulirwa HCII Maximum 8 points on • If 100 % Score 2 this performance measure • Between 80 and 99% score 1 The contracts wrere 3 out of 3 giving 100%
• less than 80 %: Score 0
4 Although the average percentage of positions filled 0 Achievement of a. Evidence that the LG has is 77.5%, two of the HC2 are operating at levels Standards: The LG has recruited staff for all HCIIIs below 75%: 1. Kyungu HC2 – 8/9 (89%); 2. met health staffing and and HCIVs as per staffing Nantabulirwa HC2 – 4/9 (44%); 3. Nyanja HC2 – infrastructure facility structure 5/9 (56%); and 4. Goma HC3 – 23/19 (121%). standards • If above 90% score 2 Maximum 4 points on this performance • If 75% - 90%: score 1 measure • Below 75 %: score 0
4 2 Achievement of b. Evidence that the LG The LG did not have a project fro updating Health Standards: The LG has health infrastructure Centre II to Health Centre III. met health staffing and construction projects meet infrastructure facility the approved MoH Facility standards Infrastructure Designs.
Maximum 4 points on • If 100 % score 2 or else this performance score 0 measure
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 5 0 Accuracy of Reported a. Evidence that information There were no staff lists for the current FY for the Information: The LG on positions of health following sampled health facilities: 1) Mukono maintains and reports workers filled is accurate: HC4/Hospital; 2) Goma HC3; and 3) Kyungu HC2 accurate information Score 2 or else 0 therefore the comparison could not be made with the list from the MHO. Maximum 4 points on this performance measure 5 2 Accuracy of Reported b. Evidence that information According to the Medical Superintendant, Mukono Information: The LG on health facilities upgraded HC4 is in the process of being upgraded since maintains and reports or constructed and functional 2018/19 when it received 300 million; then 2019/20 accurate information is accurate: Score 2 or else 0 (700million) for an upgrade of the Out-Patient Department building. The official upgrade was Maximum 4 points on announced in September 2020 and this was this performance followed by increments in the wage and non-wage measure from 20million per quarter vs 60million; drugs from 80 million annually to 120million. Mukono HC4 is reflected as HCIV in the PBS although it is budgeted under vote 088251 District Hospital Services
6 0 Health Facility a) Health facilities prepared By March 31st 2020, none of the sampled HC had Compliance to the and submitted Annual submitted their annual work-plans and budgets to Budget and Grant Workplans & budgets to the the DHO. The submission dates were as follows: 1. Guidelines, Result DHO/MMOH by March 31st Mukono Hospital HC4 – 04/09/2020; 2. Goma HC3 Based Financing and of the previous FY as per the – 10/08/2020; and 3. Kyungu HC2 on 01/7/20. Performance LG Planning Guidelines for Improvement: LG has Health Sector: enforced Health Facility Compliance, Result • Score 2 or else 0 Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 0 Health Facility b) Health facilities prepared By July 15th 2019, none of the sampled HC had Compliance to the and submitted to the submitted their annual budget performance reports Budget and Grant DHO/MMOH Annual Budget to the MHO. Guidelines, Result Performance Reports for the Based Financing and previous FY by July 15th of Performance the previous FY as per the Improvement: LG has Budget and Grant Guidelines enforced Health Facility : Compliance, Result Based Financing and • Score 2 or else 0 implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure 6 Three health facilities were sampled to see if they 0 Health Facility a) Health facilities have had developed improvement plans that incorporated Compliance to the developed and reported on performance issues identified in the DHMT Budget and Grant implementation of facility monitoring and assessment reports; 1) Mukono Guidelines, Result improvement plans that HC4/Hospital - the implementation report identified Based Financing and incorporate performance issues however these issues did not include issues Performance issues identified in identified in the monitoring reports; 2. Goma HC3 – Improvement: LG has monitoring and assessment at the time of the assessment the assessor was told enforced Health Facility reports that the report was with auditors and was not Compliance, Result available; 3. Kyungu HC2 - did not have an • Score 2 or else 0 Based Financing and improvement plan. implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 0 Health Facility d) Evidence that health Not all the monthly and quarterly reports were Compliance to the facilities submitted up to date submitted in a timely manner: 1. Mukono Budget and Grant monthly and quarterly HMIS HC4/Hospital - HMIS 105: All HMIS 105 reports Guidelines, Result reports timely (7 days were submitted on or before 7th of the subsequent Based Financing and following the end of each month except Sept (08/10/2019); Jan Performance month and quarter) If 100%, (03/03/20200); HMIS 106a (Quarterly): Q1 – Improvement: LG has 7/10/2019; Q2: 07/01/2020 Q3 – missing; Q4: enforced Health Facility • score 2 or else score 0 missing; 2. Goma HC3: All HMIS 105 monthly Compliance, Result reports were submitted on or before the 7th Based Financing and September of the subsequent month; HMIS 106a implemented (Quarterly): Q1 -10/10/2020; Q2 – 10/1/2020; Q3 – Performance 17/04/2020; Q4 – 15/7/2020; and 3. Kyungu HC2: Improvement support. HMIS monthly reports were all submitted on or before the 7th of the subsequent month. Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 0 Health Facility e) Evidence that Health Not all the RBF invoices were submitted by the 15th Compliance to the facilities submitted RBF of the month following the end of the quarter: 1. Budget and Grant invoices timely (by 15th of Mukono HC4 – 20/10/2020; 2. Mukono CoU – Guidelines, Result the month following end of 06/10/2020; and 3. Goma HC3 – 7/10/2020. Based Financing and the quarter). If 100%, score 2 Performance or else score 0 Improvement: LG has enforced Health Facility Note: Municipalities submit Compliance, Result to districts Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure 6 0 Health Facility f) If the LG timely (by end of The dates for submission of Q1, Q2, Q3 were Compliance to the 3rd week of the month extracted from the letter submitted to the CHS (P) Budget and Grant following end of the quarter) that had a stamped receipt. Copies of the invoices Guidelines, Result verified, compiled and were attached. Q4 was submitted via email. Only Q4 Based Financing and submitted to MOH facility was timely. Q1: 6/1/2020; Q2: 13/04/2020; Q3: Performance RBF invoices for all RBF 22/07/2020; and Q4: 19/08/2020. Improvement: LG has Health Facilities, if 100%, enforced Health Facility score 1 or else score 0 Compliance, Result Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 0 Health Facility g) If the LG timely (by end of The Health Department did not Submit all the 4 Compliance to the the first month of the Quarterly Budget Performance reports to the planner Budget and Grant following quarter) compiled for consolidation within a month after the end of the Guidelines, Result and submitted all quarterly quarter as required. Submissions were as below: Based Financing and (4) Budget Performance Performance Reports. If 100%, score 1 or Quarter 1 was submitted on 16/12/2019; Improvement: LG has else score 0 Quarter 2 was submitted on 14/2/20; enforced Health Facility Compliance, Result Quarter 3 was submitted on 8/5/2020; and Based Financing and implemented Quarter 4 was submitted on 18/8/2020. Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure 6 There was no performance improvement plan for the 0 Health Facility h) Evidence that the LG has: weakest performing health facilities. Compliance to the Budget and Grant i. Developed an approved Guidelines, Result Performance Improvement Based Financing and Plan for the weakest Performance performing health facilities, Improvement: LG has score 1 or else 0 enforced Health Facility Compliance, Result Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 0 Health Facility ii. Implemented Performance There was no performance improvement plan for the Compliance to the Improvement Plan for weakest performing health facilities therefore this Budget and Grant weakest performing facilities, was not implemented. Guidelines, Result score 1 or else 0 Based Financing and Performance Improvement: LG has enforced Health Facility Compliance, Result Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
Human Resource Management and Development 7 2 Budgeting for, actual a) Evidence that the LG has: The Mukono LG budget for health workers is recruitment and 1,263,418,000 for the 145 existing staff. This budget deployment of staff: The i. Budgeted for health is included in the PBS contract of the current FY. Local Government has workers as per guidelines/in budgeted for, recruited accordance with the staffing and deployed staff as norms score 2 or else 0 per guidelines
Maximum 9 points on this performance measure 7 0 Budgeting for, actual a) Evidence that the LG has: Some of the health workers have less than 75% of recruitment and positions filled: 1. Kyungu HC2 – 8/9 (89%) 2. deployment of staff: The ii. Deployed health workers Nantabulirwa HC2 – 4/9 (44%); 3. Nyanja HC2 – Local Government has as per guidelines (all the 5/9 (56%); 4. Goma HC3 – 23/19 (121%); 5. budgeted for, recruited health facilities to have at Mukono HC4/Hospital - 100 (in transition from HC4 and deployed staff as least 75% of staff required) in to hospital). per guidelines accordance with the staffing norms score 2 or else 0 Maximum 9 points on this performance measure
7 3 Budgeting for, actual b) Evidence that health It was possible to establish that the health workers recruitment and workers are working in in the MHO list were also documented in the deployment of staff: The health facilities where they attendance registers and duty rosters at the Local Government has are deployed, score 3 or else following health facilities: 1. Kyungu HC2; 2. Goma budgeted for, recruited score 0 HC3; and 3. Mukono Hospital/HC4. and deployed staff as per guidelines
Maximum 9 points on this performance measure
7 0 Budgeting for, actual c) Evidence that the LG has The list of health workers for the current FY was not recruitment and publicized health workers displayed on any of the noticeboards at the deployment of staff: The deployment and following sampled health facilities: 1. Kyungu HC2; Local Government has disseminated by, among 2. Goma HC3; and 3. Mukono Hospital/HC4. budgeted for, recruited others, posting on facility and deployed staff as notice boards, for the current per guidelines FY score 2 or else score 0
Maximum 9 points on this performance measure
8 1 Performance a) Evidence that the The MC had four (4) health facilities and therefore 4 management: The LG DHO/MMOHs has: Officers in Charge. They were appraised on the has appraised, taken following dates; corrective action and i. Conducted annual trained Health Workers. performance appraisal of all 1. Nantabulililwa HC II - 32st August 2020, 2. Health facility In-charges Nyanja HC II - 11th August 2020, 3. Goma HC III - Maximum 6 points on against the agreed 13th September 22020 and 4. Kyunga HC II - 10th this performance performance plans and September 2020 measure submitted a copy to HRO during the previous FY score 1 or else 0 8 1 Performance ii. Ensured that Health The MC had one hundred fourty five (145) health management: The LG Facility In-charges workers. Ten appraisal reports were sampled and has appraised, taken conducted performance examined. They indicated that those health workers corrective action and appraisal of all health facility were appraised on the following dates; trained Health Workers. workers against the agreed performance plans and 1. Enrolled Nurse, Kyungu HC II - 17th Jult 2020, 2. Maximum 6 points on submitted a copy through Enrolled Nurse Kyungu HC II - 10th July 2020. 3. this performance DHO/MMOH to HRO during Enrolled Midwife, Nantabulililwa HC II - 5th August measure the previous FY score 1 or 2020, 4. Enrolled Nurse, Nantabulililwa HC II - 31st else 0 August 2020, 5. Enrolled Midwife, Nyanja HC II - 3rd September 2020, 6. Enrolled Nurse Nyanja HC II - 10th July 2020, 7. Medical Records Officer, Goma HC III - 22nd July 2020, 8. Enrolled Midwife, Goma HC III - 10th July 2020, 9. Medical Officer. Mukono Hospital - 13th August 2020 and 15th July 2020
8 2 Performance iii. Taken corrective actions The MMOH took corrective actions based on the management: The LG based on the appraisal performance appraisals as per the appraisals report has appraised, taken reports, score 2 or else 0 submission letter MMC/HM/36 dated 31st August corrective action and 2020,to the HR Officer. The report outlined the trained Health Workers. capacity building needs for eighty one (81) health workers Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
8 There was no training plan or database. 0 Performance b) Evidence that the LG: management: The LG has appraised, taken i. conducted training of corrective action and health workers (Continuous trained Health Workers. Professional Development) in accordance to the training Maximum 6 points on plans at District/MC level, this performance score 1 or else 0 measure
8 There was no training plan or database. 0 Performance ii. Documented training management: The LG activities in the training/CPD has appraised, taken database, score 1 or else corrective action and score 0 trained Health Workers.
Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 9 There was no letter from the Town Clerk to the PS 0 Planning, budgeting, a. Evidence that the MoH confirming the list of health facilities. and transfer of funds for CAO/Town Clerk confirmed service delivery: The the list of Health facilities Local Government has (GoU and PNFP receiving budgeted, used and PHC NWR grants) and disseminated funds for notified the MOH in writing service delivery as per by September 30th if a health guidelines. facility had been listed incorrectly or missed in the Maximum 9 points on previous FY, score 2 or else this performance score 0 measure
9 2 Planning, budgeting, b. Evidence that the LG There was evidence that the LG made allocations and transfer of funds for made allocations towards towards monitoring service delivery and service delivery: The monitoring service delivery management of Municipal health services in line Local Government has and management of District with the health sector grant guidelines , allocation of budgeted, used and health services in line with Ugx 22,933,000 out Ugx 104,857,000 (21.2%) was disseminated funds for the health sector grant made to the health office as indicated on page 17 service delivery as per guidelines (15% of the PHC and 17 of the 2019/20 LG Approved annual budget guidelines. NWR Grant for LLHF and the LG annual performance report page 46. allocation made for Maximum 9 points on DHO/MMOH), score 2 or else this performance score 0. measure
9 0 Planning, budgeting, c. If the LG made timely The LG did not warrant to all PHC NWR Grant and transfer of funds for warranting/verification of transfers for the FY 2019/20 to health facilities within service delivery: The direct grant transfers to the required 5 working days from the day of funds Local Government has health facilities for the last release: budgeted, used and FY, in accordance to the disseminated funds for requirements of the budget Quarter 1 warrant was on 22/7/2019, release date service delivery as per score 2 or else score 0 was 9/7/2019, 13 days; guidelines. Quarter 2 warrant was on 8/10/2019, release date Maximum 9 points on was 2/10/2019, 6 days; this performance Quarter 3 warrant was on 15/1/2020, release date measure was 8/1/2020, 7 days; and
Quarter 4 warrant was on 15/1/2020, release date was 8/1/2020,7 days. 9 0 Planning, budgeting, d. If the LG invoiced and The LG did not invoice to all PHC NWR Grant and transfer of funds for communicated all PHC NWR transfers for the FY 2019/20 to health facilities within service delivery: The Grant transfers for the the required 5 working days from the day of funds Local Government has previous FY to health release: budgeted, used and facilities within 5 working disseminated funds for days from the day of funds Quarter 1 invoicing was on 22/7/2019, release date service delivery as per release in each quarter, was 9/7/2019, 13 days; guidelines. score 2 or else score 0 Quarter 2 invoicing was on 8/10/2019, release date Maximum 9 points on was 2/10/2019, 6 days; this performance Quarter 3 invoicing was on 15/1/2020, release date measure was 8/1/2020, 7 days; and
Quarter 4invoicing was on 15/1/2020, release date was 8/1/2020,7 days.
9 Quarterly financial releases to all health facilities 0 Planning, budgeting, e. Evidence that the LG has were not on the noticeboard at MOH at the time of and transfer of funds for publicized all the quarterly the assessment. service delivery: The financial releases to all Local Government has health facilities within 5 budgeted, used and working days from the date of disseminated funds for receipt of the expenditure service delivery as per limits from MoFPED- e.g. guidelines. through posting on public notice boards: score 1 or Maximum 9 points on else score 0 this performance measure
10 MHMT quarterly performance review meetings have 0 Routine oversight and a. Evidence that the LG not been held. monitoring: The LG health department monitored, provided implemented action(s) hands -on support recommended by the DHMT supervision to health Quarterly performance facilities. review meeting (s) held during the previous FY, Maximum 7 points on score 2 or else score 0 this performance measure
10 0 Routine oversight and b. If the LG quarterly MHMT quarterly performance review meetings have monitoring: The LG performance review not been held. monitored, provided meetings involve all health hands -on support facilities in charges, supervision to health implementing partners, facilities. DHMTs, key LG departments e.g. WASH, Community Maximum 7 points on Development, Education this performance department, score 1 or else 0 measure 10 0 Routine oversight and c. If the LG supervised 100% The MHT has not supervised the HC4/hospitals on monitoring: The LG of HC IVs and General a quarterly basis. The documented dates of monitored, provided hospitals (including PNFPs supervision are as follows: 1. Mukono HC4/Hospital hands -on support receiving PHC grant) at least - Q1 – none; Q2: 4/10/2019;mQ3: 27th – 30th supervision to health once every quarter in the January 2020; 2. Mukono CoU Hospital Q1: 2nd- facilities. previous FY (where 6th September 2019; Q2: 4/10/2019 Q3: 27th – 30th applicable) : score 1 or else, January 2020. Maximum 7 points on score 0 this performance measure If not applicable, provide the score
10 1 Routine oversight and d. Evidence that DHT/MHT The HSD provided support supervision to lower- monitoring: The LG ensured that Health Sub level facilities on the following dates: 1. Goma HC3 - monitored, provided Districts (HSDs) carried out Q2: 19/11/2019, 04/10/2019; Q3: 17/03/2020; Q4: hands -on support support supervision of lower 19/05/2020; 2. Kyungu HC2 Q1 – 29/07/2019; supervision to health level health facilities within 30/09/2019; Q3: 18/03/2020. facilities. the previous FY (where applicable), score 1 or else Maximum 7 points on score 0 this performance measure • If not applicable, provide the score
10 1 Routine oversight and e. Evidence that the LG used There was evidence that recommendations monitoring: The LG results/reports from provided are being followed up for some but not all monitored, provided discussion of the support the sampled health facilities: hands -on support supervision and monitoring supervision to health visits, to make 1. Mukono HC4/hospital - there was no facilities. recommendations for specific implementation report: 2. Goma HC3 has an corrective actions and that implementation report for all recommendations Maximum 7 points on implementation of these made in the previous FY e.g. actions were taken this performance were followed up during the and also procured some equipment based on the measure previous FY, score 1 or else quality of performance score card score 0 recommendations.
10 There was no medicines management report during 0 Routine oversight and f. Evidence that the LG the previous FY. monitoring: The LG provided support to all health monitored, provided facilities in the management hands -on support of medicines and health supervision to health supplies, during the previous facilities. FY: score 1 or else, score 0
Maximum 7 points on this performance measure 11 2 Health promotion, a. If the LG allocated at least There was evidence that the LG allocated Ugx 22.9 disease prevention and 30% of District / Municipal million (100%) out of the Ugx 22.9 million Municipal social mobilization: The Health Office budget to Health Office budget to health promotion and LG Health department health promotion and prevention activities, which was beyond the conducted Health prevention activities, Score 2 minimum 30% page 17 of the Approved annual promotion, disease or else score 0 budget. prevention and social mobilization activities
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
11 0 Health promotion, b. Evidence of DHT/MHT led Only one meeting on health and hygiene was held disease prevention and health promotion, disease during Q1: 1/09/2019. social mobilization: The prevention and social LG Health department mobilization activities as per conducted Health ToRs for DHTs, during the promotion, disease previous FY score 1 or else prevention and social score 0 mobilization activities
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
11 0 Health promotion, c. Evidence of follow-up There are no implementation reports for disease prevention and actions taken by the recommendations from planned activities. social mobilization: The DHT/MHT on health LG Health department promotion and disease conducted Health prevention issues in their promotion, disease minutes and reports: score 1 prevention and social or else score 0 mobilization activities
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
Investment Management 12 The Municipal Council does not have an asset 0 Planning and a. Evidence that the LG has register for the health facilities and equipment. Budgeting for an updated Asset register Investments: The LG which sets out health has carried out facilities and equipment Planning and relative to basic standards: Budgeting for health Score 1 or else 0 investments as per guidelines.
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
12 There was evidence that investments for the health 0 Planning and b. Evidence that the sector were delived from the LG Development Plan Budgeting for prioritized investments in the but there were no desk appraissals done for the Investments: The LG health sector for the previous 2019/20 projects. has carried out FY were: (i) derived from the Planning and LG Development Plan; (ii) Budgeting for health desk appraisal by the LG; investments as per and (iii) eligible for guidelines. expenditure under sector guidelines and funding Maximum 4 points on source (e.g. sector this performance development grant, measure Discretionary Development Equalization Grant (DDEG)): score 1 or else score 0
12 0 Planning and c. Evidence that the LG There was evidence that investments for the health Budgeting for sector were derived from the LG Development Plan Investments: The LG has conducted field but there were no field appraisals done for the has carried out Appraisal to check for: (i) 2019/20 projects. Planning and technical feasibility; (ii) Budgeting for health environment and social investments as per acceptability; and (iii) guidelines. customized designs to site conditions: score 1 or else Maximum 4 points on score 0 this performance measure 12 0 Planning and d. Evidence that the health There was no evidence that the health facility Budgeting for facility investments were investments were screened for environmental and Investments: The LG screened for environmental social risks and mitigation measures put in place has carried out and social risks and before being approved for construction using the Planning and mitigation measures put in checklists. Budgeting for health place before being approved investments as per for construction using the Apart from a summary of projects proposed to be guidelines. checklist: score 1 or else screened dated 14th August 2019, the actual score 0 Screening Forms were not filled. Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
13 0 Procurement, contract a. Evidence that the LG There was NO evidence that the LG health management/execution: health department timely (by department timely (by April 30 for the current FY ) The LG procured and April 30 for the current FY ) submitted all its infrastructure and other procurement managed health submitted all its infrastructure requests to PDU for incorporation into the approved contracts as per and other procurement LG annual work plan, budget and procurement guidelines requests to PDU for plans. incorporation into the Maximum 10 points on approved LG annual work Procurement requests were prepared by Dr. Kasirye this performance plan, budget and on 26/07/2019, approved by Dr. Kkonde on same measure procurement plans: score 1 day - 26/07/2019, and submitted and received by or else score 0 PDU on same day.
13 1 Procurement, contract b. If the LG Health There is evidence that LG Health department management/execution: department submitted submitted procurement request form (Form PP5) to The LG procured and procurement request form the PDU on July 12, 2020. managed health (Form PP5) to the PDU by contracts as per 1st Quarter of the current FY: guidelines score 1 or else, score 0
Maximum 10 points on this performance measure
13 1 Procurement, contract c. Evidence that the health There is evidence that the health infrastructure management/execution: infrastructure investments for investments for the previous FY was approved by The LG procured and the previous FY was the Contracts Committee during the 78th contracts managed health approved by the Contracts commitee meeting held on July 30, 2020 under the contracts as per Committee and cleared by minite MMC.15.07.2020 guidelines the Solicitor General (where above the threshold), before Maximum 10 points on commencement of this performance construction: score 1 or else measure score 0 13 0 Procurement, contract d. Evidence that the LG There is no evidence that the LG properly management/execution: properly established a established a Project Implementation team for all The LG procured and Project Implementation team health projects managed health for all health projects contracts as per composed of: (i) : score 1 or guidelines else score 0
Maximum 10 points on If there is no project, provide this performance the score measure
13 1 Procurement, contract e. Evidence that the health The Mukono Municipality LG did not have a health management/execution: infrastructure followed the infrastructure investment for upgrading II to Health The LG procured and standard technical designs centre III. managed health provided by the MoH: score 1 contracts as per or else score 0 guidelines If there is no project, provide Maximum 10 points on the score this performance measure
13 1 Procurement, contract f. Evidence that the Clerk of The Mukono Municipality LG did not have a health management/execution: Works maintains daily infrastructure investment for upgrading II to Health The LG procured and records that are consolidated centre III. managed health weekly to the District contracts as per Engineer in copy to the DHO, guidelines for each health infrastructure project: score 1 or else score Maximum 10 points on 0 this performance measure If there is no project, provide the score
13 1 Procurement, contract g. Evidence that the LG held The Mukono Municipality LG did not have a health management/execution: monthly site meetings by infrastructure investment for upgrading II to Health The LG procured and project site committee: centre III. managed health chaired by the CAO/Town contracts as per Clerk and comprised of the guidelines Sub-county Chief (SAS), the designated contract and Maximum 10 points on project managers, this performance chairperson of the HUMC, in- measure charge for beneficiary facility , the Community Development and Environmental officers: score 1 or else score 0
If there is no project, provide the score 13 1 Procurement, contract h. Evidence that the LG There was evidence a site visitor’s book from the management/execution: carried out technical site Foreman/construction team on all projects The LG procured and supervision of works at all sampled.. managed health health infrastructure projects contracts as per at least monthly, by the guidelines relevant officers including the Engineers, Environment Maximum 10 points on officers, CDOs, at critical this performance stages of construction: score measure 1, or else score 0
If there is no project, provide the score
13 1 Procurement, contract i. Evidence that the The DHO verified works and initiated payments of management/execution: DHO/MMOH verified works contractors within specified timeframe as below: The LG procured and and initiated payments of managed health contractors within specified 1.A contract by Kiwologoma general contractors for contracts as per timeframes (within 2 weeks renovation of Nantabirwa heath Centre II, Goma guidelines or 10 working days), score 1 division at a cost of Ugx 40,885,820, contractor or else score 0 submitted request on 24/1/2020 and it was certified Maximum 10 points on by the LG Engineer and the Municipal Health Officer this performance on 28/1/2020 (4 days) and paid on 21/2/2020; measure 2. A contract by Circular suppliers U ltd of a dental unit to Mukono general hospital worth Ugx 40,792,000, contractor submitted request on 27/1/2020 and it was certified by the LG Engineer and the Municipal Health Officer on 27/1/2020( 1 day)and paid on 21/2/2020; and
3. A contract by Elasico co ltd for fencing Mukono general hospital at a cost of Ugx 49,274,440, contractor submitted request on 14/4/2020 was certified by the LG Engineer and the Municipal Health Officer on 16/4/2020 (2 days) and paid on 30/4/2020.
13 1 Procurement, contract j. Evidence that the LG has a There was evidence that the LG has a complete management/execution: complete procurement file for procurement file for each health infrastructure The LG procured and each health infrastructure contract with all records as required by the PPDA managed health contract with all records as Law. The sampled project was the Renovation of contracts as per required by the PPDA Law Kyungu health centre II, where the File Number guidelines score 1 or else score 0 MMC772/WRKS/19-20/00011, the procurement request was made on 2/1/12020, approval of Maximum 10 points on procurement method done on 6/2/2020, invitation to this performance date was 25/02/2020, evaluation Completion measure 18/3/2020, award of contract and Contract on 2/4/2020 Contract signing done on 2/4/2019
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 2 Grievance redress: The a. Evidence that the Local The municipal council handles all complaints LG has established a Government has recorded, generally, not under different departments. The mechanism of investigated, responded and separation is done when the GRC sits and decides addressing health reported in line with the LG who handles what. sector grievances in grievance redress framework line with the LG score 2 or else 0 grievance redress framework
Maximum 2 points on this performance measure
15 0 Safeguards for service a. Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence that the Municipality had delivery: LG Health disseminated guidelines on disseminated guidelines on health care / medical Department ensures health care / medical waste waste management to health facilities. It was said safeguards for service management to health that this responsibility lies in the docket of the Health delivery facilities : score 2 points or Department. But even when the Environment Officer else score 0 went over to check this with the Department of Maximum 5 points on Health, he came back empty-handed. this performance measure
15 2 Safeguards for service b. Evidence that the LG has There was evidence that the LG had in place a delivery: LG Health in place a functional system functional system for Medical waste management or Department ensures for Medical waste central infrastructures for managing medical waste. safeguards for service management or central Evidence of this was: delivery infrastructures for managing medical waste (either an 1) An MoU existed between Bio Waste Management Maximum 5 points on incinerator or Registered (U) Ltd and Mukono Municipal Council dated August this performance waste management service 8th, 2019 for collecting municipal waste at regular measure provider): score 2 or else intervals; and score 0 2) Mukono General Hospital and Goma HC III had functional incinerators.
15 0 Safeguards for service c. Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence that the Municipality had delivery: LG Health conducted training (s) and conducted training (s) and created awareness in Department ensures created awareness in healthcare waste management. safeguards for service healthcare waste delivery management score 1 or else score 0 Maximum 5 points on this performance measure 16 2 Safeguards in the a. Evidence that a costed There was evidence that a costed ESMP was Delivery of Investment ESMP was incorporated into incorporated into designs, BoQs, bidding and Management: LG designs, BoQs, bidding and contractual documents for health infrastructure Health infrastructure contractual documents for projects of the previous FY. These were: projects incorporate health infrastructure projects Environment and Social of the previous FY: score 2 or 1) Costing was done under Renovation of Kyungu Safeguards in the else score 0 Health Centre II. The budget attached to ESS & delivery of the EMM (Environment and Social Safeguards & investments Environment M …) was UGX1,411,165.(4%) of the total sum of uGX34,968,699; Maximum 8 points on this performance 2) Completion of OPD at Mukono General Hospital. measure The Completion Assessment Form indicated a 5% addition on the total costed amount (UGX259,725,192/-), totaling to UGX43,038,741.
16 2 Safeguards in the b. Evidence that all health There was evidence that all health sector projects Delivery of Investment sector projects are are implemented on land where the LG has proof of Management: LG implemented on land where ownership, access and availability. The sample Health infrastructure the LG has proof of taken was the Title for Mukono Municipal Council projects incorporate ownership, access and Hospital located on Plot 10 - 12 Basimbize Mukasa Environment and Social availability (e.g. a land title, Road and 60 - 74 Kampala Road, Block 107; Safeguards in the agreement; Formal Consent, delivery of the MoUs, etc.), without any investments encumbrances: score 2 or else, score 0 Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
16 0 Safeguards in the c. Evidence that the LG There was no evidence that the LG Environment Delivery of Investment Environment Officer and Officer and CDO conducted support supervision and Management: LG CDO conducted support monitoring of health projects to ascertain Health infrastructure supervision and monitoring compliance with ESMPs; and provide monthly projects incorporate of health projects to ascertain reports. Environment and Social compliance with ESMPs; Safeguards in the and provide monthly reports: delivery of the score 2 or else score 0. investments
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure 16 0 Safeguards in the d. Evidence that There was no evidence that the Environment and Delivery of Investment Environment and Social Social Certification forms were completed and Management: LG Certification forms were signed by the LG Environment Officer and CDO, Health infrastructure completed and signed by the prior to payments of contractor invoices/certificates projects incorporate LG Environment Officer and at interim and final stages of all health infrastructure Environment and Social CDO, prior to payments of projects. Safeguards in the contractor delivery of the invoices/certificates at investments interim and final stages of all health infrastructure projects Maximum 8 points on score 2 or else score 0 this performance measure
772 Water & Environment Mukono Performance Measures 2020 Municipal Council
Summary of Compliance No. Definition of compliance Score requirements justification Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 N/A 0 Water & Environment a. % of rural water sources that are functional. Outcomes: The LG has registered high If the district rural water source functionality as per the sector MIS is: functionality of water o 90 - 100%: score 2 sources and management o 80-89%: score 1 committees o Below 80%: 0 Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
1 0 Water & Environment b. % of facilities with functional water & sanitation committees N/A Outcomes: The LG has (documented water user fee collection records and utilization with registered high the approval of the WSCs). If the district WSS facilities that have functionality of water functional WSCs is: sources and management o 90 - 100%: score 2 committees o 80-89%: score 1 Maximum 4 points on o Below 80%: 0 this performance measure
2 0 Service Delivery a. The LG average score in the water and environment LLGs N/A Performance: Average performance assessment for the current. FY. score in the water and environment LLGs If LG average scores is performance a. Above 80% score 2 assessment b. 60 -80%: 1 Maximum 8 points on this performance c. Below 60: 0 measure (Only applicable when LLG assessment starts) 2 0 Service Delivery b. % of budgeted water projects implemented in the sub-counties N/A Performance: Average with safe water coverage below the district average in the previous score in the water and FY. environment LLGs performance o If 100 % of water projects are implemented in the targeted S/Cs: assessment Score 2
Maximum 8 points on o If 80-99%: Score 1 this performance o If below 80 %: Score 0 measure
2 0 Service Delivery c. If variations in the contract price of sampled WSS infrastructure N/A Performance: Average investments for the previous FY are within +/- 20% of engineer’s score in the water and estimates environment LLGs performance o If within +/-20% score 2 assessment o If not score 0 Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
2 0 Service Delivery d. % of WSS infrastructure projects completed as per annual work N/A Performance: Average plan by end of FY. score in the water and environment LLGs o If 100% projects completed: score 2 performance o If 80-99% projects completed: score 1 assessment o If projects completed are below 80%: 0 Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
3 0 Achievement of a. If there is an increase in the % of water supply facilities that are N/A Standards: The LG has functioning met WSS infrastructure facility standards o If there is an increase: score 2
Maximum 4 points on o If no increase: score 0. this performance measure
3 0 Achievement of b. If there is an Increase in % of facilities with functional water & N/A Standards: The LG has sanitation committees (with documented water user fee collection met WSS infrastructure records and utilization with the approval of the WSCs). facility standards o If increase is more than 5%: score 2 Maximum 4 points on this performance o If increase is between 0-5%: score 1 measure o If there is no increase: score 0.
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 4 0 Accuracy of Reported The DWO has accurately reported on WSS facilities constructed in N/A Information: The LG has the previous FY and performance of the facilities is as reported: accurately reported on Score: 3 constructed WSS infrastructure projects and service performance
Maximum 3 points on this performance measure
5 0 Reporting and a. Evidence that the LG Water Office collects and compiles quarterly N/A performance information on sub-county water supply and sanitation, functionality improvement: The LG of facilities and WSCs, safe water collection and storage and compiles, updates WSS community involvement): Score 2 information and supports LLGs to improve their performance
Maximum 7 points on this performance measure
5 0 Reporting and b. Evidence that the LG Water Office updates the MIS (WSS data) N/A performance quarterly with water supply and sanitation information (new facilities, improvement: The LG population served, functionality of WSCs and WSS facilities, etc.) compiles, updates WSS and uses compiled information for planning purposes: Score 3 or information and else 0 supports LLGs to improve their performance
Maximum 7 points on this performance measure
5 0 Reporting and c. Evidence that DWO has supported the 25% lowest performing N/A performance LLGs in the previous FY LLG assessment to develop and implement improvement: The LG performance improvement plans: Score 2 or else 0 compiles, updates WSS information and Note: Only applicable from the assessment where there has been a supports LLGs to previous assessment of the LLGs’ performance. In case there is no improve their previous assessment score 0. performance
Maximum 7 points on this performance measure
Human Resource Management and Development 6 0 Budgeting for Water & a. Evidence that the DWO has budgeted for the following Water & N/A Sanitation and Sanitation staff: 1 Civil Engineer(Water); 2 Assistant Water Officers Environment & Natural (1 for mobilization and 1 for sanitation & hygiene); 1 Engineering Resources: The Local Assistant (Water) & 1 Borehole Maintenance Technician: Score 2 Government has budgeted for staff
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
6 0 Budgeting for Water & b. Evidence that the Environment and Natural Resources Officer has N/A Sanitation and budgeted for the following Environment & Natural Resources staff: 1 Environment & Natural Natural Resources Officer; 1 Environment Officer; 1 Forestry Officer: Resources: The Local Score 2 Government has budgeted for staff
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
7 0 Performance a. The DWO has appraised District Water Office staff against the N/A Management: The LG agreed performance plans during the previous FY: Score 3 appraised staff and conducted trainings in line with the district training plans.
Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
7 0 Performance b. The District Water Office has identified capacity needs of staff from N/A Management: The LG the performance appraisal process and ensured that training appraised staff and activities have been conducted in adherence to the training plans at conducted trainings in district level and documented in the training database : Score 3 line with the district training plans.
Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 8 0 Planning, Budgeting a) Evidence that the DWO has prioritized budget allocations to N/A and Transfer of Funds sub-counties that have safe water coverage below that of the for service delivery: The district: Local Government has allocated and spent • If 100 % of the budget allocation for the current FY is funds for service allocated to S/Cs below the district average coverage: Score 3 delivery as prescribed • If 80-99%: Score 2 in the sector guidelines. • If 60-79: Score 1 • If below 60 %: Score 0 Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
8 0 Planning, Budgeting b) Evidence that the DWO communicated to the LLGs their N/A and Transfer of Funds respective allocations per source to be constructed in the current FY: for service delivery: The Score 3 Local Government has allocated and spent funds for service delivery as prescribed in the sector guidelines.
Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
9 0 Routine Oversight and a. Evidence that the district Water Office has monitored each of WSS N/A Monitoring: The LG has facilities at least quarterly (key areas to include functionality of Water monitored WSS supply and public sanitation facilities, environment, and social facilities and provided safeguards, etc.) follow up support. • If more than 95% of the WSS facilities monitored quarterly: score 4 Maximum 8 points on this performance • If 80-99% of the WSS facilities monitored quarterly: score 2 measure • If less than 80% of the WSS facilities monitored quarterly: Score 0
9 0 Routine Oversight and b. Evidence that the DWO conducted quarterly DWSCC meetings N/A Monitoring: The LG has and among other agenda items, key issues identified from quarterly monitored WSS monitoring of WSS facilities were discussed and remedial actions facilities and provided incorporated in the current FY AWP. Score 2 follow up support.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure 9 0 Routine Oversight and c. The District Water Officer publicizes budget allocations for the N/A Monitoring: The LG has current FY to LLGs with safe water coverage below the LG average monitored WSS to all sub-counties: Score 2 facilities and provided follow up support.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
10 0 Mobilization for WSS is a. For previous FY, the DWO allocated a minimum of 40% of the N/A conducted NWR rural water and sanitation budget as per sector guidelines towards mobilization activities: Maximum 6 points on this performance • If funds were allocated score 3 measure • If not score 0
10 0 Mobilization for WSS is b. For the previous FY, the District Water Officer in liaison with the N/A conducted Community Development Officer trained WSCs on their roles on O&M of WSS facilities: Score 3. Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
Investment Management 11 n/a 0 Planning and a. Existence of an up-to-date LG asset register which sets out water Budgeting for supply and sanitation facilities by location and LLG: Investments is conducted effectively Score 4 or else 0
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
11 n/a 0 Planning and b. Evidence that the LG DWO has conducted a desk appraisal for all Budgeting for WSS projects in the budget to establish whether the prioritized Investments is investments were derived from the approved district development conducted effectively plans and are eligible for expenditure under sector guidelines (prioritize investments for sub-counties with safe water coverage Maximum 14 points on below the district average and rehabilitation of non-functional this performance facilities) and funding source (e.g. sector development grant, DDEG). measure If desk appraisal was conducted and if all projects are derived from the LGDP and are eligible:
Score 4 or else score 0. 11 n/a 0 Planning and c. All budgeted investments for current FY have completed Budgeting for applications from beneficiary communities: Score 2 Investments is conducted effectively
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
11 n/a 0 Planning and d. Evidence that the LG has conducted field appraisal to check for: (i) Budgeting for technical feasibility; (ii) environmental social acceptability; and (iii) Investments is customized designs for WSS projects for current FY. Score 2 conducted effectively
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
11 0 Planning and e. Evidence that all water infrastructure projects for the current FY The Budgeting for were screened for environmental and social risks/ impacts and municipality Investments is ESIA/ESMPs prepared before being approved for construction - does not conducted effectively costed ESMPs incorporated into designs, BoQs, bidding and have Water contract documents. Score 2 projects as Maximum 14 points on they are on this performance the National measure Grid.
12 0 Procurement and a. Evidence that the water infrastructure investments were Not Contract incorporated in the LG approved: Score 2 or else 0 applicable to Management/execution: Municipality The LG has effectively managed the WSS procurements
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
.
12 0 Procurement and b. Evidence that the water supply and public sanitation infrastructure Not Contract for the previous FY was approved by the Contracts Committee applicable to Management/execution: before commencement of construction Score 2: Municipality The LG has effectively managed the WSS procurements
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
. 12 0 Procurement and c. Evidence that the District Water Officer properly established the Not Contract Project Implementation team as specified in the Water sector applicable to Management/execution: guidelines Score 2: Municipality The LG has effectively managed the WSS procurements
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
.
12 0 Procurement and d. Evidence that water and public sanitation infrastructure sampled Not Contract were constructed as per the standard technical designs provided by applicable to Management/execution: the DWO: Score 2 Municipality The LG has effectively managed the WSS procurements
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
.
12 0 Procurement and e. Evidence that the relevant technical officers carry out monthly Not Contract technical supervision of WSS infrastructure projects: Score 2 applicable to Management/execution: Municipality The LG has effectively managed the WSS procurements
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
.
12 0 Procurement and f. For the sampled contracts, there is evidence that the DWO has Not Contract verified works and initiated payments of contractors within specified applicable to Management/execution: timeframes in the contracts Municipality The LG has effectively managed the WSS o If 100 % contracts paid on time: Score 2 procurements o If not score 0 Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
. 12 0 Procurement and g. Evidence that a complete procurement file for water infrastructure Not Contract investments is in place for each contract with all records as required applicable to Management/execution: by the PPDA Law: Municipality The LG has effectively managed the WSS Score 2, If not score 0 procurements
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
.
Environment and Social Requirements 13 0 Grievance Redress: Evidence that the DWO in liaison with the District Grievances Not The LG has established Redress Committee recorded, investigated, responded to and applicable to a mechanism of reported on water and environment grievances as per the LG the addressing WSS grievance redress framework: Municipality. related grievances in line with the LG Score 3, If not score 0 grievance redress framework
Maximum 3 points this performance measure 14 0 Safeguards for service Evidence that the DWO and the Environment Officer have The delivery disseminated guidelines on water source & catchment protection municipality and natural resource management to CDOs: does not Maximum 3 points on have Water this performance Score 3, If not score 0 projects as measure they are on the National Grid.
15 0 Safeguards in the a. Evidence that water source protection plans & natural resource The Delivery of Investments management plans for WSS facilities constructed in the previous FY municipality were prepared and implemented: Score 3, If not score 0 does not Maximum 10 points on have Water this performance projects as measure they are on the National Grid.
15 n/a 0 Safeguards in the b. Evidence that all WSS projects are implemented on land where Delivery of Investments the LG has proof of consent (e.g. a land title, agreement; Formal Consent, MoUs, etc.), without any encumbrances: Maximum 10 points on this performance Score 3, If not score 0 measure 15 n/a 0 Safeguards in the c. Evidence that E&S Certification forms are completed and signed Delivery of Investments by Environmental Officer and CDO prior to payments of contractor invoices/certificates at interim and final stages of projects: Maximum 10 points on this performance Score 2, If not score 0 measure
15 0 Safeguards in the d. Evidence that the CDO and environment Officers undertakes The Delivery of Investments monitoring to ascertain compliance with ESMPs; and provide municipality monthly reports: does not Maximum 10 points on have Water this performance Score 2, If not score 0 projects as measure they are on the National Grid.
772 Micro-scale irrigation Mukono performance measures Municipal Council
Summary of Compliance No. Definition of compliance Score requirements justification Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 0 Outcome: The LG has a) Evidence that the LG has up to-date data on irrigated Not assessed. LG not increased acreage of land for the last two FYs disaggregated between micro- among the pilot newly irrigated land scale irrigation grant beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries of micro- beneficiaries – score 2 or else 0 scale irrigation grant for Maximum score 4 FY 2020/2021.
Maximum 20 points for this performance area
1 0 Outcome: The LG has b) Evidence that the LG has increased acreage of newly Not assessed. LG not increased acreage of irrigated land in the previous FY as compared to among the pilot newly irrigated land previous FY but one: beneficiaries of micro- scale irrigation grant for Maximum score 4 • By more than 5% score 2 FY 2020/2021.
Maximum 20 points for • Between 1% and 4% score 1 this performance area • If no increase score 0
2 0 Service Delivery a) Evidence that the average score in the micro-scale Not assessed. LG not Performance: Average irrigation for LLG performance assessment is: among the pilot score in the micro-scale beneficiaries of micro- irrigation for the LLG • Above 70%; score 4 scale irrigation grant for performance FY 2020/2021. • 60 – 69%; score 2 assessment. Maximum score 4 • Below 60%; score 0
Maximum score 4
3 0 Investment a) Evidence that the development component of micro- Not assessed. LG not Performance: The LG scale irrigation grant has been used on eligible among the pilot has managed the activities (procurement and installation of irrigation beneficiaries of micro- supply and installation equipment, including accompanying supplier manuals scale irrigation grant for of micro-scale and training): Score 2 or else score 0 FY 2020/2021. irrigations equipment as per guidelines
Maximum score 6 3 0 Investment b) Evidence that the approved farmer signed an Not assessed. LG not Performance: The LG Acceptance Form confirming that equipment is working among the pilot has managed the well, before the LG made payments to the suppliers: beneficiaries of micro- supply and installation Score 1 or else score 0 scale irrigation grant for of micro-scale FY 2020/2021. irrigations equipment as per guidelines
Maximum score 6
3 0 Investment Evidence that the variations in the contract price are Not assessed. LG not Performance: The LG within +/-20% of the Agriculture Engineers estimates: among the pilot has managed the Score 1 or else score 0 beneficiaries of micro- supply and installation scale irrigation grant for of micro-scale FY 2020/2021. irrigations equipment as per guidelines
Maximum score 6
3 0 Investment d) Evidence that micro-scale irrigation equipment where Not assessed. LG not Performance: The LG contracts were signed during the previous FY were among the pilot has managed the installed/completed within the previous FY beneficiaries of micro- supply and installation scale irrigation grant for of micro-scale • If 100% score 2 FY 2020/2021. irrigations equipment as • Between 80 – 99% score 1 per guidelines • Below 80% score 0 Maximum score 6
4 The MC staff structure 2 Achievement of a) Evidence that the LG has recruited LLG extension and the establishment standards: The LG has workers as per staffing structure analysis indcated that met staffing and micro- threre were five (5) • If 100% score 2 scale irrigation approved and filled standards • If 75 – 99% score 1 positions of extension workers, 100% staff Maximum score 6 • If below 75% score 0 establishment
4 0 Achievement of b) Evidence that the micro-scale irrigation equipment Not assessed. LG not standards: The LG has meets standards as defined by MAAIF among the pilot met staffing and micro- beneficiaries of micro- scale irrigation • If 100% score 2 or else score 0 scale irrigation grant for standards FY 2020/2021.
Maximum score 6 4 0 Achievement of b) Evidence that the installed micro-scale irrigation Not assessed. LG not standards: The LG has systems during last FY are functional among the pilot met staffing and micro- beneficiaries of micro- scale irrigation • If 100% are functional score 2 or else score 0 scale irrigation grant for standards FY 2020/2021.
Maximum score 6
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 5 0 Accuracy of reported a) Evidence that information on position of extension The MC had two (2) information: The LG has workers filled is accurate: Score 2 or else 0 LLGs, Central and Goma reported accurate Divisions. At Central information Division the information required for verification of Maximum score 4 the staff establishment was not availed. At Goma Division, the extension workers were in place
5 0 Accuracy of reported b) Evidence that information on micro-scale irrigation Not assessed. LG not information: The LG has system installed and functioning is accurate: Score 2 or among the pilot reported accurate else 0 beneficiaries of micro- information scale irrigation grant for FY 2020/2021. Maximum score 4
6 0 Reporting and a) Evidence that information is collected quarterly on Not assessed. LG not Performance newly irrigated land, functionality of irrigation equipment among the pilot Improvement: The LG installed; provision of complementary services and beneficiaries of micro- has collected and farmer Expression of Interest: Score 2 or else 0 scale irrigation grant for entered information into FY 2020/2021. MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6 6 0 Reporting and b) Evidence that the LG has entered up to-date LLG Not assessed. LG not Performance information into MIS: Score 1 or else 0 among the pilot Improvement: The LG beneficiaries of micro- has collected and scale irrigation grant for entered information into FY 2020/2021. MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
6 0 Reporting and c.Evidence that the LG has prepared a quarterly report Not assessed. LG not Performance using information compiled from LLGs in the MIS: Score among the pilot Improvement: The LG 1 or else 0 beneficiaries of micro- has collected and scale irrigation grant for entered information into FY 2020/2021. MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
6 0 Reporting and d) Evidence that the LG has: Not assessed. LG not Performance among the pilot Improvement: The LG i. Developed an approved Performance Improvement beneficiaries of micro- has collected and Plan for the lowest performing LLGs score 1 or else 0 scale irrigation grant for entered information into FY 2020/2021. MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
6 0 Reporting and ii. Implemented Performance Improvement Plan for Not assessed. LG not Performance lowest performing LLGs: Score 1 or else 0 among the pilot Improvement: The LG beneficiaries of micro- has collected and scale irrigation grant for entered information into FY 2020/2021. MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
Human Resource Management and Development 7 0 Budgeting for, actual a) Evidence that the LG has: Not assessed. LG not recruitment and among the pilot deployment of staff: The i. Budgeted for extension workers as per guidelines/in beneficiaries of micro- Local Government has accordance with the staffing norms score 1 or else 0 scale irrigation grant for budgeted, actually FY 2020/2021. recruited and deployed staff as per guidelines
Maximum score 6
7 1 Budgeting for, actual ii Deployed extension workers as per guidelines score Budgeted for extension recruitment and 1 or else 0 workers as per the deployment of staff: The approves budget Local Government has estimates for FY 2019/20 budgeted, actually recruited and deployed staff as per guidelines
Maximum score 6
7 0 Budgeting for, actual b) Evidence that extension workers are working in LLGs It was not possible to recruitment and where they are deployed: Score 2 or else 0 verify the actural deployment of staff: The eployment of extension Local Government has workers as the budgeted, actually deployment information recruited and deployed at one of the divisions staff as per guidelines was not availed for examination Maximum score 6
7 0 Budgeting for, actual c) Evidence that extension workers deployment has At Goma Division the TC recruitment and been publicized and disseminated to LLGs by among had posted the list of deployment of staff: The others displaying staff list on the LLG notice board. extension workers on the Local Government has Score 2 or else 0 notice board. However, budgeted, actually at the Central Division recruited and deployed offices, it was not . staff as per guidelines
Maximum score 6 8 1 Performance a) Evidence that the District Production Coordinator The Minucipal Production management: The LG has: Coordinator appraised has appraised, taken the extension workers corrective action and i. Conducted annual performance appraisal of all during the previous FY as trained Extension Extension Workers against the agreed performance follows Workers plans and has submitted a copy to HRO during the previous FY: Score 1 else 0 1. Assistant Agricultural Maximum score 4 Officer - 1st July 2020 - Goma Division, 2. Assistant Animal Husbandry Officer- 16th July 2020. 3. Veterinary Officer - 16th july 2020 and 4. Agricultural Officer - 15th July 2020
8 The Municipal Production 1 Performance a) Evidence that the District Production Coordinator Coordinator took management: The LG has; corrective action as per has appraised, taken the letter MMC/ED/64 Taken corrective actions: Score 1 or else 0 corrective action and dated 30th June 2020 - trained Extension Performance Appraisal Workers Report for Production Department - outlining Maximum score 4 capacity building needs for the production department
8 There was no evidence 0 Performance b) Evidence that: that training activities management: The LG were conducted has appraised, taken i. Training activities were conducted in accordance to corrective action and the training plans at District level: Score 1 or else 0 trained Extension Workers
Maximum score 4
8 0 Performance ii Evidence that training activities were documented in There was no evidence management: The LG the training database: Score 1 or else 0 that training database has appraised, taken was established corrective action and trained Extension Workers
Maximum score 4
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 9 0 Planning, budgeting a) Evidence that the LG has appropriately allocated the Not assessed. LG not and transfer of funds for micro scale irrigation grant between (i) capital among the pilot service delivery: The development (micro scale irrigation equipment); and (ii) beneficiaries of micro- Local Government has complementary services (in FY 2020/21 100% to scale irrigation grant for budgeted, used and complementary services; starting from FY 2021/22 – FY 2020/2021. disseminated funds for 75% capital development; and 25% complementary service delivery as per services): Score 2 or else 0 guidelines.
Maximum score 10
9 0 Planning, budgeting b) Evidence that budget allocations have been made Not assessed. LG not and transfer of funds for towards complementary services in line with the sector among the pilot service delivery: The guidelines i.e. (i) maximum 25% for enhancing LG beneficiaries of micro- Local Government has capacity to support irrigated agriculture (of which scale irrigation grant for budgeted, used and maximum 15% awareness raising of local leaders and FY 2020/2021. disseminated funds for maximum 10% procurement, Monitoring and service delivery as per Supervision); and (ii) minimum 75% for enhancing guidelines. farmer capacity for uptake of micro scale irrigation (Awareness raising of farmers, Farm visit, Maximum score 10 Demonstrations, Farmer Field Schools): Score 2 or else score 0
9 0 Planning, budgeting c) Evidence that the co-funding is reflected in the LG Not assessed. LG not and transfer of funds for Budget and allocated as per guidelines: Score 2 or else among the pilot service delivery: The 0 beneficiaries of micro- Local Government has scale irrigation grant for budgeted, used and FY 2020/2021. disseminated funds for service delivery as per guidelines.
Maximum score 10
9 0 Planning, budgeting d) Evidence that the LG has used the farmer co-funding Not assessed. LG not and transfer of funds for following the same rules applicable to the micro scale among the pilot service delivery: The irrigation grant: Score 2 or else 0 beneficiaries of micro- Local Government has scale irrigation grant for budgeted, used and FY 2020/2021. disseminated funds for service delivery as per guidelines.
Maximum score 10 9 0 Planning, budgeting e) Evidence that the LG has disseminated information Not assessed. LG not and transfer of funds for on use of the farmer co-funding: Score 2 or else 0 among the pilot service delivery: The beneficiaries of micro- Local Government has scale irrigation grant for budgeted, used and FY 2020/2021. disseminated funds for service delivery as per guidelines.
Maximum score 10
10 0 Routine oversight and a) Evidence that the DPO has monitored on a monthly Not assessed. LG not monitoring: The LG basis installed micro-scale irrigation equipment (key among the pilot monitored, provided areas to include functionality of equipment, environment beneficiaries of micro- hands-on support and and social safeguards including adequacy of water scale irrigation grant for ran farmer field schools source, efficiency of micro irrigation equipment in terms FY 2020/2021. as per guidelines of water conservation, etc.)
Maximum score 8 • If more than 90% of the micro-irrigation equipment monitored: Score 2
• 70-89% monitored score 1
Less than 70% score 0
10 0 Routine oversight and b. Evidence that the LG has overseen technical training Not assessed. LG not monitoring: The LG & support to the Approved Farmer to achieve servicing among the pilot monitored, provided and maintenance during the warranty period: Score 2 or beneficiaries of micro- hands-on support and else 0 scale irrigation grant for ran farmer field schools FY 2020/2021. as per guidelines
Maximum score 8
10 0 Routine oversight and c) Evidence that the LG has provided hands-on support Not assessed. LG not monitoring: The LG to the LLG extension workers during the implementation among the pilot monitored, provided of complementary services within the previous FY as beneficiaries of micro- hands-on support and per guidelines score 2 or else 0 scale irrigation grant for ran farmer field schools FY 2020/2021. as per guidelines
Maximum score 8 10 0 Routine oversight and d) Evidence that the LG has established and run farmer Not assessed. LG not monitoring: The LG field schools as per guidelines: Score 2 or else 0 among the pilot monitored, provided beneficiaries of micro- hands-on support and scale irrigation grant for ran farmer field schools FY 2020/2021. as per guidelines
Maximum score 8
11 0 Mobilization of farmers: a) Evidence that the LG has conducted activities to Not assessed. LG not The LG has conducted mobilize farmers as per guidelines: Score 2 or else 0 among the pilot activities to mobilize beneficiaries of micro- farmers to participate in scale irrigation grant for irrigation and irrigated FY 2020/2021. agriculture.
Maximum score 4
11 0 Mobilization of farmers: b) Evidence that the District has trained staff and Not assessed. LG not The LG has conducted political leaders at District and LLG levels: Score 2 or among the pilot activities to mobilize else 0 beneficiaries of micro- farmers to participate in scale irrigation grant for irrigation and irrigated FY 2020/2021. agriculture.
Maximum score 4
Investment Management 12 0 Planning and budgeting a) Evidence that the LG has an updated register of Not assessed. LG not for investments: The LG micro-scale irrigation equipment supplied to farmers in among the pilot has selected farmers the previous FY as per the format: Score 2 or else 0 beneficiaries of micro- and budgeted for micro- scale irrigation grant for scale irrigation as per FY 2020/2021. guidelines
Maximum score 8
12 0 Planning and budgeting b) Evidence that the LG keeps an up-to-date database Not assessed. LG not for investments: The LG of applications at the time of the assessment: Score 2 or among the pilot has selected farmers else 0 beneficiaries of micro- and budgeted for micro- scale irrigation grant for scale irrigation as per FY 2020/2021. guidelines
Maximum score 8 12 0 Planning and budgeting c) Evidence that the District has carried out farm visits to Not assessed. LG not for investments: The LG farmers that submitted complete Expressions of Interest among the pilot has selected farmers (EOI): Score 2 or else 0 beneficiaries of micro- and budgeted for micro- scale irrigation grant for scale irrigation as per FY 2020/2021. guidelines
Maximum score 8
12 0 Planning and budgeting d) For DDEG financed projects: Not assessed. LG not for investments: The LG among the pilot has selected farmers Evidence that the LG District Agricultural Engineer (as beneficiaries of micro- and budgeted for micro- Secretariat) publicized the eligible farmers that they scale irrigation grant for scale irrigation as per have been approved by posting on the District and LLG FY 2020/2021. guidelines noticeboards: Score 2 or else 0
Maximum score 8
13 Not apllicable to 0 Procurement, contract a) Evidence that the micro-scale irrigation systems were Municipality management/execution: incorporated in the LG approved procurement plan for The LG procured and the current FY: Score 1 or else score 0. managed micro-scale irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract b) Evidence that the LG requested for quotation from Not applicable to management/execution: irrigation equipment suppliers pre-qualified by the Municipality The LG procured and Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries managed micro-scale (MAAIF): Score 2 or else 0 irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract c) Evidence that the LG concluded the selection of the Not applicable to management/execution: irrigation equipment supplier based on the set criteria: Municipality The LG procured and Score 2 or else 0 managed micro-scale irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18 13 0 Procurement, contract d) Evidence that the micro-scale irrigation systems was Not applicable to management/execution: approved by the Contracts Committee: Score 1 or else Municipality The LG procured and 0 managed micro-scale irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract e. Evidence that the LG signed the contract with the Not applicable to management/execution: lowest priced technically responsive irrigation Municipality The LG procured and equipment supplier for the farmer with a farmer as a managed micro-scale witness before commencement of installation score 2 or irrigation contracts as else 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract f)Evidence that the micro-scale irrigation equipment Not applicable to management/execution: installed is in line with the design output sheet Municipality The LG procured and (generated by IrriTrack App): Score 2 or else 0 managed micro-scale irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract g) Evidence that the LG have conducted regular Not applicable to management/execution: technical supervision of micro-scale irrigation projects Municipality The LG procured and by the relevant technical officers (District Agricultural managed micro-scale Engineer or Contracted staff): Score 2 or else 0 irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract h) Evidence that the LG has overseen the irrigation Not applicable to management/execution: equipment supplier during: Municipality The LG procured and managed micro-scale i. Testing the functionality of the installed equipment: irrigation contracts as Score 1 or else 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 18 13 0 Procurement, contract ii. Hand-over of the equipment to the Approved Farmer Not applicable to management/execution: (delivery note by the supplies and goods received note Municipality The LG procured and by the approved farmer): Score 1 or 0 managed micro-scale irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract i) Evidence that the Local Government has made Not applicable to management/execution: payment of the supplier within specified timeframes Municipality The LG procured and subject to the presence of the Approved farmer’s signed managed micro-scale acceptance form: Score 2 or else 0 irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract j) Evidence that the LG has a complete procurement file Not applicable to management/execution: for each contract and with all records required by the Municipality The LG procured and PPDA Law: Score 2 or else 0 managed micro-scale irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 0 Grievance redress: The a) Evidence that the Local Government has displayed Not assessed. LG not LG has established a details of the nature and avenues to address grievance among the pilot mechanism of prominently in multiple public areas: Score 2 or else 0 beneficiaries of micro- addressing micro-scale scale irrigation grant for irrigation grievances in FY 2020/2021. line with the LG grievance redress framework
Maximum score 6 14 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation grievances have been: Not applicable to the LG has established a Municipality. mechanism of i). Recorded score 1 or else 0 addressing micro-scale ii). Investigated score 1 or else 0 irrigation grievances in line with the LG iii). Responded to score 1 or else 0 grievance redress framework iv). Reported on in line with LG grievance redress framework score 1 or else 0 Maximum score 6
14 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation grievances have been: Not applicable to the LG has established a Municipality. mechanism of ii. Investigated score 1 or else 0 addressing micro-scale iii. Responded to score 1 or else 0 irrigation grievances in line with the LG iv. Reported on in line with LG grievance redress grievance redress framework score 1 or else 0 framework
Maximum score 6
14 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation grievances have been: Not applicable to the LG has established a Municipality. mechanism of iii. Responded to score 1 or else 0 addressing micro-scale iv. Reported on in line with LG grievance redress irrigation grievances in framework score 1 or else 0 line with the LG grievance redress framework
Maximum score 6
14 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation grievances have been: Not applicable to the LG has established a Municipality. mechanism of iv. Reported on in line with LG grievance redress addressing micro-scale framework score 1 or else 0 irrigation grievances in line with the LG grievance redress framework
Maximum score 6
Environment and Social Requirements 15 0 Safeguards in the a) Evidence that LGs have disseminated Micro- Not assessed. LG not delivery of investments irrigation guidelines to provide for proper siting, land among the pilot access (without encumbrance), proper use of beneficiaries of micro- Maximum score 6 agrochemicals and safe disposal of chemical waste scale irrigation grant for containers etc. FY 2020/2021.
score 2 or else 0
15 0 Safeguards in the b) Evidence that Environmental, Social and Climate The Municipal Council delivery of investments Change screening have been carried out and where does not have running required, ESMPs developed, prior to installation of irrigation projects. Maximum score 6 irrigation equipment.
i. Costed ESMP were incorporated into designs, BoQs, bidding and contractual documents score 1 or else 0
15 0 Safeguards in the ii. Monitoring of irrigation impacts e.g. adequacy of The Municipal Council delivery of investments water source (quality & quantity), efficiency of system in does not have running terms of water conservation, use of agro-chemicals & irrigation projects. Maximum score 6 management of resultant chemical waste containers score 1 or else 0
15 0 Safeguards in the iii. E&S Certification forms are completed and signed by The Municipal Council delivery of investments Environmental Officer prior to payments of contractor does not have running invoices/certificates at interim and final stages of irrigation projects. Maximum score 6 projects score 1 or else 0
15 0 Safeguards in the iv. E&S Certification forms are completed and signed by The Municipal Council delivery of investments CDO prior to payments of contractor does not have running invoices/certificates at interim and final stages of irrigation projects. Maximum score 6 projects score 1 or else 0
772 Micro-scale irrigation minimum conditions Mukono Municipal Council
Compliance No. Summary of requirements Definition of compliance Score justification Human Resource Management and Development 1 The LG has not 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or requested for If the LG has recruited the recruited a Senior secondment of staff for all critical positions in the District Senior Agriculture Engineer Agrivulture Officer Production Office responsible for micro-scale irrigation score 70 or else 0.
Maximum score is 70
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out Environmental, If the LG: Not applicable. No Social and Climate Change screening have been carried irrigation projects out for potential investments and where required costed a. Carried out in Mukono ESMPs developed. Environmental, Social and Municipality. Climate Change screening, Maximum score is 30 score 15 or else 0.
2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out Environmental, b. Carried out Social Impact Not applicable. No Social and Climate Change screening have been carried Assessments (ESIAs) irrigation projects out for potential investments and where required costed where required, score 15 or in Mukono ESMPs developed. else 0. Municipality.
Maximum score is 30
772 Water & environment minimum conditions Mukono Municipal Council
Definition of Compliance No. Summary of requirements Score compliance justification Human Resource Management and Development 1 N/A 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or formally requested for If the LG has recruited: secondment of staff for all critical positions. a. 1 Civil Engineer (Water), score 15 or else 0.
1 N/A 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or formally requested for b. 1 Assistant Water secondment of staff for all critical positions. Officer for mobilization, score 10 or else 0.
1 N/A 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or formally requested for c. 1 Borehole secondment of staff for all critical positions. Maintenance Technician/Assistant Engineering Officer, score 10 or else 0.
1 N/A 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or formally requested for d. 1 Natural Resources secondment of staff for all critical positions. Officer , score 15 or else 0.
1 The position 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or formally requested for e. 1 Environment of secondment of staff for all critical positions. Officer, score 10 or else Environment 0. Officer was vacant 1 There was 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or formally requested for f. Forestry Officer, score no provision secondment of staff for all critical positions. 10 or else 0. for a Forest Officer in the staff structure Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out Environmental. Social and If the LG: Not Climate Change screening/Environment and Social Impact applicable to Assessment (ESIAs) (including child protection plans) where a. Carried out the applicable, and abstraction permits have been issued to contractors Environmental, Social Municipality by the Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM) prior to and Climate Change since they commencement of all civil works on all water sector projects screening/Environment, are score 10 or else 0. connected on the National Water Grid. 2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out Environmental. Social and b. Carried out Social Not Climate Change screening/Environment and Social Impact Impact Assessments applicable to Assessment (ESIAs) (including child protection plans) where (ESIAs) , score 10 or the applicable, and abstraction permits have been issued to contractors else 0. Municipality by the Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM) prior to since they commencement of all civil works on all water sector projects are connected on the National Water Grid.
2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out Environmental. Social and c. Ensured that Not Climate Change screening/Environment and Social Impact contractors got applicable to Assessment (ESIAs) (including child protection plans) where abstraction permits the applicable, and abstraction permits have been issued to contractors issued by DWRM, Municipality by the Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM) prior to score 10 or else 0. since they commencement of all civil works on all water sector projects are connected on the National Water Grid.
772 Health minimum conditions Mukono Municipal Council
No. Summary of requirements Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score Human Resource Management and Development 1 Evidence that the District has substantively If the LG has substantively recruited or formally requested for recruited or formally requested secondment of staff for all critical positions. for secondment of:
Applicable to Districts only. a. District Health Officer, score 10 or else 0. Maximum score is 70
1 Evidence that the District has substantively b. Assistant District Health recruited or formally requested for Officer Maternal, Child Health secondment of staff for all critical positions. and Nursing, score 10 or else 0
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 Evidence that the District has substantively c. Assistant District Health recruited or formally requested for Officer Environmental Health, secondment of staff for all critical positions. score 10 or else 0.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 Evidence that the District has substantively d. Principal Health Inspector recruited or formally requested for (Senior Environment Officer) , secondment of staff for all critical positions. score 10 or else 0.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70 1 Evidence that the District has substantively e. Senior Health Educator, recruited or formally requested for score 10 or else 0. secondment of staff for all critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 Evidence that the District has substantively f. Biostatistician, score 10 or 0. recruited or formally requested for secondment of staff for all critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 Evidence that the District has substantively g. District Cold Chain recruited or formally requested for Technician, score 10 or else 0. secondment of staff for all critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 30 Evidence that the Municipality has in place or h. If the MC has in place or The Principal Medical formally requested for secondment of staff for formally requested for Officer was substantively all critical positions. secondment of Medical Officer appointed as per the of Health Services /Principal appointment letter Applicable to MCs only. Medical Officer, score 30 or MMC/SM/10C dated 13th else 0. May 2019. Maximum score is 70
1 20 Evidence that the Municipality has in place or i. If the MC has in place or The Principal Health formally requested for secondment of staff for formally requested for Inspector was substantively all critical positions. secondment of Principal Health appointed as per the Inspector, score 20 or else 0. appointmant letter Applicable to MCs only. MMC/SM/10C dated13th May 2019 Maximum score is 70
1 20 Evidence that the Municipality has in place or j. If the MC has in place or The Health Educator was formally requested for secondment of staff for formally requested for substantively appointed as all critical positions. secondment of Health per the appointmant letter Educator, score 20 or else 0. MMC/SM/10C dated 27th Applicable to MCs only. February 2019 Maximum score is 70
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that prior to commencement of all If the LG carried out: There was no evidence that civil works for all Health sector projects, the the Municipal Council LG has carried out: Environmental, Social a. Environmental, Social and carried out Environmental, and Climate Change screening/Environment Climate Change Social and Climate Change Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) screening/Environment, score screening. 15 or else 0. Maximum score is 30 Proposal was made for screening health infrastructure including:
1) Phased construction of OPD at Mukono General Hospital;
2) Construction of toilet facility for maternity ward of Mukono General Hospital;
3) Construction of toilet facility at Goma Health Centre III; and
4) Renovation of Kyungu, Nantabulirwa and Nyenje Health Centre IIs.
But apart from a summary of projects proposed to be screened dated 14th August 2019, the actual Screening Forms were not filled.
2 0 Evidence that prior to commencement of all b. Social Impact Assessments This could not be done civil works for all Health sector projects, the (ESIAs) , score 15 or else 0. since the screening was not LG has carried out: Environmental, Social properly done, and could and Climate Change screening/Environment not establish whether this Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) was necessary or not.
Maximum score is 30
772 Education minimum conditions Mukono Municipal Council
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 30 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has The Principal Education Officer Officer was substantively recruited or formally substantively recruited substantively appointed as per the requested for secondment of staff for or formally requested appointment letter MMC/SM/10C dated all critical positions in the for secondment of: 24th June 2011 District/Municipal Education Office namely: a) District Education Officer/ Principal The maximum score is 70 Education Officer, score 30 or else 0.
1 40 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has The municipal council had two Inspectors substantively recruited or formally substantively recruited of Schools, they were both substantively requested for secondment of staff for or formally requested appointed as per their appointment letter all critical positions in the for secondment of: examined as follows; 1. Senior Inspector District/Municipal Education Office of Schools – MMC/SM/10C dated 20th namely: b) All District/Municipal July 2011 and Inspector of Schools – Inspector of Schools, MMC/SM/10C dated 20th July 2011 The maximum score is 70 score 40 or else 0.
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that prior to commencement If the LG carried out: There was no evidence that the Municipal of all civil works for all Education Council carried out Environmental, Social sector projects the LG has carried out: a. Environmental, and Climate Change screening. Environmental, Social and Climate Social and Climate Change screening/Environment Social Change Proposal was made for screening Impact Assessments (ESIAs) screening/Environment, education infrastructure including: score 15 or else 0. 1) Repair of roof for classroom block at Namilyango Day Primary School; The Maximum score is 30 2) Construction of a 2 in one classroom block at Ssekiboobo P/S;
3) Construction of a 2 in one classroom block at Bajjo P/S; and
4) Replacement of asbestos sheets at Boshop's East P/S.
But apart from a summary of projects proposed to be screened dated 14th August 2019, the actual Screening Forms were not filled. 2 0 Evidence that prior to commencement If the LG carried out: This could not be done since the screening of all civil works for all Education was not properly done, and could not sector projects the LG has carried out: b. Social Impact establish whether this was necessary or Environmental, Social and Climate Assessments (ESIAs) , not. Change screening/Environment Social score 15 or else 0. Impact Assessments (ESIAs)
The Maximum score is 30
772 Crosscutting minimum conditions Mukono Municipal Council
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 3 Evidence that the LG has recruited or a. Chief Finance The CFO was substantively formally requested for secondment of staff Officer/Principal appointed as per the appointment for all critical positions in the Finance Officer, score 3 letter MMC/PS/135 dated 30th District/Municipal Council departments. or else 0 September 2020
Maximum score is 37.
1 3 Evidence that the LG has recruited or b. District The Senior Planner was formally requested for secondment of staff Planner/Senior substantively appointed as per the for all critical positions in the Planner, score appointment letter MMC/SM/10C District/Municipal Council departments. dated 19th October 2018 3 or else 0 Maximum score is 37.
1 3 Evidence that the LG has recruited or c. District The Municipal Engineer was formally requested for secondment of staff Engineer/Principal substantively appointed as per the for all critical positions in the Engineer, appointment letter MMMC/SM/10C District/Municipal Council departments. dated 17th July 2019 score 3 or else 0 Maximum score is 37.
1 3 Evidence that the LG has recruited or d. District Natural The Senior Environment Officer was formally requested for secondment of staff Resources substantively appointed as per the for all critical positions in the Officer/Senior appointment letter MMC/SM/10C District/Municipal Council departments. Environment Officer, dated 25th June 2018
Maximum score is 37. score 3 or else 0
1 3 Evidence that the LG has recruited or e. District Production The Senior Veterinary Officer was formally requested for secondment of staff Officer/Senior substantively appointed as per the for all critical positions in the Veterinary Officer, appointment letter MMC/SM/10C District/Municipal Council departments. dated 25th June 2018 score 3 or else 0 Maximum score is 37. 1 3 Evidence that the LG has recruited or f. District Community The Principal Community formally requested for secondment of staff Development Officer/ Development Officer was for all critical positions in the Principal CDO, substantively appointed as per the District/Municipal Council departments. appointment letter MMC/SM/10C score 3 or else 0 dated 28th June 2018 Maximum score is 37.
1 3 Evidence that the LG has recruited or g. District Commercial The Principal Commercial Officer formally requested for secondment of staff Officer/Principal was substantively appointed as per for all critical positions in the Commercial Officer, the appointmenrt letter MMC/SM/10C District/Municipal Council departments. gated 25th June 2018 score 3 or else 0 Maximum score is 37.
1 2 Evidence that the LG has recruited or other critical staff The Senior Procurement Officer was formally requested for secondment of staff substamtively appointed as per the for all critical positions in the appointment letter MMC/SM/10C District/Municipal Council departments. h (i). A Senior dated 5th April 3013 Procurement Officer Maximum score is 37. (Municipal: Procurement Officer)
score 2 or else 0.
1 2 Evidence that the LG has recruited or h(ii). Procurement The municipal staff structure formally requested for secondment of staff Officer (Municipal provided for a Procurement Officer, for all critical positions in the Assistant Procurement who was substantively appointed as District/Municipal Council departments. Officer), per the appointment letter MMC/SM/10C dated 25th June 2018 Maximum score is 37. score 2 or else 0
1 2 Evidence that the LG has recruited or i. Principal Human The municipal staff structure formally requested for secondment of staff Resource Officer, provided for a Senior Human for all critical positions in the Recource Officer, who was was District/Municipal Council departments. score 2 or else 0 substantively appointed as per the appointment letter MMC/SM/10C Maximum score is 37. dated 5th April 2013
1 2 Evidence that the LG has recruited or j. A Senior Environment The Senior Environment Officer was formally requested for secondment of staff Officer, substantively appointed as per the for all critical positions in the appointment letter MMC/SM/10C District/Municipal Council departments. score 2 or else 0 dated 25th June 2018
Maximum score is 37. 1 2 Evidence that the LG has recruited or k. Senior Land There was no provision for a Senior formally requested for secondment of staff Management Officer, land officer in the staff structure for all critical positions in the score 2 or else 0 District/Municipal Council departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 2 Evidence that the LG has recruited or l. A Senior Accountant, The Senior Accountant was formally requested for secondment of staff substantively appointed as per the for all critical positions in the score 2 or else 0 appointment letter MMC/SM/10C District/Municipal Council departments. dated 22nd July 2008
Maximum score is 37.
1 2 Evidence that the LG has recruited or m. Principal Internal The Senior Internal Auditor was formally requested for secondment of staff Auditor for Districts and substantively appointed as per the for all critical positions in the Senior Internal Auditor appointment letter MMC/SM/10C 5th District/Municipal Council departments. for MCs, April 22013
Maximum score is 37. score 2 or else 0
1 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or n. Principal Human N/A formally requested for secondment of staff Resource Officer for all critical positions in the (Secretary DSC), score District/Municipal Council departments. 2 or else 0
Maximum score is 37.
2 The municipal council had two (2) 5 Evidence that the LG has recruited or If LG has recruited or LLGs and therefore 2 Principal formally requested for secondment of staff requested for Assistant Town Clerks. They were for all essential positions in every LLG secondment of: both substantively appointed as per their appointment letters; 1. Maximum score is 15 a. Senior Assistant MMC/SM/10C dated 1st June 2011 Secretaries in all LLGS, and 2. MMC/SM/10C dated 24th score 5 or else 0 June 2011 2 5 Evidence that the LG has recruited or If LG has recruited or The municipal council had two (2) formally requested for secondment of staff requested for LLGs and therefore 2 Community for all essential positions in every LLG secondment of: Development officers, they were both substantively appointed as per the Maximum score is 15 b. A Community appointment letters 1. MMC/SM/10C Development Officer or dated 29th July 2020 and 2. Senior CDO in case of MC/SM/10C dated 19th October Town Councils, in all 2018 LLGS
score 5 or else 0.
2 The municipal council had two (2) 5 Evidence that the LG has recruited or If LG has recruited or LLGs and therefore 2 Senior formally requested for secondment of staff requested for Accounts Assistants, they were both for all essential positions in every LLG secondment of: substantively appointed as per the appointment letters, MMC/SM/10C Maximum score is 15 c. A Senior Accounts both dated 20th July 2011 Assistant or an Accounts Assistant in all LLGS,
score 5 or else 0.
Environment and Social Requirements 3 0 Evidence that the LG has released all funds If the LG has released There was no evidence that the LG allocated for the implementation of 100% of funds allocated released 100% of funds allocated in environmental and social safeguards in the in the previous FY to: the year 2019/20 to Natural previous FY. Resources department. The LG a. Natural Resources budgeted Ugx 320,962,000 and Maximum score is 4 department, released only Ugx 207,577,298 (was spent ( LG Financial statements for score 2 or else 0 the year 2019/20 page 14) which was 65% below the required 100%.
3 0 Evidence that the LG has released all funds If the LG has released There was no evidence that the LG allocated for the implementation of 100% of funds allocated released 100% of funds allocated in environmental and social safeguards in the in the previous FY to: the year 2019/20 to Community previous FY. Based Services department. The LG b. Community Based budgeted Ugx 703,176,722 and only Maximum score is 4 Services department. Ugx 185,556,387 was spent ( LG Financial statements for the year score 2 or else 0. 2019/20 page 14), which was 26% lower than the required 100%. 4 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out a. If the LG has carried There was no evidence that the Environmental, Social and Climate Change out Environmental, Municipality carried out screening/Environment and Social Impact Social and Climate Environmental, Social and Climate Assessments (ESIAs) and developed Change screening, Change screening prior to costed Environment and Social commencement of all civil works for Management Plans (ESMPs) (including score 4 or else 0 all projects implemented using the child protection plans) where applicable, Discretionary Development prior to commencement of all civil works. Equalization Grant (DDEG)
Maximum score is 12 It was claimed that two DDEG projects were screened for the previous FY. These were:
1) Re-roofing the general Fish stall in Kame Valley market; and
2) Contribution to the construction of Youth Centre in Nakabago.
But apart from a summary of projects proposed to be screened dated 14th August 2019, the actual Screening Forms were not filled.
4 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out b. If the LG has carried There was no evidence that the Environmental, Social and Climate Change out Environment and Municipal Council carried out screening/Environment and Social Impact Social Impact Environment and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) and developed Assessments (ESIAs) Assessments (ESIAs) prior to costed Environment and Social prior to commencement commencement of all civil works for Management Plans (ESMPs) (including of all civil works for all all projects implemented using the child protection plans) where applicable, projects implemented Discretionary Development prior to commencement of all civil works. using the Discretionary Equalization Grant (DDEG) Development Maximum score is 12 Equalization Grant It was mentioned that the Youth (DDEG), Centre was identified for ESIA. But there was no documentation score 4 or 0 produced either from screening reports or otherwise, to give direction as to how the municipality had arrived at this decision. 4 4 Evidence that the LG has carried out c. If the LG has a There was evidence that the Environmental, Social and Climate Change Costed ESMPs for all Municipal Council costed ESMPs for screening/Environment and Social Impact projects implemented all projects implemented using the Assessments (ESIAs) and developed using the Discretionary Discretionary Development costed Environment and Social Development Equalization Grant (DDEG). These Management Plans (ESMPs) (including Equalization Grant two projects were: child protection plans) where applicable, (DDEG);; prior to commencement of all civil works. 1) Costing was done under score 4 or 0 Renovation of Kyungu Health Centre Maximum score is 12 II. The budget attached to ESS & EMM (Environment and Social Safeguards & Environment Mitigation Measures) was UGX1,411,165.(4%) of the total sum of uGX34,968,699; and
2) The Fish market was costed at UGX12,989,440/=
Financial management and reporting 5 0 Evidence that the LG does not have an If a LG has a clean The LG will be scored in January adverse or disclaimer audit opinion for the audit opinion, score 10; 2021 when the Auditor General previous FY. report for the year 2019/20 is issued. If a LG has a qualified Maximum score is 10 audit opinion, score 5
If a LG has an adverse or disclaimer audit opinion for the previous FY, score 0
6 0 Evidence that the LG has provided If the LG has provided The LG submitted status of information to the PS/ST on the status of information to the implementation of Internal Auditor implementation of Internal Auditor General PS/ST on the status of General issues for the year 2018/19 and Auditor General findings for the implementation of on 8 January 2020 and Auditor previous financial year by end of February Internal Auditor General General audit issues for the year (PFMA s. 11 2g). This statement includes and Auditor General 2018/19 on 5 March 2020 to PS/ST, issues, recommendations, and actions findings for the previous after the February 2020 deadline. against all findings where the Internal financial year by end of Audit issues included lack of tax Auditor and Auditor General recommended February (PFMA s. 11 appeals tribunal and non compliance the Accounting Officer to act (PFM Act 2g), with reporting schedules among 2015). others. score 10 or else 0. maximum score is 10
7 4 Evidence that the LG has submitted an If the LG has submitted The LG submitted an annual annual performance contract by August 31st an annual performance performance contract of 2020/21 on of the current FY contract by August 31st 23 June 2020 before the deadline of of the current FY, August 31st, 2020. Maximum Score 4 score 4 or else 0. 8 4 Evidence that the LG has submitted the If the LG has submitted The LG submitted the Annual Annual Performance Report for the previous the Annual Performance Report for the year FY on or before August 31, of the current Performance Report for 2019/20 on 18/8/2020 before the Financial Year the previous FY on or deadline of August 2020. before August 31, of the maximum score 4 or else 0 current Financial Year,
score 4 or else 0.
9 4 Evidence that the LG has submitted If the LG has submitted The LG submitted all the quarterly Quarterly Budget Performance Reports Quarterly Budget budget Performance Reports for the (QBPRs) for all the four quarters of the Performance Reports year 2019/20 by the deadline of previous FY by August 31, of the current (QBPRs) for all the four August 2020 as below: Financial Year quarters of the previous FY by August 31, of the Q1 was submitted on 16/12/2019 ; Maximum score is 4 current Financial Year, Q2 was submitted on 14/2/2020 ; score 4 or else 0. Q3 was submitted on 8/5/2020 ; and
Q4 was submitted on 18/8/2020.