Nakaseke District

Local Government Performance Assessment Nakaseke District (Vote Code: 569) Assessment Scores Accountability Requirements % Crosscutting Performance Measures 58% Educational Performance Measures 76% Health Performance Measures 63% Water & Environment Performance Measures 44% 569 Accountability Requirements 2019 Nakaseke District No. Summary of requirements Definition of compliance Compliance justification Compliant? Annual performance contract 1 Yes LG has submitted an annual performance • From MoFPED’s Nakaseke District Local contract of the forthcoming year by June 30 inventory/schedule of LG Government submitted the on the basis of the PFMAA and LG Budget submissions of performance annual performance guidelines for the coming financial year. contracts, check dates of contract on 24th July submission and issuance of 2019. This is within the receipts and: adjusted deadline of 31st August 2019. Therefore, o If LG submitted before or the LG is Compliant. by due date, then state ‘compliant’ o If LG had not submitted or submitted later than the due date, state ‘non- compliant’ • From the Uganda budget website: www.budget.go.ug, check and compare recorded date therein with date of LG submission to confirm. Supporting Documents for the Budget required as per the PFMA are submitted and available 2 Yes LG has submitted a Budget that includes a • From MoFPED’s The Local Government Procurement Plan for the forthcoming FY by inventory of LG budget submitted the budget 30th June (LG PPDA Regulations, 2006). submissions, check together with the whether: Procurement Plan on 24th July 2019. This is within o The LG budget is the adjusted deadline of accompanied by a 31st August 2019. Procurement Plan or not. If a Therefore, the LG is LG submission includes a Compliant. Procurement Plan, the LG is compliant; otherwise it is not compliant. Reporting: submission of annual and quarterly budget performance reports 3 Yes LG has submitted the annual performance From MoFPED’s official The annual performance report for the previous FY on or before 31st record/inventory of LG report for the previous July (as per LG Budget Preparation submission of annual year was submitted on Guidelines for coming FY; PFMA Act, 2015) performance report 25th August 2019. This is submitted to MoFPED, within the adjusted check the date MoFPED deadline of 31st August received the annual 2019. Therefore, the LG is performance report: Compliant. • If LG submitted report to MoFPED in time, then it is compliant • If LG submitted late or did not submit, then it is not compliant 4 Yes LG has submitted the quarterly budget From MoFPED’s official The Local Government performance report for all the four quarters record/ inventory of LG submitted quarterly and of the previous FY by end of the FY; PFMA submission of quarterly annual reports as follows: Act, 2015). reports submitted to MoFPED, check the date Quarter 1 on 18th MoFPED received the November 2018; quarterly performance Quarter 2 on 15th April reports: 2019; • If LG submitted all four Quarter 3 on 29th May reports to MoFPED of the 2019 and previous FY by July 31, then it is compliant (timely Quarter 4 on 25th August submission of each 2019. quarterly report, is not an accountability requirement, The LG submitted the 4th but by end of the FY, all quarterly report (annual quarterly reports should be performance report) on available). 25th August 2019. This is within the adjusted • If LG submitted late or did deadline of 31st August not submit at all, then it is 2019. Therefore, the LG is not compliant. Compliant. Audit 5 No The LG has provided information to the From MoFPED’s The LG submitted status PS/ST on the status of implementation of Inventory/record of LG of implementation of Internal Auditor General and the Auditor submissions of statements Auditor General audit General’s findings for the previous financial entitled “Actions to Address issues for the year year by end of February (PFMA s. 11 2g). Internal Auditor General’s 2017/18 on 22 March This statement includes actions against all findings”, 2019 to PS/ST, ref 251/1, findings where the Internal Audi- tor and letter signed by Chief the Auditor General recommended the Check: Administration Officer Accounting Officer to take action in lines dated March 22, 2019 • If LG submitted a with applicable laws. addressed all the 15 ‘Response’ (and provide issues. details), then it is compliant However ,the LG • If LG did not submit a’ submitted the status of response’, then it is non- implementation on Internal compliant Audit Issues for the year • If there is a response for 2017/18 to PS/ST late on all –LG is compliant May 13, 2019 beyond the deadline of April 30, 2019 • If there are partial or not . all issues responded to – LG is not compliant. 6 Yes The audit opinion of LG Financial The Auditor General Statement (issued in January) is not report for the year adverse or disclaimer. 2018/19, Kampala Branch No. 80 Nakaseke DLG has an Unqualified Audit Opinion. 569 Crosscutting Nakaseke Performance District Measures 2019 Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Planning, budgeting and execution 1 0 All new Evidence that a district/ Nakaseke District LG has a functional Physical Planning infrastructure municipality has: Committee that considers new investments on time. This was projects in: (i) a confirmed by minutes of meetings dated 06/03/2018 under municipality / • A functional Physical Min.006:PPC/18-19FY: The Physical Planner tabled the (ii) in a district Planning Committee in Physical Planning project work plan and budget to members are approved place that considers new of the committee for discussion and the committee endorsed it by the investments on time: score without any modification; and under Min.007:PPC/18-19FY: A respective 1. total of 17 building plans were presented to the committee for Physical consideration and 10 were approved by the committee. These Planning included: Jerome COVE P/S in Kapeeka, Sempebwa Committees Ephraim for commercial use in Kasangombe, Goodwill and are Ceramic factory for industrial use in Kapeeka, among others. consistent with the approved Although the above was observed, the Physical Planning Physical Plans Committee was not fully constituted because there was no evidence provided to show the appointment of physical Maximum 4 planner in private practice as provided for by the Physical points for this Planning Act 2010. performance measure. 1 0 All new • Evidence that district/ The LG submitted only (2) sets of minutes to the MoLHUD on infrastructure MLG has submitted at least 20th Dec 2019 under reference ADM/NRD/PP/020. The projects in: (i) a 4 sets of minutes of minutes submitted were dated 06th July 2018 and 14th municipality / Physical Planning December 2018. The number of Physical Planning committee (ii) in a district Committee to the MoLHUD minutes submitted was below the required number of at least are approved score 1. 4 sets. by the respective Physical Planning Committees and are consistent with the approved Physical Plans Maximum 4 points for this performance measure. 1 0 All new • All infrastructure The district LG has no approved physical development plan in infrastructure investments are consistent place to guide infrastructure investments. projects in: (i) a with the approved Physical municipality / Development Plan: score 1 (ii) in a district or else 0 are approved by the respective Physical Planning Committees and are consistent with the approved Physical Plans Maximum 4 points for this performance measure. 1 0 All new • Action area plan The LG does not have an approved Action Area Plan in place. infrastructure prepared for the previous Although work is in progress particularly for Kapeeka as projects in: (i) a FY: score 1 or else 0 according to minutes of the district physical planning municipality / committee meeting held on 14/12/2018, min:008/PPC/2018- (ii) in a district 19: Reactions (c) the physical planner responded that the are approved assignment for Kapeeka was still pending because the scope by the was revised from town board to entire sub county following a respective request by the funder. Physical Planning Committees and are consistent with the approved Physical Plans Maximum 4 points for this performance measure. 2 2 The prioritized • Evidence that priorities in There was evidence that the priorities in the AWP for the investment AWP for the current FY are current FY are based on outcomes of the budget conferences. activities in the based on the outcomes of These included: approved AWP budget conferences: score for the current 2. - Fencing of Kapeeka Health Center IV (Pg.49 on Annual FY are derived Work Plan and pg. 23 on Budget Conference Report); from the - Construction of placenta pit at Ngoma Health Center IV. (pg. approved five- 49 on Annual work plan and pg. 23 on Budget conference year report); development - Carrying out board of survey (pg. 22 on Annual work plan plan, are based and pg. 5 on Budget conference report); on discussions in annual - Procurement of laptop computer (pg. 5 on Budget reviews and conference report); budget - Construction of Bulwadda Seed School; conferences and - Extension of production office block; and have project - Construction of two classroom block at Kibose primary profiles school, among others. Maximum 5 points on this performance measure. 2 1 The prioritized • Evidence that the capital There was evidence that the capital investments in the AWP investment investments in the for the current FY are derived from the approved Five year activities in the approved Annual work development plan. The capital investments in the AWP approved AWP plan for the current included: for the current FY are derived FY are derived from the - Carrying out board of survey (pg. 22 on Annual work plan from the approved five-year and pg.

Load more