Local Government Performance Assessment
Moyo District
(Vote Code: 539)
Assessment Scores
Crosscutting Minimum Conditions 40%
Education Minimum Conditions 70%
Health Minimum Conditions 65%
Water & Environment Minimum Conditions 75%
Micro-scale Irrigation Minimum Conditions 0%
Crosscutting Performance Measures 44%
Educational Performance Measures 57%
Health Performance Measures 45%
Water & Environment Performance Measures 51%
Micro-scale Irrigation Performance Measures 6% 539 Crosscutting Performance Moyo Measures 2020 District
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 4 Service Delivery • Evidence that infrastructure The infrastructure completed by DDEG funding are Outcomes of DDEG projects implemented using functional: investments DDEG funding are functional and utilized as per the purpose The wall fence at Moyo general hospital, completed Maximum 4 points on of the project(s): at the cost of 31,000,000 is functional this performance measure • If so: Score 4 or else 0 Two class room block at Gwere P.7 school, completed at the cost 0f 25628,750, is being used
Five stance VIP drainable latrine at Kongolo P.7 School, completed at the cost of 23,792,500, is being used
2 This assessment has not been carried out. 0 Service Delivery a. If the average score in the Performance overall LLG performance 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 All the projects were completed as reflected in the Performance funded investment projects performance contract. implemented in the previous Maximum 6 points on FY were completed as per Therefore the percentage of planed against this performance performance contract (with performance =132,000,000/ 132,000,000x100= measure AWP) by end of the FY. 100% as shown below.
• If 100% the projects were Total budget =132,000,000 completed : Score 3 Actual expenditure= 132,000,000 • If 80-99%: Score 2 The District Planner presented a schedule of DDEG • If below 80%: 0 projects, approved by the DCAO on the 25/7/2020 for review during the assessment.
These projects are:
Health; Budget =31,200,000 for Completion of wall fence for Moyo general hospital page 52 of the AWP
Education: Budget =101,000,000 for construction of 3 sets of 5 stance VIP latrines at 75,000,000 and completion of 2 class room blocks at Gwere P.7 school.
In the performance report, Health is on page 63 and Education on page 69
3 2 Investment a. If the LG budgeted and spent The guidelines require that the grant should be used Performance all the DDEG for the previous for social infrastructures like schools, Health FY on eligible facilities, water and education Maximum 4 points on projects/activities as per the this performance DDEG grant, budget, and All the expenditures budgeted for DDEG projects measure implementation guidelines: (132,200,000) were spent on eligible projects as indicated below: Score 2 or else score 0. 1) There were 4 projects budgeted for under education amounting to =101.000,000 page 62 of the Annual work plan and on page 69 of the performance report and 62 of the annual work plan.
The projects were the construction of 4 stance latrines at Lokwa P.7 school, Kongolo P.7 school, Dilokata P.7 school and completion of 2 class room block at Gwere P.7 school.
2) There was one project for Health amounting to 31,200,000, the construct wall fence for Moyo General Hospital on page 52 of annual work plan and on page 63 of the annual performance report.
. 3 2 Investment b. If the variations in the Information available in the procurement plan Performance contract price for sample of indicated that in the previous FY 2019/2020 the DDEG funded infrastructure district had 20 DDEG funded projects. The assessor Maximum 4 points on investments for the previous sampled three, two under education and one in this performance FY are within +/-20% of the LG dufile subcounty. The variations in the contract price measure Engineers estimates, were calculated as indicated below;
score 2 or else score 0 Construction of 5 stance VIP latrine at Lokwa P/S which was estimated at 20,000,000= and the contract price was 22,792,500=.
Price variation =contract price (CP) minus the estimate value (EV) divided by the estimate value (EV) = (CP-EV)/EVx100% = (22,792,500- 20,000,000)/20,000,000x100% = 13.96%
The second project under education was completion of two classroom block at Gwere P/S which was estimated at 25,000,000= and the contract price was 25,628,750=
Price variation =contract price (CP) minus the estimate value (EV) divided by the estimate value (EV) = (CP-EV)/EVx100% = (25,628,750- 25,000,000)/25,000,000x100% =
2.52%
The third sampled project was the construction of animal holding ground in Dufile sub county which was estimated at 3,500,000= and the contract price was 3,500,000=
Price variation =contract price (CP) minus the estimate value (EV) divided by the estimate value (EV) = (CP-EV)/EVx100% = (3500000- 3500000)/3500000x100% = 0%
All the three sampled projects had a variation which was within the required standard of ±20%. The estimates used were from the procurement plan while the contract prices were picked from the individual project agreement.
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 4 0 Accuracy of reported a. Evidence that information on There was variation on the posts of the LLGs filled information the positions filled in LLGs as as per the District staff list and the sampled LLGs per minimum staffing standards e.g. Metu Sub county; filled as per the structure were Maximum 4 points on is accurate, 14, the actual at the station were 13 (one Parish this Performance Chief had been transferred without a replacement). Measure score 2 or else score 0 Moyo Sub county staffing list had 12 officials and at the station were also 12 and Moyo Town council filled posts were 18 and actual at the station were 17 (Ref Moyo Staff list dated 2020. 4 2 Accuracy of reported b. Evidence that infrastructure The 3 sampled projects as per the reviewed below information constructed using the DDEG is confirmed that the projects were completed 100% in place as per reports and provided below: Maximum 4 points on produced by the LG: this Performance A review of the report on the schedule of DDEG Measure • If 100 % in place: Score 2, projects prepared by the District planner dated else score 0. 25/7/2020 and approved by the DCAO, the following projects have been completed as per plan. Note: if there are no reports produced to review: Score 0 1) Under health in the annual work plan page 52, a budget allocation for constructing a wall fence at Moyo general Hospital was provided. The performance contract page 17 and page 63 of the performance report all prove that the project was completed as per plan.
2) Completion of 2 class room block at Gwere P.7 school at 26,000,000 was provided for in the budget on page 62 of the budget. The performance contract page20 and performance report page 69, proved that the projects were completed as per plan.
3) Under education, 1 projects was provided for in the budget on page 62 of the approved budget, construction of 5 stance VIP latrine at Lokwa P.7 school and the performance contract page 20 and performance report page 69, showed that the project was completed as planned.
5 Not applicable this financial year. 0 Reporting and a. Evidence that the LG Performance conducted a credible 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 Not applicable this financial year. 0 Reporting and b. The District/ Municipality has Performance developed performance 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 To be applicable when the system of LLG has been 0 Reporting and c. The District/ Municipality has developed. Performance implemented the PIP for the 30 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 The district consolidated and submitted the staffing 2 Budgeting for and a. Evidence that the LG has requirements for the coming financial year to the actual recruitment and consolidated and submitted the MoPs as per letter dated 25 September 2020 deployment of staff staffing requirements for the acknowledged on 30th September 2020. coming FY to the MoPS by Maximum 2 points on September 30th, with copy to this Performance the respective MDAs and Measure MoFPED.
Score 2 or else score 0
7 There was no evidence that district conducted a 0 Performance a. Evidence that the tracking and analysis of staff attendance as guided management District/Municipality has by Ministry of Public Service. conducted a tracking and Maximum 5 points on analysis of staff attendance (as this Performance guided by Ministry of Public Measure Service CSI):
Score 2 or else score 0
7 The district had carried out performance assessment 0 Performance i. Evidence that the LG has for some heads of department. Those that were not management conducted an appraisal with appraised at the time of assessment included the the following features: Ag. District Planner, Acting District Natural resource Maximum 5 points on Officer. this Performance HODs have been appraised as Measure per guidelines issued by MoPS during the previous
FY: Score 1 or else 0
7 1 Performance ii. (in addition to “a” above) has The Reward and Sanction Committee was in place management also implemented and functional in the district and considered administrative rewards and disciplinary issues forwarded to it. In the meeting of Maximum 5 points on sanctions on time as provided the Reward and Sanction Committee held on this Performance for in the guidelines: 19/03/2020 under MRSC/03/M/ARCH/2019/20; the Measure committee discussed the issue of Oryem Jennifer Score 1 or else 0 (Negligence of duty, insubordination, failure to attend to emergency) and resolved to (i) to be transferred to Dufile HC III (ii) Disciplinary action by Moyo DSC. In a letter dated 5 May 2020, the officer was transferred to Dufile HC III as per the Reward and Sanction Committee recommendation. 7 The Consultative Committee was not yet established 0 Performance iii. Has established a in the district as per the MoPS guidelines at the time management Consultative Committee (CC) of the assessment. for staff grievance redress Maximum 5 points on which is functional. this Performance Measure Score 1 or else 0
8 There was no recruitment of staff in the financial year 1 Payroll management a. Evidence that 100% of the 2019/2020. This was due to the wage shortfall after staff recruited during the the creation of Obongi district Local government. Maximum 1 point on previous FY have accessed this Performance the salary payroll not later than Measure or else score two months after appointment: 0 Score 1.
9 The district had 5 retired officer in the financial year 0 Pension Payroll a. Evidence that 100% of staff 2019/2020 and none was able to access the management that retired during the previous pensioner payroll within the required two months FY have accessed the pension e.g. Jimmy James Aroba Principal Entomologist Maximum 1 point on payroll not later than two retired 15/04/2020 and accessed pensioner payroll this Performance months after retirement: September 2020, Capron Madilu Education Measure or else score Assistant retired 15/12/2019 and accessed 0 Score 1. pensioner payroll August 2020.
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 10 0 Effective Planning, a. If direct transfers (DDEG) to Although DDEG to LLGs were transferred in full as Budgeting and LLGs were executed in per the budget of 231,618,833 on page 3 of the Transfer of Funds for accordance with the approved budget, there was no evidence to prove Service Delivery requirements of the budget in that this was done within the required 5 days. previous FY: Maximum 6 points on A review of the print out from the IFMIS and the this Performance Score 2 or else score 0 summary sheet prepared by the Head of Finance Measure indicate the funds were warranted as follows:
Q 1 77,205,976 on 9/9/2019
Q2 77,205,977 on 10/10/2019
Q3 77,205,976 on 15/1/2020
10 No information was provided for review during the 0 Effective Planning, b. If the LG did timely assessment to make comparison when the releases Budgeting and warranting/ verification of direct were received and when warranting is made. Transfer of Funds for DDEG transfers to LLGs for the Service Delivery last FY, in accordance to the requirements of the budget: Maximum 6 points on this Performance Score: 2 or else score 0 Measure 10 No information was presented for review during the 0 Effective Planning, c. If the LG invoiced and assessment to confirm if communications are made Budgeting and communicated all DDEG by CAO to LLG. Transfer of Funds for transfers for the previous FY to Service Delivery LLGs within 5 working days from the date of funds release Maximum 6 points on in each quarter: this Performance Measure Score 2 or else score 0
11 2 Routine oversight and a. Evidence that the The district supervised and mentored all LLG. monitoring District/Municipality has supervised or mentored all A review of the mentoring and support supervision Maximum 4 points on LLGs in the District report dated 22/10/2019, prepared by the District this Performance /Municipality at least once per Planner addressed to the CAO Measure quarter consistent with Ref:CR/Moy/d/212/4 showed that the new DDEG guidelines: guidelines was disseminated.
Score 2 or else score 0 Another report prepared by the District Planner dated 2/7/2020 to the CAO ref: CR/Moy/D/212/6 showed that the LLG were supported in developing their Development plans for 2020/21-2024/2025 from 18-24/ 6/2020.
11 0 Routine oversight and b. Evidence that the Although Mentoring reports were discussed in the monitoring results/reports of support DTPC meeting, there was no evidence that follow supervision and monitoring ups on previous recommendations were acted upon. Maximum 4 points on visits were discussed in the this Performance TPC, used by the District/ Another DTPC meeting dated 25/10/2020 minute Measure Municipality to make No. Min/026/Moyo/DTPC/2019/2020 discussed recommendations for monitoring report for quarter 1 but no evidence of corrective actions and corrective action taken for previous followed-up: recommendations was in the report.
Score 2 or else score 0 A review of the minutes for instance one dated 3/4/2020 minute No. Min/055/Moyo/DTPC/2019- 2020, discussed multi sectorial report 2019/2020 FY
Investment Management 12 0 Planning and a. Evidence that the A review of the excel print out showed that, with budgeting for District/Municipality maintains support from DINU, the district was able to produce investments is an up-dated assets register an up to date assets register that covers : land conducted effectively covering details on buildings, including all schools, Health facilities, sub counties, vehicle, etc. as per format in district head quarters, buildings, Motor vehicles, Maximum 12 points on the accounting manual: furniture, equipment. this Performance Measure Score 2 or else score 0 It was however, noted that the register did not comply to all the requirements in Local Government Note: the assets covered Financial and Accounting manual 2007 especially must include, but not limited pages 167/168 that has provisions for disposal and to: land, buildings, vehicles repair & maintenance of the assets. and infrastructure. If those core assets are missing score 0
12 0 Planning and b. Evidence that the A review of the Board of the survey report dated budgeting for District/Municipality has used 1/7/20020 for the year ended 30/6/2020 investments is the Board of Survey Report of recommended for repairs and maintenance, conducted effectively the previous FY to make boarding off and replacements of those assets that Assets Management decisions will be boarded off. Maximum 12 points on including procurement of new this Performance assets, maintenance of some of the assets recommended for boarding off Measure existing assets and disposal of are: assets: 1) Water bowser No.LG0043-33 Score 1 or else 0 2) Vipro Roller No. LG0040-33
3) Motor Cycle No.LG0206Z
4) Filing cabinet
5) Metalic office chairs
However, no documents indicating that the LG had used the decision and recommendations of the Board of survey to dispose maintain or acquire new assets was presented for review. 12 2 Planning and c. Evidence that The district has a Physical planning committee and budgeting for District/Municipality has a all 4 quarterly minutes produced and submitted to investments is functional physical planning the MoLHUD as indicated below: conducted effectively committee in place which has submitted at least 4 sets of Quarter 1 meeting held on 27/7/2019, minutes Maximum 12 points on minutes of Physical Planning produced on on the same date and submitted on this Performance Committee to the MoLHUD. If 21//8/2020 as per stamp on the submission letter Measure so Score 2. Otherwise Score from the ministry of Lands zonal office in Arua 0. Quarter 2 meeting held on 2/12/2019, minutes produced on 3/12/2019 and submitted on 21//8/2020 as per stamp on the submission letter from the ministry of Lands zonal office in Arua
Quarter 3 meeting held on 17/3/2020, minutes produced on the same and submitted on 21//8/2020 as per stamp on the submission letter from the ministry of Lands zonal office in Arua
Quarter 4 meeting held on 12/6/2020, minutes produced on 12/8/2020and submitted on 21//8/2020 as per stamp on the submission letter from the ministry of Lands zonal office in Arua
12 2 Planning and d.For DDEG financed projects; A report dated 20/7/2020 on desk appraisals budgeting for prepared by the District Planner was reviewed investments is Evidence that the during the assessment. conducted effectively District/Municipality has conducted a desk appraisal for Projects appraised include among others: Maximum 12 points on all projects in the budget - to this Performance establish whether the 1) Completion of wall fence for the hospital Measure prioritized investments are: (i) 2) Completion of staff house at Legu P.7 school derived from the LG Development Plan; (ii) eligible 3) Construction of 5 stance VIP latrine, Septic tank at for expenditure as per sector Kongolo P.7 school guidelines and funding source (e.g. DDEG). If desk appraisal A review of the LDDP page 152 showed that the is conducted and if all projects construction of classroom block, the construction of are derived from the LGDP: VIP latrine is extracted from the LDDP and on page 150, completion of wall fence for the hospital. Score 2 or else score 0 12 2 Planning and For DDEG financed projects: A report dated 20/7/2020 on field appraisals budgeting for prepared by the District Planner was reviewed investments is e. Evidence that LG conducted during the assessment and confirmed that the conducted effectively field appraisal to check for (i) projects were scrutinized for technical feasibility, technical feasibility, (ii) environmental and socially acceptebility and Maximum 12 points on Environmental and social dessignes customized for investment project. this Performance acceptability and (iii) Measure customized design for Projects appraised include among others: investment projects of the previous FY: 1) Completion of wall fence for the hospital
Score 2 or else score 0 2) Completion of staff house at Legu P.7 school 3) Construction of 5 stance VIP latrine, Septic tank at Kongolo P.7 school
12 No information presented for review during the 0 Planning and f. Evidence that project profiles assessment. budgeting for with costing have been investments is developed and discussed by conducted effectively TPC for all investments in the AWP for the current FY, as per Maximum 12 points on LG Planning guideline and this Performance DDEG guidelines: Measure Score 1 or else score 0.
12 2 Planning and g. Evidence that the LG has Both desk and field appraisals were done as per budgeting for screened for environmental evidence below. investments is and social risks/impact and put conducted effectively mitigation measures where A report on project appraisals and project profile for required before being 2019/2020 prepared by the District Planner on Maximum 12 points on approved for construction 20/7/2019 and approved by the DCAO on the this Performance using checklists: 9/8/2019 was presented and reviewed. Measure Score 2 or else score 0 The table of content had: Management support page 6; ; Education page 8; Technical services & works, 18; Health on page 32; Production& Marketing 36 and Community based services 44
13 1 Procurement, contract a. Evidence that all There was evidence that the procurement and management/execution infrastructure projects for the disposal plan for FY 2020/2021 availed for current FY to be implemented assessment incorporated all Infrastructure projects to Maximum 8 points on using the DDEG were be implemented using DDEG funds. For the current this Performance incorporated in the LG financial year there were eleven DDEG funded Measure approved procurement plan infrastructure project in the procurement plan. The projects were captured both in the procurement plan Score 1 or else score 0 and approved workplan for 2020/2021. For example under education, construction of 5 stance VIP latrines at Lema and Konolo primary schools were captured in the approved workplan and procurement plan for the current FY. 13 0 Procurement, contract b. Evidence that all The was no evidence of approval of DDEG funded management/execution infrastructure projects to be projects by the contracts committee for the previous implemented in the current FY FY 2019/2020. No contracts committee minutes Maximum 8 points on using DDEG were approved by were availed for assessment. this Performance the Contracts Committee Measure before commencement of construction: Score 1 or else score 0
13 0 Procurement, contract c. Evidence that the LG has The was no evidence regarding the establishment of management/execution properly established the project implementation team for DDEG funded Project Implementation team projects implemented in the FY 2019/2020. Maximum 8 points on as specified in the sector this Performance guidelines: Measure Score 1 or else 0
13 1 Procurement, contract d. Evidence that all The sampled DDEG funded project were management/execution infrastructure projects implemented as per the standard technical designs implemented using DDEG provided by the district engineer. The roofs and Maximum 8 points on followed the standard technical walls were okay. Door lock locks were in place and this Performance designs provided by the LG functional. There were no visible surface cracks on Measure Engineer: the walls and floor.
Score 1 or else score 0
13 0 Procurement, contract e. Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence of supervision. No reports or management/execution provided supervision by the certificates for sampled projects implemented in the relevant technical officers of FY 2019/2020 were availed for assessment. The Maximum 8 points on each infrastructure project prior sampled projects were; construction of a 5 stance this Performance to verification and certification VIP latrine at Lokwa P/S, completion of two Measure of works in previous FY. Score classroom block at Gwere P/S and construction of 2 or else score 0 animal holding ground in Dufile subcounty.
13 0 Procurement, contract f. The LG has verified works There was no evidence of project certification for all management/execution (certified) and initiated the sampled projects. The sampled projects were; payments of contractors within construction of a 5 stance VIP latrine at Lokwa P/S, Maximum 8 points on specified timeframes as per completion of two classroom block at Gwere P/S and this Performance contract (within 2 months if no construction of animal holding ground in Dufile Measure agreement): subcounty.
Score 1 or else score 0
13 0 Procurement, contract g. The LG has a complete There was no evidence that the district had management/execution procurement file in place for complete files for all contracts with all records as each contract with all records required by the PPDA law. All sampled projects Maximum 8 points on as required by the PPDA Law: (construction of a 5 stance VIP latrine at Lokwa P/S, this Performance completion of two classroom block at Gwere P/S and Measure Score 1 or else 0 construction of animal holding ground in Dufile subcounty) lacked contracts committee minutes and decision.
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 0 Grievance redress a. Evidence that the There was no designated grievance coordinator mechanism District/Municipality has i) mandated by the district to handle Grievances from operational. designated a person to development projects. coordinate response to feed- Maximum 5 points on back (grievance /complaints) this performance and ii) established a measure centralized Grievance Redress Committee (GRC), with optional co-option of relevant departmental heads/staff as relevant.
Score: 2 or else score 0
14 0 Grievance redress b. The LG has specified a According to the Environment Officer, the unofficial mechanism system for recording, District personnel that handles grievances is the operational. investigating and responding District Community Development Officer (DCDO). to grievances, which includes Maximum 5 points on a centralized complaints log For water projects implemented by the District, the this performance with clear information and Chairperson for water user committee is selected by measure reference for onward action (a the community members after which the defined complaints referral Environment Officer (EO) & DCDO train them in path), and public display of handling operation and maintenance for the information at district/municipal facilities. These persons then bring any grievances offices. they have about the water infrastructure to the attention of the DCDO and EO for attention. If If so: Score 2 or else 0 community have an issue with the Chairperson Water User Committee, they will report to the Local council 1 (LC1), who will bring this concern to the attention of the DCDO for address.
The LG has no specified Centralized system for recording, investigating and responding to Grievances.
14 0 Grievance redress c. District/Municipality has There was no publicizing of grievance redress mechanism publicized the grievance system however, for each project, communities operational. redress mechanisms so that report to the local leader, who brings the concern to aggrieved parties know where the attention of the District Community Development Maximum 5 points on to report and get redress. Officer (DCDO) and Environment Officer (EO). this performance measure If so: Score 1 or else 0
15 1 Safeguards for service a. Evidence that Environment, A review of LG DDP showed the Environment, delivery of investments Social and Climate change Social & Climate change interventions are effectively handled. interventions have been integrated in the plan as follows: integrated into LG Maximum 11 points on Development Plans, annual Environment section 2.2.3 page 59 this performance work plans and budgets Gender section 2.2.4 page 63 measure complied with: Score 1 or else score 0 Climate change section 2.2.6 page 73 15 1 Safeguards for service b. Evidence that LGs have delivery of investments disseminated to LLGs the effectively handled. enhanced DDEG guidelines A review of the report dated 2/7/2020 on monitoring (strengthened to include and support supervision to LLG to support the Sub Maximum 11 points on environment, climate change Counties produce their Development Plan showed this performance mitigation (green that one of the objectives of the activity was to measure infrastructures, waste disseminate the new DDEG guidelines. The activity management equipment and was implemented from 18-24/6 2020 and referenced infrastructures) and adaptation as; CR/Moy/D/212/6.= 1,258,000 was spent on the and social risk management activity as per payment voucher No.3050988 dated 25/6/2020 score 1 or else 0
15 According to the Environment Officer, the DDEG 0 Safeguards for service (For investments financed from fund was used only for projects in Water, Health and delivery of investments the DDEG other than health, Education. Therefore, there was no evidence effectively handled. education, water, and provided for DDEG projects falling in this category, irrigation): for incorporation into Designs, BoQs and bidding Maximum 11 points on documents. this performance c. Evidence that the LG measure incorporated costed Environment and Social Management Plans (ESMPs) into designs, BoQs, bidding and contractual documents for DDEG infrastructure projects of the previous FY, where necessary:
score 3 or else score 0
15 0 Safeguards for service d. Examples of projects with No projects were costed for additional impact from delivery of investments costing of the additional impact climate change. effectively handled. from climate change.
Maximum 11 points on Score 3 or else score 0 this performance measure 15 1 Safeguards for service e. Evidence that all projects Land for Education delivery of investments are implemented on land effectively handled. where the LG has proof of Evidence of a land offer agreement from Kotcia ownership, access, and Village represented by Guma Mariano; Ondoga Maximum 11 points on availability (e.g. a land title, Geoffrey Vuzara; Abiriga James, for St. John this performance agreement; Formal Consent, Community Dufile Secondary School. The land on measure MoUs, etc.), without any offer measures 118.8m E x 152.4m N x 103.7m W x encumbrances: 164m S in Dufile Subcounty.
Score 1 or else score 0 Land for Health
Aya Health Center II, upgraded to III application for freehold offer made on 9th march 2019 Minute No. MDLB 1/2019 (4) (B) (18) of 12 September 2019. Offer made on 23rd September 2020.
Water
Land offer agreements were available for Nyainga Bore Hole, dated 26.03.2020
15 0 Safeguards for service f. Evidence that environmental Quarterly Monitoring report for Congo Bore Hole; delivery of investments officer and CDO conducts Monoko Bore Hole; Nyainga Bore Hole; Fodia Bore effectively handled. support supervision and Hole; signed by Environment Officer (EO), District monitoring to ascertain Community Development Officer (DCDO) and Maximum 11 points on compliance with ESMPs; and District Water Officer (DWO) on 25.06.2020 for the this performance provide monthly reports: period of 18th June 2020 to 19th June 2020. EO measure informed assessor that monthly reporting is Score 1 or else score 0 constrained by lack of funds.
There were no monitoring reports for Construction of Dufile Seed Secondary School in Kocia Village, Dufile Parish, Dufile Sub-County in Moyo District or for any Education infrastructure project.
There is quarterly monitoring for Aya Health Center 2 (HCII), upgraded to Health Center 3 (HC III). The report is dated 27th July 2020 shared with Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), District Health Officer (DHO) and DCDO. 15 0 Safeguards for service g. Evidence that E&S The Contractor's Payment certificates for drilling and delivery of investments compliance Certification forms construction of boreholes namely; Congo Borehole effectively handled. are completed and signed by in Laropi Sub-County, Monoko Borehole in Laropi Environmental Officer and Sub-county, Yainga Borehole in Lefori Sub-county, Maximum 11 points on CDO prior to payments of Fodia Borehole in Moyo Sub-county within the water this performance contractors’ department were signed only by District Water measure invoices/certificates at interim Officer (DWO). and final stages of projects: For example, Environment and Social Compliance Score 1 or else score 0 certification was undertaken for one of the four boreholes under the general contract given to Leam International Ltd No. MOYO539/WRKS/19-20/00023 on the 12th of March 2020. The final interim payment for these boreholes was made on the 6th of April 2020. This payment certificate however was signed only by District Water Officer.
Environment and Social Compliance Certification for construction of an Out Patient department at Aya Health Center 2 in Aya Village, Otce Sub-county - Moyo District form No. 005-FY 19/20 was dated 27.07.2020.
No Environment and Social Certification Forms were presented for Construction of Dufile Seed Secondary School in Kocia Village, Dufile Parish, Dufile Sub-county in Moyo District. No payment Certificates were presented either.
Environment Officer (EO) and District Community Development Officer (DCDO) have not been engaged during signing off of payments for contractors, for the interim and final stages of projects.
Financial management 16 2 LG makes monthly a. Evidence that the LG makes A review of the bank statements showed that Bank reconciliations monthly bank reconciliations reconciliations are up to date as indicated below. and are up to-date at the point Maximum 2 points on of time of the assessment: 1) Bank: Stanbic main branch this Performance Measure Score 2 or else score 0 A/C Name: Moyo YLP recovery
A/C No. 9030011343464
General ledger balance as at 30/10/2020 =4,176,350
Adjusted bank balance as at 30/10/2020 =4,176,350
2) Bank: Stanbic main branch
A/C Name: Moyo district UWEP recovery
A/C No. 90300127374774
General ledger balance as at 30/10/2020 =71,347,300
Adjusted bank balance as at 30/10/2020 = 71,347,300
3) Bank: Stanbic main branch
A/C Name: MDLG General Fund
A/C No. 9030006347214
General ledger balance as at 30/10/2020 =5,443,391
Adjusted bank balance as at 30/10/2020= 5,443,391
17 2 LG executes the a. Evidence that LG has A review of the Internal audit reports showed that all Internal Audit function produced all quarterly internal the 4 quarterly were produced as indicated in accordance with the audit (IA) reports for the hereunder: LGA Section 90 previous FY. Quarter 1 17/12/2019 Maximum 4 points on Score 2 or else score 0 this performance Quarter 2 27/3/2020 measure Quarter 3 8/10/2020
Quarter 4 21/10/2020 17 A review of the dispatch book presented by the 1 LG executes the b. Evidence that the LG has District internal Auditor showed that the reports were Internal Audit function provided information to the receieved by the Speaker, LCV chairperson, CAO, in accordance with the Council/ chairperson and the D.PAC as follows: Quarter 1 on 17/7/2019; Quarter 2 LGA Section 90 LG PAC on the status of on27/3/2920; Quarter 3 on 8/10/2020 & Quarter4 on implementation of internal 2/11/2020.. Maximum 4 points on audit findings for the previous this performance FY i.e. information on follow up measure on audit queries from all quarterly audit reports.
Score 1 or else score 0
17 No reports were presented during the assessment to 0 LG executes the c. Evidence that internal audit prove that DPAC discussed the quarterly internal Internal Audit function reports for the previous FY audit reports for the previous financial year. in accordance with the were submitted to LG LGA Section 90 Accounting Officer, LG PAC and that LG PAC has reviewed Maximum 4 points on them and followed-up: this performance measure Score 1 or else score 0
Local Revenues 18 A review of the budget and the financial statement 0 LG has collected local a. If revenue collection ratio showed that the district collected much more than it revenues as per (the percentage of local budgeted by 679% as per the calculation below. budget (collection ratio) revenue collected against planned for the previous FY OSR approved budget for 2019/2020 = 135,984,000 Maximum 2 points on (budget realization) is within +/- page 1 of the budget this performance 10 %: then score 2 or else measure score 0. Actual collection for the year 923,568,333 page 28 of the financial statement for 22019/22020
Ratio: 923,568,333/135,984,000x100 =679%
19 2 The LG has increased a. If increase in OSR A review of the financial statement showed that there LG own source (excluding one/off, e.g. sale of was an increase in own source revenue by 12% as revenues in the last assets, but including arrears shown by the calculations below: financial year collected in the year) from compared to the one previous FY but one to OSR approved budget for 2019/2020 = 135,984,000 before the previous previous FY page 1 of the budget financial year (last FY Actual collection for the year 2019/2020= year but one) • If more than 10 %: score 2. 923,568,333 page 28 of the Financial statement Maximum 2 points on • If the increase is from 5% -10 One off sale of land = 222,500,000 page 28 of the this Performance %: score 1. financial statement Measure. • If the increase is less than 5 %: score 0. Actual collection in 2018/2019 = 628,432,067 page 28 of the financial statement.
Increase in OSR = 923,568,333-222,500,000- 628,432,067/628,432,067x100
=12% 20 0 Local revenue a. If the LG remitted the From the schedule of revenue performance analysis administration, mandatory LLG share of local report prepared by the head of Finance as at allocation, and revenues during the previous 30/6/2020. transparency FY: score 2 or else score 0 Code 11 Taxes Maximum 2 points on this performance 111102 Local Service Tax measure. Total collection by the by the District including the sub counties and Town Councils =122,310,200
No document was presented to confirm actual remittance to LLG
Transparency and Accountability 21 0 LG shares information a. Evidence that the The was no evidence of information sharing on the with citizens procurement plan and awarded notice boards for awarded contracts in the previous contracts and all amounts are FY 2019/2020. Maximum 6 points on published: Score 2 or else this Performance score 0 Measure
21 2 LG shares information b. Evidence that the LG The performance assessment though not publicized with citizens performance assessment through the internet, was however, publicized results and implications are through the radio as per report below, Maximum 6 points on published e.g. on the budget this Performance website for the previous year: A talk show report on Voice of Nile radio as per Measure Score 2 or else score 0 receipt No.2085 dated 19/12/2020 of 1,200,000 with support of DRDRIP. The panel include the DCAO, Secretary Finance and the District Planner. Discussed among others was the results of the previous assessments.
Objective No.3 of the radio talk show in the report was to share with the public LGPA report 2018/2019 for Moyo district 21 1 LG shares information c. Evidence that the LG during The district conducted discussions with the public with citizens the previous FY conducted and feed back given on status of activity discussions (e.g. municipal implementation. Maximum 6 points on urban fora, barazas, radio this Performance programmes etc.) with the The district Planner presented evidence of proof Measure public to provide feed-back on which were reviewed during the assessment. status of activity one of which is; implementation: Score 1 or else score 0 A talk show report on Voice of Nile radio as per receipt No.2085 dated 19/12/2020 of 1,200,000 with support of DRDRIP. The panel include the DCAO, Secretary Finance and the District Planner. The main objectives of the radio talk show were:
-To share the list of projects to be implemented under DRDIP in 2019/20FY
-To explain the role of the community in the sub project especially the project management committees, Social accountability committee and procurement committee
-To share with the public LGPA report 2018/2019 for Moyo district
-To obtain response from the public for better service delivery
21 1 LG shares information d. Evidence that the LG has The district disseminated in formation on taxes as with citizens made publicly available per documents reviewed during assessment. information on i) tax rates, ii) Maximum 6 points on collection procedures, and iii) 1) Spot messages on Voice of Nile radio at a cost of this Performance procedures for appeal: If all i, ii, 8,000,000. Measure iii complied with: Score 1 or A receipt No.6289 of 5,000,000 for production, else score 0 translation, sponsorship and sports message airing.
A receipt No.645 of 3,000,000 for airing of spot messages and Programme sponsorship.
Paid on voucher No8/4/20 dated 8/4/2020
2) Displayed on notice board were:
-Local government charging policy 2019/2020
-Statutory instrument 2000 N0.16; schedule on Timber royalty, forestry produce, fees and licenses
-Statutory instrument supplement No.7
-Land (amendment) regulations 2026 second schedule
3) Revenue enhancement meeting as per CAO's invitation letter ref :CR/Moy/CR/210/66 dated 27/6/2020 inviting Sub County Chiefs and their accountant for the meeting scheduled for 31/7/2020 at the Adm. board room. 22 1 Reporting to IGG a. LG has prepared an IGG There were no IGG issues to respond to as per report which will include a list Council minutes reviewed. Maximum 1 point on of 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
539 Education Performance Moyo Measures 2020 District
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 4 Learning Outcomes: a) The LG PLE pass rate has The UNEB PLE results for 2018 were; Div. 1. 34, Div. The LG has improved improved between the 11 893 Div.111 996, totaling 1923 out of 2890 PLE and USE pass previous school year but one candidates who sat for PLE, giving a 67% pass rate rates. and the previous year (Div. 1 - 111)
Maximum 7 points on • If improvement by more In 2019 the performance was; Div.1 63, Div. 11 1568, this performance than 5% score 4 Div. 111 1024 totaling 2655 of 3390 candidates that measure sat. This translated into 78%% pass rate (Div. 1 - 111). • Between 1 and 5% score 2 There was therefore, a performance improvement of 15% in 2019 (78% - 67%) = 15% This was according • No improvement score 0 to the PLE results released UNEB.
1 3 Learning Outcomes: b) The LG UCE pass rate The LG has improved has improved between the The UNEB UCE results for 2018 were; Div. 1 29, Div. PLE and USE pass previous school year but one 11 209, Div. 111, 350 totaling 588 out of 1395 that sat rates. and the previous year for UCE in 2018, translating into 24% pass rate (Div1 - 111) Maximum 7 points on • If improvement by more this performance than 5% score 3 in 2019 the pass rates were as follows; Div. 1 32 Div. measure 11, 245 Div. 111 423, totaling 668 out of 1625 that sat • Between 1 and 5% score 2 for UCE translating into 41%. There was therefore, an improvement in performance of 17% in 2019 ( 41% - • No improvement score 0 24%) = 17%
2 To be scored 0 for all LLGs 0 Service Delivery a) Average score in the Performance: Increase education LLG performance in the average score in has improved between the the education LLG previous year but one and performance the previous year assessment. • If improvement by more Maximum 2 points than 5% score 2
• Between 1 and 5% score 1
• No improvement score 0
3 2 Investment a) If the education The was evidence that the education development Performance: The LG development grant has been grant was used on eligible activities as defined in the has managed used on eligible activities as sector guidelines. The activities included; 1) education projects as defined in the sector completion of a classroom block at Gwere, 2) per guidelines guidelines: score 2; Else construction of 5- stance drainable VIP latrine at score 0 Kangole and construction of a 5- stance drainable VIP Maximum 8 points on latrine and 4) construction of a Seed secondary this performance school at Dufuli. measure 3 0 Investment b) If the DEO, Environment Environment Officer and CDO did not participate in Performance: The LG Officer and CDO certified certifying works on Education construction projects as has managed works on Education required as evidenced below: education projects as construction projects per guidelines implemented in the previous 1) Completion of 2 class room block at Gwere P.7 FY before the LG made school by MS Multiple Marbles Ventures (U) Ltd at = Maximum 8 points on payments to the contractors 25,628,750 this performance score 2 or else score 0 measure Contract signed on 27/3/2020.
Certificate No.1 dated 1/6/2020
signed by DEO on 12/6/2020
Payment voucher No.30509782 dated 25/6/2020
Amount paid:22,645,563
2) Construction of 5 stance VIP latrine at Lokwa P.7 school under DDEG by MS Nyamati construction & supply Co. Ltd at =22,792,500
Contract signed on 20/6/2020.
Certificate No.2 dated 22/6/2020
signed by DEO on 22/6/2020
Payment voucher No.30509781 dated 25/6/2020
Amount paid: 6,427,748
3 2 Investment c) If the variations in the Performance: The LG contract price are within +/- The district had only one seed secondary school has managed 20% of the MoWT estimates project (Dufile Seed SS) in the previous FY education projects as score 2 or else score 0 2019/2020. The construction of Dufile Seed SS was per guidelines estimated at 411,431,970= according to the approved budget estimates of 2019/2020 and the contract price Maximum 8 points on was 2,096,263,321= as indicated on the agreement. this performance The agreement made on the 7th day of June 2019 measure signed by CAO for the employer. The variation in the contract price was calculated based on the ministry’s estimate of 2,000,000,000= as indicated below;
Price variation =contract price (CP) minus the estimate value (EV) divided by the estimate value (EV) = (CP-EV)/EVx100% = (2,096,263,321- 2,000,000,000)/2,000,000,000x100% = 4.81%
The variation in the contract price of 4.81% was within the required standard of ±20%. 3 0 Investment d) Evidence that education There was no evidence, since no workplan for Dufile Performance: The LG projects were completed as Seed secondary school was availed for assessment. has managed per the work plan in the education projects as previous FY per guidelines • If 100% score 2 Maximum 8 points on this performance • Between 80 – 99% score 1 measure • Below 80% score 0
4 There was evidence that the LG had recruited 2 Achievement of a) Evidence that the LG has teachers as per the prescribed MoES staffing standards: The LG has recruited primary school guidelines The district had 45 primary schools, eight of met prescribed school teachers as per the which were below P7. It had a staff celling of 543 staffing and prescribed MoES staffing teachers against 498 staff in position, translating into infrastructure standards guidelines 92%. This was according to the Performance Contract generated on 25/7/2019 01.37. Maximum 6 points on • If 100%: score 3 this performance measure • If 80 - 99%: score 2
• If 70 – 79% score: 1
• Below 70% score 0
4 There was evidence that all the registered 47 (Forty 3 Achievement of b) Percent of schools in LG seven) UPE schools and three (3) USE secondary standards: The LG has that meet basic requirements schools had a Schools Asset Registers that included; met prescribed school and minimum standards set no of classroom blocks and no classrooms, no of staffing and out in the DES guidelines, latrine blocks and no of stances, no. of desks, no. of infrastructure standards laboratories among others for the two previous FYs at • If above 70% score: 3 the DEOs office, which was 100% compliance to the Maximum 6 points on prescicribed minimum standards. this performance • If between 60 - 69%, score: measure 2
• 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 There was evidence as per the Performance Contract information: The LG accurately reported on generated on 08/06/2020 9;45, that the LG had has accurately reported teachers and where they are accurately reported on 498 (Four hundred ninety on teaching staff in deployed. eight) teachers and where they were deployed in 47 place, school (100%) UPE schools. In the three schools sampled; infrastructure, and • If the accuracy of Noor (Urban) there were 14 (Fourteen) teachers, Moyo service performance. information is 100% score 2 Girls (Peri-urban) there were 12 (twelve) teachers and in Moyo Logoba, there were 11 teachers. The staff lists • Else score: 0 Maximum 4 points on information displayed in the head teachers office and this performance staff teachers attendance book, corresponded with the measure staff list at DEO's office. 5 There was evidence that the LG had a consolidated 2 Accuracy of reported b) Evidence that LG has a Asset Register for the district, accurately reporting on information: The LG school asset register the infrastructure in all 47(Forty seven) primary has accurately reported accurately reporting on the schools . These included; number of classroom blocks on teaching staff in infrastructure in all registered and classrooms, number of latrine blocks and stances, place, school primary schools. number of desks, teacher accommodation among infrastructure, and others, as per the MoES. Panning, Budgeting and • If the accuracy of service performance. Implementation Guidelines for Local information is 100% score 2 Governments(2019) . At Moyo Logoba, there were Maximum 4 points on 285, 3- seater desks and two (2) latrine blocks of 10 this performance • Else score: 0 stances, Moyo Girls had three classroom blocks with measure 20 classrooms, while in Noor there were two classroom blocks with seven classrooms and 150, 3 - seater desks. This information was in synch with that in the consolidated asset register at DEOs office. 6 There was evidence that 42 (Forty two) out 47 (forty 2 School compliance a) The LG has ensured that seven) or 89% registered primary schools had and performance all registered primary submitted the, Annual performance reports signed by improvement: schools have complied with the head teacher and Chair SMC by 30th January to MoES annual budgeting and the DEO. The reports highlighted; school performance, Maximum 12 points on reporting guidelines and that an Annual budget and expenditure report and an asset this performance they have submitted reports register, in line with the MoES guidelines. In three measure (signed by the head teacher sampled schools; Noor, Moyo Girls and Moyo Logoba, and chair of the SMC) to the each had Cash analysis book, an annual budget DEO by January 30. Reports indicating income and expenditure and highlights of should include among the school performance. others, i) highlights of school performance, ii) a reconciled cash flow statement, iii) an annual budget and expenditure report, and iv) an asset register:
• If 100% school submission to LG, score: 4
• Between 80 – 99% score: 2
• Below 80% score 0
6 There was evidence that the sector had supported 30 4 School compliance b) UPE schools supported to (thirty) out of the 47 (forty seven) or 64% schools to and performance prepare and implement SIPs develop SIPs under a school based mentoring model. improvement: in line with inspection At the three sampled schools; Moyo Girls had just had recommendations: the training on 5th Nov. 2020. At Moyo Logoba, the Maximum 12 points on school had an SIP displayed in the head teachers this performance • If 50% score: 4 office. At Noor primary school, the training for measure • Between 30– 49% score: 2 development of an SIP had taken place on 28th October 2020. • Below 30% score 0 6 There was evidence that the LG had collected, 4 School compliance c) If the LG has collected and compiled EMIS/OTIMS for all registered primary and performance compiled EMIS return forms school for 2019. The list from MoES, had data for improvement: for all registered schools Moyo for all 47 schools with a total of 20.605 pupils. from the previous FY year: This data was triangulated with that in the Maximum 12 points on Performance Contract generated on 25/07/2019 01;37, this performance • If 100% score: 4: and found to be matching. 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 There was evidence that the LG had budgeted for 39 actual recruitment and budgeted for a head teacher (Thirty nine) primary schools with P7 for a head deployment of staff: LG and a minimum of 7 teachers teacher and seven teachers and in eight (8)schools has substantively per school or a minimum of with classes below P7, a head teacher and the recruited all primary one teacher per class for requisite number of teachers depending on the school teachers where schools with less than P.7 for classes the school stopped on. The approved wage there is a wage bill the current FY: bill as the performance contract generated on provision 08/06/2020 9;45, was UGX 4,455 176,000 Score 4 or else, score: 0 Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
7 There was evidence as per the Performance Contact 3 Budgeting for and b) Evidence that the LG has generated on 08/06/2020 9;45 that teachers had been actual recruitment and deployed teachers as per deployed as per the sector guidelines i.e; seven (7) deployment of staff: LG sector guidelines in the teachers and a head teacher for a P7 school and a has substantively current FY, head teacher and the corresponding number of recruited all primary teachers for schools below P7. At Moyo Logoba, there Score 3 else score: 0 school teachers where were 11 teachers, in Moyo Girls, 12 teachers and Noor there is a wage bill 14 teachers. The staff lists; at at DEO's office and that provision in the head teachers office were reconcilable, let alone the teachers attendance book at the school. Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
7 There was no evidence that teacher deployment had 0 Budgeting for and c) If teacher deployment data been displayed at the LG notice board, since it was not actual recruitment and has been disseminated or there. The display was however, visible at the school deployment of staff: LG publicized on LG and or level in the three schools sampled i.e, Noor, Moyo has substantively school notice board, Girls Moyo Logoba, in the head teachers office. recruited all primary school teachers where score: 1 else, score: 0 there is a wage bill provision
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure 8 2 Performance a) If all primary school head There was evidence that all the 10 sampled head management: teachers have been teachers had been appraised by the Senior Assistant Appraisals have been appraised with evidence of Secretaries at the time of the assessment and copied conducted for all appraisal reports submitted the PHRO and DEOs as follows: Ecima Thomas education to HRM with copt to Paanjal P/S (22/12/2019); Lowirigo James Laropi P/S management staff, DEO/MEO (10/12/2019); Erwaga Ignatious Diba Moyo Boys head teachers in the (06/02/2020); Andaku Michobe Gbalala P/S ( registered primary and Score: 2 or else, score: 0 10/12/2019); Adracna Mamawni Aya P/S ( secondary schools, 10/12/2019); Opeli Paul Gwee P/S 10/12/2019); Oduti and training conducted Ukuni Jacob Abeso P/S ( 5/03/2020); Mangwi to address identified Heldrine Eria P/S ( 12/12/2019); Chria jane Mada P/S capacity gaps. ( 12/12/2029) and Fr Bilbabo Memo P/S ( 11/12/2019). Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
8 There was no evidence provided to the assessor, that 0 Performance b) If all secondary school the Secondary School head teachers had been management: head teachers have been appraised by the deputy CAO as required. Appraisals have been appraised with evidence of conducted for all appraisal reports submitted education by D/CAO (or Chair BoG) to management staff, HRM head teachers in the registered primary and Score: 2 or else, score: 0 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 There was evidence that all the Education department management: Education department have staff had been appraised as follows; Senior Inspector Appraisals have been been appraised against their of schools Eyia Opal appraised on 6/07/2020, Sports conducted for all performance plans Officer Edema Wilson appraised on 20/06/2020, education Inspector of Schools Andrua Harriet appraised on management staff, score: 2. Else, score: 0 20/07/2020 and Education Officer Amale Mua Ben head teachers in the appraised on 30/05/2020. registered primary and secondary schools, and training conducted to address identified capacity gaps.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure 8 There was no evidence that the sector had a training 0 Performance d) The LG has prepared a plan developed for FY 2019/20, since it was not management: training plan to address presented. Appraisals have been identified staff capacity gaps conducted for all at the school 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 There was evidence that the LG had confirmed in 0 Planning, Budgeting, a) The LG has confirmed in writing; the list of schools, their enrollment and budget and Transfer of Funds writing the list of schools, allocation in PBS as per letter from CAO, Referenced for Service Delivery: their enrolment, and budget CR/D/MOY/160/1 dated 12 January 2020, to PS The Local Government allocation in the Programme MoES. This was however, done passed the set has allocated and Budgeting System (PBS) by deadline of 15 December 2019. spent funds for service December 15th annually. delivery as prescribed in the sector If 100% compliance, score:2 guidelines. or else, score: 0
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
9 There was evidence that the LG made allocations to 2 Planning, Budgeting, b) Evidence that the LG inspection and monitoring functions in line with and Transfer of Funds made allocations to education sector guidelines as per the Annual work for Service Delivery: inspection and monitoring plan and budget worth UGX 34.000.000 for FY The Local Government functions in line with the 2019/20. The activities conducted included; planning has allocated and sector guidelines. meetings for inspection and monitoring, conducting spent funds for service school inspections and monitoring, holding sector If 100% compliance, score:2 delivery as prescribed meetings to discuss the inspection reports and present else, score: 0 in the sector findings therein, dissemination of the findings to head guidelines. teachers for corrective actions and conducting follow up inspections to establish whether corrective actions Maximum 8 points on were implemented. this performance measure 9 No information was availed during the assessment for 0 Planning, Budgeting, c) Evidence that LG verification. and Transfer of Funds submitted warrants for for Service Delivery: school’s capitation within 5 The Local Government days for the last 3 quarters has allocated and spent funds for service If 100% compliance, score: 2 delivery as prescribed else score: 0 in the sector guidelines.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
9 0 Planning, Budgeting, d) Evidence that the LG has There was evidence that the district had invoiced the and Transfer of Funds invoiced and the DEO/ MEO DEO for 2 quarters; Q 4 not dated UPE capitation for Service Delivery: has communicated/ grant, Q3 was dated 16-01-2020 , According to The Local Government publicized capitation MoFPED, Quarter 4 circular release was on 28th April has allocated and releases to schools within 2020, while that of Quarter 3 release, was on 8th spent funds for service three working days of January 2020. delivery as prescribed release from MoFPED. in the sector There was no evidenced at the three sampled schools; guidelines. If 100% compliance, score: 2 Noor, Moyo Girls and Moyo Logoba that the DEO had else, score: 0 communicated/publicized within three working days of Maximum 8 points on the release. this performance measure
10 There was evidence that the LG department had 2 Routine oversight and a) Evidence that the LG prepared inspection plan and meetings for the monitoring Education department has previous three (3) terms on; 30.07.2020, 16.12.2020 prepared an inspection plan and 20.04.2020. The minutes were in place too. Maximum 10 points on and meetings conducted to this performance plan for school inspections. measure • If 100% compliance, score: 2, else score: 0
10 2 Routine oversight and b) Percent of registered UPE There was evidence that each of the 47(100%) UPE monitoring schools that have been schools had been inspected three times (once a term) inspected and monitored, as per dates for the consolidated reports, thus; Maximum 10 points on and findings compiled in the 21/06/2019, 19/09/2019, 07/01/2020. The findings this performance DEO/MEO’s monitoring were compiled in the three monitoring reports and measure report: passed on to DEO.
• If 100% score: 2
• Between 80 – 99% score 1
• Below 80%: score 0 10 2 Routine oversight and c) Evidence that inspection There was evidence that the inspection reports had monitoring reports have been discussed been discussed and used to recommend corrective and used to recommend actions and those actions had subsequently been Maximum 10 points on corrective actions, and that followed for example, at a dissemination of findings this performance those actions have meeting held on 24th September 2019. An issue of measure subsequently been followed- head teachers not being able to develop SIPs, was up, discussed and a decision taken that H/T's should be re-oriented on the development of SIPs. Moyo Girls Score: 2 or else, score: 0 one of the sampled schools, had training on, 5th November 2020. Noor had equally had the training, on 3rd November 2020. Moyo Logoba had had the training the previous year,
10 There was evidence that the LG had presented 2 Routine oversight and d) Evidence that the DIS and findings from inspection and monitoring results to monitoring DEO have presented respective schools. For example in the three sampled findings from inspection and schools (Moyo Logoba, Moyo Girls and Noor) copies Maximum 10 points on monitoring results to of the reports were available and that debrief this performance respective schools and meetings had been done. The LG had submitted measure submitted these reports to reports to DES Kampala for the three terms in FY the Directorate of Education 2019/2020, according to the list of submissions Standards (DES) in the retrived from DES. Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES): Score 2 or else score: 0
10 0 Routine oversight and e) Evidence that the council The following two (2) minutes presented and reviewed monitoring committee responsible for during the assessment do not confirm that inspection& education met and discussed monitoring reports, LGPAC reports were discussed. Maximum 10 points on service delivery issues this performance including inspection and Minute No. 26/SSCM/26/2/2020 measure monitoring findings, Minute No. 27/SSCM/26/2/2020, discussed only PLE performance assessment performance for 2019 results, LG PAC reports etc. during the previous FY: score 2 or else score: 0
11 There was no evidence provided to show that the LG 0 Mobilization of parents Evidence that the LG education department had conducted activities to to attract learners Education department has mobilize, attract and retain children at school. conducted activities to Maximum 2 points on mobilize, attract and retain this performance children at school, measure score: 2 or else score: 0
Investment Management 12 There was evidence of an up-to-date LG asset 2 Planning and a) Evidence that there is an register for FY 2019/20, that set out school facilities budgeting for up-to-date LG asset register and equipment relative to BRMS i.e. number of investments which sets out school classroom blocks and number. of classrooms, number facilities and equipment of latrine blocks and stances, laboratories, number of Maximum 4 points on relative to basic standards, 3 - seater desks, teachers accommodation. In Moyo this performance score: 2, else score: 0 Logoba, there were three (3) classroom blocks with 12 measure classrooms and 240,3 - seater desks and no teacher accommodation(permanent). In Noor P/S there were two (2) classroom blocks with seven (7) classrooms and one block of latrines with five (5) stances. In Moyo Girls P/S, there were three (3) classroom blocks with 12 classrooms and two (2) latrine blocks with 10 stances. 12 1 Planning and b) Evidence that the LG has Both desk and field appraisals for the projects was budgeting for conducted a desk appraisal carried out as indicated below: investments for all sector projects in the budget to establish whether A review of the project appraisals and profile report for Maximum 4 points on the prioritized investment is: 2019/2020 from page 8-17 prepared by the District this performance (i) derived from the LGDP; (ii) Planner on the 20/7/2019 and the Out put project measure eligible for expenditure under profile report prepared by the DCAO dated 9/8/2019 sector guidelines and confirmed that the projects were appraised and LG funding source (e.g. sector DDP page 152 showed that the projects were pick development grant, DDEG). from the DDP. If appraisals were conducted for all projects that were planned in the previous FY, These starts from page 8-17 some of the projects score: 1 or else, score: 0 appraised are:
construction of 5 stance VIP latrine at Kongolo P.7 school which scored 20 on desk appraisals and recommended for field appraisal and recommended for funding
Completion of 2 class room block at Gwere P.7 school which scored 20 on desk appraisals and recommended for field appraisal and recommended for funding
12 No reports on screening were presented for review for 0 Planning and c) Evidence that the LG has education department. budgeting for conducted field Appraisal for investments (i) technical feasibility; (ii) environmental and social Maximum 4 points on acceptability; and (iii) this performance customized designs over the measure previous FY, score 1 else score: 0
13 1 Procurement, contract a) If the LG Education There was evidence as per the procurement plan for management/execution department has budgeted for the current FY 2020/2021 that Dufile seed secondary and ensured that planned school had been incorporated in the district Maximum 9 points on sector infrastructure projects procurement plan. this performance have been approved and measure incorporated into the procurement plan, score: 1, else score: 0 13 0 Procurement, contract b) Evidence that the school There was no evidence of contract clearance for Dufile management/execution infrastructure was approved seed secondary school. No contracts committee by the Contracts Committee minutes neither the solicitor general clearance was Maximum 9 points on and cleared by the Solicitor availed for assessment. this performance General (where above the measure threshold) before the commencement of construction, score: 1, else score: 0
13 0 Procurement, contract c) Evidence that the LG There was no evidence availed to the assessor management/execution established a Project regarding the establishment of a project Implementation Team (PIT) implementation team for Dufile seed secondary Maximum 9 points on for school construction school. this performance projects constructed within measure the last FY as per the guidelines. score: 1, else score: 0
13 0 Procurement, contract d) Evidence that the school The assessor visited Dufile seed secondary school on management/execution infrastructure followed the 6th November 2020 to ascertain whether the standard standard technical designs technical designs provided by the MoES were Maximum 9 points on provided by the MoES followed. Below were some of the findings that this performance informed the assessors decision; measure Score: 1, else, score: 0 The two classroom blocks and two teachers’ houses were roofed, buildings had a roof of 26-gauge corrugated iron sheets, maroon in color. Roofing for science laboratory was not complete with timber trusses in place. The classroom and science lab sizes were within the required standard of 8.8x7.0m, each room had two doors the front and rear, and six windows two front and two rear. Windows were steel casement with z-angle frame and steel louvered. However, the following did not conform to the required standard technical designs; science laboratory had timber trusses instead of steel and some entrances ramps were not provided.
13 0 Procurement, contract e) Evidence that monthly site The was no evidence for site meetings, no minutes or management/execution meetings were conducted for reports for Dufile seed SS were not availed for all sector infrastructure assessment. Maximum 9 points on projects planned in the this performance previous FY score: 1, else measure score: 0 13 0 Procurement, contract f) If there’s evidence that There was no evidence of site supervision and management/execution during critical stages of monitoring visits. No reports of supervision for Dufile construction of planned seed SS were availed for assessment. Maximum 9 points on sector infrastructure projects this performance in the previous FY, at least 1 measure monthly joint technical supervision involving engineers, environment officers, CDOs etc .., has been conducted score: 1, else score: 0
13 1 Procurement, contract g) If sector infrastructure A review of the payment vouchers showed that the management/execution projects have been properly payments were initiated and payment made timely as executed and payments to per the three (3) sampled projects below: Maximum 9 points on contractors made within this performance specified timeframes within 1) Completion of 3 class room block at Gwere P.7 measure the contract, score: 1, else school in Lofori Sub County under DDEG by MS score: 0 Multiple Mable Ventures (U) Ltd at a price of 25,628,750.
Contract date: 27/3/2020
Certificate date: 1/6/2020, Certificate No. 1
Payment voucher date :25/6/2020
Voucher No. 30509782
Amount: 22,645,653
DEO signed both the certificate and requisition on 12/6/2020
2) Construction of 5 stance VIP latrine at Lokwa P.7 school by MS Nyamati Construction& Supply Co. Ltd at a price of 22,792,500
Contract end date: 20/6/2020
Certificate date: 22/6/2020, Certificate No. 2
Payment voucher date :25/6/2020
Voucher No. 30509781
Amount: 6,427,748
DEO signed both the certificate and requisition on 22/6/2020
3)
13 0 Procurement, contract h) If the LG Education There was evidence of submission from DEO to the management/execution department timely submitted PDU. A copy of submission availed for assessment a procurement plan in indicated that education and sports department Maximum 9 points on accordance with the PPDA submitted their requests to PDU on 7th October 2020. this performance requirements to the However, the submission was done outside the measure procurement unit by April 30, required timeline of 30th April. score: 1, else, score: 0 13 0 Procurement, contract i) Evidence that the LG has a There was no evidence that the district had a complete management/execution complete procurement file for file for Dufile seed secondary school contract with all each school infrastructure records as required by the PPDA law. The file lacked Maximum 9 points on contract with all records as contracts committee minutes and decision. this performance required by the PPDA Law measure score 1 or else score 0
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 0 Grievance redress: LG Evidence that grievances There was no evidence provided for a Grievance Education grievances have been recorded, redress framework. Education projects did not record have been recorded, investigated, responded to any grievances from communities, hence there were investigated, and and recorded in line with the no responses accorded either. responded to in line grievance redress with the LG grievance framework, score: 3, else redress framework. score: 0
Maximum 3 points on this performance measure
15 There was no evidence that LG had disseminated the 0 Safeguards for service Evidence that LG has education guidelines to provide for access to delivery. disseminated the Education land(without encumbrance), proper siting of schools, guidelines to provide for green schools, and energy and water conservation, Maximum 3 points on access to land (without because there was no documentation provided to the this performance encumbrance), proper siting assessor. measure of schools, ‘green’ schools, and energy and water conservation
Score: 3, or else score: 0
16 Contractual documents with costed ESMPs were not 0 Safeguards in the a) LG has in place a costed availed at the time of assessment delivery of investments ESMP and this is incorporated within the BoQs Maximum 6 points on and contractual documents, this performance score: 2, else score: 0 measure
16 1 Safeguards in the b) If there is proof of land Evidence presented for land ownership under delivery of investments ownership, access of school Education included; construction projects, score: Maximum 6 points on 1, else score:0 Kongolo primary school applied for freehold offer on this performance 15th February 2018 in Pamoju West Village Moyo measure Subcounty and offer made on 23rd March 2018
Gwere Primary school had a certificate of title for 4.4610ha on Block 4 plot 3 REGD: 14.02.2018
Lohwa Primary school had a land title for 4.4410ha for Block 2 Plot 5&6 at Lohwa dated 29th July 2015 16 0 Safeguards in the c) Evidence that the There were no monthly monitoring reports for the delivery of investments Environment Officer and construction works at Dufile Seed Secondary School CDO conducted support or for any Education infrastructure project at the time of Maximum 6 points on supervision and monitoring assessment. this performance (with the technical team) to measure ascertain compliance with ESMPs including follow up on recommended corrective actions; and prepared monthly monitoring reports, score: 2, else score:0
16 0 Safeguards in the d) If the E&S certifications Environment and Social certification for the delivery of investments were approved and signed Construction at Dufile Seed Secondary school were by the environmental officer not availed during the assessment. No payment Maximum 6 points on and CDO prior to executing certificates were availed for projects under education this performance the project contractor at the time of assessment. measure payments
Score: 1, else score:0
539 Health Performance Moyo Measures 2020 District
Summary of Definition of No. Compliance justification Score requirements compliance Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 0 Outcome: The LG has a. If the LG registered The district revised and upgraded DHIS2 data system could registered higher Increased utilization of not retrieve the the 2018-2019 Health unit annual reports. It percentage of the Health Care Services could only display health unit annual reports from January population accessing (focus on total OPD 2020 to June 2020. The January-June 2020 extraction had health care services. attendance, and the the following sampled Health facilities; deliveries. Maximum 2 points on Besia Health center III had 4752 total OPD attendances and this performance • By 20% or more, 59 deliveries. Logoba Health center III had 6806 OPD measure score 2 attendances and 99 deliveries. Moyo Mission Health center IV had 5267 OPD attendances and 201 deliveries • Less than 20%, score 0 By the time of assessment therefore, the Biostastician did not avail the 2018-2019 HMIS records and thus there was no way out to compare the differences and calculate the percentage in order to obtain a registered increase or decrease.
2 The LLG Tool performance assessment was not developed 0 Service Delivery a. If the average score Performance: Average in Health for LLG score in the Health LLG performance performance assessment is: assessment. • Above 70%; score 2 Maximum 4 points on this performance • 50 – 69% score 1 measure • Below 50%; score 0 Note: To have zero wait for year one
2 2 Service Delivery b. If the average score Quarter 4 RBF records availed report dated 17th September Performance: Average in the RBF quarterly 2020 indicated an average score of 88% score in the Health LLG quality facility performance assessment for HC IIIs assessment. and IVs is:
Maximum 4 points on • Above 75%; score 2 this performance measure • 65 – 74%; score 1
Note: To have zero wait • Below 65% ; score 0 for year one 3 2 Investment a. If the LG budgeted The guidelines require among others that the grant should performance: The LG and spent all the be used to. has managed health health development projects as per grant for the previous 1) Construct new health infrastructures or rehabilitate old guidelines. FY on eligible ones activities as per the 2) To allocate up to 95% to upgrading HCII to HCIII as was Maximum 8 points on health grant and the case with upgrading Aya HCII to HCIII, page 16 of the this performance budget guidelines, guideline for 2019/2020 measure score 2 or else score 0. The department spent all the funds budgeted as per details below.
A review of the annual performance report, development revenue was 1,500,846,000 but actual expenditure was 1,527,197,000.
Some of the project were: the construction of the wall fence at Moyo general hospital, upgrading Aya HCI I to HC III page 17 0f the performance report.
3 0 Investment b. If the DHO/MMOH, Certification of works was done before payments were made performance: The LG LG Engineer, by the DHO and the District Engineer only. CDO & has managed health Environment Officer Environment officer never signed on the certificates as projects as per and CDO certified indicated below. guidelines. works on health projects before the LG payment for the upgrading of Aya HCII to HCIII by Arinda Maximum 8 points on made payments to the Investment Ltd at =487,062,450. this performance contractors/ suppliers contract date: 10\12\2019 measure score 2 or else score 0 Certificate No. Date 4\6\2020
DHO signed certificate on 4\6\2020
DHO signed requisition on 4\6\2020
Payment Voucher No.29977440 date 16\6\2020
Amount paid =211,770,809
3 2 Investment c. If the variations in The district had only one project (Aya health center II) performance: The LG the contract price of regarding upgrade from health center II to health center III in has managed health sampled health the previous FY 2019/2020. According to the procurement projects as per infrastructure plan for the previous FY 2019/2020. Aya health center II guidelines. investments are within upgrade to health center II was estimated at 500,000,000= +/-20% of the MoWT and contract price was 487,062,450= as indicated on the Maximum 8 points on Engineers estimates, agreement. The agreement made the 10th day of December this performance score 2 or else score 0 2019 signed by CAO for the employer. The variations in the measure contract price were calculated as indicated below;
Price variation =contract price (CP) minus the estimate value (EV) divided by the estimate value (EV) = (CP- EV)/EVx100% = (487062450- 500000000)/500000000x100% = -2.59%. The variation in the contract price of -2.59% was within the required standard of ±20%. 3 0 Investment d. Evidence that the No work plan for Aya HC II upgrade was availed for performance: The LG health sector assessment. has managed health investment projects projects as per implemented in the guidelines. previous FY were completed as per work Maximum 8 points on plan by end of the FY this performance measure • If 100 % Score 2
• Between 80 and 99% score 1
• less than 80 %: Score 0
4 The district had an approved structure of 499 posts and 433 1 Achievement of a. Evidence that the had been filled as per staff list ( October 2020) making a Standards: The LG has LG has recruited staff 86.7%. met health staffing and for all HCIIIs and infrastructure facility HCIVs as per staffing standards structure
Maximum 4 points on • If above 90% score 2 this performance measure • If 75% - 90%: score 1
• Below 75 %: score 0
4 0 Achievement of b. Evidence that the The assessor visited Aya health center II on 6th November Standards: The LG has LG health 2020 to ascertain whether the standard technical designs met health staffing and infrastructure provided by the MoH were followed. Below were some of the infrastructure facility construction projects findings that informed the assessors decision; standards meet the approved MoH Facility The building had a roof of 26-gauge corrugated iron sheets, Maximum 4 points on Infrastructure Designs. blue in color, six main areas the delivery room, postnatal this performance ward, pediatric ward, Female ward, male ward and waiting measure • If 100 % score 2 or room. Doors and windows were steel casement and of else score 0 required standard, glay burnt pompey grailles were in place as required. However, the floor finishing did not conform to the required standards areas which were required to have terrazzo and tiles had a cement finish (cement screed). The cement finish, veranda and main front elevation wall had visible cracks.
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 5 2 Accuracy of Reported a. Evidence that The staff lists of the following health facilities(Besia Health Information: The LG information on center, Logobi Health center and Opiro Health center maintains and reports positions of health indicated that the information was accurate and the health accurate information workers filled is workers are in place as reflected from the staff deployment accurate: Score 2 or list. Maximum 4 points on else 0 this performance measure
5 2 Accuracy of Reported b. Evidence that The information on the PBS report was correct. Only Aya Information: The LG information on health Health center II was on the list of upgrades and the maintains and reports facilities upgraded or construction is ongoing. accurate information constructed and functional is accurate: Maximum 4 points on Score 2 or else 0 this performance measure
6 2 Health Facility a) Health facilities The three sampled Health facilities (Difule Health center, Compliance to the prepared and Eremi Health center and Lefori Health centre) presented the Budget and Grant submitted Annual following submissions; Guidelines, Result Workplans & budgets Based Financing and to the DHO/MMOH by 1. Difule Health center III submitted the workplan on the 28th Performance March 31st of the August 2019, duly signed Improvement: LG has previous FY as per the 2. Eremi Health center III submitted the workplan on the 2nd enforced Health Facility LG Planning July 2019, duly signed Compliance, Result Guidelines for Health Based Financing and Sector: 3. Lefori submitted the workplan on the 17th August 2019, implemented duly signed Performance • Score 2 or else 0 Improvement support. These submissions therefore cornform to the prescribed formats Maximum 14 points on this performance measure 6 0 Health Facility b) Health facilities Compliance to the prepared and No annual budget performance reports were availed during Budget and Grant submitted to the the time of assesment. Guidelines, Result DHO/MMOH Annual Based Financing and Budget Performance Performance Reports for the Improvement: LG has previous FY by July enforced Health Facility 15th of the previous Compliance, Result FY as per the Budget Based Financing and and Grant Guidelines : implemented Performance • Score 2 or else 0 Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 The DHMT reports and the facility improvement plans 2 Health Facility a) Health facilities reviewed submissions by Logoba Health center III, Eria Compliance to the have developed and Health center III and Besia Health center III had developed Budget and Grant reported on and also reported on improvement plans. They catered for.;- Guidelines, Result implementation of At Logoba Health Center III had shortage of water supply. Based Financing and facility improvement The plan incorporated installation of a solar motorized safe Performance plans that incorporate water system to cater for the WASH component. It is also Improvement: LG has performance issues receiving Drug supplies from NMS as a Health center II yet it enforced Health Facility identified in monitoring serves a catchment population of Health center III. Compliance, Result and assessment Based Financing and reports implemented Performance • Score 2 or else 0 Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure 6 2 Health Facility d) Evidence that The three sampled health facilities HMIS reports and Compliance to the health facilities quarterly reports indicate that they were all submitted on time Budget and Grant submitted up to date as indicated below; Guidelines, Result monthly and quarterly Based Financing and HMIS reports timely (7 1. Logoba submitted as follows; 1st July, 6th August, 4th Performance days following the end September, 6th October, 5th November, 6th December, 5th Improvement: LG has of each month and January, 6th February, 6th March, 6th April, 7th May, 7th enforced Health Facility quarter) If 100%, June and 7th July as monthly reports and the quarterly Compliance, Result reports follow prompt dates Based Financing and • score 2 or else score implemented 0 2. Besia submitted as follows; 4th July, 5th August, 7th Performance September, 6th October, 4th November, 6th December, 4th Improvement support. January, 6th February, 5th March, 5th April, 6th May, 5th June and 6th July as monthly reports and the quarterly Maximum 14 points on reports follow prompt dated this performance measure 3. Moyo Mission submitted as follows; 5th July, 6th August, 6th September, 5th October, 5th November, 5th December, 3rd January, 6th February, 6th March, 6th April, 6th May, 7th June and 7th July as monthly reports and quarterly reports follow prompt dates
The records indicated timely submissions.
6 0 Health Facility e) Evidence that Compliance to the Health facilities Besia Health facility submitted on the 22nd July 2020, Moyo Budget and Grant submitted RBF Mission submitted on the 27th July 2020 and Logoba Guidelines, Result invoices timely (by submitted on the 23rd July 2020. All the submissions did not Based Financing and 15th of the month meet the required timely deadline as per the guidelines. Performance following end of the Improvement: LG has quarter). If 100%, enforced Health Facility score 2 or else score 0 Compliance, Result Based Financing and Note: Municipalities implemented submit to districts Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure 6 The records of invoices of the sampled health facilities 0 Health Facility f) If the LG timely (by indicated that the previous quarter RBF invoices were not Compliance to the end of 3rd week of the 100% submitted to MOH Budget and Grant month following end of Guidelines, Result the quarter) verified, This is attributed to the change of contract from Enabel to Based Financing and compiled and URMCHIP which is still a challenge to the LG system. Performance submitted to MOH Improvement: LG has facility RBF invoices enforced Health Facility for all RBF Health Compliance, Result Facilities, if 100%, Based Financing and score 1 or else score 0 implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 The planer explained that the reports are submitted by mail 0 Health Facility g) If the LG timely (by and the email trail could not be traced by the planner. Compliance to the end of the first month Budget and Grant of the following Guidelines, Result quarter) compiled and Based Financing and submitted all quarterly Performance (4) Budget Improvement: LG has Performance Reports. enforced Health Facility If 100%, score 1 or Compliance, Result else score 0 Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 The district developed an approved performance 1 Health Facility h) Evidence that the improvement plan and had implementation reports as Compliance to the LG has: observed. Budget and Grant Guidelines, Result i. Developed an The approve performance improvement plan reviewed was Based Financing and approved dated 28th February 2019 and was duly signed by the Performance Performance District Health Officer and the Chief Administrative Officer. It Improvement: LG has Improvement Plan for catered for the weakest performing health facilities. enforced Health Facility the weakest Compliance, Result performing health Based Financing and facilities, score 1 or implemented else 0 Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure 6 1 Health Facility ii. Implemented The Reviewed report was dated 19th to 22nd November Compliance to the Performance 2019. It includes Eria Health center III, Lefori Health center Budget and Grant Improvement Plan for III, Besia Health center II and Logoba Health center III as the Guidelines, Result weakest performing lowest performing health facilities Based Financing and facilities, score 1 or Performance else 0 The plan incorporates the hard to reach facilities, staffing Improvement: LG has norms and performance, provision of safe water and enforced Health Facility strengthening support suppervision 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 The district budgeted for the health workers as per the recruitment and LG has: guidelines in accordance with the staffing norms as deployment of staff: The observed from the deployment list. The local government Local Government has i. Budgeted for health budgeted for 433 health workers which are the filled budgeted for, recruited workers as per positions on the deployment list. and deployed staff as guidelines/in per guidelines accordance with the staffing norms score 2 Maximum 9 points on or else 0 this performance measure 7 0 Budgeting for, actual a) Evidence that the From the observed health workers deployment list of the recruitment and LG has: current financial year and the attendance books, some deployment of staff: The health workers are missing from their work stations. Local Government has ii. Deployed health budgeted for, recruited workers as per The staffing list of the visited facilities of Besia Health center and deployed staff as guidelines (all the III, Logoba Health center III and Lefori Health center III per guidelines health facilities to indicate that all being Health center level III, the staffing have at least 75% of norms state I9 staff deployment. Besia has 17 out of 19 with Maximum 9 points on staff required) in no Clinical officer, Logoba has 16 out of 19 and Loferi has this performance accordance with the 18 out of 19. Despite the district health staffing standing at measure staffing norms score 2 86.7%(433 staffs out of 499), some facilities are missing or else 0 staffs
7 0 Budgeting for, actual b) Evidence that The staffing list of the visited facilities of Besia Health center recruitment and health workers are III, Logoba Health center III and Lefori Health center III deployment of staff: The working in health indicate that some health workers are missing where they Local Government has facilities where they were posted. budgeted for, recruited are deployed, score 3 and deployed staff as or else score 0 The staff present at work on deployment of Besia 17 out of per guidelines 19(84%),
Maximum 9 points on Logoba 16 out of 19(82.2%) and this performance Loferi 18 out of 19(94.7%) measure The staff lists observed indicated that the health workers are in place. The overall Health staffing in the district stands at 86.7%.
7 From the notice boards of the three visited health facilities of 2 Budgeting for, actual c) Evidence that the Besia health centre III, Logoba and Moyo mission visited, the recruitment and LG has publicized health workers deployment lists of the current financial year deployment of staff: The health workers were disseminated on the notice boards Local Government has deployment and budgeted for, recruited disseminated by, and deployed staff as among others, posting per guidelines on facility notice boards, for the current Maximum 9 points on FY score 2 or else this performance score 0 measure 8 1 Performance a) Evidence that the There was evidence that DHO had appraised all the In management: The LG DHO/MMOHs has: charges as per their performance agreements in the 10 has appraised, taken sampled and submitted copies to HRO as required. corrective action and i. Conducted annual trained Health Workers. performance appraisal The sampled In charges were as follows: Besia HC III Otritia of all Health facility In- Angelo ( 29/07/2020); Wefori HC III Ayiga Patrick ( Maximum 6 points on charges against the 10/08/2020); Dufile HC III Abala John ( 27/07/2020); Laropi this performance agreed performance HC III Oweta Joshua ( 01/07/2020); Eremi HC III Shaban measure plans and submitted a Rajab HC III ( 1/07/2020); Logoba HC III Adrawa ( Stephen copy to HRO during 1/07/2020); Metu HC III Drani Buga Geofrey ( 09/07/2020); the previous FY score Ori HC II Acidria Eliakim ( 1/06/2020); Gwere HC II Peace 1 or else 0 Amin ( 27/06/2020) and Aya HC II Malibala Richard ( 30/06/2020).
8 1 Performance ii. Ensured that Health There was evidence that the In charges had appraised the management: The LG Facility In-charges health workers in the health facilities as per their has appraised, taken conducted performance agreements in the 10 sampled health workers corrective action and performance appraisal and provided a copy to HRO at the district as follows: Draga trained Health Workers. of all health facility Wilfred Records Assistant Laropi HC III ( 3/07/2020); workers against the Bagonza Moris Onyango Nursing Officer Dufile HC III Maximum 6 points on agreed performance (5/07/2020), Akuma Jesse Alide Environment Health this performance plans and submitted a Assistant Dufile Health centre III ( 02/07/2020); Asio Santa measure copy through Clara Enrolled Mid Wife (30/06/2020); Kupajo Albert Boke DHO/MMOH to HRO Laboratory Assistant Lefori HC III ( 15/07/2020); Meliku during the previous FY Scovia Enrolled Nurse ( 07/07/2020); Maridiyo Beatrice score 1 or else 0 Enrolled Mid wife ( 12/06/2020); Amaniyo Edina Enrolled Mid Wife Eremi HC III ( 25/06/2020); Anyanzo D Patrick Logoba HC III 26/06/2020) and copies submitted to PHRO for filling.
8 0 Performance iii. Taken corrective There was no evidence of corrective measures for the management: The LG actions based on the appraised staff provided e.g:. Akuma Jesse Alide has appraised, taken appraisal reports, Environment Health Assistant of Dufile HC III had a gap corrective action and score 2 or else 0 Inadequate computer knowlege and was to be trained in 1st trained Health Workers. quarter of 2020/2021 but no evidence provided that was trained; Amaniyo Edina Enrolled Nurse Eremu HC III had Maximum 6 points on gap on EMTC but no evidence of bridging the gap; Draga this performance Wilfred Records Assistant Laropi HC III had a gap in DHIS2 measure but no evidence of bridging the gap. 8 1 Performance b) Evidence that the The assessment done indicated the following the trainings management: The LG LG: were conducted from the reports and data base; has appraised, taken corrective action and i. conducted training of 1. Training on DHIS-2 Conducted on the 25th-27th trained Health Workers. health workers November 2019 where 36 participants attended. (Continuous Maximum 6 points on Professional 2. Training on BEMOC conducted on the 4th -8th November this performance Development) in 2019 where 25 participants attended. measure accordance to the 3. Training on MCH -Maternal Newborn on the 1st to 11th training plans at June 2019 District/MC level, score 1 or else 0 4. Training on Quality Improvement on Mentorship conducted on the 25th-27th March 2020 where 23 participants attended
5. Training on COVID-19 conducted on the 6th-16th April 2020
6. Training on Community owned resources conducted on the 25th-30th November 2019 where 221 participants attended
The reports of the above reviewed reports were observed as also established from the data base
8 The below training activiteis were conducted and 1 Performance ii. Documented documented in the training database as reviewed; management: The LG training activities in has appraised, taken the training/CPD 1. Training on DHIS-2 Conducted on the 25th-27th corrective action and database, score 1 or November 2019 where 36 participants attended. trained Health Workers. else score 0 2. Training on BEMOC conducted on the 4th -8th November Maximum 6 points on 2019 where 25 participants attended. this performance measure 3. Training on MCH -Maternal Newborn on the 1st to 11th June 2019
4. Training on Quality Improvement on Mentorship conducted on the 25th-27th March 2020 where 23 participants attended
5. Training on COVID-19 conducted on the 6th-16th April 2020
6. Training on Community owned resources conducted on the 25th-30th November 2019 where 221 participants attended
The reports of the above reviewed reports were observed as also established from the data base
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 9 The copy of the letter was not availed by the time of the 0 Planning, budgeting, a. Evidence that the assessment thus no proof and evidence that the CAO and transfer of funds for CAO/Town Clerk notified Ministry of Health in the stipulated time. There was service delivery: The confirmed the list of no full documentary evidence availed whether any health Local Government has Health facilities (GoU facility missed out PHC funds as only 2 quarters were budgeted, used and and PNFP receiving availed. disseminated funds for PHC NWR grants) service delivery as per and notified the MOH guidelines. in writing by September 30th if a Maximum 9 points on health facility had this performance been listed incorrectly measure or missed in the previous FY, score 2 or else score 0
9 0 Planning, budgeting, b. Evidence that the Allocations for management of health services were made and transfer of funds for LG made allocations but less than the required15% service delivery: The towards monitoring Local Government has service delivery and From the approved budget page 24 and 16 of the budgeted, used and management of performance report allocation for PHC NWR = 464,868,000 disseminated funds for District health services Monitoring and supervision page 28- 29 and page 66-67 service delivery as per in line with the health =46,242,000 was spent. guidelines. sector grant guidelines (15% of the PHC % tage= 46,242,000 \464,868,000=10% Maximum 9 points on NWR Grant for LLHF this performance allocation made for However, on page 66 of annual performance report, actual measure DHO/MMOH), score 2 expenditures was 210,738,000= 456%, it was explained that or else score 0. the over expenditure was due to release of Covid 9 funds.
9 No documents were presented for review during the 0 Planning, budgeting, c. If the LG made assessment. and transfer of funds for timely service delivery: The warranting/verification Local Government has of direct grant transfers budgeted, used and to health facilities for disseminated funds for the last FY, in service delivery as per accordance to the guidelines. requirements of the budget score 2 or else Maximum 9 points on score 0 this performance measure 9 No documents were presented for review during the 0 Planning, budgeting, d. If the LG invoiced assessment. and transfer of funds for and communicated all service delivery: The PHC NWR Grant Local Government has transfers for the budgeted, used and previous FY to health disseminated funds for facilities within 5 service delivery as per working days from the guidelines. day of funds release in each quarter, score 2 Maximum 9 points on or else score 0 this performance measure
9 0 Planning, budgeting, e. Evidence that the and transfer of funds for LG has publicized all service delivery: The the quarterly financial Only two quarters out of the four quarterly publication Local Government has releases to all health releases were publicized as indicated below' on the notice budgeted, used and facilities within 5 board and indicated below: disseminated funds for working days from the One Release dated 22nd April 2020, Ref HEA-103-9 and service delivery as per date of receipt of the another release dated 8th August 2019, Rf HEA101-1. guidelines. expenditure limits from These releases were from the Chief Administrative Officer MoFPED- e.g. through and indicated all the Health facilities receiving non-wage Maximum 9 points on posting on public recurrent grants. , this performance notice boards: score 1 measure or else score 0
10 2 Routine oversight and a. Evidence that the The district implemented the actions that were monitoring: The LG LG health department recommended by the DHMT from the quarterly review monitored, provided implemented action(s) meetings that were held during the previous financial year hands -on support recommended by the as stated below; supervision to health DHMT Quarterly facilities. performance review 1. Quarter one was conducted on the 10th October 2019 and meeting (s) held minute 7 holds the recommendations. Maximum 7 points on during the previous 2. Quarter two was conducted on the 18th December 2019 this performance FY, score 2 or else and minute 6 holds the recommendations measure score 0 3. Quarter three was conduced on the 24th March 2020 and minute 7 holds the recommendations
4. Quarter four was conducted on the 19th June 2020 and minute 7 hold the recommendations
10 From the attendance lists of the meetings reviewed, Health 1 Routine oversight and b. If the LG quarterly facility in-charges, Partners, DHMT members and other monitoring: The LG performance review departments attended monitored, provided meetings involve all hands -on support health facilities in supervision to health charges, implementing facilities. partners, DHMTs, key LG departments e.g. Maximum 7 points on WASH, Community this performance Development, measure Education department, score 1 or else 0 10 0 Routine oversight and c. If the LG supervised The obtained support supervision reports for only two monitoring: The LG 100% of HC IVs and quarters(quarter 2 and 4) dated 6th December 2020 and 8th monitored, provided General hospitals to 12th June 2020 indicate that the district supervised the hands -on support (including PNFPs facilities. These reports indicated that the following facilities supervision to health receiving PHC grant) were supervised; Moyo General Hospital, Dufile Health facilities. at least once every centre III, Laropi Health centre III, Metu Health centre III, Fr. quarter in the previous Bilbao Health center III, Eremi Health center III, Besia Health Maximum 7 points on FY (where applicable) centre III, Lefori Health centre III, Eria Health centre III, and this performance : score 1 or else, score Logoba Health centre III. measure 0 Quarter 1 and 3 reports were not availed during the time If not applicable, of assessment. The supervision was therefore done at 50% provide the score
10 1 Routine oversight and d. Evidence that The reports obtained and reviewed indicate that the Health monitoring: The LG DHT/MHT ensured sub districts conducted support supervision of the lower monitored, provided that Health Sub level facilities of Erepi health center II, Besia and Logoba hands -on support Districts (HSDs) Health facilities were supervised. reports of 2019-2019 supervision to health carried out support indicated the activity conducted. facilities. supervision of lower level health facilities Maximum 7 points on within the previous FY this performance (where applicable), measure score 1 or else score 0
• If not applicable, provide the score 10 1 Routine oversight and e. Evidence that the The supervision reports recommended actions as observed; monitoring: The LG LG used monitored, provided results/reports from 1. Installation of solar power supply to Eria Health center hands -on support discussion of the and joining the facilities to the national grid. supervision to health support supervision 2. Installation of safe water motorized solar system for the facilities. and monitoring visits, facilities without where Logoba Health Center has now been to make installed. Maximum 7 points on recommendations for this performance specific corrective 3. Improved Health improved health information systems measure actions and that were facilities are now reporting on time and accurate implementation of reports these were followed up during the previous 4. Strengthened leadership and management at all FY, score 1 or else facilities1. Leadership, management and governance. this score 0 included Human resource management and Health finance.
10 1 Routine oversight and f. Evidence that the LG The medicine management reports from the District dated monitoring: The LG provided support to all 25th October 2019, 6th December 2019 and 8th June 2020 monitored, provided health facilities in the indicated that support and guidance was offered to the hands -on support management of facilities Health supplies and Medicines management as supervision to health medicines and health indicated with the following actions and results; facilities. supplies, during the previous FY: score 1 1. Availability of Vaccines, Tracer medicines, Tracer Maximum 7 points on or else, score 0 equipment and diagnostics this performance measure 2. Availability of Inventory
3. Systems of equipment repairs and replacements.
The reports included the support and the feedback to the following facilities; Dufile Health center III, Laropi Health center III, Metu Health center III, Fr. Bilbao Health center III, Eremi Health center III, Besia Health center III, Loferi Health center III, Eria Health center III and Logoba Health center III.
11 2 Health promotion, a. If the LG allocated The district allocated 64% towards health promotion as disease prevention and at least 30% of District indicated below. social mobilization: The / Municipal Health LG Health department Office budget to health Budget allocation t district health office =3,658,410,000, conducted Health promotion and page 6 of the annual performance report. promotion, disease prevention activities, Allocation for health promotion =2,332,592,000, page 6 of prevention and social Score 2 or else score the annual performance report. mobilization activities 0 %tage= 2,332,592,000 / 3,658,410,000 = 64% Maximum 4 points on this performance measure 11 1 Health promotion, b. Evidence of The reviewed quarterly progress reports and minutes disease prevention and DHT/MHT led health indicated that the following Health promotion activities were social mobilization: The promotion, disease conducted as reflected from the quarterly reports. LG Health department prevention and social conducted Health mobilization activities 1. Radio talk shows were conducted regularly. Every promotion, disease as per ToRs for DHTs, Thursday of the week a talk show was held on Transnile prevention and social during the previous FY Broadcasting services. Every Friday, a talk show was held mobilization activities score 1 or else score 0 on VON radio by the DHT Member.
Maximum 4 points on 2. Mobile Community awareness drives have been held this performance every after 2 months mainly on COVID-19 and Yellow fever measure 3. Routine Health education at all triage points at every health facility
4. Community dialogues every quarter for safer toilets
5. Malaria awareness campaigns for random RDT testing for two hours every Thursday for the whole financial year and net distributions
11 1 Health promotion, c. Evidence of follow- In the quarterly progress reports of 2019-2020 obtained and disease prevention and up actions taken by reviewed from the DHO's Office, the following follow up social mobilization: The the DHT/MHT on actions were made in the area of disease prevention, Health LG Health department health promotion and promotion and social mobilization; conducted Health disease prevention promotion, disease issues in their minutes 1. Radio talk shows were conducted regularly. Every prevention and social and reports: score 1 or Thursday of the week a talk shows held on Trans Nile mobilization activities else score 0 Broadcasting services on VON radio by the District have created awareness and demand for services and observed Maximum 4 points on increased service utilization. this performance measure 2. Mobile Community awareness drives have been held every after 2 months mainly on COVID-19 and Yellow fever have led to mitigations and reduced infected cases
3. Malaria awareness campaigns for random RDT testing for two hours every Thursday for the whole financial year and net distributions has also led to reduced malaria transmission
Investment Management 12 The DHO and visited facilities all have a copy of the 1 Planning and a. Evidence that the Standard list of medical equipment for health service Budgeting for LG has an updated standard. the reviewed health facilities asset registers, the Investments: The LG Asset register which medical equipment record list from the DHOs store all has carried out sets out health stsblish that the details are corresponding. Planning and facilities and Budgeting for health equipment relative to investments as per basic standards: guidelines. Score 1 or else 0
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure 12 1 Planning and b. Evidence that the The investment projects were derived from the LG Budgeting for prioritized investments Development plan as indicated below: Investments: The LG in the health sector for has carried out the previous FY were: The project appraisals and project profile report for 2019/20 Planning and (i) derived from the LG prepared by the District Planner, dated20/7/2019 page 32 Budgeting for health Development Plan; (ii) and page 152 of the DDP, showed that the investment investments as per desk appraisal by the projects were derived from the LG DDP as well as the guidelines. LG; and (iii) eligible for screening report for health dated31/5/2020 prepared by the expenditure under Environment Officer. Maximum 4 points on sector guidelines and this performance funding source (e.g. measure sector development grant, Discretionary Development Equalization Grant (DDEG)): score 1 or else score 0
12 1 Planning and c. Evidence that the The projects were both desk and field appraised as Budgeting for LG indicated below: Investments: The LG has carried out has conducted field a review of the project appraisal and project profile prepared Planning and Appraisal to check for: by the district Planner from page 32 confirms that both desk Budgeting for health (i) technical feasibility; and field appraisals were done for instance, completion of investments as per (ii) environment and hospital fence desk appraised and scored 20 points and guidelines. social acceptability; recommended for field appraisals and scored 14point in field and (iii) customized appraisals and recommended for funding. Maximum 4 points on designs to site this performance conditions: score 1 or The screening report prepared by the Environment officer measure else score 0 dated31/5/2020 also showed the evrironmental acceptability
12 0 Planning and d. Evidence that the Environmental and Social Screening was undertaken for the Budgeting for health facility Out Patient Department construction at the Aya Health Investments: The LG investments were Center II (in Otce Sub-county) upgraded to Health Center III. has carried out screened for A separate Screening report was provided as evidence for Planning and environmental and higher level analysis, capturing aspects of failure to reach Budgeting for health social risks and Health Center due to bad roads caused by difficult weather investments as per mitigation measures dated 31st May 2020. The constructed facility measured 40 guidelines. put in place before meter x 50 meter and was located within the boundaries of being approved for the existing compound available to the health facility. Maximum 4 points on construction using the Schedule 4 part 2 of the National Environment Act 2019 this performance checklist: score 1 or section 5 (b) Construction and expansion of public health measure else score 0 centers III and IV, private health centers and clinics or their equivalent. The project would have qualified for a project brief however the magnitude of construction and the size of structure, is minimal. This would produce negligible impacts therefore a Costed ESMP for Aya Health Center 2 upgraded to Health Center 3 (HC III) was provided.
Climate change screening was not considered during the screening. 13 0 Procurement, contract a. Evidence that the There was evidence of submission from DHO to the PDU. A management/execution: LG health department copy of submission availed for assessment indicated that The LG procured and timely (by April 30 for health department submitted their requests to PDU on 12th managed health the current FY ) August 2020. However, the submission was done outside contracts as per submitted all its the required timeline of 30th April. guidelines infrastructure and other procurement Maximum 10 points on requests to PDU for this performance incorporation into the measure approved LG annual work plan, budget and procurement plans: score 1 or else score 0
13 0 Procurement, contract b. If the LG Health There was no evidence that the health department submitted management/execution: department submitted procurement request form to the PDU by 1st quarter of the The LG procured and procurement request current FY. managed health form (Form PP5) to the contracts as per PDU by 1st Quarter of guidelines the current FY: score 1 or else, score 0 Maximum 10 points on this performance measure
13 0 Procurement, contract c. Evidence that the The was evidence that Aya health center II contract was management/execution: health infrastructure cleared by relevant authorities. The evidence was indicated The LG procured and investments for the in a letter written by the officer of solicitor general to CAO managed health previous FY was dated 5th December 2019 clearing upgrade contracts of 62 contracts as per approved by the health center IIs to IIIs across Uganda-UGIFT-P4R- guidelines Contracts Committee 2019/2020 under Pr.Ref.No. MOH-UGIFT/WRKS/19- and cleared by the 20/0001-Lot 8. However, contracts committee minutes were Maximum 10 points on Solicitor General not availed for assessment. this performance (where above the measure threshold), before commencement of construction: score 1 or else score 0
13 0 Procurement, contract d. Evidence that the There was no evidence availed for assessment regarding management/execution: LG properly establishment of project implementation team for Aya HC II The LG procured and established a Project upgrade. managed health Implementation team contracts as per for all health projects guidelines composed of: (i) : score 1 or else score 0 Maximum 10 points on this performance If there is no project, measure provide the score 13 1 Procurement, contract e. Evidence that the The foundation was okay, the walls were of the required management/execution: health infrastructure thickness standard 200mm and no visible cracks. The roof The LG procured and followed the standard structure had steel trusses painted with smoke grey at the managed health technical designs reception and waiting area. In other rooms there was contracts as per provided by the MoH: concrete ceiling as per design. guidelines score 1 or else score 0
Maximum 10 points on If there is no project, this performance provide the score measure
13 0 Procurement, contract f. Evidence that the There was no evidence availed for assessment regarding management/execution: Clerk of Works weekly reports consolidated from daily site reports. Aya HC The LG procured and maintains daily II upgrade project had no clerk of works. No one was found managed health records that are on site and there was no activity going on when the contracts as per consolidated weekly assessment team visited the site. guidelines to the District Engineer in copy to the DHO, for Maximum 10 points on each health this performance infrastructure project: measure score 1 or else score 0
If there is no project, provide the score
13 0 Procurement, contract g. Evidence that the There was no evidence of site meetings for Aya HC II management/execution: LG held monthly site upgrade availed for assessment. The LG procured and meetings by project managed health site committee: contracts as per chaired by the guidelines CAO/Town Clerk and comprised of the Sub- Maximum 10 points on county Chief (SAS), this performance the designated measure contract and project managers, chairperson of the HUMC, in-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 0 Procurement, contract h. Evidence that the There was no evidence of supervision for Aya Health center management/execution: LG carried out II upgrade in the previous FY 2019/2020. The LG procured and technical supervision managed health of works at all health contracts as per infrastructure projects guidelines at least monthly, by the relevant officers Maximum 10 points on including the this performance Engineers, measure Environment officers, CDOs, at critical stages of construction: score 1, or else score 0
If there is no project, provide the score
13 1 Procurement, contract i. Evidence that the A sampled voucher showed that DHO verified works and management/execution: DHO/MMOH verified initiated payments within 2 weeks as indicated below. The LG procured and works and initiated managed health payments of 1) payment for upgrading of Aya HCII to HCIII by Arinda contracts as per contractors within Investment Ltd at =487,062,450 against: guidelines specified timeframes Certificate No.1 issued on 4/6/2020 (within 2 weeks or 10 Maximum 10 points on working days), score 1 Signed by DHO on 4/6/2020 this performance or else score 0 measure Requisition dated 4/6/2020
Payment Voucher No.29977440
Amount paid=211,770,609
2) Another payment for the same project
Certificate No.2 issued on 22/6/2020
Signed by DHO on 22/6/2020
Requisition dated 22/6/2020 , signed by DHO on 22/6/2020
Payment Voucher No.30509787
Amount paid=50,077,857
13 0 Procurement, contract j. Evidence that the LG There was no evidence that the district had a complete file management/execution: has a complete for Aya health center II upgrade contract with all records as The LG procured and procurement file for required by the PPDA law. The file lacked contracts managed health each health committee minutes and decision. contracts as per infrastructure contract guidelines with all records as required by the PPDA Maximum 10 points on Law score 1 or else this performance score 0 measure Environment and Social Safeguards 14 0 Grievance redress: The a. Evidence that the Information obtained from the District Health Officer (DHO) LG has established a Local Government has indicates that in the absence of a central grievance redress mechanism of recorded, investigated, framework, the Rewards and sanction committee under addressing health responded and health department handles all grievances and this sector grievances in reported in line with committee is made up of members from DHO, Hospital and line with the LG the LG grievance some health facilities. Health project has not recorded any grievance redress redress framework grievances, neither do they have a system of logging these framework score 2 or else 0 concerns.
Maximum 2 points on this performance measure
15 0 Safeguards for service a. Evidence that the Some of the Health Centers visited did not have a copy of delivery: LG Health LG has disseminated the Health Care Waste Management guidelines. These Department ensures guidelines on health included the health Centers of Besia Health Center 3 (HC safeguards for service care / medical waste III), Moyo Mission Health Center 4 (HC IV) and Logoba delivery management to health Health Center 3 (HC III), none had a copy of the health care facilities : score 2 waste management guidelines. Maximum 5 points on points or else score 0 this performance No evidence for follow-up on implementation was provided measure at the time of assessment.
15 0 Safeguards for service b. Evidence that the At the time of assessment, the Health facilities had no delivery: LG Health LG has in place a budget dedicated for health care waste management. It is Department ensures functional system for however discussed by the Health Management Committee safeguards for service Medical waste and the In-charge on what to allocate to needs of the Health delivery management or Centers. central infrastructures Maximum 5 points on for managing medical Of the 3 facilities, only Moyo Missionary Health Center 3 (HC this performance waste (either an III) had waste bins for different categories of waste in the Out measure incinerator or Patient Department, Maternal and Child Health, Laboratory Registered waste and In Patient Department. management service provider): score 2 or else score 0
15 1 Safeguards for service c. Evidence that the Training undertaken in the health department that covered delivery: LG Health LG has conducted management of highly infectious wastes included; Department ensures training (s) and safeguards for service created awareness in Basic emergency, maternal and obstetric care training from delivery healthcare waste the 4th to 8th November 2019 for 25 participants. management score 1 Covid-19 clinical prevention and comprehensive care Maximum 5 points on or else score 0 this performance training for 6th to 16th of April 2020. 90 participants from all measure district health Center III & IV staff and District Team
Maternal new born training in Maternal and Child health conducted on 1st to 11th June 2020 16 0 Safeguards in the a. Evidence that a Civil works within the health department included upgrading Delivery of Investment costed ESMP was of the Aya Health Center 2 to Health Center three by Management: LG incorporated into constructing of an Out Patient Department, size of 40m x Health infrastructure designs, BoQs, 50m. Because of the size of the project, an ESMP was projects incorporate bidding and developed and costed Environment and Social contractual documents Safeguards in the for health The ESMP for Aya HCII upgraded to HCIII is available. delivery of the infrastructure projects Environment and Health Certification for Aya Form No. 005- investments of the previous FY: YR 19/20 is also available. However, no evidence was score 2 or else score 0 provided for incoporation of ESMP into BoQs and bidding or Maximum 8 points on contractual documents. this performance measure
16 2 Safeguards in the b. Evidence that all Evidence for land ownership for health facilities included; Delivery of Investment health sector projects Management: LG are implemented on Aya Health Center II, upgraded to III application for freehold Health infrastructure land where the LG has offer made on 9th march 2019 Minute No. MDLB 1/2019 (4) projects incorporate proof of ownership, (B) (18) of 12 September 2019. Offer made on 23rd Environment and Social access and availability September 2020. Safeguards in the (e.g. a land title, Ori Health Center II applied on 9th March 2019, Minute No. delivery of the agreement; Formal MDLB 1/2019(4) (B) (16) of 12 September 2019. Offer made investments Consent, MoUs, etc.), on 23rd September 2020 without any Maximum 8 points on encumbrances: score Kweyo Health Center II has a free holder application date this performance 2 or else, score 0 9th March 2019 in Kweyo Village, Metu Sub-county Minute measure no. MDLB 1/2019 (4) (B) (17) of 12th September, 2019. Offer made on 23rd September 2020
16 0 Safeguards in the c. Evidence that the Out of the sampled facilities, only one was under active Delivery of Investment LG Environment construction within the period that the assessment was Management: LG Officer and CDO undertaken. Evidence for monitoring presented during the Health infrastructure conducted support assessment included quarterly monitoring for the projects incorporate supervision and construction of Out Patient Department at Aya Health Center Environment and Social monitoring of health 2, upgraded to Health Center 3. The report is dated 27th July Safeguards in the projects to ascertain 2020 shared with Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), District delivery of the compliance with health Officer (DHO) and Community Development Officer investments ESMPs; and provide (CDO). The Environment Officer indicated that the monthly reports: score September monitoring campaign was hindered by bad roads Maximum 8 points on 2 or else score 0. to the site. this performance measure Some of the aspects noted from the monitoring report included; site clearing, erosion control, excavation and grass planting. By the time of visit, construction was on hold so aspects of PPE use were not observed. Grass was observed in the foreground re-colonizing sections originally removed to construct the facility. Construction waste management was lacking as empty bags of cement were littered around the site.
There were no monthly monitoring reports however for the health facility. 16 0 Safeguards in the d. Evidence that Environment and Social Compliance Certification for Delivery of Investment Environment and construction of an Out Patient department at Aya Health Management: LG Social Certification Center 2 in Aya Village, Otce Sub-county - Moyo District Health infrastructure forms were completed form No. 005-FY 19/20 was dated 27.07.2020. However, projects incorporate and signed by the LG there was no evidence that the Environment Officer (EO) and Environment and Social Environment Officer Community Development Officer (CDO) signed on Safeguards in the and CDO, prior to contractor's payment certificates. delivery of the payments of contractor investments invoices/certificates at interim and final Maximum 8 points on stages of all health this performance infrastructure projects measure score 2 or else score 0
539 Water & Environment Moyo Performance Measures 2020 District
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 Review of the Ministry of Water and Environment 1 Water & Environment a. % of rural water sources Management Information Systems (MIS) revealed that Outcomes: The LG has that are functional. Moyo District Local Government had a Rural water registered high source functionality standing at 88% by the time of If the district rural water functionality of water Assessment (FY 2020/21) sources and source functionality as per management the sector MIS is: committees o 90 - 100%: score 2 Maximum 4 points on o 80-89%: score 1 this performance measure o Below 80%: 0
1 Data from the Ministry of Water and Environment 2 Water & Environment b. % of facilities with Management and Information Systems showed that by Outcomes: The LG has functional water & sanitation Financial Year 2020/2021, Moyo District Local registered high committees (documented Government had 94% of of facilities with functional functionality of water water user fee collection Water &Sanitation Committees. sources and records and utilization with management the approval of the WSCs). If committees the district WSS facilities that have functional WSCs is: Maximum 4 points on this performance o 90 - 100%: score 2 measure o 80-89%: score 1
o Below 80%: 0
2 Moyo District Local Government did not conduct 0 Service Delivery a. The LG average score in Lower Local Government (LLG) performance Performance: Average the water and environment assessment therefore the LG average score could not score in the water and LLGs performance be determined. This was attributed to lack of LLGs environment LLGs assessment for the current. Performance Assessment Framework that was still performance FY. under formulation by the Office of the Prime Minister assessment by the time of the assessment exercise. If LG average scores is Maximum 8 points on this performance a. Above 80% score 2 measure b. 60 -80%: 1
c. Below 60: 0
(Only applicable when LLG assessment starts) 2 From the Annual Work Plan FY 2019/20, the following 0 Service Delivery b. % of budgeted water Sub-Counties were reported to have safe water Performance: Average projects implemented in the coverage below District Average. They included score in the water and sub-counties with safe water Lefori, Dufile and Moyo Sub-Counties. According to environment LLGs coverage below the district the Annual Progress Report FY2019/20 performance average in the previous FY. Ref:ENG/105/2 dated 24th-July 2020 the implemented assessment projects included; Sitting and Drilling of (04) Deep o If 100 % of water projects boreholes in the Sub-Counties of Moyo (01), Lefori Maximum 8 points on are implemented in the (01) and Laropi (02). From the four budgeted projects this performance targeted S/Cs: Score 2 in the FY only two projects were implemented in Sub- measure o If 80-99%: Score 1 Counties below district average. Laropi Sub-County with coverage above the District average had two o If below 80 %: Score 0 implemented projects yet Dufile Sub-County with low water coverage had none. In percentage terms only 25% of budgeted WSS projects was implemented in under served Sub-Counties. 2 In the Financial Year under review the District LG 2 Service Delivery c. If variations in the contract Water sector had mainly one project investment that Performance: Average price of sampled WSS can be selected. From the Annual Progress Report score in the water and infrastructure investments for Ref:ENG/105/2 the contract price of drilling of (04) environment LLGs the previous FY are within boreholes was UGX 95,091,834. Review of performance +/- 20% of engineer’s Engineer's Estimates from the Bills of Quantities assessment estimates (BoQs) under DWSCG FY 2019/20 established that the estimates for the project was UGX 96,957,160. Maximum 8 points on o If within +/-20% score 2 This was further verified with review of procurement this performance requests submitted by the user department on measure o If not score 0 8th/10/2019. The variations therefore between the contract price and Engineer's estimates was -2% and this was within acceptable range. 2 Evidence from the District LG Water Annual 2 Service Delivery d. % of WSS infrastructure Performance Report Ref:ENG/105/2 dated Performance: Average projects completed as per 17th/07/2019 Page 12,Water & Sanitation expected score in the water and annual work plan by end of Output/Activity to be reported on in FY 2019/20 under environment LLGs FY. 5.4: Water supply facilities and quality surveillance performance clearly pointed out under status of planned activities o If 100% projects assessment that Four (04) deep boreholes were drilled at a cost of completed: score 2 UGX 95,091,834 by M/S LEAM International Ltd. The Maximum 8 points on report also indicated that sitting and construction this performance o If 80-99% projects supervision of the 04 boreholes was completed by measure completed: score 1 Rock Technical Services Ltd. Both activities were o If projects completed are completed within the FY as clearly indicated in the below 80%: 0 supervision report on the installation works of 04 boreholes for FY 2019/20 compiled by DWO on 10th/04/2020 addressed to CAO. The report pointed out that the project was at 100% completion level. 3 From the reviewed Ministry of Water and Environment 2 Achievement of a. If there is an increase in Management Information Systems (MIS) reports, the Standards: The LG has the % of water supply functionality of water facilities in previous FY 2019/20 met WSS infrastructure facilities that are functioning was at 88%. it was also established from the MIS that facility standards in FY 2018/19 the functionality was at 82%. This o If there is an increase: implied that there was a percentage increase of 6% in Maximum 4 points on score 2 functionality across the two Financial Years. this performance measure o If no increase: score 0. 3 Data from the Ministry of Water and Environment 0 Achievement of b. If there is an Increase in % Management, Information Systems revealed that in Standards: The LG has of facilities with functional financial year 2019/20 the District had 272 WSC met WSS infrastructure water & sanitation established of which 255 were reported functional. facility standards committees (with this accounted for 94% functionality rate. In the documented water user fee previous year but one (2018/19) the District had 400 Maximum 4 points on collection records and established Water and Sanitation Committees of this performance utilization with the approval which 380 WSC were reported functional. This measure of the WSCs). accounted for 95% functionality rate. it can there for be concluded that there was a reported decrease of 1% o If increase is more than in the functionality of WSC in the two FYs reviewed. 5%: score 2
o If increase is between 0- 5%: score 1
o If there is no increase: score 0.
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 4 3 Accuracy of Reported The DWO has accurately From the reviewed Annual Performance Report Information: The LG has reported on WSS facilities 2019/20 (Annexed Standard template 1of 1) Water accurately reported on constructed in the previous and Sanitation quarterly reports (DWSCG) under the constructed WSS FY and performance of the component of Location of new/rehabilitated water infrastructure projects facilities is as reported: sources, four (04) deep bore holes were reported by and service Score: 3 the District Water Officer. These included one (01) performance bore hole in Fodia village, Logoba parish, Moyo Sub- County with source number of DWD 66881 at an Maximum 3 points on investment cost of UGX 24,584,164. this performance measure One (01) deep borehole in Nyainga village, Coloa parish, Lefori Sub-County with source number of DWD.66882 at a cost of UGX 23,256,155 and two (02) deep boreholes drilled in Laropi Sub-County in the parish of Gbalala in villages of Monoko & Pakoma West with source numbers of DWD.66883 & DWD.66884 at an investment cost ofUGX 26,356,970 and UGX 20,930,540 respectively. During field visits all the reported WSS facilities were found to be in existence, functional and in exact localities reported in the Anual Performance report. 5 2 Reporting and a. Evidence that the LG Reviewed were the quarterly WSS reports and there performance Water Office collects and was sufficient evidence that the DWO compiled improvement: The LG compiles quarterly quarterly information on Sub-County water supply and compiles, updates WSS information on sub-county sanitation, functionality of facilities and management information and water supply and sanitation, issues. During assessment four quarterly reports were supports LLGs to functionality of facilities and reviewed including; Report dated 28th/10/2019 improve their WSCs, safe water collection Ref:ENG/105/02 addressed to CAO listing boreholes performance and storage and community inspected in the first quarter. The report focused involvement): Score 2 majorly on status of the sources where issues of Maximum 7 points on functionality of the source, management of WSC to this performance ensure proper O&M practices were pointed out. measure Quarter one data on sources was compilled between 14th/07/2019 to 27th/09/2019
Dated 15th/01/2020 Ref:ENG/105/2, report on list of all boreholes inspected in the Second quarter . In the report, emphasis was put on functionality of the source, date of construction, co-ordinates of the source (Easterning & Notherning) issues of Elevation of source, management issues and actual status of each particular source ( remarks and recommendations) made per source. e.g Paanjala Borehole (DWD-18806) in Lebubu Parish in Dufile Sub-County with Easterning-0357339, Notherning- 03195854 constructed on 18th/8/2003 with an elevation of 614m was reported functional but required simple repairs, it had a functional WSC with an account opened at Dufile SACCO. The report also captured that this particular source bush cleaning around the source. This information was collected by the DWO between 14th/10/2019 to 2nd/12/2019
The third quarter report with information regarding water supply and sanitation, functionality of facilities and Water and Sanitation Committees was compiled on 20th/04/2020. it detailed all boreholes inspected and status of each source. The report equally had pictures of the visited sources, specific dates for WSC meetings and dates for payment of user fees by community members.
Reviewed was report titled quarter four report on list of all boreholes inspected in the district. It was complied by the DWO on 18th/07/2020 addressed to the CAO. It clearly indicated the dates for inspection as between 5th/04/2020 to 30th/06/2020. Status of all sources inspected was captured. 5 There was sufficient evidence from the reviewed 0 Reporting and b. Evidence that the LG DWO MIS that the LG Water Office updated the MIS performance Water Office updates the MIS with water supply and sanitation information regarding improvement: The LG (WSS data) quarterly with new facilities, population served, functionality of compiles, updates WSS water supply and sanitation WSCs and WSS facilities. For example the District LG information and information (new facilities, Water Officer using Form4(Functionality, Management supports LLGs to population served, &Gender) captured all the information of the newly improve their functionality of WSCs and constructed 04 boreholes. However, this was done performance WSS facilities, etc.) and uses once/annually contrary to the quarterly requirement as compiled information for per the assessment indicator. There was again no Maximum 7 points on planning purposes: Score 3 evidence that the compiled information informed this performance or else 0 planning process. measure 5 For the period under review, the LG did not have LLG 0 Reporting and c. Evidence that DWO has Performance assessment report, therefore performance supported the 25% lowest Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) could not be improvement: The LG performing LLGs in the generated. This was attributed to the fact that the compiles, updates WSS previous FY LLG Assessment Framework for Lower Lower information and assessment to develop and Governments (LLGs) was still under design by the supports LLGs to implement performance Office of the Prime Minister by the time LG PA improve their improvement plans: Score 2 exercise was conducted. performance or else 0
Maximum 7 points on Note: Only applicable from this performance the assessment where there measure has been a previous assessment of the LLGs’ performance. In case there is no previous assessment score 0.
Human Resource Management and Development 6 The district had budgeted for Civil Engineer ( Water), 2 Budgeting for Water & a. Evidence that the DWO Borehole maintenance Technician/ Assistant Sanitation and has budgeted for the Engineering. However, the structure had no 2 Environment & Natural following Water & Sanitation Assistant Water officers ( for Mobilization and 1 for Resources: The Local staff: 1 Civil Sanitation and Hygiene), Engineering Assistant Government has Engineer(Water); 2 Assistant Water), therefore not budget for for in the performance budgeted for staff Water Officers (1 for contract. mobilization and 1 for Maximum 4 points on sanitation & hygiene); 1 this performance Engineering Assistant measure (Water) & 1 Borehole Maintenance Technician: Score 2
6 The district Environment and Natural Resource had 2 Budgeting for Water & b. Evidence that the budget for the; Natural resource officer, Environment Sanitation and Environment and Natural officer and Forestry officer as per the Performance Environment & Natural Resources Officer has Contract 2020/2021. Resources: The Local budgeted for the following Government has Environment & Natural budgeted for staff Resources staff: 1 Natural Resources Officer; 1 Maximum 4 points on Environment Officer; 1 this performance Forestry Officer: Score 2 measure
7 The was evidence that the Civil Engineer ( Water) 3 Performance a. The DWO has appraised Eng Albine Bayi had been appraised on 30/06/2020. Management: The LG District Water Office staff The Engineering Assistant Obulejo William, joined on appraised staff and against the agreed Contract 20/07/2020 after the close of the financial conducted trainings in performance plans during year of 2019/2020. line with the district the previous FY: Score 3 training plans.
Maximum 6 points on this performance measure 7 The District Water Officer was appraised by the Ag. 0 Performance b. The District Water Office District Engineer (Head of Works & Technical Management: The LG has identified capacity needs Services) using the Staff Performance Appraisal for appraised staff and of staff from the performance Public Service (PSForm5) there was no other staff conducted trainings in appraisal process and appraised. The section was comprised of an Assistant line with the district ensured that training Water Officer- in charge of Mobilization seconded by training plans. activities have been Community Based Services Department and an conducted in adherence to Engineering Assistant/ Borehole Technician who was Maximum 6 points on the training plans at district reported to be on contract basis. There were no this performance level and documented in the Capacity Needs Assessment reports, training plans measure training database : Score 3 and reports reviewed.
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 8 From the Ministry of Water and Environment 3 Planning, Budgeting a) Evidence that the Management Information System, it was reported that and Transfer of Funds DWO has prioritized Moyo District had a safe water coverage of 95%. All for service delivery: The budget allocations to the sub-counties were reported to be at the district Local Government has sub-counties that have average mark of 95% therefore none of the LLGs was allocated and spent safe water coverage below district average. The LG Water Office therefore funds for service below that of the had the discretion to allocate water projects as delivery as prescribed district: deemed necessary. Form the budget of FY 2020/21 in the sector guidelines. Ref:ENG/105/2 the LG budgeted for UGX • If 100 % of the budget 235,995,395 under District Water and Sanitation Maximum 6 points on allocation for the Conditional Grant (DWSCG) with UGX 130,000,000 this performance current FY is allocated funds under Discretionary Development Equalization measure to S/Cs below the Grant (DDEG) district average coverage: Score 3 Under Sector Grant the LG planned to construct 05 • If 80-99%: Score 2 deep boreholes in the Sub-Counties of Lefori (03) and • If 60-79: Score 1 Moyo (02). The District LG also planned the Re- • If below 60 %: Score construction of of Mipkwo Gravity Flow Scheme in 0 Dufile Sub-County at a cost of UGX 60,900,000. It was reported that each borehole had a budget of UGX 26,000,000 (Inclusive of sitting and construction supervision) There was already attained equity in distribution of water facilities hence the parameter could not be applied.
8 The DWO communicated to the Lower Local 3 Planning, Budgeting b) Evidence that the DWO Governments (LLGs) their respective allocations per and Transfer of Funds communicated to the LLGs source to be constructed in FY 2020/21. During for service delivery: The their respective allocations assessment, reviewed was a letter addressed to all Local Government has per source to be constructed Sub-County Chiefs/ Senior Assistant Secretaries allocated and spent in the current FY: Score 3 (SAS) Ref:ENG/105/2 dated 18th August 2020 funds for service prepared by DWO. The letter was titled; Submission of delivery as prescribed Budget Allocation for each project per Sub-County in the sector guidelines. under water for FY 2020/21. It indicated the boreholes to be sited and drilled in the FY (10 deep boreholes at Maximum 6 points on a cost of UGX 240,000,000) plus the Re-construction this performance of the reinforced concreate reservoir tank for Mipkwo measure GFS and extension pipes to Ramogi North at a cost of UGX 60,900,000. The communication detailed source name, village, parish, sub-county and source budget. Field visits to the Sub-Counties of Moyo, Lefori and Laropi confirmed the communication as the letter was found displayed on each sub-county respective notice board. 9 4 Routine Oversight and a. Evidence that the district Moyo District Local Government had a total of 305 Monitoring: The LG has Water Office has monitored Water sources. Review of the District LG Water sector monitored WSS each of WSS facilities at monitoring file indicated that the DWO designed a facilities and provided least quarterly (key areas to District LG Water Sector Management and Monitoring follow up support. include functionality of Water Plan and Time Frame Analysis for FY 2019/20. The supply and public sanitation plan spelt out Outputs, Performance Measures, Maximum 8 points on facilities, environment, and Activities/Tasks, Required Competence, Performance this performance social safeguards, etc.) Indicators, Means of Verification and Timeframe. The measure plan was dated 5th/July/2019. • If more than 95% of the WSS facilities monitored Monitoring reports as per standard formats were quarterly: score 4 equally reviewed; these included the following
• If 80-99% of the WSS Monitoring and Inspection report for quarter one facilities monitored quarterly: prepared by DWO addressed to CAO, score 2 Ref:ENG/105/02 where118 water sources were inspected • If less than 80% of the WSS facilities monitored quarterly: Quarter two monitoring report addressed to CAO Score 0 Ref:ENG/105/2 dated 15th/01/2020 where 109 water sources were monitored
The monitoring report for quarter three addressed to CAO Ref:ENG/105/2 dated 20th April 2020 had 77 water sources monitored
quarter four monitoring report compiled by the DWO on 18th July 2020 Ref:ENG/105/2 addressed to CAO indicated that 76 sources were monitored.
A total of 381 out of the 396 established water sources were monitored. It was also established from the reviewed reports that Environment and Social (E&S) aspects were included. For example under status of each source reports pointed out. A case in in point was the Q3 monitoring report that for incidence mentioned about the need for planting of trees, slashing of bushy surrounding and covering of the soak away pit of Paanyala borehole source-DWD 18806 in Dufule Sub-County. In terms of percentages, 96% of the WSS facilities were monitored in FY 2019/20 9 2 Routine Oversight and b. Evidence that the DWO From the Software reports, the District LG conducted Monitoring: The LG has conducted quarterly DWSCC four Planning and Advocacy meetings as evidenced monitored WSS meetings and among other by the reviewed Advocacy planning report and facilities and provided agenda items, key issues minutes of all the four quarterly advocacy meetings. follow up support. identified from quarterly According to the Advocacy report dated 13th monitoring of WSS facilities November 2019, it stressed the need for advocacy Maximum 8 points on were discussed and meetings since they are in line with the Demand this performance remedial actions Responsive Approach (DRA). The District measure incorporated in the current Implementation Guidelines(2013) require quarterly FY AWP. Score 2 meetings to be convened at various levels to review water & sanitation situation in the district. In the case of Moyo District LG this guideline was adhered to. From the mandated 4 meetings, 3 DWSCC meetings were conducted i.e in Quarter 1, 2 & 4. In quarter 3 it was inevitable due to the Covid-19 Preventive measures that prohibited people to gather.
DWSCC meeting for Q1 was conducted on 10th December 2019,issues discussed included WSS functionality, O&M of water sources, District water &sanitation performance and First & Second Quarter releases.
DWSCC meeting held on 22nd January 2020 for Q2 under Min:IV/DWSC/2019/20:Presentation by DWO: Under Operation and Maintenance it was reported that some water sources had Non- functional Water and Sanitation Committees hence need for trainings.
For Q4 the DWSCC meeting was held on 4th July 2020 and among other key issues was to intensify monitoring of all WSS projects in the District and encourage proper O&M through contribution of user fees. Key issues from the quarterly monitoring for instance need to strengthen WSCs and proper O&M practices were discussed. This informed the planning process of FY 2020/21 as mobilization activities were priotised in the budget.
9 Observation fro the District Water Sector and Central 2 Routine Oversight and c. The District Water Officer Notice Board proved that the DWO publicized budget Monitoring: The LG has publicizes budget allocations allocations for FY 2020/21 the LLGs with safe water monitored WSS for the current FY to LLGs coverage below the LG average. Field visit to the Sub- facilities and provided with safe water coverage Counties of Moyo and Lefori that were reported to be follow up support. below the LG average to all below average confirmed earlier discovery as a letter sub-counties: Score 2 from DWO dated 18th/08/2020 indicating budget Maximum 8 points on allocations per sub-county including those below this performance average was displayed on their respective notice measure boards. For example it was public knowledge that Loferi Sub-county would receive UGX78,000,000, Moyo and Dufile Sub-Counties allocated UGX 52,000,000 each. 10 Review of the Annual Work Plan for FY 2019/20 0 Mobilization for WSS is a. For previous FY, the DWO Ref:ENG/105/2 page 12, the Non-Wage Recurrent conducted allocated a minimum of 40% (NWR) Budget of the LG Water sector was of the NWR rural water and UGX31,338,639. The budget breakdown was: a total Maximum 6 points on sanitation budget as per of UGX 21,875,804 allocated to Office Operations and this performance sector guidelines towards the overall total for mobilization activities/software measure mobilization activities: development was UGX 9,462,83only. This accounted for only 30% of the total NWR budget. This was • If funds were allocated contrary to sector guidelines that stipulate a minimum score 3 of 40% of the budget to be allocated to software • If not score 0 development.
10 From the Software report of FY 2019/20 the District LG 3 Mobilization for WSS is b. For the previous FY, the had established all Water and Sanitation Committees conducted District Water Officer in (WSCs) for the WSS facilities constructed in the FY liaison with the Community 2019/20. All the WSCs established were trained on Maximum 6 points on Development Officer trained their roles and responsibilities, the trainings also this performance WSCs on their roles on O&M captured best practices of Operation & Maintenance measure of WSS facilities: Score 3. (O&M) From the three sampled WSCs of Fiodia Borehole source (DWD-66881) in Moyo Sub-County, Nyaiga Borehole source (DWD-66882) in Lefori Sub- county and Munoko water source (DWD-66883) in Lorapi Sub-county. Members of the committees interacted with had knowledge of roles of all stake holders, were mindfull of O&M best practices and on average each committee had saved approximately UGX 220,000 for both preventive maintenace and simple repirs. Investment Management 11 The District LG Water Sector had an Assets Register 4 Planning and a. Existence of an up-to-date for WSS facilities. It was duly up-to date, well detailed Budgeting for LG asset register which sets and updated as of FY 2019/20. The register had a Investments is out water supply and complete list of existing water points in the district. conducted effectively sanitation facilities by The information was clustered per sub-county and it location and LLG: captured the parish, village, type of water source, Year Maximum 14 points on of Construction and expected life span, source name, this performance Score 4 or else 0 source number as designed by MoWE, indication of measure functional/ non functional, coordinates and Elevation.The reviewed register also captured decommissioned sources,monthly user fee collection, Old user committee replaced, weather WSC conduct monthly meetings, the environment of the water source at time of visit and analysis of women composition and occupying key positions in committees. All those key asspects were reviewed in the LG Water assets register. 11 0 Planning and b. Evidence that the LG Both desk and field appraisals for the projects was Budgeting for DWO has conducted a desk carried out as indicated below: Investments is appraisal for all WSS conducted effectively projects in the budget to A review of the project appraisals and profile report for establish whether the 2019/2020 from page 18-31 prepared by the District Maximum 14 points on prioritized investments were Planner on the 20/7/2019 and the Out put project this performance derived from the approved profile report prepared by the DCAO dated 9/8/2019 measure district development plans confirmed that the projects were appraised. and are eligible for These starts from page 18-31 some of the projects expenditure under sector appraised are: guidelines (prioritize investments for sub-counties Drilling of borehole at Fodia which scored 14 on desk with safe water coverage appraisals and recommended for field appraisal and below the district average recommended for funding and rehabilitation of non- functional facilities) and Drilling of borehole at Ebitwa which scored 14 on funding source (e.g. sector desk appraisals and recommended for field appraisal development grant, DDEG). and recommended for funding If desk appraisal was conducted and if all projects are derived from the LGDP and are eligible:
Score 4 or else score 0.
11 2 Planning and c. All budgeted investments For the FY 2020/21 the District Local Government had Budgeting for for current FY have for construction of 10 deep boreholes (05 using Investments is completed applications from DWSCG and 05 using DDEG) For all the budgeted conducted effectively beneficiary communities: investments beneficiary communities filled application Score 2 letters addressed to DWO seeking for safe water Maximum 14 points on sources in their respective localities. All the reviewed this performance application letters from communities had attachments measure of payment of UGX 200,000 as community contribution. This proved that the service was demand driven hence O&M would be easy resulting to sustainability of the WSS projects. Below are some of the application letters reviewed
Application letter dated 15th/06/2019 for safe water source by the community members of Amatura village. Letter signed by chairperson executive committee
Application letter from the community of Egule village requesting for a deep borehole. the letter was dated 2nd December 2019 with attached siginiture of community members and slip of payment of community contribution and an application letter from community members of Marale village in Moyo Sub- County requesting for safe water source in their village letter had an attachment of reciept of community contribution and list of community members supporting the initiative. 11 A review of the screening forms showed that there 0 Planning and d. Evidence that the LG has environmental acceptability for the projects as can be Budgeting for conducted field appraisal to proved from the the Certificate No. oo1-FY19/20 dated Investments is check for: (i) technical 9/3/2020 for a bore hole drilling at Fodia conducted effectively feasibility; (ii) environmental social acceptability; and (iii) Maximum 14 points on customized designs for WSS this performance projects for current FY. Score measure 2
11 0 Planning and e. Evidence that all water Screening forms and a separate report (dated 30th Budgeting for infrastructure projects for the April 2020) were available for Congo Bore Hole in Investments is current FY were screened for Laropi Sub-county dated 9.03.2020; Monoko Bore conducted effectively environmental and social Hole in Laropi Subcounty dated 10.3.2020; Nyainga risks/ impacts and Bore Hole Lefori Sub-county dated 13.03.2020; Maximum 14 points on ESIA/ESMPs prepared Screening. However, climate change was not this performance before being approved for considered during screening. measure construction - costed ESMPs incorporated into designs, Each borehole screened had a costed Environment BoQs, bidding and contract and Social Management Plan. documents. Score 2
12 2 Procurement and a. Evidence that the water Information available in the procurement plan for the Contract infrastructure investments current FY 2020/2021 indicated that water and Management/execution: were incorporated in the LG sanitation infrastructure projects were incorporated in The LG has effectively approved: Score 2 or else 0 the district procurement plan. There were 10 projects managed the WSS for drilling, installation and construction of deep wells. procurements
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
.
12 0 Procurement and b. Evidence that the water The was no evidence of water supply and public Contract supply and public sanitation sanitation projects by the contracts committee for the Management/execution: infrastructure for the previous previous FY 2019/2020. No contracts committee The LG has effectively FY was approved by the minutes were availed for assessment. managed the WSS Contracts Committee before procurements commencement of construction Score 2: Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
. 12 0 Procurement and c. Evidence that the District The was no evidence regarding the establishment of Contract Water Officer properly project implementation team. Management/execution: established the Project The LG has effectively Implementation team as managed the WSS specified in the Water sector procurements guidelines Score 2:
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
.
12 From the sampled sources of Fodia, Nyaiga and 2 Procurement and d. Evidence that water and Munoko boreholes there was enough evidence to Contract public sanitation conclude that water infrastructures were constructed Management/execution: infrastructure sampled were as per technical designs provided by the DWO. The LG has effectively constructed as per the Review of the Bills of Quantities (Under Technical managed the WSS standard technical designs Specifications) The Upper layer of Platform and procurements provided by the DWO: Score drainage channel including drainage foundation had a 2 slop of 2%,the difference in height for a drainage Maximum 14 points on channel with a slope of 2% was 2cms per meter. The this performance Pumps of all sampled sources were placed as such measure that the water outlet (spout) was in the Centre of the . platform. The drainage channels of all the 3 sampled water sources was 6m as stipulated in the technical designs. All sampled boreholes had hand pump with identical pump stand. All the 3 sampled boreholes had soak away pits filled with concreate and covered. The surroundings had a few trees and grass planted. 12 0 Procurement and e. Evidence that the relevant There was no evidence of monthly joint supervision Contract technical officers carry out for all relevant technical teams. Reports seen Management/execution: monthly technical indicated that most of the supervision was done by the The LG has effectively supervision of WSS district water officer. Only one report dated 12th July managed the WSS infrastructure projects: Score 2020 for the period of 6th – 24th June 2020 indicated procurements 2 joint supervision. The report indicated that joint monitoring and supervision of borehole drilling Maximum 14 points on projects was done by the district engineer, district this performance water office and engineering assistant. The measure environment officer and CDO were not involved.
. 12 0 Procurement and f. For the sampled contracts, Payments were certified and recommended for Contract there is evidence that the payments are indicated below: Management/execution: DWO has verified works and The LG has effectively initiated payments of 1) Payment for drilling 4 boreholes in Moyo at= managed the WSS contractors within specified 7,840,000 procurements timeframes in the contracts Contract date: 27/3/2020 Maximum 14 points on o If 100 % contracts paid on Certificate No. 1 dated 22/4/2020 this performance time: Score 2 measure DWO signed on 22/4/2020 o If not score 0 . Payment voucher No.29805547
Amount paid =7,369,600
2) Payment for drilling 4 boreholes in Moyo at= 95,091,834
Contract date: 25/2/2020
Certificate No. 1 dated 6/4/2020
DWO signed on 6/4/2020
Payment voucher No.29805556
Amount paid =84,023,145
12 0 Procurement and g. Evidence that a complete There was no evidence that the district had a Contract procurement file for water complete file for water infrastructure contract with all Management/execution: infrastructure investments is records as required by the PPDA law. The file lacked The LG has effectively in place for each contract contracts committee minutes and decision. managed the WSS with all records as required procurements by the PPDA Law:
Maximum 14 points on Score 2, If not score 0 this performance measure
.
Environment and Social Requirements 13 There was no evidence that grievances were 0 Grievance Redress: Evidence that the DWO in recorded, invetigated or responded to on Water The LG has established liaison with the District infrastructure. a mechanism of Grievances Redress addressing WSS Committee recorded, related grievances in investigated, responded to line with the LG and reported on water and grievance redress environment grievances as framework per the LG grievance redress framework: Maximum 3 points this performance measure Score 3, If not score 0 14 0 Safeguards for service Evidence that the DWO and Water source and catchment protection and natural delivery the Environment Officer have resource management guidelines had not been disseminated guidelines on disseminated to the Community Development Officers Maximum 3 points on water source & catchment by the time of assessment. This is information this performance protection and natural obtained from an interaction with the Environmental measure resource management to Officer. CDOs:
Score 3, If not score 0
15 Water Source protection plans had not been prepared 0 Safeguards in the a. Evidence that water at the time of assessment. Delivery of Investments source protection plans & natural resource Maximum 10 points on management plans for WSS this performance facilities constructed in the measure previous FY were prepared and implemented: Score 3, If not score 0
15 There was evidence that all constructed WSS projects 3 Safeguards in the b. Evidence that all WSS were implemented on land where Moyo District Local Delivery of Investments projects are implemented on Government had proof of consent. Land offer land where the LG has proof agreements were signed between the Landlords and Maximum 10 points on of consent (e.g. a land title, the District Local Government, For example an this performance agreement; Formal Consent, agreement dated 26th March 2020 was signed measure MoUs, etc.), without any between Kenyi Toah of Nyainga village Cola Parish, encumbrances: Lefori Sub-County and Moyo DLG. Land measuring 30m*30m was offered to the district for the Score 3, If not score 0 construction of the Nyainga borehole. Agreement signed by the landlord and Lefori Community Development Officer on behalf of the District. Other agreements reviewed were of Abash Murjan (landlord in Fodia village, Moyo Sub-County) dated 25th March 2020 signed with Community Development Officer Moyo Sub-County on behalf of the District, Bibi William of Monoko village signed land offer agreement with Moyo District Local Government on 3rd March 2020, all agreements were witnessed by respective LC1 Chairpersons of respective villages. 15 0 Safeguards in the c. Evidence that E&S Evidence provided for the Contractor's Payment Delivery of Investments Certification forms are certificates for drilling and construction of boreholes completed and signed by namely; Congo Borehole in Laropi Sub-County, Maximum 10 points on Environmental Officer and Monoko Borehole in Laropi Sub-county, Yainga this performance CDO prior to payments of Borehole in Lefori Sub-county, Fodia Borehole in measure contractor Moyo Sub-county within the water department were invoices/certificates at signed only by District Water Officer (DWO ). interim and final stages of projects: For example, Environment and Social Compliance certification was undertaken for one of the four Score 2, If not score 0 boreholes under the general contract given to Leam International Ltd No. MOYO539/WRKS/19-20/00023 on the 12th of March 2020. The final interim payment for these boreholes was made on the 6th of April 2020. This payment certificate however was signed only by District Water Officer. 15 0 Safeguards in the d. Evidence that the CDO Evidence of monitoring was in the form of a Quarterly Delivery of Investments and environment Officers monitoring report for water projects presented during undertakes monitoring to the assessment. The report was for the period 18th Maximum 10 points on ascertain compliance with June – 19th June 2020, dated 25th June 2020. Report this performance ESMPs; and provide monthly indicates four boreholes of Congo, Monoko, Nyainga measure reports: and Fodia were monitored and report signed by the Environment Officer (EO), Community Development Score 2, If not score 0 Officer (CDO) and District Water Officer (DWO) on the 25th June 2020.
Monthly monitoring reports were not availed during the assessment.
539 Micro-scale irrigation Moyo performance measures District
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 Not applicable. 0 Outcome: The LG has a) Evidence that the LG has up to-date data on increased acreage of irrigated land for the last two FYs disaggregated newly irrigated land between micro-scale irrigation grant beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries – score 2 or else 0 Maximum score 4
Maximum 20 points for this performance area
1 Not applicable. 0 Outcome: The LG has b) Evidence that the LG has increased acreage increased acreage of of newly irrigated land in the previous FY as newly irrigated land compared to previous FY but one:
Maximum score 4 • By more than 5% score 2
Maximum 20 points for • Between 1% and 4% score 1 this performance area • If no increase score 0
2 Not applicable for this district. 0 Service Delivery a) Evidence that the average score in the micro- Performance: Average scale irrigation for LLG performance assessment score in the micro-scale is: irrigation for the LLG performance • Above 70%; score 4 assessment. Maximum • 60 – 69%; score 2 score 4 • Below 60%; score 0
Maximum score 4
3 Not applicable for this local 0 Investment a) Evidence that the development component of govern Performance: The LG micro-scale irrigation grant has been used on has managed the eligible activities (procurement and installation of supply and installation irrigation equipment, including accompanying of micro-scale supplier manuals and training): Score 2 or else irrigations equipment as score 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 6 3 Not applicable for this local 0 Investment b) Evidence that the approved farmer signed an government. Performance: The LG Acceptance Form confirming that equipment is has managed the working well, before the LG made payments to supply and installation the suppliers: Score 1 or else score 0 of micro-scale irrigations equipment as per guidelines
Maximum score 6
3 Not applicable for this local 0 Investment Evidence that the variations in the contract price government. Performance: The LG are within +/-20% of the Agriculture Engineers has managed the estimates: Score 1 or else score 0 supply and installation of micro-scale irrigations equipment as per guidelines
Maximum score 6
3 Not applicable for this local 0 Investment d) Evidence that micro-scale irrigation equipment government. Performance: The LG where contracts were signed during the previous has managed the FY were installed/completed within the previous supply and installation FY of micro-scale irrigations equipment as • If 100% score 2 per guidelines • Between 80 – 99% score 1 Maximum score 6 • Below 80% score 0
4 The district structure for the Lower 1 Achievement of a) Evidence that the LG has recruited LLG Local Government Extension standards: The LG has extension workers as per staffing structure workers was 24 and filled was 19 met staffing and micro- posts thus 79/1% ( Moyo district • If 100% score 2 scale irrigation staff list 2020). standards • If 75 – 99% score 1 Maximum score 6 • If below 75% score 0
4 Not applicable. 0 Achievement of b) Evidence that the micro-scale irrigation standards: The LG has equipment meets standards as defined by MAAIF met staffing and micro- scale irrigation • If 100% score 2 or else score 0 standards
Maximum score 6 4 Not applicable. 0 Achievement of b) Evidence that the installed micro-scale standards: The LG has irrigation systems during last FY are functional met staffing and micro- scale irrigation • If 100% are functional score 2 or else score 0 standards
Maximum score 6
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 5 2 Accuracy of reported a) Evidence that information on position of There was evidence that the information: The LG has extension workers filled is accurate: Score 2 or number of Extension workers on reported accurate else 0 the district staff list corresponded information with the staff at the sampled LLGs of Moyo Sub county 3 and station Maximum score 4 3, Metu Sub county 3 and station 3 and Town Council one ( Veterinary Officer) and one at the station ( Refer Moyo staff list 2020).
5 Not applicable. 0 Accuracy of reported b) Evidence that information on micro-scale information: The LG has irrigation system installed and functioning is reported accurate accurate: Score 2 or else 0 information
Maximum score 4
6 Not applicable. 0 Reporting and a) Evidence that information is collected quarterly Performance on newly irrigated land, functionality of irrigation Improvement: The LG equipment installed; provision of complementary has collected and services and farmer Expression of Interest: Score entered information into 2 or else 0 MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6 6 Not applicable. 0 Reporting and b) Evidence that the LG has entered up to-date Performance LLG information into MIS: Score 1 or else 0 Improvement: The LG has collected and entered information into MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
6 Not applicable. 0 Reporting and c.Evidence that the LG has prepared a quarterly Performance report using information compiled from LLGs in Improvement: The LG the MIS: Score 1 or else 0 has collected and entered information into MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
6 Not applicable. 0 Reporting and d) Evidence that the LG has: Performance Improvement: The LG i. Developed an approved Performance has collected and Improvement Plan for the lowest performing entered information into LLGs score 1 or else 0 MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
6 Not applicable. 0 Reporting and ii. Implemented Performance Improvement Plan Performance for lowest performing LLGs: Score 1 or else 0 Improvement: The LG has collected and entered information into MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
Human Resource Management and Development 7 Moyo district Production Office 1 Budgeting for, actual a) Evidence that the LG has: had budgeted for all the recruitment and Extension workers as per the i. Budgeted for extension workers as per deployment of staff: The performance contract of guidelines/in accordance with the staffing norms Local Government has 2020/2021. budgeted, actually score 1 or else 0 recruited and deployed staff as per guidelines
Maximum score 6
7 0 Budgeting for, actual ii Deployed extension workers as per guidelines There was no evidence that the recruitment and score 1 or else 0 budgeted Extension workers had deployment of staff: The been deployed to the sampled Local Government has lower local governments ( Ref budgeted, actually performance contract 2020/2021) recruited and deployed e.g. Metu budgeted for 4 staff as per guidelines deployment 3, Moyo Sub county budgeted for 4 and deployed 3. Maximum score 6
7 There was evidence that the 2 Budgeting for, actual b) Evidence that extension workers are working Extension workers were working recruitment and in LLGs where they are deployed: Score 2 or in the LLGs they were deployed deployment of staff: The else 0 e.g. Metu S/C Agricultural officer, Local Government has Assistant Agricultural officer and budgeted, actually Agricultural officer were as per recruited and deployed deployment, Moyo Sub county, staff as per guidelines the Assistant Veterinary officer, Agricultural officer and Assistant Maximum score 6 Agricultural officer were as per the deployment in the staff list 2020.
7 The Extension workers plus other 0 Budgeting for, actual c) Evidence that extension workers deployment staff were displayed in the Senior recruitment and has been publicized and disseminated to LLGs Assistant Secretaries office and deployment of staff: The by among others displaying staff list on the LLG not on notice board in the Local Government has notice board. Score 2 or else 0 sampled LLGs of Metu and Moyo budgeted, actually Sub counties as required. recruited and deployed staff as per guidelines
Maximum score 6 8 The files for the Extension 0 Performance a) Evidence that the District Production workers in the LLGs were not management: The LG Coordinator has: availed for verification whether has appraised, taken they were appraised at the time of i. Conducted annual performance appraisal of all corrective action and the assessment. trained Extension Extension Workers against the agreed Workers performance plans and has submitted a copy to HRO during the previous FY: Score 1 else 0 Maximum score 4
8 The files for Extension officers 0 Performance a) Evidence that the District Production were not provided for verification. management: The LG Coordinator has; has appraised, taken corrective action and Taken corrective actions: Score 1 or else 0 trained Extension Workers
Maximum score 4
8 Not applicable. 0 Performance b) Evidence that: management: The LG has appraised, taken i. Training activities were conducted in corrective action and accordance to the training plans at District level: trained Extension Score 1 or else 0 Workers
Maximum score 4
8 Not applicable. 0 Performance ii Evidence that training activities were management: The LG documented in the training database: Score 1 or has appraised, taken else 0 corrective action and trained Extension Workers
Maximum score 4
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 9 Not applicable. 0 Planning, budgeting a) Evidence that the LG has appropriately and transfer of funds for allocated the micro scale irrigation grant between service delivery: The (i) capital development (micro scale irrigation Local Government has equipment); and (ii) complementary services (in budgeted, used and FY 2020/21 100% to complementary services; disseminated funds for starting from FY 2021/22 – 75% capital service delivery as per development; and 25% complementary services): guidelines. Score 2 or else 0
Maximum score 10 9 Not applicable. 0 Planning, budgeting b) Evidence that budget allocations have been and transfer of funds for made towards complementary services in line service delivery: The with the sector guidelines i.e. (i) maximum 25% Local Government has for enhancing LG capacity to support irrigated budgeted, used and agriculture (of which maximum 15% awareness disseminated funds for raising of local leaders and maximum 10% service delivery as per procurement, Monitoring and Supervision); and guidelines. (ii) minimum 75% for enhancing farmer capacity for uptake of micro scale irrigation (Awareness Maximum score 10 raising of farmers, Farm visit, Demonstrations, Farmer Field Schools): Score 2 or else score 0
9 Not applicable for this local 0 Planning, budgeting c) Evidence that the co-funding is reflected in the government. and transfer of funds for LG Budget and allocated as per guidelines: service delivery: The Score 2 or else 0 Local Government has budgeted, used and disseminated funds for service delivery as per guidelines.
Maximum score 10
9 Not applicable for this local 0 Planning, budgeting d) Evidence that the LG has used the farmer co- government. and transfer of funds for funding following the same rules applicable to service delivery: The the micro scale irrigation grant: Score 2 or else Local Government has 0 budgeted, used and disseminated funds for service delivery as per guidelines.
Maximum score 10
9 Not applicable. 0 Planning, budgeting e) Evidence that the LG has disseminated and transfer of funds for information on use of the farmer co-funding: service delivery: The Score 2 or else 0 Local Government has budgeted, used and disseminated funds for service delivery as per guidelines.
Maximum score 10 10 Not applicable. 0 Routine oversight and a) Evidence that the DPO has monitored on a monitoring: The LG monthly basis installed micro-scale irrigation monitored, provided equipment (key areas to include functionality of hands-on support and equipment, environment and social safeguards ran farmer field schools including adequacy of water source, efficiency of as per guidelines micro irrigation equipment in terms 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 Not applicable. 0 Routine oversight and b. Evidence that the LG has overseen technical monitoring: The LG training & support to the Approved Farmer to monitored, provided achieve servicing and maintenance during the hands-on support and warranty period: Score 2 or else 0 ran farmer field schools as per guidelines
Maximum score 8
10 Not applicable. 0 Routine oversight and c) Evidence that the LG has provided hands-on monitoring: The LG support to the LLG extension workers during the monitored, provided implementation of complementary services within hands-on support and the previous FY as per guidelines score 2 or else ran farmer field schools 0 as per guidelines
Maximum score 8
10 Not applicable. 0 Routine oversight and d) Evidence that the LG has established and run monitoring: The LG farmer field schools as per guidelines: Score 2 or monitored, provided else 0 hands-on support and ran farmer field schools as per guidelines
Maximum score 8 11 Not applicable. 0 Mobilization of farmers: a) Evidence that the LG has conducted activities The LG has conducted to mobilize farmers as per guidelines: Score 2 or activities to mobilize else 0 farmers to participate in irrigation and irrigated agriculture.
Maximum score 4
11 Not applicable. 0 Mobilization of farmers: b) Evidence that the District has trained staff and The LG has conducted political leaders at District and LLG levels: Score activities to mobilize 2 or else 0 farmers to participate in irrigation and irrigated agriculture.
Maximum score 4
Investment Management 12 Not applicable. 0 Planning and budgeting a) Evidence that the LG has an updated register for investments: The LG of micro-scale irrigation equipment supplied to has selected farmers farmers in the previous FY as per the format: and budgeted for micro- Score 2 or else 0 scale irrigation as per guidelines
Maximum score 8
12 Not applicable. 0 Planning and budgeting b) Evidence that the LG keeps an up-to-date for investments: The LG database of applications at the time of the has selected farmers assessment: Score 2 or else 0 and budgeted for micro- scale irrigation as per guidelines
Maximum score 8
12 Not applicable. 0 Planning and budgeting c) Evidence that the District has carried out farm for investments: The LG visits to farmers that submitted complete has selected farmers Expressions of Interest (EOI): Score 2 or else 0 and budgeted for micro- scale irrigation as per guidelines
Maximum score 8 12 Not applicable. 0 Planning and budgeting d) For DDEG financed projects: for investments: The LG has selected farmers Evidence that the LG District Agricultural and budgeted for micro- Engineer (as Secretariat) publicized the eligible scale irrigation as per farmers that they have been approved by posting guidelines on the District and LLG noticeboards: Score 2 or else 0 Maximum score 8
13 Not applicable 0 Procurement, contract a) Evidence that the micro-scale irrigation management/execution: systems were incorporated in the LG approved The LG procured and procurement plan for the current FY: Score 1 or managed micro-scale else score 0. irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract b) Evidence that the LG requested for quotation Not applicable management/execution: from irrigation equipment suppliers pre-qualified The LG procured and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry managed micro-scale and Fisheries (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 Not applicable management/execution: of the irrigation equipment supplier based on the The LG procured and set criteria: 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 Not applicable management/execution: systems was approved by the Contracts The LG procured and Committee: Score 1 or else 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 Not applicable management/execution: the lowest priced technically responsive irrigation The LG procured and equipment supplier for the farmer with a farmer managed micro-scale as a witness before commencement of irrigation contracts as installation score 2 or else 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 Not applicable. 0 Procurement, contract f)Evidence that the micro-scale irrigation management/execution: equipment installed is in line with the design The LG procured and output sheet (generated by IrriTrack App): Score managed micro-scale 2 or else 0 irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 Not applicable. 0 Procurement, contract g) Evidence that the LG have conducted regular management/execution: technical supervision of micro-scale irrigation The LG procured and projects by the relevant technical officers (District managed micro-scale Agricultural Engineer or Contracted staff): Score irrigation contracts as 2 or else 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 Not applicable. 0 Procurement, contract h) Evidence that the LG has overseen the management/execution: irrigation equipment supplier during: The LG procured and managed micro-scale i. Testing the functionality of the installed irrigation contracts as equipment: Score 1 or else 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 Not applicable. 0 Procurement, contract ii. Hand-over of the equipment to the Approved management/execution: Farmer (delivery note by the supplies and goods The LG procured and received note by the approved farmer): Score 1 managed micro-scale or 0 irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18 13 Not applicable. 0 Procurement, contract i) Evidence that the Local Government has made management/execution: payment of the supplier within specified The LG procured and timeframes subject to the presence of the managed micro-scale Approved farmer’s signed acceptance form: irrigation contracts as Score 2 or else 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract j) Evidence that the LG has a complete Not applicable management/execution: procurement file for each contract and with all The LG procured and records required by the PPDA Law: Score 2 or managed micro-scale else 0 irrigation contracts as per guidelines
Maximum score 18
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 Not Applicable 0 Grievance redress: The a) Evidence that the Local Government has LG has established a displayed details of the nature and avenues to mechanism of address grievance prominently in multiple public addressing micro-scale areas: Score 2 or else 0 irrigation grievances in line with the LG grievance redress framework
Maximum score 6
14 Not Applicable 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation grievances have been: LG has established a 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 Not applicable 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation grievances have been: LG has established a 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 Not Applicable 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation grievances have been: LG has established a 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 Not applicable 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation grievances have been: LG has established a 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 Not Applicable 0 Safeguards in the a) Evidence that LGs have disseminated Micro- delivery of investments irrigation guidelines to provide for proper siting, land access (without encumbrance), proper use Maximum score 6 of agrochemicals and safe disposal of chemical waste containers etc.
score 2 or else 0 15 0 Safeguards in the b) Evidence that Environmental, Social and Not Applicable delivery of investments Climate Change screening have been carried out and where required, ESMPs developed, prior to Maximum score 6 installation of 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 Not Applicable delivery of investments of water source (quality & quantity), efficiency of system in terms of water conservation, use of Maximum score 6 agro-chemicals & management of resultant chemical waste containers score 1 or else 0
15 0 Safeguards in the iii. E&S Certification forms are completed and Not Applicable delivery of investments signed by Environmental Officer prior to payments of contractor invoices/certificates at Maximum score 6 interim and final stages of projects score 1 or else 0
15 0 Safeguards in the iv. E&S Certification forms are completed and Not Applicable delivery of investments signed by CDO prior to payments of contractor invoices/certificates at interim and final stages of Maximum score 6 projects score 1 or else 0
539 Micro-scale irrigation minimum conditions Moyo District
No. Summary of requirements Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score Human Resource Management and Development 1 There was no evidence 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or requested for If the LG has recruited the that the district had filled secondment of staff for all critical positions in the Senior Agriculture the post of Senior District Production Office responsible for micro-scale Engineer score 70 or else Agriculture Engineer. irrigation 0.
Maximum score is 70
Environment and Social Requirements 2 Not applicable 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out Environmental, If the LG: Social and Climate Change screening have been carried out for potential investments and where a. Carried out required costed ESMPs developed. Environmental, Social and Climate Change Maximum score is 30 screening, score 15 or else 0.
2 Not applicable 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out Environmental, b. Carried out Social Social and Climate Change screening have been Impact Assessments carried out for potential investments and where (ESIAs) where required, required costed ESMPs developed. score 15 or else 0.
Maximum score is 30
539 Water & environment minimum conditions Moyo District
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 The post of Civil Engineer Water had been 15 Evidence that the LG has recruited If the LG has recruited: substantively filled by Eng Oja Albine Bay or formally requested for appointed on 18/06/2015 ( Ref DSC/ MIN a. 1 Civil Engineer secondment of staff for all critical /95/2015). positions. (Water), score 15 or else 0.
1 The post of Assistant Water Officer for 10 Evidence that the LG has recruited b. 1 Assistant Water mobilization was not in the district structure. or formally requested for Officer for mobilization, secondment of staff for all critical score 10 or else 0. positions.
1 The post for the Assistant Engineering Officer 10 Evidence that the LG has recruited c. 1 Borehole was filled by Obulejo William appointed on or formally requested for Maintenance contract ( Ref CAO letter dated 20/07/2020). secondment of staff for all critical Technician/Assistant positions. Engineering Officer, score 10 or else 0.
1 The post of the Natural Resource officer was 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited d. 1 Natural Resources still vacant as per the staff list reviewed. or formally requested for Officer , score 15 or secondment of staff for all critical else 0. positions.
1 The post of the Environment officer had been 10 Evidence that the LG has recruited e. 1 Environment filled by Luga David appointed on 31/5/2016 ( or formally requested for Officer, score 10 or else Ref DSC/MIN/5/2016). secondment of staff for all critical 0. positions.
1 There was evidence that the post of Forest 10 Evidence that the LG has recruited f. Forestry Officer, score Officer had been filled by Drama Patrick or formally requested for 10 or else 0. appointed on 27/03/2015 ( Ref secondment of staff for all critical DSC/MIN/69/2015). positions.
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried If the LG: Screening forms and a separate report (dated out Environmental. Social and 30th April 2020) were available for Congo Bore Climate Change a. Carried out Hole in Laropi Sub-county dated 9.03.2020; screening/Environment and Social Environmental, Social Monoko Bore Hole in Laropi Sub-county dated Impact Assessment (ESIAs) and Climate Change 10.3.2020; Nyainga Bore Hole Lefori Sub- (including child protection plans) screening/Environment, county dated 13.03.2020; Fodia Bore Hole in where applicable, and abstraction score 10 or else 0. Moyo Sub-county 9.03.2020. Screening. permits have been issued to However, climate change was not considered contractors by the Directorate of during screening. Water Resources Management (DWRM) prior to commencement of all civil works on all water sector projects
2 10 Evidence that the LG has carried b. Carried out Social The developments under review fall within out Environmental. Social and Impact Assessments schedule 4 of the National Environment Act of Climate Change (ESIAs) , score 10 or 2019 part 2, which requires project briefs to be screening/Environment and Social else 0. submitted to the Lead Agency. For the 4 Impact Assessment (ESIAs) boreholes, screening forms provided by the (including child protection plans) local government were used. The Law where applicable, and abstraction requires, under section 3 of utilization of water permits have been issued to resources and water supply part (a) that contractors by the Directorate of construction of community water points to be Water Resources Management considered for development of a project brief. (DWRM) prior to commencement of The project brief for the boreholes was not all civil works on all water sector developed. The magnitude of impacts coupled projects with the scale of activities at one site would require a comprehensive site specific ESMP, which was developed and costed.
Screening forms and a separate report (dated 30th April 2020) were available for Congo Bore Hole in Laropi Sub-county dated 9.03.2020; Monoko Bore Hole in Laropi Sub-county dated 10.3.2020; Nyainga Bore Hole Lefori Sub- county dated 13.03.2020; Fodia Bore Hole in Moyo Sub-county 9.03.2020. Screening. However, climate change was not considered during screening.
Each borehole screened had a costed Environment Social Management Plan .
Quarterly monitoring for water projects was captured for projects declared during the assessment. Report was for the period 18th June – 19th June 2020, dated 25th June 2020. Report indicates four boreholes of Congo, Monoko, Nyainga and Fodia were monitored and report signed by Environment Officer (EO), Community Development Officer (CDO) and District Water Officer (DWO) on the 25th June 2020. 2 10 Evidence that the LG has carried c. Ensured that A drilling permit was available for boreholes out Environmental. Social and contractors got installed in the previous FY issued by DWRM Climate Change abstraction permits to Leam International ltd on 17th June 2019. screening/Environment and Social issued by DWRM, Permit number DP1542/DW 2019. Impact Assessment (ESIAs) score 10 or else 0. (including child protection plans) where applicable, and abstraction permits have been issued to contractors by the Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM) prior to commencement of all civil works on all water sector projects
539 Health minimum conditions Moyo District
Summary of Definition of No. Compliance justification Score requirements compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 The post of DHO had been filled substantively by Dr. Idi 10 Evidence that the If the LG has Franklin Amuli, appointed on 3/05/2016 ( Ref District has substantively recruited DSC/Min/46/2016). substantively recruited or formally requested or formally requested for for secondment of: secondment of staff for all critical positions. a. District Health Officer, score 10 or else Applicable to Districts 0. only.
Maximum score is 70
1 There was evidence that the post of the Assistant District 10 Evidence that the b. Assistant District Health Officer Maternal was filled substantively by District has Health Officer Maternal, Andrawa Michael appointed on 31/03/2012 ( Ref DSC substantively recruited Child Health and /Min/13/2014). or formally requested for Nursing, score 10 or secondment of staff for else 0 all critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 The post of Assistant District Health Officer Environment 0 Evidence that the c. Assistant District health was still vacant at the time of the assessment. District has Health Officer substantively recruited Environmental Health, 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 The post of Principal Health Inspector had been filled 10 Evidence that the d. Principal Health substantively by Amoko Stephen, appointed on 9/05/2014 ( District has Inspector (Senior Ref DSC/MIN/21/2006). substantively recruited Environment Officer) , 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 The post not filled at the time of assessment and no 0 Evidence that the e. Senior Health evidence of request for secondment from the district. District has Educator, score 10 or substantively recruited else 0. or formally requested for secondment of staff for all critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 The post of Biostatistician had been filled substantively by 10 Evidence that the f. Biostatistician, score a Ogwoko Joshua appointed on 20th April 2015 ( Ref District has 10 or 0. DSC/MIN/80/2015). substantively recruited or formally requested for secondment of staff for all critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 The post of a District Cold Chain Technician had been 10 Evidence that the g. District Cold Chain filled substantively by Okute John appointed on 30th June District has Technician, score 10 or 2006 ( Ref DSC/MIN/22/2006). substantively recruited else 0. or formally requested for secondment of staff for all critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70 1 Evidence that the h. If the MC has in Municipality has in place or formally place or formally requested for requested for secondment of Medical secondment of staff for Officer of Health all critical positions. Services /Principal Medical Officer, score Applicable to MCs only. 30 or else 0. Maximum score is 70
1 Evidence that the i. If the MC has in place Municipality has in or formally requested place or formally for secondment of requested for Principal Health secondment of staff for Inspector, score 20 or all critical positions. else 0.
Applicable to MCs only.
Maximum score is 70
1 Evidence that the j. If the MC has in place Municipality has in or formally requested place or formally for secondment of requested for Health Educator, score secondment of staff for 20 or else 0. all critical positions.
Applicable to MCs only.
Maximum score is 70
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that prior to If the LG carried out: Environmental and Social Screening was undertaken for commencement of all the Out Patient Department construction at the Aya Health civil works for all Health a. Environmental, Center II (in Otce Sub-county) upgraded to Health Center sector projects, the LG Social and Climate III. A separate Screening report was provided as evidence has carried out: Change for higher level analysis, capturing aspects of failure to Environmental, Social screening/Environment, reach Health Center due to bad roads caused by difficult and Climate Change score 15 or else 0. weather dated 31st May 2020. Climate change screening screening/Environment was not explicit, even though it was implied in the Social Impact screening report. The Environment Officer indicated that Assessments (ESIAs) access to the health Facility would be hindered by bad weather making roads difficult to traverse. Maximum score is 30 Climate change screening was not considered during the screening. 2 15 Evidence that prior to b. Social Impact The constructed facility measured 40 meter x 50 meter and commencement of all Assessments (ESIAs) , was located within the boundaries of the existing civil works for all Health score 15 or else 0. compound available to the health facility. Schedule 4 part 2 sector projects, the LG of the National Environment Act 2019 section 5 (b) has carried out: Construction and expansion of public health centers III and Environmental, Social IV, private health centers and clinics or their equivalent. and Climate Change The project would have qualified for a project brief however screening/Environment the magnitude of construction and the size of structure, is Social Impact minimal. This would produce negligible impacts therefore a Assessments (ESIAs) Costed ESMP for Aya Health Center 2 upgraded to Health Center 3 (HC III) was provided. Maximum score is 30 The ESMP for Aya HCII upgraded to HCIII is available. Environment and Health Certification for Aya Form No. 005-YR 19/20 is also available.
Evidence for monitoring presented during the assessment included quarterly monitoring for the construction of Out Patient Department at Aya Health Center 2, upgraded to Health Center 3. The report is dated 27th July 2020 shared with Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), District health Officer (DHO) and Community Development Officer (CDO).
539 Education minimum conditions Moyo District
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 The district had appointed DEO Mali Michael on 30 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has 1st December 2005 ( Ref DSC/ Min/114/2005). substantively recruited or substantively recruited formally requested for or formally requested secondment of staff for all critical for secondment of: positions in the District/Municipal Education a) District Education Office namely: Officer/ Principal Education Officer, The maximum score is 70 score 30 or else 0.
1 The district had filled the two posts of Inspectors of 40 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has schools; Senior Inspector Eyia Opail Palma substantively recruited or substantively recruited appointed on 1st December 2005 ( Ref formally requested for or formally requested DSC/Min/115/2005), Inspector of schools Andrua secondment of staff for all critical for secondment of: Harriet Maiku appointed on 18/6/2015 ( positions in the DSC/Min/97/2015). District/Municipal Education b) All District/Municipal Office namely: Inspector of Schools, score 40 or else 0. The maximum score is 70
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that prior to If the LG carried out: The National Environment Act 2019 lists the commencement of all civil works development at Dufile Seed Secondary school for all Education sector projects a. Environmental, under Schedule 4 part 2 section 4 (d) as a project the LG has carried out: Social and Climate warranting project brief to be submitted to the Lead Environmental, Social and Change Agency. The project, due to its size was subjected Climate Change screening/Environment, to legal project screening that determined a project screening/Environment Social score 15 or else 0. brief needs to be developed. However, Climate Impact Assessments (ESIAs) change risk assessment was not incorporated into the project brief.
The Maximum score is 30 2 0 Evidence that prior to If the LG carried out: Environmental and Social Screening for Dufile commencement of all civil works seed secondary school undertaken by private for all Education sector projects b. Social Impact consultant. A project brief was developed, the LG has carried out: Assessments (ESIAs) , submitted to NEMA on 8. December 2016. The Environmental, Social and score 15 or else 0. EMMP contained in the Project brief was not Climate Change costed. screening/Environment Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs)
The Maximum score is 30
539 Crosscutting minimum conditions Moyo District
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 The post of the CFO was substantively filled by Drichi 3 Evidence that the LG has a. Chief Finance Henry appointed on 21st September 2009 ( Ref recruited or formally requested Officer/Principal DSC/MIN/25/2008) for secondment of staff for all Finance Officer, critical positions in the score 3 or else 0 District/Municipal Council departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 The post of the District Planner was still vacant and no 0 Evidence that the LG has b. District evidence to Central Government for secondment. recruited or formally requested Planner/Senior for secondment of staff for all Planner, score critical positions in the District/Municipal Council 3 or else 0 departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 The post of the District Engineer not filled. 0 Evidence that the LG has c. District recruited or formally requested Engineer/Principal for secondment of staff for all Engineer, critical positions in the District/Municipal Council score 3 or else 0 departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 The post of the District Natural Resource officer not 0 Evidence that the LG has d. District Natural substantively filled at the time of the assessment. recruited or formally requested Resources for secondment of staff for all Officer/Senior critical positions in the Environment District/Municipal Council Officer, departments. score 3 or else 0 Maximum score is 37. 1 The post of the District Production officer was 3 Evidence that the LG has e. District substantively filled by Dr Dratele Christopo appointed recruited or formally requested Production on 23rd December 2014 ( Ref DSC/MIN/ 44/2014). for secondment of staff for all Officer/Senior critical positions in the Veterinary Officer, District/Municipal Council departments. score 3 or else 0
Maximum score is 37.
1 The post of the DCDO was substantively filled by 3 Evidence that the LG has f. District Anyama David Table appointed on 3/04/2018 ( Ref recruited or formally requested Community DSC/MIN/06/2018). for secondment of staff for all Development critical positions in the Officer/ Principal District/Municipal Council CDO, departments. score 3 or else 0 Maximum score is 37.
1 The post of the District Commercial Officer was still 0 Evidence that the LG has g. District vacant at the time of the assessment. recruited or formally requested Commercial for secondment of staff for all Officer/Principal critical positions in the Commercial District/Municipal Council Officer, departments. score 3 or else 0 Maximum score is 37.
1 The post of the Senior Procurement officer was 2 Evidence that the LG has other critical staff substantively filled by Mundruku Christopher appointed recruited or formally requested on 4/10/2018 ( Ref DSC/MIN/87/2018). for secondment of staff for all critical positions in the h (i). A Senior District/Municipal Council Procurement departments. Officer (Municipal: Procurement Maximum score is 37. Officer)
score 2 or else 0.
1 The post of the procurement officer was still vacant at 0 Evidence that the LG has h(ii). Procurement the time of the assessment. recruited or formally requested Officer (Municipal for secondment of staff for all Assistant critical positions in the Procurement District/Municipal Council Officer), departments. score 2 or else 0 Maximum score is 37. 1 The post of the PHRO HRM Division was still vacant at 0 Evidence that the LG has i. Principal Human the time of the assessment. recruited or formally requested Resource Officer, for secondment of staff for all critical positions in the score 2 or else 0 District/Municipal Council departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 The post of the Senior Environment Officer was 2 Evidence that the LG has j. A Senior substantively filled by Alule Amudra appointed on recruited or formally requested Environment 23/12/2014 ( Ref DSC/MIN/43/2014). for secondment of staff for all Officer, critical positions in the District/Municipal Council score 2 or else 0 departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 The post of the Senior Land Management Officer was 2 Evidence that the LG has k. Senior Land substantively filled by Vita Betty appointed on recruited or formally requested Management 15/01/2018 ( Ref DSC/MIN/67/(1) 2017). for secondment of staff for all Officer, score 2 or critical positions in the else 0 District/Municipal Council departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 There evidence that the LG had filled the post of the 2 Evidence that the LG has l. A Senior Senior accountant by Vuciri Andrew appointed on recruited or formally requested Accountant, 1/12/2005 ( Ref DSC/MIN/114/2005). for secondment of staff for all critical positions in the score 2 or else 0 District/Municipal Council departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 The LG had filled the post of the Principal Internal 2 Evidence that the LG has m. Principal Auditor Amon George appointed 1/12/2005 ( Ref recruited or formally requested Internal Auditor for DSC/MIN/115/2005). for secondment of staff for all Districts and critical positions in the Senior Internal District/Municipal Council Auditor for MCs, departments. score 2 or else 0 Maximum score is 37. 1 The post of the PHRO ( DSC) had been substantively 2 Evidence that the LG has n. Principal filled by Ireku Alice appointed on 3/04/2018 ( Ref recruited or formally requested Human Resource DSC/MIN/ 31/2018). for secondment of staff for all Officer (Secretary critical positions in the DSC), score 2 or District/Municipal Council else 0 departments.
Maximum score is 37.
2 The district had filled only 2 out of the 5 Senior 0 Evidence that the LG has If LG has recruited Assistant Secretaries in the Lower Local Governments recruited or formally requested or requested for i.e. Laropi and Dufile Sub counties and there was no for secondment of staff for all secondment of: evidence that the LG had requested for secondment essential positions in every LLG from Ministry of Local Government. a. Senior Maximum score is 15 Assistant Secretaries in all LLGS,
score 5 or else 0
2 0 Evidence that the LG has If LG has recruited The district had filled 4 out of the 5 posts of the recruited or formally requested or requested for Community Development Office workers in the Lower for secondment of staff for all secondment of: Local Government. The vacant post of a CDO was in essential positions in every LLG Dufile Sub county. b. A Community Maximum score is 15 Development Officer or Senior CDO in case of Town Councils, in all LLGS
score 5 or else 0.
2 5 Evidence that the LG has If LG has recruited There was evidence that the district had filled all the recruited or formally requested or requested for posts of the Senior Accounts Assistant or an Accounts for secondment of staff for all secondment of: Assistant in the LLGs; Metu Sub county Maku Cyril essential positions in every LLG Accounts Assistant appointed on 20/11/2019 ( Ref c. A Senior DSC/MIN/267/2019), Dufile Sub county Drichi Robert Maximum score is 15 Accounts Senior Accounts Assistant appointed on 20/11/2019 ( Assistant or an Ref DSC/MIN/260/2019), Laropi S/C Chandia Comfort Accounts Senior Accounts Assistant appointed on 20/11/2019 ( Assistant in all Ref DSC/MIN/264/2019), Lefori S/C Drale Cherubin LLGS, Senior Accounts Assistant appointed on 16/05/2017 ( Ref DSC/MIN/08(1) 2017), Moyo S/C Amoko Peter score 5 or else 0. Senior Accounts Assistant appointed on 16/05/2017 ( DSC/MIN/2017).
Environment and Social Requirements 3 0 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has No allocations have been made to environment and released all funds allocated for released 100% of community based services. the implementation of funds allocated in environmental and social the previous FY A review of the approved budget work plan showed safeguards in the previous FY. to: that no allocations have been made to the two departments. Maximum score is 4 a. Natural Resources department,
score 2 or else 0
3 The budget does not indicate allocations to the 0 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has departments although,a review of payment Voucher No released all funds allocated for released 100% of 30509809 dated showed that a request of 1,000,000 the implementation of funds allocated in was made by the Environment Officer for conducting environmental and social the previous FY environmental and social screening and monitoring of safeguards in the previous FY. to: Moyo DLG projects under health. Maximum score is 4 b. Community Based Services department.
score 2 or else 0.
4 0 Evidence that the LG has carried a. If the LG has Environmental and Social Screening was undertaken out Environmental, Social and carried out for the Out Patient Department construction at the Aya Climate Change Environmental, Health Center II (in Aya village, Otce Sub-county) screening/Environment and Social and upgraded to Health Center 3 (HC III). A separate Social Impact Assessments Climate Change Screening report was provided as evidence for higher (ESIAs) and developed costed screening, level analysis, capturing aspects of failure to reach Environment and Social Health Center due to bad roads caused by difficult Management Plans (ESMPs) score 4 or else 0 weather dated 31st May 2020. (including child protection plans) where applicable, prior to Environmental and Social Screening for Dufile seed commencement of all civil works. secondary school undertaken by private consultant. A project brief was developed, submitted to NEMA on 8. Maximum score is 12 December 2016
Screening for Fodia Borehole was done on 9.03.2020
Monoko Borehole on 10.3.2020
Pakoma West Borehole on 12.03.2020
Nyainga Borehole on 13.03,2020
A compiled screening report for water projects after filling out the forms was developed for the projects in period 9.3.2020 – 13.03.2020. Report dated 30th April 2020
Stakeholder engagements are conducted during the day of screening. Evidence is pictures provided. Stakeholder engagement lists should be generated and community concern captured via meeting minutes.
Climate change screening was lacking for all projects reviewed during assessment. 4 0 Evidence that the LG has carried b. If the LG has Of the projects presented under DDEG, Environmental out Environmental, Social and carried out and Social Impact assessment for Dufile seed Climate Change Environment and secondary school was undertaken by a private screening/Environment and Social Impact consultant. A project brief was developed, submitted to Social Impact Assessments Assessments NEMA on 8. December 2016. With that, stakeholder (ESIAs) and developed costed (ESIAs) prior to engagements are undertaken. The Dufile EMMP was Environment and Social commencement of not costed. Management Plans (ESMPs) all civil works for (including child protection plans) all projects The ESMP for Aya Health Center 2 (HC II) upgraded to where applicable, prior to implemented Health Center 2 (HC II) is available. Environment and commencement of all civil works. using the Health Certification for Aya Form No. 005-YR 19/20 Discretionary was also available. Maximum score is 12 Development Equalization Grant (DDEG),
score 4 or 0
4 0 Evidence that the LG has carried c. If the LG has a While all other projects undertaken under DDEG had out Environmental, Social and Costed ESMPs for costed ESMPs, that implemented under education Climate Change all projects didnot have. screening/Environment and implemented Social Impact Assessments using the (ESIAs) and developed costed Discretionary Environment and Social Development Management Plans (ESMPs) Equalization Grant (including child protection plans) (DDEG);; where applicable, prior to commencement of all civil works. score 4 or 0
Maximum score is 12
Financial management and reporting 5 The audit has not yet been carried out and the auditors 0 Evidence that the LG does not If a LG has a clean were expected at the district on 5/11/2020 as per have an adverse or disclaimer audit opinion, transmission email to audit opinion for the previous FY. score 10; [email protected]/11/2020 at 1:23 pm from [email protected] Maximum score is 10 If a LG has a qualified audit opinion, score 5
If a LG has an adverse or disclaimer audit opinion for the previous FY, score 0 6 10 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has The district submitted the response on 26/2/2020 as provided information to the provided per the inventory of submission of reports from the PS/ST on the status of information to the MoFPED. implementation of Internal PS/ST on the Auditor General and Auditor status of General findings for the previous implementation of financial year by end of February Internal Auditor (PFMA s. 11 2g). This statement General and includes issues, Auditor General recommendations, and actions findings for the against all findings where the previous financial Internal Auditor and Auditor year by end of General recommended the February (PFMA Accounting Officer to act (PFM s. 11 2g), Act 2015). score 10 or else 0. maximum score is 10
7 4 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has The Annual Performance contract was submitted in submitted an annual submitted an time against the set date of 31/8/2020. A review of the performance contract by August annual schedule of submission of reports provided by the 31st of the current FY performance MoFPED showed that the report was submitted on the contract by August 11/6/2020. Maximum Score 4 31st of the current FY,
score 4 or else 0.
8 The annual performance report was submitted beyond 0 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has the set date of 31/8/2020 as review of the schedule of submitted the Annual submitted the submission of reports showed that the report was Performance Report for the Annual submitted on 17/9/2020 previous FY on or before August Performance 31, of the current Financial Year Report for the previous FY on or maximum score 4 or else 0 before August 31, of the current Financial Year,
score 4 or else 0.
9 0 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has Although all the 4 quarterly performance reports were submitted Quarterly Budget submitted submitted, the annual performance report was Performance Reports (QBPRs) Quarterly Budget submitted beyond the set date of 31/8/2020 as review for all the four quarters of the Performance of the schedule of submission of reports showed that previous FY by August 31, of the Reports (QBPRs) the report was submitted on 17/9/2020 current Financial Year for all the four quarters of the Maximum score is 4 previous FY by August 31, of the current Financial Year,
score 4 or else 0.