Local Government Performance Assessment
Nakaseke District
(Vote Code: 569)
Assessment Scores
Crosscutting Minimum Conditions 59%
Education Minimum Conditions 40%
Health Minimum Conditions 50%
Water & Environment Minimum Conditions 20%
Micro-scale Irrigation Minimum Conditions 0%
Crosscutting Performance Measures 35%
Educational Performance Measures 28%
Health Performance Measures 28%
Water & Environment Performance Measures 41%
Micro-scale Irrigation Performance Measures 27% 569 Crosscutting Performance Nakaseke Measures 2020 District
Summary of Definition of No. Compliance justification Score requirements compliance Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 0 Service Delivery • Evidence that There was no complete evidence that Nakaseke District Outcomes of DDEG infrastructure projects Local Government infrastructure projects were investments implemented using implemented using DDEG funding are functional and DDEG funding are utilized as per the purpose of the project(s) as per Maximum 4 points on functional and utilized as design/profile. this performance per the purpose of the measure project(s): The district planner retired and the acting Planner was sick. The commercial officer who took care of the • If so: Score 4 or else 0 assessment could not provide full details.
2 0 Service Delivery a. If the average score in Not applicable. Performance the overall LLG performance assessment Maximum 6 points on increased from previous this performance assessment : 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 Procurement and installation of wireless Internet UGX Performance DDEG funded investment 10,000,000 100% complete projects implemented in Maximum 6 points on the previous FY were Retooling of District council hall UGX 9,200,000 this performance completed as per Completion of Kinyogonga Cattle loading site UGX measure performance contract 11,500,000 (with AWP) by end of the FY. Fencing of Kapeka Health Center III UGX 30,000,000 100% completion • If 100% the projects were completed : Score 3 Construction of 2 lined pit latrines UGX 30,000,000 100% completion • If 80-99%: Score 2 Supply of 3 laptops and one external disk UGX • If below 80%: 0 7,526,949 Completed
The project completion was 100% 3 0 Investment a. If the LG budgeted and There was no complete evidence that Nakaseke District Performance spent all the DDEG for Local Government budgeted and spent all the DDEG for the previous FY on the FY 2019/2020 within the eligible expenditures as Maximum 4 points on eligible projects/activities defined in the DDEG guidelines. this performance as per the DDEG grant, measure budget, and The district planner retired and the acting Planner was implementation sick. The commercial officer who took care of the guidelines: assessment could not provide full details.
Score 2 or else score 0. 3 2 Investment b. If the variations in the The variations in the contract price to for all the DDEG Performance contract price for sample projects reviewed was within +/-20% of the LG of DDEG funded Engineers estimates Maximum 4 points on infrastructure investments this performance for the previous FY are 3 DDEG projects sampled measure within +/-20% of the LG These are the details of the projects reviewed. Engineers estimates, 1. Construction of 2 5-Stance Latrines at Mpuge and score 2 or else score 0 Nvunanwa P/S in Semuto Sub-County
Contract No: NAKA569/Wrks/19-20/0006
Approved under: Min 23/Naka/DCC/March/19-20
Contract Price: 34,548,332
Engineer’s Estimate:30,000,000
Price Variation: 4,548,332
Percent Variation: 15.16%
Comment: Variation below 20%
2. 4 Unit Staff House and a 4-Stance Lined VIP latrine with bath shelters at Butalangu HC III
Contract No: NAKA569/Wrks/19-20/00012
Approved under: Min 17/Naka/DCC/Oct/19-20
Contract Price: 121,176,926
Engineer’s Estimate: Not seen
Payments so far: 60,344,846
Price Variation: Not quantifiable. Project still ongoing
3. 2 Classroom Block at Kivumu Primary School in Kito Sub-county
Contract No: NAKA569/Wrks/19-20/00002
Approved under: Min 17/Naka/DCC/Sept/19-20
Contract Price: 61,736,904
Engineer’s Estimate:60,800,000
Price Variation: 936,904
Percent Variation: 1.54%
Comment: Variation below 20%
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 4 2 Accuracy of reported a. Evidence that There was evidence that information on the positions information information on the filled in LLGs as per minimum staffing standards is positions filled in LLGs accurate. Information was got by comparing the staff Maximum 4 points on as per minimum staffing lists of the 3 LLGs sampled namely Nakaseke Sub this Performance standards is accurate, county, Nakaseke Town Council and Kito Sub county Measure with the Staff structure at the District. score 2 or else score 0
4 0 Accuracy of reported b. Evidence that There was no evidence of any report for the information infrastructure constructed infrastructure constructed using the DDEG was using the DDEG is in produced by the LG: Maximum 4 points on place as per reports this Performance produced by the LG: Measure • If 100 % in place: Score 2, else score 0.
Note: if there are no reports produced to review: Score 0
5 0 Reporting and a. Evidence that the LG Not applicable. Performance conducted a credible Improvement assessment of LLGs as verified during the Maximum 8 points on National Local this Performance Government Measure Performance Assessment Exercise;
If there is no difference in the assessment results of the LG and national assessment in all LLGs
score 4 or else 0
5 0 Reporting and b. The District/ There was no evidence that the District has developed Performance Municipality has performance improvement plans for at least 30% of the Improvement developed performance lowest performing LLGs for the current FY, based on the improvement plans for at previous assessment results. Maximum 8 points on least 30% of the lowest this Performance performing LLGs for the Measure current FY, based on the previous assessment results.
Score: 2 or else score 0 5 0 Reporting and c. The District/ No implementation of the PIP for the 30 % lowest Performance Municipality has performing LLGs in the previous FY was done. Improvement implemented the PIP for the 30 % lowest Maximum 8 points on performing LLGs in the this Performance previous FY: Measure Score 2 or else score 0
Human Resource Management and Development
6 0 Budgeting for and a. Evidence that the LG There was no evidence that LG consolidated and actual recruitment and has consolidated and submitted the staffing requirements for the coming FY to deployment of staff submitted the staffing the MOPS by September 30th. requirements for the Maximum 2 points on coming FY to the MoPS The explanation was that they fell short of the wage bill this Performance by September 30th, with and without wage no recruitment can be made. Measure copy to the respective MDAs and MoFPED.
Score 2 or else score 0
7 2 Performance a. Evidence that the The District conducted a tracking and analysis of staff management District/Municipality has attendance (as guided by Ministry of Public Service conducted a tracking and CSI): Maximum 5 points on analysis of staff this Performance attendance (as guided by There were monthly attendance records for staff. For Measure Ministry of Public Service example; CSI): Monthly attendance records for staff at the District Head Score 2 or else score 0 quarters for the months of; July 2019,
August 2019,
September 2019,
November 2019,
December 2019,
January 2020,
March 2020,
April 2020,
May 2020 and
June 2020 among others. 7 0 Performance i. Evidence that the LG Only 3 HoDs were appraised as per guidelines issued management has conducted an by MoPS during the previous FY. appraisal with the Maximum 5 points on following features: These include; this Performance Measure HODs have been District production officer Kikonyogo Francis was appraised as per appraised on 8/8/2020, guidelines issued by District Community Development Officer Batalingaya MoPS during the Denis was appraised on 17/6/2020 and previous DEO Batanudde Stephen was appraised on 6/8/2020. FY: Score 1 or else 0 The rest lacked appraisal reports in their appraisal files.
These included;
Ag CFO, Ag District Planner, Ag District Engineer, DNRO, District Commercial Officer and Ag DHO.
7 1 Performance ii. (in addition to “a” The administrative rewards and sanctions were management above) has also implemented on time as provided for in the guidelines. implemented For example there was a report on rewards and Maximum 5 points on administrative rewards sanctions dated 17th/10/2019, where one Isogoli this Performance and sanctions on time as Emmanuel absconded duty and was told to write a Measure provided for in the commitment letter to that note. The report indicates that guidelines: he wrote the letter and the case was dropped.
Score 1 or else 0
7 0 Performance iii. Has established a There was no evidence that the LG established a management Consultative Committee functional Consultative Committee (CC) for staff (CC) for staff grievance grievance redress. Maximum 5 points on redress which is this Performance functional. Measure Score 1 or else 0
8 1 Payroll management a. Evidence that 100% of From the documents provided, 100% of the staff the staff recruited during recruited during the previous FY accessed the salary Maximum 1 point on the previous FY have payroll not later than two months after appointment. this Performance accessed the salary Measure or else score payroll not later than two All the Education Assistants (Nalukwago Milka, 0 months after Nabweggamu Aminah, Senono John, Mukiibi Benedict, appointment: Nabukenya Barbra, Kyazike Juliet, Nakijoba Harriet, Sserwadda Henry, Lubanga Robert, Nanyonjo Barbra, Score 1. Nantongo Rahmah, Mulunda Sarah, Kayizzi William, Siboti Fred, Nanjovu Gloria, Nabbanja Prisca, Nalwanga Josephine and Namulema Medius) were appointed on 1st/may 2020 and accessed payroll on 30th May 2020.
Also Kiyemba Mustafa (Senior Finance Officer), Kalanzi Stephen ( Senior Veterinary Officer) and Ssemanda Derrick (Clinical Officer) were recruited on 1st/may/2020 and accessed payroll on 30th/June 2020 among others. 9 0 Pension Payroll a. Evidence that 100% of The information on the list of Nakaseke District management staff that retired during pensioners that retired in FY 2019/2020 shows that not the previous FY have all pensioners accessed payroll within two months after Maximum 1 point on accessed the pension retirement. this Performance payroll not later than two Measure or else score months after retirement: Daka Grace Rene Enrolled nurse retired on 28/3/2020 0 and accessed pension payroll on 30th /7/2020, Score 1. Kayongo Marjorie Senior Nursing Officer retired on 28/7/2019 and accessed pension payroll on 30/7/2020 , Nangendo Eriva Education Assistant retired on 2/12/2019 and accessed pension payroll on 30/7/2020 , Ssemambo Simon Head teacher retired on 20/5/2020 and accessed pension payroll on 30/8/2020, Sewamala Mpiima Parish chief retired on 3/1/2020 and accessed pension payroll on 27/8/2020 ,Mukasa Jacob Clinical Officer retired on 2/2/2019 and accessed pension payroll on 30/1/2020, Mayengo Paul Head teacher retired on 7/6/2020 and accessed pension payroll on 30/9/2020 and Nakayita Milly Nursing Officer retired on 1/7/2020 and accessed pension payroll on 30/1/2020.
Those who accessed payroll within two months include;
Ssebale Edrisa retired on 26/11/2019 and accessed pension payroll on 30/1/2020 and Masawi Winfred retired on 27/6/2020 and accessed pension payroll on 30/7/2020.
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 10 2 Effective Planning, a. If direct transfers The Approved warrant reports submitted to MoFPED for Budgeting and (DDEG) to LLGs were the FY 2019/20 indicated that all DDEG funds were Transfer of Funds for executed in accordance transferred in full to LLGs. UGX 121,962,772 was Service Delivery with the requirements of transferred per quarter as budgeted in the 2019/20 the budget in previous AWP. Quarter 1 warrant was on 2/9/2019; Quarter 2 Maximum 6 points on FY: warrant was on 6/11/2019; and Quarter 3 warrant was this Performance on 5/2/2020. Measure Score 2 or else score 0
10 0 Effective Planning, b. If the LG did timely The Approved warrant reports submitted to MoFPED for Budgeting and warranting/ verification of the FY 2019/20 indicated that all DDEG funds were Transfer of Funds for direct DDEG transfers to transferred late that is after 5 working days: Service Delivery LLGs for the last FY, in accordance to the Quarter 1 warrant was on 12/8/2019 and Transfer was Maximum 6 points on requirements of the on 12/9/2019 this Performance budget: Measure Quarter 2 warrant was on 14/11/2019 and Transfer was Score: 2 or else score 0 on 2/12/2019 Quarter 3 warrant was on 23/1/2020 and Transfer was on 6/2/2020 10 Nakaseke uses one voucher to make releases to LLGs 0 Effective Planning, c. If the LG invoiced and and LLGs do not make requisitions. Budgeting and communicated all DDEG Transfer of Funds for transfers for the previous Service Delivery FY to LLGs within 5 working days from the Maximum 6 points on date of funds release in this Performance each quarter: Measure Score 2 or else score 0
11 0 Routine oversight and a. Evidence that the There were no monitoring reports for review. monitoring District/Municipality has supervised or mentored Maximum 4 points on all LLGs in the District this Performance /Municipality at least Measure once per quarter consistent with guidelines:
Score 2 or else score 0
11 2 Routine oversight and b. Evidence that the There was evidence of quarterly meetings held to monitoring results/reports of support discuss and take corrective actions by TPC as supervision and evidenced by minutes for the meetings held on Maximum 4 points on monitoring visits were 23/10/2019 discussing Q1, 6/2/2020 discussing project this Performance discussed in the TPC, implementation, 18/3/2020 discussed departmental Measure used by the District/ budgets and 8/10/2020 Discussing management letter Municipality to make and other matters. recommendations for corrective actions and followed-up:
Score 2 or else score 0
Investment Management 12 2 Planning and a. Evidence that the Nakaseke DLG has an IFMS maintained and up-dated budgeting for District/Municipality asset register covering details on buildings, vehicle, investments is maintains an up-dated Land etc. as per format in the accounting manual. The conducted effectively assets register covering assets details of location, engraving, date of purchase, details on buildings, Cost values are all recorded in the assets register. Maximum 12 points on vehicle, etc. as per format this Performance in the accounting Measure manual:
Score 2 or else score 0
Note: the assets covered must include, but not limited to: land, buildings, vehicles and infrastructure. If those core assets are missing score 0 12 1 Planning and b. Evidence that the Nakaseke DLG used the Board of Survey report in budgeting for District/Municipality has making Assets Management decisions including investments is used the Board of Survey procurement of new assets, maintenance of existing conducted effectively Report of the previous FY assets and disposal of assets. to make Assets Maximum 12 points on Management decisions this Performance including procurement of Measure new assets, maintenance of existing assets and disposal of assets:
Score 1 or else 0
12 0 Planning and c. Evidence that Nakaseke District Local Government had a functional budgeting for District/Municipality has a physical planning committee in place which has 3 sets investments is functional physical of minutes but was not submitted to the MoLHUD during conducted effectively planning committee in the FY 2019/2020. place which has Maximum 12 points on submitted at least 4 sets this Performance of minutes of Physical Measure Planning Committee to the MoLHUD. If so Score 2. Otherwise Score 0.
12 0 Planning and d.For DDEG financed There was no desk appraisal report. budgeting for projects; investments is conducted effectively Evidence that the District/Municipality has Maximum 12 points on conducted a desk this Performance appraisal for all projects Measure in the budget - to establish whether the prioritized investments are: (i) derived from the LG Development Plan; (ii) eligible for expenditure as per sector guidelines and funding source (e.g. DDEG). If desk appraisal is conducted and if all projects are derived from the LGDP:
Score 2 or else score 0 12 0 Planning and For DDEG financed There was no field appraisal report. budgeting for projects: investments is conducted effectively e. Evidence that LG conducted field appraisal Maximum 12 points on to check for (i) technical this Performance feasibility, (ii) Measure Environmental and social acceptability and (iii) customized design for investment projects of the previous FY:
Score 2 or else score 0
12 0 Planning and f. Evidence that project Nakaseke District Local Government had no specific budgeting for profiles with costing have project profiles with costing developed for the FY investments is been developed and 2020/2021, as per LG Planning guideline and DDEG conducted effectively discussed by TPC for all guidelines. investments in the AWP Maximum 12 points on for the current FY, as per this Performance LG Planning guideline Measure and DDEG guidelines:
Score 1 or else score 0.
12 0 Planning and g. Evidence that the LG 12 (g) There was NO Evidence that LG had screened budgeting for has screened for projects for current FY (2020/2021 FY) for investments is environmental and social environmental and social impacts and mitigation conducted effectively risks/impact and put measures put in place where required as completed mitigation measures Environmental and Social Screening Forms (ESSFs), Maximum 12 points on where required before Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) this Performance being approved for Reports, and Costed Environmental and Social Measure construction using Management Plans (ESMPs) were NOT available. checklists:
Score 2 or else score 0 13 1 Procurement, contract a. Evidence that all All infrastructure projects for the current FY that are to management/execution infrastructure projects for be implemented using the DDEG were incorporated in the current FY to be the LG approved procurement plan. Maximum 8 points on implemented using the this Performance DDEG were incorporated Sampled projects under DDEG in the approved Measure in the LG approved Procurement Plan; procurement plan 1. Construction of a 2 Classroom block at Katale P/S in Score 1 or else score 0 Kito Sub-County
Page 1 of 6 of Procurement Plan
2. Construction of 2 Classroom block at Katooke UMEA P/S in Wakyato S/C
Page 1 of 6 of Procurement Plan
3. Constuction of 2 Classroom block at Kalagala P/S in Nakaseke S/C
Page 1 of 6 of Procurement Plan
4. Renovation of Theatre at Semuto H/C IV
Page 3 of 6 of Procurement Plan
5. Construction of a 4 Stance Lined VIP latrine with 2 No. Bathrooms at Butalangu HC III
Page 3 of 6 of Procurement Plan
6. Fencing of Kapeeka H/C III Phase II
Page 3 of 6 of Procurement Plan
13 1 Procurement, contract b. Evidence that all All infrastructure projects to be implemented in the management/execution infrastructure projects to current FY using DDEG were approved by the be implemented in the Contracts Committee before commencement of Maximum 8 points on current FY using DDEG construction this Performance were approved by the Measure Contracts Committee The following project on the Procurement Plan before commencement of appeared in the Contracts Committee Minutes. construction: Score 1 or 1. Drilling of seven deep boreholes under Min else score 0 14/Naka/DCC/May/19-20
13 1 Procurement, contract c. Evidence that the LG The LG has established the Project Implementation management/execution has properly established team as specified in the sector guidelines. the Project Maximum 8 points on Implementation team as There was evidence of the PIT members for the projects this Performance specified in the sector sampled to be carried out in the new FY. Measure guidelines: 1. Mr. Kiridde Charles was appointed as PM on the Score 1 or else 0 Seed School on 14-Feb-2019 by the CAO
2. Mr. Kayongo Paul was appointed on Seed School Project No.Naka569/Wrks/19-20/00002 by the CAO 13 1 Procurement, contract d. Evidence that all All infrastructure projects implemented using DDEG management/execution infrastructure projects followed the standard technical designs provided by the implemented using LG Engineer within tolerances. Maximum 8 points on DDEG followed the this Performance standard technical Sampled project: Measure designs provided by the 1. Two Classroom block at Kivumu Primary School in LG Engineer: Kito Sub County was inspected and some Score 1 or else score 0 measurements taken and validated using the standard technical designs.
Splash apron had varying widths 1.02m, 95 cm, 1.03m
Windows: Width – 1.17m, 1.15m, 1.18m. Height; 1.45m, 1.45m, 1.48m
13 2 Procurement, contract e. Evidence that the LG The LG provided supervision by the relevant technical management/execution has provided supervision officers of each infrastructure project prior to verification by the relevant technical and certification of works in previous FY, Maximum 8 points on officers of each this Performance infrastructure project prior From the supervision reports reviewed, the Senior Measure to verification and District Engineer and Supervisor of Works, DEO, MoES certification of works in and AEO attended the site monitoring visits. previous FY. Score 2 or The project below was reviewed: else score 0 1. Construction of Seed Secondary School in Nakaseke Sub-County
07-Aug-2020
12-Dec-2019
13 0 Procurement, contract f. The LG has verified There was no evidence that the LG has verified works management/execution works (certified) and (certified) and initiated payments of contractors within initiated payments of specified timeframes as per contract Maximum 8 points on contractors within this Performance specified timeframes as Measure per contract (within 2 months if no agreement):
Score 1 or else score 0 13 1 Procurement, contract g. The LG has a The LG has a complete procurement file in place for management/execution complete procurement each contract with all records as required by the PPDA file in place for each Law Maximum 8 points on contract with all records this Performance as required by the PPDA Sampled procurement files include: Measure Law: 1. Construction of 2 5-Stance latrines at Mpunge Score 1 or else 0 Primary Schools in Semuto Sub-county. Evaluation report and works contract was availed on file
Proc File: NAKA569/Wrks/19-20/00006;
2. Construction of a 4 Unit Staff House and a 4-Stance Lined VIP Latrine with bath shelters at Butalangu HC III. Evaluation Report and works contract was availed on file
Proc File: NAKA569/Wrks/19-20/00012.
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 0 Grievance redress a. Evidence that the There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had mechanism District/Municipality has i) designated a person to coordinate response to operational. designated a person to feedback on grievance/complaints. There was NO coordinate response to Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had established a Maximum 5 points on feed-back (grievance centralized Grievance Redress Committee (GRC). this performance /complaints) and ii) measure established a 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 There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had mechanism system for recording, specified a system for recording, investigating and operational. investigating and responding to grievances. There was NO Evidence that responding to Nakaseke DLG had a defined complaints referral path Maximum 5 points on grievances, which and public display of information at LG offices. this performance includes a centralized measure complaints log with clear information and reference for onward action (a defined complaints referral path), and public display of information at district/municipal offices.
If so: Score 2 or else 0 14 0 Grievance redress c. District/Municipality There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had mechanism has publicized the publicized the grievance redress mechanisms so that operational. grievance redress aggrieved parties would know where to report and get mechanisms so that redress. Maximum 5 points on aggrieved parties know this performance where to report and get measure redress.
If so: Score 1 or else 0
15 1 Safeguards for service a. Evidence that There was evidence that Environment, Social and delivery of investments Environment, Social and Climate change interventions were integrated into LG effectively handled. Climate change Development Plans, annual work plans and budget. interventions have been Maximum 11 points on integrated into LG Education: this performance Development Plans, Construction of 2 lined pit latrine In Lupwewe Primary measure annual work plans and School Kikamulo AWP 421 budgets complied with: Score 1 or else score 0 Health:
Construction of OPD Butalongu Health Center II page 421 LGDP
Water:
Procurement of borehole pipes AWP 421
There was evidence of provision of 4,000,000 on page 421 for all environmental social and climate change
15 0 Safeguards for service b. Evidence that LGs There was NO evidence that LGs disseminated to delivery of investments have disseminated to LLGs the enhanced DDEG guidelines (strengthened to effectively handled. LLGs the enhanced include environment, climate change mitigation green DDEG guidelines infrastructures, waste management equipment and Maximum 11 points on (strengthened to include infrastructures and adaptation and social risk this performance environment, climate management. measure change mitigation (green infrastructures, waste management equipment and infrastructures) and adaptation and social risk management
score 1 or else 0 15 0 Safeguards for service (For investments There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG delivery of investments financed from the DDEG incorporated Costed Environmental and Social effectively handled. other than health, Management Plans (ESMPs) into designs, BoQs, education, water, and bidding and contractual documents for Discretionary Maximum 11 points on irrigation): Development Equalization Grant (DDEG) infrastructure this performance projects of the previous FY (2019/2020 FY) as Costed measure c. Evidence that the LG ESMPs for all infrastructure projects that were incorporated costed implemented in 2019/2020 FY under DDEG Funding Environment and Social were NOT incorporated into designs, BoQs, bidding and Management Plans contractual documents, and were additionally NOT (ESMPs) into designs, available. 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 There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had delivery of investments with costing of the projects with costing of the additional impact from effectively handled. additional impact from climate change and costing of additional costs of climate change. addressing climate change adaptation. Maximum 11 points on this performance Score 3 or else score 0 measure
15 1 Safeguards for service e. Evidence that all There WAS Evidence that all projects were delivery of investments projects are implemented implemented on land where the LG had proof of effectively handled. on land where the LG ownership, access and availability, without any has proof of ownership, encumbrances as exemplified by the following: Maximum 11 points on access, and availability this performance (e.g. a land title, - Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources measure agreement; Formal presented a Land Title Dated 28/06/2016 with the Consent, MoUs, etc.), following details: Registration of Titles Act; Certificate of without any Title; District: East Buganda; County: Bulemezi; Block encumbrances: 794; Plots 49 and 75; Area: 59.889 Ha; Land at Butangu, Kaseka and Wamanyonyi; Private Mailo; Score 1 or else score 0 Instrument No. UK 60529; Proprietors Name and Address: Nakaseke District Local Government, P. O. Box 1045 Nakaseke; Signed: Serwambala Ivan for Commissioner of Surveys and Mapping, Office of Titles Bukalasa on 28/06/2016.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 19/04/2018 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Kakinzi Village, Wakayamba Parish, Kikamulo Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Kakinzi LC I Chairperson on 01/01/2020.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 10/11/2019 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Kidduku Village, Kasiiso Parish, Kito Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Kidduku LC I Chairperson on 11/11/2019.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 14/12/2019 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Nakaseeta Village, Nakaseeta Parish, Kasangombe Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Nakaseeta LC I Chairperson on 14/12/2019.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 07/09/2019 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Sebuguzi Village, Kisimula Parish, Kapeeka Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Sebuguzi LC I Chairperson on 07/09/2019.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 14/11/2019 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Kikuubo Village, Miginje Parish, Semuto Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Kikuubo LC I Chairperson on 14/11/2019.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 05/10/2020 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Lwanda Village, Kisimula Parish, Kapeeka Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Lwanda LC I Chairperson on 05/10/2020.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 06/10/2020 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Bulema Village, Bulema Parish, Semuto Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Bulema LC I Chairperson on 06/10/2020.
15 0 Safeguards for service f. Evidence that There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG delivery of investments environmental officer and Environmental Officer and CDO conducted support effectively handled. CDO conducts support supervision and monitoring to ascertain compliance supervision and with ESMPs; and provided monthly reports. Maximum 11 points on monitoring to ascertain this performance compliance with ESMPs; measure and provide monthly reports:
Score 1 or else score 0 15 0 Safeguards for service g. Evidence that E&S There was NO Evidence that Environmental and Social delivery of investments compliance Certification Compliance Certification Forms (ESCCFs) were effectively handled. forms are completed and completed and signed by Environmental Officer and signed by Environmental Community Development Officer (CDO) prior to Maximum 11 points on Officer and CDO prior to payments of contractors invoices at interim and final this performance payments of contractors’ stages of projects as ESCCFs that were completed and measure invoices/certificates at endorsed by the Environmental Officer and CDO were interim and final stages of NOT available. Additionally, Contractor Payment projects: Certificates that were signed by the Environmental Officer and CDO were also NOT available. Score 1 or else score 0
Financial management 16 2 LG makes monthly a. Evidence that the LG Nakaseke DLG made monthly bank reconciliations and Bank reconciliations makes monthly bank were up to-date at the point of time of the assessment reconciliations and are on 2/11/2020 and also for the sample of the following 3 Maximum 2 points on up to-date at the point of bank accounts: TSA A/C No 005690528000000 at Bank this Performance time of the assessment: of Uganda; YLP Project A/C No 9030011644979 at Measure Stanbic Bank; and NDL General fund A/C No Score 2 or else score 0 9030005823276 at Stanbic Bank.
17 2 LG executes the a. Evidence that LG has Nakaseke District Local Government produced Internal Audit function produced all quarterly quarterly internal audit reports for FY 2019/2020 and in accordance with the internal audit (IA) reports submitted them as follows: LGA Section 90 for the previous FY. Quarter 1 on 19/11/2019; Maximum 4 points on Score 2 or else score 0 this performance Quarter 2 on 21/3/2020; measure Quarter 3 on 21/7/2020; and
Quarter 4 on 15/9/2020.
17 1 LG executes the b. Evidence that the LG There was evidence that Nakaseke District Local Internal Audit function has provided information Government provided information to the Council and the in accordance with the to the Council/ LG PAC on the status of implementation of internal audit LGA Section 90 chairperson and the LG findings for the FY 2019/2020. The information was PAC on the status of provided to LGPAC for Q1 on 18/11/2019, Q2 on Maximum 4 points on implementation of 2/3/2020, Q3 on 22/7/2020, and Q4 on 17/9/2020. this performance internal audit findings for measure the previous FY i.e. information on follow up on audit queries from all quarterly audit reports.
Score 1 or else score 0 17 1 LG executes the c. Evidence that internal The quarterly internal audit reports for FY 2019/2020 Internal Audit function audit reports for the were submitted to the CAO on: Quarter 1 on 19/11/2019, in accordance with the previous FY were Quarter 2 on 21/3/2020, Quarter 3 on 21/7/2020 and LGA Section 90 submitted to LG Quarter 4 on 15/9/2020. Accounting Officer, LG Maximum 4 points on PAC and that LG PAC The IA Reports were discussed in meetings held on 24 this performance has reviewed them and & 25/9/2019, 10&12/12/2019, 17&18/3/2020 and measure followed-up: 7/7/2020.
Score 1 or else score 0
Local Revenues 18 0 LG has collected local a. If revenue collection Nakaseke District Local Government collected Local revenues as per ratio (the percentage of Revenue (OSR) for FY 2019/2020 amounting to UGX budget (collection ratio) local revenue collected 582,183,491. The budgeted Local Revenue (OSR) for against planned for the FY 2019/2020 was UGX 1,920,021,199. There was Maximum 2 points on previous FY (budget therefore 30.8% budget realisation as seen on vote 544 this performance realization) is within +/- measure 10 %: then score 2 or else score 0.
19 0 The LG has increased a. If increase in OSR Nakaseke District Local Government had OSR for FY LG own source (excluding one/off, e.g. FY 2019/2020 amounting to UGX 582,183,491 and revenues in the last sale of assets, but OSR for FY 2018/2019 amounting to UGX 570,692,289. financial year including arrears This shows an increase of UGX 11,491,202 which gives compared to the one collected in the year) an increase of 2% in OSR as per Draft Final Accounts before the previous from previous FY but one for FY 2018/19 and FY 2018/2019 for vote 569. financial year (last FY to previous FY year but one) • If more than 10 %: score Maximum 2 points on 2. this Performance Measure. • If the increase is from 5% -10 %: score 1.
• If the increase is less than 5 %: score 0.
20 There was no evidence of revenue sharing with the 0 Local revenue a. If the LG remitted the LLG. administration, mandatory LLG share of allocation, and local revenues during the transparency previous FY: score 2 or else score 0 Maximum 2 points on this performance measure.
Transparency and Accountability 21 2 LG shares information a. Evidence that the There was evidence that the procurement plan and with citizens procurement plan and awarded contracts and all amounts are published. awarded contracts and Maximum 6 points on all amounts are Visited the Notice Board and the sampled projects had this Performance published: Score 2 or a display date, a procurement registration number, date Measure else score 0 of bid, Amount of contract and the best evaluated bidder.
For example the bidder notice of 2 5-Stance Latrines at Mpunge P/S was displayed on 10-Oct-2019 and Removed on 16-Oct-2020.
21 0 LG shares information b. Evidence that the LG There was no evidence that the LG Publicised with citizens performance assessment information to citizens on LG performance assessment results and implications results and implications reports. Maximum 6 points on are published e.g. on the this Performance budget website for the Measure previous year: Score 2 or else score 0
21 0 LG shares information c. Evidence that the LG There was no evidence that the LG during the previous with citizens during the previous FY FY conducted discussions with the public to provide conducted discussions feed-back on status of activity implementation. Maximum 6 points on (e.g. municipal urban this Performance fora, barazas, radio Measure programmes etc.) with the public to provide feed-back on status of activity implementation: Score 1 or else score 0
21 0 LG shares information d. Evidence that the LG There was no evidence that the LG made publicly with citizens has made publicly available information on; tax rates, collection available information on procedures, and procedures for appeal. Maximum 6 points on i) tax rates, ii) collection this Performance procedures, and iii) Measure procedures for appeal: If all i, ii, iii complied with: Score 1 or else score 0
22 There was no information about IGG report that included 0 Reporting to IGG a. LG has prepared an a list of cases of alleged fraud and corruption. IGG report which will Maximum 1 point on include a list of cases of this Performance alleged fraud and Measure corruption and their status incl. 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
569 Education Performance Nakaseke Measures 2020 District
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 2 Learning Outcomes: a) The LG PLE pass rate has There was evidence that the PLE pass rate The LG has improved improved between the improved by 2.5% between the previous year but PLE and USE pass previous school year but one one and the previous year as calculated below: rates. and the previous year 2018: (DIV 1: 523; DIV 2: 2064; DIV 3: 798; TOTAL Maximum 7 points on • If improvement by more PASS: 3385; TOTAL CANDIDATES: 4192). this performance than 5% score 4 measure 2019: (DIV 1: 428; DIV 2: 2474; DIV 3: 801; TOTAL • Between 1 and 5% score 2 PASS: 3703; TOTAL CANDIDATES: 4447).
• No improvement score 0 Therefore, the calculated percentage for 2018 was (3703/4017 x 100) =80.7% while the calculated percentage for 2019 was (2857/4017 x 100) =83.2%. Hence, the percentage improvement was 83.2% - 80.7% = 2.5%.
1 0 Learning Outcomes: b) The LG UCE pass rate has There was no evidence to show that the LG UCE The LG has improved improved between the pass rate has improved between the previous PLE and USE pass previous school year but one school year but one and the previous year. rates. and the previous year
Maximum 7 points on • If improvement by more this performance than 5% score 3 measure • Between 1 and 5% score 2
• No improvement score 0
2 0 Service Delivery a) Average score in the Not applicable 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 There was evidence that the Education Performance: The LG development grant has been development grant was spent on eligible activities. has managed used on eligible activities as Evidence was obtained from submission of annual education projects as defined in the sector work plans of the Education development Grant FY per guidelines guidelines: score 2; Else 2019/20 and 2020/21 and accountability for school score 0 facilities grant for 1st Quarter. The grant was used to Maximum 8 points on construct projects such as: this performance measure -Construction of Nakaseke SEED school at UGX 202,000,000= from the UGIFT MOES and construction was at roofing stage and the school is stated to start in January 2021.
-Disbursing/remitting capitation grant for 114 primary schools at UGX 242,540,000=; 12 secondary schools at UGX 319,242,666=; and for skills development for 2 tertiary institutions at UGX 276,000,389=.
-Site meetings coordination for UGX 4,500,000= for 3 site meeting on following up activities.
From the work plan and Budget accountability for FY 19/20 and 20/21.
For FY 2019/2020:
Evidence of information on Non-residential Buildings (32 Units class room Blocks) and 1 SEED secondary school construction as below:
-Bulwadda SEED Secondary school at UGX 402,734,652=;
-Kiziba R/C P/S in Nakaseke S/C at UGX 56,550,000=;
-Buwana P/S in Kinyogoga S/C at UGX 56,550,000=; and
-Kabbubu R/C P/S in Wakyaro S/C at UGX56,550,000=.
3(4 stance unlined VIP) latrines constructed at Lumpewe P/S and KIziba P/S each at UGX13,000,000=; and
2(5 stance unlined VIP) latrines constructed at Nvunawa P/S and Mabindi P/S in Semuto Sub County each at UGX17,886,746=.
For the FY 2020/2021:
In 10 Sub Counties and 5 Town Councils, Capitation (UPE) grant disbursed to 113 schools, Non Residential Buildings (3 2 Unit Classroom Blocks 1 SEED secondary school constructed as below:
-Continued with Nakaseke SEED Secondary Construction at UGX 768,170,224=.
-Phase 2 Starting Kikamulo SEED Secondary School at UGX 344,283,866
-Katale PS in Kito S/C at UGX 60,000,000=.
-Katooke UMEA P/S in Wakyato S/C at UGX 60,000,000=. 3 2 Investment b) If the DEO, Environment There was evidence that DEO, Environment Officer Performance: The LG Officer and CDO certified and CDO certified works on Education construction has managed works on Education projects implemented in the previous as follows: education projects as construction projects per guidelines implemented in the previous 1. Construction of 2 classroom block at Kizira RC FY before the LG made Contract No: Naka569/WRKS/19-20/00001 Maximum 8 points on payments to the contractors this performance score 2 or else score 0 Contract Sum: UGX 57,963,488 measure Initiation of payment was on 10/06/2020
DEO signed on 10/06/2020
CAO signed on 12/06/2020
Date of payment was on 25/06/2020
Amount paid was UGX 23,449,815
Certificate was on 29/05/2020;
2. Construction of two classroom block at Kamuli
Contract No: Naka569/WRKS/19-20/00002
Initiation of payment was on 10/06/2020
DEO signed on 10/06/2020
CAO signed on 12/06/2020
Date of payment was on 25/06/2020
Amount was paid UGX 23,945,543
Certificate was on 28/05/2020; and
3. Construction of two classroom block at Kigumu Primary School
Contract No: Naka569/WRKS/19-20/00003
Contract Sum: UGX 61,736,904
Initiation of payment was on 20/05/2020
DEO signed on 10/06/2020
CAO signed on 12/06/2020
Date of payment was on 25/06/2020
Amount was paid UGX 58,605,438
Final Certificate was on 20/05/2020. 3 2 Investment c) If the variations in the The variations in contract price of sampled Performance: The LG contract price are within +/- works/supplier for the previous FY contracts are all has managed 20% of the MoWT estimates within +/-20% of the LG Engineers estimates education projects as score 2 or else score 0 per guidelines The following are the sampled project.
Maximum 8 points on 1. 2 Classroom Block at Kivumu Primary School in this performance Kito Sub-county measure Contract No: NAKA569/Wrks/19-20/00002
Approved under: Min 17/Naka/DCC/Sept/19-20
Contract Price: 61,736,904
Engineer’s Estimate:60,800,000
Price Variation: 936,904
Percent Variation: 1.54%
Comment: Variation within range of +/-20%
Only one project was availed for assessment
3 0 Investment d) Evidence that education Education projects, for the previous FY, were not all Performance: The LG projects were completed as completed as per work plan/Consolidated has managed per the work plan in the procurement plan. education projects as previous FY per guidelines 66.67% of the contracts were completed. • If 100% score 2 Maximum 8 points on The following projects were completed this performance • Between 80 – 99% score 1 1. Two Class room block at Kiziba measure • Below 80% score 0 2. Two Classroom block at Kivumu P/S in Kito
The following projects were not completed
1. Nakaseke Seed School.
4 0 Achievement of a) Evidence that the LG has There was no Evidence that the LG has recruited standards: The LG has recruited primary school primary school teachers as per the prescribed met prescribed school teachers as per the MoES staffing guidelines. The required information staffing and prescribed MoES staffing was not availed to the Assessor. infrastructure standards guidelines
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 0 Achievement of b) Percent of schools in LG There was no evidence of a performance Contract standards: The LG has that meet basic requirements to calculate the percentage of schools that meet met prescribed school and minimum standards set prescribed minimum standards set out in the DES staffing and out in the DES guidelines, Guidelines. Primary schools were 113 while the LG infrastructure standards had only 15 Secondary schools. • If above 70% score: 3 Maximum 6 points on 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 that the Local government information: The LG accurately reported on obtained teacher deployment. As per the teacher’s has accurately reported teachers and where they are deployment list at the LG and that at the sampled on teaching staff in deployed. school: place, school infrastructure, and • If the accuracy of - Lukyamuzi UMEA P/S had 8 teachers including service performance. information is 100% score 2 the H/T with an enrolment of 306 children;
Maximum 4 points on • Else score: 0 -Nakaseke SDA P/S had 9 teachers including the this performance head teacher and an enrollment of 614 children. measure The school has 5 more teachers on private; and
-BUjuubya RC P/S had 7 teachers including the head teacher(acting) and an enrolment of 225.
Below is the verification of deployment at the LG and the sampled school to verify deployment as per the minimum standards (Key: - SL- Deployed Staff List; and PV- Physical verification of deployment on ground):
From the deployment list in the DEO, 857 teachers had been deployed of the 903 required in the whole district by the time of assessment. As per teachers list, and the sampled school’s deployment:
-Lukyamuzi UMEA P/S had 8 teachers including the H/T with an enrolment of 306 children;
-Nakaseke SDA P/S had 9 teachers including the head teacher and an enrollment of 614 children. The school has 5 more teachers on private; and
-Bujuubya RC P/S had 7 teachers including the head teacher(acting) and an enrolment of 225.
Also the schools sampled for visiting to verify deployment confirms with minimum standards as below; (Key: - SL- Staff List, and PV- Physical verification of deployment on ground) as below:
- Lukyamuzi UMEA P/S -8, SL-, PV-8;
- Nakaseke SDA P/S SL- 10, PV- 9; and
- Bujuubya RC P/S SL- 7, PV-7. 5 0 Accuracy of reported b) Evidence that LG has a There was no evidence that the LG had a school information: The LG school asset register consolidated Asset register accurately reporting on has accurately reported accurately reporting on the the infrastructure in all registered primary schools on teaching staff in infrastructure in all registered accurately reporting the name of the school, parish, place, school primary schools. EMIS, number of classrooms, Number of latrines infrastructure, and and number of staff houses all showing the existing service performance. • If the accuracy of facilities, number required and number in need of information is 100% score 2 rehabilitation. For example; Maximum 4 points on this performance • Else score: 0 At Lukyamuzi UMEA P/S in Kito Sub county, the LG measure asset register had 7 existing classrooms, 2 required classrooms and 4 needing rehabilitation. School had 4 existing latrines, 8 required and 0 needing rehabilitation while there were only 3 existing teacher’s houses with 5 more required and 3 needing rehabilitation;
Nakaseke SDA P/S the LG asset register had 8 existing classrooms, 0 required classrooms and 3 needing rehabilitation. School had 8 existing latrines, 4 required and 6 needing rehabilitation while there were only 6 existing teacher’s houses with 2 more required and 0 needing rehabilitation; and
at Bujuubya R/C P/S, the LG asset register had 0 existing classrooms, 0 required classrooms and 0 needing rehabilitation. School had 0 existing latrines, 0 required and 0 needing rehabilitation while there were only 0 existing teacher’s houses with 0 more required and 3 needing rehabilitation.
6 0 School compliance a) The LG has ensured that There was no evidence that the LG had ensured and performance all registered primary schools that all registered Primary Schools had complied improvement: have complied with MoES with the MOES Annual budgeting and reporting annual budgeting and guidelines and that they had submitted reports Maximum 12 points on reporting guidelines and that (signed by the head teacher and chair of the SMC) this performance they have submitted reports to the DEO by January 30th. 113 primary schools measure (signed by the head teacher were registered in the list of registered schools and chair of the SMC) to the document at the LG. 0nly 78 primary schools DEO by January 30. Reports submitted their annual budget and expenditure should include among others, which makes 69% ie (78/113 x 100) 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 0 School compliance b) UPE schools supported to There was no evidence that UPE schools were and performance prepare and implement SIPs supported to prepare and implement SIPs in line improvement: in line with inspection with inspection recommendations. All the three recommendations: sampled schools were not supported to prepare and Maximum 12 points on implement SIPs in line with Inspection this performance • If 50% score: 4 recommendations. measure • Between 30– 49% score: 2
• Below 30% score 0
6 0 School compliance c) If the LG has collected and There was no evidence that Nakaseke LG had and performance compiled EMIS return forms collected and compiled EMIS return forms for all improvement: for all registered schools from registered schools from the previous FY year and the previous FY year: information from EMIS data from MoES is consistent Maximum 12 points on with that provided by the LG with all having 113 this performance • If 100% score: 4: UPE schools. 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 Education actual recruitment and budgeted for a head teacher department of Nakaseke District budgeted for at deployment of staff: LG and a minimum of 7 teachers least the H/T and the minimum of 7 teachers as per has substantively per school or a minimum of Performance Contract FY 2020/2021. There was a recruited all primary one teacher per class for list of 113 primary schools with 857 teachers school teachers where schools with less than P.7 for including Head teachers. The approved LG budget there is a wage bill the current FY: for FY 2019/2020, indicated a wage of provision 5,597,571,455 UGX budgeted for the H/T and a Score 4 or else, score: 0 minimum of 7 teachers per school from the BFP raw Maximum 8 points on data document. this performance measure 7 3 Budgeting for and b) Evidence that the LG has From the deployment list in the DEO, 857 teachers actual recruitment and deployed teachers as per had been deployed of the 903 required in the whole deployment of staff: LG sector guidelines in the district by the time of assessment. As per teachers has substantively current FY, list, and the sampled school’s deployment: - recruited all primary Lukyamuzi UMEA P/S had 8 teachers including the school teachers where Score 3 else score: 0 H/T with an enrolment of 306 children. there is a wage bill provision -Nakaseke SDA P/S had 9 teachers including the head teacher and an enrollment of 614 children. Maximum 8 points on The school has 5 more teachers on private. this performance measure -BUjuubya RC P/S had 7 teachers including the head teacher(acting) and an enrolment of 225.
Also the schools sampled for visiting to verify deployment confirms with minimum standards as below; (Key: - SL- Staff List, and PV- Physical verification of deployment on ground) as below:
- Lukyamuzi UMEA P/S -8, SL-, PV-8;
- Nakaseke SDA P/S SL- 10, PV- 9; and
- Bujuubya RC P/S SL- 7, PV-7.
7 1 Budgeting for and c) If teacher deployment data There was evidence that the teacher deployment actual recruitment and has been disseminated or data had been disseminated or publicized on both deployment of staff: LG publicized on LG and or LG and or School notice board found in the H/T ‘s has substantively school notice board, office for Lukyamuzi UMEA and Nakaseke SDA P/S recruited all primary for the sampled schools. school teachers where score: 1 else, score: 0 there is a wage bill provision
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
8 0 Performance a) If all primary school head There was no evidence that all primary school head management: teachers have been teachers were appraised with evidence of appraisal Appraisals have been appraised with evidence of reports submitted to HRM with a copy to DEO/MOE. conducted for all appraisal reports submitted to education HRM with copt to DEO/MEO However, from the 3 sampled schools ie Lukyamuzi management staff, UMEA P/S, Nakaseke SDA P/S and Bujuubya P/S, head teachers in the Score: 2 or else, score: 0 only Mr. Ssegujja John the acting head teacher of registered primary and Bujuubya R/C P/S(569183) was appraised by the secondary schools, SAS David Turyahabwe 19/3/2019. and training conducted to address identified capacity gaps.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure 8 0 Performance b) If all secondary school There was no evidence from HRM to show that the management: head teachers have been secondary school head teachers were appraised. 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 0 Performance c) If all staff in the LG There was no evidence from HRM indicating that all management: Education department have the Education Department staff were appraised by Appraisals have been been appraised against their DEO. Staff performance plans and reports were not conducted for all performance plans available in their files. 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 8 2 Performance d) The LG has prepared a There was evidence that the LG had prepared a management: training plan to address training plan to address identified staff capacity Appraisals have been identified staff capacity gaps gaps at the school and LG level. A meeting was conducted for all at the school and LG level, held on 11/5/2020 under minute 2 for the education chairperson LC5, the District executive CAO and management staff, score: 2 Else, score: 0 the LG Education Staff to identify gaps in Education head teachers in the department at LG level eg inspection of schools, registered primary and PLE funds, allocation of duries which was secondary schools, mismanaged by DEO. and training conducted to address identified On 12/5/2020 a meeting was by the LG senior staff capacity gaps. held in preparation for the opening of schools during the Covid pandemic. Maximum 8 points on this performance Among the activities done were: measure Planned and trained Head teachers, their deputies and chairpersons of school management committees and librarians on Record management and financial management.
Jointly trained School management committees and Head teachers on roles as management personnel of schools and institutions.
Trained CCTs and Head teachers on effective mobilization of resources in schools management and construction.
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 9 0 Planning, Budgeting, a) The LG has confirmed in There was no evidence that LG had confirmed in and Transfer of Funds writing the list of schools, writing the list of schools, their enrollment, and for Service Delivery: their enrolment, and budget budget allocation in the Programme Budgeting The Local Government allocation in the Programme System (PBS) by December 15th annually. has allocated and Budgeting System (PBS) by 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 2 Planning, Budgeting, b) Evidence that the LG There was evidence that the LG had Annual Sector and Transfer of Funds made allocations to work plan for FY 2019/2020 of UGX 17,400,000= for Service Delivery: inspection and monitoring and had made allocations to inspection and The Local Government functions in line with the monitoring functions in line with sector guidelines. has allocated and sector guidelines. The allocations were towards inland travel, spent funds for service stationary, communication and welfare. The delivery as prescribed If 100% compliance, score:2 activities conducted included; Planning meetings for in the sector else, score: 0 the inspection, conducting inspections and guidelines. monitoring visits to primary and secondary schools, conducting sector meetings to review findings, Maximum 8 points on dissemination of findings to head teachers and this performance follow up inspections to check on the action of the measure recommendations. This was presented in the Education and Sports department annual Budget and expenditure report, and in the annual work plan all for FY 2019/2020.
9 0 Planning, Budgeting, c) Evidence that LG The LG submitted warrants for school’s capitation and Transfer of Funds submitted warrants for as follows: for Service Delivery: school’s capitation within 5 The Local Government days for the last 3 quarters Quarter 1 was warranted on 12/08/2019 release has allocated and date was 09/7/2019; 29 days; spent funds for service If 100% compliance, score: 2 Quarter 2 was warranted on 04/11/2019 release delivery as prescribed else score: 0 date was 02/10/2019; 24 days; and in the sector guidelines. Quarter 3 was warranted on 31/01/2020 release date was on 08/01/2020; 19 days. Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
9 0 Planning, Budgeting, d) Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence that the LG invoiced and Transfer of Funds invoiced and the DEO/ MEO capitation releases to schools within three working for Service Delivery: has communicated/ days of release from MoFPED. The DEO The Local Government publicized capitation communicated the releases by way of what-up has allocated and releases to schools within groups that was difficult to verify. However the spent funds for service three working days of release warranting and invoicing were as below: delivery as prescribed from MoFPED. in the sector Quarter 1 was warranted on 12/08/2019 and guidelines. If 100% compliance, score: 2 invoiced on 3/09/2019; 17 working days; else, score: 0 Maximum 8 points on Quarter 2 was warranted on 4/11/2019 and invoiced this performance on 19/11/2019 ; 11 working days; and measure Quarter 3 was warranted on 31/01/2020 and invoiced on 22/02/2020; 18 working days. 10 0 Routine oversight and a) Evidence that the LG There was no evidence that the LG Education monitoring Education department has department prepared an inspection plan and prepared an inspection plan meeting conducted to plan for school inspections. Maximum 10 points on and meetings conducted to this performance plan for school inspections. measure • If 100% compliance, score: 2, else score: 0
10 0 Routine oversight and b) Percent of registered UPE There no was evidence that School inspection monitoring schools that have been reports were discussed and used to recommend for inspected and monitored, corrective actions, and that those actions have Maximum 10 points on and findings compiled in the subsequently been followed –up. this performance DEO/MEO’s monitoring measure report: However, there was evidence that Inspection was done at the schools as seen from Visitor’s book as • If 100% score: 2 below:
• Between 80 – 99% score 1 In Lukyamuzi UMEA, the school was inspected by the DIS on 1/3/2019 and again Inspection by DIS on • Below 80%: score 0 13/2/2019;
13/3/2019 by Annet Galiwango the area Inspector ;
9/4/2019 by Senyimba Deogracious on the STAR school assessment program ; and
17/7/2019 by Kalema Kayemba the Area inspector.
However there was no evidence of any reports of the inspection feedback at the school.
In Nakaseke SDA P/S, there was evidence of support supervision and evaluation report carried out in 25 primary schools and 3
10 0 Routine oversight and c) Evidence that inspection There was no evidence that inspection reports were monitoring reports have been discussed discussed and used to recommend corrective and used to recommend actions, and that those actions had subsequently Maximum 10 points on corrective actions, and that been followed-up at the time of assessment. this performance those actions have measure subsequently been followed- up,
Score: 2 or else, score: 0 10 0 Routine oversight and d) Evidence that the DIS and There was no evidence that the sampled schools monitoring DEO have presented findings had been inspected from the visitors book as below: from inspection and Maximum 10 points on monitoring results to In Lukyamuzi UMEA, the school was inspected by this performance respective schools and the DIS on 1/3/2019 and measure submitted these reports to the DIS on 13/2/2019; Directorate of Education Standards (DES) in the 13/3/2019 by Annet Galiwango the area Inspector; Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES): Score 2 or 9/4/2019 by Senyimba Deogracious on the STAR else score: 0 school assessment program; and
17/7/2019 by Kalema Kayemba Area inspector.
However, there was no evidence of any reports of the inspection feedback at the school.
In Nakaseke SDA P/S, there was evidence of support supervision and evaluation report carried out in 25 Primary Schools and 3 Secondary Schools in the 2nd Quarter FY 2019/2020 ON 18th /March/2020.
In Bujuubya p/s under Wakyato Sub county, the school was inspected by Kalema Kalemba on 4/3/2019 and
Sekaya John the CCT on 14/8/2019.
There was no evidence of an inspection report at the school at the time of assessment.
10 There was no evidence that the education sector 0 Routine oversight and e) Evidence that the council standing committee met and discussed service monitoring committee responsible for delivery issues. education met and discussed Maximum 10 points on service delivery issues this performance including inspection and measure monitoring findings, performance assessment results, LG PAC reports etc. during the previous FY: score 2 or else score: 0
11 2 Mobilization of parents Evidence that the LG There was evidence that the LG Education to attract learners Education department has department has conducted activities to mobilize, conducted activities to attract and retain children at school. Evidence that Maximum 2 points on mobilize, attract and retain on 31/7/2019, the inspector in charge of Music this performance children at school, organized the District MDD competitions and invited measure schools to take part as had been scheduled for score: 2 or else score: 0 8/8/2019 at Kasagga primary school in Kiziba cluster Centre.
Investment Management 12 0 Planning and a) Evidence that there is an There was no evidence that there an up-to-date LG budgeting for up-to-date LG asset register Assets register as of 30th /June/ 2019 in all the investments which sets out school sampled schools. The asset register sets out school facilities and equipment facilities and equipment relative to basic standards Maximum 4 points on relative to basic standards, established using the Data on Government aided this performance score: 2, else score: 0 primary school by sub county and parish lists in the measure DEO’s office as a school register. There was evidence that there was an up-to-date school Assets register in Lukyamuzi UMEA P/S as of Nov 2019 which sets out school facilities and equipment relative to basic standards however there was no schools asset registers in both Nakaseke SDA P/S and Bujuubya R/C P/S.
12 There was no evidence of desk appraisal for all 0 Planning and b) Evidence that the LG has sectors projects. budgeting for conducted a desk appraisal investments for all sector projects in the budget to establish whether Maximum 4 points on the prioritized investment is: this performance (i) derived from the LGDP; (ii) measure eligible for expenditure under sector guidelines and funding source (e.g. sector development grant, DDEG). If appraisals were conducted for all projects that were planned in the previous FY, score: 1 or else, score: 0
12 There was no evidence that the field appraisals 0 Planning and c) Evidence that the LG has were done. 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 The education infrastructure projects have been management/execution department has budgeted for incorporated into the LG procurement plan and ensured that planned Maximum 9 points on sector infrastructure projects Sampled projects include: this performance have been approved and 1. Construction of a 2 Classroom block at Katale measure incorporated into the P/S in Kito Sub-County procurement plan, score: 1, else score: 0 Naka569/Wrks/20-21/00001;
2. Construction of 2 Classroom block at Katooke UMEA P/S in Wakyato S/C
Naka569/Wrks/20-21/00002;
3. Constuction of 2 Classroom block at Kalagala P/S in Nakaseke S/C
Naka569/Wrks/20-21/00003.
13 0 Procurement, contract b) Evidence that the school There was no evidence that the education management/execution infrastructure was approved infrastructure investments were approved. by the Contracts Committee Maximum 9 points on and cleared by the Solicitor Minutes of the Contracts Committee were not this performance General (where above the availed measure threshold) before the commencement of construction, score: 1, else score: 0
13 1 Procurement, contract c) Evidence that the LG Projects constructed within the last FY were management/execution established a Project overseen by an implementation team as prescribed Implementation Team (PIT) within the sector guidelines Maximum 9 points on for school construction this performance projects constructed within The LG did established a Project Implementation measure the last FY as per the Team (PIT) for school construction projects guidelines. score: 1, else constructed within the last FY. score: 0 Project Sampled:
The Seed School
Minutes of Site Supervision dated 07-July-2020 show attendance of Contractor, CMU/ MoES, Clerk of Works, DEO and DE 13 0 Procurement, contract d) Evidence that the school The standard technical designs provided by the management/execution infrastructure followed the MoES were not fully followed: standard technical designs Maximum 9 points on provided by the MoES Standard Drawings: Two Classroom Block at St. this performance Jude Primary school measure Score: 1, else, score: 0 Veranda: 100 cm
Windows: width 1.2 m, Height – 1.5m
Door: width 90 cm, Height – 2.4m
Measured Dimensions: Two Classroom Block at St. Jude Primary school
Verandah was 102cm
Windows: Width – 1.17m, 1.15m, 1.18m
Height – 1.45m, 1.45m, 1.48
Door: Width – 0.9m, 0.87m
Height – 2.35m, 2.35m
Floor screed very patched and cracked
Painting – Fairly done
13 1 Procurement, contract e) Evidence that monthly site Monthly site meetings were conducted for all management/execution meetings were conducted for Education sector infrastructure projects planned in all sector infrastructure the previous FY Maximum 9 points on projects planned in the this performance previous FY score: 1, else Sample reports reviewed had meetings in the measure score: 0 following months:
1. 25-February-2020
2. 07-July-2020
3. 31-July-2020
13 1 Procurement, contract f) If there’s evidence that During supervision, there was full participation of management/execution during critical stages of engineers, environment officers, CDOs, at critical construction of planned stages of construction. Maximum 9 points on sector infrastructure projects this performance in the previous FY, at least 1 The project below were reviewed: measure monthly joint technical 1. Proj: Seed Secondary School supervision involving engineers, environment Proc No: MoES/UgIFT/Wrks/00119 officers, CDOs etc .., has been conducted score: 1, Contractor: Techno Three (U) Ltd else score: 0 Price: 2,278,323,220
Dates of site meetings: 07-Aug-2019, 12-Dec-2019, 24-Feb-2020
Attendees: DEO,MoES Eng, HM,AEO 13 0 Procurement, contract g) If sector infrastructure There was evidence that sector infrastructure management/execution projects have been properly projects were properly executed and payments to executed and payments to contractors made within specified timeframes. The Maximum 9 points on contractors made within LG claimed the sector vouchers were all taken by this performance specified timeframes within the External auditors at the time of the assessment. measure the contract, score: 1, else score: 0
13 0 Procurement, contract h) If the LG Education There was no evidence that the LG Education management/execution department timely submitted department submitted a procurement plan in a procurement plan in accordance with the PPDA requirements to the Maximum 9 points on accordance with the PPDA procurement unit by April 30. this performance requirements to the measure procurement unit by April 30, Procurement plan for 2020/2021 was submitted on score: 1, else, score: 0 04-Nov-2020 and signed off by CAO (John Katotoroma)
13 0 Procurement, contract i) Evidence that the LG has a The procurement files for education infrastructure management/execution complete procurement file for projects for the current FY are not complete. each school infrastructure Maximum 9 points on contract with all records as In fact all the projects have not yet made this performance required by the PPDA Law procurement requisitions for the works contracts measure score 1 or else score 0
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 0 Grievance redress: LG Evidence that grievances There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG Education grievances have been recorded, Education grievances had been recorded, have been recorded, investigated, responded to investigated, and responded to in line with the LG investigated, and and recorded in line with the grievance redress framework as the LG was yet to: responded to in line grievance redress framework, (i) designate a Grievance Redress Officer to with the LG grievance score: 3, else score: 0 coordinate response to feedback on redress framework. grievance/complaints; (ii) establish a centralized Grievance Redress Committee (GRC); (iii) specify a Maximum 3 points on system for recording, investigating and responding this performance to grievances; (iv) define a complaints referral path; measure (v) publicly display grievance redress information at LG offices; (vi) publicize the grievance redress mechanisms so that aggrieved parties would know where to report and get redress.
15 0 Safeguards for service Evidence that LG has There was no evidence that LG has disseminated delivery. disseminated the Education the Education guidelines to provide for access to guidelines to provide for land (without encumbrance), proper siting of Maximum 3 points on access to land (without schools, ‘green’ schools, and energy and water this performance encumbrance), proper siting conservation in the three sampled schools. measure of schools, ‘green’ schools, and energy and water conservation
Score: 3, or else score: 0 16 0 Safeguards in the a) LG has in place a costed There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had delivery of investments ESMP and this is Costed ESMPs incorporated in BoQs and incorporated within the BoQs contractual documents to comply with safeguards Maximum 6 points on and contractual documents, requirements within the Education Sector this performance score: 2, else score: 0 Guidelines as Costed ESMPs were absent in measure education sector projects BoQs and contractual documents that were presented by the LG and reviewed by the Assessor. Additionally, Costed ESMPs for education sector projects were also NOT available.
16 0 Safeguards in the b) If there is proof of land There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had delivery of investments ownership, access of school proof of land ownership, access and availability to construction projects, score: conduct planned school construction projects as no Maximum 6 points on 1, else score:0 land titles, agreements, Memoranda of this performance Understanding or consent letters from landowners measure for planned school construction projects were provided by the LG.
16 0 Safeguards in the c) Evidence that the There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG delivery of investments Environment Officer and conducted support supervision and monitoring to CDO conducted support ascertain compliance with ESMPs including follow Maximum 6 points on supervision and monitoring up on recommended corrective actions; and this performance (with the technical team) to prepared monthly monitoring reports over the measure ascertain compliance with previous FY (2019/2020 FY). 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 There was NO Evidence that Environmental and delivery of investments were approved and signed Social Certifications were approved and signed by by the environmental officer Environmental Officer and CDO prior to executing Maximum 6 points on and CDO prior to executing contractor payments at interim and final stages of all this performance the project contractor ongoing projects as Environmental and Social measure payments Certifications for education sector projects that were approved and signed by Environmental Officer and Score: 1, else score:0 CDO were NOT available. Additionally, signatures of Environmental Officer and CDO were absent on Contractor Payment Certificates that were presented by the LG and reviewed by the Assessor.
569 Health Performance Nakaseke Measures 2020 District
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 0 Outcome: The LG has a. If the LG registered The LG registered reduction in utilization of Health registered higher Increased utilization of Care Services of based on OPD attendance by 1.3% percentage of the Health Care Services (focus at the 3 sampled health facilities including Kikamulo population accessing on total OPD attendance, HCIII, Nakaseke Hospital and Bidabujja HCIII, with health care services. and deliveries. totals of 63,148 and 62,352 in FY 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 respectively. OPD attendance increments Maximum 2 points on • By 20% or more, score 2 at the 3 health facilities were as follows; Kikamulo this performance HCIII it reduced by from 11,322 to 11,244; at • Less than 20%, score 0 measure Nakaseke Hospital it increased from 37,001 to 35,286; and at Bidabujja HCIII it increased from 14,825 to 15,822. There was also a 0.9% reduction in utilization of Health Care Services of based on deliveries (from 3,287 to 3256) at all the 3 sampled health facilities.
2 Not applicable. To be assessed next year. 0 Service Delivery a. If the average score in Performance: Average Health for LLG performance score in the Health LLG assessment is: performance assessment. • Above 70%; score 2
Maximum 4 points on • 50 – 69% score 1 this performance • Below 50%; score 0 measure
Note: To have zero wait for year one
2 0 Service Delivery b. If the average score in the All the HC IIIs and HCIVs in Nakaseke District that Performance: Average RBF quarterly quality facility were participating in Results Based Financing (RBF) score in the Health LLG assessment for HC IIIs and were in year 2, hence zero as guided by the manual. performance IVs is: assessment. • Above 75%; score 2 Maximum 4 points on this performance • 65 – 74%; score 1 measure • Below 65% ; score 0 Note: To have zero wait for year one 3 2 Investment a. If the LG budgeted and The LG budget for Health sector development grant performance: The LG spent all the health was UGX 596,388,000 and spent 761,886,00 has managed health development grant for the projects as per previous FY on eligible The LG spent more than budgeted by 28% as the guidelines. activities as per the health annual budget performance dated 25/08/2020 grant and budget Maximum 8 points on guidelines, score 2 or else this performance score 0. measure
3 0 Investment b. If the DHO/MMOH, LG There was no evidence that the DHO, LG Engineer, performance: The LG Engineer, Environment Environment Officer and CDO certified works on has managed health Officer and CDO certified health projects before the LG made payments to the projects as per works on health projects contractors/ suppliers. The LG claimed that the guidelines. before the LG made vouchers for the sector were all taken by the external payments to the contractors/ auditors before the assessment and therefore no Maximum 8 points on suppliers score 2 or else information. this performance score 0 measure
3 2 Investment c. If the variations in the The variations in contract price of sampled performance: The LG contract price of sampled works/supplier for the previous FY contracts were has managed health health infrastructure within +/-20% of the LG Engineers estimates projects as per investments are within +/- guidelines. 20% of the MoWT Project Sampled Engineers estimates, score 1. Construction of Health Centre II at Butalango Maximum 8 points on 2 or else score 0 this performance Contract No: MoH-UgIFT/Wrks/2018-19/0001-20 measure Approved under: Min 133/Naka/DCC/Jan/18-20
Contract Price: 487,454,960
Engineer’s Estimate:500,000,000
Price Variation: -12,545,040
Percent Variation: -2.51%
Comment: Variation is within range of +/-20%
Only one health project was availed for assessment. 3 2 Investment d. Evidence that the health Health projects, for the previous FY, where contracts performance: The LG sector investment projects were all completed. has managed health implemented in the previous projects as per FY were completed as per 100% of the projects planned were completed. guidelines. work plan by end of the FY The projects completed include: Maximum 8 points on • If 100 % Score 2 1. Fencing Kapeeka HC III this performance • Between 80 and 99% measure 2. 4 Unit Staff House and VIP Latrine at Butalangu score 1 HC III • less than 80 %: Score 0 3. Health Centre III at Butalangu
4 2 Achievement of a. Evidence that the LG has The minimum staffing levels for HCIV is 48 and HCIII Standards: The LG has recruited staff for all HCIIIs is 19. met health staffing and and HCIVs as per staffing infrastructure facility structure The LG has 2 HCIVs ( Ngoma HCIV and Semutto standards HCIII); • If above 90% score 2 Maximum 4 points on 2x48= 96 this performance • If 75% - 90%: score 1 The filled posts for HCIVs; Ngoma=31 measure • Below 75 %: score 0 Semutto=45
Total=31+45= 78 filled posts.
The LG has 5 HCIIIs; 19x5=95
Wakyato 25 filled, Biddabugya 19 filled, Kapeeka 26 filled, Kikamulo 27 filled and Kinyogoga 20=117
HCIIIs have excess staff 117-95=22
96+95=191 Total staffing levels.
78+95=173 filled posts
173/191x100= 91%
NB:The excess staff (22) was excluded when calculating the percentage of filled staff. 4 2 Achievement of b. Evidence that the LG The LG Health infrastructure conform to the Standards: The LG has health infrastructure approved designs met health staffing and construction projects meet infrastructure facility the approved MoH Facility Sampled projects include: standards Infrastructure Designs. 1. Construction of H/C III in Nakesese Sub-county Maximum 4 points on • If 100 % score 2 or else Measurements taken below conformed with MoH this performance score 0 designs measure Back Entrance – width 1.44m and height 2.35m
Front Entrance – Width – 1.48 and Height 2.36m
3 water tanks installed.
Windows (2 No): width – 1.44 Height – 1.45
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 5 0 Accuracy of Reported a. Evidence that information Some of the health workers were not working in Information: The LG on positions of health health facilities where they were deployed as maintains and reports workers filled is accurate: reflected from the sampled health facilities. For accurate information Score 2 or else 0 instance:
Maximum 4 points on 1. At Nakaseke Hospital, 12 Medical Officers this performance (including Principal and Senior) were deployed but measure only 11 were working; while no Laboratory Technologist was deployed but 1 was working as reflected on the attendance register of October 2020 and staff list at the health facility; and
2. At Kikamulo HCIII, 5 Enrolled Nurses were deployed but only 4 were working as reflected on the attendance register of October 2020 and staff list at the health facility.
5 2 Accuracy of Reported b. Evidence that information The information on health facilities upgraded or Information: The LG on health facilities upgraded constructed and functional was accurate. The list of maintains and reports or constructed and constructed health facilities for FY 2019/2020 accurate information functional is accurate: Score available at the DHO’s office indicated construction 2 or else 0 (upgrading) of Butalango HCII to HCIII in Butalango Maximum 4 points on Town Council, which was also the only one reported this performance in the PBS. measure 6 0 Health Facility a) Health facilities prepared The health facilities prepared and submitted Annual Compliance to the and submitted Annual Work plans and budgets to the DHO after the Budget and Grant Workplans & budgets to the deadline of March 31st of the previous FY as Guidelines, Result DHO/MMOH by March 31st reflected from the 3 sampled facilities below: Based Financing and of the previous FY as per Performance the LG Planning Guidelines 1. Kiwoook Hospital submitted on 16th September Improvement: LG has for Health Sector: 2020; enforced Health Facility 2. Butalango HCII submitted on 16th September Compliance, Result • Score 2 or else 0 2020; and Based Financing and implemented 3. Biddabuggya HCIII submitted on 16th September Performance 2020. Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 0 Health Facility b) Health facilities prepared The health facilities did not prepare Annual Budget Compliance to the and submitted to the Performance Reports for submission to the DHO's Budget and Grant DHO/MMOH Annual Budget office. Guidelines, Result Performance Reports for the Based Financing and previous FY by July 15th of Performance the previous FY as per the Improvement: LG has Budget and Grant enforced Health Facility Guidelines : Compliance, Result Based Financing and • Score 2 or else 0 implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure 6 2 Health Facility a) Health facilities have The health facilities developed and reported on Compliance to the developed and reported on implementation of facility improvement plans that Budget and Grant implementation of facility incorporated performance issues identified in Guidelines, Result improvement plans that assessment reports. Details of the 3 sampled health Based Financing and incorporate performance facilities are presented below: Performance issues identified in Improvement: LG has monitoring and assessment 1. Kapeka HCIII - PIP included improving knowledge enforced Health Facility reports on antenatal care with a budget of 480,000/=. This Compliance, Result addressed the low antenatal care knowledge gap Based Financing and • Score 2 or else 0 that had been identified in the RBF assessment implemented report dated 29th June 2020 on pages 33 and 34; Performance 2. Semuto HCIV - PIP included pediatric drugs Improvement support. budgeted at 16,000,000/= to address their low Maximum 14 points on availability identified in the RBF assessment report this performance of dated 22nd June 2020 on pages 18 to 22; and measure 3. Kikamulo HCIII - PIP catered for capacity building (Continuous Medical Education) on the use of the new HMIS tools with a budget of 1,200,000/=. This was based on the gap identified in the DHMT RBF assessment report of dated 26th June 2020 on page 14.
6 0 Health Facility d) Evidence that health The health facilities did not submit 100% up to date Compliance to the facilities submitted up to monthly and quarterly HMIS reports timely (7 days Budget and Grant date monthly and quarterly following the end of each month and quarter). Details Guidelines, Result HMIS reports timely (7 days are presented below: Based Financing and following the end of each Performance month and quarter) If 100%, 1. Among the sampled facilities, only Nakaseke Improvement: LG has Hospital submitted 100% of reports within 7 days enforced Health Facility • score 2 or else score 0 following the end of each month and quarter; Compliance, Result 2. Kikamulo HCIII submitted 80% of reports on time. Based Financing and March and April 2020 reports were monthly and implemented quarterly reports were submitted after the th of the Performance following month on 10th April 2020 and 26t5th June Improvement support. 2020; and Maximum 14 points on 3. Bidabujja HCIII submitted 90% of reports on time. this performance February reports were submitted late on 8th March measure 2020. 6 2 Health Facility e) Evidence that Health The health facilities submitted 100% of the RBF Compliance to the facilities submitted RBF invoices timely (by 15th of the month following end of Budget and Grant invoices timely (by 15th of the quarter) as reflected from the following sampled Guidelines, Result the month following end of facilities: Based Financing and the quarter). If 100%, score Performance 2 or else score 0 1. Kiyogoga HCIII submitted on 10th July 2020; Improvement: LG has 2. Bidabuggya HCIII submitted on 9th July 2020; and enforced Health Facility Note: Municipalities submit to districts Compliance, Result 3. Wakyato HCIII submitted on 13th July 2020. Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 0 Health Facility f) If the LG timely (by end of The LG did not timely verify, compile and submit to Compliance to the 3rd week of the month MoH facility RBF invoices for all RBF Health Budget and Grant following end of the quarter) Facilities. For instance, quarter 2 invoices were Guidelines, Result verified, compiled and submitted to MoH on 24th February 2020, which was Based Financing and submitted to MOH facility after the deadline of end of 3rd week of the month Performance RBF invoices for all RBF following end of the quarter. Improvement: LG has Health Facilities, if 100%, enforced Health Facility score 1 or else score 0 Compliance, Result Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure 6 1 Health Facility g) If the LG timely (by end of The LG compiled and submitted all quarterly (4) Compliance to the the first month of the Budget Performance Reports as follows: Budget and Grant following quarter) compiled Guidelines, Result and submitted all quarterly Quarter 1 submitted on 29/10/2019; Based Financing and (4) Budget Performance Quarter 2 submitted on 8/01/2020; Performance Reports. If 100%, score 1 or Improvement: LG has else score 0 Quarter 3 was submitted on 29/04/2020; and enforced Health Facility Compliance, Result Quarter 4 was submitted on 27/07/2020. Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 1 Health Facility h) Evidence that the LG has: The LG had developed an approved Performance Compliance to the Improvement Plan for the weakest performing health Budget and Grant i. Developed an approved facilities for the extended DHMT submitted 8th June Guidelines, Result Performance Improvement 2020 and approved by the CAO. The plan catered Based Financing and Plan for the weakest for health facilities such as; Kapeeka HCIII, Performance performing health facilities, Kiyogoga HCIII, Bidabuggya HCIII, and Wakyato Improvement: LG has score 1 or else 0 HCIII. enforced Health Facility Compliance, Result Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure
6 1 Health Facility ii. Implemented The DHMT implemented the Performance Compliance to the Performance Improvement Improvement Plan for weakest performing facilities Budget and Grant Plan for weakest performing by carrying out quarterly support supervisions as Guidelines, Result facilities, score 1 or else 0 catered for on page 9 of the PIP. Quarterly support Based Financing and supervisions were conducted by the DHMT as Performance reflected by reports dated 13th November 2019, 6th Improvement: LG has January 2020, 24th April 2020, and 30th June 2020. enforced Health Facility Compliance, Result Based Financing and implemented Performance Improvement support.
Maximum 14 points on this performance measure Human Resource Management and Development 7 0 Budgeting for, actual a) Evidence that the LG has: The LG budgeted for health workers without recruitment and following guidelines / staffing norms. For instance, deployment of staff: The i. Budgeted for health LG budgeted for; 34 Assistant Nursing Officers Local Government has workers as per guidelines/in (Nursing) instead of 27, 10 Senior Clinical Officers budgeted for, recruited accordance with the staffing instead of 9, 4 Ophthalimic Clinical Officer instead of and deployed staff as norms score 2 or else 0 3, 5 Senior Nursing Officers instead of 3, and 22 per guidelines Laboratory Technicians instead of 11.
Maximum 9 points on this performance measure
7 0 Budgeting for, actual a) Evidence that the LG has: The LG had deployed 71% (358 out of 507) as per recruitment and guidelines in accordance with staffing norms. deployment of staff: The ii. Deployed health workers However, over deployment of some cadres Local Government has as per guidelines (all the disregarding the staffing norms was noted, leading to budgeted for, recruited health facilities to have at a perceived 78% (395 out of 507). and deployed staff as least 75% of staff required) per guidelines in accordance with the staffing norms score 2 or Maximum 9 points on else 0 this performance measure
7 0 Budgeting for, actual b) Evidence that health Some of the health workers were not working in recruitment and workers are working in health facilities where they were deployed as deployment of staff: The health facilities where they reflected from the sampled health facilities. For Local Government has are deployed, score 3 or instance: budgeted for, recruited else score 0 and deployed staff as 1. At Nakaseke Hospital, 12 Medical Officers per guidelines (including Principal and Senior) were deployed but only 11 were working; while no Laboratory Maximum 9 points on Technologist was deployed but 1 was working as this performance reflected on the attendance register of October 2020 measure and staff list at the health facility; and
2. At Kikamulo HCIII, 5 Enrolled Nurses were deployed but only 4 were working as reflected on the attendance register of October 2020 and staff list at the health facility. 7 0 Budgeting for, actual c) Evidence that the LG has The LG had not publicized health workers recruitment and publicized health workers deployment and disseminated by, among others, deployment of staff: The deployment and posting on facility notice boards. For instance, there Local Government has disseminated by, among were no staff lists on the notice boards of Nakaseke budgeted for, recruited others, posting on facility Hospital and Kikamulo HCIII at the time of the and deployed staff as notice boards, for the assessment. per guidelines current FY score 2 or else score 0 Maximum 9 points on this performance measure
8 0 Performance a) Evidence that the There was no evidence in the personal files to show management: The LG DHO/MMOHs has: that the health workers were appraised during the has appraised, taken previous FY. corrective action and i. Conducted annual trained Health Workers. performance appraisal of all The appraisal files contained appraisal reports for Health facility In-charges other FYs other than the previous year/ the year Maximum 6 points on against the agreed under assessment. The files reviewed included; this performance performance plans and measure submitted a copy to HRO Dr. Okong Benard MS Nakaseke Hospital, Luyomba during the previous FY In-charge Ngoma H/CIV, score 1 or else 0 Mukoch Michelle in charge Semuto HCIV,
Mugwanya Moses in charge Butalangu HCIV,
Najjemba Rose in charge Kinyogoga HCIII,
Ssebutiko Fred Wagaba in charge Biddabugya HCIII,
Mpaulo Don in charge Kikamulo HCIII, Okumu Vincent in charge Kapeeka HCIII,
Ssendikwanawa Emmanuel in charge Wakyato HCIII,
Lutalo William in charge Mifunya HCIII and Mutumba Cyrus in charge Kinoni HCIII.
8 0 Performance ii. Ensured that Health There was no evidence of appraisal reports of management: The LG Facility In-charges healthy facility workers. Appointment letters were has appraised, taken conducted performance available but appraisal reports missing in their corrective action and appraisal of all health personal and appraisal files. The files assessed trained Health Workers. facility workers against the included; agreed performance plans Maximum 6 points on and submitted a copy Musiime Khellen Assistant District Health Officer this performance through DHO/MMOH to Maternal, Ogentho Juliet Assistant District Health measure HRO during the previous Officer (Environment), Namugenyi Grace FY score 1 or else 0 Stenographer/Secretary, Ssebbunza Lamech Senior Environment Health Officer, Mugisha Frank Senior Health Educator, Yawe Moses Biostatistician among others. 8 0 Performance iii. Taken corrective actions No corrective action was taken based on appraisal management: The LG based on the appraisal reports. has appraised, taken reports, score 2 or else 0 corrective action and trained Health Workers.
Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
8 0 Performance b) Evidence that the LG: The LG did not have a training plan to follow while management: The LG conducting training of health workers Continuous has appraised, taken i. conducted training of Professional Development (CPD). CPD for health corrective action and health workers (Continuous workers was conducted at health facility level trained Health Workers. Professional Development) without a training plan at the district. Records for in accordance to the training Continuous Professional Development were also Maximum 6 points on plans at District/MC level, kept at the health facilities not at the district. this performance score 1 or else 0 measure
8 0 Performance ii. Documented training The was no training / CPD database for management: The LG activities in the documenting training / CPD activities. has appraised, taken training/CPD database, corrective action and score 1 or else score 0 trained Health Workers.
Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 9 2 Planning, budgeting, a. Evidence that the The CAO's notification to the MOH was not required and transfer of funds for CAO/Town Clerk confirmed since there was no health facility that had been listed service delivery: The the list of Health facilities incorrectly or missed on the list of facilities that Local Government has (GoU and PNFP receiving accessed the PHC NWR Grants in the previous budgeted, used and PHC NWR grants) and financial year. disseminated funds for notified the MOH in writing service delivery as per by September 30th if a guidelines. health facility had been listed incorrectly or missed Maximum 9 points on in the previous FY, score 2 this performance or else score 0 measure 9 0 Planning, budgeting, b. Evidence that the LG The LG made allocations towards monitoring service and transfer of funds for made allocations towards delivery and management of District health services service delivery: The monitoring service delivery in line with the health sector grant as follows. The LG Local Government has and management of District budgeted for 596,388,000 x 15% = 89,458,2000. budgeted, used and health services in line with disseminated funds for the health sector grant The LG budget for Health management and service delivery as per guidelines (15% of the PHC Supervision was UGX 21,984,000 which was less guidelines. NWR Grant for LLHF than 15%. allocation made for Maximum 9 points on DHO/MMOH), score 2 or this performance else score 0. measure
9 0 Planning, budgeting, c. If the LG made timely The LG did not make timely warranting/verification and transfer of funds for warranting/verification of of direct grant transfers to health facilities for the last service delivery: The direct grant transfers to FY, in accordance to the requirements of the budget. Local Government has health facilities for the last budgeted, used and FY, in accordance to the The warranting was as follows: disseminated funds for requirements of the budget Quarter 1 was warranted on 12/08/2019, release service delivery as per score 2 or else score 0 was on 9/07/2019 22days; guidelines. Quarter 2 was warranted on 4/11/2019, release was Maximum 9 points on on 2/10/2019 24days; this performance measure Quarter 3 was warranted on 31/01/2020, release was on 8/01/2020 18 days; and
Quarter 4 was warranted on 28/04/2020, release was on 8/4/2020 16 days.
9 2 Planning, budgeting, d. If the LG invoiced and The LG invoiced and communicated all PHC NWR and transfer of funds for communicated all PHC Grant transfers for the previous FY to health facilities service delivery: The NWR Grant transfers for the as follows: Local Government has previous FY to health budgeted, used and facilities within 5 working Quarter one invoicing was on 2/09/2019 disseminated funds for days from the day of funds communication was on 02/09/2019; service delivery as per release in each quarter, Quarter 2 invoicing was on 19/11/2019; guidelines. score 2 or else score 0 communication was on 19/11/2019; Maximum 9 points on Quarter 3 invoicing date was 22/02/2020; this performance communication was on 22/02/2020; and measure Quarter 4 invoice date was 8/05/2020 ; communication was on 8/05/2020. 9 0 Planning, budgeting, e. Evidence that the LG has The LG had not publicized all the quarterly financial and transfer of funds for publicized all the quarterly releases to all the 24 health facilities that received service delivery: The financial releases to all PHC funds within 5 working days from the date of Local Government has health facilities within 5 receipt of the expenditure limits from MoFPED. budgeted, used and working days from the date There was no documentary evidence of publication disseminated funds for of receipt of the expenditure of PHC releases for FY 2019/2020 at the time of the service delivery as per limits from MoFPED- e.g. assessment. The available records were for quarter guidelines. through posting on public 2 FY 2020/2021. notice boards: score 1 or Maximum 9 points on else score 0 this performance measure
10 2 Routine oversight and a. Evidence that the LG The LG health department implemented actions monitoring: The LG health department recommended by the DHMT Quarterly performance monitored, provided implemented action(s) review meetings held during the previous FY. For hands -on support recommended by the DHMT instance, in the DHMT meeting held on 18th March supervision to health Quarterly performance 2020 under minute 19NKSEDHMT/19/20 resolved facilities. review meeting (s) held that the DHO should get a detailed report regarding during the previous FY, the sanitation situation at Nakaseke Hospital. Maximum 7 points on score 2 or else score 0 Accordingly, an inspection was conducted by a team this performance including the DHO. measure
10 0 Routine oversight and b. If the LG quarterly The LG quarterly performance review meetings did monitoring: The LG performance review not involve all the health facility In - Charges as monitored, provided meetings involve all health reflected below; in quarters 1 held on 25th July 2019; hands -on support facilities in charges, quarter 2 meetings held on 4th December 2019; supervision to health implementing partners, DHMT meeting 18th March 2020 while quarter 4 facilities. DHMTs, key LG meeting held on 10th July 2020 was attended by 20 departments e.g. WASH, In-Charges. The DHO acknowledged that PNFPs Maximum 7 points on Community Development, and PFP health facilities rarely attend DHMT this performance Education department, meetings. measure score 1 or else 0
10 1 Routine oversight and c. If the LG supervised The LG supervised 100% of HC IVs and General monitoring: The LG 100% of HC IVs and hospitals (Ngoma HC IV; Semuto HCIV; Nakaseke monitored, provided General hospitals (including Hospital and Kiwoko Hospital) at least once every hands -on support PNFPs receiving PHC quarter in the previous FY as reflected from the DHT supervision to health grant) at least once every supervision reports as follows: facilities. quarter in the previous FY (where applicable) : score 1 Quarter 1 report dated 13th November 2019 – all Maximum 7 points on or else, score 0 were visited apart from Kiwoko Hospital; this performance measure If not applicable, provide the Quarter 2 report dated 6th January 2020 – all were score visited;
Quarter 3 report dated 18th April – all were visited; and
Quarter 4 report dated 30th June – all were visited. 10 0 Routine oversight and d. Evidence that DHT/MHT The DHT did not ensure that Health Sub Districts monitoring: The LG ensured that Health Sub (HSDs) carried out support supervision of lower level monitored, provided Districts (HSDs) carried out health facilities within the previous FY. The HSD did hands -on support support supervision of lower not supervise Kikamulo HCIII in quarter 1. The other supervision to health level health facilities within supervisions by the HSD were conducted on; 25th facilities. the previous FY (where September 2019; 14th February 2010; and 21st May applicable), score 1 or else 2020. Maximum 7 points on score 0 this performance measure • If not applicable, provide the score
10 0 Routine oversight and e. Evidence that the LG The LG used results of the support supervision and monitoring: The LG used results/reports from monitoring visits to make recommendations for monitored, provided discussion of the support specific corrective actions as reflected in the hands -on support supervision and monitoring supervision books at Nakaseke Hospital and supervision to health visits, to make Kikamulo HCIII but recommendations were not facilities. recommendations for followed up. specific corrective actions Maximum 7 points on and that implementation of this performance these were followed up measure during the previous FY, score 1 or else score 0
10 0 Routine oversight and f. Evidence that the LG The LG did not provide support to all health facilities monitoring: The LG provided support to all that received PHC funds, in the management of monitored, provided health facilities in the medicines and health supplies. There was no hands -on support management of medicines information on specific guidance to health facility in- supervision to health and health supplies, during charges on secure, safe storage and disposal of facilities. the previous FY: score 1 or medicines and health supplies was not available at else, score 0 the time of assessment. Maximum 7 points on this performance measure
11 0 Health promotion, a. If the LG allocated at least There was no evidence that LG allocated at least disease prevention and 30% of District / Municipal 30% of District Health Office budget to health social mobilization: The Health Office budget to promotion and prevention activities, because output LG Health department health promotion and 088101 on public health Promotion had no conducted Health prevention activities, Score allocation as per the annual budget performance promotion, disease 2 or else score 0 report prepared on 25/08/2020. prevention and social mobilization activities
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure 11 1 Health promotion, b. Evidence of DHT/MHT The DHT led health promotion, disease prevention disease prevention and led health promotion, and social mobilization activities as per ToRs for social mobilization: The disease prevention and DHTs, during the previous FY. This was reflected in LG Health department social mobilization activities following reports: conducted Health as per ToRs for DHTs, promotion, disease during the previous FY 1. Scale up on sanitation activities in the district prevention and social score 1 or else score 0 reports dated 15th April 20120, and 14th July 2020 mobilization activities for activities conducted in June 2020.
Maximum 4 points on 2. Reproductive services sensitization report dated this performance 5th July 2020 for activities conducted in June 2020. measure
11 0 Health promotion, c. Evidence of follow-up There were no follow-up actions taken by the DHT disease prevention and actions taken by the on health promotion and disease prevention issues social mobilization: The DHT/MHT on health since related documents were missing at the time of LG Health department promotion and disease the assessment. There was no documentary conducted Health prevention issues in their evidence. promotion, disease minutes and reports: score 1 prevention and social or else score 0 mobilization activities
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
Investment Management 12 0 Planning and a. Evidence that the LG has The LG had an updated asset register, last updated Budgeting for an updated Asset register on 26th August 2020 but it did not set out the health Investments: The LG which sets out health facilities and equipment relative to basic standards has carried out facilities and equipment as per the format annexed in the health facility Planning and relative to basic standards: budget and grant guidelines 2020/2021 titled “Health Budgeting for health Score 1 or else 0 Facility Asset Register and Requirements investments as per Checklist”. guidelines.
Maximum 4 points on this performance measure 12 0 Planning and b. Evidence that the There was no evidence of desk appraisal Budgeting for prioritized investments in Investments: The LG the health sector for the has carried out previous FY were: (i) Planning and derived from the LG Budgeting for health Development Plan; (ii) desk investments as per appraisal by the LG; and (iii) guidelines. eligible for expenditure under sector guidelines and Maximum 4 points on funding source (e.g. sector this performance development grant, measure Discretionary Development Equalization Grant (DDEG)): score 1 or else score 0
12 There was no evidence to field appraisal. 0 Planning and c. Evidence that the LG Budgeting for Investments: The LG has conducted field has carried out Appraisal to check for: (i) Planning and technical feasibility; (ii) Budgeting for health environment and social investments as per acceptability; and (iii) guidelines. customized designs to site conditions: score 1 or else Maximum 4 points on score 0 this performance measure
12 0 Planning and d. Evidence that the health There was NO Evidence that all health infrastructure Budgeting for facility investments were projects for the previous FY (2019/2020 FY) Investments: The LG screened for environmental complied with risk mitigation plans as site visit has carried out and social risks and reports and monthly compliance monitoring reports Planning and mitigation measures put in were NOT available. Budgeting for health place before being investments as per approved for construction guidelines. using the checklist: score 1 or else score 0 Maximum 4 points on this performance measure
13 0 Procurement, contract a. Evidence that the LG There was no evidence that the LG health management/execution: health department timely (by department had submitted all its infrastructure and The LG procured and April 30 for the current FY ) other procurement requests to PDU for incorporation managed health submitted all its into the approved LG annual work plan, budget and contracts as per infrastructure and other procurement plans by 30th April. guidelines procurement requests to PDU for incorporation into Assessor was told that the procurement requisitions Maximum 10 points on the approved LG annual are not availed by the health department. this performance work plan, budget and measure procurement plans: score 1 or else score 0 13 0 Procurement, contract b. If the LG Health There was no evidence that the LG Health management/execution: department submitted department had submitted procurement request form The LG procured and procurement request form (Form PP1) to the PDU by 1st Quarter of the current managed health (Form PP5) to the PDU by FY. Files reviewed showed no record of initiated contracts as per 1st Quarter of the current requisitions. guidelines FY: score 1 or else, score 0
Maximum 10 points on this performance measure
13 0 Procurement, contract c. Evidence that the health There was no evidence that the health infrastructure management/execution: infrastructure investments investments were approved by Contracts committee The LG procured and for the previous FY was for the current FY managed health approved by the Contracts contracts as per Committee and cleared by guidelines the Solicitor General (where above the threshold), before Maximum 10 points on commencement of this performance construction: score 1 or else measure score 0
13 0 Procurement, contract d. Evidence that the LG The Project Implementation Team was not management/execution: properly established a appropriately established The LG procured and Project Implementation managed health team for all health projects Letters from the CAO/TC designating members of contracts as per composed of: (i) : score 1 or the Project Implementation Team were reviewed: guidelines else score 0 1. Letter dated 14-Feb-2019 shows appointment of Maximum 10 points on If there is no project, provide Kiridde Charles as Project Manager for the this performance the score construction of Health Centre II at Butalango measure 2. No other letters are available for the other PIT members 13 0 Procurement, contract e. Evidence that the health The sampled project was not constructed entirely management/execution: infrastructure followed the according to the provided technical specifications. The LG procured and standard technical designs managed health provided by the MoH: score Standard technical drawings: contracts as per 1 or else score 0 Window (W1): Width – 1.5m guidelines If there is no project, provide Height – 1.5m Maximum 10 points on the score this performance Main Door (D2,PVO): Width – 1.5m measure Height -2.4m
Measured dimensions at Health Centre III at Nakaseke Sub County
Window width – 1.44m, 1.19m, 1.47m. Height: 1.45m, 1,45m, 1.45m
Main door: Width 1.44m, 1.48m Height: 2.35m, 2.36
Mortar week based on the nail test
Splash apron cracked in many locations
Painting done well
13 0 Procurement, contract f. Evidence that the Clerk of There was no evidence of whether the weekly management/execution: Works maintains daily reports are consolidated from the daily site reports. The LG procured and records that are managed health consolidated weekly to the In fact, no weekly reports were availed for review. contracts as per District Engineer in copy to There was also no evidence of a Clerk of Works on guidelines the DHO, for each health the team infrastructure project: score Maximum 10 points on 1 or else score 0 this performance measure If there is no project, provide the score
13 0 Procurement, contract g. Evidence that the LG held There was no evidence that project site meetings management/execution: monthly site meetings by were held on a monthly basis as per guidelines; The LG procured and project site committee: managed health chaired by the CAO/Town However, the LG team took keen interest in the Seed contracts as per Clerk and comprised of the School where a number of key stakeholders guidelines Sub-county Chief (SAS), the attended some monthly meetings designated contract and Maximum 10 points on project managers, this performance chairperson of the HUMC, measure 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 LG There is no evidence that the LG carried out management/execution: carried out technical technical supervision of works at all health The LG procured and supervision of works at all infrastructure projects at least monthly, by the managed health health infrastructure projects relevant officers including the Engineers, contracts as per at least monthly, by the Environment officers, CDO. guidelines relevant officers including the Engineers, Environment Only District Engineer and Supervisor of Works were Maximum 10 points on officers, CDOs, at critical recorded to have carried out inspections this performance stages of construction: measure score 1, or else score 0
If there is no project, provide the score
13 0 Procurement, contract i. Evidence that the There was no evidence that the DHO verified works management/execution: DHO/MMOH verified works and initiated payments of contractors within specified The LG procured and and initiated payments of timeframes as there was no information to verify this. managed health contractors within specified The LG claimed the vouchers were taken by the contracts as per timeframes (within 2 weeks external auditors before the assessment. guidelines or 10 working days), score 1 or else score 0 Maximum 10 points on this performance measure 13 1 Procurement, contract j. Evidence that the LG has The procurement files for health infrastructure management/execution: a complete procurement file projects for the current FY are complete The LG procured and for each health managed health infrastructure contract with Sampled project: contracts as per all records as required by 1. Construction of 4 Units staff House and 4 stance guidelines the PPDA Law score 1 or VIP Latrine with bath shelters at Butalangu else score 0 Maximum 10 points on Contract No: NAKA569/Wrks/19-20/00012 this performance measure Requisition form on file
Approval by CC on file (Min 23/Naka/DCC/March/19-20
Works Contract availed.
Bid Evaluation Report availed and signed off by Wesige Charles.
2. Health Centre III at Butalango
Procurement requisition on file
Evaluation report was availed and signed off by Namuwaya Sarah (Chairman of evaluation committee)
Contract implementation plan was availed.
Works contract on file
Progress reports on file
CC Min: Min 133/Naka/DCC/Jan/18-20
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 0 Grievance redress: The a. Evidence that the Local There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG Health LG has established a Government has recorded, grievances had been recorded, investigated, and mechanism of investigated, responded responded to in line with the LG grievance redress addressing health and reported in line with the framework as the LG was yet to: (i) designate a sector grievances in LG grievance redress Grievance Redress Officer to coordinate response to line with the LG framework score 2 or else 0 feedback on grievance/complaints; (ii) establish a grievance redress centralized Grievance Redress Committee (GRC); framework (iii) specify a system for recording, investigating and responding to grievances; (iv) define a complaints Maximum 2 points on referral path; (v) publicly display grievance redress this performance information at LG offices; (vi) publicize the grievance measure redress mechanisms so that aggrieved parties would know where to report and get redress. 15 0 Safeguards for service a. Evidence that the LG has There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG Health delivery: LG Health disseminated guidelines on Department had disseminated guidelines on health Department ensures health care / medical waste care/medical waste management to health facilities safeguards for service management to health in the LG that included guidelines on construction of delivery facilities : score 2 points or medical waste facilities and had followed up else score 0 implementation of the health care waste Maximum 5 points on management guidelines by health centers. this performance measure
15 0 Safeguards for service b. Evidence that the LG has There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had a delivery: LG Health in place a functional system functional system/central infrastructures with Department ensures for Medical waste equipment for medical waste management and had safeguards for service management or central a dedicated/operational budget for health care waste delivery infrastructures for managing management. medical waste (either an Maximum 5 points on incinerator or Registered this performance waste management service measure provider): score 2 or else score 0
15 0 Safeguards for service c. Evidence that the LG has There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had delivery: LG Health conducted training (s) and conducted training and created awareness in health Department ensures created awareness in care waste management as training records on safeguards for service healthcare waste health care waste management were NOT available. delivery management score 1 or else score 0 Maximum 5 points on this performance measure
16 0 Safeguards in the a. Evidence that a costed There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had Delivery of Investment ESMP was incorporated Costed ESMPs and Environment Social Health and Management: LG into designs, BoQs, bidding Safety safeguards incorporated into designs, BoQs, Health infrastructure and contractual documents bidding and contractual documents for health projects incorporate for health infrastructure infrastructure projects of the previous FY (2019/2020 Environment and Social projects of the previous FY: FY) as Costed ESMPs and Environment Social Safeguards in the score 2 or else score 0 Health and Safety safeguards were absent in health delivery of the sector projects designs, BoQs, and bidding and investments contractual documents that were presented by the LG and reviewed by the Assessor. Additionally, Maximum 8 points on Costed ESMPs and Environment Social Health and this performance Safety safeguards for health sector projects were measure also NOT available. 16 0 Safeguards in the b. Evidence that all health There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had all Delivery of Investment sector projects are health sector projects implemented on land where Management: LG implemented on land where the LG had proof of ownership, access and Health infrastructure the LG has proof of availability, without any encumbrances on land projects incorporate ownership, access and acquisition status as no land titles, agreements, Environment and Social availability (e.g. a land title, Memoranda of Understanding or consent letters from Safeguards in the agreement; Formal landowners for planned health infrastructure projects delivery of the Consent, MoUs, etc.), were provided by the LG. investments without any encumbrances: score 2 or else, score 0 Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
16 0 Safeguards in the c. Evidence that the LG There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG Delivery of Investment Environment Officer and Environmental Officer and CDO conducted support Management: LG CDO conducted support supervision and monitoring of health projects to Health infrastructure supervision and monitoring ascertain compliance with ESMPs; and monthly projects incorporate of health projects to monitoring reports were NOT available. Environment and Social ascertain compliance with Safeguards in the ESMPs; and provide delivery of the monthly reports: score 2 or investments else score 0.
Maximum 8 points on this performance measure
16 0 Safeguards in the d. Evidence that There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG Delivery of Investment Environment and Social Environmental and Social Certification Forms were Management: LG Certification forms were completed and signed by the LG Environmental Health infrastructure completed and signed by Officer and CDO prior to settlement of contractor projects incorporate the LG Environment Officer payment certificates at interim and final stages of all Environment and Social and CDO, prior to payments health infrastructure projects as Environmental and Safeguards in the of contractor Social Certification Forms for health sector projects delivery of the invoices/certificates at that were completed and signed by Environmental investments interim and final stages of Officer and CDO were NOT available. Additionally, all health infrastructure signatures of Environmental Officer and CDO were Maximum 8 points on projects score 2 or else absent on Contractor Payment Certificates that were this performance score 0 presented by the LG and reviewed by the Assessor. measure
569 Water & Environment Nakaseke Performance Measures 2020 District
Summary of Definition of No. Compliance justification Score requirements compliance Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 0 Water & Environment a. % of rural water According to the Management Information System (MIS) Outcomes: The LG has sources that are of the Ministry of Water and Environment, the registered high functional. functionality of the rural water sources in Nakaseke functionality of water District as of November 08th, 2020 was 75%. sources and If the district rural water management source functionality as committees per the sector MIS is:
Maximum 4 points on o 90 - 100%: score 2 this performance o 80-89%: score 1 measure o Below 80%: 0
1 2 Water & Environment b. % of facilities with According to the Management Information System (MIS) Outcomes: The LG has functional water & of the Ministry of Water and Environment, the facilities in registered high sanitation committees Nakaseke with functional water and sanitation functionality of water (documented water committees as of November 08th, 2020 was 97% sources and user fee collection management records and utilization committees with the approval of the WSCs). If the district Maximum 4 points on WSS facilities that have this performance functional WSCs is: measure o 90 - 100%: score 2
o 80-89%: score 1
o Below 80%: 0
2 0 Service Delivery a. The LG average The Lower Local Government Assessment has not yet Performance: Average score in the water and started for Nakaseke District Local Government. score in the water and environment LLGs environment LLGs performance performance assessment for the assessment current. FY.
Maximum 8 points on If LG average scores is this performance measure a. Above 80% score 2
b. 60 -80%: 1
c. Below 60: 0
(Only applicable when LLG assessment starts) 2 0 Service Delivery b. % of budgeted water Nakaseke District has 15 Lower Local Government (10 Performance: Average projects implemented in rural sub counties and 5 town councils) namely: Semuto score in the water and the sub-counties with Sub County ( with a coverage of 86%), Kapeka Sub environment LLGs safe water coverage County ( with a coverage of 61), Kito Sub County ( with a performance below the district coverage of 94%), Kasangombe Sub County ( with a assessment average in the previous coverage of 128%), Kikamulo Sub County ( with a FY. coverage of 100%), Nakaseke Sub County ( with a Maximum 8 points on coverage of 68%), Ngoma Sub County ( with a coverage this performance o If 100 % of water of 41%), Kinoni Sub County ( with a coverage of 20%), measure projects are Kinyogoga (with a coverage of 56 %), Wakyato (with a implemented in the coverage of 60 %), Kiwoko Town Council ( with a targeted S/Cs: Score 2 coverage of 82%), Ngoma Town Council ( with a coverage of 34%), Semuto Town Council ( with a o If 80-99%: Score 1 coverage of 83%), Nakaseke-Butalango Town Council ( o If below 80 %: Score with a coverage of 64%). and Nakaseke Town Council ( 0 with a coverage of 116%). The average coverage for Nakaseke district is 78% which makes Nakaseke Sub County ( with a coverage of 68%), Ngoma Sub County ( with a coverage of 41%), Kinoni Sub County ( with a coverage of 20%), Kinyogoga (with a coverage of 56 %), Wakyato (with a coverage of 60 %), the sub counties with having coverage below the district coverage. According to the District Annual (Quarter 4) Report 2019/2020, 19 projects were implement during the previous year (2019/2020). The implemented projects included:
- Drilling of 09 boreholes;
- Construction of Rainwater Harvesting (10,000 L) Tank;
- Rehabilitation of 08 boreholes; and
- Construction of 01 lined pit latrine.
Of these 19 projects, only 07 (drilling of 03 boreholes, rehabilitation of 04 projects) were planned in the sub counties with water coverage below the district average. Thus only 07 (37%) of the 19 planned projects were implemented in the sub counties with water coverage below district average coverage.
2 2 Service Delivery c. If variations in the According to the Annual Work plan 2019/2020 which Performance: Average contract price of was submitted to the Ministry of Water and Environment score in the water and sampled WSS on July 8th, 2019 and received (and approved) on July environment LLGs infrastructure 12th, 2019, six infrastructure contracts were planned performance investments for the namely: assessment previous FY are within +/- 20% of engineer’s - Drilling of 09 boreholes at a cost of UGX 202,713,462/=; Maximum 8 points on estimates this performance - Siting of 6 boreholes and supervision of 9 boreholes at measure o If within +/-20% score a cost of 20,517,840/= 2 - Rehabilitation of 8 boreholes at a cost of UGX o If not score 0 25,816,295/=;
- Construction of 01 Pit Latrine at a cost of UGX 13,988,441/= and
- Construction of 01 10,000 Liters Rain water Harvesting Tank at a cost of UGX 11,334,289/= According to the Annual Performance Report (Quarter Four Report) which was submitted to the Ministry of Water and Environment Headquarter on July 13th, 2020 and was received (acknowledged) on July 17th, 2020 (the same was reviewed during the assessment); all Water Supply and Sanitation infrastructure projects were executed through 06 contracts as outlined below:
- Drilling of 03 boreholes (LOT 1) was implemented at a cost of UGX 85,397,000/– Procurement Ref: Nakas 569/Wrks/2019-2020/00005 signed with KLR Uganda Ltd on September 28th, 2019
- Drilling of 06 boreholes (LOT 2) was implemented at a cost of UGX 126,978,000/– Procurement Ref: Nakas 569/Wrks/2019-2020/00004, Acceptance by KLR Uganda Ltd on September 30th, 2019
- Siting of 6 boreholes and supervision of 09 boreholes was done at a cost of UGX 20,391,462 – Procurement Ref: Nakas 569/Servs/2019-2020/00001 signed with Fels Consultants Ltd on October 28th, 2019;
- Construction of 1 pit latrine was done at a cost of UGX 13,847,507 – Procurement Ref: Nakas 569/Wrks/19- 20/00006 signed by Calinet General Enterprises Ltd on November 28th, 2019;
- Construction of 1 Rain water Harvesting tank (10,000 Liters) was done at a cost of UGX 11,207,994 – Procurement Ref: Nakas 569/Wrks/19-20/00007 signed by Khazana Services Ltd on October 15th, 2019;
- Rehabilitation of 5 boreholes at a cost of UGX 23,753,400/ - Procurement Ref: Naka 569/wrks/19- 20/00011 signed with Khazana Services Limited on November 28th, 2019;
- Addendum to Rehabilitation Contract (Rehabilitation of additional 3 boreholes at a Cost of UGX 10,928,000- Procurement Ref: Naka 569/wrks/19-20/00011, Quote Submitted by Khazana Services Ltd on June 22, 2020;
Taking three of the contracts which were sampled and visited during assessment, please see below:
- the contracts for Drilling of the boreholes were done at a deviation of 5% above the engineer estimate;
- the contract for siting and drilling supervision was done at a deviation of 1% below engineers estimate; and
- the construction of the lined pit latrine was done at a deviation of + 1% below engineers estimate. 2 2 Service Delivery d. % of WSS According to the Annual Work plan 2019/2020 which Performance: Average infrastructure projects was submitted to the Ministry of Water and Environment score in the water and completed as per on July 8th, 2019 and received (and approved) on July environment LLGs annual work plan by 12th, 2019, nine infrastructure projects were planned performance end of FY. namely: assessment o If 100% projects - Drilling (and siting) of boreholes (No. 09); Maximum 8 points on completed: score 2 this performance - Rehabilitation of boreholes (No. 08); measure o If 80-99% projects completed: score 1 - Construction of Pit Latrine (No. 01); and
o If projects completed - Construction of10,000 Liters Rain water Harvesting are below 80%: 0 Tank (No. 01)=
Annual Performance Report (Quarter Four Report) which was submitted to the Ministry of Water and Environment Headquarter on July 13th, 2020 and was received (acknowledged) on July 17th, 2020 (the same was reviewed during the assessment);
All the above mentioned correspondences were signed by Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. John Katotoroma and copied to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government; the Director Budget, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development; the District Chairperson, Nakaseke District Local Government; the Resident District Commissioner, Nakaseke District; the Chairperson District Public Accounts Committee; the Chief Internal Auditor, Nakaseke District; and the Secretary for Works and Technical Services, Nakaseke.
I attest that all planned Water Supply and Sanitation infrastructure projects (100%) were executed and completed within the Fiscal Year (2019/2020) as planned.
3 0 Achievement of a. If there is an increase According to the Management Information System (MIS) Standards: The LG has in the % of water supply of the Ministry of Water and Environment, the met WSS infrastructure facilities that are functionality of the water supply facilities for the year facility standards functioning 2018-2019 was 75%. The functionality of water supply facilities remained the same (75%) even for the year Maximum 4 points on o If there is an increase: 2019-2020 which represents no increase (0%) in this performance score 2 functionality of the water supply facilities. measure o If no increase: score 0. 3 0 Achievement of b. If there is an Increase According to the Management Information System (MIS) Standards: The LG has in % of facilities with of the Ministry of Water and Environment, the facilities met WSS infrastructure functional water & with functional Water and sanitation Committees in the facility standards sanitation committees year 2018-2019 remained at 97% which which (with documented water represents no (0%) increase in facilities with functional Maximum 4 points on user fee collection water and sanitation committees. this performance records and utilization measure with the approval of the WSCs).
o If increase is more than 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 Annual Performance Report (Quarter Four Report) was Information: The LG has accurately reported on provided by the District Water Officer and reviewed accurately reported on WSS facilities during assessment. This report (Annual Performance constructed WSS constructed in the Report/ Quarter Four Report) was submitted to the infrastructure projects previous FY and Ministry of Water and Environment Headquarter on July and service performance of the 13th, 2020 and was received (acknowledged) on July performance facilities is as reported: 17th, 2020. Score: 3 Maximum 3 points on Nine boreholes were drilled and were all productive. this performance Three of the nine boreholes were visited for verification measure and the results are as outlined below:
- Borehole 57802 is located at Kiduku village, Kasiso Parish, Kito Sub County, Nakaseke District at GPS coordinates 36N0417593, UTM0082252, Altitude 1096m. At the time of verification, the borehole was functional as reflected in Quarter 4 (Annual) report mentioned above.
- Borehole 57803 is located at Kankizi village, Wakayemba Parish, Kikamulo Sub County, Nakaseke District at GPS coordinates 36N0424268, UTM0097164, Altitude 1108m. At the time of verification, the borehole was functional as reflected in Quarter 4 (Annual) report mentioned above. I physically met and talked to Mr. Tagondera James Tel 0784922928 (Source Care Taker) who expressed satisfaction with the state of the borehole. He also briefed me that the training had been conducted for the water source committee and that each house hold was contributing UGX 2,000/ per month towards the repair of the water source.
- Borehole 57800 is located at Nakaseta village, Nakaseta Parish, Kasangombe Sub County at GPS coordinates 36N0438769, UTM0085637, Altitude 1110. At the time of verification, the borehole was functional as reflected in Quarter 4 (Annual) report mentioned above. I physically met and talked to Ms. Namuli Margret Pauline Kibyaklironde (Care Taker) who expressed satisfaction with the state of the borehole. She briefed me that the training had been conducted for the water source committee and that each house hold was contributing UGX 10,000/ per year towards the repair of the water source.
All the people I talked to during verification attested that all the water sources drilled were function, and training had been conducted for the members of the respective water users committees 5 2 Reporting and a. Evidence that the LG Four Quarterly Reports provided by Local government performance Water Office collects District Water Office(r) as follows: improvement: The LG and compiles quarterly compiles, updates WSS information on sub- - Quarter 1 Report was submitted to the Ministry on information and county water supply October 07th, 2019 (Ref: ADM//10/19) - it was received supports LLGs to and sanitation, and acknowledged on October 30th, 2019; improve their functionality of facilities - Quarter 2 Report was submitted to the Ministry on performance and WSCs, safe water January 07th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//01/20)- it was received collection and storage and acknowledged on January 31st, 2020; Maximum 7 points on and community this performance involvement): Score 2 - Quarter 3 Report was submitted to the Ministry on April measure 07th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//04/20) - the date of receipt and acknowledgement was June 02nd, 2020; and
- Quarter 4 Report was submitted to the Ministry on July 13th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//07/20)- it was received and acknowledged on July 17th, 2020.
These were checked to ascertain whether the Local Government Water Office collects and compiles quarterly information on sub-county water supply and sanitation, functionality of facilities and WSCs, safe water collection and storage and community involvement. The information on sub-county water supply and sanitation, functionality of facilities and WSCs, safe water collection and storage and community involvement (and related services) was collected on respective forms and submitted in each of the respective quarterly reports mentioned above. All the above mentioned correspondences were signed by Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. John Katotoroma and copied to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government; the Director Budget, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development; the District Chairperson, Nakaseke District Local Government; the Resident District Commissioner, Nakaseke District; the Chairperson District Public Accounts Committee; the Chief Internal Auditor, Nakaseke District; and the Secretary for Works and Technical Services, Nakaseke 5 3 Reporting and b. Evidence that the LG The District Water Office had MIS data collected on performance Water Office updates quarterly basis. The same data was also shared with the improvement: The LG the MIS (WSS data) Ministry as one of the Annexes to the respective compiles, updates WSS quarterly with water Quarterly reports which were submitted to the Ministry as information and supply and sanitation follows: supports LLGs to information (new improve their facilities, population - Quarter 1 Report was submitted to the Ministry on performance served, functionality of October 07th, 2019 (Ref: ADM//10/19) - it was received WSCs and WSS and acknowledged on October 30th, 2019; Maximum 7 points on facilities, etc.) and uses - Quarter 2 Report was submitted to the Ministry on this performance compiled information for January 07th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//01/20)- it was received measure planning purposes: and acknowledged on January 31st, 2020; Score 3 or else 0 - Quarter 3 Report was submitted to the Ministry on April 07th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//04/20) - the date of receipt and acknowledgement was June 02nd, 2020; and
- Quarter 4 Report was submitted to the Ministry on July 13th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//07/20)- it was received and acknowledged on July 17th, 2020.
From these reports, there was clear evidence that LG Water Office updated the MIS (WSS Data) quarterly with water supply and sanitation.
5 0 Reporting and c. Evidence that DWO There was no Lower Local Government (LLG) performance has supported the 25% assessments done in the district hence there is no LLG improvement: The LG lowest performing LLGs Assessment Reports availed. Equally, there was no compiles, updates WSS in the previous FY LLG copies of Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) that were information and assessment to develop received and/or reviewed. supports LLGs to and implement improve their performance performance improvement plans: Score 2 or else 0 Maximum 7 points on this performance Note: Only applicable measure from the assessment where there has been a previous assessment of the LLGs’ performance. In case there is no previous assessment score 0.
Human Resource Management and Development 6 0 Budgeting for Water & a. Evidence that the There was no evidence that the DWO budgeted for the Sanitation and DWO has budgeted for critical staff in the District Water Office. The positions of Environment & Natural the following Water & Civil Engineer (water), Assistant water officer, Borehole Resources: The Local Sanitation staff: 1 Civil Maintenance Technician and Engineering Assistant Government has Engineer(Water); 2 were vacant as per the information from HRM Division. budgeted for staff Assistant Water Officers (1 for mobilization and 1 The District does not currently have a substantive water Maximum 4 points on for sanitation & officer. The Salary of the acting Water Officer is currently this performance hygiene); 1 Engineering planned under the works directorate. measure Assistant (Water) & 1 Borehole Maintenance Technician: Score 2
6 0 Budgeting for Water & b. Evidence that the There was no evidence that the Environment and Natural Sanitation and Environment and Resources Officer had budgeted for the Natural Environment & Natural Natural Resources Resources Officer. Resources: The Local Officer has budgeted for Government has the following However, the Environment and Natural Resources budgeted for staff Environment & Natural Officer had budgeted for the Environment Officer Nabasa Resources staff: 1 Benon Baguma appointed on 15th /8/2019, Min No. Maximum 4 points on Natural Resources DSC/NSK/99/2019 (2) (a) (1) and Forestry Officer this performance Officer; 1 Environment Semujju Solomon appointed on 25/7/2018, Min No. measure Officer; 1 Forestry DSC/NSK/106/2018 (6) (f) (1). Officer: Score 2
7 0 Performance a. The DWO has There was no evidence of appraisal of the District water Management: The LG appraised District Water staff against the agreed performance plans during the appraised staff and Office staff against the previous FY. conducted trainings in agreed performance line with the district plans during the training plans. previous FY: Score 3
Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
7 0 Performance b. The District Water The activity was not undertaken. There was no capacity Management: The LG Office has identified needs of the staff that was identified. Equally, there were appraised staff and capacity needs of staff no training activities neither was there any training plans conducted trainings in from the performance at the district level documented in the training database. line with the district appraisal process and training plans. ensured that training activities have been Maximum 6 points on conducted in this performance adherence to the measure training plans at district level and documented in the training database : Score 3
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 8 0 Planning, Budgeting a) Evidence that Nakaseke District has 15 Lower Local Government (10 and Transfer of Funds the DWO has rural sub counties and 5 town councils) namely: Semuto for service delivery: The prioritized budget Sub County ( with a coverage of 95%), Kapeka Sub Local Government has allocations to sub- County ( with a coverage of 67), Kito Sub County ( with a allocated and spent counties that have coverage of 95%), Kasangombe Sub County ( with a funds for service safe water coverage of 95%), Kikamulo Sub County ( with a delivery as prescribed coverage below coverage of 95%), Nakaseke Sub County ( with a in the sector guidelines. that of the district: coverage of 95%), Ngoma Sub County ( with a coverage of 64%), Kinoni Sub County ( with a coverage of 23%), Maximum 6 points on • If 100 % of the Kinyogoga (with a coverage of 56 %), Wakyato (with a this performance budget allocation coverage of 91 %), Kiwoko Town Council ( with a measure for the current FY coverage of 82%), Ngoma Town Council ( with a is allocated to coverage of 53%), Semuto Town Council ( with a S/Cs below the coverage of 95%), Nakaseke-Butalango Town Council ( district average with a coverage of 62%). and Nakaseke Town Council ( coverage: Score 3 with a coverage of 95%). The average coverage for • If 80-99%: Score Nakaseke district is 82% which makes Ngoma Sub 2 County (with a coverage of 64%), Kinoni Sub County ( • If 60-79: Score 1 with a coverage of 23%), and Kinyogoga (with a • If below 60 %: coverage of 56 %), the sub counties with having Score 0 coverage below the district coverage. According to the District Annual Workplan (2020-2021) which was submitted to the Ministry of Water and Environment (Ref: ADM//07/20,) on July13th, 2020 and was received (and approved) on July 17th, 2020. The planned activities include:
- Drilling (and Siting) of 12 boreholes budgeted at UGX 334,558,258;
- Rehabilitation of 8 boreholes budgeted at UGX 46,469,330;
- Installation of 01 HDPE Rain Water Harvesting Tank (10,000 Liters Capacity) budgeted at UGX 11,334,289/=; and
- Construction of 01 VIP pit latrine budgeted at UGX 13, 988,441.
Of these 22 projects budgeted at UGX 406,350,318, only 07 projects (drilling of 07 boreholes projects) budgeted at UGX 195,158,984 were planned in the sub counties with water coverage below the district average. Thus only UGX 195,158,984 (48%) of the budgeted UGX 406,350,318, for the planned 22 projects were allocated to the sub counties with water coverage below district average coverage. 8 0 Planning, Budgeting b) Evidence that the There was no evidence that the DWO communicated to and Transfer of Funds DWO communicated to the Lower Local Government their respective allocations for service delivery: The the LLGs their per source to be constructed in the current Fiscal Year. Local Government has respective allocations The respective software quarterly reports did not contain allocated and spent per source to be information on the allocations per source to be funds for service constructed in the constructed. The available minutes of the sub county delivery as prescribed current FY: Score 3 advocacy meeting were reviewed and did not contain in the sector guidelines. information on the allocation per source to be constructed. Maximum 6 points on this performance measure
9 4 Routine Oversight and a. Evidence that the Four Quarterly Reports were provided by Local Monitoring: The LG has district Water Office has government District Water Office(r) as follows: monitored WSS monitored each of WSS facilities and provided facilities at least - Quarter 1 Report was submitted to the Ministry on follow up support. quarterly (key areas to October 07th, 2019 (Ref: ADM//10/19) - it was received include functionality of and acknowledged on October 30th, 2019; Maximum 8 points on Water supply and - Quarter 2 Report was submitted to the Ministry on this performance public sanitation January 07th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//01/20)- it was received measure facilities, environment, and acknowledged on January 31st, 2020; and social safeguards, etc.) - Quarter 3 Report was submitted to the Ministry on April 07th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//04/20) - the date of receipt and • If more than 95% of acknowledgement was June 02nd, 2020; and the WSS facilities monitored quarterly: - Quarter 4 Report was submitted to the Ministry on July score 4 13th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//07/20) - it was received and acknowledged on July 17th, 2020. • If 80-99% of the WSS facilities monitored During the assessment, these were checked to ascertain quarterly: score 2 whether the Local Government Water Office had monitored each of the WSS facilities at least quarterly • If less than 80% of the (including functionality of water supply and public WSS facilities sanitation facilities, environment and social safe guards monitored quarterly: etc.). The information on monitoring of the facilities was Score 0 contained in the Quarter 4 (Annual) Report mentioned above which submitted to the Ministry on July 13th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//07/20) - it was received and acknowledged on July 17th, 2020. The monitoring information that was provided as evidence included Form 1 for all the 9 new water sources as well as a list of existing wells. All the 09 new boreholes (100%) drilled during the year had been monitored.
All the above mentioned correspondences were signed by Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. John Katotoroma and copied to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government; the Director Budget, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development; the District Chairperson, Nakaseke District Local Government; the Resident District Commissioner, Nakaseke District; the Chairperson District Public Accounts Committee; the Chief Internal Auditor, Nakaseke District; and the Secretary for Works and Technical Services, Nakaseke 9 2 Routine Oversight and b. Evidence that the Evidence that DWO conducted Quarterly DWSCC Monitoring: The LG has DWO conducted meetings was seen during the assessment. Three of the monitored WSS quarterly DWSCC four respective meetings were attached on the respective facilities and provided meetings and among Quarterly Reports provided by Local government District follow up support. other agenda items, key Water Office(r) as follows: issues identified from Maximum 8 points on quarterly monitoring of - Quarter 1 Report was submitted to the Ministry on this performance WSS facilities were October 07th, 2019 (Ref: ADM//10/19) - it was received measure discussed and remedial and acknowledged on October 30th, 2019. The DWSCC actions incorporated in meeting in the quarter was held on October 03rd, 2019 the current FY AWP. - Quarter 3 Report was submitted to the Ministry on April Score 2 07th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//04/20) - the date of receipt and acknowledgement was June 02nd, 2020. The DWSCC meeting in the quarter was held on March 12th, 2019
- Quarter 4 (Annual) Report was submitted to the Ministry on July 13th, 2020 (Ref: ADM//07/20) - it was received and acknowledged on July 17th, 2020. The DWSCC meeting in the quarter was held on June 10th, 2019
These were checked during the assessment to ascertain whether key issues identified from quarterly monitoring of WSS facilities were discussed and remedial actions incorporated in the current FY AWP. All the above mentioned correspondences were signed by Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. John Katotoroma and copied to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government; the Director Budget, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development; the District Chairperson, Nakaseke District Local Government; the Resident District Commissioner, Nakaseke District; the Chairperson District Public Accounts Committee; the Chief Internal Auditor, Nakaseke District; and the Secretary for Works and Technical Services, Nakaseke 9 0 Routine Oversight and c. The District Water Nakaseke District has 15 Lower Local Government (10 Monitoring: The LG has Officer publicizes rural sub counties and 5 town councils) namely: monitored WSS budget allocations for facilities and provided the current FY to LLGs - Semuto Sub County (with a coverage of 95%), follow up support. with safe water - Kapeka Sub County ( with a coverage of 67), coverage below the LG Maximum 8 points on average to all sub- - Kito Sub County (with a coverage of 95%), this performance counties: Score 2 measure - Kasangombe Sub County (with a coverage of 95%),
- Kikamulo Sub County (with a coverage of 95%),
- Nakaseke Sub County (with a coverage of 95%),
- Ngoma Sub County (with a coverage of 64%),
- Kinoni Sub County (with a coverage of 23%),
- Kinyogoga Sub County (with a coverage of 56 %),
- Wakyato Sub County (with a coverage of 91 %),
- Kiwoko Town Council (with a coverage of 82%),
- Ngoma Town Council (with a coverage of 53%),
- Semuto Town Council (with a coverage of 95%),
- Nakaseke-Butalango Town Council (with a coverage of 62%), and
- Nakaseke Town Council (with a coverage of 95%).
The average coverage for Nakaseke district is 82% which makes Ngoma Sub County (with a coverage of 64%), Kapeka Sub County (with a coverage of 67), Kinoni Sub County (with a coverage of 23%), and Kinyogoga Sub County (with a coverage of 56 %), the sub counties having coverage below the district coverage.
However, there was no evidence that the District Water Officer publicized budget allocations for the current FY to LLGs with safe water coverage below the LG average to all sub- counties. The allocations were not shown on any of the notice boards. Besides, the District has a district Website but the allocations to the Lower Local Government had not yet been uploaded there. 10 3 Mobilization for WSS is a. For previous FY, the The budget was submitted on July 8th, 2019 – Ref: conducted DWO allocated a ADM/07/19. It was received and approved by the Ministry minimum of 40% of the 0n July 12th, 2019. In the NWR budget of UGX Maximum 6 points on NWR rural water and 37,278,317/=, UGX 24,271,800/= (65%) was allocated for this performance sanitation budget as per mobilization. measure sector guidelines towards mobilization activities:
• If funds were allocated score 3
• If not score 0
10 3 Mobilization for WSS is b. For the previous FY, The annual software report for the year 2019/2020 was conducted the District Water received and reviewed. The same was attached as Officer in liaison with annex to the Quarter Four /Annual Report dated July Maximum 6 points on the Community 13th, 2020 – Ref: ADM//07/20 - which was received by this performance Development Officer the Ministry on July 17th, 2020 on pages 18 of 22. The measure trained WSCs on their report indicates that 09 new water users committees roles on O&M of WSS were trained, one committee for each of the 09 new water facilities: Score 3. that had been constructed (drilled).
Investment Management 11 4 Planning and a. Existence of an up- The District Water Officer presented a list of all water Budgeting for to-date LG asset supply and sanitation facilities by location. The Investments is register which sets out information on monitoring of the facilities was contained conducted effectively water supply and in the Quarter 4 (Annual) Report mentioned above which sanitation facilities by submitted to the Ministry on July 13th, 2020 (Ref: Maximum 14 points on location and LLG: ADM//07/20) - it was received and acknowledged on July this performance 17th, 2020. The monitoring information that was provided measure Score 4 or else 0 as evidence included Form 1 for all the 9 new water sources as well as a list of existing wells.
Besides these water supply facilities above, the District Water Officer did not have separate register of equipment under the water department. The same are contained in the Asset registry of the Works Department. 11 There was not evidence that the LG conducted desk 0 Planning and b. Evidence that the LG appraisal in all WSS projects but the projects were in the Budgeting for DWO has conducted a development plan. Investments is desk appraisal for all conducted effectively WSS projects in the budget to establish Maximum 14 points on whether the prioritized this performance investments were measure derived from the approved district development plans and are eligible for expenditure under sector guidelines (prioritize investments for sub-counties with safe water coverage below the district average and rehabilitation of non- functional facilities) and funding source (e.g. sector development grant, DDEG). If desk appraisal was conducted and if all projects are derived from the LGDP and are eligible:
Score 4 or else score 0.
11 0 Planning and c. All budgeted The planned activities for year (2020/2021) are Drilling Budgeting for investments for current 12 boreholes; Rehabilitation of 08 boreholes and Investments is FY have completed construction of 1 latrines. There was no evidence of the conducted effectively applications from applications for these planned projects. beneficiary Maximum 14 points on communities: Score 2 this performance measure
11 0 Planning and d. Evidence that the LG There was no evidence that the LG conducted field Budgeting for has conducted field appraisal to check for; technical feasibility; environmental Investments is appraisal to check for: social acceptability; and customised designs for WSS conducted effectively (i) technical feasibility; projects for current FY. (ii) environmental social Maximum 14 points on acceptability; and (iii) this performance customized designs for measure WSS projects for current FY. Score 2 11 0 Planning and e. Evidence that all There was NO Evidence that all water infrastructure Budgeting for water infrastructure projects for the current FY (2020/2021 FY) were Investments is projects for the current screened for environmental and social risks/impacts and conducted effectively FY were screened for ESIAs/ESMPs prepared before the projects were environmental and approved for construction as Costed ESMPs; designs, Maximum 14 points on social risks/ impacts BoQs, bidding and contract documents with Costed this performance and ESIA/ESMPs ESMPs; site visit reports; and monthly compliance measure prepared before being monitoring reports were NOT available. approved for construction - costed ESMPs incorporated into designs, BoQs, bidding and contract documents. Score 2
12 2 Procurement and a. Evidence that the The water and sanitation infrastructure projects were Contract water infrastructure incorporated in the procurement plan. Management/execution: investments were The LG has effectively incorporated in the LG There was evidence of existence of the water projects in managed the WSS approved: Score 2 or the Nakaseke DLG Procurement Plan for the FY 2019/20 procurements else 0 under the Section titled Works (Water)
Maximum 14 points on The following is the sampled project. this performance 1. Project Name: Drilling of 07 Deep boreholes in measure selected sub counties in the district . Contract No: Naka569/Wrks/20-21/00004
Date of Award: 09-July-2020
Contract Price: 160,370,991
Min14/Naka/DCC/May/19-20
Evaluation Report: Signed off by Kigozi Godfrey (Chair Person)
12 2 Procurement and b. Evidence that the The water supply and public sanitation infrastructure Contract water supply and public projects for the previous FY were approved by the Management/execution: sanitation infrastructure contracts committee. The LG has effectively for the previous FY was managed the WSS approved by the The Contracts Committee approved the plans under procurements Contracts Committee Min14/Naka/DCC/May/19-20 before commencement Maximum 14 points on of construction Score 2: this performance measure
. 12 0 Procurement and c. Evidence that the There was no evidence that the LG established the Contract District Water Officer project implementation team as specified in the sector Management/execution: properly established the guidelines. The LG has effectively Project Implementation managed the WSS team as specified in the Contracts Implementation and management plans were procurements Water sector guidelines availed but the team had only one technical staff. The Score 2: CM/PM (Wesige Charles). Maximum 14 points on this performance The following report were sampled: measure 1. Project Name: Drilling of 07 Deep boreholes in . selected sub counties in the district
Contract No: Naka569/Wrks/20-21/00004
Date of Award: 09-July-2020
Contract Price: 160,370,991
Min14/Naka/DCC/May/19-20
Evaluation Report: Signed off by Kigozi Godfrey (Chair Person)
12 2 Procurement and d. Evidence that water The Contract for construction of a VIP latrine Contract and public sanitation (Procurement Ref: Nakas 569/Wrks/2019-2020/00006) at Management/execution: infrastructure sampled Lumpewe RGC, Kikamulo Sub County was signed on The LG has effectively were constructed as per November 28th, 2019 at a cost of UGX 13,847,507. I managed the WSS the standard technical used design drawings as a basis for assessment when I procurements designs provided by the visited the site to verify whether the latrine was DWO: Score 2 constructed as designed. From the field observations, I Maximum 14 points on attest that the latrine was constructed as designed. this performance District Water Office(r) should ensure that an appropriate measure management arrangement is in place for the sustainable utilization of the facility. The hand pumps constructed . were also done according to the standard. The platform was constructed as per the national standard design and the hand pumps installed were Uganda Mark Two (U2) - equivalent of India Mark 2 which is currently the technology of choice for hand pumps. 12 0 Procurement and e. Evidence that the There was no sufficient evidence that the District Contract relevant technical Engineer, DWO, Environment officer and CDO Management/execution: officers carry out participated in supervising the WSS projects. The LG has effectively monthly technical managed the WSS supervision of WSS Contracts Implementation and management plans were procurements infrastructure projects: availed but the only technical person on board was the Score 2 Contract Manager (Wesige Charles). Maximum 14 points on this performance The following projects were sampled: measure 1. Project Name: Drilling of 07 Deep boreholes in . selected sub counties in the district
Contract No: Naka569/Wrks/20-21/00004
Date of Award: 09-July-2020
Contract Price: 160,370,991
Min14/Naka/DCC/May/19-20
Evaluation Report: Signed off by Kigozi Godfrey (Chair Person)
12 0 Procurement and f. For the sampled There was no evidence that the LG verified works Contract contracts, there is (certified) and initiated payments of contractors within Management/execution: evidence that the DWO specified timeframes as per contract (within 2 months if The LG has effectively has verified works and no agreement). managed the WSS initiated payments of procurements contractors within Payment vouchers were not availed in the procurement specified timeframes in plan. Maximum 14 points on the contracts this performance measure o If 100 % contracts paid on time: Score 2 . o If not score 0
12 2 Procurement and g. Evidence that a Contract for water infrastructure investments had all Contract complete procurement relevant records as per the PPDA law Management/execution: file for water The LG has effectively infrastructure Sampled project managed the WSS investments is in place 1. Project Name: Drilling of 07 Deep boreholes in procurements for each contract with selected sub counties in the district all records as required Maximum 14 points on by the PPDA Law: Contract No: Naka569/Wrks/20-21/00004 this performance measure Score 2, If not score 0 Date of Award: 09-July-2020
. Contract Price: 160,370,991
Min14/Naka/DCC/May/19-20
Evaluation Report: Signed off by Kigozi Godfrey (Chair Person)
Environment and Social Requirements 13 0 Grievance Redress: Evidence that the DWO There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG Water The LG has established in liaison with the Supply, Sanitation Services and Environment related a mechanism of District Grievances grievances had been recorded, investigated, and addressing WSS Redress Committee responded to by DWO in liaison with the District related grievances in recorded, investigated, Grievance Redress Committee in line with the LG line with the LG responded to and grievance redress framework as the LG was yet to: (i) grievance redress reported on water and designate a Grievance Redress Officer to coordinate framework environment grievances response to feedback on grievance/complaints; (ii) as per the LG grievance establish a centralized Grievance Redress Committee Maximum 3 points this redress framework: (GRC); (iii) specify a system for recording, investigating performance measure and responding to grievances; (iv) define a complaints Score 3, If not score 0 referral path; (v) publicly display grievance redress information at LG offices; (vi) publicize the grievance redress mechanisms so that aggrieved parties would know where to report and get redress.
14 0 Safeguards for service Evidence that the DWO There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG DWO and delivery and the Environment Environment Officer had disseminated guidelines on Officer have water source and catchment protection and natural Maximum 3 points on disseminated resource management to CDOs as the guidelines this performance guidelines on water themselves, minutes of meetings with CDOs and signed measure source & catchment acknowledgement of receipt of the guidelines by CDOs protection and natural were NOT available. resource management to CDOs:
Score 3, If not score 0
15 0 Safeguards in the a. Evidence that water There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG water Delivery of Investments source protection plans source protection plans and natural resource & natural resource management plans for Water Supply and Sanitation Maximum 10 points on management plans for Services facilities and infrastructure projects constructed this performance WSS facilities during the previous FY (2019/2020 FY) were prepared measure constructed in the and implemented. previous FY were prepared and implemented: Score 3, If not score 0
15 3 Safeguards in the b. Evidence that all There WAS Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had all Water Delivery of Investments WSS projects are Supply and Sanitation Services infrastructure projects implemented on land implemented on land where the LG had proof of Maximum 10 points on where the LG has proof ownership, access and availability, without any this performance of consent (e.g. a land encumbrances on land acquisition status as exemplified measure title, agreement; Formal by the following: Consent, MoUs, etc.), without any - Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources encumbrances: presented a Land Agreement Dated 19/04/2018 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Kakinzi Village, Score 3, If not score 0 Wakayamba Parish, Kikamulo Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Kakinzi LC I Chairperson on 01/01/2020.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 10/11/2019 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Kidduku Village, Kasiiso Parish, Kito Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Kidduku LC I Chairperson on 11/11/2019.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 14/12/2019 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Nakaseeta Village, Nakaseeta Parish, Kasangombe Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Nakaseeta LC I Chairperson on 14/12/2019.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 07/09/2019 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Sebuguzi Village, Kisimula Parish, Kapeeka Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Sebuguzi LC I Chairperson on 07/09/2019.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 14/11/2019 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Kikuubo Village, Miginje Parish, Semuto Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Kikuubo LC I Chairperson on 14/11/2019.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 05/10/2020 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Lwanda Village, Kisimula Parish, Kapeeka Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Lwanda LC I Chairperson on 05/10/2020.
- Nakaseke DLG Department of Natural Resources presented a Land Agreement Dated 06/10/2020 offering land for Construction of a Borehole at Bulema Village, Bulema Parish, Semuto Sub-county, Nakaseke District; Embossed with Signatures of Land Owners and Witnesses; Signed and Stamped by Bulema LC I Chairperson on 06/10/2020.
15 0 Safeguards in the c. Evidence that E&S There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG Delivery of Investments Certification forms are Environmental and Social Certification Forms were completed and signed completed and signed by the LG Environmental Officer Maximum 10 points on by Environmental and CDO prior to settlement of contractor payment this performance Officer and CDO prior to certificates at interim and final stages of all Water Supply measure payments of contractor and Sanitation Services infrastructure projects as invoices/certificates at Environmental and Social Certification Forms for water interim and final stages sector projects that were completed and signed by the of projects: LG Environmental Officer and CDO were NOT available. Additionally, signatures of the LG Environmental Officer Score 2, If not score 0 and CDO were absent on Contractor Payment Certificates that were presented by the LG and reviewed by the Assessor. 15 0 Safeguards in the d. Evidence that the There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG Delivery of Investments CDO and environment Environmental Officer and CDO conducted monitoring of Officers undertakes Water Supply and Sanitation Services infrastructure Maximum 10 points on monitoring to ascertain projects to ascertain compliance with ESMPs and to this performance compliance with verify implementation of mitigation measures; and measure ESMPs; and provide monthly monitoring reports were NOT available. monthly reports:
Score 2, If not score 0
569 Micro-scale irrigation Nakaseke performance measures District
Summary of No. Definition of compliance Compliance justification Score requirements Local Government Service Delivery Results 1 2 Outcome: The LG has a) Evidence that the LG has Data on irrigated land available for the last increased acreage of up to-date data on irrigated two FYs was as follows: newly irrigated land land for the last two FYs disaggregated between 1. 0 Ha of irrigated land under micro-scale Maximum score 4 micro-scale irrigation grant irrigation grant beneficiaries; and beneficiaries and non- 2. 5.6 Ha of irrigated land under non- Maximum 20 points for beneficiaries – score 2 or beneficiaries for 2018/2019 and 6 ha of this performance area else 0 irrigated land under non-beneficiaries for 2019/20.
1 2 Outcome: The LG has b) Evidence that the LG has There was an increase of 0.4 ha of irrigated land increased acreage of increased acreage of newly from 5.6 Ha of irrigated land for 2018/2019 to 6 ha newly irrigated land irrigated land in the previous of irrigated land for 2019/20. This represented an FY as compared to previous increase by about 7% in acreage of newly irrigated Maximum score 4 FY but one: land in the previous FY (2019/20) as compared to previous FY but one (2018/19). Maximum 20 points for • By more than 5% score 2 this performance area • Between 1% and 4% score 1
• If no increase score 0
2 Assessment of micro scale irrigation has not yet 0 Service Delivery a) Evidence that the average started. Performance: Average score in the micro-scale score in the micro-scale irrigation for LLG irrigation for the LLG performance assessment is: performance assessment. Maximum • Above 70%; score 4 score 4 • 60 – 69%; score 2
• Below 60%; score 0
Maximum score 4 3 0 Investment a) Evidence that the Procurement and installation of irrigation equipment Performance: The LG development component of has not started. has managed the micro-scale irrigation grant supply and installation has been used on eligible of micro-scale activities (procurement and irrigations equipment as installation of irrigation per guidelines equipment, including accompanying supplier Maximum score 6 manuals and training): Score 2 or else score 0
3 0 Investment b) Evidence that the Procurement and installation of irrigation equipment Performance: The LG approved farmer signed an has not started. has managed the Acceptance Form confirming supply and installation that equipment is working of micro-scale well, before the LG made irrigations equipment as payments to the suppliers: per guidelines Score 1 or else score 0
Maximum score 6
3 0 Investment Evidence that the variations Procurement and installation of irrigation equipment Performance: The LG in the contract price are has not started. has managed the within +/-20% of the supply and installation Agriculture Engineers of micro-scale estimates: Score 1 or else irrigations equipment as score 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 6
3 0 Investment d) Evidence that micro-scale Procurement and installation of irrigation equipment Performance: The LG irrigation equipment where has not started. has managed the contracts were signed during supply and installation the previous FY were of micro-scale installed/completed within irrigations equipment as the previous FY per guidelines • If 100% score 2 Maximum score 6 • Between 80 – 99% score 1
• Below 80% score 0 4 0 Achievement of a) Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence that the LG had recruited standards: The LG has recruited LLG extension LLG extension workers as per staffing structure. met staffing and micro- workers as per staffing Some vacancies of extension workers existed in scale irrigation structure the LLGs of Nakaseke S/C and Kito S/C. The staff standards structure was not availed to the assessor. • If 100% score 2 Maximum score 6 • If 75 – 99% score 1
• If below 75% score 0
4 0 Achievement of b) Evidence that the micro- Micro-scale irrigation equipment not yet procured. standards: The LG has scale irrigation equipment met staffing and micro- meets standards as defined scale irrigation by MAAIF standards • If 100% score 2 or else Maximum score 6 score 0
4 0 Achievement of b) Evidence that the installed Micro-scale irrigation equipment not yet procured. standards: The LG has micro-scale irrigation met staffing and micro- systems during last FY are scale irrigation functional standards • If 100% are functional score Maximum score 6 2 or else score 0
Performance Reporting and Performance Improvement 5 2 Accuracy of reported a) Evidence that information There was evidence that information on the information: The LG has on position of extension positions filled in LLGs as per minimum staffing reported accurate workers filled is accurate: standards is accurate. Information was got by information Score 2 or else 0 comparing the staff lists of the 3 LLGs sampled namely Nakaseke Sub county, Nakaseke Town Maximum score 4 Council and Kito Sub county with the Staff list for extension workers at the District dated 6th November 2020.
5 0 Accuracy of reported b) Evidence that information Micro-scale irrigation equipment not yet procured. information: The LG has on micro-scale irrigation reported accurate system installed and information functioning is accurate: Score 2 or else 0 Maximum score 4 6 2 Reporting and a) Evidence that information There was evidence of a monitoring report on water Performance is collected quarterly on production in Nakaseke District FY 2019/2020 Improvement: The LG newly irrigated land, written on 3.6.2020 has collected and functionality of irrigation entered information into equipment installed; MIS, and developed provision of complementary and implemented services and farmer performance Expression of Interest: Score improvement plans 2 or else 0
Maximum score 6
6 1 Reporting and b) Evidence that the LG has LG has entered up to-date LLG information into MIS Performance entered up to-date LLG as evidenced by Irritrack app. Improvement: The LG information into MIS: Score 1 has collected and or else 0 entered information into MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
6 0 Reporting and c.Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence that the LG has prepared a Performance prepared a quarterly report quarterly report using information compiled from Improvement: The LG using information compiled LLGs in the MIS. Only extracts of Irritrack app seen. has collected and from LLGs in the MIS: Score entered information into 1 or else 0 MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
6 0 Reporting and d) Evidence that the LG has: There was no evidence of an approved Performance Performance Improvement Plan for the lowest Improvement: The LG i. Developed an approved performing LLG has collected and Performance Improvement entered information into Plan for the lowest MIS, and developed performing LLGs score 1 or and implemented else 0 performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6 6 0 Reporting and ii. Implemented Performance There was no evidence that LG implemented Performance Improvement Plan for lowest Performance Improvement Plan for lowest Improvement: The LG performing LLGs: Score 1 or performing LLGs has collected and else 0 entered information into MIS, and developed and implemented performance improvement plans
Maximum score 6
Human Resource Management and Development 7 1 Budgeting for, actual a) Evidence that the LG has: There was evidence that the LG had budgeted and recruitment and recruited extension workers as per the staffing deployment of staff: The i. Budgeted for extension norms. Local Government has workers as per guidelines/in budgeted, actually accordance with the staffing was from the staff list for extension workers with recruited and deployed norms score 1 or else 0 their job title and station of deployment dated staff as per guidelines 6th/November, 2020.
Maximum score 6 Also the the following documents are a proof that the extension workers were budgeted for;
1) Posting of the newly recruited veterinary officer (Nkonge William dated 5/3/2019.
2) Proposal for staff Re-Organisation in production and Marketing department dated 14/8/2019 and 22/4/2020.
7 There was evidence that extension workers were 1 Budgeting for, actual ii Deployed extension deployed as per guidelines. The staff list for recruitment and workers as per guidelines extension workers dated 6th November outlines the deployment of staff: The score 1 or else 0 number of extension workers per LLGs and at the Local Government has District Head quarters. budgeted, actually recruited and deployed staff as per guidelines
Maximum score 6 7 2 Budgeting for, actual b) Evidence that extension There was evidence that the extension workers recruitment and workers are working in LLGs were working in LLGs where they were deployed. deployment of staff: The where they are deployed: Local Government has Score 2 or else 0 The evidence was from comparing the staff list from budgeted, actually the HRM Division with the attendance/Arrival books recruited and deployed and Current staff lists of the 3 sampled sub staff as per guidelines counties. The attendance books showed regular attendance. The arrival book for Kito S/C was Maximum score 6 opened on 1st November 2019 up to date, Nakaseke T/C was opened on 5th November 2018 and closed on 21st February 2020. The new attendance book had been misplaced, so it could not be reviewed. The attendance book for Nakaseke S/C was opened on 27/10/2019 and it was still in operation at the time of this assessment.
7 0 Budgeting for, actual c) Evidence that extension There was no evidence that extension workers recruitment and workers deployment has deployment has been publicized and disseminated deployment of staff: The been publicized and to LLGs by among others displaying staff list on the Local Government has disseminated to LLGs by LLG notice board. budgeted, actually among others displaying staff recruited and deployed list on the LLG notice board. For example the Notice board at Nakaseke T/C staff as per guidelines Score 2 or else 0 was filled up with the documents advertising the vacant positions existing in the LG. other Notice Maximum score 6 boards also had no information on extension workers.
8 0 Performance a) Evidence that the District There was no evidence that the District Production management: The LG Production Coordinator has: Coordinator Conducted annual performance has appraised, taken appraisal of all Extension Workers against the corrective action and i. Conducted annual agreed performance plans and has submitted a trained Extension performance appraisal of all copy to HRO during the previous FY. Workers Extension Workers against the agreed performance Maximum score 4 plans and has submitted a copy to HRO during the previous FY: Score 1 else 0
8 0 Performance a) Evidence that the District There was no evidence of corrective actions taken. management: The LG Production Coordinator has; has appraised, taken corrective action and Taken corrective actions: trained Extension Score 1 or else 0 Workers
Maximum score 4 8 0 Performance b) Evidence that: There was no evidence of training activities management: The LG conducted in accordance to the training plans at has appraised, taken i. Training activities were District level corrective action and conducted in accordance to trained Extension the training plans at District Workers level: Score 1 or else 0
Maximum score 4
8 There was no evidence of a training database. 0 Performance ii Evidence that training management: The LG activities were documented has appraised, taken in the training database: corrective action and Score 1 or else 0 trained Extension Workers
Maximum score 4
Management, Monitoring and Supervision of Services. 9 2 Planning, budgeting a) Evidence that the LG has LG has appropriately allocated the micro scale and transfer of funds for appropriately allocated the irrigation grant between (i) capital development service delivery: The micro scale irrigation grant (micro scale irrigation equipment); and (ii) Local Government has between (i) capital complementary services. This was evidenced by budgeted, used and development (micro scale the micro-scale irrigation program workplan and disseminated funds for irrigation equipment); and (ii) budget for 2020/2021 FY. service delivery as per complementary services (in guidelines. FY 2020/21 100% to complementary services; Maximum score 10 starting from FY 2021/22 – 75% capital development; and 25% complementary services): Score 2 or else 0 9 2 Planning, budgeting b) Evidence that budget Budget allocations have been made towards and transfer of funds for allocations have been made complementary services in line with the sector service delivery: The towards complementary guidelines i.e. (i) maximum 25% for enhancing LG Local Government has services in line with the capacity to support irrigated agriculture (of which budgeted, used and sector guidelines i.e. (i) maximum 15% awareness raising of local leaders disseminated funds for maximum 25% for enhancing and maximum 10% procurement, Monitoring and service delivery as per LG capacity to support Supervision); and (ii) minimum 75% for enhancing guidelines. irrigated agriculture (of which farmer capacity for uptake of micro scale irrigation maximum 15% awareness (Awareness raising of farmers, Farm visit, Maximum score 10 raising of local leaders and Demonstrations, Farmer Field Schools). maximum 10% procurement, Monitoring and Supervision); This was evidenced by the micro-scale irrigation and (ii) minimum 75% for program workplan and budget for 2020/2021 FY. enhancing farmer capacity for uptake of micro scale irrigation (Awareness raising of farmers, Farm visit, Demonstrations, Farmer Field Schools): Score 2 or else score 0
9 0 Planning, budgeting c) Evidence that the co- There was no evidence that the co-funding is and transfer of funds for funding is reflected in the LG reflected in the LG Budget and allocated as per service delivery: The Budget and allocated as per guidelines Local Government has guidelines: Score 2 or else budgeted, used and 0 disseminated funds for service delivery as per guidelines.
Maximum score 10
9 0 Planning, budgeting d) Evidence that the LG has There was no evidence that the LG has used the and transfer of funds for used the farmer co-funding farmer co-funding following the same rules service delivery: The following the same rules applicable to the micro scale irrigation grant Local Government has applicable to the micro scale budgeted, used and irrigation grant: Score 2 or disseminated funds for else 0 service delivery as per guidelines.
Maximum score 10 9 2 Planning, budgeting e) Evidence that the LG has LG has disseminated information on use of the and transfer of funds for disseminated information on farmer co-funding as evidenced by miutes of service delivery: The use of the farmer co-funding: agricultural extension officers meeting held on Local Government has Score 2 or else 0 22.07.2020. budgeted, used and disseminated funds for service delivery as per guidelines.
Maximum score 10
10 0 Routine oversight and a) Evidence that the DPO Micro-scale irrigation equipment not yet installed monitoring: The LG has monitored on a monthly monitored, provided basis installed micro-scale hands-on support and irrigation equipment (key ran farmer field schools areas to include functionality as per guidelines of equipment, environment and social safeguards Maximum score 8 including adequacy of water source, efficiency of micro irrigation equipment in terms of water conservation, etc.)
• If more than 90% of the micro-irrigation equipment monitored: Score 2
• 70-89% monitored score 1
Less than 70% score 0
10 0 Routine oversight and b. Evidence that the LG has Micro-scale irrigation equipment not yet installed monitoring: The LG overseen technical training & monitored, provided support to the Approved hands-on support and Farmer to achieve servicing ran farmer field schools and maintenance during the as per guidelines warranty period: Score 2 or else 0 Maximum score 8
10 2 Routine oversight and c) Evidence that the LG has LG has provided hands-on support to the LLG monitoring: The LG provided hands-on support to extension workers during the implementation of monitored, provided the LLG extension workers complementary services within the previous FY as hands-on support and during the implementation of per guidelines. ran farmer field schools complementary services as per guidelines within the previous FY as per Minutes for Agricultural Extension Officers meeting guidelines score 2 or else 0 held on 22 July 2020 at Butalangu District Maximum score 8 Headquarters. Attended by 14 extension officers from LLGs. 10 Still waiting for guidelines from MAAIF 0 Routine oversight and d) Evidence that the LG has Headquarters monitoring: The LG established and run farmer monitored, provided field schools as per hands-on support and guidelines: Score 2 or else 0 ran farmer field schools as per guidelines
Maximum score 8
11 2 Mobilization of farmers: a) Evidence that the LG has LG has conducted some activities to mobilize The LG has conducted conducted activities to farmers as per guideline. activities to mobilize mobilize farmers as per farmers to participate in guidelines: Score 2 or else 0 Minutes of meeting held on 1.10.2020 at Kito Sub irrigation and irrigated County (41 farmers attended) and 22.09.2020 at agriculture. Kapeeka Sub County (21 farmers attended) on sensitization and mobilizing on micro-scale Maximum score 4 irrigation program. Other activities have been conducted in Kasngombe and Kikamulo Sub County.
11 2 Mobilization of farmers: b) Evidence that the District District has trained staff and political leaders at The LG has conducted has trained staff and political District and LLG levels activities to mobilize leaders at District and LLG farmers to participate in levels: Score 2 or else 0 Attendance list of sensitization and mobilizing on irrigation and irrigated micro scale irrigation program dated 1.10.2020 and agriculture. Progressive report on UGIFT microscale irrigation program written on 20.10.2020. 30 political leaders Maximum score 4 attended.
Investment Management 12 0 Planning and budgeting a) Evidence that the LG has Procurement and installation of micro-scale for investments: The LG an updated register of micro- irrigation equipment not done. has selected farmers scale irrigation equipment and budgeted for micro- supplied to farmers in the scale irrigation as per previous FY as per the guidelines format: Score 2 or else 0
Maximum score 8
12 2 Planning and budgeting b) Evidence that the LG LG keeps an up-to-date database of application as for investments: The LG keeps an up-to-date evidenced by Irritrack app. has selected farmers database of applications at and budgeted for micro- the time of the assessment: scale irrigation as per Score 2 or else 0 guidelines
Maximum score 8 12 Field visits under prepraration. Phone calls have 0 Planning and budgeting c) Evidence that the District been made to farmers. for investments: The LG has carried out farm visits to has selected farmers farmers that submitted and budgeted for micro- complete Expressions of scale irrigation as per Interest (EOI): Score 2 or else guidelines 0
Maximum score 8
12 LG in early stages of project implementation. 0 Planning and budgeting d) For DDEG financed Farmers not yet visited and approved. for investments: The LG projects: has selected farmers and budgeted for micro- Evidence that the LG District scale irrigation as per Agricultural Engineer (as guidelines Secretariat) publicized the eligible farmers that they Maximum score 8 have been approved by posting on the District and LLG noticeboards: Score 2 or else 0
13 0 Procurement, contract a) Evidence that the micro- There was no evidence that the micro-scale management/execution: scale irrigation systems were irrigation systems were incorporated in the LG The LG procured and incorporated in the LG approved procurement plan for the current FY managed micro-scale approved procurement plan irrigation contracts as for the current FY: Score 1 or per guidelines else score 0.
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract b) Evidence that the LG No evidence that LG requested for Quotation from management/execution: requested for quotation from irrigation equipment suppliers pre-qualified by the The LG procured and irrigation equipment Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and managed micro-scale suppliers pre-qualified by the Fisheries (MAAIF). irrigation contracts as Ministry of Agriculture, per guidelines Animal Industry and LG still assessing eligible farmers. Fisheries (MAAIF): Score 2 Maximum score 18 or else 0
13 This activity has not yet been done 0 Procurement, contract c) Evidence that the LG management/execution: concluded the selection of The LG procured and the irrigation equipment managed micro-scale supplier based on the set irrigation contracts as criteria: Score 2 or else 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 18 13 0 Procurement, contract d) Evidence that the micro- This activity has not yet been done management/execution: scale irrigation systems was The LG procured and approved by the Contracts managed micro-scale Committee: Score 1 or else irrigation contracts as 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract e. Evidence that the LG This activity has not yet been done management/execution: signed the contract with the The LG procured and lowest priced technically managed micro-scale responsive irrigation irrigation contracts as equipment supplier for the per guidelines farmer with a farmer as a witness before Maximum score 18 commencement of installation score 2 or else 0
13 0 Procurement, contract f)Evidence that the micro- This activity has not yet been done management/execution: scale irrigation equipment The LG procured and installed is in line with the managed micro-scale design output sheet irrigation contracts as (generated by IrriTrack App): per guidelines Score 2 or else 0
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract g) Evidence that the LG have This activity has not yet been done management/execution: conducted regular technical The LG procured and supervision of micro-scale Micro Scale Irrigation Projects under UGFIT not yet managed micro-scale irrigation projects by the established irrigation contracts as relevant technical officers per guidelines (District Agricultural Engineer or Contracted staff): Score 2 Maximum score 18 or else 0
13 0 Procurement, contract h) Evidence that the LG has This activity has not yet been done management/execution: overseen the irrigation The LG procured and equipment supplier during: Micro Scale Irrigation Projects under UGFIT not yet managed micro-scale established irrigation contracts as i. Testing the functionality of per guidelines the installed equipment: Score 1 or else 0 Maximum score 18 13 0 Procurement, contract ii. Hand-over of the This activity has not yet been done management/execution: equipment to the Approved The LG procured and Farmer (delivery note by the Micro Scale Irrigation Projects under UGFIT not yet managed micro-scale supplies and goods received established irrigation contracts as note by the approved farmer): per guidelines Score 1 or 0
Maximum score 18
13 0 Procurement, contract i) Evidence that the Local This activity has not yet been done management/execution: Government has made The LG procured and payment of the supplier Micro Scale Irrigation Projects under UGFIT not yet managed micro-scale within specified timeframes established irrigation contracts as subject to the presence of the per guidelines Approved farmer’s signed acceptance form: Score 2 or Maximum score 18 else 0
13 0 Procurement, contract j) Evidence that the LG has a This activity has not yet been done management/execution: complete procurement file for The LG procured and each contract and with all Micro Scale Irrigation Projects under UGFIT not yet managed micro-scale records required by the established irrigation contracts as PPDA Law: Score 2 or else 0 per guidelines
Maximum score 18
Environment and Social Safeguards 14 0 Grievance redress: The a) Evidence that the Local There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG micro- LG has established a Government has displayed scale irrigation sector related grievances had been mechanism of details of the nature and recorded, investigated, responded to, and reported addressing micro-scale avenues to address on by District Production Officer in liaison with irrigation grievances in grievance prominently in designated Grievance Redress Officer and District line with the LG multiple public areas: Score Grievance Redress Committee, and in line with the grievance redress 2 or else 0 LG grievance redress framework as the LG was yet framework to: (i) designate a Grievance Redress Officer to coordinate response to feedback on Maximum score 6 grievance/complaints; (ii) establish a centralized Grievance Redress Committee (GRC); (iii) specify a system for recording, investigating, responding to, and reporting on grievances; (iv) define a complaints referral path; (v) publicly display grievance redress mechanism at LG Production Department Notice Board and in multiple public areas; (vi) publicize the grievance redress mechanisms so that aggrieved parties would know where to report and get redress. 14 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG micro- LG has established a grievances have been: scale irrigation sector related grievances had been mechanism of recorded, investigated, responded to, and reported addressing micro-scale i). Recorded score 1 or else 0 on by District Production Officer in liaison with irrigation grievances in designated Grievance Redress Officer and District ii). Investigated score 1 or line with the LG Grievance Redress Committee, and in line with the else 0 grievance redress LG grievance redress framework as the LG was yet framework iii). Responded to score 1 or to: (i) designate a Grievance Redress Officer to else 0 coordinate response to feedback on Maximum score 6 grievance/complaints; (ii) establish a centralized iv). Reported on in line with Grievance Redress Committee (GRC); (iii) specify a LG grievance redress system for recording, investigating, responding to, framework score 1 or else 0 and reporting on grievances; (iv) define a complaints referral path; (v) publicly display grievance redress mechanism at LG Production Department Notice Board, LLG Notice Boards, and in multiple public areas; (vi) publicize the grievance redress mechanisms so that aggrieved parties would know where to report and get redress.
14 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG micro- LG has established a grievances have been: scale irrigation sector related grievances had been mechanism of recorded, investigated, responded to, and reported addressing micro-scale ii. Investigated score 1 or on by District Production Officer in liaison with irrigation grievances in else 0 designated Grievance Redress Officer and District line with the LG Grievance Redress Committee, and in line with the iii. Responded to score 1 or grievance redress LG grievance redress framework as the LG was yet else 0 framework to: (i) designate a Grievance Redress Officer to iv. Reported on in line with coordinate response to feedback on Maximum score 6 LG grievance redress grievance/complaints; (ii) establish a centralized framework score 1 or else 0 Grievance Redress Committee (GRC); (iii) specify a system for recording, investigating, responding to, and reporting on grievances; (iv) define a complaints referral path; (v) publicly display grievance redress mechanism at LG Production Department Notice Board, LLG Notice Boards, and in multiple public areas; (vi) publicize the grievance redress mechanisms so that aggrieved parties would know where to report and get redress. 14 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG micro- LG has established a grievances have been: scale irrigation sector related grievances had been mechanism of recorded, investigated, responded to, and reported addressing micro-scale iii. Responded to score 1 or on by District Production Officer in liaison with irrigation grievances in else 0 designated Grievance Redress Officer and District line with the LG Grievance Redress Committee, and in line with the iv. Reported on in line with grievance redress LG grievance redress framework as the LG was yet LG grievance redress framework to: (i) designate a Grievance Redress Officer to framework score 1 or else 0 coordinate response to feedback on Maximum score 6 grievance/complaints; (ii) establish a centralized Grievance Redress Committee (GRC); (iii) specify a system for recording, investigating, responding to, and reporting on grievances; (iv) define a complaints referral path; (v) publicly display grievance redress mechanism at LG Production Department Notice Board, LLG Notice Boards, and in multiple public areas; (vi) publicize the grievance redress mechanisms so that aggrieved parties would know where to report and get redress.
14 0 Grievance redress: The b) Micro-scale irrigation There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG micro- LG has established a grievances have been: scale irrigation sector related grievances had been mechanism of recorded, investigated, responded to, and reported addressing micro-scale iv. Reported on in line with on by District Production Officer in liaison with irrigation grievances in LG grievance redress designated Grievance Redress Officer and District line with the LG framework score 1 or else 0 Grievance Redress Committee, and in line with the grievance redress LG grievance redress framework as the LG was yet framework to: (i) designate a Grievance Redress Officer to coordinate response to feedback on Maximum score 6 grievance/complaints; (ii) establish a centralized Grievance Redress Committee (GRC); (iii) specify a system for recording, investigating, responding to, and reporting on grievances; (iv) define a complaints referral path; (v) publicly display grievance redress mechanism at LG Production Department Notice Board, LLG Notice Boards, and in multiple public areas; (vi) publicize the grievance redress mechanisms so that aggrieved parties would know where to report and get redress.
Environment and Social Requirements 15 0 Safeguards in the a) Evidence that LGs have There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had delivery of investments disseminated Micro- disseminated micro-scale irrigation guidelines that irrigation guidelines to included Environmental and Social Safeguards Maximum score 6 provide for proper siting, land requirements to beneficiary smallholder farmers as access (without the guidelines themselves, minutes of meetings encumbrance), proper use of with beneficiary smallholder farmers and signed agrochemicals and safe acknowledgement of receipt of the guidelines by disposal of chemical waste beneficiary smallholder farmers were NOT containers etc. available. Additionally, MoUs between LGs and farmers and Environmental and Social Safeguards score 2 or else 0 requirements compliance monitoring reports were also NOT available. 15 0 Safeguards in the b) Evidence that There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had delivery of investments Environmental, Social and Costed ESMPs incorporated into designs, BoQs, Climate Change screening bidding and contractual documents for micro-scale Maximum score 6 have been carried out and irrigation sector projects as designs, BoQs, bidding where required, ESMPs and contractual documents for micro-scale irrigation developed, prior to sector projects were NOT available. 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 There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had delivery of investments impacts e.g. adequacy of carried out compliance monitoring for mitigation of water source (quality & irrigation impacts for micro-scale irrigation sector Maximum score 6 quantity), efficiency of system projects as Environmental and Social Safeguards in terms of water requirements compliance monitoring reports signed conservation, use of agro- by LG Environmental Officer and CDO were NOT chemicals & management of available. resultant chemical waste containers score 1 or else 0
15 0 Safeguards in the iii. E&S Certification forms There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had delivery of investments are completed and signed by Environmental and Social Certification Forms Environmental Officer prior to (ESCFs) completed and signed by Environmental Maximum score 6 payments of contractor Officer prior to settlements of contractor payment invoices/certificates at interim certificates at interim and final stages of micro-scale and final stages of projects irrigation sector projects as Environmental and score 1 or else 0 Social Certification Forms for micro-scale irrigation sector projects that were completed and signed by the LG Environmental Officer and CDO were NOT available. Additionally, signatures of the LG Environmental Officer and CDO were absent on Contractor Payment Certificates that were presented by the LG and reviewed by the Assessor.
15 0 Safeguards in the iv. E&S Certification forms There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had delivery of investments are completed and signed by Environmental and Social Certification Forms CDO prior to payments of (ESCFs) completed and signed by CDO prior to Maximum score 6 contractor settlements of contractor payment certificates at invoices/certificates at interim interim and final stages of micro-scale irrigation and final stages of projects sector projects as Environmental and Social score 1 or else 0 Certification Forms for micro-scale irrigation sector projects that were completed and signed by the LG Environmental Officer and CDO were NOT available. Additionally, signatures of the LG Environmental Officer and CDO were absent on Contractor Payment Certificates that were presented by the LG and reviewed by the Assessor.
569 Micro-scale irrigation minimum Nakaseke conditions District
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 0 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has There was no evidence that the LG had recruited a recruited or requested for recruited the Senior Agriculture Engineer at the time of this secondment of staff for all critical Senior assessment. positions in the District Agriculture Production Office responsible for Engineer score micro-scale irrigation 70 or else 0.
Maximum score is 70
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried If the LG: There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG carried out out Environmental, Social and Environmental, Social and Climate Change Screening Climate Change screening have a. Carried out prior to commencement of all civil works for all micro- been carried out for potential Environmental, scale irrigation sector infrastructure projects. investments and where required Social and costed ESMPs developed. Climate Change Maximum score is 30 screening, score 15 or else 0.
2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried b. Carried out There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG carried out out Environmental, Social and Social Impact Environmental, Social and Climate Change Screening Climate Change screening have Assessments and Environmental and Social Impact Assessments been carried out for potential (ESIAs) where (ESIAs); and prepared Costed ESMPs, where required, investments and where required required, score prior to commencement of all civil works for all micro- costed ESMPs developed. 15 or else 0. scale irrigation sector infrastructure projects.
Maximum score is 30
569 Water & environment minimum conditions Nakaseke District
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or If the LG has recruited: There was no evidence that the Civil formally requested for secondment of Engineer (Water) was substantively staff for all critical positions. a. 1 Civil Engineer appointed. The post was still vacant at (Water), score 15 or the time of this assessment. else 0.
1 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or b. 1 Assistant Water There was no evidence that the Assistant formally requested for secondment of Officer for mobilization, Water Officer for mobilization was staff for all critical positions. score 10 or else 0. substantively recruited.
1 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or c. 1 Borehole There was no evidence that the formally requested for secondment of Maintenance Borehole Maintenance Technician was staff for all critical positions. Technician/Assistant substantively appointed. Engineering Officer, score 10 or else 0.
1 0 Evidence that the LG has recruited or d. 1 Natural Resources There was no evidence that the LG formally requested for secondment of Officer , score 15 or recruited the Natural Resources Officer. staff for all critical positions. else 0.
1 10 Evidence that the LG has recruited or e. 1 Environment There was evidence that the LG recruited formally requested for secondment of Officer, score 10 or else the Environment Officer (Nabasa Benon staff for all critical positions. 0. Baguma) appointed on probation on 15th /8/2019, Min No. DSC/NSK/99/2019 (2) (a) (1).
1 10 Evidence that the LG has recruited or f. Forestry Officer, score There was evidence that the LG recruited formally requested for secondment of 10 or else 0. a Forestry Officer Semujju Solomon staff for all critical positions. (Retention in service) on 25/7/2018, Min No. DSC/NSK/106/2018 (6) (f) (1).
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out If the LG: There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke Environmental. Social and Climate DLG carried out Environmental, Social Change screening/Environment and a. Carried out and Climate Change Screening prior to Social Impact Assessment (ESIAs) Environmental, Social commencement of all civil works for all (including child protection plans) where and Climate Change water sector infrastructure projects for the applicable, and abstraction permits screening/Environment, previous FY (2019/2020 FY) as have been issued to contractors by the score 10 or else 0. completed Environmental and Social Directorate of Water Resources Screening Forms (ESSFs) and Costed Management (DWRM) prior to ESMPs for water sector projects for the commencement of all civil works on all previous financial year were NOT water sector projects available. 2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out b. Carried out Social There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke Environmental. Social and Climate Impact Assessments DLG carried out Environmental and Change screening/Environment and (ESIAs) , score 10 or Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) prior Social Impact Assessment (ESIAs) else 0. to commencement of all civil works for all (including child protection plans) where water sector infrastructure projects for the applicable, and abstraction permits previous financial year (2019/2020 FY) have been issued to contractors by the as completed Environmental and Social Directorate of Water Resources Screening Forms (ESSFs), Costed Management (DWRM) prior to ESMPs and ESIAs Reports for water commencement of all civil works on all sector projects for the previous financial water sector projects year were NOT available.
2 0 Evidence that the LG has carried out c. Ensured that There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke Environmental. Social and Climate contractors got DLG ensured that contractors had Change screening/Environment and abstraction permits abstraction permits issued by the Social Impact Assessment (ESIAs) issued by DWRM, Directorate of Water Resources (including child protection plans) where score 10 or else 0. Management (DWRM) prior to applicable, and abstraction permits commencement of all civil works for all have been issued to contractors by the water sector infrastructure projects for the Directorate of Water Resources previous FY (2019/2020 FY) as copies of Management (DWRM) prior to abstraction permits issued to contractors commencement of all civil works on all by the Directorate of Water Resources water sector projects Management (DWRM) prior to commencement of all civil works for all water sector infrastructure projects for the previous FY were NOT available.
569 Health minimum conditions Nakaseke District
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 0 Evidence that the District has If the LG has There was no evidence that the LG had a substantively recruited or substantively recruited substantive District Health Officer. Musiime Khellen formally requested for or formally requested (Assistant District Health Officer Maternal) was the secondment of staff for all for secondment of: Acting DHO. critical positions. a. District Health Applicable to Districts only. Officer, score 10 or else 0. Maximum score is 70
1 10 Evidence that the District has b. Assistant District There was evidence that the Assistant District substantively recruited or Health Officer Maternal, Health Officer Maternal, Child Health and Nursing formally requested for Child Health and Musiime Khellen was retained in service on secondment of staff for all Nursing, score 10 or 25/7/2018, Min No. DSC/NSK/106/2018 (6) © (1) critical positions. else 0
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 10 Evidence that the District has c. Assistant District There was evidence that the Assistant District substantively recruited or Health Officer Health Officer Environmental Health Ogentho formally requested for Environmental Health, Judith was appointed on 6/2/2018 Min No. secondment of staff for all score 10 or else 0. DSC/NSK/101/2017 (2) and retained in service on critical positions. 25/7/2018 Min No. DSC/NSK/106/2018 (6) © (2)
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 10 Evidence that the District has d. Principal Health There was evidence that the Senior Environment substantively recruited or Inspector (Senior Officer Ssebbunza Lamech was appointed on formally requested for Environment Officer) , 13/2/2019, Min No. DSC/NSK/28/2019 (3) (1) secondment of staff for all score 10 or else 0. critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70 1 10 Evidence that the District has e. Senior Health There was evidence that the Senior Health substantively recruited or Educator, score 10 or Educator Mugisha Frank was appointed on formally requested for else 0. 10/1/2020, Min No. DSC/NSK/118/2019 (1) (1) secondment of staff for all critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 10 Evidence that the District has f. Biostatistician, score There was evidence that the Biostatistician was substantively recruited or 10 or 0. appointed on promotion on 15/3/2007, Min No. formally requested for 24/2007. secondment of staff for all critical positions.
Applicable to Districts only.
Maximum score is 70
1 0 Evidence that the District has g. District Cold Chain There was no evidence that the District Cold Chain substantively recruited or Technician, score 10 or Technician was substantive. formally requested for else 0. 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 place or formally formally requested for requested for secondment of staff for all secondment of Medical critical positions. Officer of Health Services /Principal Applicable to MCs only. Medical Officer, score 30 or else 0. Maximum score is 70
1 Evidence that the i. If the MC has in place Municipality has in place or or formally requested formally requested for for secondment of secondment of staff for all Principal Health critical positions. Inspector, score 20 or else 0. Applicable to MCs only.
Maximum score is 70 1 Evidence that the j. If the MC has in place Municipality has in place or or formally requested formally requested for for secondment of secondment of staff for all Health Educator, score critical positions. 20 or else 0.
Applicable to MCs only.
Maximum score is 70
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that prior to If the LG carried out: There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG commencement of all civil carried out Environmental, Social and Climate works for all Health sector a. Environmental, Change Screening prior to commencement of all projects, the LG has carried Social and Climate civil works for all health sector projects for the out: Environmental, Social Change current financial year (2020/2021 FY) as completed and Climate Change screening/Environment, Environmental and Social Screening Forms screening/Environment score 15 or else 0. (ESSFs) and Costed ESMPs for health sector Social Impact Assessments projects for the current financial year were NOT (ESIAs) available.
Maximum score is 30
2 0 Evidence that prior to b. Social Impact There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG commencement of all civil Assessments (ESIAs) , carried out Environmental and Social Impact works for all Health sector score 15 or else 0. Assessments (ESIAs) prior to commencement of all projects, the LG has carried civil works for all health sector projects for the out: Environmental, Social current financial year (2020/2021 FY) as completed and Climate Change Environmental and Social Screening Forms screening/Environment (ESSFs), Costed ESMPs and ESIAs Reports for Social Impact Assessments health sector projects for the current financial year (ESIAs) were NOT available.
Maximum score is 30
569 Education minimum conditions Nakaseke District
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 0 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has The personal file for the District Education substantively recruited or substantively recruited Officer Batanudde Stephen had been taken by formally requested for or formally requested CAO to DEC for some queries. Only the secondment of staff for all critical for secondment of: appraisal file was available. positions in the District/Municipal Education Office namely: a) District Education Officer/ Principal The maximum score is 70 Education Officer, score 30 or else 0.
1 40 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has There was evidence that all District Inspector of substantively recruited or substantively recruited Schools were substantively appointed as formally requested for or formally requested follows; secondment of staff for all critical for secondment of: positions in the District/Municipal Kayemba Kalema Inspector of Schools Education Office namely: b) All District/Municipal appointed on 21/7/2008, Min No. 94/2008 (o) Inspector of Schools, (9), Katamba Elijah Senior Inspector of Schools The maximum score is 70 score 40 or else 0. appointed on 25/8/2005, Min No. 146/2005 (15) and Galiwango Annet Education officer (Inspectorate) was appointed on 30/6/2008, Min No. 94/2008 (o) (2).
Environment and Social Requirements 2 0 Evidence that prior to If the LG carried out: There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG commencement of all civil works carried out Environmental, Social and Climate for all Education sector projects a. Environmental, Change Screening prior to commencement of all the LG has carried out: Social and Climate civil works for all education sector projects for Environmental, Social and Change the previous financial year (2019/2020 FY) as Climate Change screening/Environment, completed Environmental and Social Screening screening/Environment Social score 15 or else 0. Forms (ESSFs) and Costed ESMPs for Impact Assessments (ESIAs) education sector projects were NOT available.
The Maximum score is 30 2 0 Evidence that prior to If the LG carried out: There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG commencement of all civil works carried out Environmental and Social Impact for all Education sector projects b. Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) prior to commencement of the LG has carried out: Assessments (ESIAs) , all civil works for all education sector projects for Environmental, Social and score 15 or else 0. the previous financial year (2019/2020 FY) as Climate Change completed Environmental and Social Screening screening/Environment Social Forms (ESSFs), Costed ESMPs, and ESIAs Impact Assessments (ESIAs) Reports for education sector projects were NOT available.
The Maximum score is 30
569 Crosscutting minimum conditions Nakaseke District
Definition of No. Summary of requirements Compliance justification Score compliance Human Resource Management and Development 1 0 Evidence that the LG has a. Chief Finance There was no evidence that the LG has a substantive recruited or formally requested Officer/Principal Chief Finance officer. Lubowa James is the current for secondment of staff for all Finance Officer, Acting CFO. critical positions in the score 3 or else 0 District/Municipal Council departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 3 Evidence that the LG has b. District The LG has an acting District planner. recruited or formally requested Planner/Senior for secondment of staff for all Planner, score However, LG had an advert to recruit the District critical positions in the Planner. The advert was dated 1st October 2020 and District/Municipal Council 3 or else 0 the deadline was 6th November, 2020. departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 3 Evidence that the LG has c. District The LG had an advert to recruit the District Engineer. recruited or formally requested Engineer/Principal The advert was dated 1st October 2020 and the for secondment of staff for all Engineer, deadline was 6th November, 2020. However, the LG critical positions in the had an acting District Engineer (Mugwanya Arnold – District/Municipal Council score 3 or else 0 Senior Engineer). departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 0 Evidence that the LG has d. District Natural There was no Appointment letter in the personal file for recruited or formally requested Resources the District Natural Resource Officer Nkuggwa Abel. 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 3 Evidence that the LG has e. District The LG has a substantive District production officer recruited or formally requested Production Kikonyogo Francis appointed on 13/2/2019, Min No for secondment of staff for all Officer/Senior DSC/NSK/28/2019 (1) (1). critical positions in the Veterinary Officer, District/Municipal Council departments. score 3 or else 0
Maximum score is 37.
1 3 Evidence that the LG has f. District There was evidence that the District Community recruited or formally requested Community Development Officer Batalingaya Denis was appointed for secondment of staff for all Development on 15/8/2020, Min No DSC/NSK/99/2019/(5) (a) (1) critical positions in the Officer/ Principal District/Municipal Council CDO, departments. score 3 or else 0 Maximum score is 37.
1 0 Evidence that the LG has g. District The Principal Commercial Officer Kyalimpa Samuel is recruited or formally requested Commercial acting as the District Commercial Officer. 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 2 Evidence that the LG has other critical staff There was evidence that the District had a Senior recruited or formally requested Procurement officer retained in service on 25/7/2018, for secondment of staff for all Min No. DSC/NSK/106/2018 (6) (d) (3). 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 0 Evidence that the LG has h(ii). Procurement The post of procurement officer was vacant at the time recruited or formally requested Officer (Municipal of this assessment. 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 2 Evidence that the LG has i. Principal Human The LG had run an advert to recruit the Principal recruited or formally requested Resource Officer, Human Resource officer. The advert was dated 1st for secondment of staff for all October 2020 and the deadline was 6th November, critical positions in the score 2 or else 0 2020. District/Municipal Council departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 0 Evidence that the LG has j. A Senior The personal file was not availed for assessment. recruited or formally requested Environment 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 2 Evidence that the LG has k. Senior Land There was evidence that the LG has a substantive recruited or formally requested Management Senior Lands Management Officer Tumusiime Geoffrey for secondment of staff for all Officer, score 2 or appointed on 4th /7/2013, Min No 287/6/2013. critical positions in the else 0 District/Municipal Council departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 0 Evidence that the LG has l. A Senior The personal file was missing at the time of this recruited or formally requested Accountant, assessment. for secondment of staff for all critical positions in the score 2 or else 0 District/Municipal Council departments.
Maximum score is 37.
1 2 Evidence that the LG has m. Principal There was evidence that the LG has a substantive recruited or formally requested Internal Auditor for Principal Internal Auditor Muntu Raymond appointed for secondment of staff for all Districts and on 10th /1/2020, Min No. DSC/NSK/117/2019/(1) (c) (1) critical positions in the Senior Internal District/Municipal Council Auditor for MCs, departments. score 2 or else 0 Maximum score is 37. 1 2 Evidence that the LG has n. Principal There was evidence that the Principal Human recruited or formally requested Human Resource Resource Officer (Secretary DSC) Muyambi Simon for secondment of staff for all Officer (Secretary appointed on 25/7/2018 (Retention in service) Min No. critical positions in the DSC), score 2 or DSC/NSK/106/2018 (6) (d) (1). District/Municipal Council else 0 departments.
Maximum score is 37.
2 5 Evidence that the LG has If LG has recruited There was evidence that all Senior Assistant recruited or formally requested or requested for Secretaries in all LLGs were substantively appointed. for secondment of staff for all secondment of: Jjingo Ali Kinoni S/C was appointed on 24th/8/2009, essential positions in every Min No. 116/2009 (e), Senyomo Henry Kasangombe LLG a. Senior S/C was appointed on 12/12/2006 Min No. 149/2006, Assistant Kamazinga Robinah Semuto S/C was appointed on Maximum score is 15 Secretaries in all 4/6/2015, Min No. DSC/NSK/102/4/2015 (iii), Kadiida LLGS, James Kito S/C was appointed on 24th/4/2009 Min No. 149/2006 (2) (2), Muzira Moses Kapeeka S/C was score 5 or else 0 appointed on 4/7/2013 Min No.
287/2/2013, Muwonge Charles Kinyogoga S/C was appointed on 5/7/2010 Min No. 30/2010 (ii), Nanyonga Rose of Nakaseke S/C was appointed on 4/6/2015 Min No. DSC/NSK/102/4/2015, Kaikara Sophie Kikamulo S/C was appointed on 4/6/2015 Min No. DSC/NSK/102/4/2015 (II) and Turyahebwa Daniel of Wakyato S/C was appointed on 4/7/2013 Min No. 287/3/2013.
The Town Clerks Namugenyi Florence, Ndibarema Godfrey, Nabaggala Josephine and Mukasa Richard were appointed on 25/6/2013,5/7/2010, 5/7/2010, 4/6/2015 respectively.
2 5 Evidence that the LG has If LG has recruited There was evidence that all Community Development recruited or formally requested or requested for Officers in all LLGs were substantively appointed as for secondment of staff for all secondment of: follows; essential positions in every LLG b. A Community Nalumansi Joyce, Nuwemujurizi Robert and Nakitto Development Ruth were appointed on 4/6/2015, Batanda Dan and Maximum score is 15 Officer or Senior Katabalwa Fred were appointed on 13/7/2015, Jumba CDO in case of Fazil, Mutyaba Samuel, Musiza Rogers and Town Councils, in Kugumikiriza Jonathan were all appointed on all LLGS 25/7/2018 and Mukiibi Jonathan was appointed on 4/7/2013. score 5 or else 0. 2 5 Evidence that the LG has If LG has recruited There was evidence that the Senior Accounts Assistant recruited or formally requested or requested for in all LLGs were appointed. Lwetutte Edward Accounts for secondment of staff for all secondment of: Assistant appointed on 15/1/2013, Min No. 49/2012 (ii), essential positions in every Nduggwa Issah Senior Accounts Assistant appointed LLG c. A Senior on 13/9/2013 Min No. 147/2005 (d) (83), Nakalembe Accounts Eva Senior Accounts Assistant was appointed on Maximum score is 15 Assistant or an 25/7/2018 Min No. DSC/NSK/106/2018 (6) (i) (9), Accounts Mbabazi Joyce Senior Accounts Assistant appointed Assistant in all on 13/9/2005, Min No. 147/2005 (d) (87), Nsiimire Elly LLGS, Senior Accounts Assistant appointed on 13/9/2005, Min No. 147/2005 (d) (85) Namaganda Catherine score 5 or else 0. Senior Accounts Assistant was appointed on 25/7/2018, Min No. DSC/NSK/106/2018 ((6) (i) (13), Sewamala Moses Accounts Assistant was appointed on 9/8/2016, 95/2005 (19).
Environment and Social Requirements 3 0 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has As per the LG Final Account for the period ended 30th released all funds allocated for released 100% of June 2020; page 15 the implementation of funds allocated in environmental and social the previous FY Natural resources was allocated UGX 385,861,235 and safeguards in the previous FY. to: UGX 306,330,312 was released. This represents 80%
Maximum score is 4 a. Natural Resources department,
score 2 or else 0
3 0 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has As per the LG Final Account for the period ended 30th released all funds allocated for released 100% of June 2020; page 15 the implementation of funds allocated in environmental and social the previous FY Community Based Services was allocated UGX safeguards in the previous FY. to: 624,512,062 and UGX 248,439,215 was released. This represents 40%. Maximum score is 4 b. Community Based Services department.
score 2 or else 0. 4 0 Evidence that the LG has a. If the LG has There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had carried out Environmental, carried out carried out Environmental, Social and Climate Change Social and Climate Change Environmental, Screening prior to commencement of all civil works for screening/Environment and Social and all projects as completed Environmental and Social Social Impact Assessments Climate Change Screening Forms (ESSFs) for all infrastructure projects (ESIAs) and developed costed screening, that were implemented in FYs 2019/2020 and Environment and Social 2020/2021 were NOT available. Management Plans (ESMPs) score 4 or else 0 (including child protection plans) where applicable, prior to commencement of all civil works.
Maximum score is 12
4 0 Evidence that the LG has b. If the LG has There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG carried carried out Environmental, carried out out Environmental, Social and Climate Change Social and Climate Change Environment and Screening prior to commencement of all civil works for screening/Environment and Social Impact all projects implemented using the DDEG for the Social Impact Assessments Assessments previous financial year (2019/2020 FY) as completed (ESIAs) and developed costed (ESIAs) prior to Environmental and Social Screening Forms (ESSFs) Environment and Social commencement of for all infrastructure projects that were implemented in Management Plans (ESMPs) all civil works for 2019/2020 FY under DDEG Funding were NOT (including child protection all projects available. plans) where applicable, prior implemented to commencement of all civil using the works. Discretionary Development Maximum score is 12 Equalization Grant (DDEG),
score 4 or 0
4 0 Evidence that the LG has c. If the LG has a There was NO Evidence that Nakaseke DLG had carried out Environmental, Costed ESMPs for Costed ESMPs for all projects implemented using the Social and Climate Change all projects Discretionary Development Equalization Grant (DDEG) screening/Environment and implemented prior to commencement of all civil works as Costed Social Impact Assessments using the ESMPs for all infrastructure projects that were (ESIAs) and developed costed Discretionary implemented in 2019/2020 FY under DDEG Funding Environment and Social Development were NOT available. Management Plans (ESMPs) Equalization Grant (including child protection (DDEG);; plans) where applicable, prior to commencement of all civil score 4 or 0 works.
Maximum score is 12
Financial management and reporting 5 0 Evidence that the LG does not If a LG has a clean The Nakaseke DLG will be scored in January 2021 have an adverse or disclaimer audit opinion, when the Auditor General report for the year 2019/20 is audit opinion for the previous score 10; issued. FY. If a LG has a Maximum score is 10 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 LG submitted status of implementation of Internal provided information to the provided Auditor General and Auditor General audit issues for PS/ST on the status of information to the the year 2018/19 on 13 December 2019 to PS/ST, implementation of Internal PS/ST on the before the February 2020 deadline. Auditor General and Auditor status of General findings for the implementation of previous financial year by end Internal Auditor of February (PFMA s. 11 2g). General and This statement includes Auditor General issues, recommendations, and findings for the actions against all findings previous financial where the Internal Auditor and year by end of Auditor General recommended February (PFMA the Accounting Officer to act s. 11 2g), (PFM Act 2015). score 10 or else 0. maximum score is 10
7 4 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has The LG has submitted an annual performance contract submitted an annual submitted an of 2020/21 on 9 July 2020 before the deadline of performance contract by annual August 31st, 2020. August 31st of the current FY performance contract by August Maximum Score 4 31st of the current FY,
score 4 or else 0.
8 4 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has The LG submitted the Annual Performance Report for submitted the Annual submitted the the year 2019/20 on 25/8/2020 which was before Performance Report for the Annual August 31, 2020. previous FY on or before Performance August 31, of the current Report for the Financial Year previous FY on or before August 31, maximum score 4 or else 0 of the current Financial Year,
score 4 or else 0. 9 4 Evidence that the LG has If the LG has The LG submitted the all the quarterly budget submitted Quarterly Budget submitted Performance Report for the year 2019/20 on the Performance Reports (QBPRs) Quarterly Budget following dates: for all the four quarters of the Performance previous FY by August 31, of Reports (QBPRs) Q1 - 27/1/2020 the current Financial Year for all the four Q2 ¬– 24/2/2020 quarters of the Maximum score is 4 previous FY by Q3 – 20/5/2020 August 31, of the current Financial Q4 – 25/8/2020 Year,
score 4 or else 0.