Assessment Form

Local Government Performance Assessment Busia District (Vote Code: 507) Assessment Scores Accountability Requirements 67% Crosscutting Performance Measures 54% Educational Performance Measures 52% Health Performance Measures 55% Water Performance Measures 55% 507 Busia District Accontability Requirements 2018 Definition of Summary of requirements Compliance justification Compliant? compliance Annual performance contract Yes LG has submitted an annual • From MoFPED’s • LG submitted to MoFPED Annual performance contract of the inventory/schedule of Performance contract for the FY forthcoming year by June 30 on LG submissions of 2018/19 on the 26th/7/2018. the basis of the PFMAA and LG performance Budget guidelines for the coming contracts, check dates financial year. of submission and issuance of receipts and: o If LG submitted before or by due date, then state ‘compliant’ o If LG had not submitted or submitted later than the due date, state ‘non- compliant’ • From the Uganda budget website: www.budget.go.ug, check and compare recorded date therein with date of LG submission to confirm. Supporting Documents for the Budget required as per the PFMA are submitted and available Yes LG has submitted a Budget that • From MoFPED’s • LG submitted to MoFPED Budget includes a Procurement Plan for inventory of LG that included Procurement Plan for the forthcoming FY by 30th June budget submissions, the FY 2018/19 on the 26th/7/ (LG PPDA Regulations, 2006). check whether: 2018. o The LG budget is accompanied by a Procurement Plan or not. If a LG submission includes a Procurement Plan, the LG is compliant; otherwise it is not compliant. Reporting: submission of annual and quarterly budget performance reports No LG has submitted the annual From MoFPED’s • LG submitted to MoFPED the performance report for the official Annual Performance Report for FY previous FY on or before 31st record/inventory of LG 2017/18 on the 14th/8/2018, which July (as per LG Budget submission of annual was past the due date of July 31st Preparation Guidelines for performance report 2018. coming FY; PFMA Act, 2015) submitted to MoFPED, check the date MoFPED received the annual performance report: • If LG submitted report to MoFPED in time, then it is compliant • If LG submitted late or did not submit, then it is not compliant No LG has submitted the quarterly From MoFPED’s • Though the LG submitted to budget performance report for official record/ MoFPED the Budget Performance all the four quarters of the inventory of LG Reports for all four Quarters FY previous FY by end of the FY; submission of 2017/18 the Performance Report PFMA Act, 2015). quarterly reports for Quarter 4 was submitted on submitted to 14th/8/2018 which was past the MoFPED, check the due date of July 31st 2018. The date MoFPED others were submitted on the received the quarterly following dates: performance reports: Quarter I report: 2nd/01/2018 • If LG submitted all four reports to Quarter II report: 9th/02/2018 MoFPED of the Quarter III report: 11th/05/2018. previous FY by July 31, then it is compliant (timely submission of each quarterly report, is not an accountability requirement, but by end of the FY, all quarterly reports should be available). • If LG submitted late or did not submit at all, then it is not compliant. Audit Yes The LG has provided information From MoFPED’s • The LG had provided information to the PS/ST on the status of Inventory/record of to the PS/ST on the status of implementation of Internal LG submissions of implementation of Internal Auditor Auditor General and the Auditor statements entitled General and Auditor General’s General’s findings for the “Actions to Address findings for the previous financial previous financial year by end of Internal Auditor year 2016/17. February (PFMA s. 11 2g). This General’s findings”, statement includes actions Reference is made to the against all findings where the Check: submission letter dated 12/4/2018, Internal Audi- tor and the Auditor (The mandatory deadline for • If LG submitted a General recommended the submission was 30th April 2018 ‘Response’ (and Accounting Officer to take action (PFMAs 11’2g)), addressed to the provide details), then in lines with applicable laws. chairperson District Local it is compliant Government Public Accounts Committee, kampala in a letter • If LG did not titled ‘’Management Action Taken submit a’ response’, On Auditor General’s Report For then it is non- The Financial Year Ended 30th compliant June 2017’’, ref: CR/252/1, signed • If there is a by CAO (Iriama Walter) and copied response for all –LG to: is compliant (i) Directorate of Internal Audit • If there are partial acknowledged on 4/5/2018. or not all issues (ii) PS/ST MOFPED Kampala responded to – LG is acknowledged on 4/5/2018 not compliant. (iii) PS MOLG acknowledged on 4/5/2018. (iv) RDC Busia . Therefore, the LG was compliant as far as deadline is concerned. Yes The audit opinion of LG • The audit opinion of LG Financial Financial Statement (issued in Statement was not adverse or January) is not adverse or disclaimer. disclaimer. 507 Busia District Crosscutting Performance Measures 2018 Summary of Definition of Compliance justification Score requirements compliance Planning, budgeting and execution 0 All new Evidence that a district/ • Physical Planning Committee (PPC) was constituted infrastructure municipality has: by CAO’s letter dated 11th/08/2016. It lacked a projects in: (i) a Physical Planner in Private practice. municipality / (ii) • A functional Physical in a district are Planning Committee in • PPC had held meetings on 9th/8/2017, 29th/9/2017 approved by the place that considers new and 12th/06/2018 during which building plans were respective investments on time: considered e.g. under Min. 5 of 12th June 2018 all the Physical score 1. 7 building plans were approved e.g for Taka Claire, Planning but timeliness of their consideration could not be Committees and ascertained because the building plan register had not are consistent captured dates of submission. with the • Building plans for LG projects for FY 2018/19 had not approved been approved by the Committee at time of Physical Plans assessment. Maximum 4 points for this performance measure. 0 All new • Evidence that district/ • LG had not submitted minutes of the Physical infrastructure MLG has submitted at Planning Committee to MoLHUD as at time of projects in: (i) a least 4 sets of minutes of assessment. municipality / (ii) Physical Planning in a district are Committee to the approved by the MoLHUD score 1. respective Physical Planning Committees and are consistent with the approved Physical Plans Maximum 4 points for this performance measure. 0 All new • All infrastructure • LG did not have a Physical Development Plan (PDP) infrastructure investments are thus consistency of infrastructure investments with the projects in: (i) a consistent with the PDP could not be established. municipality / (ii) approved Physical in a district are Development Plan: score approved by the 1 or else 0 respective Physical Planning Committees and are consistent with the approved Physical Plans Maximum 4 points for this performance measure. 1 All new • Action area plan • LG had Busia Boarder Master Plan seated on 62.42 infrastructure prepared for the Ha of land in Masafu SC (drawn in 2017 –validity projects in: (i) a previous FY: score 1 or period not specified) that had been prepared with municipality / (ii) else 0 support of Ministry of Trade industry and in a district are Cooperatives. No developments had commenced yet approved by the except for surveying, site board installation and respective fencing of the area. Submitted to PPC on 07th/09/2017 Physical and was approved in PPC meeting of 28th/09/2017 Planning under Min. 4. Committees and are consistent with the approved Physical Plans Maximum 4 points for this performance measure. 2 The prioritized • Evidence that priorities Report of the Budget conference held on 26th/10/2017 investment in AWP for the current prepared by the Senior Planner set forth the following activities in the FY are based on the priorities which were also contained in the AWP FY approved AWP outcomes of budget 2018/19: for the current conferences: score 2. FY are derived • Construction of latrine and urinal in HCs, construction from the of chain link fences with security houses and gates, approved five- construction of medical waste pits HC IIs and year renovation of OPDs and Health Staff houses development • Classroom construction and rehabilitation and supply plan, are based of school furniture on discussions in • Maintenance of roads and equipment annual reviews and • Construction of public buildings budget • Construction pit latrine in RGCs (Namungodi TC and conferences and Siboni) have project • Support to community groups under NUSAF3 and profiles special interest groups Maximum 5 points on this performance measure. 1 The prioritized • Evidence that the All the following capital projects in the AWP for FY investment capital investments in 2018/19 had been derived from the approved DDP activities in the the approved Annual 2015/16-2019/20: approved AWP work plan for the current for the current • Construction of latrine and urinal in Buwembe, FY are derived FY are derived from the Majanji, Lumino, Buteba, Masafu and Buwumba HCs; from the approved five-year Construction of chain link fences with security houses approved five- development plan. If and gates at Majanji H/C II, and Buwembe H/C II. – year differences appear, a Construction of medical waste pits at Majanji H/C II justification has to be and Buwembe H/C II; Health Staff house renovation at development provided and evidence Buwembe, Majanji and Busime HC IIs; Renovation of plan, are based provided that it was OPD in Buwembe, Majanji, Buwumba and Hasyule HC on discussions in IIs (AWP pg.

Load more