Uganda Working Brief Series
Insights from the District Development Project: Table of Contents
Assessment of the Cascade Training
Annet Mpabulungi
Introduction
The
Cascade Approach
Emerging
Issues and Options for the Cascade Training
Conclusion
References
Abstract
For a long time, national governments have been perceived as the controllers of the development process. In light of Uganda's decentralisation policy, the mutually reinforcing roles of local government and civil society are gaining greater credibility.
This Brief describes the training under the establishment phase of District Development Project (DDP) Pilot that has been carried out to build capacities in the pilot districts. Focus is also on assessing how far the cascade training approach, where higher levels are responsible for mentoring and providing technical skills to lower level local governments, has met the needs of the Local Governments and the constituents.
The Government of Uganda (GoU) and several donors are concerned about the capacity of districts to effectively manage the wide range of responsibilities that are under their jurisdiction, especially since the decentralisation reform has devolved many responsibilities for planning, financial management and service provision to District and Sub-county local governments. Between January to March 1997, a capacity assessment of the Local Councils in Arua, Jinja, Mukono, Kotido, and Kabale was undertaken as part of the formulation process for the DDP. The assessment looked specifically at local government staffing procedures; financial management practices; and their abilities in planning and engineering. The assessment revealed weaknesses in both planning and financial management within the district systems. The assessment noted that the planning process at both the district and sub-county levels was not comprehensive. Further, it was found that some of the pilot districts lacked functionality in key departments: Planning, Engineering, Finance, and Audit.
When considering
how best to support local governments to improve their capacity and
performance, the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) was faced with
a conundrum. What kinds of capacity were to be given priority? What
skills were crucial and needed attention before the Local Development
Fund (LDF) and Capacity Building Fund (CBF) resources could be released?
If the DDP were to be a useful pilot project to inform nation-wide approaches
and practices, what kind of training strategy would be most appropriate,
cost-effective, and sustainable? The District and Sub-county access
requirements for receiving Local Development Funds found in the Project
Document of the DDP gave a clear indication of where capacity building
was most urgently needed. During the DDP formulation, the MoLG together
with UNCDF identified a series of Minimum Conditions (access requirements)
that local governments needed to meet before they could access the LDF/CBF.
These Minimum Conditions (functional capacities in planning, financial
management, engineering, etc.) were based on existing laws and regulations
and provided a clear focus for targeted training activities. In collaboration
with national consultants, the MoLG formulated a training strategy,
the central feature of which is what is called a "cascade approach."
This Brief describes the cascade approach to training and provides an
initial assessment of the approach's impact on local councils' capacity
to perform these different functions. The data for the Brief is drawn
from training activities under the Establishment Phase (January to June
1998) until the first Minimum Conditions assessment of local governments.
(return)
Why the Cascade Approach?
The Local Government Act 1997 sets out many responsibilities where the centre, in particular the MoLG, is responsible to assist local governments improve their capacities. This responsibility is summed up in three words: "monitoring, mentoring and supervision." Similarly, districts are responsible to extend the same kind of support to sub-counties and lower level local governments. But how could this responsibility be met on the ground? Even within DDP's five pilot districts, there are over 100 local governments and many more local councils. Clearly, it would not be possible for MoLG, or even district technical staff, to provide training directly to all levels.
Therefore, the cascade approach is a method that is designed to provide serialised training at the different levels of local governments. The MoLG, together with nationally recruited trainers, provided training to district-level trainers, including technical local governments staff, NGO staff, and other local specialists, who made up a district "core team." The core team's role was to extend training to the lower levels. Just who receives what types of training depended on the particular needs, for example improving the functional capacity of sub-county financial managers meant the training should focus on the accounts staff, the Chief, and, in some cases, the Chairperson and Finance Committee members. Training to improve skills in community facilitation requires a focus on other technical staff, extension workers and councillors. The key to cascade training, as the name suggests, is that the training is structured so that those trained train others. For instance, a Sub-county Accountant is expected to extend his/her skills to Parish leaders or to Project Management Committee members. This idea of training trainers who then train others is the origin of the term "cascade." The skills cascade, through training, from the districts down to the lowest levels of government.
What Is the Cascade Approach?
The cascade training of districts has followed the following steps:
1. Development of training materials. Decisions about the materials to be developed involved a close look at the Guides developed for the DDP, such as the Investment Planning Guide for Sub-counties and lower level councils, to see what kinds of skills were expected of councillors, technical staff, local leaders, etc. These training materials were designed to provide systematic direction for the training process.
2. Training at the different levels. Districts, sub-counties and lower councils were trained in the cascade fashion in May and June 1998, prior to the first assessment of Minimum Conditions.
3. Follow-up training. Follow-up training was carried out after the first assessment in order to support those sub-counties that did not meet the Minimum Conditions and, therefore, did not qualify for LDFs.
Step One: Development of Training Materials
The training materials
and guides were designed to provide systematic direction for the training
process. Although there is plenty of room for improvement, based on
experience to date, Local Governments have applauded the training guides
and manuals as the first specially targeted materials aiming at functional
capacity. The training process at the different levels has also helped
to refine the content and develop an appropriate language that would
be user friendly for the trainers. The manuals are also being translated
into the local languages.
Cascade Training Materials The following Guides were prepared:
A. Investment Planning Guide for Sub-countries and Lower Councils
B. Financial and Management Guide for Sub-countries and Lower Councils
C. The Monitoring and Evaluation Manual of Procedures
TheTraining Manuals prepared include:
1. Module I: General Sensitisation
2. Module II: Sub-county Investment Planning and Budgeting Process
3. Module III: Sub-county Investment Plans Basic
4. Module IV: Financial Management for Administrator - stage 1
5. Module V: Book keeping for Accounts Staff -Stage 1
6. Module VI: Tools for Community Facilitation
7. Basic Contract Procedures and Management or District Level
8. Basic Contract Procedures and Management for Sub-country Level
Step Two: Training at Different Levels
A. District Training
A two-week intensive training workshop was organised and facilitated by staff from PMU/MoLG together with consultants to not only review and synchronise the content of the training guides and manuals but to train the district core teams as well. The training targeted staff from the planning unit, finance and audit sections, and engineering department. They were expected to serve as trainers for the sub-counties and to constitute the national pool of trainers. This is one of the features of the cascade training approach.
It was expected that by the end of the training, participants would be able to:
- explain the GoU's
decentralisation policy and the DDP pilot;
- demonstrate participatory
community facilitation skills;
- have reviewed
and commented on the Investment Planning, Financial Management, Tools
for Community Facilitation, and Contract Procedures and Management
training manuals/guides; and
- train the sub-county staff and councillors in participatory planning processes and management of investment activities.
The workshop provided the participants with skills to streamline and revitalise the planning and management of investments at district and sub-county level. Ultimately, this process would enhance the development of the District Development Plan and Sub-county Investment Plan. The results from the first assessment of Minimum Conditions (June to August 1998) indicated that that the districts of Jinja, Kotido, and Mukono had weaknesses. However, the second assessment noted that shortcomings had been rectified and that all Sub-counties in the pilot Districts had posted books of accounts, which is one indicator of financial management capacity.
B. Sub-county Training
Immediately after the District workshop, the District Core Teams prepared for the sub-county level training. Depending on the number of sub-counties in the district, training activities lasted for a minimum of five days (in Jinja with only seven sub-counties, for example) to a maximum of nine days (Mukono has the largest number of sub-counties with 32).
The training at sub-county level was intended to help sub-county leaders to facilitate the development of the Sub-county Investment Plans, to strengthen sub-county financial management, and to better understand decentralisation and the philosophy of DDP pilot. The target group at the sub-county level comprised: sub-county chiefs, sub-accountants, councillors, extension staff, assistant chief administrative officers, and sometimes NGO staff. Training at the sub-county level prompted a critical review of the Training Guides and Manuals for the sub-counties. The procedures proposed in the Sub-county Investment Planning Guide were considered too long to practically and effectively enhance participatory planning at the Lower Council levels. Sub-county leaders expressed their lack of adequate knowledge about the MoLG financial regulations that had been included in the Financial Management Guide. The Programme Management Unit [1] /MoLG was therefore requested to review the Planning Investment Guide and to facilitate sensitisation about the MoLG financial regulations.
C. Lower Council Training
It was planned that sub-county leaders would facilitate a participatory planning process for the lower council levels. This was aimed at ensuring that community priority needs and expectations were adequately addressed at the planning stage. During UNCDF monitoring activities, however, it was observed that the quality of training at lower council levels was affected by two key limitations:
First, there was limited time provided for training. Even though sub-county leaders were very interested and engaged during the training, they had not adequately internalised the concepts involved. In fact, most of the concepts (local investment planning, facilitation, etc.) were new to them. It was probably unreasonable to expect that they would have internalised these concepts and developed necessary skills as trainers to effectively communicate this new knowledge to lower levels.
Second, some steps in the training process were not carried out. As a Parish Chief in Arua put it, "…we had to do it (training) our way in order to be ready for the assessment of the Minimum Conditions. Otherwise there was no way we would have met the deadline."
The DDP Pilot Evaluation Review Report (January 1999) confirmed that training at lower council levels did not occur in some instances due to limited time provided for the preparations of the Minimum Conditions. Thus, there was little room for consultation and the identification of parish projects did not benefit from adequate "community facilitation." Indeed, in some cases the entire exercise was done in isolation of the community and by the Parish Council alone. (return)
Step Three: Follow-up Training
Several weaknesses in the initial training became evident during the first round of trainings in April and, shortly thereafter, during the assessment of Minimum Conditions. Of the 109 sub-counties, 63 met the Minimum Conditions, 30 were close to meeting them, and 16 did not (Assessment Report, June 1998). The PMU/MoLG was quick to organise follow-up training. The follow up training targeted weaknesses noted above within the district technical staff, the local governments, the sub-county chiefs, the technical committees, and the investment committees. The topics of focus for the follow-up support training were geared at providing additional skills in areas such as the following.
Review of Sub-County Investment Plans to ensure that the investment profiles, budgets, and implementation schedules were well elaborated. Small working groups by sub-counties of approximately five people were requested to develop investment profiles, budgets, and a systematic work plan. Participants improved their plans during plenary sessions that involved illustrations and an overview of how the distribution of the LDF was to be done.
Improved records keeping and financial management. For financial management, the assessment revealed that some of the books of accounts were not accurately posted due to scanty information recorded in vouchers. Books were not being regularly posted and therefore were not updated. In some instances, the sub-accountants were not adequately trained. To improve on the quality of the books of accounts, hands-on training was undertaken by PMU staff and experienced staff from the district internal audit section.
Certified contract procurement and management procedures. Training in basic contracting, contract management, and the tendering process was undertaken. The training targeted local contractors and the members of the tender board. The follow up training was timely in that it was just prior to the implementation of projects. It was also valuable for initiating the members of the tender boards who had just been elected since some were not conversant with their roles or the Local Government tender board regulations.
The follow-up training
was vital. The sub-counties that are now able to develop Investment
Plans demonstrated one sign that the knowledge acquired was put into
practice. Although the quality of Investment Plans varied, they were
a good beginning. Books of accounts were also improved, a critical aspect
in financial management. Overall, the results of the second assessment
of sub-county Minimum Conditions were impressive and exceeded project
formulation expectations that only 50% would qualify in year one, 75%
year two and 100% would be achieved in the third year. In the end, 98%
of the total number of sub-counties in the five districts met the Minimum
Conditions in the first year. (return)
Emerging Issues and Options for the Cascade Training
The cascade training approach is not an ideal approach. Moving down the "cascade" the quality of training is often diluted as mis-communication occurs and messages are often distorted. However, with full knowledge of these challenges, the scale of the training task required such an approach. The strengths and weakness that have been noted are characteristics of the cascade training approach.
So how do we maintain the strength and face the challenges that are so far arising from the cascade training under the DDP pilot experience?
Both the challenges and the strengths are based on three main factors: content, time, and the learning process. All three are so closely inter-linked that it is difficult to separate them. Some ideas and questions under each of these main factors are found below.
1. Content
During the refinement of the Sub-county Investment Plans in Jinja District, a sub-county chief remarked: "Our old brains have been challenged and more knowledge has been acquired. This work that has been designated to us by government is rather rigorous and even more rigorous for Local Council officials who do not have a technical background. The planning process is quite academic and next time while people are electing their representatives they may have to elect people with adequate academic background if they are to be represented effectively." Contrary to this remark the Uganda Local Government Act (1997) does not forbid anyone to take leadership positions on the grounds of inadequate formal education. However, it is apparent that the roles designated to the Local Councils increasingly require a higher level of "technical literacy." People are beginning to query capacities of non-academic and non-technical politicians to cope with the demands of their roles. Should the Local Government Act be revisited to ensure that the people elected could effectively implement service delivery?
Training activities
that previously stopped at the district level have now been brought
to the sub-counties. They are expected to extend these skills to the
sub-counties, parish and village levels to evolve inclusive planning
processes and to build their capacity to plan and manage investments.
In this regard, sustainability has been built in—as long as the
training content and methodologies are appropriate and target the right
people.
Participant Evaluation of the Training Workshop
- 86% noted that the workshop was resourceful in content.
- 73% indicated that the topics covered would enhance their work.
- 33% strongly agreed that the training methods used for presenting topics were appropriate.
- 43% of the participants complained that the time provided to cover scheduled topics was too limited.
However, some challenges are being experienced. Many of the participants do not have much experience in a training environment. This was highlighted by a Sub-county Chairperson in Mukono who said, "… the training session has been difficult, bearing in mind that most of us have not been in a classroom environment for quite some time." Technical staff members, especially from the Engineering and Finance departments, rarely finds themselves in training situations like the cascade approach. Fortunately, most sub-county leaders have a great enthusiasm about their work and an eagerness to learn in order to be accountable to their constituents. While facilitating training sessions, however, we should use appropriate training methods for the diverse target groups involved in the DDP.
Further, the participants felt that the training packages and especially the Tool for Community Facilitation Manual were loaded with too much information. It is important that the training guides and manuals are refined to capture both the needs of the trainers and the trainees.
2. Time
The cascade training was constrained by time. Given the scale of training needed and the number of levels through which messages had to be transmitted, the cascade training required sufficient time for the training activities. Although the cascade training was intended to extend skills and support inclusive planning to the lower councils, this did not happen as expected. There was limited time for this to occur, so there was no way that adequate inclusive planning could have been implemented. During the 1999/2000 Financial Year, the planning process should begin in January 1999 to adequately cater for an inclusive planning aspect and to provide ample time for training activities at the different levels. It is of paramount importance that a specific time is worked out for each training module. Also, more focus should be placed on working out a proper training schedule.
3. Learning Process
It has been noted that each training session both for the district core teams and the sub-county leaders lasted for a minimum of three intensive hours, which is rather long for adult learners. Appropriate time limits need to be worked out and more "hands-on training" could be considered in order to ease the learning process. It is hard to avoid distortion of messages, especially when there are different categories and levels of the training process. People perceive the same message differently. It is vital that training guides and manuals are refined so that the trainers are provided with adequate references for the training process by ensuring user-friendly content and language. Translation of the training guides and manuals into the local language and distribution is important for enhancing better and easy reference. It is not surprising that there was inadequate internalisation of the training process, especially by the sub-county leader therefore the training at the Lower Levels. Do we train a district resource pool of trainers to do the training at the different levels so as maintain the quality of content? Would this be sustainable? Your guess is as good as mine. Strengthening the technical support supervision could be an option as well as rethinking and refining the content of the training. What about the performance measures? How can they be refined to ensure that higher levels are motivated to support and mentor lower councils?
These results highlight the following issues.
1) Training can only be effective:
- a) if the trainers
are fully conversant, in a practical rather than theoretical way,
with the content; and
- b) if sufficient time is given both for training to occur and the new skills to be applied in practice. Neither of these conditions was ideal in the first round experience with DDP. Training was rushed because the assessment of Minimum Conditions (the results of training) occurred very soon afterwards. As such, the trainers were not yet completely familiar with the content/skills themselves.
2) It is clear that
while most local governments (Districts and Sub-counties) are now familiar
with their responsibilities to mentor (train, etc.) lower levels, they
have not yet made this a priority commitment. The Evaluation Review
Report (January 1999) highlights the many consequences of this fact.
3) There is
a need to ensure that the training process is adequately supervised
to ensure quality in training procedures and better accountability of
trainers to trainees. (return)
The cascade training
can be applauded for targeting the immediate, functional capacities
required to improve the skills of a range of actors involved in service
planning and delivery. But there are real problems. We must ensure that
training activities do not turn out to be solely sensitisation processes
but focus on the transfer of skills. Although it is only the first year
of the DDP pilot, lessons are being drawn from the experiences so far.
In due course, it is hoped that the training activities shall be fine-tuned
to adequately meet the needs of the Local Governments and the constituents.
(return)
Government of Uganda. The Local Government Act. 1997.
MoLG, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF). "District Development Project Pilot, Project Agreement." 1997.
MoLG. "Synthesised Report on the Assessment of DDP Pilot Project and Sub-county Achievement of Minimum Conditions." 1998.
MoLG. "Report on the Training of District Core Teams." 1998.
MoLG and UNCDF. "District Development Project Pilot Evaluation Review: Findings and Recommendations." 1999.
UNCDF and MoLG. "Capacity Assessment in four Pilot Districts: Arua, Jinja, Mukono and Kabale." 1997.
UNCDF. "Poverty Reduction & Local Governance: The Role for UNCDF."
UNCDF Policy Series. 1995. (return)
Endnotes
(1) PMU is the executing agency of the DDP. PMU is part of the Ministry of Local Government(MoLG) (return)
Return to top
