United Nations Capital Development Fund

Uganda Working Brief Series

Insights from the District Development Project: Table of Contents

Implementing Capacity Building Fund (CBF) initiatives: Successes and Challenges

By the evaluation review team

Abstract

The performance of Capacity Building initiatives was a major focus of the 1999 DDP Evaluation because decision makers at the Centre became aware that the initiatives funded through the Capacity Building Fund (CBF) were not being implemented in a way that responded to the CBF guidelines or that demonstrated a clear impact in the capacity of district, sub-county and parish level capacity requirements - to improve their local governance work. According to reports from the districts, some effective capacity building activities have taken place in the areas of financial management, planning, record keeping, meeting procedures and exposure to local government procedures. Participants reported improved performance as a result of the training.

Yet when the utilisation of demand driven component of the CBF was analysed, the impact of the CBF training per se was not apparent. Rather, the Team found that improved capacity could also be attributed to mentoring and on-the-job training and supervision activities that were supported with the CBF but not included in the original design. The Review Team learned that there was a general lack of clarity on the definition, the objectives, the scope, the targets, and the procedures of the CBF by the districts and the sub-counties.

Preamble

Any analysis of the Capacity Building Fund (CBF) must go back to the beginning. How was the CBF designed? What were its basic principles? The CBF was designed to test the viability and effectiveness of a decentralised demand-driven facility for capacity building for rural service delivery. It was aimed at empowering local councils with the responsibilities and resources so that they could determine and manage the provision of training, technical and institutional support consistent with their own needs and the requirements of NGOs, private sector contractors, consultants, and community organisations that are also involved in planning and providing development services. The CBF was seen as a good idea, and it fits well within the participatory philosophy of the District Development Project Pilot (DDP).

Sixty percent of the CBF was allocated to the districts to fund their own capacity building needs, 40% was held in trust by the Programme Management Unit (PMU) [The PMU is the executing agency for the DDP. It is located in the Ministry of Local Government] to use for capacity building activities identified through mentoring or monitoring as district training requirements. The districts’ 60% is further divided with 35% allocated to the districts and 65% allocated to the sub-counties (mirrors local revenue distribution formula).

Local government councillors and staff were to assess their training needs within the context of local government regulations, then establish capacity building schedules and co-ordinate a process of training in the district, sub-county and parish levels to meet these needs. Though the design is intended to be demand driven, there are several core ‘functional competencies’ that were identified as a priority for the fund. They are:

Decision making
Resource mobilisation and management
Communication and co-ordination
Conflict resolution

In addition to these four core competencies, there is a menu of recommended CBF areas of focus. They are:

local government planning
investment appraisal
monitoring and evaluation
financial management
communication, especially with regard to financial transfers and contracts · incorporation and registration
bidding procedures
contract management
facilitating the performance of service agencies
policy and procedural development

These focus areas are possible capacity building options. The local governments are free to use the funds to fulfil other capacity building needs they have identified.

This brief summarises the lessons learned about the Capacity Building Fund and offers some suggestions for the future. The brief comes from the final report of the ‘1999 District Development Project Pilot Evaluation Review (November 10 to December 11, 1999)’ by the MoLG and UNCDF. The brief portrays the successes and challenges in three main areas: the introduction, the implementation of the Fund and the relative impact it has had so far. At the end, there are a number of suggestions arising from the Review that are captured in the conclusions.

Introduction of the CBF

Once designed, the CBF was introduced within the context of the other DDP start up and implementation activities. Though everyone considered CBF activities important, the implementation of the Local Development Funds (LDF—DDP financing facility) was the primary focus and, consequently, the CBF was given less time in the introductory events. At the district level, staff and councillors usually received a one-day introduction workshop to the DDP, which included both the LDF and the CBF with the provision of written guidelines for future reference. The district staff was then to introduce the DDP to the sub-counties and parishes.

The District Planning Offices organised meetings with the sub-counties to discuss CBF use, create a CBF schedule, and begin to plan training activities. Unfortunately, as has been discovered, this process took place simultaneously with the development of district and sub-county development plans. As time grew short, the local governments’ priority was to develop their plans in order to qualify for the LDF.

In response to concerns expressed in the 1998 DDP Evaluation, the personnel officers were eventually assigned co-ordination responsibilities for the CBF, but their training is essentially personnel management (oversight function) and not human resource development (capacity building). They had little and some disticts no orientation to the CBF. Further, some personnel officers are already overloaded with managing day-to-day personnel issues. A councillor from a district where the CBF was suspended for a time said, ‘the introduction was rushed so we didn’t fully understand what we were agreeing to. We had to stop the process for a time until we clearly knew what was involved.’ In the same district, when the CBF was introduced to the sub-county level, the sub-county chiefs allowed the district to hold their CBF because they felt that if the funds were consolidated at the district level, the funds could be used more efficiently and effectively throughout the district.

CBF guidelines were prepared and were to be distributed through the district planning offices. However, the planners reported that they received a limited number of these guidelines and did not have the resources to distribute them widely. Given the limited time allotted to its introduction in the start up workshops, there was a high dependence on the availability of the CBF guidelines for future reference and understanding. Limited distribution of the guidelines further hampered the sub-counties grasp of the objectives and scope of the CBF.

Implementation of the CBF

All the districts completed their capacity building fund schedules for 1998/1999. Most districts followed the Ministry guidelines for training and included training in:

financial management and compliance with the Financial and Accounting Regulations, 1998 (FAR, 1998)
district planning
writing plans
record keeping
conducting meetings
procurement procedures
sensitisation on the Local Government Act, 1997 (LG Act 1997) and FAR, 1998
structure and operation of council committees
contractor requirements

Use of the CBF has varied from 30 to over 100%. This wide range seems to indicate that the understanding of the CBF design and implementation process varied from district to district. When the allocations are looked at closely for the over-100% usage, many of the activities are related to mentoring or normal supervision. This over-usage could, in fact, mean that more support is required for capacity building in the districts.

CBF schedules were developed in each district through the planning office and, in some cases, in consultation with sub-counties. The schedules were largely developed in a consultative manner with someone from the planning office, the accounts office, and the personnel office acting as facilitators. Despite this consultative process, there were some weaknesses found in the consultation process.

Though funds were earmarked for community organisations, there is no indication in any of the districts that communities were involved in designing the CBF schedules.
All the parish councillors who were interviewed during the Evaluation thought that the CBF was a training programme from the centre or the district and were not aware that they could request specific training based on their own training needs in relation to the LG Act, 1997 and FAR, 1998.

District staff and councillors were aware that their LDF allocation would increase or decrease depending on how well they met their performance measures at the end of the fiscal year. Consequently, the focus of capacity building activities was directed at increasing knowledge and skills in these performance areas. However there is no direct connection made between the CBF and these exercises in the districts, but there is certainly an implied connection as most respondents said they needed certain training in order to improve their performance rating in the future.

The distribution of the CBF did not work smoothly in all cases. In some districts, the funds were controlled at the district level with no devolution of funding to the sub-counties, though there was apparent joint planning of activities. The sub-county chiefs now see this as a loss of control over the sub-county’s money and are looking forward to changing that agreement during the formulation of the 1999/2000 CBF schedule. Some district staff believe that the sub-counties do no have the capacity to control the CBF, while sub-counties felt that a larger portion of the distribution should remain with them. Given the current skill levels at the sub-counties, however, the evidence would seem to support the district view.

CBF Content Related to Process

Generally, CBF topics were selected directly from the recommended menu of options with most emphasis on the necessary content required for LG Act, 1997 and FAR, 1998 implementation. There was little emphasis on the ability of districts and sub-counties to determine their own training needs or performance requirements outside of these parameters. The correlation between CB topics and the DDP/LG Act, 1997 makes good sense, but the process led people to believe they had no choice about topics. There was no evident connection made to community needs that might exist outside of the given categories.

In many other countries, there are local government training institutes with a syllabus for local government training. The topics are known and presented to those interested in becoming proficient in local government practices and procedures. The Training and Staff Development Division of the Ministry of Local Government has similar general guidelines for its capacity building programme in the districts. Although the CBF menu has comparable topics, there is no connection at present between that of the CBF and these other approaches.

Training plans for sub-county level included as many as eight to twelve topics given in two days with all materials in English and no comprehensive training evaluation conducted. The materials were generally photocopies of documents. The methods were lectures, discussion, some role-plays, and small group exercises, especially for the accounting procedures. In general, the process of training reflected the need to use the funds quickly rather than a well-planned participatory approach. This points to the inadequate capacity to prepare and deliver training. Hence the questions, ‘who should be responsible for this aspect? Should it be the responsibility of the central government?’ The local governments answer was ‘No.’ This response is understandable; the local governments were to take charge of their own affairs. But more importantly, the central government cannot continue designing and delivering training without seriously undermining the very essence of the CBF—that capacity must be built within the districts and geared to their specific capacity building needs.

Co-ordination of CBF Activities

Co-ordination of CBF activities has been inconsistent at the Ministry/PMU and District levels. There are four capacity building initiatives under the Ministry of Local Government funded by projects. The Training and Staff Development Division (TSDD), the PMU, the Training Co-ordinating Committee, and the Institutional Capacity Building Programme (see Box 1 and definitions below) Some of the activities are related but according to some respondents at the centre, they are not effectively integrated or co-ordinated.
The Training Committee’s (TC) purpose is to limit duplication of training activities which support Local Governments through the development of a joint training workplan for all training related to decentralisation and local government systems. The MoLG chairs the committee with the Decentralisation Secretariat (DS) as the secretary. Participants in the Committee include Uganda Local Authorities Association (ULAA), the Public Service Association, and Urban Authorities Association of Uganda (UAAU), and the Ministries of Health, Agricultural, and Education.

The objective of the Training and Staff Development Division (TSDD) is to raise capacity of local governments to carry out their roles and functions. They do this through sensitisation of councillors on their roles, functions, and powers within the LG Act, 1998.

The Programme Management Unit (PMU) is responsible for the implementation of the CBF activities through mentoring, monitoring, and training. PMU staff introduced the CBF in the districts and make frequent visits to monitor the progress of the implementation of the entire DDP. During these visits, they help assess the capacity needs for the 40% held by the PMU in trust for the districts. Because the CBF is intended to be demand driven, the PMU does directly use the 60% of the CBF allocated to the districts.
The Institutional Capacity Building Project (ICBP) is primarily responsible for the equipment and material needs within capacity building. The office organises the provision of office equipment such as computers and furniture as well as computer training at the district level.

Centrally, PMU staff has effectively steered the CBF activities, but there is limited co-ordinated follow up or monitoring of capacity building activities between the four groups. Enhancing the connection between the four groups has the potential to appreciatively increase the capacity of local governments to manage their development. Currently, the groups work largely parallel to each other.

Following the limited co-ordination at the central level, at the District level there is confusion over who should take responsibility for capacity building activities—the planning office or the personnel office. Co-ordination has been, thus far, determined based on which office has time to oversee CBF activities. The responsibility of the District Technical Planning Committee in this regard has not been well established or understood. Focus on CBF activities has been driven more by the desire to use the CBF rather than to improve the district staff capacity to manage and implement LG procedures. Last year, the DDP Project Technical Committee recommended that the Personnel Officer take charge of CBF co-ordination at the district level, but in some districts that person was never informed of this responsibility.

Impact

During the DDP Evaluation (1999), the question consistently asked at all levels was, ‘What is the impact of the CBF activities?’ Responses from the districts included:

Our financial management is better.
We are now keeping regular books and records.
Our planning process is more inclusive.
We involve the communities in decision-making.
Our meetings have agendas.
We are better organised.

But when the Review Team probed further, it was not clear that the improvement in actions and compliance had more to do with: the rewards promised through a positive review of their performance measures; good mentoring by district level staff; or the formal trainings scheduled. For example in the area of accounting, the Review Team found excellent records of mentoring by District Internal Auditors to Sub-accountants. This mentoring has undoubtedly had a positive impact on the performance of the sub-accounts, and this is something to be applauded. The challenge for the CBF, though, is to determine whether the CBF is an effective contributor to building local government capacity or whether other factors, e.g., adherence to performance measures, are more responsible for the changes. If other factors are more important, then how can the CBF be changed or improved to better support these efforts?

Also, the Review team realised that the sub-county stakeholders were not yet prepared to take over all of the responsibilities connected with the identification of capacity building needs, and the design, delivery and monitoring of quality of training programmes. Although a wide range of stakeholders participated in the design of the CBF, the sub-county representatives were not included. As a result, the gap in their ability to implement the CBF was not noted. This gap and their limited involvement in the design of the CBF, coupled with the limited and rushed introduction to the CBF, resulted in problems in implementing the CBF at the sub-county level.

Conclusions

Despite the constraints and challenges in the design and implementation of the CBF, local governments feel that the CBF has made a positive impact on the capacities at the district and the sub-county levels. The demand-driven approach to the CBF embraces the true spirit of decentralisation by putting lower levels of government in charge of determining and demanding the capacity building activities that best suit their needs. In this way, the CBF not only provides funds for building capacity, accessing the Fund is in itself a capacity building activity.

However, there are questions about the effectiveness and impact of the CBF in improving capacity within the lower level local governments. According to the November 1999 DDP Evaluation, some of the weaknesses of the CBF were inherent within the design and introduction of the Fund and the process for accessing it. Some of the weaknesses are found in the initial attempts to implement the Fund.
The Evaluation outlined a series of recommendations for improving the implementation and impact of the CBF. Some of the key recommendations are listed below.

A design review should be implemented involving the key actors in CBF activities. The MoLG/PMU should take the lead facilitation role in the review with the participation of the Office of the Auditor General, ULAA, District Planning Office representatives, sub-county chiefs, and qualified trainers/representatives of training institutions. The Review should not curtail current CBF implementation, but incorporate lessons into ongoing implementation.
Training topics should be selected by a performance assessment conducted at the district and sub-county levels in the context of compliance with the LG Act, 1997, the FAR, 1998, and the district development objectives. Closely related to this, the District Technical Planning Committees and Sub-county Technical Planning Committees should receive comprehensive training in how to conduct a performance assessment related to the minimum conditions and performance measures so that training is relevant to real needs. District staff should be able to perform this responsibility in conjunction with the sub-counties.
If sub-counties receive funds, they should receive a thorough orientation on the CBF, its objectives, scope, target participants, M&E guidelines, and roles and responsibilities of the sub-counties with regard to the CBF.
Future allocations of the CBF should be related to a district’s performance assessment. Good performance should be rewarded and poor performance and implementation should have sanctions. New allocations for 1999/20000 CBF should be based upon accountability of financial resources and impact. This should include financial reports and training reports with details of objectives, design, and participants’ lists from each course.
The current 35% (district) – 65% (sub-counties) distribution should be reviewed in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and subsidiarity. The varied district experiences should be considered.

The MoLG should review and present guidelines for local government management including: planning, implementation, financial management, roles and responsibilities of staff and councillors, local government ethics, local governance, monitoring and evaluation, meeting procedures and record keeping. Encouraging lower local governments to participate along with training specialists to ensure that the content and the training design fit the needs of the training group such as language and education level.

The PMU and TSDD are encouraged to co-ordinate their Capacity Building (CB) activities through participation in the design review of the CBF and then joint work planning based on the revised design.

Return to top

Footnotes

1 Performance measures are indicators used at the end of the fiscal year to assess the progress of local governments in improving their planning, allocation, and investment management systems. Meeting at least 80% of the performance measures results in an increase in their local development funds, whereas failure to meet their performance measures results in a decrease in their local development funds. [return]