Experiences of Uganda’s PPA in implementing and monitoring poverty reduction

[from Eldis Poverty Reporter]

Authors: Ssewakiryange,R.
Produced by: International Institute for Environment and Development (2005)

Uganda’s Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) incorporates poor people’s voices and perspectives. This paper focuses on the lessons learnt in the implementation of the PEAP by using examples from the Ugandan participatory poverty assessment process.

Key recommendations based on lessons learned include:

  • success of a partnership between civil society, government and other actors depends on each actor’s understanding of their role in the partnership
  • mechanisms for sustained engagement of the poor and other actors in the process are still very weak, it is therefore important design ways to ensure continued engagement
  • practitioners should ask themselves if empowerment of the poor is still a central objective of the poverty reduction strategy, and how it can be attained
  • invest in innovative ways of spending more in poverty reduction areas without expanding the debt volume
  • align monitoring frameworks to enhance coordin ation and to allow for more inclusion of actors

Available online at: http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource-guides/conflict-and-security&id=39402&type=Document

Peer Review: A Tool for Co-operation and Change

This paper, which has been prepared by Fabrizio Pagani with the assistance of colleagues in the Legal Directorate and contributions from other Services and Directorates, examines the practice of peer review and peer pressure in the context of international organisations. In particular, the paper studies the experience of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which conducts dozens of county and thematic examinations using the peer review methodology every year.

The study starts by defining peer review as the systematic examination and assessment of the performance of a State by other States, with the ultimate goal of helping the reviewed State improve its policy making, adopt best practices, and comply with established standards and principles. The paper then clarifies the related concept of peer pressure, and proceeds to examine the main component of a peer review exercise: the institutional basis, the principles and criteria according to which the review is conducted, the actors, and the procedures. The last section outlines the role that peer reviews can play and sets out the conditions under which they can strengthen co-operation and bring change. Finally, the Annexes present the different peer review studies undertaken in the Organisation.”

Guide for the Development of Results-based Management and Accountability Frameworks

Produced by the Secretariat of the Treasury Board of Canada, 2001

Table of Contents

Section 1. Introduction to the Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF)

1.1 What is a RMAF?
1.2 Why do we need a RMAF?
1.3 Continuum of Results Measurement
1.4 Who Should Be Involved in the Development of a RMAF?
1.5 What are the Guiding Principles for this Process?

Section 2. Components of a RMAF

Section 3. Steps in the Process of Developing a RMAF

3.1 Profile
3.2 Logic Model
3.3 Ongoing Performance Measurement Strategy
3.3.1 Identification of Performance Indicators
3.3.2 Measurement Strategy
3.4 Evaluation Strategy
3.4.1 Identification of Evaluation Issues and Questions
3.4.2 Identification of Data Requirements
3.4.3 Data Collection Strategy
3.5 Reporting Strategy
3.6 Implementation and Review
3.7 Helpful Hints

Results Based Management In The Development Co-Operation Agencies: A Review Of Experience Background Report

(OECD report, circa 2000)

The development co-operation (or donor) agencies whose experiences are reviewed include USAID,
DFID, AusAID, CIDA, Danida, the UNDP and the World Bank. These seven agencies made presentations on
their performance management systems at the October 1998 workshop and have considerable documentation concerning their experiences. (During the second phase of work, the relevant experiences of other donor agencies will also be taken into consideration).

This paper synthesizes the experiences of these seven donor agencies with establishing and

implementing their results based management systems, comparing similarities and contrasting differences in approach. Illustrations drawn from individual donor approaches are used throughout the paper. Key features of results based management are addressed, beginning with the phases of performance measurement — e.g., clarifying objectives and strategies, selecting indicators and targets for measuring progress, collecting data, and analyzing and reporting results achieved. Performance measurement systems are examined at three key organizational levels — the traditional project level, the country program level, and the agency-wide (corporate or global) level. Next, the role of evaluation vis-à-vis performance measurement is addressed. Then the paper examines how the donor agencies use performance information — for external reporting, and for internal management learning and decision-making processes. It also reviews some of the organizational mechanisms, processes and incentives used to help ensure effective use of performance information, e.g., devolution of authority and accountability, participation of stakeholders and partners, focus on beneficiary needs and preferences, creation of a learning culture, etc. The final section outlines some conclusions and remaining challenges, offers preliminary lessons, and reviews next steps being taken by the Working Party on Aid Evaluation to elaborate good practices for results based management in development co-operation agencies.

Some of the key topics discussed in this paper include:
• Using analytical frameworks for formulating objectives and for structuring performance measurement systems.
• Developing performance indicators — types of measures, selection criteria, etc.
• Using targets and benchmarks for judging performance.
• Balancing the respective roles of implementation and results monitoring.
• Collecting data — methods, responsibilities, harmonization, and capacity building issues.
• Aggregating performance (results) to the agency level.
• Attributing outcomes and impacts to a specific project, program, or agency.
• Integrating evaluation within the broader performance management system.
• Using performance information — for external performance reporting to stakeholders and for internal management learning and decision-making processes.
• Stimulating demand for performance information via various organizational reforms, mechanisms, and incentives.