Municipalities to miss funds due to poor performance
Oct 31, 2007
NINE municipalities may have to do without or with reduced social services this year when the Government implements its directive to punish them for poor use of funds. The municipalities are to be penalised for failure to meet overall performance conditions set by the Ministry of Local Government.
By Joshua Kato
NINE municipalities may have to do without or with reduced social services this year when the Government implements its directive to punish them for poor use of funds. The municipalities are to be penalised for failure to meet overall performance conditions set by the Ministry of Local Government.
This is contained in the 2006 Annual Assessment of Performance Measures for Local Governments report that was released recently. Of the 18 municipalities, only six met the conditions and are to be rewarded, while three remained static.
Residents of the poor performing municipalities should expect less service if the penalties are implemented, while those from well-performing municipalities should expect better services, due to increased funding.
Before Local Governments (LGs) access these funds, they have to meet minimum requirements to ensure proper utilisation. In addition, an assessment of performance is done in order to reward those that have performed well.
Funds given to LGs that perform well are increased by 20%, while those that perform below standard are penalised by reducing their funds by 20%. Performance measures provide an incentive for improving service delivery and resource management.
The performance measures are derived from the Local Government Act, the Local Governments Financial and Accounting Regulations, the Local Governments (Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets), the National Gender Policy and the National Environment Policy.
The performance is measured against several indicators which include quality development plans, staff functional capacity and monitoring, capacity building, communications and accountability, budget allocation, procurement capacity, local revenue, operation, maintenance and sustainability of investments, and council and executive committee performance. They are also measured against the set government priority sectors that include education, health, water, roads and building sector and the production sector.
The six municipalities to be rewarded are: Entebbe, Jinja, Lubaga Division, Nakawa Division, Kampala Central and Mbarara.
"We performed well because we adhered to the Local Government Financial regulations. We did not take any decisions without going through the executive, the committees and the council,†says Godfrey Nyakaana, the LC3 chairman, Kampala Central Division.
The nine municipalities to be penalised are Soroti, Mbale, Makindye, Lira, Kawempe, Gulu, Masaka, Fort Portal and Arua. Makindye Division, which received sh6b in 2006/07, will now get sh4.5b. Masaka Municipality received sh3.5b and will get sh2.9b this year.
Those that remained static include Tororo, Moroto and Kabale. These will receive the same amounts of funding as last year.
Of those to be penalised, four did not even meet the minimum performance conditions. These included Arua, Makindye, Fort Portal and Soroti. “There was general poor performance in Kampala largely because of the political situation at the time. Many people who were supposed to be supervisors had gone for elections. This explains why soon after the elections, various technical leaders at KCC were arrested,†says Kawempe LC3 chairman, Nasser Takuba.
The reduction in funding means that the penalised municipalities will provide less services to the people. The residents will definitely bear the burden, but, according to the ministry, it is a lesson that should spur the municipalities into better performance.
The trend also showed that the number of municipalities receiving rewards for their performance is drastically going down, compared to previous years. For example, in 2004, nine (50%) of the municipalities were rewarded. The number dropped to five (28%) in 2005 and to only six (33%) in 2006.
Municipalities may claim that they perform poorly because their funding is never increased, but, according to the Ministry of Local Government, the assessment is not carried out only on funds received, but also supervision and council performance. On the funds received, it is carried out on the amount received, small or big, the measures are the same.
The report also shows that it is mainly the same municipalities that have consistently been rewarded, especially in the past two years. This means that those that are poor performers have failed to break into the good performers bracket. In 2006, only Nakawa Division managed to enter the best performers bracket, indicating a growth rate of just 1%!
The report found out that delayed release of funds to Local Governments by the Ministry of Finance was affecting the implementation of programmes.
The report also found out that while the local revenue collection was good in many of the municipalities, it was very poor in others. This affected the municipalities obligation to co-fund. The report added that the delay in substituting the suspended graduated tax contributed to the declining revenue levels.
NINE municipalities may have to do without or with reduced social services this year when the Government implements its directive to punish them for poor use of funds. The municipalities are to be penalised for failure to meet overall performance conditions set by the Ministry of Local Government.
This is contained in the 2006 Annual Assessment of Performance Measures for Local Governments report that was released recently. Of the 18 municipalities, only six met the conditions and are to be rewarded, while three remained static.
Residents of the poor performing municipalities should expect less service if the penalties are implemented, while those from well-performing municipalities should expect better services, due to increased funding.
Before Local Governments (LGs) access these funds, they have to meet minimum requirements to ensure proper utilisation. In addition, an assessment of performance is done in order to reward those that have performed well.
Funds given to LGs that perform well are increased by 20%, while those that perform below standard are penalised by reducing their funds by 20%. Performance measures provide an incentive for improving service delivery and resource management.
The performance measures are derived from the Local Government Act, the Local Governments Financial and Accounting Regulations, the Local Governments (Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets), the National Gender Policy and the National Environment Policy.
The performance is measured against several indicators which include quality development plans, staff functional capacity and monitoring, capacity building, communications and accountability, budget allocation, procurement capacity, local revenue, operation, maintenance and sustainability of investments, and council and executive committee performance. They are also measured against the set government priority sectors that include education, health, water, roads and building sector and the production sector.
The six municipalities to be rewarded are: Entebbe, Jinja, Lubaga Division, Nakawa Division, Kampala Central and Mbarara.
"We performed well because we adhered to the Local Government Financial regulations. We did not take any decisions without going through the executive, the committees and the council,†says Godfrey Nyakaana, the LC3 chairman, Kampala Central Division.
The nine municipalities to be penalised are Soroti, Mbale, Makindye, Lira, Kawempe, Gulu, Masaka, Fort Portal and Arua. Makindye Division, which received sh6b in 2006/07, will now get sh4.5b. Masaka Municipality received sh3.5b and will get sh2.9b this year.
Those that remained static include Tororo, Moroto and Kabale. These will receive the same amounts of funding as last year.
Of those to be penalised, four did not even meet the minimum performance conditions. These included Arua, Makindye, Fort Portal and Soroti. “There was general poor performance in Kampala largely because of the political situation at the time. Many people who were supposed to be supervisors had gone for elections. This explains why soon after the elections, various technical leaders at KCC were arrested,†says Kawempe LC3 chairman, Nasser Takuba.
The reduction in funding means that the penalised municipalities will provide less services to the people. The residents will definitely bear the burden, but, according to the ministry, it is a lesson that should spur the municipalities into better performance.
The trend also showed that the number of municipalities receiving rewards for their performance is drastically going down, compared to previous years. For example, in 2004, nine (50%) of the municipalities were rewarded. The number dropped to five (28%) in 2005 and to only six (33%) in 2006.
Municipalities may claim that they perform poorly because their funding is never increased, but, according to the Ministry of Local Government, the assessment is not carried out only on funds received, but also supervision and council performance. On the funds received, it is carried out on the amount received, small or big, the measures are the same.
The report also shows that it is mainly the same municipalities that have consistently been rewarded, especially in the past two years. This means that those that are poor performers have failed to break into the good performers bracket. In 2006, only Nakawa Division managed to enter the best performers bracket, indicating a growth rate of just 1%!
The report found out that delayed release of funds to Local Governments by the Ministry of Finance was affecting the implementation of programmes.
The report also found out that while the local revenue collection was good in many of the municipalities, it was very poor in others. This affected the municipalities obligation to co-fund. The report added that the delay in substituting the suspended graduated tax contributed to the declining revenue levels.