Uganda Debt Network

Context

Since 2002, the Uganda Debt Network (UDN) undertakes community monitoring in five key poverty focused priority areas namely, Education (Universal Primary Education and Universal Secondary Education), Health (Primary Health Care-PHC), Road feeder roads, Agriculture, water and Sanitation. UDN operates at local and national level in Uganda, and it operates in 21 districts (local governments/ sub national level). In each district, UDN is not operational in all the sub counties (lowest local government level) but in a selected sub counties. 

Uganda is among the developing countries that have committed themselves to civil society participation in public policy planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda obliges government to involve citizens in policy planning, formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of development plans and programmes. The government has invited and encouraged civil society organisations (CSOs) to participante actively in policy planning, monitoring and evaluation of government programmes so that resources are utilized effectively and efficiently for the benefit of the people, especially the poor. CSOs have in particular participated and contributed to the development and revision of the Poverty  Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), budget processes at both local national levels, the National Development Plan (NDP) and the National Anti-corruption Strategy.
Website
www.udn.or.ug
Area of Work
Uganda
Contact Person
Agnes Pauline Apolot

Approaches to implementing Community monitoring/accountability

  • Consultations with district leaders to seeks and enlist their support for community monitoring in the sub county and district generally.
  • The consultation with the district leaders also helps in indentifying and recommending sub counties for the implementation of community monitoring. This is followed by consultations with sub county leaders both political and civil /public servants
  • Community mobilization, sensitization, and sharing of criteria for the selection of community monitors. The criterion is provided by UDN for identifying the people who will become community monitors.
  • The selected community monitors are taken through a five-day residential training in Community Based Monitoring and Evaluation System implementation processes. 
  • Field monitoring activities are the done after the participants have undertaken the training. This phase is to demonstrate what has been learnt into practice
  • Report writing. Participants are taken through the process of turning the data collected into a report
  • Dialogue meetings. Once the reports have been finalized, UDN facilitates community monitors to organize sub county and district dialogues to share the findings with duty bearers and the public. This is further used for local level advocacy and follow-up activities
  • Feedback meeting are organized by the community monitors to inform the community members on the outcome of the sub county and district dialogues.     
  • National level advocacy. UDN works with community monitors to identify advocacy issues and facilitates community members to national level. The meeting is organized with targeted duty bearers in line ministry and department
  • Feedback to the communities and other stakeholders is undertaken by UDN and community monitors.

Results and Lessons

  • In the project areas, citizenry are well informed of their rights and are able to hold their leaders accountable, hence improved service delivery.
  • Through UDN monitoring activities, the CSOs especially CBOs at local levels have developed their capacity to engage their leaders and public officials in analyzing the effects and benefits of government programmes and discussing issues of accountability and transparency for effective service delivery. These interactive processes have been a source of learning for other groups outside the project area.
  • As people at the grassroots learn advocacy and lobbying, they have developed their negotiation skills, which they have put into practice and have continued to interact with their leaders and decision makers.
  • Community monitoring takes time and needs a lot of patience among those who are implementing so that the communities can understand why they are monitoring.