Box 3: Key steps of CCB processSource: Asing\viire & Muhangi, 1997

1. Getting districts interested

2. Gaining political support,acceptance ownership at districtlevel

3. Gaining political support,acceptance ownership atsub-county level

4. Building capacity atsub-county level

5. Gaining political support,acceptance ownership at parish level

6. Building17 capacity at parish level

7. Gaining political support,acceptanceownership at village level

• Planning of sensitisation visitwith district officials

••••

Sensitisation of LC5 CouncilsCCP planning sessionsTraining of district trainers/facilitatorsStudy visits

• Sensitisation of LC3 councils andresource mobilisation

• Sensitisation of LC3 councils andresource allocation for CCB

••

•

•••••

Training of sub-county trainersFormation/revitalisation andtraining of SCHCs and HUMCsSensitisation of LC2 councils

Training of PDCsCBMISParish work plansSensitisationSelection of representatives to PDCs

same categories as for the PDC. The HUMCswere to be composed of 10 members: 4 from the

LCIII council, 4 communitymembers, 2 from the health unit.The SCHCs were composed ofany councillors elected by theLC3 Council.

intended to provide a liaison with front-line healthservices. The activities designed to strengthen thesefunctions as indicated in the programme modelhave included a variety of sensitisation andadvocacy activities, skills training (data collection,health promotion), as well as establishment of theorganisational structures themselves, developmentof instruments and systems for informationmanagement.

Following MTR recommendations, the informationmanagement/monitoring function of the PDCs wasstrengthened further through the CBMIS,previously developed to pilot stage under the CCAprogramme. This was intended as a means ofbottom-up community designed and implementedmonitoring, involving community members at LC2and LC1. However, the issue of selection ofdistricts for introducing CBMIS and CCBmentioned above, and the different trainingapproaches adopted in each programme, appearsto have complicated this linkage. In interviewsconducted for this Assessment, a district level keyinformant specifically referred to the different anduncoordinated approaches of these twointerventions (KI-DHE-BU).

At sub-county level, the HUMCs and SCHCs hadroles of health planning, mobilisation of resources,information management as well as supervision andsupport to lower levels, and coordination amongstvarious actors. Again, activities designed tostrengthen these committees fell within much the

The great strength of the CCBeffort appears to have been thewide-ranging interventionstargeting different factors thatinfluence capacity. However,the problems appear to havecome in implementation design.The formation of organisationalstructures down to PDCs wasbased on a cascade training andsensitisation approach, which atthe time of the MTR was

demonstrating fairly weak returns (Asingwiire N.and Muhangi D., 1997:20; Namirembe-Bitamazire,G.etal., 1997:12).

The PDC structures have great potential of beingdeveloped with a strong multi-sectoral approach.By contrast, there seems to have been little linkagebetween CCB supported structures at sub-countylevel and CB interventions in other programmes.An evaluation for the MTR found the committeesat sub-country and district levels to have been verymuch isolated in the health departments lesseningparticipation of non-sectoral actors (Namirembe-Bitamazire, G. et al., 1997:14). Programme staffcontinued to note closed sectoral approaches atthe time of this Assessment (KI-N-U1).

WES —Management information systemsThe focus on MIS in the WES programmedeveloped more strongly towards the latter half ofthe CP period. Efforts to strengthen MIS targetedthe national level initially, extending to district andother levels with the 1997 piloting of thedecentralisation of the Village InfrastructureInventory. Prior to the 1997 effort, communitieswere little involved in data collection and districtshad poor or no data.

The management information function was linkedconceptually to macro resource mobilisation,supervision at national level, and to management

"It is important that note that use of the terms "capacity" and "capacity building" in thistable are used in the source document, which frequently uses the terms to refer to skills/knowledge and training respectively.

functions, resource allocation, coordination andmonitoring at decentralised levels. The efforts tostrengthen MIS entail typical interventions oftechnical training, development of guidance andstandards, sensitisation towards gender sensitivedata collection.

While focusing primarily at national and districtlevels the efforts to strengthen MIS couldultimately involve village level water managementcommittees, contributing strongly to the knowledgeand awareness at local levels.

BECCAD Programme —Awareness and sensitivity to child rightsThe efforts to raise awareness of child rightswere largely developed under the Child Care andProtection Strategy. In broad terms, this strategyaimed at improving decision-making by parents,guardians and communities in relation to child careand protection, primarily through improvingknowledge and skills, and this in rum was to berealised through strengthening "capacity of relevantgovernment cadres, LC vice-chairpersons, NGOsand CBOs. The first two supporting goals listedin relations to Child Protection in the MPO were(UNICEF Uganda & GoU. 1994: 102):

• "For society to be made aware of therights of children..."

• "For children to know their legal rights"

As this was fleshed out in more detail, the primaryactivities were sensitisation and dissemination ofinformation, in particular in relation to theChildren's Statute. As a CB intervention, thistargeted broad societal awareness of and attitudestowards child rights. Attitudes and values arecertainly one of the most basic contextual factorsinfluencing capacity to achieve child rights goals.Lack of awareness of or negative attitudestowards children rights can be a critical capacityconstraint. At the same time, the expected impactof sensitisation alone is obviously limited.

This intervention did have the potential to act as avaluable complement to other CB efforts,particularly opening the way for efforts atdecentralised levels. However, the actors targetedfor sensitisation activities at district, sub-countyand parish levels, covering a wide range frompolice to child rights advocates to LC politiciansand civil servants, do not seem to systematicallyoverlap with actors targeted in other programmes.

There was overlap at least one year in thesensitisation of PDCs (UNICEF Uganda-GoU,1996).

The effort to raise awareness of child rights didnot appear to include the potentially longer terminterventions such as the mobilisation of networksfor dissemination or the systematic integration ofchild rights content in recruitment and orientationmechanisms at decentralised levels.

3.2 Relevance of CB strategy toevolution of Ugandan context

In contrasting the context developed in section 2with the above analysis of the CB strategy, a fewkey issues appear to challenge the appropriatenessof the strategy at a much more broad level, inrelation to the Ugandan context.

The CP was very much praised at the time ofthe MTR for its strong integration with thenational Ugandan decentralisation policy,specifically addressing the issue of capacity atdecentralised levels (UNICEF Uganda, 1997b:19). The WES programme in particular wasupheld by national partners as a model fordecentralised development (UNICEF Uganda,1998a). A review of the programme modelsdoes seem to suggest that the CP was targetinga number of the constraints to capacityidentified at decentralised levels — lack ofdistrict level data, lack of guidelines orstandards, attitudes not conducive todecentralised or participatory planning — aswell as specific functions which were weaksuch as planning functions. Interviewsconducted for this Assessment do consistentlyrefer to positive links between decentralisationand the CP.

Yet, as early as 1996, a review highlighted thatboth UNICEF and GoU counterparts failed totake sufficiently into consideration the capacityconstraints at District levels (Okullo-EPAK,1996). The most critical concern whichseems to have been inadequately taken intoaccount was lack of fresh resources,particularly financial resources, and thedifficulties in ensuring the appropriate use ofthose resources which were available — thiswas repeatedly highlighted in MTR evaluations aswell as in new data collection for this assessment.This is suggested by numerous references

throughout the life of the programme toweaknesses in supervision and follow-up functionswhich were critical to the various cascadeapproaches (AIDTS,1997a; 1997b; Namirembe-Bitamazire, G. etal.,1997; see Appendix G). Thuswhile the CB strategy included numerous activitiesto strengthen key functions technically, the districtresources to sustain them were frequentlyinadequate. It appears that the design of the CBstrategy and particularly the targeted results inannual planning exercises, did not adequately takeinto consideration the likely time lapse for coredecentralisation policies to be implemented.

As a result of the internationally populardecentralisation efforts, Uganda is a countryreceiving considerable attention and financialsupport from major bilateral donors,international NGOs as well as other UNagencies. As mentioned above, these internationalactors are only mentioned in the CP in the contextof national level interventions. And yet, it is evidentthat they are highly active at decentralised levels,often in the same Districts and sectors.Increasingly, the thinking on CB in internationalcircles acknowledges the importance of broadsystems level analysis, entailing an overview ofnational capacity. Like the framework proposedfor this Assessment (drawing from a convergenceof current literature), such perspectives on CBhighlight the importance of coordination acrossinternational actors for complementary approachesbenefiting national capacities. The absence of thiskind of coordination was certainly a weakness inthe CB strategy.

Finally, as mentioned in section 2, the initial CPwas developed in an optimistic "post-war" period.The effects of the conflict on a third of Ugandanpopulation in the north and south west have certainlyworsened over the course of the CP. The notionof CB for unstable contexts did not figure veryprominently in the CP design initially. However,small-scale activities have been advanced in morerecent years, suggesting a positive evolution inresponse to the context. In the latter half of theCP there have been increasing efforts to createnetworks, raise awareness and promote policypositions in relation to child soldiers and abductedchildren. Efforts have also been directed towardspreparedness planning, at district levels in mostaffected areas though this has not expanded far— two district in 1997 and six in 1998, and two(Bundibugyo and Kasese) districts with WESpreparedness plans in 1998. In addition, at the level

of the GoU Department of Disaster Preparedness,planning function was strengthened through thedevelopment of an Emergency Action andStrategy Paper providing a reference for GoU inthe UN Consolidated Appeal Process forEmergency Response.

Thus, each of these three issues — the pace ofdecentralisation, the strong presence ofinternational actors, and insecurity— do not appearto have been adequately taken into considerationin the CB strategy design at least initially. In thecase of insecurity, a conscious if small-scale efforthas been made to extend and adapt CBinterventions for districts affected by conflict.Each of these contextual factors is likely to be ofcontinued significance in the new CP cycle as isdiscussed further in section 5.

3.3 Appropriateness ofCB strategy design

In drawing conclusions from the above analysis,the CB strategy of the GoU-UNICEF CP team inUganda must first be put in perspective. Asacknowledged and highlighted by the CO andpartners at the outset of this Assessment, diverginginterpretations on what a CB strategy entails havepersisted throughout the CP. This lack of cohesiveframework for understanding capacity andcapacity building was not by any means limited toUNICEF Uganda and partners alone. Given theabsence of such a framework to guide the initialdesign and its evolution, the positive aspects ofthe CB strategy in CP must be applauded.

The above analysis of the CB strategy designhighlights a number of findings that point to strongand weak elements in the implementation:

• Inherent in the CP, is a very clear articulationof the causal links between the policyenvironment, supporting national functions, keyfunctions at service delivery and communitylevels, and eventual substantive changes inchildren's and women's rights. The CP wasdesigned with a fairly explicif'systems view".This conceptual perspective appears to haveprovided the framework within which theCPMT was able to evolve a fairly coherentmulti-level CB strategy, even in the absence ofan explicit definition or conceptual model forCB.

- The CP proposes a very powerfulorientation that responds to the question"capacity for whom?' The implicit CB strategyproposed entails a strong focus on communitycapacity. This means that all the CBinterventions at different levels— for example,with service delivery providers, facilitators,managers, and planners—are viewed in termsof how they strengthen capacity at communitylevel. This has introduced a conceptual shiftby which families and communities caneffectively be promoted as actors as opposed

to "beneficiaries" and is consistentLack of CB human rights-based programming.framework

• This orientation appears to havepushed or guided the CPMT in their

adjustments and improvements of their CBstrategy over the course of the CP. The trendin adjustments, albeit not perfectly achieved,has been towards a greater marriage of bottom-up and top-down approaches to programming.Over the course of the last five years, theCPMT has tweaked and adjusted the CBstrategy introducing some very importantpositive changes in this direction:- the training of district and sub-countryplanners in PRA techniques to support theirskills in involving community members in districtplanning processes;- establishment and training of PDCs toensure involvement of village and parishrepresentatives in problem solving,planning, social mobilisation,management of parish level healthactivities.

- establishment and training of villagewater source management committeesto support village level role inmanagement;

- linking CBMIS to PDCs anddecentralisation of the VillageInfrastructure Inventory system to LCIIand LCI, both supporting decentralisedinformation management functions.

- The CB strategies in all programmes havealso made an important effort to identifywomen and youth as important actors who mustbe involved in key functions at decentralisedlevels, and have addressed this through definingthe membership of organisational structures,

efforts to sensitise other actors involved andthe skills training provided to the organisationmembers. This is significant as an effort tobroaden participation in development processwith attention to marginalised actors.

• Across the programmes, the selection ofactivities does seem to address a wide rangeof constraints or weaknesses in relation tokey functions, some of which have thepotential for system-wide impact. This includesactivities to develop standards, guidelines andinformation systems (tools for accountabilitysystems, CBMIS, VII,), as well as system-widedevelopment of organisational structures tosupport roles of newly involved actors (LCS,PDCs, village water source managementcommittees). This in fact is a strength noted inthree of the four key CB interventions selectedfor closer study — the CCA support toresource allocation, the Health programmesupport to the health management committeesand the WES support to MIS, all entail activitiestargeting a wide range of capacity constraints.

• Resposive to decentralize policy: Ingeneral the implicit CB strategy has beensupportive of and consistent with the GoUdecentralisation policy. The CB strategy alsodemonstrates an effort to respond to the contextof insecurity.

There are a number of areas in which thedesign of the CB strategy itself presentedweaknesses or constraints, making successfulimplementation difficult from the start:

• Complex CP Management structure:Management of the three-dimensional CPframework was complex. It did not favour theclear conceptual distinction between levels ofintervention, functions or capacities, actorstargeted, and the particular barriers orconstraints to be addressed in relation to eachfunction. These distinctions could be partiallyinferred from programme models, but wereoften blurred.

• Demand approach vs targeting:Following from this, the CB strategy does notappear to have clearly identified NGOs andCBOs as key actors to be involved in planningor information management functions, or tohave contemplated their own capacity

constraints. Similarly, apart from the WESprogramme, the CB strategy does not appearto have adequately contemplated harmonisationwith the powerful international actors at districtlevels as a capacity constraint or opportunity.

• Cascading approach compromisesresults

The strong conceptual focus of the CB strategyon eventual results for community capacity andrealisation of human rights was weakened bythe methodology that heavily relied oncascading. This appears to have led to a lackof clarity about entry levels and realisticexpectations in terms of results at community• i.e. village— level.

• Weak comple-mentary andintegration of CB interventionsThe CB strategy in and of itself did not makethe necessary links across programmes,particularly around efforts to strengthen keycomplementary functions at each level of entrypoint. This entailed missed opportunities:

- in linking resource mobilisation andplannin functions coherently acrosssectors;

- in finding connections betweenmanagement information systems suchas the SCS, CBMIS and VII; and

- in linking newly formed or revitalisedorganisational structures such as villagewater source committees, PDCs, SCHCs,district health committees and as actorswithin a network.

- The criteria for targeting programmeinterventions based on district demand has infact undermined the CB strategy's potential forcoherent linkages across programmes.

- In general, the CB strategy has inadequatelytaken into consideration two key aspects of theUganda country context— the necessary time-lapse for the effective realisation of thedecentralisation strategy and the significantpresence of international actors active atdecentralised levels.

The effectiveness ofthe CB strategy

This section attempts to examine first theimplementation process and then the results of theCB strategies following the framework outlined insection 1.4. In examining results, the Assessmentprovided brief analysis of each of four key areasidentified by programme staff as potential activitiesto be pursued in the new CP.

4.1 Quality of the processThe analysis of the quality of the process of CB isvery brief and impressionistic. The time constraintsand breadth of the Assessment did not allow forvery detailed probing on perceptions in this regard.Nonetheless, there are a few relevant, albeit broad,observations with respect to the flexibility of theapproach, the sensitivity to different stages ofcapacity growth and the degree to which therewas a partnership among key actors. While therest of the Assessment tends to focus on the CPas a shared venture between UNICEF and GoU,these criteria bring attention to UNICEFs ownhandling of process and relations with nationalpartners.

4.1.1 Flexibility/ iterativeapproach

Most of the aspects of the CP process thatfavoured an iterative approach to CB are simplydemonstration of the existing programmingprocesses put to effective use. The very"systemsview" conceptual framework which is highlightedabove as a strength in the CP did appear to favouror fit with a "programme approach" — i.e. anoverall programme structure within whichdifferent streams of inter-related activities couldbe developed progressively in relation to well-defined substantive goals. Overall, however, theprogramme approach appears to have been usedto advantage by the CPMT to progressively adjust

the CB strategy, as noted above.

Annual Reviews and the MTR were effectivelyused to analyse progress and adjust a number ofchanges to some degree. It was through thesereview mechanisms that decisions were taken foreach of the critical and positive adjustments to theCB strategy.

Further, each programme started with and evolveddifferent strategic levels of entry point. While thisdid complicate cross-sectoral coordination, this wasa natural fitting of the CB strategy to existingstructures and partnerships as a starting point. Theadjustments to the strategy over the course of theprogramme did indicate an effort to push beyondthe initial entry points to reach and involve actorsat other levels.

4.1.2 Stages of capacity growthat different entry points

Among the various MTR evaluations, there areconclusions which both applaud the flexibility thathas allowed appropriate responses to particulardistricts (UNICEF UGANDA, 1997B: 19) andthose that criticise the "blue print approach" ofsome interventions (Namirembe-Bitamazire et al.,1997: 26). The positive example cited was the"accelerated support to districts affected byinsecurity in Uganda's northern districts, includingmobilisation of basic services and advocacy onbehalf of abducted children and children otherwiseaffected by the conflict' (UNICEF Uganda, 1997b:19). Also to be highlighted was the creation of anetwork of advocates on behalf of child soldiersand abducted children, and the more recentinterventions to support preparedness planning asmentioned in section 3.3.

However, there are a few issues that appear to

be a continued concern. The MTR processidentified the problem of training approacheswhich were formulaic and theoretical(AIDTS,1997a ; Namirembe-Bitamazire et al.,1997: 14), which would seem to leave littleroom for the necessary adaptations to differentDistrict's capacity growth. In the new datacollection for this Assessment, one key informantmade a very articulate plea for training to be basedon needs as defined by the districts themselves.

The MTR also pointed to a number of proceduralconstraints on the part of UNICEF — separatefunding cycles, separate procedures, unclearapplication procedures — which undermineresponses to different districts (Namirembe-Bitamazire et al., 1997: 14). These issues cameout again quite clearly in district-level key informantinterviews carried out for this Assessment.

4.1.3 Fostering partnershipThere are a number of factors that should havefavoured a positive UNICEF approach infostering partnership. The GoU had alreadyproduced in 1994 a National CapacityBuilding Plan and therefore did have its ownvision for CB. The national decentralisationpolicy also provided an opportunity. Thenational level partners themselves needed toreorient their own role and support CB atdecentralised levels for the newly definedresponsibilities there. National level actorswere thus already set up to be bothbeneficiaries and actors.

Again, it appears that the standard programmeprocess was used to good advantage. Theactual identification of CB as a core strategy,initial discussions on the concept of CB andsubsequent development of the CP all werecarried out by strong cross-sectoral andsectoral task forces in which a wide range ofnational actors figured (Ekudu, 1999).

The MTR found that:"Government counterparts are folly involvedin (and in charge of) both the formulationof Project Plans of Action (PPAs) andsubsequent monitoring and adjustmentsthroughout the year. This leads to a strongfeeling of joint responsibility for the successor failure of the country programme. Allgovernment counterparts see country

programme implementation (includingparticipation in management structures) aspart of their core responsibilities." (UNICEFUganda, 1997b: 38)

However, it was also suggested that thispartnership placed excessive demands on nationallevel actors (UNICEF Uganda, 1997b: 38). CPMTinterviewees for this Assessment suggest that boththe strong ownership and the burden this posesfor national counterparts continue (KI-CCA).

With regard to partnership at sub-nationallevels, mixed perspectives are found. It is alsovery difficult to distinguish UNICEF handlingof relations with decentralised level partnersand the partnerships created or not by theshared UNICEF-GoU programme design.Overuse of the word "partnership" in theinternational community in general and theseeming vagueness about what exactly areentry points for UNICEF Uganda within theshared UNICEF-GoU CP also complicate thisanalysis. Interviews at district and sub-countylevels for this Assessment did quite frequentlycite new relations or stronger linkages betweendistrict/sub-county and community levels, apositive "bottom-up" process and local levelownership among the factors leading topositive CP results. The WES programme inparticular was highlighted for its "bottom-up"planning process through the involvement ofthe District Water Committees. However, fairlystrong statements were made in a comparablenumber of interviews suggesting a very passiverelation vis-a-vis UNICEF. Interviews do suggeststrongly that the CP is still very much identifiedwith UNICEF, as opposed to being seen as a jointventure by UNICEF-GoU. Further, all of thepositive characteristics of the CP process are alsoattributable at least in part to the decentralisationprocess. Decentralisation itself is the factorcontributing to positive CP results that is cited mostfrequently in sub-national interviews. (SeeAppendix G).

4.2 Programme results

This section provides a summary of resultsdocumented associated with four selected CBinterventions. As outlined in the evaluationframework, the findings include:

• change in interests of members of a tasknetwork or the wider stakeholder context;

• change in roles and relationships amongvarious actors in the task network;• change in specific capacities; and finally• change in substantive developmentresults.

4.2.1 CCA — Resource allocation

In examining the results of the CCA programmeefforts, the wide range of signs of changeindicated above will be examined. Withrespect to changes in key functions or corecapacities, it is relevant to examine theplanning and information managementfunctions targeted by the CCA programme asa means of strengthening resource allocation.However, given the cross-sectoral nature of theprogramme, in lieu of a link to moresubstantive results in terms of children's orwomen's rights, it will be more realistic toexamine any signs of change in resourceallocation.

In terms of changes in interests, one of the MTRevaluations concluded that by mid-CP theDPAC process had contributed to increasedawareness of issues affecting children to a highdegree at national level, though changes atdistrict and sub-country levels were rated as"moderate" and "low" respectively(Nzabanita, Amos et. al., 1997:7).Sensitisation efforts have continued, forexample, in 1998, political leaders from allbut one of the 45 Districts were visited by across-sectoral team discuss and raise awarenessof issues affecting children's and women's rights.

Consistent with the decentralisation policy, theCCA programme also supported significantnew roles in relation to planning including theNCC role, providing guidelines to the DPACprocess which later benefited the DDP process,and as DPACs have become integrated, providingoversight to DDP processes to ensure thatattention to children was integrated. Similarly,the DPUs, initially rated as extremely weak instaffing number and skills (Nzabanita, Amos et.al., 1997:15) were reported in 1999 by a nationallevel interviewee in NCC to be significantlystronger, with a credibility in a cross-sectoralcoordination role (KI-N1). The importance of theLC5 leadership role also came out in interviews

at district and sub-county level, explicitly linked todecision making and resource allocation.

It appears, however, that therole of sub-countiesin planning has been affected significantly less, withonly 100 sub-counties reported involved in theSPAC process in 1997, and no furtherachievements in this area reported through 1999(UNICEF Uganda and GoU, 1997; UNICEFUganda. 1998b, and UNICEF Uganda, 1999a.)

Results in terms of evidence of district planningcapacity have progressed in quantitative termsthroughout the CP. Coverage advancedsignificantly. Reports in 1997 indicate a cumulativefigure of 28 districts having actual DPAC planswith 34 having gone through the training process(UNICEF Uganda and GoU, 1997) With the focuson support to DDPs having begun in 1996, by 1999,a total of 34 of 45 Districts had received supporton bringing attention to issues affecting childreninto the DDP processes. Early on positiveexamples were already noted where DDPs werebased on information from the DPAC process(Nzabanita, Amos et al., and 1997:13). Given thatthe DDPs were formulated on same principles andfollowing identical steps, it can be expected thatskills would have been transferred. In interviewsconducted for this Assessment at national and sub-national levels, planning capacity and thecompletion of district plans were consistently notedas a one of the significant achievements of theCP. More detailed figures on actual status ofDDPs for 1999 are contained in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Status of District DevelopmentPlans, 1999

Status ofDDP

DDP completedDDF exists in draftDDP ongoing processesDDP initial stagesTotal

%age of districts( total of 45 districts)

56131515

100.0

Source: UN, 1999:4

Less positively it was noted in the same 1997evaluation that DPACs frequently revealed littlelinkage between demonstrated needs/problems andresource allocation (Nzabanita, Amos et al., 1997:18). Interviews for this Assessment re-iterated aconcern touched on in the one of the MTRevaluations: that the plans are still more orientedto external donor funding ('shopping lists") thanallocation of funds raised locally (Nzabanita, Amosetal., 1997:KI-N9).

Reports on whether the increased planningcapacity, however partial, actually has led toincreased resources for children are mixed.The MTR external evaluation concluded that"plans of action have among other thingsinfluenced resource allocation in favour ofhealth and education as well as gender andcommunity development in nationalbudgetary allocations" (Namirembe-Bitamazire et al., 1997: 36). At district level,interviews conducted for this Assessment,suggest that there are some positive resultsparticularly for health and water sectors (KI-NS, various KI in Mabara and Mpigi, Bushenyiworkshop). However, as highlighted abovein section 2, the actual fresh resourcesavailable at decentralised levels have beenlimited. It is more likely that results will bedemonstrated cumulatively in the next fiveyears if capacities continue to be supported.

The CCA programme has also included effortsto strengthen information managementsystems both at district level through the SCSsurveys and at parish/village levels through theCBMIS. Both introduce new and strongerroles for decentralised levels, in data collectionand analysis. CBMIS, depending on the orientationadopted, also gives parish/village levels an activerole in choosing what to measure. With regard to

the CBMIS, however, it was reported in 1998 thatDPUs were pushing an extractive approach,undermining the stronger parish/village roles.

Over the course of the CP, seven rounds ofSCSsurveys were carried out and disseminated atdistrict level, the latter rounds covering all 45districts. The MTR reported that the SCS approachwas "widely considered a useful, capacity-buildingprocess at district level" and that the World Bankwas interested in funding its expansion from 9districts (UNICEF Uganda, 1997b:41). However,in 1999 it was noted that the SCS is still perceivedas a UNICEF survey (UNICEF Uganda, 1999a),a view expressed clearly in one national level keyinformant interview (KI-N10).

The start-up and progress on the CBMIS has beenslower than planned. Difficulties in terms oforientation of the methodology and links to othersectors hampered progress(UNICEF Uganda,1997b:42). At mid-CP (1997), the CBMIS modelwas adopted as viable and had even beenintegrated in the Health Programme CCB strategy,with 48 PDCs having been trained in the system(UNICEF Uganda and GoU, 1997). In 1998,CBMIS was being introduced in 7 districts, a seriesof three manuals were developed and translatedin 5 languages and the tool kit was expanded toinclude "Theatre for Development1', an approachintended to focus on the use of data results(UNICEF Uganda, 1998b). By 1999, there were3 districts where CBMIS was operational at parishand village levels, with another 8 districts trained(UNICEF Uganda, 1999).

However, where CBMIS was in place, even asearly as 1997, it was considered to contribute tolocal planning, decision-making and monitoringprogress and there was even evidence that it hadbeen used to make a positive change in educationfor girls (Namirembe-Bitamazire etal., 1997: 12).

In the interviews conducted for this Assessment,both at national level and district/sub-county level,the availability of information for planning ingeneral was highlighted as either a positive resultof the CP or a key factor in its successes. Wherethe CBMIS was reported an activity in the district,it was noted as a success

4.2.2 Health Programme —Health managementcommittees

In examining the effectiveness of CCB and thehealth management committees as a CBintervention, it was important to recall the variouskey functions or roles which were to bestrengthened by the formation and training of eachcommittee. Table 7 below contrasts the rolesinitially identified in programme documentation withthose identified in focus group discussions and keyinformant interviews at district, sub-county andparish levels in three districts in the course of thisAssessment.

It is noteworthy that a number of key functionsare not reported as perceived or actual roles ofthe various committees: coordination,

correspondingly as areas for future CB efforts.

In terms of resource mobilisation, significantunderlying constraints have been identified as wellas some more positive trends. A recent study onthe overall health programme highlighted theeconomic constraints limiting communities' abilityto contribute resources for Health Centreconstruction/maintenance (Mbonye, 1998). Therecent priority given to decentralisation ofdevelopment resources may lead to positive changein total resources available. Further, while PDCsare not a legal establishment within the LocalGovernment Act, it does appear that due tosensitisation, they receive some recognition at sub-county and district levels. In all three districts,sub-counties have allocated resources to maintainthe PDCs or to support PDC activities (KI/AHE/BU; KI/PHA/MP; KI/ACAO/MP; KI/LCIIIC/MB).

supervision and support to lower levels, andTable /: Functions/roles of health management bodies supported under CCB

Level/unit

District healthdepartment

Sub-countyHealthCommittee

Health UnitManagementCommittee(Sub-county level)

ParishDevelopmentCommittee

Functions/roles

- Coordination of health services/resource allocation/support- Planning- Research- Co-ordination of health education activities- Community mobilisation for health issues- Supervision and support to lower levels- Resource mobilisation- Coordination- Health planning- Information management- Supervision and support to lower levels- Identify community problems/seek solutions- Monitor and evaluate the performance of staff- Promote good health staff — patient relations- Promote team work for improved service delivery- Promote community participation in health services provision- Management of HU resources (drugs, user fees, funds)- Resource mobilisation- Conducting health education/promote safe motherhood- Plan for health needs in Parish- Information management/monitoring/ Analyse needs- Promote behaviour change- Promote demand for/use of services- Resource mobilisation

Prog.Docs.XXX9XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX

Kl/FGD1999

XXXX

NoSCHCinterviewedXXX

X

XXXXX

resource mobilisation. In a 1997 evaluation ofCCB programme, supervision and follow-up tocommittees as well as resource mobilisation wereboth noted as weak functions at district and sub-county levels (Asingwiire N. and Muhangi D.,1997:10, 14). Interviews carried out for thisAssessment highlighted coordination andsupervision as well as inadequate resources fairlyconsistently as constraints to the CP, and

At the time of the MTR, although on a limitedscale, evidence was cited of capacity ofcommunities in assessment and analysis of theirsituation/problems and development of simpleaction plans (UNICEF Uganda, 1997b: 19;Asingwiire N. and Muhangi D., 1997: 20-23). Ininterviews carried out for this Assessment,foremost among the achievements recognised by

committees was the provision of a structure to guidethe assessment and planning for health and otherneeds.

Another of the achievements consistently reportedby HUMCs and PDCs interviewed for thisAssessment was sensitisation and influencingcommunity attitudes towards health issues andhealth services. If accurate, such a change clearlyhas the potential to influence demand on/use ofhealth services.

Regarding results in terms of coverage of theCCB process in the Uganda health system,reporting is mixed. By 1999, 1,156 PDCs wereformed out of which 1,008 were to have beentrained by December 1999 (Draft Annual progressreport, 1999). This was a significant increase overmid-CP results of 28 8 PDC formed and 41 trainedin 19 districts (UNICEF Uganda and GoU, 1997).

Data on SCMCs and HUMCs were somewhatscanty. In 1997, HUMCs were reportedestablished in every district (UNICEF Uganda,1997b:52), with 27 SCHCs and 72 HUMCs trained(UNICEF Uganda and GoU, 1997). Moresignificant was the formation in 1998 of a four-person team for training SCMCs and HUMCs ineach of 42 districts; in 1999, 14 districts werereported to have all SCMCs and HUMCs trained(UNICEF Uganda, 1998b; 1999a).

Reported results in terms of performance of thevarious committees are positive. Among the PDCsinterviewed for this Assessment, activities werementioned related to WES, education, nutrition aswell EPI, safe motherhood and other healthinterventions. It is significant to note the cross-sectoral nature of the PDCs. The value of thePDCs to national level organisations in furtheringaction at decentralised levels in general was alsohighlighted by one key informant from the NCC(KI-N1).

Similarly, it is reported that where SCMCs andHUMCs are trained, positive results have beennoted in health services performance, in particularthrough payment of allowances, more effectivemanagement of user fees, better relations betweencommunity and health workers, mobilisation ofresources for health, and a sense of ownership bycommunities (UNICEF Uganda, 1999a:29)

To what degree the CCB approach and the healthmanagement committees contributed to change

in health status is of course difficult to determine.The most critical observation about change in childhealth in recent years was the dramatic decline inimmunisation coverage: a 1998 survey revealed a20 percent drop in coverage rates since 1995, withrates as low as 18-44 percent (depending onmethods, crude or with validation). Further studyattributed these declines to factors related to theprocess of decentralisation: time required fortraining of district staff to new roles; competingpriorities for scarce resources at decentralisedlevels; and the very concrete problem of lack ofpayment of salaries and allowance leading to areduction in outreach immunisation whichpreviously covered 40-50% of all immunisation insome districts. In addition, constraints such asweak supervision of peripheral staff and lowcommunity awareness of or demand for services.In developing the National Plan for theRevitalisation of Immunisation, PDCs are assigneda pivotal role in social mobilisation and facilitatinglinks between health services and the community(UNICEF Uganda, 1999a: 28).

4.2.3 WES -- Managementinformation systems

As was mentioned above, analysis of theeffectiveness of the WES efforts to strengthenMIS as a means of CB is particularly limited bygaps in fresh data collection.

The efforts to strengthen MIS have graduallyincreased over the course of the CP. A reviewof the annual reports provides the followingmilestones (UNICEF Uganda and GoU, 1995;1996; 1997 and UNICEF Uganda 1998b):

• In 1995, the Village Infrastructure Inventorywas circulated at district level for review,updating and use in planning;

• In 1996, the former WES MISs foraccounting and store were merged with districtsystems and 9 districts were assisted withanalysis of situational data and disaggregationby sex;

• In 1997, support was provided to strengthenthe DWD M&E Unit and the decentralisationof a revised Village Inventory Process waspiloted at LC1 and LC2 in 3 districts;

• In 1998, MIS was reported operation in alldistricts and support was provided to follow-

up on accountabilities through internal andexternal auditors and the MoLG.

At the time of the MTR, an evaluation reportedsignificant problems in the then MIS in WES sectorstructures. The evaluation reported thatcommunities were not involved in data collectionwith the data collection instruments themselvesrepresenting a barrier to their involvement. Atdistrict level the capacity for data managementand use was questioned and data was found to beinaccurate, conflicting and incomplete, missingdatafrom other partners. Specifically accounts andstores information was reported not standardised,and this was despite efforts the previous year atconsolidation. Finally at national level, data wasoften partial or not available and did not serve toprovide information on the operational status ofwater points and sanitation facilities.

While efforts to respond to these issues wereunderway in 1997 or undertaken following theMTR, it is difficult to conclude on the results.Despite the relatively high number ofinterviews with key actors in WES at district,sub-county and village levels, in generalresponses about activities and achievements,there are surprisingly few references to any rolein relation to information management. Thefew references touch vaguely on roles inmonitoring quality of water at district level (1KI), sub-country roles in reporting to districts(2 KIs) and training at sub-counties and LC1on data collecting in relation to a WES latrinesurvey (1 KI). Other references are made moregenerally to monitoring, but this term is oftenused as interchangeable with supervision orfield visits and should be interpreted carefully(KI-N6; workshop reports in Appendix G). Inan interview with three DWD staff at nationallevel, mention was made of achievements instrengthening district level monitoring ingeneral through the provision of tools as wellas the contribution of PDCs to information forplanning which was perceived to have positiveeffects on WES sector management (KI-N5).

Interviewees do not ever touch specifically onMIS or monitoring systems more generally, noris any mention made of the VII. At the veryleast these findings do no indicate a very highawareness in the WES sector at decentralised

levels of the value of MIS or monitoring systemsfeeding into situation analysis, action planningor resource mobilisation. Results of efforts inthis area do require further investigation.

By contrast, in the same key informant andfocus group interviews, the achievements inthe planning function at decentralised levelsin WES are referred to more widely, withspecific reference to the bottom-up nature of thisprocess. Further, the contribution of the villageWES committees, numbering 866 in 1998(UNICEF Uganda, 1998b), was consistentlyreported as positive and a number of exampleswere found of committees that had undertakenmobilisation/sensitisation activities across arange of health/WES concerns.

Given the absence of information on MIS,obviously no links can be drawn betweencapacity in information management andsubstantive results. It is worth noting thatsubstantive results in terms of access to safedrinking water are mentioned with greatfrequency among the results of the CP andprogramme data shows continued advancesin water source construction. However, the1998 annual progress report notes thatadvancements in WES are just keeping pacewith population growth. The pressure toproduce substantive results may well be aconstraint to advancements in longer termcapacities that are necessary for sustainability,such as information management.

4.2.4 BECCAD Programme —Awareness and sensitivityto child rights

The BECCAD strategy of awareness raising/sensitisation was aimed at a very basicunderlying factor in capacity to protect andpromote child rights — basic knowledge andattitudes.

In initial years the major achievementsreported were numbers of local actorsparticipating in sensitisation activities. Theannual numbers reported hit a peak in 1997totalling somewhere around 30,000 variouslocal actors — politicians, extension workers, andcommunity level actors including youth groups. In

1996 and 1997 efforts to form PDCs were reported,presumably as vehicles for sensitisation, thoughthis was not reported after 1997 and remained atthe level of a 8-9 districts. In 1997 and 1998,following a study highlighting the need for widerdissemination and appropriate materials,achievements reported included production of awider range of dissemination materials includingsimplified and translated versions of the Children'sStatute. From 1997, there were various effortsreported supporting national level formulation ofpolicy statements and implementation mechanisms,which presumably has the potential to feed intoand lead sensitisation efforts. (See Appendix Hfor detailed results by year.)

The coverage of sensitisation efforts wassignificant. It should not therefore be surprisingthat in interviews conducted for this Assessment,from district to parish/village levels, respondentsconsistently reported change in attitudes andsensitisation to child rights among the significantresults of the CP and/or one of the positive factorscontributing to the achievements of the CP. Morespecifically, it was interesting to note that, acrossat least two districts, specific references weremade with significant frequency to awareness ofand attitude changes in relation to the issue of abuseor defilement of children. This is a significantlydifferent picture than that provided by the 1997MTR external review which concluded that"awareness of childrens rights is strongest at thenational level and among children attending school*(Namirembe-Bitamazire et al., 1997: 22). Thechanges suggested cannot be attributed to theBECCAD programme alone, but the widecoverage of the programme sensitisation effortsdoes suggest that the programme played amajor role.

In terms of the quality of the messagestransmitted, data collection for this Assessmentwas unable to go sufficiently deep. There isreason for concern in this area. In a 1997evaluation (Neema et al., 1997), it wasconcluded that sensitisation workshops weretoo brief. In interviews for this Assessment,one respondent did voice a negative opinionabout the issue of child rights, views whichsuggested some confusion around the notions ofchild rights, the best interests of the child andparental responsibilities. A 1999 study in fourparishes in Apac noted evidence of similarconfusion, where parents interpreted their

education role as somehow in conflict with childrights (Apac DLC et al., 1999: 37-38). The samestudy also noted a perceived increase in familyviolence, which was interpreted locally as a signof resistance to women's and children's rights(Apac DLC etal., 1999:41). These limited findingsdo point to the need to pursue questions regardingthe results of sensitisation efforts, the nature ofpeoples understanding around key concepts andthe areas of misunderstanding. A much morefocused study would be required, ideally includingsome structured survey work combined withqualitative data collection.

4.2.5 Conclusions - effectivenessThe above synthesis on the process ofimplementing and the effectiveness of the CBstrategy point to both areas of some success aswell as areas requiring further follow-up,consideration and/or adjustment.

At a general level, the conclusions are as follows:" It appears that the CB strategy was pursuedin a flexible manner allowing adjustment andrefinement in-course. It is encouraging to notethat the mechanisms which favoured this werepart of the usual programme process put togood use — a broad programme approach inplanning with logically linked interventions atdifferent levels addressing complementaryobjectives under an overall goal; reviewprocesses, particularly the MTR, involving keystakeholders and thus validating analysis andcorresponding programme adjustment.

Box 4: Other interventions keys to CB

It was beyond the scope of this Assessment to document in detailthe results from all of the interventions across the CP that contributedor had the potential to contribute to CB. However, it appears obviousfrom the desk review and field data collection that there are a fewprojects and activities that merit more attention. These projects oractivities are only briefly highlighted here for further study.

Training is not of course the equivalent to CB. However, given thestrong focus in all four programmes on training/sensitisation effortsto change attitudes and skills/knowledge, the quality and results oftraining activities merits examination. At least four evaluationscarried out in 1997 focused either specifically on training or oninterventions in which training/sensitisation was the key activity.All pointed to serious areas of concern with the potential toundermine training results.

The issues raised included: lack of systems for assessing trainingneeds, unrealistic duration of training activities given objectives,overly theoretical and non-participatory training methods,conflicting content, poor scheduling, delays in remuneration oftrainers, divergence of allowances across programmes/activities,and absence of a useful monitoring and tracking system(AIDTS,1997a). In addition, evaluations highlighted resource constraintsat decentralised levels including insufficient numbers of trainers,retention of staff and lack of transportation (AIDTS, 1997a/ 1997b;Asingwiire N. and Muhangi D. 1997.). While not specifically relatedto training sessions, many of these same constraints were highlightedin interviews conducted for this Assessment.

Without making an in-depth effort to re-examine the effectivenessof training activities, it would be important to examine the degreeto which past and future planned training activities take intoconsideration the kinds of recommendations made at the MTR:

"Key aspects of training must be improved, including:comprehensive needs assessments; involvement of traineesin planning and organisation; follow-up and supportsupervision; monitoring and documentation of who is trainedin what areas; and cross-programme coordination of trainingactivities [particularly on content]." UNICEF Uganda,1997b:28)

• Drawing also from findings discussed insection 3, it appears that the CB strategy waspursued in a manner that served to broadenthe networks around CP goals and allowedsmall but positive advances were made to amore inclusive human-rights based approachto the CP goals.

However, one area of general concern was raised:

• It seems clear that there is a need fortraining approaches at decentralised levels inparticular that are much more rooted in localcontext and practice. This would better allow

for adaptation to the stage ofcapacity growth in differentlocalities, as well potentially togreater sense of involvementand ownership.

More specifically in relation toeach of the CB interventionsselected for study:

CCA Programme —Resource allocation• The CB interventionsaround resource allocation,planning and informationmanagement systems doappear to have contributedpositively towards a greaterawareness of the issuesaffecting children's andwomen's rights.

• The interventions didsupport new and stronger rolesfor the NCC and DPUs.

• The attitudes andtraditional roles of actors atdistrict and central levelsproved to be a constraint to thepromotion of new roles foractors at more decentralisedlevels through the CBMIS andSCS approaches.

• Results in terms of theactual contribution to increasedallocation of resources to socialservices according to need have

been demonstrated. However, some examples ofpositive results in mobilising resources for COPEand health issues do suggest that there is promise.

Health Programme —Health management committees• The intervention has made advances inestablishing a functioning organisational structureat parish level in the PDC, which has the potentialto make a significant impact on the participationof women in decision making

• The same PDC structure has contributedto establishing an effective role for parish levelactors in problem analysis, planning, resource

management and advocacy/sensitisation in thecommunity.

• There is evidence that the PDCs, HUMCsand SCHCs have contributed to better relationsbetween community and health services andimproved management of health resources (staffincentives and user fees).By contrast:

• Across these structures, the fulfilment ofthe functions of coordination, supervision/follow-up support and resource mobilisationneeds attention.

• The decreased immunisation coverage andthe reliance on PDCs in the new National Planfor Revitalisation of Immunisation points to theimportance of monitoring the development ofPDCs, HUMCs and SCHCs and above allensuring support for supervision mechanisms.

WES Programme— MIS

Need to integration explore WES MISwith other existing MIS

• In the WES intervention to strengthen MIS,efforts have clearly advanced to revise and linkvillage and national roles more effectively.

• However, no evidence was found of anawareness at decentralised levels about thepotentially important role in decentralisedinformation systems or their contribution to betterplanning and resource allocation.

BECCAD — Awareness and sensitivityto child rights

Increased awarenessof children's rights among leaders

• The broader efforts to raise awareness andsensitivity to child rights do appear to have someeffect on attitudes. In particular, there is greaterawareness of the issue of child abuse andresponsibilities to respond and protect children.

• There is some preliminary indication that thecontent of the understanding absorbed may beproblematic, particularly in relation to parents andcommunity roles in the context of the best interestsof the child, the need to respect the views ofchildren and the right of children to participate.

Lessons andrecommendations

5.1 Conclusions —Challenges for UNICEF

In addition to the above conclusions on theeffectiveness and efficiency of the CB strategy,there are a few insights for UNICEF internalprocesses and guidance.

• Given that the programme approach doesappear to support a favourable iterative processto designing and refining a CB strategy, it seemsimportant to pursue ways to strengthen this thinkingin UNICEF. The strength of the Uganda CPframework was in leading programmes to articulatea hierarchy of inter-related interventions atdifferent entry points around a common goal. Thiscould be refined, avoiding the confusion of thecomponents, through the use of tools such asprogramme models.

• Where programme review mechanismswere more analytical, as they were in the UgandaMTR, this contributed greatly to refining a CBstrategy. The more regular review meetings mustalso be pushed to be more analytical. It does seemthat a common framework, like the CB frameworkcould contribute to better analysis.

• UNICEF procedures are still not sufficientlyfluid for decentralised planning and implementation,and/or they are not sufficiently clearly understoodby partners. This has been a constraint to differingdegrees across programmes, throughout the CP.This is a challenge to UNICEF credibility as apartner at decentralised levels.

• UNICEF's own programme managementstructures have been designed without sufficientattention to the burden placed on national partners,particularly at central level. The emphasis on

cross-sectoral coordination, and specificallystructures and mechanisms for coordination asopposed to tasks/functions around which tocoordinate, has led to structures in consistent withthe distribution of national programme managementroles, including in relation to other donors. All ofthis has been without great effect in terms of cross-sectoral coordination. At the same time, theoverburdening of national partners may risk toundermine the achievements in terms of partnershipand ownership.

• The traditional reporting on programmeresults has not in general been sensitive enough toreveal changes in relation to capacity. Thereappears to be a conflict between the UNICEFculture of reporting measurable tangible results andthe kind of analytical and qualitative reviewprocesses and reporting that could yield more usefulinformation on progress in CB. There is the senseat the level of CO staff that the culture in theorganisation does not trust or reward the lesstangible CB results.

5.2 Recommendations

CPMT• In developing the new CP, it seems criticalthat UNICEF and national partners pursue thedialogue on an operational framework from whichto develop a CB strategy. This would seemparticularly important to pursue within sectoral orissue focused networks with other donors or majoractors to facilitate a more rational targeting of CBapproaches.

• Similarly, it will be necessary to pursue thegeneric capacity assessment within sectoral orissue-focused networks, including some level ofrapid district level validation. This can effectivelybe combined with planning processes.

• Within each sectoral or issue-focusedprogramme, the new CP should clearly define:

• Which key capacities or functions it isstriving to strengthen at which levels?

• Which actors are and must be effectivelyinvolved, and what interventions or strategies willbe required to achieve this?

• In relation to each key function, at each level,what are the key constraints or gaps to be targeted,and what other constraints or gaps must bemonitored?

• Which specific "activities" or interventionswill be used to build linkages between functions,between actors (including other donors), andacross sectors?

• The new CP should be based on a muchmore simplified framework.

UNICEF• In planning the CP management strategies,the CO management team must recognise theexisting incentive system around reporting and seekto encourage staff in examining CB results from adifferent perspective. This entails recognising thelong-term nature of CB, pushing for meaningfulqualitative analysis of progress.

-- — — — -- — -' — -• — — — — "/Appendix A:/mmm — — -- — — — — — -•-- — —

Terms of reference and notes

i) STUDY TITLE:ASSESSMENT OF THE 1995-2000 GOU-UNICEF COUNTRY PROGRAMMECAPACITY BUILDING COMPONENT UNDER THE DECENTRALIZATIONFRAMEWORK.

ii) Background:Despite Uganda's big strides made in restoring its institutional capacities in recent years,compared with the situation a decade ago, the declining state resources availability, forexample the high manpower turnover, the increasing reduction of public service staff thatdirectly limit effective service delivery and a dissatisfaction among donors and developmentactors; with high input development approaches which have not led to significant reductionof poverty; the denominator; the underlying cause(refer to CP causality analysis framework)there is need to redress strategies to better meet capacities to accelerate action fordevelopment.

The 1996 Uganda National Capacity Assessment findings showed that the main humanresource weaknesses are not a matter of quality of professionals(although shortages exist byservice provider cadres) but rather the poor quality of the available skills and the inabilityto utilize national human potential effectively.

In 1994, GOU launched a capacity building initiative (CBI). The ojective of CBI is topromote a coordinated approach in identifying critical capacity gaps as well as designingand implementing appropriate strategies for development programmes.

The CBI focuses capacity building on the development process and performance of varioussectors including: Government departments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) legaland judicial, policy analysis, management and training, professional financial managementand accounting, women's participation in poverty eradication, local consulting and inparticular decentralized governance.

The major initiatives include, Civil service Reform (1992 to-date); Capacity Building Plan(1994); The Institutional Capacity Building Project; the National Capacity Assessment (1996),A baseline of service delivery - on health, Education and Agricultural Services (1995); anda review of donor funded programmes support of decentralized governance.

The Current GOU-UNICEF Country Programme (CP) capacity building is recognized as ameans to achieve the sectoral related objectives of the programmes. The emphasis of capacitybuilding includes:• Strengthening informed decision making for all actors at various levels of programme

implementation.• Reinforcing the capacities of service providers, facilitators and managers to improve

performance• Strengthening capacities for mobilizing and rational allocation of resources to meet

service delivery needs including accountability and transparency• Improving the enabling policy and institutional environment

The target budget to community capacity building component of the CP, is 18% of the totalbudget. This is in addition to CB elements, which are embedded in the other componentsof service delivery (35%), resource mobilisation and management components (20%). Theremaining 15% covers CP support costs.

in) PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENTIt is widely accepted that development should start with what people have and build onthis to address their development concerns and interests.

While the GOU-UNICEF CP is designed to and has placed great emphasis on communitycapacity building including family level support to improve assessment, analysis forcommunity action (Triple A process), the process to identify the roles, capabilities resourcesand causes of failures to act have so far not been systematically carried out. Secondary, theskills, method and techniques(s) to carry out such analysis are not widely held among theCP actors. This step of analysis is timely and highly relevant given the renewed focus onHuman Rights programming with prime obligation protect, respect and fulfil human rights,as well as being input to preparations of the UNICEF CP.

The assessment therefore seeks to:

a) Evaluate the impact of capacity building component of CP, to identify the strength andweaknesses which need to be either replicated or addressed.

b) Analyse what roles/obligations the various actors -"duty bearers" play, or need and howthey can be better supported to facilitate community action to better fulfil, respect andprotect children's and women's rights.

c) Analyse duty bearers capabilities to facilitate strategic choices to strengthen communitycapacity building (CCB) interventions in the next CP cycle.

d) Provide feedback on the application of assessment for CB guidelines and tools developedby UNICEF headquarters.

e) Provide a framework(s) to assess capacity and capacity building that the CP will use infuture

f) Build national capacities and network of practitioners for carrying out CB evaluationand effectively communicate results to stimulate policy and community actions forimproved service delivery.

iv) ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS (TO BE ADAPTED TO THE LEVEL OF DECENTRALIZATION)1. what are key entry points for CB in the CP?2. What are the elements of CB?3. What factors influence CB in CP? And how?4. What is CB5. What are components of capacities that the CP set out to build/strengthen and among

who?6. What capabilities were required or are required to ensure CCB?7. What are the capability gaps among the key actors for CCB?8. As a result of the CP supported CCB, what and how capacities have been built and or

strengthened?9. What tools/instruments are being used by CP to measure progress and impact of CCB?10.What were the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of CP supported CCB?11.Were the inputs planned effective and adequate?12.Were the processes and methods (approaches) designed realistic and responsive. If not

why and if yes, what lessons were learned?13.As a result of the CCB input/strategy, has the situation changed in a way that affects the

original validity and appropriateness of entry points, the strategy/methodology(ies) andactivities done? Does the situation appear likely to change?

v) EVALUATION METHODS1. A desk review to identify a preliminary selection of stakeholders, their perceptions and

interests in CB for development2. Develop an analysis framework for assessment of capacity and roles/obligations for the

various actors to better fulfil, respect and protect children's rights.3. Key informative interviews and FGD with duty bearers.4. Workshop - SWOT analysis. This will facilitate analysis on the elements of CB, and

factors influencing capacity.• Strengths correspond to elements of capacity that exist and influencing factors

that enhance or affect capacity• Weaknesses correspond to capacity gaps• Opportunities correspond to the possible entry points for strengthening capacity.• Threats correspond to those factors influencing capacity negatively.

vi) TEAM COMPOSITIONThe team will comprise of 4 core team members with the programme evaluation, CCBfacilitation, decentralisation, right based and UNICEF programming expertise. Preferably 2external, that is one from UNICEF and national experts.

vu) TIMEFRAMEAND WORKPLANDuration of study: 4 months, July to November, 1999

viii) WORKPLANEnd of June 1999:Finalise TOR for study

July 1999 - week 2:Identify and brief members of the Reference group for the assessment activity Identify andengage members of the assessment team

End of July 1992:Carry out desk review, identify and finalise srudy instruments as well as agree on studysample

Mid August 1999:Conduct, stakeholders, key partners workshop to SWOT CCB in CP.

Last weeks of August 1999:Field work - stratified cluster survey in at least 2-3 districts

End of September 1999:Compile and analyse findings and prepare 1st draft report on study

End of October - 1:Submit and present final draft report to steering committee.

November week 1:Submit final report to the Representative and Senior Programme Officer UNICEF

2. Note for the record: Points of clarification on ToRsAugust 31, 1999; revised 8 September, 1999

The following is a summary of the key points agreed regarding the ToRs, based on discussionsbetween the evaluation team and Grace Ekudu, and the team's interview with Kari Egge, andsubsequently point no. 4 was revised based on the senior management team (Rep, SPO, Chiefs,& GE) meeting 8 September:

1. It was agreed that while the ToRs refer to assessment, there is also considerable evaluativefocus in the ToRs. We read this as an evaluation with assessment of the current status.

2. The understanding of capacity and capacity building in the ToRs at times appear tocorrespond to quite a narrow definition. It was agreed that the team will not be constrainedby the definition of CB as distilled from the CP, and will refer to broader approaches tounderstanding capacity and CB interventions.

3. There was some uncertainty as to whether analysis was focusing on the joint GoU-UNICEFCP or whether an effort should be made to distinguish UNICEFs contribution to the CP. Itwas agreed that the evaluation would look broadly at the CP, and that as the programme isjoint, it will be impossible to attribute results to one or the other partner. At the same time,it would be possible to make an appraisal of the coherence and strength of the strategicchoices behind UNICEF contribution to the CP, with reference to a broad analyticalframework on capacity.

4. There was a discussion as to the focus in terms of CP or a specific programme. The reviewof CP as a whole is more broadly useful. However, this is actually very complex and it iseasier to carry out capacity analysis linked to a more specific development goal and thereforea more defined network of actors. This introduces the problem that conclusions based onthis analysis will be more specifically linked to that goal, though the process and someconclusions may be generalised. It was agreed that the evaluation would strive for abalance. Coherence and appropriateness of programme design & to some degreeimplementation reports would be examined at a macro level of the CP. Field level datacollection for more in-depth analysis on results and the factors influencing results wouldbe undertaken with regard to selected programme objectives. It was agreed that by selectingthe CCA as a case programme, it would be possible to look at the cross-cutting CB work(whether or not this had the desired effect). At the same time, it was agreed that casestudies would be conducted of key capacity related sub-objectives (or strategies or facets)of each sectoral programme, based on consideration of relevance for the new CP process.

5. The ToRs make reference both to broader CB efforts and to CCB specifically. It is understoodthat analysis of CCB will be situated in overall CB strategy, both in the CP and the caseprogramme & sub-objectives/strategies.

6. The ToRs make reference to the objective of evaluating impact (Ilia). It was acknowledgedthat there are considerable limitations, not least the absence of a solid baseline. It wasagreed that the evaluation will attempt to draw conclusions on effectiveness, based oninterpretation of plausible links between activity outputs and capacity changes, andqualitative assessment of influencing factors.

7. The ToRs focus on roles and responsibilities of 'duty bearers' (Illb). This is taken to meanactors and potential actors in relation to specific goals. These actors can be equated withthe 'task network' referred to in broader systems frameworks for capacity analysis. Theseactors are understood as a subset of'stakeholders', meaning all those who are affected byor can affect (negatively and positively) the achievement of a given goal. It was underlinedthat capacity analysis may lead the evaluation to consider the roles of organisations andindividuals outside the 'task network' initially.

8. The third objective was stated as being to "Analyse duty bearers capabilities to facilitatestrategic choices to strengthen community capacity building (CCB) interventions in thenext cycle". The capability to 'facilitate strategic choices' is understood to correspond to

the Triple A process that was the pivotal thrust of the CP strategy for change. This will be alogical focus in terms of determining effectiveness of implementation vis-a-vis the programmedesign. However, as suggested by the use of a broader conceptual framework for analysisof capacity, this programme design will itself be questioned.

9. Capabilities were defined for the team as existing at the level of the individual as acombination of skills, knowledge, ability - including motivational aspects, attitudes & values,and commitment aspects. It was underlined that this 'capability' is extremely difficult tomeasure.

10. It was agreed that the team will strive to build a common understanding around capacityand capacity building as opposed to providing a framework. This will shape the evaluationprocess adopted.

11. Assessment questions 1-5 are interpreted as applying to the original programme design, toits evolution as well as to the appropriate range of programme design possibilities now.

We agree to drop the objective (f) regarding the building of a network of Ugandan evaluatorswith skills in the area of capacity assessment and evaluation, as this seems unrealistic in thecontext of the evaluation process. It could, however, be a very valuable follow-up activity,building on the process of discussion around a framework for capacity building.