Hauge, Arild O.2025-04-092025-04-092003-10Hauge, Arild O. (2003). EVALUATION CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT- The Development of Monitoring and Evaluation Capacities to Improve Government Performance in Uganda.http://192.9.200.215:4000/handle/123456789/325Uganda is spending more on social services, but poverty reduction isn't matching up. Too many uncoordinated monitoring systems are collecting confusing and poor-quality data. Officials focus more on paperwork than actual results. Donors often make things worse by adding their own complex rules. Uganda doesn't need more monitoring — it needs smarter, better-quality evaluation.There is a growing awareness that Uganda's progress with poverty reduction does not match the rate of increase in budget resources for the social sectors; there are indications of poor effectiveness and value-for-money in public service delivery. These concerns are focusing attention on the priority for a better understanding of development effectiveness-what works, what does not, in which contexts, and why. Uganda's monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems have the potential to provide this much-needed understanding. A large volume of information is currently produced by different M&E systems and practices that have been established in Uganda emanating from domestic and external concerns with accountability, governance, public sector reform, and financial management. But the disparate information flows can create confusion about goals and complicate policy analysis. Parallel systems lead to duplication and waste in data collection, and the M&E workload diverts attention away from productive service delivery. The M&E systems also sometimes reward managers for good paperwork rather than contribution to poverty eradication. Although arguably documenting compliance with nominal accountability rules, Uganda's M&E systems need to increase the emphasis on the results that follow from public action. M&E data are often of poor quality, with missing, inaccurate, or outdated information. The distinction between observed reality and what is hoped-for is blurred. In this environment, donors when each brings a different set of rules and requirements have been part of the M&E problem rather than part of its solution. The Uganda experience helps to dispel the notion that increased M&E, in and of its own, will lead to improved results orientation. What Uganda needs is not more, but better, M&E.enAccountabilitySocial ServicesPoverty ReductionDonor InfluencePublic Service DeliveryWorking Paper