Development of a Data Tracking
Mechanism
Corruption Tracking/Assessment Tool
Barbara Magezi Ndamira – AFTPR PREM Week 2010
Data Tracking Mechanism
 Background
 Features
 Process
 Progress
 Challenges
 Next Steps
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Background
 Deteriorating Governance environment –
TI going down, NIS 2008 – 51% pay bribes in
health sector,
 Four high corruption cases – CHOGM,
GFTAM, GAVI and NSSF.
 Difficult dialogue at highest level –
 Disjointed/fragmented dialogue/response
by development partners
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Background
 Bank IEG report and ICR for previous CAS
critical of engagement on GAC issues
 Development Partners challenged by own
Governments on VfM
 Bank decision to focus on broader
governance issues.[new CAS]
 Development Partners focus on “corruption”
under “Joint Response to Corruption
initiative”
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Features
 “Joint Approach to corruption” will need
agreed upon set of indictors to establish
trends
 Level of comfort for both GoU and
Development Partners
 Can inform other programs – PRSC, JBSF,
projects GAAPs
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Features
 Trends that point towards system
weaknesses and guide reforms
 Can track progress on various reforms aimed
at curbing corruption
 Identify critical issues on the horizon
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Process
Preliminary work
Medium
- term implementation
Strand A of core
Establishment
Establishment of core
corruption
Indicators
corruption indicators
Strand B
Improving
the
quality of national
Improving the quality of national data
data sources sources
Strand C
BuildingBuilding
Uganda
Government
Ugandan
Government - led Data
– led
Data Tracking Mechanism
Tracking Mechanism
Building a nonStrand
Govt.D Peer review
Building non
- government peer
Mechanism
review mechanism
Additional work under Accountability Sector to undertake periodic
independent analysis at grass root level and on Grand Corruption
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Process
 Consultations In Country – Bank, DFID and
two consultants – Great Support from
PREMPS
 In Country review – reports and surveys
 OAG reports, APRM reports, PEFA, PPMS, CPAR etc
 Budget Monitoring Unit reports; PPDA Audits; Payroll
Audits etc, NIS, NSDS, Panel Surveys
 External Reports Review
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Challenge with Indicators???
 Dearth of specific indicators - what do we
need to know?
 Cleanliness of Data
 Many Indicators perception based
 Cost of regular tracking [NIS, NSDS etc too
expensive & not regular–[trends]
 Definition of big; grand; small etc
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Challenge with Indicators???
 Currently relying on International Indicators
 WBI, TI, Afro Barometer, MCC, etc not
locally appreciated
 Other possibilities exists but need
organization.
 HRM Actionable Governance Indicators  PEFA reviews-
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Form
 Trying to frame Corruption by Public Function
 Service delivery, Procurement, Judiciary actions
 Budget, HR management, Audit follow up
 Trying to Frame Corruption by Approach
 Prevention….Detection …….Enforcement……
 Aggregated Indicators:
 Is corruption getting better/worse ?
 Actionable indicators:
 What is the Government /Donors doing about it?
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Criteria for Indicator Selection
•Specific Selection Criteria:
• Data is accurate, consistent and reliable.
• Data for Uganda is readily available and easily
accessible.
• Data is collected frequently, ideally every 1 or 2
years.
• Data relates to corruption and governance
activities which directly impact corruption
prevention, detection, or enforcement.
Data Tracking Mechanism:
Criteria for Indicator Selection
 General Selection Criteria:
• Sustainability of DTM, and country ownership
• Local data source
• Preference to existing data sources but up-
coming data efforts also considered.
• Experiences and views from different
stakeholders.
Data Tracking Mechanism
Indicator Sources – Local
-National Service Delivery Survey  Section 2A: Education Primary: Question 224[2]
Accountability in the School - % of primary education
facilities involving misuse of funds in last financial year.
 Section 2B: Education Primary: Question 224[5]
Accountability in the School - % of primary education
facilities involving misuse of funds in the last financial year
where no action was taken on culprit
 Section 8: Governance : Question 808(2): Accountability in
the Sub County and rating of overall performance of the
sub county Administration: % of sub-counties involving
misuse of funds in last financial year.
Data Tracking Mechanism
Indicator Sources - Local – with Gaps
 Auditor General’s reports
 Annual audit reports


% of MDAs with unaccounted for funds?
% of unaccounted for funds in a given year [not
specific enough]
 Value for money reports

Costs and Process might be prohibitive
 Specific forensic reports

Regularity
Aggregated Corruption Indicators
Potential Sources [helps take the pulse]
 World Governance Indicators: Control of Corruption,
Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness.
(World Bank) –
 Transparency International Global Corruption
Barometer (Transparency International)
• % of respondents reporting that they had paid a
bribe in the previous 12 months; in health and
education sectors and the police and judiciary
Data Tracking Mechanism –
Management
 DTM managing/operating agency
 Economic Policy Research Centre – credible and
independent institution
 Advisory Committee
 Accountability Sector Working Group

Government Accountability agencies
 Development Partners???
 Critical agencies with data sources???
 International Collaborator/Partner
 Civil Society Organizations/Collaborators
Data Tracking mechanism
Next Steps
 Issues to confirm:
 Data/Report Release process –

Government or Agency?
 Indicators
 Operating costs
 Role of Parliament
 Communication Strategy

Dissemination across all stakeholders
THANK YOU!!!