Institutional Capacity Assessment of the aids control Program Uganda

3.9 Accountability

Group consensus score: 67%

Participants rated ACP as systematically achieving with a 67% score in terms of accountability. This rating was based on their perception of ACPs accountability for funds from donors, annual reports disseminated to stakeholders yearly and general weakness in sharing best practices. During the discussions further reasons for the consensus were identified. These include poor quality of reports and non-linkage to targets or objectives in HSHASP. Poor M&E capacity and absence of a dedicated unit for monitoring and evaluation in ACP were further identified as contributing to poor quality of reports. Some participants indicated that the multiple reporting and accountability responsibilities of ACP makes it difficult to fulfill all needs especially since most of the partner funding projects have different financial and project circles. It does appear however that 67% consensus in this domain may be overstated given all the issues raised by participants.

3.10 Resource mobilization and use

Individual % score range: 46 - 79

Group consensus score: 50%
Table 13: Resource Mobilization and Use

Reasons for consensus ranking	Strengths	Summary Indicators of needed improvement	Recommendation
* Resource mobilization in ACP is almost entirely about responding to RFAs.	* ACP Responds effectively to RFAs * Has a resource map indicating sites where HIV/AIDS investments (resources) are being directed.	* No institutional arrangement for resource mobilization. For example there is no particular staff charged with that responsibility and no plan for resource mobilization. * Accountability for resources seem to be restricted to donors and development partners supporting ACP projects not to other stakeholders * Similarly ACP does not hold stakeholders accountable for resources provided to them for HIV programs. * Limited capacity for rapid absorption of funds in part due to differences in planning cycles with donors and sometimes weak management systems. * Current sources of funds are tied to specific projects. Flexibility for reallocation to any pressing priorities is a long process.	* ACP should develop a plan for resource mobilization based on analysis of resource gap. * Internal arrangement for resource mobilization should be developed, eg assignment of the function. * Establish accountability frameworks and mechanisms to hold stakeholders accountable and to account to stakeholders. * ACP should address the issue of absorptive capacity by improving internal management processes and advocacy. * convene a forum to clarify resource mobilization functions between ACP and UAC

Participants reached a consensus score of 50% as ACP’s current performance in this domain. Some of the reasons mentioned were that ACP was adopting a technically sound approach in mobilizing resources by responding to RFAs (proposal writing). Currently, ACP also has a tool (a resource map) which shows different sites where projects are located in the country. On the other hand, low absorptive capacity, accountability issues and absence of any real resource mobilization plan were identified as areas where ACP needs improvement. Furthermore, participants identified management challenges and technical capacity of staff as issues which have also contributed to delayed access and use of funds. Given all the issues discussed, a score of 50% seems unrealistic for ACP in this domain.