Uganda - Using surveys for public sector reform

54992 No. 138 July 1999 Findings occasionally reports on development initiatives not assisted by the World Bank. This article is one such effort. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank Group, the Government of Ghana, or the banks and NGOs mentioned. Uganda :Using surveys for public sector reform Data that can be used to inform policy decisions are typically scarce in low-income countries, where standard policy prescriptions are less likely to apply. Interventions based on inadequate information and thus misguided assumptions may not achieve expected results--despite the fact that substantial public or donor funds are being spent. For example, an adjustment operation that focuses on spending allocations may achieve its benchmarks but have no effect on actual service delivery. Diagnostic surveys can provide vital information for decision-makers when institutional weaknesses inhibit a more regular flow of information. If strategically designed, a survey can help induce policy change by pointing directly to the main bottlenecks, making it easier for policymakers to find solutions. This note summarizes a case in Uganda where a diagnostic survey proved particularly useful in an effort to improve public spending on health and education. Surveying service delivery When assessing service delivery, most surveys examine the effects of policies or interventions on households and their demands for and perceptions of the quality of services. Inputs and outputs on the supply side--such as the flow of public funds and school enrollment rates--are left for official statistics or administrative records. Uganda shows that a survey can provide a useful check on the supply side of service delivery when institutions perform poorly and official statistics are lacking or of poor quality. Expenditure tracking surveys began in Uganda once it was realized that, while public spending on basic services had increased substantially since the late 1980s (albeit from a small base), several officially reported outcome and output indicators remained stagnant. While World Bank structural adjustment programs specifically supported increased spending on basic services and contained provisions to protect budget allocations, they did not go beyond such allocations to address deficiencies in actual spending or service delivery. The most obvious disparity in outcome indicators was seen in primary school enrollments. Budget allocations for primary education nearly tripled between 1991 and 1995--yet there was hardly any increase in officially reported enrollment. The hypothesis was that actual service delivery (output) was much worse than budget allocations would imply because public funds (inputs) did not reach the intended facilities as expected. Reasons for facilities not receiving the allocated funds could range from competing priorities at various levels of government to corruption and misuse of public funds. To test this hypothesis, budget allocations and actual spending were compared in two decentralized sectors, primary education and health care. Because local government accounts were not generally available, a field survey was carried out in 19 of Uganda's 39 districts, covering a randomly selected sample of 250 government schools and 100 public health clinics, to collect spending and other data for 1991