600 Water Street, S.W. 202/484-7170
Washington, D.C. 20024 Fax: 202/488-0754
USA mfanning@msi-inc.com
USAID/Uganda Monitoring and Evaluation 
Management Services
EVALUATION OF THE UGANDA PARLIAMENT 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT (UPTAP)
December 2003
Submitted to:
Elizabeth Regan Kiingi and John Anderson, USAID/Uganda
Submitted by:
David Hirschmann, MSI
Kintu Nyago, MSI
The views and recommendations expressed in this report are solely those of the
MSI MEMS Team and are not necessarily those of USAID or the U.S. Government.
Contract No. GS-23F-8012H, Order No. 617-M-00-03-00007-00

i
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................III
LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... VII
I. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................1
II. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3
III. EVALUATION FINDINGS ....................................................................................................4
A. Achievement of Objectives............................................................................................4
B. Summary of Qualitative and Quantitative UPTAP Project Results.............................12
C. UPTAP-Parliament Relationships and their Consequences........................................13
D. Project Costs ................................................................................................................15
E. Sustainability................................................................................................................17
IV. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................21
V. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................23
VI. LESSONS LEARNED ..........................................................................................................27
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Evaluation Scope of Work .......................................................................................28
Appendix 2. Illustrative Evaluation Report Outline .....................................................................33
Appendix 3. Tentative Plan for the TPM for the SUNY/UPTAP.................................................34
Appendix 4. Work plan for SUNY/UPTAP Evaluation................................................................35
Appendix 5. Evaluation Methods..................................................................................................36
Appendix 6. List of Documents Reviewed ....................................................................................38
Appendix 7. Instrument Used for Interviews.................................................................................41
Appendix 8. Individuals Interviewed by the Evaluation Team....................................................42
ii
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gratitude is extended to all the Members of Parliament, professional staff of Parliament, officers 
of Civil Society Organizations and others who agreed to be interviewed, gave their time, and
shared ideas and information with us. A list of the people is attached. In particular, appreciation 
goes to the following people at USAID/Uganda who assisted our investigation: Don Elliott, John
Anderson, Elizabeth Regan Kiingi and Albert Siminyu. Finally the team appreciates the
assistance provided to it by Rosern Rwampororo, the MEMS Chief of Party, Molly Hageboeck 
MSI Technical Associate, Polly Mugisha A. MEMS Democracy and Governance Specialist, and 
the rest of the MEMS project team.
iv
v
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CO Clerk’s Office
COP Chief of Party
CSO Civil Society Organization
DA Development Associates
DANIDA Danish Development Agency
DFID Department for International Development
GOU Government of Uganda
IT Information Technology
LAN Local Area Network
LSA Legislative Support Activity
NRM National Resistance Movement
OOR Office of Official Records
OPPD Office of Professional Parliamentary Development
OPRI Office of Public Relations and Information
PBO Parliamentary Budget Office
PLRIS Parliamentary Library, Research and Information Services
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
POU Parliament of Uganda
PRIO Public Relations and Information Office 
SIDA Swedish International Development Agency
SOW Scope of Work
SUNY State University of New York
UJCC Uganda Joint Christian Council
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UPTAP Uganda Parliamentary Technical Assistance Program
USAID United States Agency for International Development
vi
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1998, USAID extended assistance the Parliament of Uganda (POU) through IQC AEP-5468-
100-6004-00. The State University of New York (SUNY) implemented this effort, which was 
known as the “Uganda Parliament Technical Assistance Project” (UPTAP) project, under three
separate but continuous Task Orders over the course of three and a half years at a cost of roughly 
$4.4 million.
In accordance with the first Scope of Work (SOW), the primary purposes of the project were to 
build capacity of Parliament in two broad areas: 
1) Legislating, Budgeting and Oversight 
2) Representation of Constituencies
3) Strengthening of the CSO/POU relations
In practice the first purpose became the dominant one, though the first and third areas
contributed to enabling Members of Parliament’s capacity to represent their constituencies more
effectively. In 2001, a Civil Society-Parliament component was added to the program. This
involved activities ranging from inviting CSOs to Exhibitions, involving the POU in linking
CSOs to relevant Parliamentary Committees, organizing CSO/POU Dialogues and assisting with
the publication of two (2) newsletters that primarily target parliamentarians.
Project activities in support of these purposes included workshops, study tours, strategic
planning, production and dissemination of publications such as directories, technical assistance,
purchase of furniture, purchase and installation of computers, and related equipment and inter￾and intranet connections, as well as all related training of MPs and a technical officer. 
The project focused mainly on the Parliamentary Commission, the Board of Management, the
Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), the Parliamentary Committees, the Public Relations and
Information Office (PRIO), the Library, Research and Documentation Center, Office of
Legislative Counsel, Office of Hansard, and on individual MPs and later on the Office of
Parliament and Professional Development. The project also included an internship program.
A team of two evaluators, one American and one Ugandan, carried out this evaluation during
June-July, 2003, which covers the period from August 1998 through May 2002, and is the first 
evaluation of the UPTAP project. Document reviews and interviews were the primary methods 
of data collection used in this study. 
The central finding of the evaluation is that UPTAP succeeded in its major objective of
enhancing the legislative, budgeting and oversight role of Parliament. This conclusion is
supported by a range of detailed findings as summarized below in the areas of:
a) Activities or Inputs: UPTAP carried out the numerous and various workshops, training 
exchanges, publishing and consultant undertakings foreseen in the agreements with
viii
USAID as well as the procurement and installation of a wide range of commodities,
notably IT and assistance with connectivity. 
b) Institution building: These activities led to new or vastly strengthened organizations
and systems, sometimes to breakthroughs, for which SUNY can claim credit. UPTAP 
successes can be seen in the Budget Act, the Budget Office, the Library and
Documentation Center, the Committee system, the Research Services, the Public
Relations and Information Office, the Legislative Counsel, all of these benefiting from
newly installed IT and training, and also Parliamentary-Civil Society Relations. 
c) Services to MPs and performance of MPs: These improvements in the functioning of 
specific units within the POU succeeded in enhancing the services provided by the Staff
of Parliament to MPs and, in turn in the performance of Parliament. As a result of the 
UPTAP projects, MPs now have access to the Internet connectivity, research materials, 
library services and professional budgetary advice, all of which support their work as
legislators. Civil Society Organizations’ (CSO) input is also providing them with a
helpful new source of information. Some are making use of these sources of
information and advice to raise the quality of both Committee consideration and
plenary debate, though we are not able from this evaluation to define the exact
proportion of MPs that do so.
d) Attribution: While the UPTAP project played an important role in bringing about these 
higher-level impacts; they cannot be attributed exclusively to SUNY work. After the
Administration of Parliament Act of 1997, there was a conducive and supportive
environment for change in Parliament. Also with time, other donors became
increasingly involved in efforts to improve the performance of Parliament. As of July
2003, eight donors, in addition to the United States are supporting the work of the POU. 
Strong and capable Ugandan input has also played an important role in bringing about 
the improvements noted above. Nevertheless, it is clear from the evidence amassed by
the evaluation that the UPTAP project played a pivotal role in initiating reform and
bringing about specific changes in the way Parliament functions. It is noteworthy, in
terms of understanding these changes and their importance that the Parliament of
Uganda has attracted a number of visiting Parliamentary delegations from elsewhere in
Africa to learn from its practices.
e) Sustainability: It is only a year since the project ended but, in terms of sustainability, 
most of the above-mentioned initiatives continue to operate effectively. There are
exceptions to this statement. The website of Parliament (POU website), for example,
may be in danger of falling behind schedule, and there are calls for replacing/upgrading
of IT equipment to keep up with demands. Nevertheless, the sustainability of practices 
introduced and the related improvement in quality of legislative work appear to be very
promising. 
f) Fulfillment of Project Objectives: An important early emphasis in the first SOW on
Representation (of constituencies, of people), repeated in the second and third Task
Orders appears to have been de-emphasized by UPTAP throughout the three and half 
years. A few relevant events were organized by SUNY but these seem to have been
ix
sporadic, not part of any planned strategy and without much impact. The explanation
provided by a SUNY/UPTAP official was that their providing skills to MPs in addition
to linking Civil Society Organizations to the POU contributed to the objective of
strengthening parliamentarians’ capacity to represent their constituencies. In addition,
little progress appears to have been made on a modest component of the second and 
third SOWs focused on Parliament-Local Government relations. 
Important initiative highlighted in the third SOW, namely, to build an Office of
Professional Parliamentary Development (OPPD) got off to an uncertain start and
remains open to rethinking and restructuring.
g) SUNY’s working relations: For the most part, SUNY’s relations with Parliament appear 
to have been constructive and helpful. The majority of people interviewed were positive 
about their relations with the UPTAP project. Nevertheless there were criticisms of
some aspects of SUNY’s approach to working with Parliament (and USAID’s
practices), some of which provide lessons for USAID and future contractors. Most of
those lessons focus on the extent of consultation needed with lower as well as higher
level staff, when changes affect a whole unit or organization and with transparency of
decision making processes, for instance, with respect to the selection of individuals for
study tours.
h) Costs: While project costs were significant, this is not unusual in Legislative
Strengthening projects where one is the major early donor and which involve large
commodity purchase components; the introduction of IT, and the provision of technical
expertise from the US. While the evaluation team was not able to make direct 
comparisons between the costs and results of the SUNY UPTAP project and other,
similar USAID-funded legislative assistance projects in East Africa, or elsewhere, it
nevertheless appears that, given where the POU is today, compared to 1997, the money
invested in the UPTAP project was effectively spent and has produced important and
lasting returns.
x
1
I. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The Parliament of Uganda derives its mandate from the 1995 Constitution, the Laws of Uganda 
and its own Rules of Procedures. The Constitution empowers Parliament to “make laws on any 
matter for the peace, order, development and good governance of Uganda.”(POU Website). 
Parliament in Uganda is freely elected but operates within a context of a strong Presidency and a 
dominant political movement, the National Resistance Movement (NRM). To date other political 
parties have been given limited scope to operate. 
Of central importance to Parliament’s development was the passing of the Administration of 
Parliament Act of 1997, by the sixth Parliament (1996 - 2001). This Act established the fiscal 
autonomy of the Parliament of Uganda and separated it from the Civil Service. A Parliamentary 
Commission was created with the overall responsibility for its development as a legislative 
institution, and the power to establish committees.
In 1998 the leadership of Parliament requested donor assistance and USAID agreed. This was 
provided, in the first instance, through IQC AEP-5468-100-6004-00, Task Order 804, awarded to 
the State University of New York (SUNY to implement USAID’s proposed program of 
assistance to Parliament from August 1998 through August 1999). This program was designated 
the ‘Uganda Parliament Technical Assistance Project (UPTAP). The Task Order was later 
extended to April 2000. At the end of the first eighteen (18) months, USAID issued a follow-on 
Task Order 800 to SUNY to provide additional assistance from May 2000 through May 2001. A 
year later, USAID issued follow on Task Order 803 to provide additional services through April 
2002.
The initial budget for the Program was $1.8m. An amendment was added for an additional $.6 
million, which brought the total cost of the first Task Order to $2.4 M. The budget for the second 
Task Order was $1.2 million and the third and final was $0.8million. This makes a total of 
$4.4million for approximately 3.5 years.
The purpose of the SUNY/UPTAP program was to build the capacity of Parliament in three 
broad areas 1) Legislating, Budgeting and Oversight, and 2) Representation of Constituencies, 
and 3) The strengthening of the CSO/POU relations. 
SUNY/UPTAP’s assisting the POU legislating, budgeting and oversight functions was mainly 
through nurturing internal reforms that led to the creation of the Board of Management and the 
Budget Office. This, in addition to strengthening the capacities of its already existing and newly 
created departments. 
The second area was not pursued. While the third area involved SUNY’s organizing CSO/POU 
Exhibitions, linking CSOs to relevant Parliamentary Committees, organizing POU/CSO public 
dialogues and assisting with the publications of two CSO newsletters whose main audience is the 
POU. The Newsletters are The Lobbyist (produced by The NGO Forum) and The Monthly 
Parliamentary Bulletin produced by the Uganda Joint Christian Council.
2
Table 1: Requirements for Each of the 3 SUNY/UPTAP Task Orders
· Objectives of SUNY UPTAP Task Order 1 –August 1998-April 2000
o1 Provide technical support for the Parliamentary Commission
o2 Building capacity for members of Parliament
o3 Equipment Procurement and Installation
 Modifications to Task Order 1
o1 Task 1 Provide technical support and equipment to create a Parliamentary
Budget Office
o2 Task 2 Create an internship program with local legal/political science teaching 
institutions that will enhance Parliament’s committee staff
o3 Task 3 Improvement of the Parliamentary Office of Public Relations and
Information
o4 Task 4 Expand training for Members and Staff and provide equipment to fill
existing gaps
· Objectives of SUNY UPTAP Task Order 2-April 2000-April 2001
o1 Enhance the technical capacity of the Parliamentary Commission.
o2 Enhancing the representational capacity and outreach skills of Members of
Parliament.
o3 Strengthening the technical capacity of Parliament’s professional staff.
o4 Providing technical and infrastructure support for Parliament’s service
departments.
· Objectives of SUNY UPTAP Task Order 3-May 2001-April 2002
o Parliamentary Capacity to provide on-going training and staff development 
institutionalized
o Parliamentary budgetary oversight strengthened
o Civil Society Organizations-Parliament interaction strengthened
3
II. Evaluation Methodology
This report presents the findings of an evaluation initiated by USAID to “assess the success of 
the UPTAP program in achieving its objectives” and to “derive lessons learned over the project 
period” as outlined in the evaluation Scope of Work (SOW) which is provided in Attachment 1. 
This is the first evaluation USAID has undertaken of the SUNY UPTAP program. The 
evaluation was carried out in June-July, 2003 by David Hirschmann and Kintu Nyago, as the 
first Special Study under USAID’s contract with Management Systems International (MSI) for 
the Monitoring and Evaluation Management Services (MEMS) project.
The methods used in the conduct of this evaluation included a review of relevant documents; 
interviews with approximately 30 key representatives of Parliament and other stakeholders, and 
through observation. Additional information on these methods is provided in Attachment 2. In 
the attachments to this report, the reader will also find three other documents that help to explain 
the study methodology, i.e., a list of documents the team reviewed (Attachment 3); the interview 
instrument (Attachment 4) and a list of the individuals the team interviewed (Attachment 5).
The Evaluation Team applied these techniques, as best it could within the time frame allowed for 
the evaluation to address the seven main questions posed in USAID’s SOW.
One evaluation question, however, turned out to be problematic from a data collection 
perspective. As was reported at the briefing to USAID on July 7th, it has not been possible to 
satisfactorily respond to the 6th question, which queried whether and how SUNY tracked and 
utilized program-monitoring information. There seemed to be no clear way of researching these 
through documents and since SUNY was no longer present in Kampala, they could not help. E￾mail on this topic was sent to the two former COPs. Their response, while helpful, did not 
provide sufficient material to present an informed answer. 
All other queries have been responded to in a slightly different pattern which was necessitated by 
the emerging logic of organizing and writing the findings, e.g., Questions 1 and 2 were combined 
because at this stage (after the project has been completed) the issues of ‘achievement of 
objectives’ and the ‘contribution to the functioning of Parliament’ are very closely interrelated. 
Parts of Question 5 concerned with civil society and local government have been incorporated 
into the ‘achievement of objectives’ questions because they were integral to the program. 
Relationship with Parliament, also mentioned under the 5th Question gets a full section to itself 
(in response to the 7th SOW question).
4
III. EVALUATION FINDINGS
A. Achievement of Objectives 
This section commences with a description and assessment of UPTAP’s main 
Parliamentary institution and capacity building activities. It then compares the 
non-quantifiable results required by the various UPTAP SOWs with
achievements. Thirdly it looks briefly at the achievement of quantitative results 
contained in USAID’s Results Framework. 
Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building 
The SUNY UPTAP program assisted Parliament’s development through its work with specific 
offices. Institutional strengthening and capacity building thus tends be evident at the office level, 
but because of the environment within which the SUNY UPTAP project worked, its impact was 
often felt throughout Parliament, as exemplified by information about what changed in a number 
of specific situations. 
Senior Management of Parliament:
UPTAP recognized that serious inadequacies in the management structures of POU would hinder 
communication and progress. Therefore an effort was made to clarify and strengthen the role of 
the senior policy-making body, the Parliamentary Commission, and initiate a supportive 
administrative body, namely the Board of Management. Based on considerable consultation with 
the Parliamentary Commission, the Clerk’s Office and with various Heads of Departments, 
SUNY assisted the Commission to draft and operationalize its first Modernization Plan, which in 
turn established the key elements of a reform strategy for the POU. A senior SUNY adviser, 
later to become the second COP, was attached to the POU for three months to work with these 
two bodies to devise protocols and definitions of and advise on the roles appropriate to each 
organization. This resulted in clearer reporting lines and greater accountability for determining 
the overall direction of Parliament, and of use of SUNY and other donor assistance. 
The Budget Office:
The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) was established in 2001. This followed a study tour in 
1999 organized by UPTAP for a Parliamentary delegation to democratic institutions in the 
United States and Canada. The institutions visited were the House of Commons of Canada, the 
Federal House of Representatives of the United States of America, and the General Assembly of 
the State of Colorado. This exposure led to Uganda’s Parliamentary Commission agreeing to 
support a PBO. A Private Member’s Bill was also tabled and it became the Budget Act in 2001. 
Information from SUNY/UPTAP’s COP indicates that their Research Officer provided technical 
input in the process of enacting this law. The Budget Act also entrusted the PBO with the role of 
providing Parliament and its Committees with non-partisan, objective and timely analysis 
required for economic and budget proposals and information and estimates required for the 
Parliamentary budget process. Similarly the Executive and all departments and self-accounting 
institutions were compelled to submit their budgetary proposals in a continuous timely manner to 
Parliament. 
5
The enactment of the Budget Act radically democratized and improved the discipline of the 
budgetary process and gave Parliament a significant and constructive role in national spending, 
decision-making and oversight over the Executive.
The PBO, (which today has a professional staff of eleven economists) was furnished and 
equipped by UPTAP with computers, a server with internet access and sophisticated software to 
enhance its capacity to effectively analyze and report on the Executive’s budget proposals and 
expenditures to Parliament. Furthermore, SUNY provided short-term training courses and made 
agreements with the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Uganda to ensure the smooth flow of 
information to the PBO. UPTAP also strengthened the work of the Budget Committee. This 
occurred through provision of training on the Budget Act.
Parliamentarians, including Hon. Beatrice Kiraso the Chairperson of the Budget Committee, and 
professional parliamentary staff including Aeneas Tandekwire the Clerk to Parliament and staff 
of the PBO, have all indicated to the Evaluation team that the Budget Office has tremendously 
enhanced POU’s capacity to analyze and respond to the Executive’s budgetary proposals. They 
also noted that in general Parliamentarians, with the backup of the PBO, are currently better 
informed and analytical on budgetary issues. To date the PBO has advised Parliament on two (2) 
national budgets.
An interview with Samuel Wanyaka the Director of the PBO revealed that prior to its 
establishment, there was a tendency to submit inadequately prepared Ministerial Policy 
Statements to the POU. The establishment of the PBO with its expertise in data analysis acted as 
a deterrent to this tendency. Ministries and departments of the Executive are aware of this and 
are able to explain any such information to the relevant Parliamentary Committees basing on the 
PBO’s advice. This has been demonstrated by better quality Ministerial Policy Statements being 
presented before Parliament.
Section 10 of the Budget Act of 2001 conditions every Bill introduced to Parliament to be 
accompanied by its indicative financial implications. It’s the PBO that assists the POU to analyze 
this information. In turn this checks the reoccurrence of unpopular Bills being passed into laws, 
as was the previous case with the Land Act 1998. 
Norbert Mao, an outspoken critic of government and MP for Gulu Municipality describes the 
PBO as a one-stop center for information about the status of Uganda’s heavy external debt. This 
information that the PBO derives from the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Uganda is 
disseminated to Parliament and the wider public. 
Through its publications, such as the Summary of the Recommendations of the Parliamentary 
Sessional Committees on the 2002/2003 Budget, MPs, CSOs and interested members of the 
broader public are informed of Parliament’s budgetary concerns. Recommendations made by 
Parliamentary Committees, as a result of PBO work, have contributed positively to the broader 
process of good governance and reduced wastage. Some of the recommendations are aimed at 
combating corruption, for instance the call on the Ministry of Defense to eliminate ‘Ghost 
soldiers’ from its pay role. Other recommendations called for the expeditious reforming of the 
pension sector in order to provide better services to pensioners. 
6
The Clerk's Office, Clerks Assistants and the Committee System:
The Clerks Office (CO) and the Committee system greatly benefited from the UPTAP project. 
The main functions of the CO are to organize meetings at the Committee and Plenary levels, 
provide procedural advice to Parliament and act as the Secretariat to Parliamentary Committees. 
At the time of SUNY/UPTAP's intervention in 1998, the CO had seven Clerks’ Assistants, with 
two (2) computers. In 1999 the Parliamentary Commission recruited ten (10) new Clerks’ 
Assistants and SUNY facilitated their training in recording and keeping minutes, report writing, 
policy analysis, organizing meetings and developing work plans. Furthermore, in 1999, six (6) of 
these Clerk’s Assistants were sent on a Study Tour to the United States to the State Legislatures 
of New York and Maine. According to Chris Abwooli Kaija, POU’s Under Secretary (Finance 
and Administration), this Study Tour’s main objective was to provide a more practical follow up 
to the theoretical training that the new staff had earlier acquired. SUNY also provided the Clerk's 
Office with ten (10) computers. 
Aeneas Tandekwire, Clerk to Parliament and Paul Wabwire, Senior Principle Clerk Assistant, 
both agree that the above-mentioned training brought about a great improvement in the manner 
in which the Clerks’ Assistants conducted their work. The two officers say there is an 
improvement in the performance of Committees, which now meet regularly and are actively 
engaged in the legislative process. 
Office of Public Relations and Information: 
The Parliamentary Commission, based on the Administration of Parliament Act, provided scope 
for the Office of Public Relations and Information (OPRI) to fulfill its stipulated mandate for 
disseminating information about POU within and outside this institution.
SUNY/UPTAP assisted with nurturing the OPRI’s revamped role through providing training to 
two (2) staff members, (including Kagole Kivumbi the Senior Public Relations Officer) in the 
Page Maker Computer program, which is vital in modern publishing and printing.
SUNY/UPTAP also provided OPRI with two (2) computers, a photocopier, machine and 
furniture.
Respondents, both MPs and staff members, and those in civil society and the media, informed 
the Evaluation Team that the revamped Office of Public Relations and Information (OPRI) 
ensures that information flow from Parliament is considerably more accessible. It was noted that 
UPTAP had played a central role in enhancing this Office’s performance through either 
introducing or funding the initial publication of the following information tools:
· A Members of Parliamentary Directory which contains information on all the Members
of Parliament and senior staff, including their telephone numbers and -email addresses.
This directory also has the basic rules of parliamentary procedure and parliament’s
history. Over 1000 initial copies were distributed to targeted governmental offices, CSOs 
and the citizenry. For many institutions and individuals, this directory, whose subsequent 
publishing was taken over by the 
7
OPRI provided the first clear link between them and Parliament. 
· A Visitor’s Guide to Parliament provides elaborate basic information on the national
legislature.
· A Children’s Guide to Parliament targeted the 10-16 year age group
· An in-house weekly Parliamentary Staff Bulletin newsletter of over 350 copies per
edition, promotes communication within Parliament, for both legislators and staff
members, and
· Parliament’s monthly newsletter, The August House: 2000 copies are published monthly
and distributed to the Judiciary and Executive branches of government, diplomatic
missions, media houses and CSOs. 
Interviewees were of the view that these publications, together with training and the
computers provided by SUNY, offered this Office the skills and confidence to improve
channels of communications within Parliament and between it and other arms of
government, CSOs, the printed and electronic media and the public.
Office of Official Records:
SUNY/UPTAP provided support to the POU’s Office of Official Records (OOR), whose 
mandate is to publish Parliament’s documentation that includes the Hansard, Parliamentary 
Committee Reports and its newsletter ‘The August House’. SUNY provided three (3) computers 
and a server. According to the Editor of the Hansard, this enabled OOR to network Hansard 
documenting operations, a process that enhanced the flow of quality information. It put an end to 
the original time consuming stand alone activities method of work that involved moving from 
one office to another to gather the required information during the documenting of the Hansard. 
Coupled with the high professionalism of the OOR, commented on by both the Clerk to 
Parliament and the POU’s Under Secretary (Finance and Administration) the result was the 
production of a daily Hansard that contains the POU’s debates of the previous day. This was a 
great improvement from the previous production of these deliberations on a monthly basis. 
Civil Society’s Access to Parliament:
UPTAP played a major role in linking Parliament with civil society organizations (CSOs). Prior 
to this initiative, a few of the more organized CSOs, had established contact with the POU. For 
instance in 2000, before SUNY’s intervention, the Uganda Joint Christian Council (UJCC) 
managed to establish a Parliamentary Liaison Officer linking it to the POU. That same year 
SUNY/UPTAP began implementing its Task Order 3 of Building Links between Civil Society 
and Parliament. It established a network of more than 35 key CSOs that represent a cross section 
of interests in Uganda.
8
UPTAP targeted primarily advocacy-oriented CSOs. Individuals in the NGO community 
interviewed by the Evaluation Team commented very positively on the impact of the project. 
Some reported that it enhanced the effectiveness of their advocacy; others said it opened the door 
to Parliament for the first time. Illustrative of UPTAP sponsored activities for CSOs are:
· Two CSO exhibitions for the information of Parliament were organized. Here CSOs 
displayed to parliamentarians their work products, as for instance printed information on
advocacy and other publications. The theme of the dialogue that took place in November 
2000 was ‘Civil Society and Parliament: Fostering an enabling environment for
participatory democracy through dialogue”. According to a number of CSO respondents 
and MPs, these Exhibitions promoted free interaction and fuller understanding between
legislators and civil society. 
· Public dialogues on different topics, that included ‘Effective Legislative Representation’ 
in addition to debating the Political Parties and Organizations Bill 2002 also brought 
CSO and MPs together and enabled them to freely exchange ideas. 
· Advocacy skill seminars provided civil society organizations with legislative advocacy
and lobbying skills, some for the first time. 
· UPTAP efforts that helped link CSOs directly to Parliamentary Committees engaged in
their specific areas of operation. 
· Parliamentary publications, sponsored by UPTAP (and listed above), made a major
contribution to mutual understanding, communication and cooperation, and, civil society
publications, supported by UPTAP, did as well. These included a Directory of NGOs
and Experts, the NGO Forum’s Parliamentary newsletter, The Lobbyist and the UJCC’s
Parliamentary Bulletin. This bulletin, 500 copies of which are produced each month, are 
circulated to all parliamentarians, selected NGOs and member churches. 
The evaluation team was given numerous examples of the positive consequences of this UPTAP 
initiative. The Uganda Land Alliance, for example, was invited to work with the Sessional 
Committee on Natural Resources on the Land Act and contributed to the Land Act Amendment 
Bill’s clause 39A. This ensures the right of security of occupancy on family land by any spouse, 
male or female. The Alliance also had an influence on the introduction of Section 40 of the same 
Act, which calls for spousal consent before family property is mortgaged. This interaction also 
improved the use of gender sensitive language in parliamentary legislation. 
In 2003 the Sessional Committee on Social Services invited mainly faith based health providers 
to participate in the review of the Health Sector. In addition UJCC, Akina Mama Wa Africa and 
five other NGOs appeared several times, in 2001, and submitted written memoranda to the 
Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, in order to influence the contents of the 
Suppression of Terrorism Bill (now Act). 
A similar process was undertaken by the UJCC and the Human Rights Network when the 
Political Parties and Organization Bill (now Act) was debated at Committee level in 
Amendment) Bill, 2002 (now Act) and the NGO Registration (Amendment) Bill 2002 (not yet 
9
passed). The same type of CSO input played a role in Parliament’s consideration of the 
Leadership Code Bill 2002 (now Act), the National Women Council.
The Parliamentary Library: 
The Parliamentary Library, Research and Information Services (LRIS) was officially 
commissioned in 1999, with a mandate to provide information services to Parliament in a timely, 
accurate and non-partisan manner. Its targeted clients are MPs. It is composed of the Library, and 
separate Research and Information Technology sections.
UPTAP was instrumental in the establishment of the Parliamentary Library. This Library 
currently has a professional staff of five (5) people. The library has more than 10,000 volumes of 
which 1396 were supplied by UPTAP. UPTAP also provided it with fourteen computer terminals 
accessed to Internet services.
SUNY provided the initial consultants to train those MPs who were not able to use computers. 
This was an important contribution. A Commissioner of the 7th Parliament observed that up to ¾ 
of MPs had never used a computer before joining the legislature. Each MP and all staff were 
assigned their own email accounts.
UPTAP also took LRIS staff members on a study tour to the United States. In 1999, twelve 
research assistants, committee clerks and library staff visited the New York and Maine State 
legislatures. They gained exposure to the diverse ways of and conducting legislative support 
activities for parliamentarians. Innocent Rugambwa the Legislative Librarian says this exposure 
was helpful, as study tour participants had a chance to learn from well-established library and 
research departments. 
In terms of usage of the LRIS services, The Annual Reports for the Library, as for instance the 
one for the Financial Year 2001/2002 indicated a rising interest in the use of these facilities by 
MPs. For instance in August 2001 there were 2681 users, a figure that grew to 5094 users during 
November of the same year, while rising further to 6220 users in March 2002. A point to note is 
that though on the rise these figures do fluctuate. Furthermore, according to the Legislative 
Librarian these figures point to any of the times that any individual user, that is a Member of 
Parliament, enters the Library facilities, whose established purpose is to provide them with 
reading materials and internet services.
Interviewees, notably MPs (including those that had been in the Sixth Parliament and hence had 
an historical perspective) and LRIS staff, were unanimous in saying that the introduction of this 
service had contributed to the improvement of Parliament and its Committees. These positive 
results were realized despite some initial problems that arose when the Parliamentary Library 
was in its start-up phase. These will be discussed in subsequent chapters of this report.
Parliamentary Research Service:
With the help of UPTAP, the Parliamentary Research Service, a department of LRIS was 
established, in 1999. This department currently employs thirteen (13) researchers. SUNY fully 
equipped this office with furniture, a Local Area Network (LAN) server and 15 computers, and 
provided training in the basic skills of legislative research. 
10
The Research Service responds to two broad types of information requests, namely Research 
Reports and requests for brief specific information. The users in both cases are individual MPs 
and Parliamentary Committees. According to the Director of LRIS, a Parliamentary Research 
Report is now a detailed analytical document of investigated information provided on request by 
an MP or Parliamentary Committee. The demand for this service has been on the increase since 
the Research Section was formed. In 2000, 123 Research Reports were provided to individual 
MPs and Parliamentary Committees. This number rose to 145 in 2003. 
An interim assessment by SUNY noted some complaints that the Research Service was unable to 
satisfy all requests or to do so in a timely manner and that while the Research Service was 
certainly being used, it was being used by a limited number of MPs. These issues were also 
raised by a few of the people the Evaluation Team interviewed. Overall, however, interview 
respondents were of the opinion that that the Research Service was extremely useful in providing 
Parliamentarians with much needed information for legislation. A few examples of research 
findings being used in Parliament reported to the Evaluation Team include debates on the 
Amendment of the Land Act, the repeal of the Government Treasury Securities Bill, and the sale 
of the Uganda Commercial Bank. One MP also gave us three examples of helpful responses to 
his personal research requests. 
Parliamentary Website:
A Parliamentary Website (www.parliament.go.ug), driven by an Oracle database, was also 
designed and installed for Parliament by the UPTAP project. The Website avails to the wider 
public information on the history and administration of Parliament, Hansards, Parliamentary 
Reports, Bills and Acts of Parliament, and information on Members of Parliament. SUNY also 
helped the POU to establish an electronic bill tracking system allowing MPs, Parliamentary staff 
and the public (with internet access) to monitor progress of bills and thus make informed 
decisions. 
Internship Program: 
The SUNY/UPTAP intervention introduced an Internship program for Ugandan university 
students. It involved approximately 16 students a year who worked on an internship basis for ten 
weeks. The objectives of this program were to train interns by exposing them to the operations of 
Parliament. It was envisaged that this program would eventually widen the pool of personnel 
available to Committees, and contribute to an increased public awareness about the Parliament of 
Uganda. Some of these interns have indeed been absorbed in on fulltime basis. This internship 
program has continued with particular departments basing on their budgetary provisions taking 
the initiative to attract the services of three interns.
Parliamentary Contributions to the Legislative Process:
In the final analysis, improvement in the functioning of Parliament was the primary purpose of 
all of the SUNY UPTAP initiatives. Each of them – development of the senior management 
system, the Budget Office, the Committee system, the library and research services, training and 
study visits, the introduction and application of considerable IT, and the CSO linkages to 
Parliament -- was intended to, and has resulted in an improved legislative process. 
11
In addition to these initiatives, a number of other steps were taken to improve this aspect of the 
work of Parliament, including the creation of the Office of the Legislative Council in 1999. This 
Office, established with UPTAP assistance, is responsible for interpreting bills and drafting 
amendments. UPTAP provided the Office with computers, training and furniture. The Head of 
the Office acknowledged the importance of the SUNY contribution. She noted that– and this was 
very significant statement - today, most bills proposed by the Executive branch are subject to 
substantial amendment by Parliament. She gave numerous examples of bills and acts for which 
the Legislative Counsel had crafted amendments for use by Parliament. These included bills and 
acts relating to the Disability Council, the Youth Council, University and Tertiary Institutions, 
Microfinance institutions, Financial Accountability and the Land Amendment.
In addition to helping create the Office of Legislative Council, the UPTAP program ensured that 
MPs were provided with bill drafting skills, along with the basic overview of the entire bill 
drafting process. MPs were also exposed to the potential capabilities of the new Office of 
Legislative Counsel, and its ability to help them amend and draft legislation. 
A number of interviewees spoke of Parliament ‘defacing’ or ‘mutilating’ bills they deem 
“inappropriate”. This according to POU’s Chief Legislative Counsel in essence refers to the 
concerned Bills being substantially amended, to radically change the original content.
Two caveats should be added here. A number of people said that progress was not linear as had 
been expected. There was a general view that the 7th Parliament was not as strong as the 6th
Parliament had been especially towards the end of its term. While it is agreed that Parliament 
has made substantial advances, and is able to monitor and amend many of the proposals of the 
Ministries, this is not to say that there has been a change in the balance of power. There is a 
general consensus that if the Executive branch was determined to see that a bill was passed or 
expenditure incurred it would get its way.
Unfinished/Incomplete Business: 
An important early emphasis in the first SOW on Representation (of constituencies, of people), 
repeated in the second and third task orders appears to have been de-emphasized by UPTAP 
throughout the three and half years. A respondent from SUNY/UPTAP pointed out that the 
provision of skills to MPs and POU staff, in addition to CSOs being linked to parliament went a 
long way in fulfilling the objective of enhancing the capacity of parliamentarians to represent 
their constituencies more effectively. Though the question of level of capacity provided to the 
MPs in this regard remains unverified.
Little progress appears to have been made on a modest component of the second and third SOWs 
focused on Parliament-Local Government relations. One meeting was held in relation to 
investigating relevant issues but not much more. The team could not adequately get the reasons 
why some SOW items were dropped. 
One important initiative, contained in the third SOW, namely, to establish a new Office of 
Professional and Parliamentary Development (OPPD), and more importantly, to institutionalize 
within that Office Parliament’s own capacity building function got off to an uncertain start and 
remains open to rethinking and restructuring. SUNY provided the support and infrastructure 
12
necessary to establish this new Office. However the Office has faced a number of problems, 
including lack of clarity about its reporting systems. OPPD is now the subject of a study by 
UNDP and DFID and recommendations will be communicated as soon as they are available.
B. Summary of Qualitative and Quantitative UPTAP Project Results
As the foregoing discussion of institution building accomplishments and a relatively few 
unfinished tasks indicates, The SUNY UPTAP project made substantial progress in achieving its 
primary objective of strengthening POU’s capacity to legislate, budget and oversee the executive 
branch. In a number of cases, offices and services in the POU which had been non-existent or 
barely operational, were now playing an active and constructive role in enhancing the functions 
of the legislature. 
From a technical standpoint, it is also reasonable to highlight the degree to which SUNY’s work 
conformed to qualitative and quantitative expectations set forth in its Task Orders from USAID. 
USAID’s expectations in its Task Orders were largely qualitative. In addition to these task 
statements, USAID established quantitative objectives for the SUNY project in the Mission’s 
Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) against which SUNY had to report on three indicators.
With respect to the qualitative task statements in the three SUNY Task Orders as earlier 
mentioned in Table.1 and the modification to Task Order one, the Evaluation Team summary of 
findings indicates that:
· Task Order 1: All the tasks were achieved and one of the main purposes, namely the first 
was substantially advanced. Much less attention was given to the second purpose and
USAID appears to have concurred in this.
· Modification to Task Order 1: All of the tasks were fulfilled.
· Task Order 2: All of the above were fulfilled and the purpose of more effective
legislative, budgeting and oversight etc was again substantially advanced.
· Task Order 3: Task 1 was implemented but confronted problems and did not make much 
headway. The relevant new office, OPPD and the role of institutionalizing internal
capacity building was not clearly established. There are structural issues to clear up, and 
other donors namely UNDP and DIFD are carrying out studies in preparation for
improved management arrangements.
Tasks 2, 3 and 4 were fulfilled with positive outcomes. 
As indicated above the second purpose related to representation of people or 
Constituencies were also very much the secondary purpose, and only a few initiatives 
were taken specifically to advance this purpose. 
13
On a quantitative basis, against USAID/Uganda performance indicators, the SUNY UPTAP 
project was exemplary. Accomplishments in terms of Mission performance indicators show, for 
example, that:
For Indicator, IR 5.3 ‘Executive Branch sponsored Bills amended or rejected by Parliament,’ the 
target set was 9. The final number was 22. 
The target for IR5.1 now IR 9.1.2 in the new Integrated Strategic Plan ‘CSOs making 
submissions to Parliamentary Committee hearings’ was 40. The final count was 101. 
No target was set for ‘Parliamentary Committees that request data and information on budget 
matters from the PBO and PRS’ but the final count of requests was 53, which is a positive 
outcome. 
While such quantitative measurements can only partially represent the complexities of the 
challenge and the UPTAP response, they nevertheless add to the sense of positive achievement 
of the Program.
C. UPTAP-Parliament Relationships and their Consequences 
The Evaluation Team examined the working relationship between SUNY/USAID and the POU 
to establish whether there were any consequences and lessons learnt from that relationship that 
might affect UPTAP project results or future relations.
While one can learn from these findings about working relationships, it is important to keep in 
mind that much of the information given depended upon people’s memory, which can be faulty 
or mere hearsay. Unfortunately SUNY personnel were not readily available to respond to each 
statement. 
A good number of key informants who were familiar with and had worked with SUNY were 
contacted. The majority of what they said was positive about the way SUNY worked, often 
supporting their opinions with examples of helpful and consultative interactions, both formal and 
informal. 
There certainly were criticisms, and a few of them were made with some sense of annoyance. 
These criticisms are interrelated and categorized as follows: 
Lack of Consultation: 
Concern was raised about the lack of consultation with end-users. While SUNY may have 
discussed new initiatives with Parliamentary leaders, it did not always discuss these initiatives 
with the end-users. Notable here is the purchase of computers, software, furniture, carpets. 
It was also observed that SUNY sometimes failed to consult with the relevant Heads of 
Departments in its selection of people to participate in study tours and or workshops. 
The most notable reference to lack of consultation (by people who had been involved directly 
and by others who were not) was the decision to locate the library in the basement of one of the 
14
Parliamentary buildings, and the air conditioning system installed to service it. SUNY is reported 
to having opposed the change to move the library to another more convenient location. It is 
important to note that while the opinions of some concerned people may have been overlooked 
or ignored, other key senior people in Parliament concurred with the decision to locate the library 
underground. Secondly, the location to which the library was later moved (in the North Wing) 
was not available at the time the initial decision, in which SUNY was involved, was made. 
Another issue raised as a criticism of the SUNY project focused on civil society strengthening 
activities in what was seen as a legislative strengthening project. This USAID initiative is 
viewed as having been added to the UPTAP project to conform to USAID mandates, and was 
reportedly added without much consultation with Parliament.
Lack of Transparency:
Two respondents to the Evaluation Team observed the need for thorough consultations and 
transparency in project design, in assessing bids, and in the selection of a project implementer.
Others made it clear that they would like to see project and contract documents that make project 
objectives, as well as constraints and other stipulations, clear. They said that sometimes SUNY 
would say that it was not allowed to do something by USAID policy or that a task was not 
included in their contract. Parliament was not in a position to challenge this, as it had no access 
to the terms of the contract. The MPs found it difficult to judge if SUNY had achieved its 
objectives or not since those objectives had not been shared with them. 
A few people complained that they had called for an evaluation of the SUNY project at an earlier 
stage but had been turned down by USAID. These individuals reported that they felt this 
demonstrated a lack of transparency.
There were also a number of complaints about non-transparency in the selection of people for 
study visits abroad. The process and the criteria used in selection were not made clear. This left 
people with a sense of suspicion about the project.
Lack of respect for POU systems and information needs: 
The Evaluation Team was informed that UPTAP did not fully consult with Procurement Office 
about purchases; by-passed POU procurement processes, and failed to provide an inventory of 
commodities purchased for the record and for management. The team was shown an inventory 
that had just arrived; thus suggesting that this had been done for the benefit of the evaluation.
There was a similar complaint about a lack of information and consultation made by the Human 
Resources Office, which is responsible for staff development. The Office is responsible for 
preparing and monitoring a plan for staff capacity building. It is also responsible for monitoring 
and dealing with staff absences. It pointed to a failure to consult on planning for staff capacity 
development, criteria, the selection of individuals for training, and about a lack of timely 
information on training and other capacity development decisions SUNY made. 
Finally there were complaints about a proposed protocol between donors and POU aimed at 
regularizing donor technical assistance to Parliament. It was said that USAID had taken the lead 
15
in pressing this on Parliament. Some of the issues concern travel and living allowances when on 
study visits. For example, USAID pays economy class airfares and the same allowances for 
everybody irrespective of status. Parliament sets higher amounts for senior personnel. It was not 
only the content of the proposal, but also the pressure placed on Parliament to agree, that 
accounted for some of the irritation. The Evaluation Team was informed that Parliament 
forwarded the document to the Attorney General, to the displeasure of USAID.
There were also a few charges of some ill chosen phrases (and an example was provided) that 
had annoyed people and according to one person demonstrated the ‘arrogance’ of the UPTAP 
implementer. It was claimed too that on one occasion the implementer tried to intervene to 
change a senior person in the Parliament. This was seen as excessive interference.
To balance these reports, the Evaluation Team contacted both former leaders of the SUNY 
UPTAP project. By e-mail these two former SUNY Chiefs of Party (COP) explained their 
approach to the SUNY contract and the consultation process. Apparently SUNY’s approach was 
carefully planned and conforms to the descriptions given of SUNY’s working style by many of 
those interviewed. Feedback from the two SUNY COPs also refers to a disconnection between 
SUNY’s Task Orders and POU’s absorptive capacity. The issue here is that USAID’s contract 
required SUNY to deliver results irrespective of Parliament’s capacity. This probably explains 
why the SUNY team felt a need to be ‘assertive’ and the possibility of some recipients feeling 
that there might be less than full consultation. Incidentally, there were a few people who 
expressed appreciation for the ‘assertiveness’ of SUNY, saying that this was the only way to get 
things done. It is also clear from SUNY’s final report that it too was experiencing a number of 
its own problems with the 7th Parliament, and that this too may have led to a more assertive style, 
which, in turn, may have been negatively interpreted by some in Parliament.
Except in the case of the library, where health conditions were cited, there was no evidence of 
any practical harm that was caused by any of SUNY’s actions or decisions. Nevertheless, 
criticisms voiced should not be ignored. SUNY’s perceived, lack of consultation has left a sense 
of disappointment among some people, and the lack of transparency about SUNY’s objectives 
and the provisions of their contract provides a negative image that USAID should avoid. It is 
safe to say that no long-term harm has been done to the working relationship between Parliament 
and USAID. Even in the case of the library, the Parliament itself found a workable solution; and 
it had also solved some complications about computers and Internet services that arose in 
connection with the UPTAP project. For the most part, respondents were pleased with the way in 
which SUNY worked with them. It should be made clear that some of the complaints the 
Evaluation Team encountered refer to SUNY’s working style and others refer to USAID’s 
requirements and preferences, over which SUNY had no control. 
There are some lessons to be learned from this experience, which, if applied, might help to avoid 
or reduce unnecessary misunderstandings in the future. These are dealt with at some length in the 
discussion of Lessons Learned, in Section 6 of this report. 
D. Project Costs 
The initial budget for the UPTAP Program was $1.8 million; an amendment was added which 
cost $0.6 million and this brought the total cost of the first project to $2.4 million. The budget for 
16
the second project was $1.2 million; and the third and final was $0.8 million. This makes for a 
total of approximately $4.4 million spent over approximately 3.5 years. 
To try to put this amount and the scope of UPTAP into context other USAID legislative 
strengthening project documents were used for comparative purposes. Such documents were 
drawn from Namibia, Malawi, El Salvador, Poland, Nepal and Bolivia; USAID’s Handbook and 
Lessons Learned, SUNY’s own summaries of its numerous projects, and some UNDP lessons. 
Only a few of these provide information on costs, but clearly the Uganda project fits into a 
particular model of legislative assistance. Not all USAID-funded legislative assistance projects 
are as commodity oriented as UPTAP was in the earlier stages; and not all included civil society 
and its links to Parliament, which UPTAP did in the later stages. Three comparable projects on 
which there is expenditure information are in El Salvador ($1.8 million for the first stage), 
Bolivia ($2.4 million for four years and another $1.8 million for a further 2 years, for a total of 
$4.4 million) and Poland ($2.25 million and a sharing arrangement with two other countries in a 
regional project worth $1.7 million). These projects were similar in scale to the UPTAP projects. 
The cost of the Bolivia project is the same as for UPTAP, but it lasted longer. Other projects for 
which funding information was found appear to have cost somewhat less. Former SUNY 
UPTAP project staff confirmed that this project was somewhat more expensive than similar 
projects in Africa. 
Expenditure on legislative strengthening is certainly expected to be relatively high by 
comparison with many other democracy/Governance projects since there is often a heavy 
emphasis on equipments in the early stages. UPTAP’s SOW required purchase and installation of 
computer technology, hardware software, connectivity, training of various users etc as well as 
complete outfitting of offices and committee rooms including photocopiers, tables, chairs, 
carpets and air conditioning for the library. The first UPTAP COP guesstimated that about one￾third of all project expenses were on commodities. 
In discussions of project costs with USAID staff, it was noted that all projects administered by 
U.S. based organizations are expensive relative to contracts with local organizations. That aside, 
individuals the Evaluation Team interviewed suggested that contracts aimed at strengthening 
legislatures tend to be expensive because of the nature of the project. From what the respondents 
had observed of the UPTAP project, i.e., its record of events staged, consultants employed, 
hardware purchased, two members of the USAID Contracts Office said that they felt the money 
was well spent, compared to other projects with which they were familiar. The USAID officers 
gave their opinion, not necessarily as experts, but as informed citizen observers who also have a 
sense of the expense involved.
While a project like this appears large by democracy/Governance standards, there may be cost 
concerns for USAID to consider in working with this type of contract arrangement, the 
Evaluation Team concurs with those in USAID who view the UPTAP money as having been 
effectively spent. For example, a more effective Budget Office (which SUNY was instrumental 
in establishing) that is able to challenge budget plans of the Ministries and monitor 
implementation, in itself is bound to save the GOU and the country considerable sums of money. 
UPTAP investments may also be seen as having been effective in leveraging financial support: a 
far larger group of donors is actively assisting the Parliament today than was the case before 
17
UPTAP. As a result USAID is in a position to substantially reduce its expenditures in this field, 
if it so chooses. 
E. Sustainability 
Context for Sustainability: Sustainability of Parliament as an effective actor in the realm of 
national politics, policy formulation legislative contribution, and oversight of the Executive 
appears to be more assured than it was in 1997. Parliament, both its political and its staff 
leadership, appears seriously committed to performing as an effective Parliament, and a large 
number of donors are now interested in supporting this institution. Increased donor interest itself 
is a measure of USAID’s success in Uganda. 
While USAID and other donor activities are a necessary part of legislative strengthening, they 
can never be sufficient. Future effectiveness will also depend on the broader political context. 
This includes trends and patterns in the role of the Executive, the President (including the issue 
of the third term), the NRM and civil society, the quality of incoming MPs in the 8th Parliament, 
the conflict in the North and the dynamics of preparing for and living with a multiparty system.
One possible scenario is that Parliament may become more effective in the overall legislative 
process but find itself constrained in areas considered vital by the Executive Branch. Given the 
opportunity, the Parliament of Uganda is capable of enhancing its role.
The Sustainability of Specific SUNY UPTAP Initiatives:
The SOW for this Evaluation distinguishes between ‘achievement of objectives’ and ‘the 
functioning of Parliament’ contribution’ (see Section 4.1 of our Findings) on the one hand and 
‘sustainability’ on the other. Achievements and sustainability are relatively easy to differentiate 
conceptually. They are sometimes less easily distinguished in practice particularly with a project 
that ended 14 months before the evaluation. For example, a contribution to Parliament that is 
already unsustainable will hardly qualify as an achievement. There may be some repetition of 
examples and illustrations in the two sections. 
Senior Management: 
The two components, the Parliamentary Commission, which UPTAP helped strengthen, and the 
Board of Management, under the Commission, which UPTAP helped establish, continue to 
operate regularly and effectively. Nevertheless there are two studies being undertaken by other 
donors, namely UNDP and DFID, into the POU management structures, specifically the OPPD. 
This implies, and not surprisingly so, that there is thought to be room for improvement. 
Budget Office: 
This appears to be working effectively. The Office is reported to operate well insofar as it assists 
the Budget Committee and Parliament to question the internal consistency of budgetary 
proposals, the budgetary impact of all bills and monitor the record of expenditure of the 
executive branch. Representatives of the Office gave a clear exposition of their work and 
contribution and examples of issues on which they have successfully helped the Budget 
Committee and Parliament challenge the Executive. They also readily availed the Summary of 
the Recommendations of the Parliamentary Sessional Committees on the 2002/2003 Budget
18
(November 2002), which reflects detailed questioning of the executive by both the Budget Office 
and the Budget Committee. This contribution was confirmed by the Chair of the Budget 
Committee and by every MP and other respondents continued technological change in the 
Budget Office generated an ever growing demand for more advanced and powerful equipment; 
and it is uncertain that Parliament itself has the resources to keep up with the demands. 
Committee System:
On average it can be said that the committee system is working effectively. There are about five 
or six meetings scheduled per day and displayed on the committee notice board, which is 
updated regularly. During the evaluation some committees were in action. Interviews with some 
committee chairpersons confirmed that the committees were working. A few CSO interviewees 
indicated that the committees with which they work were operating and they gave us examples 
of recent useful contact with committees. With respect to committee functioning, the Evaluation 
Team noted that there was a comment mentioned by USAID (in one of the SUNY UPTAP 
SOWs) that an attendance rate in some Committees is poor. The Evaluation Team was not able 
to verify this one way or another, nor could it determine whether committee attendance has 
changed since the SUNY project ended.
Parliamentary publications: 
What is possibly the most important publication, The Hansard Reports on the Legislative 
assembly, is consistently up to date. The August House, which is relied upon by a strengthened 
Public Relations and Information Office is a publication for public consumption. The Hansard
and The August House were started under UPTAP and continue to be published regularly. 
Volume 3 Issue 2 March 2003 of The August House contains useful information on upcoming 
bills, laws passed, MPs etc. The production of the latest edition of the Directory of Parliament 
was funded by UPTAP. This raises questions about the sustainability of the publication. 
However it is reportedly extremely useful to parties (including the evaluation team) interested in 
tracking down and gaining access to information on Parliament. The team was told that it is very 
likely to be updated soon. 
Parliamentary contributions to legislative enactments:
As regards the introduction of Private Members’ bills, there are few of these. This is better than 
nothing but probably less than hoped for. A serious limitation is Article 93 in the Ugandan 
Constitution that stipulates that Private Members’ bills cannot incur additional government 
expenditures. Until that is changed the niche for this type of bill remains very constrained. As 
regards substantial amendments to Executive sponsored bills, Parliament continues to make 
frequent and substantive amendments. Examples included amendments to the budget proposals 
of the Executive branch. It was also suggested that only a limited number of MPs are able (i.e., 
have the will or/and familiarity with procedures and issues) to effectively challenge the agenda 
of the Executive. It was not possible to independently test this proposition. 
Civil Society access to Parliament: 
There were at least two MPs who said that the link between CSO and the Parliament had 
weakened in the months since the SUNY contract ended. It is possible that they were referring to 
19
some aspects of the SUNY program such as the CSO Exhibitions for the benefit of MPs. In its 
final report SUNY was optimistic that the CSOs would manage to set up an exhibition on their 
own, but this has not yet occurred. Nevertheless, in terms of mutually useful connections 
between CSOs and Parliament, the relationships are cordial and there is evidence to support this. 
The evidence relates to land, gender, security, electoral laws and political parties. There is still a 
full time CSO liaison officer located in Parliament whose task it is to keep CSOs informed of 
Parliamentary activities. This is an important contribution to CSO-POU relations. The April -
May 2003 issue of the Parliamentary Bulletin produced by UJCC included up to date, useful and 
user-friendly information including a summary of the issues involved in legislation under 
consideration, and examples of CSO initiatives. One person observed that the future of Civil 
Society- Parliament relations would depend partly on how the NRM and the Executive Branch 
work with Parliament. 
It continues to buy books and periodicals and the place is clearly well organized and utilised. 
Computer/email/internet use is considerably higher than book use. When Parliament is in session 
all of the approximately 14 terminals are in use and there are people waiting. A visit to the 
Library on a Monday, when MPs were not present, showed two of the terminals in use. Another 
visit on a Wednesday showed seven terminals in use. During these visits it was noted that some 
computers could not be used. Photocopying services are in heavy demand. As mentioned earlier, 
the Library tracks the services it provides. These data were presented early in our Findings 
section. .
Research Services: 
With 12 researchers the Parliamentary Research Services continues to serve MPs and 
Committees. It tracks the record of reports it provides in response to demands. While the number 
of Research Service reports continues to grow – from about 120 to about 150 over three years, 
this is less of an increase than one might expect. Also with 305 MPs and numerous Committees, 
this number represents continuity rather than substantive progress since the end of the SUNY 
contract. However the Research Service also responds to a large number of on-the-spot requests 
from MPs or their assistants. There are many of these and are time consuming but not recorded. 
Despite the fact that this Office is working with old and underpowered computers, respondents 
spoke highly of the continuing quality of the Research Service’s work. 
The Internship Program: 
This program continues to operate. We were introduced to two professional officers who first 
came to Parliament as interns. Unfortunately it was not easy to set an exact number of interns 
working in Parliament, as there does not seem to be a centralized process any longer. The Team 
noted in this regard that there no longer appears to be a special program for the interns who work 
in Parliament.
Information Technology: 
Not surprisingly we got various opinions about the sustainability of the IT introduced by 
UPTAP. Sustainability in relation to IT is complex. Success inevitably leads to demands for 
better and more powerful equipment; and consequently to some dissatisfaction. The technology 
20
itself advances rapidly generating further demand for training. Maintenance too is expensive. 
Also the more advanced technologically the individual, the more critical and frustrated he/she 
tends to be of the state of IT. As reported earlier, there was agreement that the equipment and 
systems that SUNY installed were helpful and appropriate at the time and made a major 
contribution to changing the way Parliament operates. We were informed that nearly all (one 
opinion) or most (another view) of the original computers are still in service although some had 
been ‘passed down’ to employees whose main need was for word processing. Other donors have 
reportedly provided a number of new computers to Parliament and other had been purchased by 
the POU itself. The Evaluation Team is not in a position to verify this statement. To ensure that 
its IT resources function, Parliament has established a maintenance team and additional 
maintenance work is outsourced. Despite this, frustration was expressed by a few of the key IT 
users (e.g., in the Library, the Budget Office, Research Services, MPs) at irregular maintenance, 
which in turn affects their performance. 
The Parliamentary Website:
The electronic legislative tracking system is not working. While one can find some of the 
legislation under consideration and access the contents of those bills, there is far less information 
available than say in either the CSO or Parliament’s own printed publications, and website 
tracking of progress of a bill does not appear to be operating. Also Hansard on the Web has 
fallen behind.
Local Government: 
We noted that little progress had been made in strengthening Local Government-Parliamentary 
relations. It therefore seems premature to expect any sustainability in this regard.
Office of Parliamentary and Professional Development:
Finally the OPPD and the role of institutionalizing internal capacity building and donor 
coordination, as anticipated in the Final SUNY report, has not gotten off to a good start, let alone 
made progress towards sustainability. Tasks foreseen for this Office are potentially important 
ones, over which Parliament needs to exercise increased and better-informed control. OPPD has 
experienced a number of structural problems: some relating to lines of responsibility, others to 
the exact role intended for the Office. These issues remain unclarified. As noted above, two 
other donors are carrying out a study of the management structure of Parliament including the 
future of functions for which OPPD was intended to take responsibility.
Overall the record of sustainability of the various components of UPTAP in cooperation with 
POU is a strong one.
21
IV. CONCLUSION
UPTAP succeeded in its major objective of enhancing the legislative, budgeting and oversight 
role of Parliament. This conclusion evolves from the assessment of every aspect of the project 
examined. Discrete elements of the project, and conclusions reached concerning them, are 
summarized below.
Activities or Inputs: It is clear that UPTAP carried out the numerous and various workshop, 
training, exchange, publishing and consultant undertakings foreseen in the agreements with 
USAID as well as the procurement and installation of a wide range of commodities, notably IT 
and assistance with connectivity.
Institution building: These activities led to new or vastly strengthened organizations and 
systems, sometimes to breakthroughs, for which SUNY can claim strong attribution UPTAP 
successes. The Budget Act, the Budget Office, the Library and Documentation Center, the 
Committee system, the Research Services, the Public Relations and Information Office, the 
Legislative Counsel, improved Parliamentary-Civil Society Relations are some of the outcomes 
benefiting from newly installed IT. 
Services to and performance of MPs: These improvements in turn succeeded in enhancing the 
services provided by Staff to MPs and in the performance of Parliament. In support of their work 
MPs now have access to the Internet connectivity, research materials, library services and 
professional budgetary advice. CSO input is also providing them with a helpful new source of 
information. Some MPs are making use of these sources of information and advice to raise the 
quality of both Committee consideration and plenary debate. It may be that change is taking 
place within a limited sphere of policy making but, compared to the situation before the 1997 
Act and UPTAP, the legislature is challenging the Executive more effectively and constructively 
than it did before the project commenced. 
Attribution: Not all of these higher-level impacts can be attributed solely to SUNY and the 
UPTAP project, however. After the Administration of Parliament Act of 1997, Parliament 
provided a conducive and supportive environment for change. With time, other donors have 
become increasingly involved in assisting Parliament; and of course there has been a strong and 
capable Ugandan input as well. Nevertheless, SUNY played a pivotal role in initiating reform, in 
fostering change, and in what have proven to be lasting achievements. These successes and a 
high level of attribution to SUNY were confirmed in the interviews with Ugandans, the vast 
majority of whom were very positive about the impact of the project. 
USAID’s comments and measures: USAID acknowledged ‘excellent progress’ at the end of the 
first project, in its 2nd Task Order for the UPTAP project. At the end of the second Task Order, 
USAID observed that the Parliament of Uganda was much stronger than its regional 
counterparts. Results that USAID clarified and quantified in its Results Framework and 
associated targets, including a count of substantial amendments initiated by Parliament, were 
achieved and even exceeded under the UPTAP contract. Further, USAID/CDIE, the Agency’s 
central Evaluation Office, included three results of the UPTAP project, namely the Budget 
Office of the Ugandan Parliament, the committee system, and the library among its success It is 
22
also noteworthy that POU has attracted a number of visiting Parliamentary delegations from 
elsewhere in Africa to learn from its practices. USAID’s investment has also attracted eight 
other donors who now share in the effort to strengthen Uganda’s Parliament.
Sustainability: It is only a year since the project ended but, in terms ofsustainability, most of 
the above-mentioned initiatives continue to operate effectively. The website might be in danger 
of falling behind, and there are calls for replacing/upgrading of IT equipment to keep up with 
demands. Sustainability of practices introduced and the related improvement in quality of 
legislative work appear to be very promising.
Unfinished/Incomplete Tasks: An important early emphasis in the first SOW on Representation
(of constituencies, of people), repeated in the second and third task orders has not been 
emphasized by UPTAP throughout the three and half years. A few relevant events were 
organized by SUNY but these were sporadic, not part of any planned strategy and without much 
impact. Work with CSO-UP relations can certainly assist in better representation, but there is 
more to representation than this. 
Little progress was made on a modest component of the second and third SOWs focused on 
Parliament-Local Government relations. 
One important initiative, contained in the third SOW, namely, to build the OPPD, got off to an 
uncertain start and remains open to rethinking and restructuring.
SUNYs working relations: For the most part, SUNY’s relations with Parliament appear to have 
been constructive and helpful. The majority of people interviewed were positive about this. 
Nevertheless there were criticisms of some aspects of SUNY’s approach to working with 
Parliament (and USAID’s practices), some of which provide lessons for USAID and future 
contractors.
Costs: In terms of costs, the project appears to have been slightly more expensive than some 
other legislative strengthening projects USAID has supported, but high costs are not unusual in 
legislative strengthening projects where one is the major early donor and which involve large 
commodity drops, introduction of IT, purchasing technical expertise from the US, starting from a 
low level of ‘modernization,’ and in which many of the rates are set in Washington DC. Given 
where Parliament is today compared to 1997 our assessment is that the money has been 
effectively spent. 
23
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
USAID’s current legislative strengthening project, managed by Development Associates, is 
considerably smaller in scale than the SUNY program. In contrast to the situation when the 
SUNY UPTAP project was initiated. There are now seven other donors involved in efforts to 
strengthen Parliament. There is more donor coordination and plans for a ‘basket’ mechanism to 
deal with donor funds and it is expected Parliament will be directly involved in this coordination. 
This is the context in which the Evaluation Team’s recommendations are being made. In one 
sense the current context is limiting, in that it no longer encourages USAID to make large 
investments. On the other hand the current situation represents possibilities, because the donors 
working together with each other and Parliament have the resources to achieve a great deal. 
Process
Consultation at multiple levels, transparency, and information sharing is key to an effective 
legislative strengthening program. 
· A careful Stakeholder Analysis should be carried for each initiative in this type of project, 
laying out winners and losers, measuring the impact on specific groups of stakeholders. 
This type of thinking through various project actions and steps can reduce a sense of
disappointment and suspicion among those who are “left out” when other individuals or 
other offices are selected for attention. 
· Need to take explicit steps to consult and inform those who are indirectly affected by any 
decisions made as well as those who must participate in the decision-making processes. 
· Any possible steps that can be taken to enhance consultation and transparency that are
compatible with USAID regulations should be applied. For example, increasing
transparency in processes for selecting people for short visits and in the selection of local
trainers for workshops would be a step in the right direction. 
· Criteria of selection of local trainees should be made clear and key supervisory persons
should be consulted and informed. 
Representation
This was a major objective of UPTAP, but received much less attention than the other objectives. 
The reasons remain unclear. Improved representation of people and constituencies (or MP￾constituent relations) is significant to a meaningful democracy. It is however a challenging, 
possibly formidable and long-term task. There is also one specific and major problem that MPs 
face as soon as they are elected which hinders Parliament and democratic processes. Immediately 
after they are elected, MPs are seen as service deliverers to individuals and families, and an 
entire range of expectations of personal patron-client relationships are established between them 
and their constituents. The client in this arrangement has significant influence in the sense that 
the threat from the constituency is: if you do not deliver (assistance say with coffins, weddings, 
school fees etc) you will not be re-elected. The outcome in Uganda has been that very effective 
MPs who play a constructive role in Parliament (including on behalf of their constituency as a 
24
whole) have been defeated, and replaced other representatives, who are not necessarily more 
effective as legislators. A number of very able MPs have been discouraged by this and said they 
would run not again because of this situation. Expectations of this sort can also lead to 
corruption, since most MPs do not have the resources to meet all the demands placed on them by 
constituents. These patterns suggest the need for a separate study showing the setbacks that MPs 
face and a plan for improving the situation to be undertaken, and then public education on civic 
rights and obligations should be promoted. At the local government level, USAID should be 
working to improve Parliament– Local Government Relations possibly through its 
decentralization project. 
Performance Measurement
It was found that the performance measurement function somewhat uneven. USAID in its Task 
Orders gave SUNY a rather vague set of result statements. At some stage there was agreement 
that USAID would select indicators for its Results Framework and R4 reporting and these would 
apply to the UPTAP project. In this vein there is evidence in some of the quarterly reports of 
counting of amendments and private members bills and committee meetings. But this does not 
appear to have occurred on a regular basis and USAID does not seem to have made much of it. 
In the future it might be appropriate for USAID to be more specific about its expectations for 
performance measurement by implementers. Given the contingencies of politics that lie outside 
donor hands, it might be appropriate to establish performance targets under two scenarios, one 
more optimistic and one more pessimistic. It is also becoming more difficult to attribute results 
to USAID projects that support Parliament, since USAID is now a smaller player in a more 
complex field of donors, some of whom are contributing to a “basket fund”. This will require 
USAID to look more thoughtfully ‘plausible association’ of its implementer’s actions with 
outcomes, and be willing to step back from an expectation of ‘direct attribution.’ One approach 
might be to include qualitative components indices that assess Parliamentary improvement, 
since, for example, Parliament might be making an impact on large numbers of bills, but be 
ignored or consistently defeated by the Executive on the few important ones.
Big-Ticket Items
In the course of the evaluation, a number of people asked the Evaluation Team for further 
professional training. It was said that the training to-date had really been exposure training, 
focusing on application of expertise to the dynamics of Parliament but that there was no 
professional enhancement. A number of people we spoke to requested and made strong 
justifications for further professional training such as Masters and even Ph.D. degrees for people 
in their departments. Fields such as international relations macro and microeconomics and social 
science research are dynamic and changing. Parliament could easily find itself falling behind. 
The other big item is more advanced IT as has been discussed in this report. Again there is 
validity to this case. Given the rapidity of change, Parliament could soon fall behind in its 
capacity to work with large quantities of information and data sets. We appreciate the expense 
involved and that this category of assistance probably does not fit into present USAID proposals 
but the points made have validity and donors as a group might wish to give them the attention 
due.
25
The Website 
Progress on the website is falling behind. USAID, in consultation with other donors, should give 
attention to working with Parliament’s IT section to find out what the problems are and help to 
solve them sooner rather than later, as the situation could decline even further if not addressed. 
As it stands, the system is losing its currency and legitimacy because outdated information, say 
in the bill tracking system, is worse than no information.
Dealing with ‘turnover’
Over 50% of those trained in the 6th Parliament failed to return in the 7th Parliament and this has 
benefits but it also has costs and it provides challenges to sustained capacity building in 
Parliament over time. There are no easy answers but donors might look into finding systemic 
responses. One answer is to give attention to the professional staff of Parliament, but in the end 
it is the MPs who are elected by the people and who need the capacity to challenge the executive. 
This points to returning to and calls for the need to emphasizing ‘institutionalized’ capacity 
building of Parliament, an idea initiated under the third UPTAP Task Order. 
Additional Recommendations from Interviewees 
(These are not included in the above, as they are not recommendations made by the Evaluation 
Team. They are simply listed here without comment.)
· Refine exchange visits. It was suggested that if there are future exchange visits, they
should be more specifically focused on individual needs and less general.
· Committee clerks need more support and training (in recording, report writing, etc) to
enable them to record deliberations and report them accurately and timely fashion. The 
inadequate training of assistant clerks adds an unnecessary burden onto Committee
Chairpersons.
· Parliament should experiment with an interactive website which will provide another
channel for citizen input into public debates and decision making
· To accompany the program to strengthen local government, there is a need to build civil
society capacity at the local level. Local Governments have power to make by-laws and 
these decisions affect people directly. People need to have a sense that they are
participating. 
· Civil Society exhibitions for the information of Parliament should be repeated. 
· MPs, especially new ones, need training in legislative drafting, public speaking and also
in how to negotiate.
· Parliament needs an electronic voting system
26
· Civil Society includes large business and industrial federations. These should be
included in the USAID’s CSO work as these kinds of organizations play an important
role in economic policy formulation. 
A meeting should be held with the successor implementer to see how the main lessons and 
recommendations of this report might be helpful to its work.
27
VI. LESSONS LEARNED 
Lessons learned from this evaluation are intended to carry forward to future projects in Uganda.
A parliament is not a homogeneous unit. It needs ‘unpackaging.’ It has many departments, 
committees, levels of seniority, systems and, of course, relatively large number of elected MPs 
who have varied agenda, demands and levels of ambition. Therefore a quite genuine consultation 
with one component or one level of Parliament might well look like lack of consultation to 
another. For example, leading MPs and professionals (end users) will see things differently and 
both will require consultation. 
Another related lesson is that in a legislative strengthening project there are going to be winners 
and losers. Given the size of the ‘community’ in a parliament the losers will be fully aware of the 
decisions and will be disappointed and displeased, sometimes even suspicious. This refers to 
both individuals (say in the selection for overseas exchange visits) and departments (say in the 
installation of advance IT). This is inevitable. But steps can be taken to reduce the sense of 
exclusion and disaffection.
Donors may be able to improve the capacity (information systems, research services, committee 
system, and public speaking and policy analysis skills of MPs etc) but they may not be able to 
change the balance of power between the executive and the legislature. What they are doing is 
essential but it is not necessarily sufficient. The outcome of legislative strengthening projects 
depends on a context that is outside the project’s control and is heavily influenced by the agenda 
of Presidents, the Executive Branch, political parties etc. It can also be affected by the quality of 
MPs, which can change from one election to another.
Technology is advancing rapidly. Success leads first to improvements and then appreciation and 
then soon to frustration and demands for more and better equipment. Demands grow too as 
people come to understand the potential and as technology continues to advance. This provides a 
challenge to sustainability. Ensuing recurrent costs on an initial investment will not only need to 
cover maintenance but the additional expense of constant upgrading, renewal and re-training. 
To some extent competition between the Executive and the legislature may be seen as a win-lose 
game. Given the strength of most Executives, donors are often in the position of siding with, and 
empowering, the legislative branch, at the expense of the Executive Branch, including the 
country’s leadership. Efforts need to be made to work closely with the Executive to reduce some 
of the suspicion and to help it see some of the advantages.
MPs have to look in two directions; toward the executive branch, and towards the people who 
elect them. In looking towards the ‘people’ they are confronted by another duality: people as a 
constituency (who want to receive ‘public services’ such as roads) and individuals (who want to 
receive ‘private’ goods such as school fees). This raises some serious challenges for 
representation, exacerbates potential for corruption, and can affect the quality of those who 
choose to stand for elective office. 
28
Appendix 1
Evaluation Scope of Work
STATEMENT OF WORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF SUNY/UPTAP ACTIVITY 
(1998-2002)
Background
The Sixth Parliament of Uganda was elected for a five-year term commencing in 1996. Two
years later, the leadership of the Sixth Parliament contacted USAID with a wide-ranging request 
for assistance. In 1998, USAID agreed to provide assistance through IQC AEP-5468-1-00-6004-
00. Following standard procurement practices for the IQC, the State University of New York
(SUNY) was awarded Task Order 804 to implement USAID’s proposed program of assistance to 
Parliament from August 1998 through August 1999. This program of assistance was designated 
the “Uganda Parliament Technical Assistance Project” (UPTAP), and the Task Order completion 
date was later extended to April 2000.
At the end of the first 18 months of the SUNY/UPTAP Activity, USAID/Uganda issued follow￾on Task Order 800 to SUNY/UPTAP to provide additional assistance from May 2000 through
May 2001. One year later, USAID/Uganda issued follow-on Task Order 803 to provide
additional services through April 2002. The Scopes of Work for SUNY/UPTAP Task Orders
804, 800, and 803 are attached as Exhibits A to this Statement of Work. A summary of
accomplishments under those three Task Orders is attached as Exhibit B1. Some of the
capacities and institutional structures of Parliament set up by SUNY/UPTAP activity include:
ß Increasing the ability of members and committees to access information through the
provision of research and reference services (library)
ß Parliament’s direct link to the Internet, Internet web page and installation of computers to 
provide better technical information from which to develop policy positions and legislate.
ß Parliamentary budget office to provide professional budget analysis to inform the review
of the executive-driven budget process.
In 2001-2002, USAID/Uganda designed a successor activity to UPTAP that would include
additional elements of support related to legislative drafting, anti-corruption, and election law
reform. This successor activity was designated the “Legislative Support Activity” (LSA). In
January 2002, USAID/Uganda issued RFP No. 617-02-004 under IQC AEP-I-00-00-00003-00. 
Following standard procurement practices for the IQC, Development Associates (DA) was
awarded the Task Order to implement the LSA Activity.
 
1 Documents will be obtained from MEMS office in Kampala.
29
Objective of the Assignment
Although the successor LSA Activity is now well underway, USAID/Uganda’s main objective
for this assignment is to conduct an evaluation of the SUNY/UPTAP program covering the
period August 1998- April 2002, to derive lessons learned over the project period: The major
issues to evaluate include:
Activity Results:
· The success of the program in achieving the objectives stated in the Task Orders;
(804, 800, and 803), that is the progress towards achievement of expected results of
Task Order activities.
· The contribution of the overall program to the functioning of the Parliament of
Uganda, the strengthening and sustainability of the institution, and whether SUNY
activities contributed to the efficiency and effectiveness of Parliament as a legislative
body.
· The cost-effectiveness of the overall program, i.e., was the cost reasonable relative to 
the effects it produced, i.e., greater or less than initially anticipated, considering not 
only the original planned cost, but changes in the cost of the program incorporated
into follow-on task orders.
· Evidence of the sustainability of activity-led changes, based on the period from the
end of the SUNY/UPTAP project to the present.
The Processes, which may help, explain results and from which lessons may be derived:
· The various working relationships established with and within Parliament; e.g.
SUNY’s relationships/meetings with other strategic partners; its handling of
development initiatives linking parliament with local government and civil society. 
· Whether and how the SUNY team not only tracked but also utilized information
about progress towards planned results based on activity led benchmarks and
indicators.
· Assess what was effective or counter effective with the way USAID assisted
Parliament, including the cost effectiveness of the program
Existing Performance Information Sources
The following are some of the information sources:
ß The Scopes of Work for SUNY/UPTAP Task Orders 804, 800, and 803 and a summary 
of accomplishments under those three Task Orders.
ß Annual/quarterly reports running from August 1998-October 2001
30
ß Parliamentary Proceedings
ß Parliamentary Library Materials
Evaluation Methods
The Consultant’s evaluation should be based upon:
· Information from secondary sources and the contractor’s knowledge of the levels of
development and effectiveness of other Parliaments in Africa – and particularly in
East Africa – and recent improvements in the performance of such Parliaments;
· Reviews of all SUNY/UPTAP program documents, assessments, and reports;
· Reviews of data from Afrobarometer opinion polls conducted in 2000 and 2002
· Interviews with USAID/Uganda staff and contractors;
· Interviews with Parliament of Uganda staff; and members of select Parliamentary
committees;
· Interviews with other donors supporting institutional development of Parliament, who
include DFID, EU among others.
· Other methods deemed appropriate and proposed by the consultants.
Deliverables
The Consultants shall produce a short written evaluation (no more than 20 pages of text in the 
body of the report, plus an Executive Summary and annexes) of the SUNY/ UPTAP activity
addressing the topics listed above. The report shall avoid extensive repetition of the history of
the SUNY/UPTAP program, and shall instead focus on evidence required to answer the
questions posed by this SOW, including specific examples of activities that illustrate the degree
of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of the activities implemented. In addition,
the report shall identify changes in legislative performance over the period of time since SUNY’s 
program began in those areas of legislative function or performance that the SUNY program
focused on, and shall evaluate the degree to which those changes in performance attributable to 
SUNY programmatic activities or interventions. Changes that have been sustained beyond the
term of the SUNY program, without additional external assistance, should also be noted. 
Finally, the report shall include a list of specific recommendations as to how future programs of
support to the Parliament of Uganda could be structured so as to be more effective, or more cost 
effective, or to produce more sustainable results. Through the Monitoring and Evaluation
Management Services (MEMS) project, the Consultants shall provide to USAID/Uganda one
hard copy and one electronic copy (in Microsoft Word 97, Times New Roman 12 point font) of 
the Final Report.
A suggested format for the formal evaluation report is provided in the form of MEMS illustrative 
Table of Contents for an Evaluation Report (Attachment A).
31
Team Composition and Participation
USAID/Uganda anticipates that this evaluation will require the combined skills of:
· One senior evaluator from outside Uganda with broad experience in Evaluation and
Parliamentary strengthening; and
· One local evaluator from Uganda with strong background and knowledge of the
Ugandan political system, the challenges facing the Parliament of Uganda and
African in general.
Both of the above should collectively have good evaluation methods and data collection skills.
The team members should maintain the objectivity and independence of an evaluation; special
care should be taken by the team members to have no evident conflicts of interest. That is no 
potential biases or vested interests in the evaluation’s outcomes. In addition, the team should
ensure that as a whole, the evaluation is balanced and represents various points of view.
Reporting and Dissemination
MEMS project on behalf of its client USAID/Uganda will be responsible for overseeing the
operations and effectiveness of this assignment. The team shall execute the assignment in close
consultation with MEMS’ Chief of Party (COP) or the Technical Director and the key liaison
person for Democracy/governance. The consultants shall ensure that reports are handed over in
good time to allow enough time for comments and feedback. The Consultants will also be
required to make an oral presentation of their key findings to MEMS, USAID and other relevant 
stakeholders. 
Procedures: Schedule and Logistics
This evaluation shall commence on/about 24th June and will be completed by 16th July 2003. It 
is anticipated that the international evaluator will need to be present within Uganda for a
maximum of 12 working days. The consultants shall be availed office space at MEMS office, 3rd
floor, Cotton House, 15 Clement Hill Road and a cell phone will be placed at their disposal for 
the duration of the field work period of this evaluation. MEMS will facilitate a one-day, on site 
Team Planning Meeting (TPM) for this evaluation in its Kampala offices (Attachment B.) The
Evaluation Team will be expected organize its own program of work and interviews following
the TPM, working within the parameters of the illustrative work plan provided for this
evaluation. (Attachment C) MEMS receptionist will assist the Evaluation Team in making
appointments, as needed. The contractor shall be required to deliver a draft report to the MEMS 
Technical Supervisor for this evaluation, Mr. Polly Mugisha, who will, in turn, submit it to
USAID/Uganda on or before July 17, 2003. USAID/Uganda will review and provide MEMS
with comments on the draft evaluation report within one week of its receipt, and the consultants 
shall be required to submit to MEMS a final version of the report that is responsive to
USAID/MEMS comments on or before July 28, 2003. The final report will be submitted in both 
hard copy and electronic form. Three bound copies of this report will be provided to
USAID/Uganda by MEMS. Electronic submission to USAID is intended to facilitate
32
compliance with USAID’s requirement for the delivery by USAID operating units of an
electronic copy of every completed evaluation to USAID/PPC/CDIE at cdie_acq@usaid.gov.
Terms of Payment
International and local consultants assigned to this evaluation will be paid in accordance with
their individual contracts with MSI and the MEMS field office, respectively, but in no case will
final payment be issued prior to MEMS acceptance of the final report on this evaluation.
Budget (in Man days)
No. Activity International 
consultant
Local Consultants
Preparation in the US 1 -
0 Days of travel (Air) 3.5 -
1. Document review
2. TPM, Initial Meeting with USAID
3. Data Collection and Analysis
4. Oral briefing for USAID
5. Prepare draft report
12 13
 4
6 Review final report 1
Total 17.5 17
33
Appendix 2
Illustrative Evaluation Report Outline
Cover Page [Standard MSI format: identify the title of the project/activity evaluated, the date of the evaluation and 
both recipient’s name and those of the members of the evaluation team.]
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
Lists of Charts, Tables or Figures [Only required in long reports that use these extensively.]
Project/Activity Summary [Stand-Alone, 1 page, providing background information on program being evaluated.]
Executive Summary [Stand-Alone, 1-3 pages, summary of report. This section may not contain any material not 
also found in the main part of the evaluation report.]
Main Body of the Evaluation Report
1. Introduction/Background and Purpose [Overview of the project/activity and where this evaluation falls in 
the project cycle. Summarizes the development problem addressed and the kind of assistance provided. 
Covers the purpose and intended audiences for the evaluation and their main concerns as identified in the 
SOW.]
2. Evaluation Approach and Methods [Brief summary. Additional information, including instruments should 
be presented in an Annex]
3. Findings [This section, organized in whatever way the team wishes, must present the basic answers to the 
evaluation questions, i.e., the empirical facts and other types of evidence the evaluation team collected.]
4. Conclusions [This section should present the evaluation team’s interpretations or judgments about its 
findings]. 
5. Recommendations [This section should make it clear what actions should be taken as a result of the 
evaluation.2
]
6. Lessons Learned. [In this section the evaluation team should present any information that would be useful 
to people who are considering replicating or scaling-up this activity or any part of it in Uganda or 
elsewhere. Other lessons the team derives from the study should also be presented here.]
Annexes [These may include supplementary information on the project itself; further description of the data 
collection/analysis methods used; data collection instruments; lists of persons interviewed; statistical tables, an other 
relevant materials.]
 
2 Recommendations may include suggestions for the distribution of the evaluation report, pursuant to 
USAID’s policy to openly share and discuss evaluation findings with relevant customers and partners as well as 
other donors and stakeholders, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.
34
Appendix 3
Tentative Plan for the TPM for the SUNY/UPTAP
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
8:30 a.m. Preliminary discussion with MEMS Technical Supervisor for the evaluation, the
clarity of the SOW; technical questions and issues; logistics for the evaluation;
MEMS expectations for the evaluation report; the importance of sorting out team
roles and responsibilities at the start of the process.
10:00 a.m. Meeting with USAID. Briefing from USAID on SUNY/UPTAP; the evaluation
purpose and audiences; priority SOW questions from USAID’s perspectives. 
Discussion of any issues.
12:00 a.m. Evaluation planning session: SUNY/UPTAP evaluation team opportunity to
develop a detailed a plan for responding to the evaluation scope, including
proposed approach, methods and instruments for data collection; data analysis
plan, including analysis methods to be used. 
4:00 p.m. Evaluation team presentation and discussion with MEMS staff of its proposed
approach to the evaluation, including data collection methods, timing, etc., and its 
plans for data analysis. The team should make clear in this session how much
additional time it will spend refining its plans and instruments before beginning to 
collect data through direct interviews, observation, etc. This presentation should
also cover team roles and responsibilities as the team has worked them out.
35
Appendix 4
Work plan for SUNY/UPTAP Evaluation
No. ACTIVITY VENUE DATES
1. Pre-evaluation set-up, e.g., document reproduction, preparation of 
potential list of names and phone numbers of potential evaluation 
interviewees, e.g., offices/committees of Parliament and their staff, 
MPs, other donors, etc., for discussion with USAID. [Concurrent 
with travel of international member of the evaluation team.]
June 23, 2003
2. Team review of SOW and SUNY/UPTAP reports and other relevant 
materials, e.g., Afro barometer opinion polls conducted in 2000 and 
2002; USAID CSP in force during SUNY/UPTAP work period, etc. 
[Team may elect to start making data collection appointments with 
individuals they are certain they need to see.]
MEMS’ office June 23-24, 
2003
8:30 MEMS’ office 
10:00 USAID
3. TPM for the SUNY/UTAP Evaluation, including discussion of the 
SOW with USAID. Evaluation Team develops field data collection 
plan, including relevant instruments; data analysis plan and relevant 
forms/tables; divides roles and responsibilities, prepares detailed 
Evaluation schedule; and report preparation/writing schedule and 
assignments. Interview scheduling for data collection continues.
12:00 – 5:00 
MEMS’ office
June 25th
4. Data collection in Kampala, i.e., at Parliament, with other donors, 
etc.
June 26th
– July 
3rd
5. Analysis of findings evaluation findings; formulation of conclusions 
and recommendations/lessons learned; preparation of a PowerPoint 
or Flip Chart presentation, or a typed summary of Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendations for USAID.
MEMS’ office July 3rd
– 5th
6. Oral briefing on the evaluation results for USAID 2:00 p.m.
USAID office
July 7th 2003
7 Report writing (Draft) [Starts concurrent with the departure of the 
international consultant.]
MEMS’ office July 8th
-11th
8. International consultants review of draft evaluation report Consultant’s 
“home base” July 10th
 - 13th
9. MEMS’ staff technical review and submission of report draft MEMS’ office 14th
-15th July
10. USAID comments incorporated into final version of the evaluation 
report; final report submitted to USAID by MEMS
MEMs office July 16th
- 17th
36
Appendix 5
Evaluation Methods
Documents Reviewed
Given that the evaluation team was encouraged by USAID to concentrate more on broad issues 
and achievements than on detailed events, the key documents studied were the three scopes of
work that USAID prepared for the UPTAP project implementer, the project budget documents, 
the three final reports prepared by the implementer and a written record of achievements
provided by the Undersecretary of Parliament. 
Although we focused on broad issues we nevertheless took the detail seriously. For this purpose 
the quarterly reports of the implementer were studied. They provided considerable information
of the numerous events and activities undertaken, of commodities installed, publications issued,
and processes managed by SUNY. We also read selectively some of the numerous attachments 
to the reports to get a sense of the content and quality of, and reactions to, the workshops and 
study tours, and the content of some of the consultants’ reports. 
By way of background we read periodicals and newspapers, referred to the POU website (which 
contains information on the history and administration of the Parliament), the USAID website,
the second Afrobarometer study and various related studies. To get a sense of comparable
projects we also read some USAID CDIE legislative evaluations, as well as a few other USAID 
funded evaluation documents. (See attachment 1 for a list of documents to which we referred.) 
Interviews Conducted
We carried out 36 interviews with key informants. We gave most attention to Parliament. We
sought to get a reasonable balance of politicians and officials, a majority of them senior, and
familiar with or/and beneficiaries (either personally or as members of an office or committee) of
the UPTAP project. We sought to get at least one person closely familiar with each of the SUNY 
initiatives. We also interviewed a few donor representatives, including USAID, to get their sense 
of the issues involved in working with UP. In this case a few key donor representatives were out 
of country. Finally we met with one person from the NRM and a few CSO representatives who 
had worked with SUNY. In a few cases people represented more than one category. 
Given USAID advice to us that one of the most important aspects of the study was to find out 
what the Ugandans thought and to let them determine what success meant and whether it was 
achieved, interviews were a very important part of the evaluation. In seeking opinions and
perspectives we also pressed respondents to give us concrete examples and materials to back up 
their case. The study is essentially qualitative in nature. This involved careful listening but it also 
involved interpretation. For example, people from different offices may have had different
experiences. People who had been selected for training may have different opinions from those
who were not. People with greater technological insight might make different assessments from
those less technologically advanced. People supportive of the NRM might have perspectives that 
vary from people sympathetic to other parties. We also gave attention to the quality of evidence 
37
or illustration provided by the interviewees. We certainly did not talk to everyone we should
have but in five days allotted for the task we believe we spoke to a reasonably balanced group of 
informed people. (See Attachment for a list of people interviewed)
Since SUNY was no longer present in Kampala we emailed a set of questions to the two people 
who had served as Chief of Party during the duration of the project. 
Observation and Reality Testing
In addition to asking interviewees to give specific examples in support of points made, we also 
asked for performance data where it was available, examples of publications and reports and we 
tried to observe processes in action. This was particularly relevant in seeking to respond to the 
question of sustainability. Items we checked on included: publications of Parliament, including
Hansard, and of CSOs, the UP Web site, electronic legislative tracking system, Hansard on the 
Website, the Committee Notice Board, Committee rooms, state of furniture and equipment, use 
of the library and the computers in the library.
38
Appendix 6
List of Documents Reviewed
Freedom House, Uganda. Washington DC, post 2000 taken from the internet (no specific 
reference).
Jean Paul Emmert et al, Parliament Strengthening in Nepal, Washington DC: CDIE USAID 
Impact Evaluation, 1996. 
Hal Lipmann and Joel Jutkowitz, Parliamentary Assistance in Poland (Title to be checked, 
Washington DC CDIE: USAID Impact Evaluation, 1996.
Hal Lipmann and Joel Jutkowitz, Legislative Strengthening in El Salvador, Washington DC 
CDIE: USAID Impact Evaluation, 1996.
Carolyn J Logan, Nansozi Muwanga, Robert Setamu and Michael Bratton, AFRObarometer. 
Uganda Round 2 Afrobarometer Survey Report, Kampala, 2003.
National Democratic Institute, Namibia: Consolidating Parliamentary Democracy in Namibia, 
USAID Co-Operative Agreement No 690-A-00-98-00228-00, September1, 1998 to December 
31, 2000.
Norad, Country assessment, Corruption in Uganda, June 2003, http://www.nord.no/ default.asp
Ochieng Henry, ‘MPs give Museveni 14 days to explain UCB scandal,’ Africa Online 12 Aug 
2001. http://www>africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3, 19092.jsp
Parliament of Uganda, A Directory of Uganda’s Seventh Parliament, 2001-2006, 
SUNY/Parliament of Uganda, Kampala, 2001.
Parliament of Uganda, Summary of the Recommendations of the Parliamentary Sessional 
Committees on the 2002/2003 Budget, Parliamentary Budget Office, Kampala, 2002.
Parliament of Uganda Information and Public Relations Office, The August House, 1, 1, 2000.
Parliament of Uganda Information and Public Relations Office, The August House, 4, 5 May 
2003.
Parliament, Republic of Uganda History of Parliament http://www.parliament/go.ug/ history.htm
Parliament. Republic of Uganda Parliamentary Committees, 
http://www.parliament.go.ug/sessional%20committees.htm
Parliament. Republic of Uganda, Administration of Parliament, 
http://www.parliament.go.ug/admin.htm.
39
Parliament. Republic of Uganda, Business Transacted by the 7th Parliament, 
http://www.parliament.go.ug/Business_session2mtg2.htmadmin.htm.
Republic of Uganda, Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, Government of Uganda, 
Kampala, 1995
SUNY/IDG Uganda Parliamentary Technical Assistance Project (UPTAP) Final Report to 
USAID Uganda on Contract No OUT AEP-1-804-96-00004-00. Task Order 804. Submitted by 
Marc Cassidy, COP, June 2000. 
SUNY/IDG Uganda Parliamentary Technical Assistance Project (UPTAP) Final Report to 
USAID Uganda. Contract No AEP-1-800-00-00003-00. Task Order 800. May 2001. 
SUNY/IDG Uganda Parliamentary Technical Assistance Project (UPTAP) Combined Fourth 
Quarterly and Final Report to USAID/ Uganda. Contract: OUT AEP-1-803-00-00004. Task 
Order 803. Submitted by Donna Bugby, COP, April 2002.
[Plus a selection of SUNY/IDG Quarterly Reports and Attachments] 
United Nations Development Program, Parliamentary Reform in Africa and the World. Latest 
Trends, http://www.udp.org/surf-wa/links/ NEPAD/parliamentrarians/docsen/ reformen.htm. 
Uganda Joint Christian Council, Monthly Parliamentary Bulletin, February- March 2003.
Uganda Joint Christian Council, Monthly Parliamentary Bulletin, April-May 2003.
USAID/CDIE Impact Evaluation, Modernizing Bolivia’s Legislature PN-ABS-537 no 1 , 1996.
USAID/CDIE, USAID’s Experience in Strengthening Legislatures. (downloaded/details not 
provided) 
USAID Activity Data Sheet. Program Uganda 21 June 2003 
http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj0afr/ug/617-005.html
USAID, Malawi: Strengthening Parliament and Civil Society, USAID Grant No 612-G-00-94-
00005-00, April 1, 2000 to September 30, 2000, Semi Annual Report
USAID Program Data Sheet, Program Uganda, 21 June 2003 
http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj0afr/ug/617-009.html
USAID Uganda, First Scope of Work for the Implementation of USAID/Uganda’s Capacity 
Building Program for the Parliament of Uganda, August 21, 1996 – April 10, 2000. 
USAID Uganda, Second Scope of Work for the Implementation of USAID/Uganda’s Capacity 
Building Program for the Parliament of Uganda, April 11, 2000 – April 30, 2001.
USAID Uganda, Third Scope of Work for the Implementation of USAID/Uganda’s Capacity 
Building Program for the Parliament of Uganda, May 1, 2001 – April 30, 2002.
40
USAID Uganda The Uganda Parliamentary Technical Assistance Project (UPTAP), Prepared by
USAID-Uganda Strategic Objective 09, January 2002.
41
Appendix 7
Instrument Used for Interviews
Interviews carried out with staff and Members of Parliament during this evaluation all followed
the general line of explanation and set of questions provided below:
We are carrying out an evaluation for USAID of the work of SUNY which worked with
Parliament from 1998 till 2001. The purpose is to find out what worked and what did not work 
and why and to learn useful lessons from that experience – lessons that may be helpful to USAID 
and Parliament as they provide guidance to the new implementer and look to the future - so that 
future programs can be more effective.
SUNY’s mandate was to provide training, technical assistance, study visits and install equipment 
(particularly furniture and information technology for purposes of electronic communication and
internet access) all aimed at strengthening the capacity of Parliament to play its role more
effectively. In particular SUNY focused on the Parliamentary Congressional Committee, the
Committee System (including helping civil society have access to the Committees), the Budget
Office, The Library and Documentation Center, the Legislative Counsel and the Research 
Service.
We are trying to find out if the SUNY program worked and would like to ask
1) did you participate directly in any way (seminar, study tour, training, equipment)
If so Do how did you assess the work of SUNY at the time (in training, providing
equipment)? Did you benefit (a lot, some, not much, not at all) from the program? – in what 
way? – What did you do differently/better as a result – please give examples
2) Did ‘your’ office or committee benefit in any way. (a lot, some, not much, not at all ) in 
what ways – what did you do differently or better as a result – please give examples and 
provided any evidence
3) Did Parliament benefit in any way ( a lot, some, not much, not at all)? in what way ? What 
did you do better or differently as a result – please give examples or provide evidence.
4) Of the changes that took place are they 1) or 2) are they working but not very effectively 
or 3) have they stopped? Can you suggest reasons why? If they are still operating
reasonably well are other donors supporting them? 
5) What was your general impression of SUNY? 
6) How should they have done things differently?
7) What recommendations would you make about what should be done to improve /enhance 
any future legislative assistance program funded by USAID?
42
Appendix 8
Individuals Interviewed by the Evaluation Team
Respondents Interviewed During the SUNY/UPTAP Evaluation 
No Name Designation
Parliamentarians
1 Hon. John Kazoora Seventh Parliamentary Commissioner
2 Hon. Beatrice Kiraso Chairperson Budget Committee
3 Hon. Nobert Mao Member: 1) Public Accounts Committee 2) Legal
and Parliamentary Affairs
4 Hon. Christopher Mbalibulha Committee Member: Agriculture, Animal Industry
and Fisheries
5 Hon. Augustine Ruzindana Former: 1) Inspector General of Government, 2)
Chairperson Public Accounts Committee 6
th
Parliament. Member: Budget Committee
6 Hon. Johnson Nkuuhe Member: 1) Budget Committee 2) Agriculture
Animal Industries and Fisheries 
Subtotal 6
Parliamentary Staff
1 Mr. Aeneas Tandekwire Clerk to Parliament
2. Mr. Chris Abwoli Kaija Under Secretary, Finance and Administration 
3 Mr. Manuel Pinto Director Office of Parliamentary Professional
Development
4 Mr. Samuel Wanyaka Director Parliamentary Budget Office
5 Mr. Assuman Golooba Senior Economist Budget Office
6 Mr. Hunington Asaba Economist Budget Office
5 Mr. Aloysius Makata Director Library, Research and Information
6 Ms. Margeret Ndawula Chief Legislative Counsel
7 Mr. Innocent Rugambwa Legislative Librarian
8 Mr. Ahmed Kagoye Sergeant At Arms
9 Mr. Paul Wabwire Senior Principle Assistant, Clerk’s Department
10 Ms. Victoria Kaddu Senior Personnel Officer
11 Mr. Enoth Tumkwasibwe Principle Research Officer
12 Mr. Kagole Kivumbi Parliamentary Public Relations Officer
13 Ms. Ranny Ismail Parliamentary Information Officer
14. Ms. Ester Mwambu Parliamentary Publications Officer
Subtotal 14
Civil Society
1 Rev. Canon Grace Kaiso Executive Director: Uganda Joint Christian Council
43
No Name Designation
2 Ms. Jackie Assimwe
Mwesige
Co-ordinator: Uganda Women’s Network
3 Ms. Margeret Rugadya Programme Officer; Uganda Land Alliance
Subtotal 3
Non-Parliamentary 
Politicians
1 Mr. Abu Mayanja Former: Parliamentarian: 2
nd and 5
th Parliaments, and 
Former Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney General
2 Ms. Margeret Oumo Oguli Director of Information Movement Secretariat, and
Member FIDA
3 Mr. Onyango Kakoba Former Member of Parliament 6th Parliament
Subtotal 3
Donors
1 Mr. John Anderson USAID
2 Mr. Don Elliot USAID
3 Ms. Liz Kiingi USAID
4 Mr. Albert Simunyu USAID
5 Mr. Patrick Mugabo USAID
6 Mr. Samuel Ibanda UNDP
7 Mr. Tom Wingfield DFID
Subtotal 7
SUNY/UPTAP
8 Mr. Dick Cassidy 
(Communicated by email)
Formerly with SUNY/UPTAP
9 Ms. Donna Bugby 
(Communicated by email)
Formerly with SUNY/UPTAP
10 Ms. Betty Byanyima 
(Communicated 
Telephonically)
Formerly with SUNY/UPTAP
Subtotal 3
Grand 
Total
36