National Service Delivery Survey (NSDS) 2015

1. 1
THE 2015
NATIONAL SERVICE
DELIVERY SURVEY
(NSDS)
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
PART I
June 21, 2016

2. Introduction
 The public service is the main implementing
machinery for national development programmes
and specifically, the National Development Plan
(NDP)
 The public service needs to institutionalize
mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the
delivery of public services to the citizens
 This is done to ensure that strategies are in place
for feedback from clients regarding the efficiency
and effectiveness of service delivery, and
mechanisms for continuous improvement .

3. Background
 A baseline Service Delivery Survey was conducted
in 1995/96 and was piloted only in 9 districts

 This Survey had limited services covered which
included health, Agriculture extension Programs
and Customs Services of URA
 The first National Service Delivery Survey (NSDS)
was conducted in 2000 by a consortium of firms
led by Development Consultants International
(DCI).

4. Background (ctd)
 The Administrative Reform Secretariat of the Ministry
of Public Service (MPS) coordinated the survey and
the Uganda Bureau of Statistics provided technical
support to the survey.
 The survey provided baseline information on
Education, Health, Road Infrastructure, Water and
sanitation, Agriculture and Veterinary extension
services and Governance (Law, Order and Access to
Justice).
 In 2004, the second NSDS was conducted as part of a
continuous series of the NSDS that provide periodical
updates on the performance of public services with
regard to availability, accessibility, utilization and
satisfaction of services

5. Background (ctd)
• In 2008, the third NSDS was conducted. This was still
in collaboration with UBOS and other stakeholders as
part of a continuous series of the NSDS.
• Detailed Issues that were covered included, health
services, education, agriculture, water and sanitation,
energy, transport, housing, justice, law and order,
governance and public sector management.

6. NSDS 2015
The Ministry of Public Service in
conjunction with Uganda Bureau
of Statistics and other
stakeholders undertook the NSDS
2015

7. Objectives of the survey
 The overall objective of the NSDS is to provide a
comprehensive assessment of the trends in service
delivery in the areas that were covered in the
previous survey and to obtain a baseline position in
the areas that were not covered.
 The survey aimed at establishing the availability,
accessibility, cost and utilization of services and
whether service recipients are satisfied with the
trends in service delivery, in terms of coverage,
quantity and quality.

8. Specific Objectives
 To provide up to date information about the
performance and impact of selected public
services at local government and national level.
 To measure changes in service delivery in
selected sectors
 To identify constraints and gaps in the
provision of selected government services by
sectors
 To provide recommendations for improvement
in service delivery.
 To generate and disseminate information about
services offered by selected government
sectors.

9. Coverage
 Survey comprised of a nationally representative
sample with no limitations of geographical
coverage
 Survey provides regional level estimates all
over the country
 Survey provides both rural and urban estimates
at national level
 Survey provide estimates for other groups like
Islands and hard to reach districts

10. 10
SECTORS COVERED
Education
Health
Water, Sanitation & Environment
Housing and Energy use
Agriculture & Extension services
Transport
Justice, Law and Order
Public Sector Management and
Accountability

11. 11
ISSUES COVERED
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of
households,
Availability of services,
Accessibility to services,
Payment for and utilization of services,
Satisfaction with service delivery
Challenges in service delivery

12. Survey Description
 Questionnaire administration in two parts;
 Household schedule (including
demographics, socioeconomic variables
and services at household level etc)
 Service Provider Questionnaires
 District
 Sub – County

13. Working Committees
 A technical working committee comprised of
members from different Ministries,
Departments and Agencies to guide the
survey in the technical aspects. The
Committee was Chaired by UBOS while the
Ministry of Public Service was Secretariat.
 A Steering Committee which was comprised
of Permanent Secretaries had an oversight
role during the survey and it was being
chaired by the Head of Public Service
13

14. 14
THE 2015
NATIONAL SERVICE
DELIVERY SURVEY
(NSDS)
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
PART II
June 21, 2016

15. 15
SURVEY COVERAGE
A total of 1100 Enumeration Areas
selected from the 2014 Census were
targeted to yield a sample of
approx.11,000 households.
Nationwide survey covering all 112
districts.
Districts were stratified into 15 sub-
regions on basis of socio-economic
characteristics.

16. 16

17. SURVEY DESIGN
Used a two-stage stratified sampling
design
First Stage – Enumeration Area
Second Stage - Household
Reliable estimation at:-
 National,
 Rural-urban and
15 district groupings

18. SURVEY ORGANISATION
A total of 16 teams were formed to
conduct the survey.
A listing exercise was undertaken in all
the sampled EAs. Each listing team
comprised of 3 persons.
For the main survey, each team
comprised of a team supervisor (Team
Leader), 4 interviewers and a driver.

19. 19
RESPONSE RATES
Completed
Partially
completed
Not
interviewed Total
Response
rate
Rural 7,886 17 295 8,198 96.2
Urban
2,215 7 257 2,479 91.8
Overall
10,101 24 552 10,677 95.5
Response Rate=C*100
C+PC+NI
Where C=Completed, PC=Partially
Completed and NI=Not Interviewed

20. 20
NSDS 2015
MAJOR FINDINGS

21. 21
HOUSEHOLD POPULATION
Estimated Total Population - 36.3m
Male population - 17.7m
(48.8%)
Female Population - 18.6m
(51.2%)
Sex Ratio - 95.2

22. Characteristics of Household Heads
27
70
59 61
Female headed
household
Literacy rate Agegp of Majority of
HH heads(25-49)
Agricultural
engagement in last 7
days

23. Characteristics of the respondents
32
68
34
66
3
4
26
67
9
90
2
53
47
Non - Agriculture
Agriculture
Non-Literate
Literate
Other
Son or Daughter
Spouse
Head
65+
18-64
0-17
Female
Male
Industry
of
employ
ment
Literacy
status
Relationship
to
head
Age
Sex

24. EDUCATION

25. 25
Current schooling status (6-12yrs)
82
91
16
8
2
1
2008
2015
Currently schooling Never attended school
left school

26. Gender Parity in School Enrolment
0.99
0.93
0.96
0.91
0.97
0.96
0.94
1.09
0.99
0.94
primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Rural
Urban
Mountain
ous
Islands
National

27. Percentage of Pupils Attending Day Primary
School by Distance to School (kms)
83
12
4 2 2.4
87
8
3 3 2.2
84
11
4 2 2.4
0-3kms >3 to 5kms >5 to 10kms >10km Mean distance
to school
Rural Urban Uganda

28. 28
School Feeding – Primary
33
18 20
28
46
20 21
14
Lunch at
School
Packed
from Home
Go back No Lunch
2008 2015

29. Primary Schools by How Pupils
Get Lunch
40
74
46 46
20
13
31
20
24
7
18
21
16
7
4
14
Government Private Both Govt &
Private
Uganda
Lunch at School Packed from home Go back home No lunch

30. Classrooms in Primary Schools:
Availability vs Adequacy
100 100 100 100
29
58
46
34
Government Private Both Govt &
private
Uganda
Availability Adequacy

31. Pupil Teacher Ratio and Pupil
Stance Ratio
Funder Primary Schools
Pupil
Teacher
Ratio
Pupil Stance Ratio
Girls Boys
Gov’t 55 75 78
Private 23 41 39
Gov’t
&Private
43 56 50
National 50 69 71

32. 32
Adequacy of Facilities
Facility 2008 2015
Classrooms 33.3 34.3
Teacher’s houses 10.7 6.9
Library 32.5 28.0
Toilet/Latrine 34.5 37.0
Store 35.8 45.5
Staffroom 50.7 53.0
Head teachers’ office 56.9 56.4

33. Secondary schools

34. Secondary Schools by How Students
Get Lunch
85
92
86 87
4 1 4 4
5 5 3 5
6
2
6 5
Government Private Both Govt &
Private
Uganda
Lunch at School Packed from home Go back home No lunch

35. Classrooms in Secondary Schools:
Availability vs Adequacy
100 100 100 100
39
68
43
47
Government Private Both Govt & private Uganda
Availability Adequacy

36. Student Teacher Ratio and
Student Stance Ratio
Funder Secondary Schools
Student
Teacher
Ratio
Student Stance Ratio
Girls Boys
Gov’t 32 53 67
Private 20 38 43
Gov’t
&Private
30 50 66
National 29 49 61

37. 37
Key findings
91% of persons 6 – 12 years are currently
attending school
46% of primary school pupils get lunch at
school
The Average Pupil Teacher Ratio was 50
pupils per teacher but higher in
government schools.
Over 8 in every 10 day pupils traveled
3kms or less to school

38. 38
Key findings ctd…
Only three in every ten Schools who owned
buildings reported that they were adequate.
The Student stance ratio for secondary schools
was reported as 49 for girls and 61 for boys
29% of children never attended school due to
economic factors

39. HEALTH

40. Incidence of Sickness
Population that fell sick in the
last 30 days,2015
1.9
57.9
14.2
4.3
2.3
18.3
Type of Illness
Other
Diarrhea
Skin
infections
Respiratory
Flu & Cold
Fever/malaria
Fell
sick
26%
Did not
fall sick
74%
NSDS 2008
Fever/malaria
= 44.7%
Others include:
Accident, Dental, Ulcers,
Hyper-tension, Birth-related,
Mental illness, Measles,
STI/HIV/AIDS
NSDS
2008
36%

41. 41
First Source of Treatment
29
18
2
33
11
4 3 3 2
7
8
16
27
37
3 1
0
1
10
36
51
Government
health facility
Private health
facility
Pharmacy /
drug shop
Home/self
medication
None Religious /
Mission facility
Other
2004 2008 2015
Trend for Rural
and Urban is
similar

42. 42
Median Distance to First
Source of Treatment
Central2
1.6 km
Government
Health Facility
Other Health
Facility
2008 2015 2008 2015
Urban 3.8 2.0 2.5 0.9
Rural 5.9 3.2 5.0 1.6
Overall 5.7 3.0 4.7 1.2
Acholi
4.8 km

43. Utilisation of Health Services in the Last 12
Months
9
84
26
92
19
97
20
89
40
95
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Received service
Used service
Received service
Used service
Received service
Used service
Received service
Used service
Received service
Used service
Post-Natal
Care
Delivery
Ante-natal
Family
planning
Child
immunisati
on

44. 44
Payment for health services
Percentage of patients who paid for Government
Health Services
Paid
20%
Did not pay
80%
NSDS 2008
26%

45. Payment For Health services
85
74
75
83
71
11
17
22
15
24
4
9
4
2
5
Post-Natal care
Delivery
Ante-natal
Family Planning
Immunisation
Official Requirement Demanded Token of thanks

46. Change in Quality of health
services
46
47
53
46
48
36
35
61
62
40
33
41
37
38
38
31
30
9
12
8
12
21
25
3
6
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
Overall
quality
of
service
Resposiv
eness
of
staff
Availabilit
y
of
drugs
Cleanline
ss Improved Same Worsened N/A

47. 47
Key findings
26% of household members fell sick or sustained
an injury during the 30 days preceding the
interview.
58% of the population that fell sick reported
malaria/fever as the most common illness.
Slightly over a half of the population (51%) that fell
sick sought treatment from a government health
facility.
The median distance to a government health
facility where treatment was sought is 3km.

48. 48
Key findings (cont’d)
62% of persons that used health services felt that
the services had improved
Two in every ten of persons that had accessed
and received health services paid for them.

49. 49
WATER
Water and Sanitation

50. 50
Access to safe water
Safe water sources
 Piped water
 Borehole
 Protected wells & springs
 Gravity flow
 Rain Water
Access to Safe Water for Drinking
2004 2008 2015
Dry Season - 70% 72% 75%
Wet Season - 77% 82% 87%

51. 51
Distance to safe water within 1.5km
80
85.6
84.3
86.7
Dry Season Wet Season
2008 2015
National
Target
1.5 km

52. Households by Change in Availability
of Safe Water Since 2010
12
52
38
37
47
5
3
6
2008
2015
Improved Same Worsened DK

53. 53
Constraints to use of safe water
34
47
10 9
27
50
13
9
36
40
10
14
Long
Distance
Inadeq.
Sources
High Cost Other
Constraints
Percentage
2004 2008 2015
Urban dwellers pay almost three times more
(15000) than those in rural areas (6000)

54. Households Reporting Paying for
Water by Purpose of Payment
42
42
44
55
56
54
3
2
2
2004
2008
2015
User fees Maintenance costs Other

55. 55
SANITATION

56. 56
Toilet facilities
No Toilet
6%
Other
9%
VIP latrine
6%
Uncovered pit
latrine
9%
Covered pit
latrine without
slab
40%
Covered pit
latrine with slab
30%
2008 –
11.5%

57. 57
18
29
44
26
45
29
56
21
23
Ignorance High Cost Other*
Percentage
2004 2008 2015
Factors limiting construction of
toilet facilities

58. 58
Key findings
 Access to Safe water improved from 72% in 2008 to
75% in 2015 during the dry season
 The proportion of households who are within 1.5km
has increased since 2008
 Half of the households reported an improvement in the
availability of safe water
 Overall 6% of the HHs did not have toilet facilities
compared to 12% in 2008. In Karamoja 44% lacked a
toilet facility.
 Only 22% of the HHs had provision for hand washing
after toilet use less than 26% reported in 2008.

59. 59
HOUSING

60. Household Land Tenure System
13
23
15
27
35
29
2
5
2
64
45
61
Rural
Urban
National
Mailo Freehold Leasehold Customary

61. 61
Ownership and Registration of Land
83
27
35
77
29
58
Own Land Land Registered with Title
Rural Urban
Uganda

62. 62
Type of Roof Material
36
1
73
26
0.7
63
Iron sheets Thatched Other
2008 2015

63. 63
Type of Wall Material
41
56
3
32
63
5
Mud and Poles Bricks Other
2008 2015

64. 64
ENERGY USE

65. 65
Type of Fuel Used for Lighting
84
10 6
0.2
47
26
2
25
Paraffin Electricity Firewood Others*
2008 2015

66. Main Source of Energy for Lighting
53
27
47
17
57
26
2
0.4
2
28
16
25
Rural
Urban
National
Parrafin Electricity Firewood Others*

67. Main Source of Firewood
69
53
67
8
22
9
22
22.6
22
1
2
1
Rural
Urban
National
Bush/Forest Market Own plantation Others*

68. Availability of Electricity and Load
Shedding
Availability and
Load Shedding Rural Urban National
Average number
of Hours a day
Electricity is
Available 17.5 20.2 19.4
Average number
of days of Load-
Shedding in a
typical week 1.5 1.2 1.3

69. Households by Type of Payment for
Electricity and Affordability (%)
Type of payment
Location
HHs that Pay
for the
Electricity
consumed
Pre-Paid
(Yaka, Etc.)
Post-Paid
Metered
HHs that think
the tariffs in
affordable
Residence
Rural 88.5 30.4 69.6 51.8
Urban 96.0 43.6 56.4 54.8
Mountainous 76.9 26.8 73.2 56.6
Islands 96.4 56.8 43.2 57.5
National 93.4 39.4 60.6 53.9

70. Households by Factors that Affect
Access and Use of Electricity
58
60
60
10
10
10
20
15
17
60
56
57
18
22
21
28
31
30
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
Rural
Urban
National
Rural
Urban
National
Access
Use
High Connection Costs High Tariffs
Poverty Inadequate Supply Leading To Load Shedding
Other*

71. Households Satisfied with Quality of Electricity
Services (%)
Rural Urban National
Average number of hours
taken to restore power 33.9 34.2 34.2
HHs satisfied with the
quality of services
provided (%) 64.6 60.5 61.8
Reasons for dissatisfaction (%)
High Tariffs 69.3 75.6 73.7
Overbilling 42.3 30.1 33.7
Frequent Load Shedding 33.4 25.4 27.7
Delayed Reconnection In
Case Of Disconnection 16.8 12.8 13.9
Poor Customer Care 6.1 16.0 13.1
Poor Attitude Of Staff 7.1 10.6 9.6
Late Delivery Of Bills 6.0 5.6 5.7
Low Voltage 0.6 5.6 4.1
Rampant Illegal
Connections 2.8 4.2 3.7

72. Key Findings
 Close to eight in every ten households (77%)
own land regardless of the purpose
 Households using iron sheets for roofing
improved from 63% to 73%
 Use of electricity for lighting has improved
from 10% in 2008 to 26% in 2015
 High connection costs was the main factor
affecting access to electricity
72

73. Key Findings
 Average number of hours taken to restore
power is 34.2 hours
 62% of households were satisfied with the
quality of electricity services provided
73

74. 74
THE 2015
NATIONAL SERVICE
DELIVERY SURVEY
(NSDS)
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
PART III
June 21, 2016

75. 75
AGRICULTURE

76. Household involvement in
Agricultural activities
76
64
75
76
36
25
24
2004
2008
2015
Agricultural HH Non-Agricultural HH

77. Households by Major Crops Grown
57
48
55
47
60
54
59
51
56
54
54
59
75
36
41
53
55
58
58
58
59
60
61
63
64
81
Oranges
Sweet
potatoes
Matooke
Groundnuts
Irish Potatoes
Cassava
Cotton
Simsim
Tobacco
Beans
Maize
Rice
Coffee
2015 2008

78. Agricultural Inputs
78

79. 79
Use of Agricultural Inputs (%)
7
5
24
9
11
29
16
56
1
6
12
16
22
29
33
70
Animal feeds
Pasture seed
Organic
manure
Fungicides
Herbicides
Hybrid seeds
Pesticides
Planting
materials
2015 2008
Mainly planting
materials

80. Reason for Non-use of Agricultural Inputs
27
53
27
16
17
12
28
18
1
1
2015
2008
No knowledge Too expensive Not available Not useful Other

81. Type and Source of Inputs

82. 82
Change in Availability of Inputs
3
6
9
10
20
23
25
29
31
37
38
50
34
40
38
41
47
44
41
42
40
42
37
39
3
4
5
5
5
7
6
6
9
6
4
4
60
51
48
43
29
26
27
22
21
15
21
7
Fish fry/fingerings
Artificial Insemination
Pasture seed
Breeding stock
Animal Feeds
Artificial Fertilizers
Fungicides
Herbicides
Hybrid Seeds
Pesticides
Veterinary drugs
Planting materials
Improved Same Worsened N/A

83. Households’ Sources of Market
Information for Inputs (%)
73
67
13
24
9
6
5
3
2008
2015
Fellow Farmers Radio/Tv/Newspaper Local Council Officials Others

84. Extension services

85. Households by Activity and Source of
Extension Service (%)
34
29
12
52
21
7
7
3
23
9
3
0.3
Crop
Husband
ry
Veterina
ry
Gov'tOfficial Private NGO/CBO

86. Households by Quality of Extension Services
75
83
65
19
13
24
6
4
11
Crop
husband
ry
Veterina
ry
Fisheries
Good Average Poor

87. Source of Credit for Agricultural
Extension Services
SACCO
44%
Relative/
Friend
20%
Other
19%
Bank
12%
NGO
3%
Corporate
Company
2%

88. Water for Production

89. Communities by Operational Sources of
Water for Production (%)

90. Communities by Smallholder Farmer
Technologies commonly used in Water for
Production (%)

91. Small Holder Farmer Technologies Used in
Water for Production (%)
61
55
40
33
27
8
32
33
24
26
18
7
53
49
36
31
24
7
Maize
Beans
Cassava
Bananas
Dairy Cattle
Fish Farming
National Urban Rural

92. 92
Key findings
 Three in every four households were engaged
in Agriculture.
 Most common inputs mentioned were
planting materials.
 75% of households involved in crop
husbandry reported an improvement in
quality of extension services in the past two
years.

93. Key findings cont’d
 80 percent of the communities reported
direct rain in season as the main source of
water for production
 44% reported SACCOs to be the main
sources of credit for agricultural
purposes.
93

94. 94
TRANSPORT

95. Households by Type of Nearest Road (%)
2004 2008 2015
Type of
Road Rural Urban National Rural Urban National Rural Urban National
Trunk
road
(Tarmac) 3.8 23.0 10.2 3.3 11.4 4.7 3.5 9.1 4.8
Trunk
road
(Murra
m) 12.6 16.1 13.8 8.4 5.7 7.9 8.6 6.4 8.1
District
road 29.1 32.3 30.2 21.5 31.8 23.3 26.3 23.3 25.6
Commu
nity
Road 54.5 28.6 45.9 66.9 51.1 64.1 61.6 61.2 61.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

96. 96
Access to Road Infrastructure
62% of HHs reported community road as
the nearest type of road to their
households
85% of the HHs reported access to good
and usable roads all year round
64% in
2008
90% in
2008

97. Households Reporting All Year Round
Usability of the Nearest Road (%)
98
91
90
89
90
96
86
88
84
85
Trunk Roads(Tarmac)
Trunk Raod(Murram)
Feeder Road
Community Road
All Roads
2015 2008

98. Constraints met in use of
roads
7
35
28
23
5
5
7
30
35
36
39
28
53
23
26
19
Trunk road (Tarmac)
Trunk Road (Murram)
Feeder road
Community road
Bad Weather Bushy Roads Potholes Others*
98

99. Reasons for Poor State of Roads
0
13
17
15
25
16
12
6
21
18
11
15
54
46
32
34
42
37
0.4
1
4
1
35
36
30
33
18
30
Trunkroad (Tarmac)
Trunkroad (Murram)
Districtroad
Community Road
Bridges/Culverts
National
Bad Weather Lack of Equipment Poor Maintenance Lack of Engineers Other

100. Change in Road
Maintenance in Last 2 years
100
55
50
36
20
61
58
47
27
34
38
48
59
27
30
38
49
11
12
16
21
12
12
15
24
Trunk Road (Tarmac)
Trunk Road (Murram)
Feeder Road
Community Road
Trunk Road (Tarmac)
Trunk Road (Murram)
Feeder Road
Community Road
2008
2015
Improved Same Worsened

101. Possession of Minimum Road Maintenance
Equipment by District
71
50
68
47
96
47
94
45
Grader Wheel loader Tipper Have All three
equipment
2008 2015

102. Reasons Sub-counties Could not Access
Road Equipment from District (%)
19
12
42
55
47
21
8
4
6
18
37
30
2004
2008
2015
Busy in Other Areas Lack of fuel at S/county
Poorrelations with Dist HQ others

103. Change in Maintenance and Repair of Roads (%)
31
13
25
55
51
42
14
36
32
2004
2008
2015
Improved Same Worsened

104. Households by Knowledge of Road Safety
Issues (%)
3
5
8
16
16
26
27
35
43
79
86
If you are driving, stop when you feel…
Be courteous and considerate to other…
No use of phones while driving/riding
When riding, wear a helmet
Use of seat belts
Respect the Highway Code
Avoid overloading
No drunk/drug driving
Obey speed limits
Look, listen, think beforeyou crossa road
%age aware of any road safety issues

105. 105
Constraints faced in road
maintenance
Inadequate funding is still the
most serious constraint
2015 – 66%
2008 - 66%
2004 - 49%.
*As reported by Local Governments

106. 106
Construction of new road
infrastructure
 The highest number of new constructions in
the 2 years preceding the survey was of
bridges/culvert crossings
2015 – 71%
2008 – 59%
2004 – 60%
 The highest proportion of new roads were
community roads
2015– 67%
2008 – 45%
2004 – 49%

107. 107
WATER TRANSPORT

108. Type of Water Transport by Major
Provider (%)
8
86
14
24
7
81
12
28
3
65
30
92
14
87
76
93
19
88
72
90
3
26
47
7
32
74
24
Boats
Ferry
Other
Group Total
Boats
Ferry
Other
Group Total
Boats
Ferry
Other
Group Total
2004
2008
2015
Government Private Don't know

109. 109
Constraints in use of water
transport (%)
48
29
21
4
2
27
48
18
0
3
Boats Ferry
Other
Insecurity
High Cost
Unreliable
Bad
Weather

110. 110
Satisfaction with Water Transport
Services Provided by Government
39
69
62
31
Yes No
2008 2015

111. 111
Key findings
 64% of households reported access to community
roads
 Bushy roads are a major constraint in use of
community roads
 96% of districts have a grader
 12% of the Households reported using water transport
 The private sector is still the major provider of water
transport services
 Bad weather and unreliability were the major
constraints to usage of water transport.
 69% of the households that used water transport were
satisfied with the service

112. 112
JUSTICE, LAW AND ORDER

113. Number of Districts by Institutions that
had contact with Communities
Institution Yes No
Institution
Not In District Total
Uganda Police 107 3 - 110
Magistrates
courts 82 5 11 98
Prisons 86 9 11 106
Uganda Human
Rights
Commission 25 2 75 102
Resident State
Attorney 65 6 30 101
Administrator
General 27 6 73 106
Uganda
Registration
Services Bureau 10 - 94 104
Immigration
Department 16 - 87 103

114. Households that Had an Issue/Case that
Required Intervention (%)
2008 2015
Institution Rural Urban National Rural Urban National
Customary
Courts 14.3 9.5 13.8 16.8 12.6 16.2
LC1 21.0 22.2 21.2 24.0 33.8 26.1
LC II 4.9 3.1 4.7 5.5 5.3 5.5
LC III 4.0 3.6 4.0 5.6 7.8 6.0
Uganda
Police 9.8 13.4 10.5 11.9 19.3 13.6
Prisons 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.0 2.3 2.1
Magistrates
Court 2.9 5.7 3.5 3.5 5.0 3.9

115. 115
Nature of case requiring Arbitration (%)
10
32
64
52
7 7
8
5
12
5
Admin Service Complaint Summon Arrest Other
2008 2015

116. Distribution of Households that Made Payments (%)
55
45
47
52
41
49
40
40
39
33
36
23
64
56
47
51
51
42
51
40
46
30
38
29
62
52
47
52
50
43
49
40
45
31
38
28
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
Uganda
Police
Magistr
ates
court
LCII
LCI
LCIII
Custo
mary
courts Urban Rural National

117. Households Satisfied with Services of Institutions
/Courts (%)
74
92
80
90
86
90
79
82
64
75
56
64
84
90
77
84
72
83
74
82
64
75
62
67
84
90
78
86
73
85
74
82
64
75
60
66
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
Uganda
Police
Magistr
ates
court
LCII
LCI
LCIII
Custom
ary
courts
Urban Rural National

118. Household members’ Involvement in
Resource Management (%)
12
11
10
8
8
7
3
3
5
4
16
10
12
8
9
6
4
3
6
5
72
79
78
84
83
86
92
94
89
91
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
Identifyin
g
Developm
ent
Projects
Prioritisin
g
the
Developm
ent
Projects
Planning
for
Developm
ent
Projects
Value
for
Money
Audits
Monitorin
g
and
evaluatio
n Involved Fairly involved NotInvolved

119. 119
Time it Took to Resolve Issue/case (%
hhs)
76.9 81
11.2 7
3.1 3
9 8.8 8.8
<1 month 1 - 6 months 7 months + Case
pending
2008 2015
< than 1 month
Uganda Police – 81%
LC1 Courts– 89%
Customary Courts– 81%

120. Identification and Travel Documents

121. Persons with Identification Documents
(%)
1
6 2
91 88 90
62
67
63
Rural Urban National
Have a passport Applied for ID Received and ID

122. How travel documents are obtained (%)
11
19
25
10
17
10
4
2
2
3
2
2
85
79
73
87
81
88
Passport
Temporary Movement Permits
Certificates Of Identity
Passport
Temporary Movement Permits
Certificates Of Identity
2008
2015
Directly From The Concerned Office
Through Intermediaries
Don't Know

123. Ease of access to obtaining Passport by
Residence and Year (%)
3
3
3
5
3
4
15
19
17
18
20
19
38
38
38
42
42
42
33
34
33
32
30
31
10
6
9
4
5
4
Rural
Urban
Total
Rural
Urban
Total
2008
2015
Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult Don't Know

124. Persons by knowledge of National Symbols (%)
Uganda Flag Coat of Arms
Knowledge
of
National
Anthem
Location
Knowledge
of colors
Mentioned
All Correctly
Knowledge
of
Key features
Mentioned
All Correctly
Residence
Rural
79.4 79.5 52.3 19.8 65.9
Urban
88.7 87.0 67.5 30.8 80.0
National
81.3 81.1 55.3 22.4 68.7

125. Persons Aware of the East African Community (%)
17
31
19
Rural
Urban
National

126. 126
Key findings
 81 percent of the cases reported to
institutions/courts for arbitration took less than
one month
 90 percent of the households satisfied with
Uganda Police
 Only two percent of Ugandans have passports
and most people find it difficult to obtain a
passport
 Only 19 percent of households know about the
East african Community

127. 127
PUBLIC SECTOR
MANAGEMENT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY

128. Rating of the Performance of Civil Servants
37
28
35
49
42
48
36
43
37
34
36
35
14
16
14
12
17
13
14
13
13
4
5
4
Urban
Rural
Uganda
Urban
Rural
Uganda
2008
2015
Good Average Poor Don't Know

129. Employment by Government and
Payment of Salaries (%)
6 6
61
52
94 94
39
48
2015 2008 2015 2008
Household with government employee Salary Paid on time
Yes No

130. Perception About the Pay of Civil Servants (%)
40 42
66
42
61 58
34
58
2015 2008 2015 2008
Is pay adequate Does pay affect service
delivery?
Yes No

131. Respondents’ Perception on how Level of Pay
Affects Service Delivery
60
47
39
29
32
25
19
16
Absenteeism
Low motivation
Encourages corruption
Late Coming
Mis- management
Poor customer care
Embezzlement
Increases efficiency
Effects
of
Low
Pay
Effects
of
High
pay

132. Rating of Government Resource Utilization-
Availability and Appropriate Utilization (%)
71
15
22
88
62 66
61
22
16
91
78 82
Gov't
buildings
Gov't
Vechiles
Other Gov't
property
Gov't
buildings
Gov't
Vechiles
Other Gov't
property
Availability Appropriately utilized
2008 2015

133. Corruption
133

134. Underlying Causes of Corruption
14
4
6
6
6
7
10
11
19
42
78
Other*
Dysfunctional systems
Lack of job security
Lack of transparency and…
Lack of stringentpunishmentfor…
Lack of political will to fight…
Lack of knowledge of the public…
Poor supervisionof workers
Weak laws
Lowsalaries
Greed

135. 135
Forms of Corruption Prevalent in the
Public Sector(%)
78
65
61 59
50
43
Bribery Embezelment Absenteeism Nepotism Fraud Extortion

136. 136
Experience of Corruption Tendencies(%)
23
10
17
15
10 9
Bribery Embezzlement Absenteeism Nepotism Fraud Extortion

137. 137
Awareness About Government’s Effort
to Fight Corruption (%)
16
10
8
7 7 7
Bribery Embezzlement Absenteeism Nepotism Fraud Extortion

138. Changes in the level of corruption
in Uganda
Increased
83%
Remained
The Same
8%
Decreased
9%

139. Respondents by Most Corrupt
Government Institution
11
1
2
2
4
5
6
19
38
50
75
Others*
PPDA
Immigration Department
KCCA
Prisons Service
URA
UNRA
Judiciary
Hospitals/Health Facilities
Local Government
Police

140. Suggestions of the most effective
way of tackling Corruption (%)
6
7
12
14
17
44
Others*
Strengthen Anti-Corruption
Institutions
Strict Supervision Of PublicService
Employees
Improve Salaries
Sensitize/Educate The PublicAbout
Evils Of Corruption
Strengthen EnforcementOf Laws
On Corruption

141. Moral Decadence

142. Respondent’s Perception of Existence
of Moral Decadence (%)
Respondents
that perceive
that there is
moral
decadence
Causes of moral decadence in Uganda
Location
Peer
influence
Condonin
g
attitude
of
society
Poor
parenting
Family
breakdown Poverty
Media
influence
Rural
90.8 49.2 24.7 34.9 15.3 56.1 24.0
Urban
94.3 50.4 27.3 38.7 16.2 52.0 31.8
National
91.6 49.4 25.3 35.7 15.5 55.2 25.8

143. Pension

144. Perceptions on pension
2
2
47
55
45
42
98
98
53
45
55
58
2008
2015
2008
2015
2008
2015
HH
with
retired
Governmen
t
employee
Applied
for
Pension?
Receiving
Pension?
Yes No

145. Use of Pension
48
45
10
24
21
18
6
8
15
6
2008
2015
Pay School Fees Invest In Business Other Household Expenses
Meet Cost Of Healthcare Other *

146. Key Findings
 About half of the households (48%) rated the
performance of civil servants as good
 Only two percent of households reported
having a member who retired from Civil
service.
 Of the retired members who applied for
pension, 42 percent had succeeded in get
ting their pension payments
 23% of households reported that they had
been victims of bribery
146

147. Key Findings
 Most of the respondents indicated that
greed was the most underlying causes of
corruption
 Three quarters of the respondents
mentioned the Police as the most corrupt
Government Institution
 92% of the respondents indicated that
they were aware of forms of moral
decadence
 83% of the population reported that
corruption had increased
147

148. THANK YOU
148