Uganda Police Budget

UGANDA POLICE FORCE BUDGET: FY 99/00-03/04

The budgeting framework of the Uganda Police Force vote, like JLOS, its mother sector, does not totally match that of its institutional framework. Under the institutional framework, UPF is categorised into:

●4 directorates: Administration, Operation, Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and Special Branch.

●Special units, including: Criminal Investigation Department; Fire, Railways, Estates, Marines, Dog, Airwing, Avipol and Quarter Master

Under the budgeting framework however, the above directorates and units are classified into the eight programmes listed in the first column of Table 4.1 below. Each of the eight budget programmes of the Force are further divided into eight cost centres listed in the second column of Table 4.1 under which funds are allocated during the budgeting process.

Table 4.1: Uganda Police Force Budget Structure

4.1 Uganda Police Force Inter-Programme Budget Allocations

This section examines the mandates of each of the above programmes and trends in their budget allocations. It also examines the type of cost items included under each of the above cost centres. Unlike at the sector and vote budget levels where it has been possible to undertake budget analysis based on outturn figures for the respective budget lines, this section uses approved budget estimate figures for its budget analysis. This is because of the absences of reliable outturn expenditure figures at the programme and cost centre level. This should not however, pose a problem given that the discrepancy between the approved budget estimates and budget outturn figures in the case of the UPF vote is within the acceptable level of plus or minus 5%. The UPF vote’s average annual share of its outturn budgets as a percentage of the approved budgets for the first four years of the review period is 98% with a range of 14 percentage points between the highest and lowest budget performance levels (Table 3.7). These figures however, do not immediately tell the story of what has happened to the Force’s development as later revealed.

Another element of critical importance in the comparative analysis of programme budgets under this section is that the figures used are for the programmes’ recurrent expenditures and exclude the development budget component. The reason for this is that development funding for the Force is realised by MFPED on a project as opposed to programme basis. It is therefore not possible to attribute particular development expenditures to a single programme.

17

However, the section does provide a brief analysis of the overall trend in the Force’s development budget.

4.1.1 Budget Programmes: Mandates18

Inspector General of Police (IGP):

The office of the IGP is the apex office in the institutional structure of the UPF and is responsible for senior management and overall coordination of the entire Force. Immediately under the IGP is the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) who is supported by a total of four Commissioners and five Assistant Commissioners (see Annex 3 for detailed organogram).

Administrative Service:

This includes all the support services under human resource management, human resource development, non-human resources and medical supplies.

Operation Service:

This includes all the core functions of the Force such as crime detection and prevention, traffic and road safety, public order and safety and community assistance.

Criminal Investigation Department (CID):

CID is a directorate and is mandated to:

●Detect crime;

●Gather information on criminals and disseminate it with a view to detect crime;

●Receive complaints on criminals and investigate;

●Gather criminal evidence and assemble it for purposes of criminal prosecution.

Special Branch Services:

These are charged with the responsibility of detecting and investigating state related offences.

Mobile Police Patrol Unit:

This unit is responsible for preventing crime and carrying out general policing duties.

Local Defence Units:

These are local residents appointed by an officer-in-charge of a given area in which an unlawful activity has occurred or is likely to occur. Their responsibility is to reinforce members of the Force ordinarily employed for maintenance of law and order in that area.19 The Inspector General determines the terms and forms of their appointment. In terms of administration, they are answerable to the Local Government but the Inspector General is responsible for matters pertaining to their standardisation and training.

Anti-Stock Theft Unit:

This is a part of UPF’s auxiliary forces whose recruitment is provided for under Part VIII and section 65 (1) of the Police Statute 1994. The unit was formed as part of GoU’s strategy for protecting and maintaining peace in the districts neighbouring Karamoja20. It is made up of hundreds of vigilantes recruited, trained and deployed to protect the neighbouring districts of Karamoja from armed aggression by the Karamojong.

18Uganda Police Force, (2003) PEAP Revision Submission; UPF, (1994) The Police Statute

19UPF, (1994) The Police Statute, Part VIII, Section 65 (1)

20UHRC, (2001) Annual Report (2000-2001)

18

4.1.2 Inter-Programme Recurrent Budget Analysis

Trends in the size and share of budget allocations to UPF programmes show an irregular pattern over the review period, reflecting either a substantial shift in the relative priority accorded to the different programmes or simply a gradual squeeze in size of resources allocated to particular programmes.

The most affected programmes include the Inspector General of Police and Operation Services. The budget size of the IGP programme as a share of the total UPF budget declined from 48% in 99/00 to 7.6 % in 2003/04 while that of Operation Services has risen from 13.64% in FY 99/00 to 32.27 percent. This most likely reflects the increased priority that GoU has accorded to development expenditure over recurrent expenditure during the review period as earlier shown in Figure 3.3. While this may be good news to the Operations Departments, it compromises the UPF’s ability to attain an optimal level of efficiency because increased capital investment must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in staff numbers and other recurrent consumables. It is also worth noting that while the budget share of the Operation Service programme has modestly improved, the rise has more to do with the small size of the Department’s starting budget as compared to the nominal increase in its budget size as shown in Table 4.2.

In terms of budget size ranking, the Operations Department currently has the highest budget share (32.27%) followed by the Local Defence Units (LDUs) department with 18.49%. Unlike the IGP and Operations Services, the trend of the LDU budget programme has been relatively even, averaging 17.4% over the review period with a variation of only 3.87 percentage points. Both the trend and share of the LDU’s budget programme is explained by the continued insurgency in areas in the north and the east of the country, which required an increase in the number of auxiliary forces under UPF. As of 2003, the total number of auxiliary forces under the UPF stood at 12,16021 (78% of the size of the regular police force of which 4,500 are Special Police Constables and 6,560 are Local Administration Police).

These forces need financial assistance from time to time in support of their activities to bolster security in conflict-affected areas of the country. The same is true of the Anti-Stock Theft budget programme whose share has steadily risen from 0.78% in 99/00 to its current level of 7.02%. The need for these auxiliary forces becomes clearer in the context of the challenge posed by the declining size of the regular police force against a background of a deepening decentralisation policy in the country. The third largest budget programme after Operation Services and LDU is the Administrative Services programme with a current budget share of 10.33% and an average of 6.68% over the review period. Its share has also modestly improved from 6.42% in 99/00 to 10.33% in FY 03/04. The programme registered a drastic rise in its budget in the FY 03/04 of 58.43% giving it the largest increase amongst UPF’s programmes for FY 2003/04. Again, the rise in this programme’s budget share has to do with the increased need for support service to the large number of auxiliary forces.

The budget shares of the Criminal Investigation Services, Mobile Police Patrol Unit and Special Branch Services programmes rose mildly over the first three years of the review period but plateaued over the last two years. As of now, there is no clear particular reason for this trend other than variation in relative programme priorities.

19

Table 4.2: UPF Programme Budget Shares for the Period 1999/00 to 2003/04

Figure 4.1: Trends in UPF Programmes’ Recurrent Budget Shares

4.1.3 UPF Development Budget.

Table 4.3: Uganda Police Force Development Budget FY 1999/00 – 2003/04 (Ushs. Millions)

Source: Approved Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure (1999/00 to 2003/04)

20

Table 4.3 above is a summary of the approved development budget allocations for UPF over the review period. Most notable from the table is the progressive decline in the size of funds allocated to the Force over the review period as shown in the sub-totals row. While the aggregate JLOS development budget is on a progressive rise at the sector level, the situation is the opposite in the case of the UPF development budget. The share of the development budget as a percentage of the total UPF budget has declined from 14.12% in FY 99/00 to 6.14% in FY 2003 (Table 4.4 & Figure 4.2). This very poorly compares with the growth of the overall JLOS development budget, which has risen from a percentage share of 32.8% to 44% over the same period.

Table 4.4: Relationship Between Uganda Police Force Recurrent and Development Budgets for FY 1999/00 – 2003/04 (Ushs. Millions)

Figure 4.2: Trend in the Relationship Between Uganda Police Force Recurrent and Development Budgets for FY 1999/00 – 2003/04 (Ushs. Billions)

4.1.4 Cost Centres

As earlier defined, a cost centre is a budget line where expenses on related cost items are budgeted and accounted for under a given budget programme. The eight UPF budget programmes are each sub-divided into eight cost centres (Table 4.1, column 2), and they include the cost items described below

Employee costs: Expenses under this cost centre include : staff salaries; allowances other than salaries; travelling and transport of person (inland and abroad); recreation, welfare and entertainment; and staff training.

Administrative costs: These include : office expenses; telephone, telefax, internet & e-mail service charges; maintenance of office equipment; and advertisement and public relations charges.

21

Supplies and services: Includes expenses on materials, supplies and manufactured goods.

Transport and plant cost: Covers expenses on operation and maintenance of vehicles; and fuels, lubricants and oil for vehicles used for administrative functions.

Property costs: Includes utility charges on electricity; water; other utilities such as gas, firewood and charcoal; and maintenance of buildings, grounds and equipments.

Transfer payments to other agencies: Covers mostly costs of participation in other programmes organised by other entities other than the UPF itself.

Other expenditures: Includes committee, council and Board expenses; medical treatment abroad; and information fund.

Loan charges: Includes domestic arrears and utilities arrears.

4.1.4 Cost Centre Budget Allocations

This section takes the budget analysis of the UPF budget a step further by looking at the Force’s budget allocations by cost centre. Of the eight cost centres, employee costs have consistently accounted for the largest share of the Department’s budget, averaging over 57% over the review period with the highest share (63.52%) being registered in FY 2001/02 and the lowest (52.72%) in 2000/01 (Table 4.6). Shares of the other seven cost centres show an inverse trend in their relationship to that of employee costs. Their budget shares peaked in the FYs 99/00 and 00/01 before plateauing in the subsequent years (FY 02/03 and 03/04).

Table 4.5: UPF Cost Centre Recurrent Budget Allocations for the Period FY 99/00 – 03/04

Source: MFPED, Approved Revenue and Expenditure Estimates (1999/00-2002/03) & 2003/04 Draft Revenue and Expenditure Estimates.

Table 4.6: UPF Cost Centre Budget Percentage Shares for the Period FY 99/00- 03/04

22

Figure 4.3: Trends in Budget Allocations to UPF Cost Centres

Source: MFPED Approved Revenue and Expenditure Estimates

4.2 Recurrent Budget Allocations to Other Security Agencies

The Internal Security Organisation (ISO), the External Security Organisation (ESO) and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), which includes the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI), are the other three main security organs of the GoU beside the UPF.

ISO and ESO are budget programmes under the budget vote of the Office of the President while UPDF – Land Forces and Air Forces – are budget programmes under the Ministry of Defence. ISO, like UPF, has the largest programme recurrent budget share under the Office of the President budget vote followed by ESO. Similarly UPDF (land forces) has the largest programme recurrent budget share under the Ministry of Defence. Inter-programme analysis of ESO, ISO, UPDF and UPF programme budgets based on outturn budget figures was not possible. This is because while ISO and ESO have separate programme budget codes under the approved budget expenditure estimates for the Office of the President budget vote, budgets allocations for the two programmes are not only combined at outturn level in the MTEF but are also categorised under a different sector (security) from the other programmes under the Office of the President budget vote.

It is also not possible to compare the relationship between the development and recurrent approved budget estimates for the three security agencies. As earlier stated, this is because approved estimates for development budgets are given at vote level and because the three security agencies are only programmes under their respective votes, it is not possible to isolate particular development budget allocations that they receive as programmes. The subsequent recurrent budget analysis is therefore based on approved budget estimates over the review period as opposed to budget outturn figures.

Table 4.7 is a summary of the period recurrent budget allocations to the ESO, ISO and UPDF programmes over the review period. The UPDF has the largest budget among the three security agencies, followed by ISO and lastly ESO.

23

Table 4.7: Annual Approved Recurrent Budget Allocation for Other Security Agencies (Ushs.)

* L&A =Land Forces and Air Forces

In terms of the annual budget growth rates, the budgets of all the three security agencies have on average been positively growing over the last four years of the review period (00/01-03/04). ISO leads with an annual average growth rate of 17%, followed by ESO with 16% and UPDF with 13%. UPF with an average annual growth rate of 13.62% (Table 4.4) over the same period compares favourably with this trend.

Of the three security agencies’ budgets, only that of UPDF has had a continuously progressively positive annual growth rate over the last four years of the review period (Figure 4.4).

Table 4.8: Annual Percentage Growth of Recurrent Budget Allocation for Other Security Agencies

Figure 4.4: Trends in Annual Percentage Growth of Recurrent Budget Allocations to Other Security Agencies

Analysis of the relationships between the size, shares and trends in the approved cost centre budgets of the three security agencies shows a similar pattern with that of UPF (See Annex 4a, 4b & 4c for details). The employee cost centres form the highest share of the budgets in all three agencies. Percentage shares of employee costs in ISO, ESO and UPDF over the review period averaged 64.73%, 66.76% and 62.18% respectively. UPDF like UPF is facing a decline in the size of its employee costs centre budget as percentage of the overall UPDF recurrent budget. It has fallen from 71% in 2000/01 to 55% in 2003/04. Reading from Figure 4.1 of Annex 4c, this is likely to be a result of the agency’s increased spending on supplies and services for its forces (Land Forces, Air Forces and Headquarters). This is because of the apparent inverse relationship between the trend in the budget size of the percentage share of employee cost centre and that of supplies and services.

24

However, in the case of the budget size of the ‘other expenditures’ cost centre, there is a big difference between that of ISO and other security agencies, including UPF. The difference between the size of the percentage share of the ‘other expenditures’ cost centre and that of the other cost centres under the respective programmes (excluding employee cost) is much larger and irregular under ISO as compared to the UPF. In the case of ISO, the trend in the relationship between the percentage share of the ‘other expenditures’ budget item and that of the other six budget items shows a small and even difference in the first three years. It then more than doubles during the fourth year before levelling off in the fifth year. This observed difference is due to an increase in the size of the recurrent budget allocation to the ‘other expenditures’ cost centre over other cost centres.

The sudden rise in the percentage share of the ‘other expenditures’ cost centre is of particular interest for two reasons. First, as later seen, it occurs after a drastic rise in the rate of reported crime incidence and coincides with the levelling-off of the reported crime rate (see Figure 5.2). Secondly, it is under this budget item where the agency’s classified expenditures are captured. This may suggest among other things that the agency played a key role in the Government’s efforts to arrest the rising level of crime. Consequently, funding to the agency may have been increased to match its added responsibility.

A comparison of the size of UPF’s ‘employee costs’ cost centre as a percentage share of that of ISO, ESO and UPDF shows that UPF’s employee costs are approximately four times those of ISO, eight times those of ESO and a quarter of those of UPDF (Table 4.9). In the absence of exact numbers of personnel in each of the above forces, it is difficult to establish and compare the average expenditures per employee across the four security agencies.

The relatively large budget for employee costs under the UPF’s as a share of employee costs under ISO and ESO is expected given the presumably smaller personnel sizes of ISO and ESO and the reverse is true for UPDF. However, further analysis of the relationship between employee costs of UPF and those of ISO, ESO and UPDF shows a 69% decline in UPF’s employee costs as a share of ISO’s employee cost and a 47% increase of the same as a share of ESO employee costs. In the case of UPDF, the share relationship has remained almost the same (approximately 24 person). This means that either the size of the UPF is declining relatively faster than that of ISO or the average expenditure per employee has increased in ISO compared to the UPF. The later is more probable considering the trends in Figure 4.1 of Annex 4a.

Table 4.9: A Comparison of UPF against ISO, ESO and UPDF Employee Costs

The relationship between cost centre budget percentage shares under the UPDF programme shows a rising difference between the percentage share of the ‘supplies and services’ cost centre budget and the other six cost centres (excluding employee costs). This means that the UPDF is less constrained by lack of logistical support as compared to UPF given that its ratio of expenditure on supplies and services to expenditure on employee costs is much higher than that of the UPF.

25

5.POLICE PERSONNEL, CRIME AND POPULATION

GROWTH: 1999 – 2002

5.1 Police Personnel

The Uganda Police Force is subdivided into three categories: a) the regular force; b) civilian staff; and c) the auxiliary force. The regular police force comprises of officers recruited by the Uganda Public Service Commission. Civilian staff include persons serving within the Force but on terms other than those of the Police Statute 1994 and most probably as employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The auxiliary force, on the other hand, includes all personnel recruited and serving as re-enforcement for the regular police force as per section 65 of the Police Act 1994.

As of October 2003, the regular police force (UPF) had a total strength of 14,352 personnel of the different ranks and categories shown in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Uganda Police Force (Regular) Personnel Strength by Gender, Rank and Category

Source: UPF, (2003) PEAP Revision Information Paper.

Recent administrative data (2002/3) from UPF, however, places the current total number of UPF personnel at 13,129 down from 15,288 in 1998/99 (Table 5.2). This represents a 14% decline in the size of the regular force with an average annual decline rate of approximately 3%. This is despite an addition of 2,763 personnel who joined the Force as new recruits over the review period. The causes of personnel loss include death (1,629), dismissal (135), desertion (95), discharge from duty (219) and others factors (81).

Table 5.2: Trend of Uganda Police Force Personnel Strength as per the Available Administrative Records (2002/03)

Source: UPF (2003) Administrative Data.

26

Figure 5.1: Trend in Annual Personnel Size of the Uganda Police Force

Staff Numbers

Tables 5.3 and 5.4 provide a breakdown of the civilian and auxiliary forces by personnel category.

Table 5.3: Number of Civilian staff under Uganda Police Force

While the personnel size of the UPF regular force has been declining at an annual average rate of 3%, the national population has been growing at slightly above the same rate (3.4%; Table 5.5). This means that the police force distribution (number of citizens per police officer) has been declining at an average rate of 6% per annum. Based on the 1998/99 size of the police force (15,288) and that of 2002/03 (13,129), the police force distribution has declined from 1 officer for every 1,337 citizens in 1998/99 to 1 officer for every 1,839 citizens in 2002/03. This very poorly compares with the international target of 1 officer per 600 persons in the long term.22

27

5.2 Crime Trends

Crime statistics from UPF23 in 2003 indicate a steady rise in the national level of reported crime. The number of reported crimes mildly increased during the period 1995 to 1998 from 40,268 to 49,248 cases. It then suddenly increased by nearly 40% within a time-span of one year from 49,248 to nearly 69,248 reported crimes between 1998 and 1999. Thereafter, it levelled off maintaining an annual average level of approximately 68,000 cases between 1999 and 2001. Current statistics24 show that the number of reported crimes has again risen by over 9% from 68,322 cases in 2001 to 75,118 cases in 2002.

Table 5.6: Total National Number of Reported Crimes

Source: UPF, (2003) Administrative Data.

Figure 5.2: Trend in Reported Crime

No. of Crimes

A regional breakdown of reported crime in Uganda (east, north, south and west) positions the central region as having the highest level of reported crime (50%), followed by the west (20%), then the east (19%) and lastly the north (11%)25. However, according to the JLO Sector Secretariat, chances are high that the levels of reported crime registered in the northern region are much lower than the actual crimes committed. This is because the functionality of the Local Council system that is normally used by the majority of the population (50%+) as the dispute resolution mechanism of first instance has been weakened and is absent in some cases as a result of the civil conflict that has plagued the region for the last 17 years. The lower crime rates may therefore be because of lack of services offered.

According to the JLO Sector, the levelling off of crime witnessed during the period 1999 to 2001 resulted from reforms within the JLO Sector as a whole including community policing, implementation of anti-corruption measures and increased co-ordination with other sectors’ agencies, and the Police Force in particular.

23UPF, (2003) Administrative Data.

24UPF, (2003) Administrative Data.

25Justice, Law and Order Sector PEAP Revision Strategy Paper, October 2003.

28

Despite the rising levels of reported crime shown above, the proportion of Ugandan households that consider themselves to be safe from crime and violence remain high without any significant change over the first four years of the review period. Crime related statistics based on findings from the 2002/03 Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS)26 reveal that 52% and 20% of households feel very safe and generally safe from violence and crime respectively and only 8% feel very unsafe. 16% of households feel neither safe nor unsafe while 4% do not know how they feel (Table 5.7). The proportion of households that feel unsafe and neither safe nor unsafe is however, highest in the northern region. This confirms the above interpretation regarding the low crime rate reported for the northern region.

Table 5.7: Safety of Household Members from Crime and Violence (%)

Source: Uganda Bureau of Statistics, (2003) Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS) Table 7.8.1, P. 60

26The 2002/03 UNHS collected information from a sample size of 9,711 households from different parts of the country on population and socio-economic characteristics.

29

6. CONCLUSION

Crime prevention and management is a responsibility of the entire citizenry. However, public institutions such as the police and judiciary are mandated to play a lead role in crime prevention and management so as to ensure citizen safety. While these institutions need sufficient resources to effectively carry out their mandate, the level of public confidence in their ability to do so in a politically neutral and professional manner is paramount. Therefore, police funding only contributes partially to crime management and prevention. In other words, outcomes of crime management and citizen safety cannot solely be attributed to the effectiveness of the police force or its funding. This is a key limitation of this study. Against this background, this chapter makes the following conclusions about the impact of police funding on crime management and citizen safety in Uganda.

The explanatory factors for the trends observed in the above analysis are many in number and diverse in nature. However, for the purposes of this study, the conclusion classifies these factors into two: (1) factors directly related to funding trends; and (2) those that are indirectly related to funding trends. Factors identified as directly related to funding emerge entirely from the budget analysis in the preceding chapters, while the indirect ones are partially drawn from related information sources.

6.1 Factors Directly Related to Funding

Justice, Law and Order Sector and the GoU’s National Budget:

Judging from the stagnation in the share of JLOS budget as a percentage of the national budget at about 7% over the review period, it is clear that the sector is less likely to be able to improve its operations, let alone maintain the current ones. While there may be some room for realising additional resources from efficiency gains, these cannot reach the level needed to bring about the required improvement in the Sector’s operations. The Sector is therefore likely to be slow in the pace at which it achieves its mission and expected outcome – “improved safety of the person, security of property and access to justice that ensures a strong economic environment to encourage private sector development and benefits poor and vulnerable people”.

To address the above concern, the Sector’s recurrent budget should be increased to a level that will optimally match its development budget. The widening gap between the Sector’s development and recurrent budgets needs to be halted. This should be achieved through an increase in the Sector’s recurrent budget because the justifications for the growing size of the Sector’s development budget are valid and should therefore not be frustrated by subjecting them to budget cuts. However, given that GoU’s choice on where to invest public resources is heavily influenced by the degree to which returns from a given investment contribute to poverty reduction, there is need for a clear link between crime and poverty to be established for GoU to be convinced about the need to raise the Sector’s recurrent budget.

Uganda Police Force and the JLOS Budget:

It is clear from the preceding analysis that funding has negatively impacted on UPF’s ability to effectively manage and prevent crime in two main ways. The first has to do with the actual amount of resources reaching the Police Force. The trend in the size of the Force’s recurrent budget has not matched the trend in demand for the Force’s services in terms of both the growth rate of crime and that of the national population. The situation is made much worse

30

when the Force’s development budget is considered. The size of the Force’s development budget is very small for it to make any meaningful investment in the kind of assets required to tackle crime. Not only is the level of actual resources allocated under its development budget far below what is required, the release of these allocations is also persistently below their approved levels. According to the planning unit of the UPF, “funding from the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) has been characterised by wide divergences between approved and actual releases, let alone the budgetary cuts in the middle of the year”27. Figure 6.1 illustrates the trend in the relationship between actual releases and approved development budget estimates.

Figure 6.1: Variations in Capital Actual Releases and Approved Releases.

This partly explains the reason why UPF has continued to suffer from under-capitalisation despite the fact that GoU has been assigning greater priority to development budgets across government sectors.