Uganda’s flagship anti-poverty drive, the Parish Development Model (PDM), is facing intense scrutiny after the Auditor General exposed serious structural weaknesses, financial mismanagement, and breakdowns in accountability. The audit findings suggest that despite massive government investment, the programme is struggling to achieve its core mission of moving subsistence households into the money economy.
Since the 2021/22 financial year, government has injected about 3.38 trillion Shillings into PDM. However, the audit shows that a large portion of these funds has not translated into effective support for intended beneficiaries. Out of 3.26 trillion Shillings disbursed to more than 10,500 SACCOs across the country, only 2.75 trillion Shillings had reached households by mid-2025, leaving substantial amounts idle within the system.
Financial accountability gaps were also evident. Dozens of SACCOs reportedly withdrew funds that could not be properly accounted for, while cases of diversion emerged at local government level. The audit further identified beneficiaries running projects that did not meet eligibility criteria, alongside ghost activities that existed only on paper, pointing to weak supervision and enforcement of guidelines.
Loan distribution controls appear to have been widely ignored. Thousands of households benefited more than once, contrary to programme rules designed to ensure fairness and broad access. At the same time, loan recovery has barely taken off. Only a small number of beneficiaries had begun repayments after the grace period, and the funds recovered so far are minimal compared to outstanding balances, threatening the sustainability of the revolving fund.
The Auditor General attributes the slow recovery to poor data management and limited system integrity. Many loans were processed outside the official PDM information system, complicating tracking and accountability. Communication failures also left SACCO leadership unclear about repayment timelines, weakening enforcement and compliance mechanisms.
The programme’s bottom-up planning model, once promoted as its strength, has not functioned as intended. Although parishes generated thousands of development priorities, many local governments did not incorporate them into district budgets or work plans. National-level coordination gaps have also persisted, with most pillar working groups lacking approved action plans.
Institutional capacity problems further undermine implementation. Numerous SACCOs operate without functional committees, and several districts failed to submit required performance reports, limiting oversight by Parliament and central authorities. Technology investments have yielded limited impact as well, with some distributed devices non-functional, many users untrained, and key system modules still incomplete.
The audit also notes that a significant share of earlier recommendations remains unimplemented, allowing recurring weaknesses to persist. As government prepares to expand PDM under the next development cycle, the findings highlight a clear message: without stronger governance, effective monitoring, reliable systems, and firm accountability, large financial allocations alone will not deliver the intended transformation for Uganda’s rural communities.
