Dr. Chris Mukiza, Executive Director, Uganda Bureau of Statistics,
Dear Sir,
Re: 11th Uganda Population Census
I know that in your role as the Executive Director of the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) your are an overwhelmed executive, so I will go straight to the point.
First, I recognize the euphoria that Uganda’s 11th Population Census is the first nationwide such census that UBOS enumerators used Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) tablets and the Global Positioning System (GPS) for data collection. This is as compared to the past population censuses during which data collection was done by enumerators filling in paper questionnaires.
Sadly, that is as far as the ‘positive development’ of the use of CAPI tablets and GPS for data collection goes. How UBOS botched your first attempt at digital census data collection is difficult to fathom. Uganda boasts a youth dividend of Generation Z, who make up a significant proportion of our population; they who are believed the more comfortable with digital technologies.
How is it that a significant number of enumerators that UBOS recruited were incompetent in using CAPI tablets and GPS? Apparently, it was like UBOS “recruited anybody and this was a serious error,” as observed by Ejakait Peter Lochom, a Researcher.
Challenges enumerators had with the technology were also confirmed by another who functioned as a Parish Supervisor – he pointed out how there was confusion from UBOS with regards to the technology, including poor online connectivity.
Ajakait Hon. Agonyo Juliet, Soroti City Council Speaker, case in point, also shared the challenges she observed with the enumerators trying to use the tablets. She observed that they had software issues, which caused the tablets to shutdown and in some cases the enumerators had no access.
The challenges with technology are apparently the reason why there was hardly any data collected on the first day in many places. According to Hon. Agonyo, for example, she was the first to be counted by the enumerator who counted her and this was at about 4:00 p.m. on the first day.
Apparently, according to Hon. Agonyo, her enumeration session lasted more than one hour, that means that the enumerator moved on to the next household, the enumerator’s second, after 5:00 p.m. on the first day. At that rate, how many of the households the enumerator was supposed to count on the first day did they count?
No wonder, some assert that, on average, enumerators ended up counting less than half of the households that they were each supposed to count.
After all, not only was there a delay in the start of data collection, but when it started the counting time for one household was long and delayed, because of enumerators fidgeting and fumbling with the tablets. Apparently, the enumerators were poorly trained, if at all, to conduct the exercise.
Furthermore, there are allegations that in some cases enumerators who conducted data collection are not the original ones recruited and trained. That there were last minute changes in enumerators that UBOS made. Allegedly, the reasons for these last-minute changes were likely because of corruption of “know who” prioritized above “know how”.
Continuing with perceived corruption in the conduct of the 11th Population Census, it is alleged that enumerators were not fully paid and in a timely manner that which they were promised and owed. Some, reportedly, chose not to continue doing the work, because of not being paid allowances and facilitation costs.
Some enumerators who continued on, apparently, did so unmotivated and in some cases did not administer the full interview. Someone, for example, shared that during their enumeration, the enumerator asked them to answer only nine of the over 80 questions.
Sincerely, what possessed UBOS to design such a lengthy questionnaire for a population census? Really, what? It is like UBOS miserably failed in its attempt to smuggle in other studies into the population census. Some of the questions asked were of a household survey.
Unlike population censuses, household surveys are usually done in-depth with many questions, hence they are often conducted by samples and not the entire population. UBOS failed in its quest to combine studies. Perhaps the reason why, as characterized by Ejakait Lochom, UBOS ended up using:
“A faulty questionnaire that has produced questionable data that is likely inaccurate and not good for planning. The 11th Population Census was the longest in terms of duration, but it was the worst in terms of coverage. The poor quality of data from the census will cause the National Planning Authority to make plans and budgets that do not address the realities on the ground.”
Suspicions that the data set for the 11th Population Census is questionable were further fuelled by the manner in which UBOS presented the preliminary results.
“Even as a preliminary dissemination, it was to say the least boring, in its lack of new information/insights, such as, for example, what is the impact of oil & gas activities on Buliisa? It was also extremely lazy and poorly laid out. For example, you would think Mbarara has a higher population than Arua. It doesn’t,” wrote DBwambale (@TheMutaD) on X
Population censuses are an important political tool that inform and justify decisions of governments for sharing the national budget. As Papa Emorimor Iteso, Emolot Sande, was quoted as having emphasized while encouraging Iteso of Tororo to ensure they are counted:
“It is about our numbers that will determine the share of the national cake.”
Frankly, the reasons that UBOS gave as challenges that had impact on data collection are absurd. UBOS has 10 years in-between censuses to lay strategies to ensure the smooth execution of data collection, including collaboration strategies with important key actors within the public sector and the private sector.
For example, the fact that you and your team did not plan for and adequately budget for a robust communication strategy is jaw dropping. Imagine reaching the extent where broadcasters refused to obey the directive from the Uganda Communication Commission to broadcast the message from the head of state encouraging people to cooperate and participate in the census.
And this was simply because UBOS wanted broadcasters to do it for free. Why did you think that was acceptable? What happened to the money for media campaigns for the census? Was it allocated or not? If so, for what was it used?
Many questions many have on the quality of the 11th Population Census. Eeeh! Anyway, I hope you take my rant with its good intent to influence so that next time UBOS should do better.
And. if you are not the right one to lead UBOS, do step aside in good time. The sooner the better.
Sincerely,
Norah Owaraga, Concerned Active Citizen
Acknowledgement: A lot of the content shared this post I learnt during the Teso Gang Political Talk Show on Voice of Teso radio for which I am grateful.
Humanist 
Let’s Chat…