Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Final Report: Ekiti State
MDGs M&E Capacity Assessment Report
December 2011
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
views of the Department for International Development
Content List Abbreviations and Acronyms
Executive Summary
Section One Introduction................................................................................................ 1
The Task.................................................................................................................................. 1
The Team and the Assessment Methodology .............................................................................. 2
The Structure of the Report ...................................................................................................... 3
Section Two ESG’s Development Strategy, the Proposed M&E Framework for MDGs
and the EPAGs ............................................................................................ 5
The Ekiti State Development Strategy, 2011-2014 ...................................................................... 5
The Proposed Ekiti State Results-Based M&E Framework ............................................................ 5
The Results Chain and the Budget Cycle .................................................................................... 6
Section Three Findings ...................................................................................................... 9
Legal and Institutional Mandate for M&E .................................................................................... 9
Institutional and Organizational Arrangements ........................................................................... 9
Availability of MDGs/Eight Point Agenda Data ........................................................................... 12
Data Collection, Processing, and Storage Processes and Systems .............................................. 13
Availability of Finance and Human Resource Capacities ............................................................. 15
Level of Demand for Information on MDGs/Eight Point Agenda Goals ........................................ 15
M&E Capacity Gaps and Needs ................................................................................................ 16
Section Four Recommendations for Addressing the Identified Capacity Gaps and Needs
and Options for Developing Baselines ...................................................... 19
The Need for a Comprehensive Process ................................................................................... 19
Focusing on the DPRSs of MDAs .............................................................................................. 20
Limiting the Targets and Indicators to be Base-lined and monitored .......................................... 20
Investment into New Baselines ................................................................................................ 21
Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 21
Annex One Terms of Reference ................................................................................... 23
Annex Two Field Reports on MDAs .............................................................................. 27
Appendix One: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development .................................................. 27
Appendix Two: Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology ................................................. 31
Appendix Three: Bureau of Infrastructure and Public Utilities .................................................... 38
Appendix Four: Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance, Budget, and Economic
Development .......................................................................................................................... 42
Appendix Five: Ministry of Health ............................................................................................ 44
Appendix Six: M&E at Local Government Level ......................................................................... 47
Appendix Seven: Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs ...................................... 49
Appendix Eight: Ministry of Women Affairs ............................................................................... 51
Appendix Nine: State Bureau of Statistics ................................................................................. 53
Appendix Ten: State Planning Commission ............................................................................... 55
Appendix Eleven: Ekiti Tourism Board ...................................................................................... 58
Appendix Twelve: State House of Assembly ............................................................................. 59
Annex Three Consultation List ....................................................................................... 62
Annex Four List of Documents Consulted .................................................................... 64
Abbreviations and Acronyms ADP Agricultural Development Projects AIE Authority to Incur Expenditures
BPP Bureau for Public Procurement CGS Conditional Grant Scheme
CMD Chief Medical Director
DBPRS Department of Budget, Planning, Research and Statistics DFID United Kingdom‟s (UK) Department for International Development
DMIS Drug Management Information System DPRS Department of Planning, Research and Statistics
EDS Ekiti State Development Strategy Document
EMIS Education Management Information System EPAG Eight Point Agenda Goal
ESG Ekiti State Government EV-2020 Ekiti Vision 2020
FAMA Fountain Agricultural and Marketing Agency
FMWA&SD Federal Ministry of Women Affairs and Social Development GAD General Administrations Department
GDP Gross Domestic Product GMIS Gender Management Information System
HMB Hospital Management Board HMIS Health Management Information System
HND Higher National Diploma
HOD Head of Department ICT Information Communication Technology
IGR Internally Generated Revenue IMS Information Management System
JAC Joint Account Committee
JPB Joint Planning Board KPIs Key Performance Indicators
LGA Local Government Area M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MIS Management Information System
MLGCA Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs MoE Ministry of Education
MRO Medical Record Officers MSH Management Science for Health
MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework
MTRM Monthly Technical Review Meetings MTSS Medium Term Sector Strategy
NBS National Bureau of Statistics NCDP National Council on Development Planning
NCE National Certification of Education
OSSAP-MDG Office of the Senior Special Adviser to the President on Millennium
Development Goals OTSD Office of Transformation, Strategy and Delivery
OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children PARS Population Activities Research and Statistics
PHC Primary Health Centre
PS Permanent Secretary RUWATSAN Rural Water and Sanitation Agency
SA Special Adviser SBS State Bureau of Statistics
SDS State Development Strategy SLTS State Led Total Sanitation
SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound
SMF State Ministry of Finance SMoF State Ministry of Finance
SPARC State Partnership for Accountability, Responsiveness and Capability SPC State Planning Commission
SUBEB State Universal Basic Education Board
SYB State Statistical Year Book TMIS Tourism Management Information System
TOR Terms of Reference UBEC Universal Basic Education Commission
UK United Kingdom UNICEF United Nations International Children Education Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VIP Very Important Person VSAT Very Small Aperture Terminal
WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene
Executive Summary This Millennium Development Goals Monitoring and Evaluation capacity assessment was
commissioned by the State Partnership for Accountability, Responsiveness, and Capacity of the the United Kingdom‟s Department for International Development as part of its on-going
support to strengthen Monitoring and Evaluation systems for measuring progress towards the
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals within states in Nigeria and linking these processes to federal initiatives.
The study marks the beginning of the preparation of the Ekiti State Development Strategy
Document that runs for the period 2011-2014 and whose aim is to accelerate economic
development by focusing on investment clusters that increase the State‟s ability to meet the Millennium Development Goals. The driving force behind the Ekiti State Development Strategy
Document is the Government‟s Eight Point Agenda representing the eight priority areas that are linked to the eight Millennium Development Goals. The Government recognizes the need
to improve its existing Monitoring and Evaluation system so that it can measure and track the delivery of the Agenda in an evidence-based way.
This component of the study, which is the first part of a two part consultancy, analyses the status of monitoring and evaluation in Ekiti State and assesses the capacities within the key
Monitoring & Evaluation structures and systems in the Ministries, Departments and Agencies that are responsible for providing the data to measure the Millennium Development
Goals/Eight Point Agenda targets. The purpose of this part of the assessment is to help the
Ekiti State Government identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing Monitoring and Evaluation arrangements in the State especially as they relate to the Millennium Development
Goals (and by implication the Eight Point Agenda Goals). The second part of the study will use the findings of the present study to develop a Road Map for strengthening these
arrangements across the different Ministries, Departments and Agencies in the State.
The review finds that two major attempts have been made to develop targets for the
Millennium Development Goals/Eight Point Agenda Goals in Ekiti State but that the two sets of targets that are the outcomes of these efforts were not informed by detailed processes of
sectoral planning. What is more, the targets themselves represent a random combination of
high-level impact measurement with low level measurements of inputs and activities. As they presently stand, if after four years the government wants to know what has been achieved
against the Eight Point Agenda Goals, the picture that would emerge would be incomplete with a considerable amount of unknown. The State Planning Commission is, however, in the
process of rectifying the situation. Plans are under way to develop Medium Term Sector
Strategies which will form the basis of a new and unified set of indicators on a firm and common basis.
The limitations of Millennium Development Goals/Eight Point Agenda Goals Monitoring and
Evaluation observed in this assessment reflect wider capacity limitations in monitoring and
evaluation practices in the Ministries, Departments and Agencies. The assessment found Monitoring and Evaluation structures in all the Ministries, Departments and Agencies analysed
but these structures were presently not fit for Millennium Development Goals/Eight Point
Agenda Goals Monitoring and Evaluation purposes. Not only were most Ministries, Departments and Agencies operating with extremely limited resources and staff capacity, the
data collection, processing, analysing, and reporting processes were, in most cases, dysfunctional and uncoordinated. Data collection and storage was taking place at different
levels in different ways, with duplication in some areas and gaps in others. In the limited cases
where some Monitoring and Evaluation does take place, the emphasis is almost exclusively on monitoring of budget implementation and input measurement, rather than on the analysis of
linkages between and among inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact. The study found no record of any evaluation or survey work in the four ministries that were studied in-
depth. The study also found significant gaps in terms of baselines.
Many of the limitations described above can, however, be easily tackled by bridging the
Monitoring and Evaluation capacity gaps identified in this assessment report. These gaps include:
Constraints in experience and capacities in strategic planning as a prerequisite for
effective Monitoring & Evaluation;
Lack of knowledge and appreciation of the importance of Logical Frameworks for
effective Monitoring & Evaluation;
Difficulties in selecting and measuring useful, practical, and meaningful indicators
along a chain of results;
None utilization of Monitoring & Evaluation data in decision-making and budgeting;
Limited knowledge and skills in monitoring;
Limited knowledge and skills in evaluation;
Difficulties in carrying outperformance measurement that provides timely and useful
Monitoring & Evaluation information, especially baseline information.
Furthermore, given the multiple layers of Monitoring and Evaluation mandates, responsibilities
and roles in the State, improving coordination capacities at multiple levels (coordination in
Monitoring and Evaluation system design, coordination within and across sectors and administrative bodies, coordination in data collection, collation and storage) is also clearly
needed. While not typically thought of as a Monitoring and Evaluation capacity building area, the relevant officials will obviously benefit from this subject matter and processes to facilitate
improved coordination that capacity building in this area would provide.
The study calls for a broaden Monitoring and Evaluation capacity building approach that combines technical subject matter with process, organizational and institutional building
knowledge and skills especially in the following areas:
Results based Monitoring and Evaluation which reinforces the basic concepts and
provides opportunity for the Ministries, Departments and Agencies/Department of
Planning, Research and Statistics to gain, contextualize and strengthen their own
understandings of what is needed with respect to Millennium Development Goals and Eight-Point Agenda goals;
Identifying and selecting core sets of priority indicators as the first step in performance
measurement of the Millennium Development Goals /Eight-Point targets which, in turn,
should serve as the necessary precursor to effective data collection, processing,
storing, analyzing and reporting;
Capacity building in data generation/data collection methods involving training on a
range of topics associated with data collection including baseline design, survey design, participatory methods, community scorecards, rapid appraisal techniques,
etc.as well as indicator selection, data flows and report writing.
It is suggested that the most effective way to address the capacity gaps and needs identified
in the study is to, using the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework that finally emerges after the Ekiti State Development Strategy document has been finalized, provide basic training to
Department of Planning, Research and Statistics officials and, possibly others, with a view to
obtaining a common understanding of the Ekiti State Development Strategy Document Monitoring and Evaluation Framework itself as the basis for conducting the needed baselines
and providing evidence of Millennium Development Goals /Eight-Point Agenda performance and for Ekiti State Government decision-making and budgeting. This can then be followed by
providing more detailed training on monitoring and evaluation including working with
Department of Planning, Research and Statistics on defining and understanding key terms (inputs, outputs, outcomes, outputs, polices, strategies), key performance indicators, the
results chain and how it is linked to decision-making and budgeting, etc.
1
Section One Introduction
The Task This consultancy was commissioned by the State Partnership for Accountability, Responsiveness, and Capacity (SPARC) of the the United Kingdom‟s (UK) Department for
International Development (DFID) as part of its on-going support to strengthen Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems for measuring progress towards the achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) within States and linking these processes to federal initiatives.
The study marks the beginning of Ekiti State Government‟s (ESG) preparation of its development strategy that runs for the period 2011-2014 and whose aim is to integrate the
State‟s major goals, policies, and actions into a cohesive whole. The Government recognizes
the need to improve its existing M&E system so that it can measure and track, in an evidence-based way, the delivery of this strategy which is encapsulated in its Eight-Point Agenda. The
Ekiti State Development Strategy (EDS) aims to accelerate economic development by focusing on investment clusters that increase the State‟s ability to meet the MDGs. This study is,
therefore, designed to help the Ekiti State Government identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing M&E arrangements in the State especially as they relate to the MDGs and to
develop a Road Map for strengthening these arrangements across its Ministries, Departments
and Agencies (MDAs).
The consultancy comprises two separate but related segments and deliverables as follows:
A Baseline diagnostic study of the current MDGs-M&E system in Ekiti State with
emphasis on an assessment of existing MDGs-M&E capacity. This component of the
study is also expected to propose baseline options and recommendations, taking into account current SPARC financing and constraints and considering the potential for ESG
government funding and any opportunities for additional donor support (including from DFID). The expected deliverable is a MDGs-M&E Capacity Assessment Report;
Based, on the preferred options and recommendations from the first component of
the study, the second component is expected to develop a detailed set of SPARC
Terms of Reference (TORs) for establishing an MDGs baseline for the State and, following discussions with ESG counterparts and the SPARC M&E Team, draft an
outline structure and content of a road map for strengthening MDG M&E within the
State. Based on these discussions, a Road map for strengthening MDG M&E within Ekiti State will be prepared. The expected deliverable is a Roadmap for strengthening MDGs-M&E within Ekiti State with emphasis on capacity development priorities and preferred approaches.
2
The Team and the Assessment Methodology The present study was carried out by a team of two consultants: Quindaline Eneh, a
Management Information System (MIS) and M&E Specialist (Lead Consultant); and George
Abalu, an M&E Expert (Supporting Consultant). George Abalu‟s main responsibility was in delivering the first component of the study while Quindaline Eneh was in charge of the second
component
It was decided that the present study would focus fundamentally on existing monitoring and
evaluation practices at the key MDAs involved with the delivery of the MDGs in the State. Following discussions with officials at the State Planning Commission (SPC), a group of nine
ministries along with their related departments and agencies were selected to be examined in a broad way. However, in order not to sacrifice depth for breadth, four of the nine Ministries
where chosen to receive more in-depth scrutiny. The four were Education, Health, Agriculture,
and Water.
The division of labour was based on expertise and experience. Quindaline Eneh focused on: the State Planning Commission; the Bureau of Statistics; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of
Local Government; the Tourism Board; and the Ministry of Women Affairs. George Abalu
focused on the Ministry of Education and its agency, the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB); the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development; the Bureau of Infrastructure and
Public Utility and its agencies (the Water Corporation and the Rural Water and Sanitation Agency – RUWATSAN); and the Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance, Budget and
Economic Development.
It also was decided that, even though the study would focus fundamentally on existing
monitoring and evaluation practices at the state level, a sample analysis of one Local Government would add value to the exercise by revealing issues that may be relevant at the
Local Government level. George Abalu visited a Local Government, an hour‟s drive from the State Capital, to get an insight into MDGs M&E arrangements in a Local Government Area
(LGA) context. Furthermore, although the focus of the study was on the executive arm of
government, the study does take due cognisance of the critical role of the legislative arm in terms of monitoring and evaluation, particularly with respect to its oversight function.
The team worked together for two weeks in Ekiti State, one week doing inception work and
the other doing field work. Initial discussions were held with SPARC‟s M&E Team Leader to
clarify the TORs of the exercise and plan for the inception week prior to the Team‟s departure to Ekiti State. At the start of the inception week, background discussions were held with the
members of a parallel SPARC consultancy team that was concurrently helping the State Government to think through and around the proper remit, scope, functions and operational
guidelines for a new “Bureau of Transformation” that would manage and measure the
performance of the MDAs with regards the attainment of Government‟s Eight-Point Agenda. Thereafter, meetings of the entire team were held with key agencies such as the Ekiti State
Planning Commission and the Bureau of Statistics, but in the main, each member of the team took responsibility for their pre-assigned areas individually. The team developed a structure for
sectoral analysis and applied it across the designated ministries and related agencies.
The institutional entry point into each ministry was the Department of Planning, Research and
Statistics (DPRS). The ministries were questioned regarding the MDGs in an attempt to highlight two key sets of issues:
Availability of MDGs data and how the targets are being monitored or will be
monitored;
Assessment of the effectiveness of the existing capacity for generating the needed
data for monitoring the targets.
3
In this process, information was gathered regarding both the utility of the existing targets1,
and the data availability for measuring them2. Beyond the targets, discussions covered the nature of normal established M&E practices within the MDAs. Documentary evidence of these
practices was requested from each organisation visited and an attempt was made to identify existing M&E capacity needs and gaps.
At the end of the field work, a wrap-up session was held with the Special Adviser to the Governor on MDGs and the Head of the State Planning Commission, to confirm the findings of
the Team and, more importantly, to discuss the Team‟s tentative conclusions and to check whether its thoughts on these were broadly on the right tract.
George Abalu was responsible for putting this draft report together.
The Structure of the Report This report is structured as follows. This section provides information on the background to
the study, its aims and objectives, and on the team composition and methodology followed. Section Two examines the State‟s Economic Development Strategy and analyzes the proposed
M&E Framework for MDGs and the State‟s Eight Point Agenda Goals (EPAGs). Section Three
reports on the findings of the study with respect to the reality of current M&E practices in the State and identifies existing M&E capacity gaps and needs. Section Four identifies baseline
options and recommendations for establishing and publishing a MDGs baseline for the State.
The annexes provide the TORs for the study, detailed sectoral analyses of the selected MDAs,
the consultation list, and the documents consulted for the study.
1There are currently two main sets of targets being used by different stakeholders depending on the MDA involved. There is set of targets contained in the Ekiti State Strategy Document, 2011-2014 which was put together in May 2011; and the set of targets contained in the Document titled “Operational Strategies and Indicators Required for the Measurement of Performance of the State Government‟s 8-Point Agenda” which was produced earlier in March 2011. 2 The annexes of the four sectors studied in-depth presented as part of this report include tables summarising the status of availability of M&E data for the targets contained in the EDS document, including commentary on the utility of the targets themselves.
4
5
Section Two ESG’s Development Strategy, the Proposed M&E Framework for MDGs and the EPAGs
The Ekiti State Development Strategy, 2011-2014 To put the existing reality of M&E in Ekiti State in perspective, it is important to situate the
assessment of existing M&E capacity in the State in the context of the State‟s Development Strategy and the on-going efforts by the Government to develop and institutionalize an Ekiti
State public management system that is geared towards reform and, above all, results.
Ekiti State first developed a ten year strategic plan in early 2010 covering 2010 to 2020 as the
Ekiti Vision-2020 (EV-2020). In October 2010, eight priority areas that are linked to the eight Millennium Development Goals were selected from the EV-2020 to from the Governor‟s Eight-
Point Agenda with 2010 as the base year.3 This was later translated into a comprehensive Ekiti
State Development Strategy (SDS) document covering the period 2011-2014. The SDS contains statements of targets, strategies for achieving them and Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs) for tracking progress. The State expects that the SDS will inform the development of and Medium Term Sector Strategy (MTSS) and Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF).
January 2012 has been set as the latest commencement date for the development of MTSSs and MTEFs and the state-wide M&E Framework.
The Proposed Ekiti State Results-Based M&E Framework The Ekiti State Development Strategy Document contains a detailed M&E Framework that is intended to serve as the basis for institutionalizing a State-wide M&E system. The Framework4,
whose goal is to “accelerate the development of the State by focusing on the investment
clusters that will promote development of the State and increase its ability to meet the MDGs”, has a total of five objectives and 19 outputs. The State‟s proposed M&E Framework for MDGs
calls for an “M&E system that includes, among other things, an organizational function to
3In the rest of this report the MDGs and the State Government‟s Eight Point Agenda Goals (EPAGs) will be used interchangeably. 4 See Chapter 8 of the “Ekiti State Development Strategy (2011-2014)”, 31st May 2011.
6
deliver the M&E function; capacity-building for M&E; articulation of a set of jointly agreed and
measurable indicators; mechanism for collecting, verifying, and analyzing data; availability and utilization of monitoring tools; and creation of avenues for reviews and utilization of data for
decision-making”.
The structure of the M&E system for the State that is presented in the EDS is identical to that
envisioned in the Governor‟s Transformation Agenda which calls for an M&E system that will effectively track the State‟s Eight Point Agenda. Both of these key planning documents call for
a common M&E Framework to monitor and evaluate the results accruing from development spending, focusing on the five different levels of M&E: inputs, activities, outputs, outcome,
and impact evaluation. They also emphasize that adequate attention should be paid to the
results chain linking the above-mentioned levels and they specify that the first step towards effective M&E in the State is project design or programme conceptualisation, i.e. clarity in the
definition of expected results and measurable indicators of progress. They believe that this is a requirement that every MDA must be able to meet.
The Results Chain and the Budget Cycle The MDGs and the EPAGs provide Ekiti State with a concrete basis for starting the process of actualizing the State‟s proposed MDGs/EPAGs M&E Framework in and all MDAs “to monitor
and evaluate the results accruing from development spending, focusing on the five different levels of M&E: inputs, activities, outputs, outcome, and impact evaluation.”
The M&E Framework proposed in the Ekiti State Development Strategy, 2011-2014 provides an indication of the road map that the State‟s on-going reform agenda intends to follow to
achieve a results-oriented M&E system that is based on strategic planning and driven by:
Logical Frameworks and articulated results chains for each programme/project;
Detailed M&E plans for data collection and analysis;
Clear reporting flows and formats;
Feedback and review plans;
Building the necessary conditions and capacities for an effective M&E system.
The Development Strategy Document specifically calls for the institutionalization of an M&E
Framework in the State that has the above component parts and stipulates that the
framework should be coordinated by the State Planning Commission. The table below outlines the intervention logic, Objectively Verifiable Indicators, Means of Verification, and Critical
Assumptions for the Framework as contained in the EDS.
Table 1: Ekiti State Strategy for Developing a Results-based M&E Framework
Intervention Logic Objectively Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification
Objective 1: Output 5:
Strengthened M&E systems across MDAs to accelerate the development of Ekiti State.
Number of staff by sex and MDA with relevant skills in monitoring and evaluation
Adequate supply of ICT5 infrastructure and software to support M&E efforts.
Establishment of clear results framework for state-wide M&E efforts.
A suite of methods and tools for performance M&E developed and disseminated to MDAs and relevant private sector partners.
The conduct of annual performance reviews
Training reports
MDA reports
M&E reports
5 Information Communication Technology
7
Objective 1: Output 3:
Targeted governance reforms resulting in an effective and efficient public service
Number of Ministries with corporate plans.
Number of sectors with Medium-term strategies/plans
MDA reports
Objective 1: Output 6
Establish a reliable and comprehensive databank of essential statistics for planning purposes
Ekiti State Statistical Master Plan developed in line with the requirements of the National Planning Commission.
State-wide statistical standards, guidelines and templates for data capture developed and disseminated to data producers (MDAs).
Management Information Systems developed and operational at MDA level and linked with a State-wide Data Bank domiciled in the State Planning Commission (or an autonomous Bureau of Statistics).
Number of staff equipped with relevant skills in
data collection and management.
Statistical Year Book regularly published and disseminated
Statistical Master Plan
Source: Ekiti State Planning Commission: Ekiti State Development Strategy (2011-2014), May 2011
The results-chain/logic chain presented in Figure 1 below provides a reference point that helps
to situate how the different aspects of the MDGs/EPAGs are expected to be measured through M&E processes to achieve the “clarity in the definition of expected results and measurable
indicators of progress” called for in the EDS and outlined in the report on the modus operandi of the proposed Office of Transformation, Strategy and Delivery (OTSD).
Figure 1: Illustration of the results chain/logic called for in the EDS document for
a typical health-related MDG
Mortality rates for children under 5 years old reduced
Impact
15 media campaigns completed
100 health professionals trained
in ORT
Increased maternal knowledge of
ORT services
Increased access to ORT services
Improved use of ORT in managing childhood diarrhoea
Trainers
ORT supplies
Funds
Launch media campaign to
educate mothers
Train health professionals in ORT
Resu
lts
Im
ple
men
tati
on
Outcome
Intermediate
Outcomes
Outputs
Inputs
Activities
8
Source: Adapted from: “How will we know Millennium Development Results when we see them? Building a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System to give us the Answer”. Africa Region Working Paper Series no 66, the World Bank, May 2004
The Figure highlights why, as emphasized in the EDS document, it is so important to be
looking at the whole chain as well as the linkages between and among its component parts as
the best way to provide results-based and evidence-based decision-making and budgetary allocations. Typically, governments focus on the measurement of the top and bottom of the
results chain as depicted in Figure 1, i.e., the impact and the inputs and activities even though it is the middle level of the chain, from outputs to outcomes, that is critical in understanding
how expenditure is actually achieving results. It is also at this level that evaluation is
fundamental in providing evidence for justifying or questioning the nature of expenditure patterns at MDAs.
Figure 2 below traces the logic and pathways from inputs to impact of the illustration figured
above. The logic-framework depicted in the Figure 2 not only demonstrates the cause-and-
effect relationship among the elements of an MDG/EPAG results-chain, it also illustrates the reality that: several inputs may be necessary to carry out a given activity; several activities
contribute to a single output; several outputs may be necessary to achieve an outcome; and more than one outcome may be needed to achieve any given MDG or Eight Point-Agenda goal
of the Government.
Figure 2: Tracing the logic and pathways from Inputs to Impact of one health-
related MDG
Mortality rates for children under 5 years old reduced
Improved Use of ORT in managing Childhood diarrhoea
15 media campaigns completed
Increased maternal knowledge of ORT services
Launch media campaign to educate mothers
Train health professionals in ORT
100 health professionals trained on ORT
Increased access to ORT services
Trainers ORT Supplies Funds
Imp
act
Ou
tco
me
Inte
rmed
iate
Ou
tco
me
Ou
tpu
ts
Acti
vit
ies
Inp
uts
Resu
lts
Imp
lem
en
tatio
n
9
Section Three Findings
Legal and Institutional Mandate for M&E Almost every MDA visited claimed one form or another of an M&E mandate although the team did not specifically site any documentary evidence of a mandate. Although there are
several MDAs presently carrying M&E functions, the following appear to be the ones with formal M&E mandates (although the Team did not cite any documentary evidence as
evidence):
The State Planning Commission (SPC) which was established in 1997 with an edict
and given the over-arching mandate for carrying out state-wide M&E functions;
The Bureau of Public Procurement which was created by an edict and given the
mandate to regulate and monitor compliance with contractual regulations and requirements as the basis for certifying performance before payments are made;
The State House of Assembly which has a constitutional M&E mandate in terms of
promoting accountability in the expenditure of the State‟s financial resources through the activities of its Oversight Committees;
The Departments of Planning, Research and Statistics (DPRS) that are the key
institutional co-ordination point for M&E within a line ministries and most
departments and agencies and which came into existence through the Civil Service Reforms, Decree 43 of 1988 to reorganize the structure of mandatory departments in
each MDA.
Institutional and Organizational Arrangements M&E within DPRSs of Line Ministries
The Department of Planning, Research and Statistics (DPRS) is, in almost all cases, expected
to serve as the main hub for M&E activities within line Ministries in Ekiti State. Usually, the
DPRS is split into divisions and an M&E section or Unit usually comes under the jurisdiction of the Planning Division. Whenever an M&E function is carried within a DPRS, the remit is
relatively similar across ministries. The main focus is to carry out M&E of the capital projects that are being implemented by the other departments of the ministry. This M&E of capital
projects is usually planned to take place on a regular basis but, in most cases, it only takes
place on a quarterly basis, if at all. In some ministries such as Education, M&E of capital projects is the main responsibility of the M&E Unit. However, in others such as Health which
has a functional State Health Management Information System (HMIS), the unit also engages
in collating M&E information from other departments. In the case of Agriculture and Water, M&E is supposed to be involved in producing unique sector-specific reports.
10
M&E within Agencies of Line Ministries
All the ministries reviewed in-depth as well as the Bureau of Infrastructure has agencies with
whom they carry out their sectoral responsibilities. There is however, diversity across the ministries in terms of the institutional organization of M&E in their respective agencies.
The M&E functions within the agencies of the Ministries of Health, Water and Agriculture are broadly tasked with collation and coordination of M&E data of their sectors. However, in
reality, this is not happening as other departments and divisions also carry out their own M&E activities. What is worse, information does not flow from their M&E function as the central
coordination point and they are not adequately equipped to produce and collate information
on the M&E activities of their entire agency as they should. However, one good point is that the staff engaged in M&E within these agencies tends to be professionals with the relevant
sectoral expertise. In the case of the Health Ministry which is receiving support from the World Bank, its Health Data Centre is well equipped with good office space and staff and the data flow function is much better organized.
M&E in other Government Agencies
Beyond the line ministries, there are four organizations also mandated to carry out monitoring
and evaluation activities each for their own particular purposes. These are: The Bureau for Public Procurement (BPP), the Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance, the State
Planning Commission and the Oversight Committees of the State House of Assembly. The reality of the M&E activities of each one of them is briefly described below:
Bureau of Public Procurement
The primary responsibility of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP) is regulation and
oversight of procurements. It has an M&E remit to carry out a limited amount of basic monitoring in the form of site verification visits to ensure compliance with established
procurement standards. Reports are prepared after monitoring visits and based on the outcomes of these visits and the reports prepared, Certification of Payment is prepared. The
projects that receive the greatest attention during these visits are usually the big
infrastructure projects.
The Bureau‟s monitoring reports are decisive for triggering further payments to a contractor and with respect to follow-up with an individual line Ministry, if required. However, the
monitoring results do not feed into a broader process of discussions around budget allocation
to the line ministries. At present, the Bureau is over stretched, is slow in carrying out its monitoring exercises, and can only carry out effective monitoring of only a small fraction of
projects certified. Its power to stop further financial releases is, however, a major weapon. There is no evidence that the monitoring results of the Bureau feeds into a broader process of
discussion around budget allocation to the line ministries.
The Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance, Budget and Economic Development
The Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance, Budget and Economic Development has
the primary responsibility to monitor and evaluate the process of generating and implementing
approved revenues and expenditures through field visits to ministries and agencies. In reality, it only carries out limited monitoring and no evaluation at all. Its mandate also includes
consideration of the recurrent budget. However, even with this well-defined M&E mandate, the Department has no M&E Unit but obtains returns from ministries on how they are
spending the monies released to them. The outcome of these dependency M&E arrangements with MDAs are usually not detailed or rigorous enough to be said to be expenditure tracking6
in the real sense of the word and there is no evidence of systematic assessment of the chain
of linkages between project inputs and activities and results.
6 If done properly, robust expenditure tracking would entail on the sport assessment of how much of the budget that was allocated and released to an MDA has actually been spent on the services for which they were earmarked and coming to conclusion as to whether or not the reality of government expenditure so far on the
ground matches allocation and release.
11
The State House of Assembly
The State House of Assembly has a constitutionally recognized role to play in terms of
promoting accountability in the expenditure of the State‟s financial resources. It fulfills this role through the activities of its Oversight Committees. There are plans which are well advanced
(the Governor‟s approval has been secured) for each Oversight Committee of the House to
have its own Budget Office where the budget officers will be part of monitoring teams that monitor budget implementation across the MDAs. The Budget Office, when it is established,
will be under the Department of Budget, Planning Research and Statistics (DBPRS) of the Secretariat of the State House of Assembly. The DBPRS is headed by a Director and it has
three Sections (Budget and Planning; Research and Statistics; and Library) which are headed
by Deputy Directors. The DBPRS is responsible for the collation of M&E data from all the Oversight Committees. The Oversight Committees and the DBPRS are presently constrained by
lack of research and a general lack of competent staff within their Secretariats. To make up for this deficiency, the Committees sometimes contract expert consultants to buttress existing
M&E capacities.
The State Bureau of Statistics
The State Bureau of Statistics (SBS) originally existed as the DPRS of the State Ministry of
Finance (SMF). In September 2009, this DPRS was converted into the State Bureau of
Statistics by virtue of a bill, and brought under the supervision of the SMF. As at then, the main functions of the Bureau were limited to management of financial data and statistics.
Later in January 2010, the Statistical Edict was signed into law and the Bureau was relocated to function under the supervision of the General Administrations Department (GAD) in the
Governor‟s Office. In 2011, the Bureau was relocated to function under the supervision of the State Planning Commission. The Edict that prompted this relocation is currently under review
with the intention to incorporate the provisions of the Statistical Master Plan. In line with the
current Edict, the main mandates of the Bureau are as follows:
Collate, analyze and store data;
Certify and publish official statistics;
Carry out targeted surveys to inform policy and plan formulation;
Collation of administrative data from primary and secondary sources; and
Advise government on statistical matters.
In the context of the on-going governance reforms in the State, the Government is showing
increasing appreciation and awareness of the importance of statistics as the basis of evidenced-based decision-making and budgeting. The enhancement of the capacity of the SBS
to produce regular and reliable statistics is an important requirement for ensuring the
availability of information on the achievement of MDGs and the Eight-Point Agenda outcomes. This, of course, needs to be complimented with regular monitoring and evaluation by the
MDAs in order to understand the linkages between service delivery and the achievement of MDGs/Eight-Point Agenda goals and, more importantly, for the State Government to have the
information that it needs to make results-based decisions on resources allocation based on that understanding.
The State Planning Commission
The State Planning Commission (SPC) as the key government agency responsible for planning
in the State does have a fundamental role to play in terms of M&E of MDGs/EPAGs. The Ekiti State Development Strategy Document expects the SPC to play a lead and coordinating role in
the institutionalization of a results-based M&E system in the State as an important component of the on-going reform process.
The Commission has four technical departments and one service department7 all headed by Directors. The Special Adviser to the Governor on MDGs, Planning and Multilateral Co-
7The departments are: Population Activities, Research and Statistics; Monitoring and Evaluation; Project Planning and Budgeting; Multilateral, and Finance and Administration.
12
operation is the political head of the Commission. There is also a Permanent Secretary who
serves as the Chief Accounting Officer and five Directors who head the departments. Presently, the Commission carries out capital budget monitoring.
Strategic planning is one of the key responsibilities of the Commission but at the sectoral level,
the MTSS process originates from the Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance, Budget
and Economic Development who initiates the process through call letters, even though SPC is responsible for driving the sector planning processes that result in MTSSs and MTEFs.
However, the links between SPC‟s M&E and those of the MDAs is presently very weak and its involvement in the monitoring and evaluation of MDGs at the MDA, local, and community
levels are not currently harmonized in a way that would ensure that the components and
elements of the entire system coordinate and collaborate to obtain the much needed synergies between planning and M&E. This is particularly relevant for the inter-face that is so essential
between the MDGs/EPAGs and the MTSS and therefore between the SPC and the Ministry of Finance, Budget and Economic Development. However, the M&E Framework contained in the
EDS and the M&E system envisioned for the proposed “Office of Transformation, Service and Delivery” will help solve this problem.
M&E at the Local Government Level
The structure of M&E at the local government level depends on the particular sector. Linkages
between M&E structures at the state and LGA levels are particularly important for the education and health sectors given the several concurrent responsibilities for activities of both
sectors at the two levels. In the education sector, primary schooling falls under the jurisdiction of the LGA and the same goes for primary health care in which the Health Departments at the
LGAs have considerable interest and influence. In the water sector, the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Departments are also important arms of RUWATSAN at the LGA level. In the
agriculture sector, the linkage may be less critical considering the fact that the Agricultural
Development Projects (ADPs) which serve as the extension arm of the Government, have extensive presence throughout the State and are not dependent on the LGA for information.
In Summary
There are considerable institutional and organizational complexities in the structures of each of the four sectors analyzed in-depth. The conclusion is that there is no lack of structure but
there are serious deficiencies in coordination between and among the multiple layers that are involved in the gathering and analyses of M&E information across the State. The M&E function
that is currently taking place throughout the State is severely constrained by lack of capacity
and resources in all cases.
Availability of MDGs/Eight Point Agenda Data There are two different sets of MDGs/Eight Point Agenda targets floating around in the State.
There is a set developed by the Department of Population Activities, Research and Statistics of the State Planning Commission in March 2011 and a second set by the State Planning
Commission presented in the EDS. While they both take the MDGs/EPAGs as their respective reference points, the latter which is more recent is considered by the Special Assistant to the
Governor on MDGs to be the more relevant and reflective of current realities. The more
fundamental issue is, however, is that both set of targets were developed well before the on-going governance reform took off and they were developed by the State Planning Commission
without inputs from the MDAs. Consequently the MDGs/Eight-Point Agenda targets are not being monitored systematically as a common set within the individual MDAs. As a result, while
it is possible to find data for many of the MDGs/Eight-Point Agenda targets contained in both
documents, their locations are fractured and convoluted in a complex M&E institutional and organizational structure (See the Tables in the Annexes of the Five Sectors that were analyzed
in-depth). The current reality, therefore, is that it is virtually impossible for the Government to paint a comprehensive picture of where it is in terms of progress against the MDGs/Eight Point
Agenda because the existing data is partial and scattered all over the place.
13
The State Planning Commission concedes that the indicators contained in the SDS should be
considered as still work in progress to be finalized after sector strategies and MTSSs have been prepared for each sector within the proposed M&E framework. While the State Planning
Commission has started the process of developing the MTSSs and MTEFs, progress has been slow. Consequently, the number of indicators that have been identified are not only too many
they combine an unbalanced and inappropriate mixture of high level MDGs outcomes-related
issues and much lower level input-related issues. What is worse, they may not be a fair representation of the core thrust of the actual MDGs/Eight-Point Agenda activities taking place
within the sectors since they are not based on sector strategies. Also, in most cases, not much thought has been given to the timeframe of the MDGs or Eight-Point Agenda in defining the
targets and a large proportion of the targets have no baselines from which to measure progress. A detailed annex has been prepared for each of the four sectors analyzed in-depth,
scrutinizing the targets proposed in both the SDS and that of the Department of Population
Activities, Research and Statistics of the State Planning Commission, citing whether or not it is possible to measure each one, where the data is situated, and whether the needed baseline
information is available.
In Summary
The MDAs were not involved in the development of the MDGs/EPAGs for each sector and their
development was not part of sectoral planning processes. There is, therefore, a significant vacuum in the planning environment in the State which, in turn, has and/or will continue to
have serious implications for the M&E of the MDGs and the Eight-Point Agenda, unless
rectified. There is also little ownership of the targets within the respective DPRSs and MDAs. To rectify this situation, the State Planning Commission is in the process of developing sector
strategies in collaboration with the different sectoral MDAs. The aim of this exercise is to help them develop “smarter” targets and indicators and put in place plans for the needed baselines.
Many of the deficiencies in the existing M&E processes and institutional arrangements can be easily tackled by bridging the M&E capacity gaps identified in this assessment report. The
starting point, however, should be revisiting and reconsidering the targets themselves. This provides SPARC with a timely opportunity to reassess its support profile to M&E development
in Ekiti State on the basis of this assessment so as to add maximum value through its
proposed follow-up activities.
Data Collection, Processing, and Storage Processes and Systems
The Reality on the Ground in the MDAs
In almost all cases, the data collection, processing and storage processes that presently take
place are superficial focusing mostly on monitoring visits and exercises whose results and
reports seldom feed into more systematic data collection processes. Information collection is usually based on a simple template whose format varies from MDA to MDA and those
collecting the information do not often know why they are collecting the information or how the information that they have been asked to collect will be used.
The Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Divisions of the DPRSs within the Ministry of Agriculture is not carrying out wider sectoral studies which could be used to set baselines and
which would be necessary for evaluating impact of either the MDGs or the State Eight-Point Agenda goals. Its linkages with the State Planning Commission are very weak. In Education,
the division between primary and secondary education has resulted in a parallel structure. The
team got the impression that SUBEB, by virtue of its remit, is planning its own Education Management Information System, which would be fed by Annual School Census data and as it
develops, would increasingly combine this with administrative data collected through ongoing monitoring and inspection. This would confound challenges currently facing the Ministry of
Education with respect to drawing in information from a range of other parastatals in the education sector. This is particularly important in relation to centralizing and harmonizing the
layers of inspection data that presently exists in the education sector.
14
The data collection, processing, and storage in the agencies of the four ministries studied in-
depth are invariably limited by lack of resources and by the fact that M&E happens often to the exclusion of the M&E Units of the parent Ministry. When departmental Ministry M&E staff
are included in these exercises, they are not usually responsible for ensuring that the reports that are produced are utilized for performance-related decision-making purposes. This is the
case in the DPRSs of Agriculture, Water and Health. The M&E Units in these agencies also do
not have dedicated M&E budget lines and are therefore dependent on the budgets of programmes within the parent departments which, in most cases, do not themselves have
dedicated budget lines for M&E and the M&E Units, where they exist, are not producing the key departmental monitoring reports on time or regularly.
Statistics Units and Data Collection
The reality of statistical activities within a research and statistics division in a DPRS is complex in terms of institutional organization and lack of coordination with other departments as well
as with different parts of the DPRSs themselves. There is very little current inter-phase
between the statistical and M&E functions in all the four DPRSs reviewed in-depth. In all of them, the Statistics Division is largely none-functional and the related Data Banks, if they exist
at all, exist only in name. In agriculture, the central statistical function is very weak and there is no Data Bank to speak of. As a result, data collection for the sector is fragmented and
insufficient. In Health, the central HMIS is relatively better advanced thanks to on-going support from the World Bank. A Health Data Bank and its expansion are seen as part of the
planned MIS reform in the State. To be successful, the M&E reform process would need to
yield quick results in terms of centralizing health information on the MDGs and the Eight-Point Agenda within HMIS.
In Education, there is no specific Department or Unit responsible for M&E and SUBEB and
Education Management Information System (EMIS) presently act as de-facto Data Banks on
education statistics matters. There is, however, a degree of overlap between the Ministry and SUBEB which may also be planning its own parallel EMIS system.
With regards water, the M&E structure is somewhat complex in that the State makes a
distinction between urban and rural water targets and a consequential division in M&E
responsibility between Water Corporation and RUWATSAN. This has resulted in a situation where there is no all-encompassing collation of water data in the State.
In terms of investment into Information Management System (IMS), Health has benefited
from on-going support from both the State‟s donor partners and the State Government itself
to organize data management and flows through the HMIS Unit located within the Health Ministry‟s DPRS. The main structural complexities in the Health sector relates to the fact that
data collected at its different facilities follow different paths before eventually ending up in the HMIS Unit. The Health DPRS is, however, taking action to centralize health-related data in its
Data Bank but there is still much to be done to strengthen the central HMIS Unit and to
ensure that it becomes the central hub for all health-related data, especially those relating to the MDGs and the State‟s Eight-Point Agenda.
Statewide Data Collection and Information Management
The State Bureau of Statistics (SBS) has the legal mandate for collecting and publishing State official data. The Bureau has been performing this function to the best of its limited ability. For
instance, the Bureau has only four computers and two photocopiers donated by World Bank in 2010. There is no statistical software for data analysis, all analysis are done manually and
could take up to six months to complete data analysis in one survey. Analyzed data are
published and stored in the form of booklets. Assemblage of such booklets is referred to as the State „Data Bank‟. Such publications include but are not limited to the following:
State Statistical Year Book (SYB);
Health Statistics;
Education digest;
Market calendar showing the market days and advise Government on market location
of various products.
15
The Bureau designs template using the generic SYB or the Bureau‟s initiative for collection of
administrative data from primary and secondary sources. For instance, Education data template is sent to SUBEB for primary education data and also sent to the Ministry of
education. There is no standard data management calendar, but the Bureau sends out the templates in January with the hope of getting feedback by end of March. MDA‟s delay in
sending feedback, but submitted data from the primary source (e.g. SUBEB) is cross-checked
with the secondary data source (e.g. Ministry of Education - MoE) submission. Any discrepancy is jointly addressed and a common position agreed. This process serves as the verification
process.
The last published SYB is 2009. Data collection exercise of the Bureau and that of other DPRS
are not funded. The little efforts are made from the relevant agency‟s overhead cost.
Data are published and sent to agencies of interest. Data collection and publication are not demand driven.
In Summary
Most of the MDAs do not have a systematic plan in place for collecting, assembling and analyzing the required data including baseline and on-going M&E8. In almost all cases, no
attention is paid to what information can realistically be collected given available human and
financial resources and, where arrangements for the routine collection and processing of M&E data exist, many staff are not aware of the real reasons for collecting the data. This situation
was particularly obvious in the Ministry of Health. In none of the ministries were the indicators that were being measured defined in a logical framework. Much attention was also not being
paid to the quality and accuracy of the data being collected and their analyses.
Availability of Finance and Human Resource Capacities The data collection, processing, and reporting processes in the DPRSs in the MDAs are
invariably limited by lack of resources and limited human capacities. This is the case in the
DPRSs of Agriculture, Water and Health. M&E activities in their DPRSs are poorly funded with no specific and dedicated budget lines, which mean that funds are not normally allocated
specifically for the conduct of M&E functions and are therefore dependent on the budgets of programmes within the parent departments which, in most cases, do not themselves have
dedicated budget lines for M&E. In the few cases where funds have been set aside for M&E activities, the amount allocated is usually very small and inadequate to effectively carry out
the function. What is more, the staff strength within the DPRSs is insufficient in number and,
more importantly, in capacity. Many of the staff that carries out M&E activities has limited understanding of the basic concepts of monitoring and evaluation. Furthermore, the
monitoring that takes place focuses almost exclusively on budget implementation and technical inputs with no analyses of the chain of linkages between inputs, activities, outputs,
outcomes, and impacts.
Level of Demand for Information on MDGs/Eight Point Agenda Goals
The Government of Ekiti State is engaged in significant processes of reform to institutionalize
accountability and transparency. A key challenge relates to a coordinated response to the political will to use M&E to provide evidence for making decisions about resource allocation
and management. Whether this political will cascades down through the MDAs to ensure that
its effect is fully felt, including the institutionalisation of incentives for Government officials to take the M&E function seriously and demand for information on MDGs/EPAGs, is still an open
8On-going M&E is the analysis that occurs at any point during project implementation to provide information that would be useful for taking corrective and, based on an analysis of the deliverables of the project, whether it is likely to achieve its stated objectives. On this basis both corrective and major changes may be made to the project or it could be aborted.
16
question, but there is a good chance that this issue will be tackled with the advent of the
proposed Office of Transformation, Strategy and Delivery (OTSD) and the results-based M&E system that emerges from the State‟s proposed Framework for M&E.
Presently, the demand for information on MDGs/Eight Point goals in the State is focused
almost entirely on monitoring of budget “spend”. Consequently, very little project
management and project evaluation and/or impact assessment9is currently taking place and the demand for information to know whether or not Government‟s development initiatives are
making a difference or having an impact on the people, has been low or non-existent. This low demand, however, reflects wider limitations in the State‟s planning and budgeting cycle in
which project management and performance measurement currently play insignificant roles. It
is, however, important to note that the low demand for information on the performance of important Government initiatives and the lack of political will to invest into generating the
required evidence through evidence-based M&E is not unique to Ekiti State but an aspect of the wider culture of scepticism about M&E and limited information use within governments
throughout the country.
The Ekiti State Government is determined to reverse this lack of culture of evidence-based
information use. It is, however, not going to be easy. The Government should, therefore, not underestimate the challenge. Even in the core sector of Health where there has been
significant investment into information management and the institutionalization of MIS, there is still a long way to go to maintain a high level of demand for rigorous and regular data for
important government initiatives such as the MDGs and Eight-Point Agenda. Furthermore, it is
not enough for Government to simply increase investments in M&E activities as part of the reform process. Fundamental shifts are needed in the way the Government carries out
sectoral planning, sets priorities, makes budgetary decisions, and manages the MDGs/EPAGs programmes and projects as stipulated in the EDS and the transformation agenda.
M&E Capacity Gaps and Needs
Difficulties in Conceptualizing the Utilization of M&E Data for Decision Making and Budgetary Allocations
The review found a lack of analytical capacity in all the MDAs for analysing, interpreting and
using the very limited M&E data that was available. While most of the M&E staff interviewed knew what the data that they had collected meant, most were in the dark as to what the data
would be used for and showed little or no concern for the data limitations. In all cases there was lack of appreciation and/or ability to use the available data in decision-making particularly
budgeting. This can be attributed to the fact that there was lack of appreciation and knowledge, and experience about the critical importance of a Logical Framework for each and
every project to be monitored and the associated Results Chain/Logic Chain that should form
the basis of an effective M&E process. This resulted, in many instances, in confusion about what the M&E process should be measuring and for what purpose, thus leading to
inconsistency and lack of standardization of data coming from the different departments within ministries and the different Sections and Units within departments.
Indicator Development
Throughout the assessment, the team consistently identified indicator development as one of
the key gaps, particularly the lack of skills for developing interim or progress indicators that link investments to results and lack of understanding of the relevance and usefulness of
9Performance management (management by results) uses performance information to manage organizational capacity and processes and helps set agreed-upon performance goals, allocate and prioritize resources to meet those goals, and report on the success in meeting those goals. Performance Measurement comprises Monitoring which focuses on the collection of information about a project to show the extent of progress in the use of allocated funds and other project inputs, and Evaluation aims to determine the relevance and fulfilment of project goals and objectives, project effectiveness, development efficiency, and project impact and sustainability.
17
selected indicators. Most of the M&E officials interviewed were unsure of the relevance and
importance of the data they had been collecting. Not only were the data being targeted for collection too many to be realistically collected, most of the field workers were just simply
going through the motion of collecting the data without knowing the relevance or importance of the indicators involved.
Data Generation and Data Collection Methods
The study found serious limitations in routine data collection because of inadequate numbers of M&E staff and the M&E capacity of the staff that were available. Lack of equipment,
standardized procedures, and coordination within, between, and among MDAs were frequently observed by the Team. In most cases there was also lack of the required level of
disaggregation of data to permit decision-making, especially with regards gender. Furthermore, it was not obvious from discussions with the M&E staff of the four MDAs studied
in-depth, that they possessed the required capacity to prioritize the M&E data that they need,
especially the baseline data that would be appropriate.
The assessment also found that capacity building in M&E data generation and data collection
methods was sorely needed. The findings identified constraints in this area as one of the primary M&E gaps in the State. It should, however, be emphasized that the gaps identified
were not only in terms of knowledge and skills related to individual data collection methods
but also in terms of absence of “timely and useful” data. What this indicates is the need to not only address the technical subject matter of, “how to”, of data collection methods but, more
importantly, the “what” needs to be collected (i.e., indicator selection) and the needed data flows.
M&E Coordination
Given the multiple layers of M&E mandates, responsibilities and roles in the State, improving
coordination capacities at multiple levels (coordination in M&E system design, coordination
within and across sectors and administrative bodies, coordination in data collection, collation and storage) was also identified as a critical area for capacity-building. While not typically
thought of as an M&E capacity building area, the relevant officials will obviously benefit from capacity-building aimed at facilitating improved coordination activities within and across MDAs.
In Summary
Based on the findings concerning the availability of MDGs data and how the targets are being monitored or will be monitored, an assessment of the effectiveness of the existing capacity for
generating the needed data for monitoring the targets, and a review of normal established M&E practices within the MDAs, the team identified the following seven main areas of capacity
gaps which will need to be filled:
Constraints in experience and capacities in strategic planning as a prerequisite for
effective M&E;
Lack of knowledge and appreciation of the importance of Logical Frameworks for
effective M&E;
Difficulties in selecting and measuring useful, practical, and meaningful indicators
along a chain of results;
None utilization of M&E data in decision-making and budgeting;
Limited knowledge and skills in monitoring;
Limited knowledge and skills in evaluation;
Difficulties in carrying out performance measurement that provides timely and useful
M&E information, especially baseline information.
The assessment finds that there is need for a broaden M&E capacity building approach that combines technical subject matter with process, organizational and institutional building
knowledge and skills.
18
19
Section Four Recommendations for Addressing the Identified Capacity Gaps and Needs and Options for Developing Baselines
In view of the fact that the results of this study could lead to the provision of support for
establishing MDGs baseline in Ekiti State and identifying the most appropriate capacity
development reform priorities and approaches, the on-going process of developing the State‟s Eight-Point Agenda which mirrors the MDGs, provides a unique opportunity to start addressing
some of the capacity issues identified in this assessment report in a comprehensive way without minimizing the fact that the required capacity-building will require sustained longer-
term efforts and attitudinal changes.
The Need for a Comprehensive Process It is recommended that addressing the M&E capacity gaps and needs identified in this report
should be done in a comprehensive M&E to build knowledge, skills and competencies that can
help answer the following questions on a routine basis:
Are budget allocations consistent with MDGs/Eight Point Agenda policies and
strategies?
Are expenditures consistent with budgets and with value for money considerations?
Are planned results and impacts being achieved?
What lessons can be learnt from each stage in the policy-budget-results chain?
In this regard, it should be emphasized that baseline capacity building is just one component
of the larger M&E capacity building needed for the operation of the planned M&E data
collection, analysis, and reporting processes envisaged in the EDS and by the OTSD. The entire base-lining capacity-building process, including the design of and budgeting for the conduct of
the baselines and subsequent studies (mid-term and final evaluations), must be developed during the sectoral planning stage recommended earlier. This is critical for comparative
20
purposes as it will ensure that subsequent studies (mid-term and final evaluations) can
duplicate the baseline methodology initially used.
Focusing on the DPRSs of MDAs Knowledge, skills and competencies for answering the questions posed above would best be
obtained by: building the capacity of DPRS staff to link sectoral plans and strategies to monitoring and evaluating the achievement of the MDGs/Eight Point Agenda goals; providing
assistance to MDAs to revisit the MDGs/Eight Point Agenda targets, linking them to sector strategies and making them “Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time bound
(SMARTer)”; and then developing and implementing an MDGs/Eight-Point Agenda baseline
plan. This, of course, assumes that the MTSSs that are being planned would be available and would be clear, affordable and feasible. The reality is that they may not be since the different
sectors in the State are at different stages in the process of developing their individual sectoral policies and strategies. In the absence of clear, affordable and feasible sectoral policies and
strategies, the first step would be to address this very obvious strategic gap across the sectors. The review recommends that this should be done in as many sectors as possible but,
at the very least, in the four key MDGs/Eight-Point Agenda sectors covering at the minimum,
education, health, agriculture and water. Within each of these sectors, the relevant DPRS should be facilitated to take the lead on this with the State Planning Commission providing the
needed coordination to ensure integrated planning and data collection.
The approach described above would focus on strengthening the DPRSs through on-going
action rather than starting with baseline capacity building in a vacuum. It would also start the process of addressing the fundamental M&E issues identified in this assessment regarding the
status and importance of linking sector strategic plans to results-based M&E and the role of the DPRSs within Ministries.
Limiting the Targets and Indicators to be Base-lined and monitored
The proposed planning process described above would aim at arriving at a unified set of indicators for the MDGs/EPAGs on a firm and commonly understood basis. The targets of the
Eight-Point Agenda contained in the EDS10 have been analysed as part of this capacity assessment. The analyses carried out should be utilized as new “SMART” targets are
developed. This approach would:
Lead to a better understanding of the data availability and the related need for
investments into new baselines;
Serve as the basis for developing a new set of critical MDGs Eight-Point Agenda Goals
indicators per sector;
Be used to introduce measurement and data collection processes that provide timely
and useful data for decision-making and budgeting purposes.
It is strongly recommended that the number of targets and indicators to be base-lined and
monitored for each sector be limited to manageable levels (no more than 10) so that each
sector can focus on the core of what must be measured on a regular basis. Each target has its own data demands and the more the targets, the more expensive and elaborates the M&E and
baseline requirements. It would be much more beneficial to focus fully on a small set of indicators that are realistic and measurable rather than embark on a process of collecting
volumes of information on numerous sets of indicators for which only partial data is available or can be generated.
10The targets in the EDS are the most recent targets and are reflected in the strategy‟s M&E framework.
21
Investment into New Baselines The level of investments that would be needed for base-lining the MDGs/Eight-Point Agenda would depend on the rigor required which, in turn, would vary according to the type of targets
being base-lined. The right balance must be struck between the need for robust, precise data
to establish pre-MDGs/Eight Point Agenda conditions and the cost of collecting such data in terms of resources (financial, human and time).
Next Steps Based on the findings of the capacity assessment and the recommendations made above, the following next steps are recommended:
Build the capacity of DPRS staff to link their MTSSs to the M&E Framework contained
in the EDS and help improve their analytical capacities to use the M&E Framework to
plan the collection, analyses, interpretation of data and measure the achievements of
the MDGs/Eight Point Agenda goals; while
Providing assistance to revisit the MDGs/EPAGs targets and indicators and make them
“SMART”; and
Developing and implementing a MDGs/EPAGs baseline plan.
There are three options that could be followed in establishing and publishing an MDGs/EPAGs baseline for the State as follow:
Content-focus;
Audience-focus;
Institution-focus.
Content-Focus
With this option the training would focus specifically on the conduct of baselines. The training would be designed and delivered specifically to build capacities for the conduct of baseline
studies including specific knowledge, skills and competencies for:
Establishing baseline data requirements for MDGs/Eight Point Agenda projects;
Designing baseline studies;
Carrying out initial baseline studies, mid-term reviews and end-of-project evaluation
and identify lessons learnt;
Communicating baseline findings to help measure change;
The participants will be selected for training depending on the relevance of base-lining
to their actual responsibilities and on-the-job circumstances.
Participant-focus
Here the capacity building programme will be geared to respond to the needs of groups of
individuals with a common baseline need irrespective of their institutional location. Staff
involved in M&E in all MDAs will be eligible to be selected to participate in the baseline capacity-building initiative. The danger here is that the number of prospective participants
eligible for training could be quite large and unmanageable.
Institution-focused
Here the capacity-building programme would be designed relative to a single Ministry,
Department or Agency. This will involve a comprehensive approach that is MDA-driven and custom designed. With this option, Teams from MDAs will diagnose M&E baseline readiness,
prepare an action plan for capacity-building in the MDA, and implement the plan. The major
short-coming of this option is that baseline studies cannot be conducted in a vacuum but should be seen as part of the larger M&E design that outlines the planned M&E data collection,
analysis and reporting processes.
22
In Summary
While the above options have been discussed as if they were stands-alones, they are not
mutually exclusive and it is conceivable that the best baseline capacity building option could be one that combines all three strategies.
23
Annex One Terms of Reference SPARC TOR: EKT-INC-4-A
A. Related Dimension (DD) Details
Name of Consultants: Quindaline Eneh and George Abalu
1. DD Title: M&E Systems for Tracking Progress on MDGs
2. DD Version: 1
3. DD Working Period: 2011-2012
4. DD Outputs to be delivered
1. Assessment of existing M&E system
2. State MDG profile developed 3. Proposal for strengthening MDG M&E within States and linking M&E processes to Federal Initiatives
B. Terms of Reference
5. Version 6. Start Date 7. End Date
1 October 2011 December 2011
8. Introduction
Rationale: H.E. The Governor of Ekiti has identified the improvement of MDG indicators in the state as a
priority. In order to facilitate this, it is essential that reliable data is available to measure these indicators in order to: a) inform policy and strategy development for improving MDG indicators, b) establish a baseline
for measuring future progress and c) enable on-going monitoring and evaluation of performance and the effectiveness of relevant policies and strategies.
Against this background, work under these TORs is designed to help Ekiti State Government (ESG) assess the strengths and weaknesses of their current MDG M&E arrangements and to develop a Road Map for
strengthening these arrangements across relevant MDAs. A further output under these TORs will be the design of accompanying support for rapidly developing an MDG baseline in the state. The nature of this
support will depend on the assessment of current MDG M&E arrangements in the state.
Overall Approach: The overall approach will be to work with ESG to identify the most appropriate
counterpart MDA/s and officials with which to work. Consultants working under these TORs will adopt a participatory approach in order to ensure that methods used and outputs produced meet the needs of ESG.
Work under these TORs will first of all consist of a comprehensive MDG M&E capacity assessment across relevant MDAs and preparation of an MDG M&E Capacity Assessment Report. This report will be used to: a)
design accompanying support for establishing an MDG baseline and b) identify capacity development
reform priorities and approaches in consultation with ESG. The results of these discussions will be used to prepare a Road Map for Strengthening MDG M&E within Ekiti State which ESG can use to develop more
24
detailed plans and budgets within relevant MDAs.
9. Lead Consultant Days 10. Supporting Consultant: Days 11. SPARC staff: Days:
Quindaline Eneh 30 George Abalu 15 Chris Perry 5
12.
Specific
Outputs
13.
Deadline
14.
Int.
Days
15.
Nat
Days
16.
Activities
17.
Respon
sibility
1. Assessment
of existing M&E system.
Early
November
2
2
3
3
5
5
3
Field: Conduct initial discussions with relevant
officials within Ekiti State Government on the purpose and scope of the assignment and facilitate
identification of key SG counterparts with whom to work during the course of the assignment.
G.
Abalu Q.
Eneh
Field: Prepare an inception report detailing the
methodological approach for assessing M&E capacity within the state, drawing on existing approaches used
in SPARC (e.g. M&E SEAT, state level institutional/organisational assessments) and finalise
in discussion with SK counterparts and SPARC M&E
Team Leader. The approach should include:
a) The lead MDA and officials with whom to coordinate inputs under the TOR.
b) The proposed structure and content of the final
MDG M&E Capacity Assessment Report (see below).
c) List of MDAs within which to conduct the assessment and key informants within those MDAs.
d) List of other agencies or donor supported projects relevant to the field of study and key informants
within them.
e) Areas to be covered under the assessment, including, but not limited to: i) institutional and
organizational arrangements, ii) availability of MDG data, iii) data collection, processing and storage
processes and systems, iv) level of demand for
information on MDGs amongst different audiences, and for what purpose and vi) availability of finance
and human resource capacity. f) Developing options and recommendations for
establishing and publishing an MDG baseline for
the state, either through: i) utilizing existing data (where available), ii) conducting a rapid sample
survey or ii) a mixture of both. The MDG baseline options and recommendations
should take into account current SPARC financing constraints and consider the potential for SG
government funding and any opportunities for
additional donor support (e.g. from DFID).
G.
Abalu Q.
Eneh
Field: Apply the agreed methodology within relevant
MDAs working, wherever possible, with identified SG
counterparts.
G.
Abalu
Q. Eneh
25
3
1
1
1
Field/Home: Prepare a draft MDG M&E Capacity Assessment Report, consistent with the agreed methodology, and share with key SG counterparts,
including options and recommendations for rapidly
establishing and MDG baseline.
G.
Abalu Q.
Eneh
Field: Give a presentation to key SG counterparts on
the findings of the capacity assessment report, including MDG baseline options and
recommendations, and record feedback from SG
officials.
G.
Abalu Q.
Eneh
Field/Home: Prepare final MDG M&E Capacity Assessment Report and publish and distribute within
Ekiti State Government.
G.
Abalu
12.
Specific Outputs
13.
Deadline
14.
Int. Da
ys
15.
Nat Da
ys
16.
Activities
17.
Responsibility
2. State MDG profile
developed.
Mid Novembe
r
1. Home: Based on preferred options and recommendations discussed with SG, develop a
detailed set of SPARC TORs for establishing an MDG
baseline for the state.
Q. Eneh
3. Proposal for
strengthening MDG M&E
within States
and linking M&E processes
to Federal Initiatives.
End
December
End
November
2. Field: Draft an outline structure and content of a
Road Map for Strengthening MDG M&E within Ekiti State and finalise in discussion with SK counterparts
and SPARC M&E Team Leader.
Q.
Eneh
8 Field: Using findings within the M&E capacity assessment report prepared under (1) facilitate
discussions with key SG counterparts in line with the
proposed Road Map structure in order to identify capacity development priorities and preferred
approaches. This discussions should include, but not be limited to:
a) Clarifying MDG M&E roles and responsibilities between MDAs (e.g. to avoid fragmentation and
overlap). b) Organisational development goals and objectives
within relevant MDAs.
c) The need to phase and sequence the expansion of data collection systems in order to prioritise MDG
indicators (and other selected KPIs) without overloading available capacity.
d) Developing and documenting data collection, processing and storage systems and processes
within relevant MDAs.
e) Funding and human resource development requirements.
These discussions should take into consideration Federal initiatives (e.g. NPC, EMIS, HMIS, DevInfo)
and identify opportunities for strengthening
engagement with these initiatives in order to accelerate development of state capacity.
Q. Eneh
3 Field/Home: Based on these discussions; prepare a draft Road Map for Strengthening MDG M&E within Ekiti State. The Road Map should take into account
any existing strategies (e.g. State Statistical Master Plan) and detail a process by which Ekiti SG could
develop plans and budgets within relevant t MDAs in
Q. Eneh
26
response.
1 Field: Give a presentation to key SG counterparts on
the key aspects of the Road Map, and record feedback from SG officials.
Q.
Eneh
1 Field/Home: Finalise Road Map for Strengthening MDG M&E within Ekiti State and distribute within Ekiti
State Government.
Q. Eneh
Totals 45
18. Reporting
In addition to the outputs listed under 12 above, the UK and Nigeria consultancy teams are each required to submit the following reports:
Visit report at the end of each month during the assignment and at the end of the assignment (including for use in updating SPARC M&E MIS).
Note: These reports should be prepared in accordance with associated SPARC reporting templates and guidance.
Annex Two Field Reports on MDAs
Appendix One: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development THE MDGS – Eight-Point Agenda Framework for Agriculture
The Sectoral Policy Framework and MDGs-8-Point Agenda
Even though Ekiti State, like most other States in the country, has no specific State policy for agriculture, the Government considers agriculture to be one of the sectors to be accorded
the highest priority in its 8-Point Agenda given the fact that over 60 percent of the people of the State are engaged in subsistence farming most of whom live in the rural areas where
poverty is most pervasive. The Agenda, therefore, calls for strategies, programmes and
projects to enhance the capacity of the State to increase the projections of its major crops which include Cocoa, Oil Palm, Yams, Cassava, Maize and Rice.
The main policy goal is to improve agricultural production, ensure food security and
eradicate hunger. The policy targets include the following targets:
Reduce youth unemployment by training and employing 20,000 youths, 35 percent
of whom should be women;
Achieve a farmer-extension worker ratio of at least one extension worker to 1,000
farmers;
Improve the efficiency of the credit system in the state so that at least 85 percent of
the farming population has easy access to credit;
Increase the contribution of agriculture to the revenues accruing to the state to 50
percent of the State‟s internally generated revenue;
Increase the production of livestock and fisheries products;
Significantly increase the production of cocoa in the State to make it one of the
leading producers of the crop in the world;
Increase market access to rural areas;
Achieve more integrated rural development.
Monitoring and Evaluation of MDGs-8-Point Agenda
Statutorily the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is supposed to have a policy
and oversight role as well as a direct implementation role in the design and implementation of the State‟s agricultural strategies, policies, programmes and projects. To this end, it has
structures on the ground which cascade down to the local level.
28
The Ekiti Development Strategy (2011 – 2014) sets out a series of intervention logics which
are meant to achieve the agriculture goals of the 8-Point Agenda and which are directly related to the MDGs. There is, however, no system in place in the Ministry for monitoring
and evaluating progress against the targets specified in the indicated logical framework.
Table 1 below outlines the agriculture targets in the 8-point agenda, citing where there is data to measure them and if so, where that data are presently housed. The table also
includes comments on the measurability of the targets and some suggestions for improvement. It should be pointed out that the Ministry was not involved in the development
of the Logical Framework or in the process leading to the specification of the targets.
Table 1: Agriculture MDGs-Eight-Point Agenda Targets
The intervention Logic Objectively verifiable
Indicators Info Available
(Yes/No/Partial) Where is the data? How should
gaps be filled?
Goal: To accelerate the development of Ekiti
State by focusing on the investment clusters that will promote development of the State and increase the ability of the State to meet the MDGs.
Improve quality of life of Ekiti people
Percentage of population
accessing basic infrastructures and social services by sex, age group and location
Improve standard of living of Ekiti people
Percentage increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capital
Partial
Baseline will be needed to measure the following: Gross value added in agriculture
Gross value added in rural areas Proportion of the rural population
living under the poverty line (how will this be defined?).
Sources: Commissioned Studies State Statistical Year Book National Statistical Reports Statistics from the Central Bank Statistics from the National
Population Commission MDGs Reports
Objective 2: To build the necessary infrastructures that would ensure a modernizing agriculture
Percentage increase in the contribution of agriculture to the State‟s Internally Generated Revenue
Partial
Baseline will be needed to measure: Structure of the agricultural
industry Agricultural productivity
Agricultural employment Farm management system Sources: Commissioned studies MDAs reports State Statistical Year Book
Output 1: Investment in the agricultural sector yield increases in employment opportunities
Percentage increase in employment in the agricultural sector including the rural economy
Partial
Baseline will be needed to measure: % Employment in rural areas Number of people employed by
existing agricultural enterprises Sources Labour Reports Federal Bureau of Statistics Reports Ekiti State Statistical Reports
29
Institutional location and staffing of M&E in Agriculture
State Level
The ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is responsible for monitoring and
evaluating all government projects under the Ministry of Agriculture and its parastatals. The Department of Planning Research and Statistics (DPRS) is one of 8 departments in the
Ministry11. The DPRS is divided into 4 divisions each headed by a Deputy Director. These
includes: Planning, Research, Statistics, and Agro-Climatology. It has staff strength of 34 people, 16 of whom have a minimum qualification of a master‟s degree. All staff are said to
be involved in M&E on a “need to be basis” The Ministry also supervises 5 parastatals which are managed by General Managers or Project Managers12.
Three of the staff of the DPRS has been trained on aspects of the Results Chain having
participated in a workshop organized by DFID a number of years ago. However, since then, the department has not been involved in any effort to translate the development goals of the
Government into Agriculture related projects. The department was not involved in either the
development of the 8-Point Agenda or in the setting of its targets.
The Ministry has no M&E unit and M&E is said to cut across the entire DPRS. There are parallel department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation in the number of parastatals.
Most of these are not functioning and are undermanned or not manned at all with the exception of the ADP and FADAMA III. The ADP is essentially the extension structure for
agriculture in the State and its departments are represented at the Local Government level including Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation.
11 The other departments are: Finance and Administration, Agricultural Services, Forestry Services,
Veterinary Services, Fisheries Services, Livestock Services, Rural Development, and Produce Services and Tree crops. These departments are all headed by Directors. 12 The Parastatals include: Agricultural Development Projects (ADP), Fountain Agricultural and
Marketing Agency (FAMA), Sericulture, Farm Settlement and FADAMA III.
Output 2: Targeted investment in
Agriculture and Agro-allied industry: Increased
agricultural production
Enhance food security
Improved access to input and output markets
Growth in rural economy
Proportion of Ekiti farming population (by sex and location)
accessing one or a combination of relevant services including extension services, credit facilities, farm inputs, irrigation and mechanized farming through government support.
Rural roads (by location) rehabilitated to improve market access and reduce post-harvest loses.
Yield rates of major crops (especially cocoa).
Net farm income
Partial
Baseline on the current situation will be required for:
Existing hectares of major crops, especially cocoa.
Existing yields of major crops, especially cocoa.
Production levels of key crops, especially cocoa
Number of marketing and post-harvest facilities
Kilometres of feeder roads Agricultural GDP Number of extension staff Number of small-holder farmers
accessing credit by gender Sources M&E Reports Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development FADAMA 3 baseline design study Ministry of works Note that there is very little or no information presently exists for the on-farm and off-farm activities of farmers and existing information is highly unreliable
30
LGA Level
Each LGA in the State has eight functional departments including agriculture. The agriculture usually has sections and units including Crop Production, Fisheries, Livestock, Poultry,
Engineering and Extension Services. The highest educational achievement of most of the
section heads is the Higher National Diploma (HND). The Local Government visited had a total staff establishment of 44, three quarters of which were unified staff (senior level) and
the rest non-unified (junior staff). The hub of agricultural activities at the LGA level, including M&E is, however, the Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) who are
responsible for the provision of extension services. The Agriculture Departments at the LGAs
have no M&E sections or units but are linked to those of the ADPs through the regular Monthly Technical Review Meetings (MTRMs). LGA Agriculture linkages are much with the
ADPs than they are with the Ministry of Agriculture.
Financial resources allocation to M&E
The budget for the DPRS for 2010 was 3.6 Million Naira out of which no funds have been
released to the department as of date of the interview (October 2011).
Data collection and flow
Because of lack of funding, the Ministry has been unable to carry out any monitoring and
evaluation activity for quite some time. The last time the Ministry visited any of its projects was early 2009. The Ministry has no databank and has no functional computer. The ADP is
supposed to track the performance of the agricultural sector especially the crop sub-sector
and has generated some data but most of these have not been analyzed. The Planning unit of the DPRS is supposed to collate and circulate data from all the other technical
departments and put together the annual report of the Ministry. This should have been the essence of the MIS for the Agricultural sector. However, this has not taken place for quite a
long time.
Key data challenges and capacity issues
The Institutional structures do not appear to be in place for M&E in the Agricultural sector of
the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The key challenges facing the DPRS
include the following:
Inadequate resources for M&E activities. Very little priority has been given to M&E
activities in the Agricultural sector and budgetary allocation to the M&E functions have been almost non-existent. This is part of a broader cross-sectoral pattern
within the government even though there is recognition that there is a problem and
steps should be taken to address the problem;
Limited plan for data coverage: M&E in the Ministry is almost entirely an ad-hoc
activity. Broader statistical analysis is lacking regarding the agricultural status of the
entire State;
Lack of Baseline: There has been no investment in any type of baseline in several
key areas of the agricultural sector. This will make some of the MDGs-8-Point
Agenda targets impossible to report against. (See table 1 above);
Limited M&E capacity: The Ministry lacks the capacity to track and question relevant
data in its key areas of responsibility and so, has not been and it is not presently equipped to report against either the MDGs or the 8-Point Agenda progress, even if
the needed baselines were in place. Specifically:
There is very little understanding and appreciation of the importance of a
Logical Framework Analysis for the type of results-based M&E system that
the MDGs/8-Point Agenda requires. While a few of the senior staff have attended workshops (2008) where the use of Results Chain/Logic Chain in
M&E was discussed, most where unaware of its role and/or use;
31
While analytical capabilities to analyse, interpret and use MDGs/8-Point
Agenda data when produced, exists among some of the senior staff, there
presently exists serious limitations in routine data collection resulting from lack of equipment, standardized procedures, staffing and coordination within
the ministry itself and between it and its related agencies, and across MDAs in the State.
Limited movement of data between and among the different units, sections, and
departments of the Ministry: There is very little sharing of information taking place
and the little that does take place is on a personal and/or ad-hoc basis. There is very little or no coordination of data collection and analyses taking place between the
Ministry and its parastatals and sharing of information with the State Planning Commission can be said to be non-existent;
Relative roles of data collection between the Ministry and the Local Government:
Despite the fact that the Local Government is closer to the people and the Department of Agriculture at the LGA has more staff involved in operational
activities, because of the limited linkages between the two, it is unlikely that the LGA
is in a position as things stand to provide any value added in terms of data collection and report writing to the data process at the State level.
Appendix Two: Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology THE MDGS–Eight-Point Agenda framework for Education
The Sectoral Policy Framework and MDGs-8-Point Agenda
The State Ministry of Education, Science and Technology is the principal organ of the Government of Ekiti State that is statutorily entrusted with the mandate to implement
Education programmes in the state and to collect and collate data for purposes of planning,
financing and quality control. During the previous administration, the “Education for All goals of the Government” was used as the basis for developing a 10 Years Strategic Sector Plan as
well as 3 Years Mid-Term Sector Plan for Education. This process which was supported by United Nations International Children Education Fund (UNICEF) resulted in the preparation
of an Education Strategic Plan for the State in 2010 but the document is not yet official as it has not yet been reviewed or assented to by the Governor to make it an instrument for
budgeting. Consequently, there is presently no linkage between the Education Strategic Plan
and the State budgeting process. This notwithstanding, the Ministry follows an Education Sector Plan set in the context of the National Education Sector Plan and Federal Government
Reform objectives which include:
Expand Basic Education coverage;
Improve the quality and relevance of Basic and Secondary Education;
Strengthen State capacity to manage, plan and monitor the delivery of education
services more effectively and efficiently.
These objectives are encapsulated in both the Education MDGs goals and those of the State‟s Eight-Point.
MDGs-8-Point Agenda Targets
The main policy goal of the Education Sector is to ensure access to affordable, quality and relevant Education to all residents of the State. The policy targets of this goal include:
The provision of Computer on every student‟s desk by 2014;
The provision of Free and Compulsory education up to Senior Secondary School;
Increased enrolment from 40 percent to 100 percent by 2014;
32
Attaining a Teacher-Pupil ratio of 1:13 in Primary Schools and 1:14 in Secondary
Schools;
Ensuring that Students with special vocational needs have access to education
facilities;
Improving the quality of Education through curriculum development, capacity
building for teachers, provision of library, instructional material, teaching aids and
Information and Communication Technology (ICT);
Promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women;
Increasing the success rate of Ekiti State Secondary students in SSCE-NECO13 from
27 percent in 2010 to 50 percent in 2014;
Improving Community participation in School ownership and governance through
School–based Management Communities;
Improving private sector participation in the provision of Education;
Ensuring that Science, Technical and Vocational education and training are accorded
priority;
Putting in place quality assurance agencies that will ensure compliance with
prescribed educational standards and for external monitoring and evaluation of
Schools;
Establishing a functional Institute of Science;
Establishing a functional State Sports Academy;
Improving the quality of technical institutions in the State.
The overarching strategy for achieving these policy targets is to improve affordability,
access, quality and relevance of education in the State through increased funding, provision of the required enabling environment, promotion of ICT, improvement of quality of teaching,
improved governance and management and inspection activities.
Monitoring and Evaluation of MDGs-8-Point Agenda
The Ministry is aware of the fact that, it is expected to monitor and evaluate the projects that would be implemented under the auspices of the 8-Point Agenda of the Government in
a results-based way. The State is in the process of seeking help from the World Bank
through a new initiative, Programmatic Investment Learning Skill, which will involve defining indicators to measure progress. However, it is recognized within the Ministry that some of
the targets that have been set are quite ambitious and general and more fundamentally that there exist no baseline data from which to monitor progress against some of them.
The Ministry‟s Education Management Information System (EMIS) is still in the planning
stage and the goal of using EMIS as a tool for influencing the budgetary process is appreciated by the staff of the Ministry even though it is recognized that its
institutionalization will take some time. The Ministry is thus committed to putting in place a
process that will be used to plan and design projects in a results-based way before they are sent to the State Planning Commission for budgeting. The current Education budget was
prepared by the former administration and it is said not to have been evidenced-based and, as a result, the present budget of the Ministry was conceived as is a “zero budget”.
Table 1 below outlines the set of education targets with commentary on whether data is
available to measure them and if so, where they are housed. The table includes some
comments on the sources of the needed data.
13 Senior School Certificate Examination – Nigerian Examination Council
33
Table 1: Education MDGs –Eight-Point Agenda Targets
Output 2: Significant improvement in educational infrastructure
Number of classrooms, science laboratories and libraries constructed by location
Existence of a State Sports Academy for gifted youths.
Yes Yes
Bureau of Infrastructures Ministry of Education
Output 3: Percentage of physically challenged There is presently no
The intervention Logic Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Info Available
(Yes/No/Partial)
Where is the data? How should gaps be filled?
Goal: To accelerate the development of Ekiti State by focusing on the investment clusters that will promote development of the State and increase the ability of the State to meet the MDGs
Improve quality of life of Ekiti people Percentage of population accessing basic
infrastructures and social services by sex, age group and location
Improve standard of living of Ekiti people Percentage increase in GDP per capital
No
Baseline will be needed to measure the following: No of education-driven
employment
opportunities in the
State
Proportion of secondary and tertiary students who are unemployed and living under the poverty line (how will this be defined?).
Sources: Commissioned Studies State Statistical Year
Book National Statistical
Reports Statistics from the
Central Bank Statistics from the
National Population Commission
MDGs Reports
Objective 3: To empower the people of Ekiti State and increase their capacity to improve education, health, and
standard of living and protect their human rights
Percentage increase in school enrolment, retention and completion and by sex and location
Yes
EMIS
Output 1: Targeted investments in education create access to affordable, quality, relevant and innovative education to all Ekiti residents
No of schools receiving computer units, instructional materials, teaching aid, etc. through government support.
Proportion of school children benefitting from school feeding programme by sex and location.
Tertiary institutions‟ curriculum reviewed to include life-skills in line with Vision 20-20-20.
Percent coverage of schools adopting reforms (including establishment of school-based management committees,
inspection, etc.
Net enrolment ratio by sex and location
Yes but available data is not disaggregated by gender Yes Yes Yes
Yes
EMIS Ministry of Education Ministry of Education Ministry of Education
EMIS
34
Special initiatives implemented for physically challenged students
children benefiting from special educational initiatives by sex and location
No
baseline for this target. Baseline information will need to be generated from commissioned studies
Output 4: The Institute of Science and Technology established.
Existence of a well-equipped, well-resourced and financially functional Institute of Science and Technology
Yes
Ministry of Education
Institutional location and staffing of M&E in Education
State Level
M&E on Education is carried across a number of organizations and agencies in the State
including: The State Ministry of Education and its parastatals, the most active of which is the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB). The Ministry has eight departments headed
by Directors14 and eight parastatals15 headed by either Chair Persons or Executive Secretaries.
Ministry of Education
The hub of M&E activities at the Ministry of Education is the Department of Planning
Research and Statistics (DPRS) which has two divisions: Physical Planning and the Research and Statistics. The Research and Statistics Division is further divided into two units: Statistics
and EMIS. The Statistics unit collects data from Schools, the other departments of the
Ministry, parastatals and other relevant institutions and the EMIS, working in collaboration with the Research and Statistics Unit generates data for analyses and information sharing
with Schools and other agencies that may require them. In other words, both of these units working together generate data for the education sector.
The DPRS is responsible for monitoring the physical aspects of the Schools in the State, i.e.,
construction of classrooms and the provision of infrastructures generally. Actual monitoring and evaluation of other aspects of education in the State takes place within the different
departments of the Ministry such as the Inspectorate division which has the responsibility for
monitoring the teaching and learning environment in the state. All departments are involved in examination monitoring even though there is a specific department dedicated to
monitoring of examinations.
There is no separate division or unit responsible for M&E in DPRS. In other words, the DPRS does not have an existing system for measuring whether or not the education targets of the
MDGs/Eight-Point Agenda are being achieved but the Inspectorate Department carries out monitoring exercise since it has the mandate of ensuring quality teaching and learning in
both Primary and Secondary Schools. Baseline line targets are usually set for these
monitoring exercises. To facilitate this process, the Inspectorate department has officers posted to the Local Government Areas who are expected to monitor Schools in collaboration
with field staff from the Headquarters. Nine senior staff are presently based in the Department at Headquarters. They are supported by 45 senior staff at the 16 Local
Government Area Offices. The total established staff strength of the Department is 54 including Assistant Inspectorate Officers who are National Certification of Education (NCE)
holders (Level 09).
14 The departments are: Finance and Administration; Science, Technical and Mathematics; Inspectorate, School Sports; Tertiary Institutions; Schools; Evaluation and Standard; and Planning Research and Statistics. 15 The parastatals include: Technical and Vocational; Adult and Non Formal education; School Enterprise/Wealth Creation; Scholarship; Education Endowment Fund; State Universal Basic Education; Teaching Service Commission; and Library Board.
35
The State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB)
The State Universal Basic Education Board derives its mandate from the Compulsory, Free
Universal Basic Education and Other Related Matters Act of 2006. Consequently, it is expected to prescribe the minimum standards for basic education throughout Ekiti State in
line with National and State policies on education and to ensure the effective monitoring of standards. Consequently, there is a parallel Department of Planning, Research and
Statistics16 within SUBEB. The Ministry of Education oversees the activities of SUBEB but the Board reports directly to the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) but send a copy
of its reports to the Ministry of Education and the State Planning Commission. The Board is
responsible for preparing its budgets but does so in consultation with the Ministry of Education who defends the Board‟s budget in the budgeting process as well as the State
Planning Commission about is needs and activities.
The Board‟s DPRS monitors and evaluates its education projects in the State – i.e. it monitors projects from UBEC. The Board has an action plan which, once it is certified, serves
as the basis for monitoring UBEC activities in the State on a quarterly basis. The Ministry of Education also monitors SUBEB projects and activities in collaboration with UBEC.
Furthermore, external consultants are regularly hired to monitor UBEC projects in the State.
The Board intends to be involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the State‟s Eight-Point
Agenda using its own existing M&E system. It believes that its ability to bring in independent teams from outside to monitor both education quality and facilities in the State puts it in a
unique position to contribute meaningfully towards measuring the achievement of the education goals contained in the Agenda. Project monitoring comes under the DPRS while
monitoring of Teachers and Pupils comes under the Inspectorate and School Service department. The Planning Commission is also involved in monitoring through the State
Monitoring Team.
Local Government Level
The State is divided into sixteen Local Government Areas. The main responsibilities of the Local Governments with regards education activities in the State concerns mainly the
payment of Primary School Teachers‟ salaries and minor maintenance of Primary School
infrastructures. Each LGA has a Local Government Education Authority, headed by a political appointee who reports to both the Local Government Chairman and to SUBEB. The Local
Government Education Authority is run through four departments: Personnel, Inspectorate and School Services, Finance, and Planning, Research and Statistics. Both School Services
and DPRS are responsible for monitoring of different elements of education activities in the
LGA with the former inspecting the classrooms and the later, the physical infrastructures. In the LGA visited for purposes of this study, the Education Department is merged with the
department of Community Development with the following six sections: Community Development, Education, Sports, Social Welfare, Women Development, Children
Development, and a Culture Unit. The Education Section of the Community Development
department does not monitor any educational activities in the LGA leaving this task entirely to the Education Area Office of the Ministry of Education.
Education Management Information System (EMIS)
EMIS in Ekiti State is modeled in the context of the Federal Government‟s directives on
Education Management Information Systems which it sees as an integrated human and computer-based process for providing the information needed to support the activities of the
education establishments including management, planning, and decision making. At the
State level, EMIS is expected to enable the State Ministry of Education and key parastatals to:
16 The other departments are: Inspectorate and School Services; Personnel; Social Mobilization; and Finance.
They are all supposed to work together to complement each other‟s effort.
36
Obtain timely, uniform and quality data for various educational input and output
measure;
Compares Schools across States, regions and the country at large;
Tie operating cost to output measures to determine efficiency ratings;
Provide numerical data by Schools, grade levels and subject areas to facilitate
quality control;
Establish a flexible tool for answering complex questions regarding Schools
performance across the state and the country.
The EMIS collates and analyzes census data in collaboration with the Statistics and Research Section of DPRS which it then distributes to the Schools and other agencies that may require
them. In other words, EMIS generate data for the Education sector both in the State and for use at the Federal Government level. The template used in data collection is supplied by the
Federal Ministry of Education.
The creation of the State‟s EMIS was initially supported by the World Bank but its
management and administration has been taken over by the State Government. The Education EMIS is presently being used to develop a databank for the education sector.
There are linkages between the EMIS in the Ministry of Education and the 8 parastatals of
the Ministry of Education resulting in routine collection and processing of data from the later. However, there is no real interconnectivity between the EMIS and the parastatals due to lack
of the required infrastructure. Presently, the data available in the Ministry is used for budgeting and planning purpose in an ad-hoc way in gauging the needed resources for the
Ministry‟s projects before proposals are sent to the State Planning Commission. The Ministry
is, however, well aware of the importance of using data and information generated by EMIS to influence the budgeting exercise and a proposal is being prepared to request assistance
from the World Bank to help establish a results-based M&E process for this purpose.
The staff strength of EMIS is thus grossly inadequate. There are only 3 staff presently in the EMIS and one of them is actually on secondment from the Civil Service Commission – a
teacher. The minimum qualification of the staff of EMIS is a University degree.
Financial resource allocation to M&E
The budget for the DPRS for M&E activities was not available before the Team completed
field work. However, considering the fact that the amount of money spent per month doing inspectorate monitoring work in each of the Area Education Offices of the State in 2010 and
until September 2011, was N2,500 (Two Thousand Five Hundred Naira only), this speaks volumes about the dire financial situation facing M&E in the education sector in the State.
Data collection and flow
The main sources of M&E information in the State are the School Census. The census is carried out on an annual basis at the beginning of every academic year and it is the
foundation of EMIS system. The School Census is coordinated by SUBEB who produce summary of the activities of Schools within each LGA and disseminates this information back
to the LGAs. SUBEB does not appear to have its own EMIS.
Parallel qualitative data is available through the School Inspection System, but this is not yet being systematically analyzed. School Inspections is carried out at all levels but it is not fully
coordinated, and it seems that there is a great deal of repetition in the layers of inspection
that require streamlining, harmonizing as well as data capture. After inspection, a School is given immediate feedback to ensure that the necessary adjustments can take place, but
there is no systematic mechanism for inspection data to be integrated and analyzed at a more general level to input into policy process and to prioritize and coordinate the inspection
process itself.
37
SUBEB also carries out its own inspection. The Ministry of Education‟s School Services
inspectors focus their monitoring on classrooms, looking at pupils‟ attendance, teachers‟ attendance and more importantly, looking at the facilities, record keeping, and so forth.
SUBEB inspectors have access to the Ministry‟s EMIS and they can compare their findings with the data in the EMIS. However, data at the EMIS does not appear to be updated as
matter of routine with findings from SUBEB‟s own monitoring exercise.
Links with the Federal Level
There is a degree of integration with the Federal System of Education data through EMIS. The Federal Ministry of Education Data Bank also has relationship with both SUBEB and the
Ministry of Education and provides supervision on data quality coming through the system.
The working model for EMIS is set at the Federal level including the software. The Annual Statistical Year Book is currently being produced at the Federal Level as yet there is no State
by State publication.
Key data challenges and capacity issues
While the education sector appears to have a functional M&E system in terms of sectoral planning, the current reality of M&E within the Ministry of Education is that it is fractured,
complex, limited in coverage and suffers from a lack of co-ordination. What is worse, DPRS
does not have a dedicated M&E since its mandate is focused on School infrastructure and maintenance only. The picture that emerges is one of a history of under-funding DPRS as a
whole as well as M&E even though the Department‟s core mandate is inspection and should therefore be intimately tied to an effective M&E system by its very mandate. What is worse,
low quality staffing and the generally poor reputation of the inspectorate functions have
compounded the negative consequences of lack of funding. Furthermore, and fundamentally, the nature of inspection presently carried out has been limited in terms of
not paying any attention on the impact of schooling on the pupils i.e. a lack of linkage of education initiatives, projects and activities carried out to the results achieved and to
tracking progress towards outcomes. Consequently, the monitoring that does take place on education projects in the State is limited in coverage and emphasis, focusing on activities
and inputs and financial release rather than outputs and outcomes. There is no evidence of
any evaluation taking place of the outcomes and impact of past and/or on-going education projects at the moment. If not corrected, this could have serious implications to the “so what
question” that would eventually be asked about the 8-Point Agenda.
Specifically:
Seamless sharing and feeding of education-related information: Inspection
information from SUBEB and others are not feeding seamlessly into EMIS and there are key issues surrounding the data generated through the multiple layers of
inspection taking place within both the Primary and Secondary Schools system. Apart from the need to harmonize the inspection at various levels in terms of
content, flow and timing, it is fundamentally important that inspection is feeding into
the EMIS system on a routine basis as well as to the budgeting process;
Centralize data at the State level: SUBEB operates a parallel structure to that which
obtains in the State Ministry of Education. As a result, the Ministry of Education‟s
EMIS system is not integrated with the data systems at SUBEB, although attempts are being made to address this issue;
Lack of baselines: There is much of important baseline data that is lacking for Ekiti
State Education sector M&E of MDGs and the Eight-Point Agenda, some of which
have been highlighted in the table above;
Funding for EMIS. In the past, the funding for EMIS was heavily dependent on
external support. Although, the State Government has taking over its funding and
recognizes its importance, it is still not providing the magnitude of financial and institutional support that is required of such an important data processing outfit;
38
The EMIS is poorly staffed even though its fundamental mandate of collecting and collating school data through an annual census and the development of a State-wide
EMIS that is linked to the National EMIS are generally recognized.
Appendix Three: Bureau of Infrastructure and Public Utilities THE MDGS – 8-Point Agenda framework for water
The Sectoral Policy Framework and MDGs-8-Point Agenda
Water comes under the remit of the Bureau of Infrastructure in Ekiti State. The Bureau
which was formerly known as the Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Utility is headed by a Special Adviser to the Governor. The Bureau has the responsibility to provide basic
infrastructures like water, road, electricity, etc., which are major items in the 8-Point Agenda
as well as in the MDGs. It also provides oversight to corresponding agencies under its ambit such as Water Corporation, Electricity Board, Rural Water Scheme and Public Building. These
agencies and parastatals have their respective mandates which also include M&E. With regards Water, the two agencies that have responsibilities for Water in the state are:
The Water Corporation which has the mandate for providing portable water to the
people of the State through various Water Schemes;
The Ekiti State Rural Water and Sanitation Agency (RUWATSAN) which is responsible for the drilling of boreholes and for providing pumps and supplying water to the
rural areas of the State.
The Bureau is in the process of preparing a Water Policy document for the State which is
nearing completion. A Master Plan for Water is also being proposed that would enable the
Bureau to better monitor the water targets specified in the Eight-Point Agenda.
The overarching goal for the Water sector in Ekiti State is to harness the vast supply of natural water in the State through the development and improvement of the existing Water
Schemes and making them more functional. The aim is to be able to:
Provide safe water for all the citizens of the State;
Improve hygiene and sanitation; and
Improve the management and operation of the dams in the State.
By accomplishing the above-mentioned, the State believes it can make water available throughout the State, improve sanitation services, ensure effective and efficient waste
management (Waste to Wealth), and promote behavioral change among the people through the State‟s Community Led Total Sanitation (SLTS) programme. These goals and targets are
consistent with the goals contained in the MDGs (MDGs 7 and 10) as well as those of
contained in the Eight-Point Agenda.
Monitoring and Evaluation of MDGs- Eight-Point Agenda
In response to the defined targets in the Eight-Point Agenda, the Bureau of Infrastructure
carries out monitoring and evaluation exercises which starts with the preparation of
assessment reports on ongoing projects. The agencies under the Bureau also carry out their own monitoring exercises as it concerns their respective mandates. Table 1 below presents
the Water targets of the State as indicated the State‟s Development Strategy document for the period 2011 to 2014. The table also indicates where there is data to measure the
indicated targets as well as where the data is presently housed. It also includes comments on the extent to which the targets are presently measurable and provides suggestions for
improvement.
39
Table 1: Bureau of Infrastructure and Public Utilities MDGs-Eight-Point Agenda Targets
The intervention
Logic
Objectively
Verifiable Indicators
Info Available
(Yes/No/Partial)
Where is the data? How should gaps be
filled?
Goal:
To accelerate the development of Ekiti
State by focusing on the investment
clusters that will
promote development of the State and
increase the ability of the State to meet the
MDGs.
Improve quality of
life of Ekiti people
Percentage of
population accessing basic
infrastructures and social services by
sex, age group and
location Improve standard
of living of Ekiti
people Percentage increase
in GDP per capital
Partial
Baseline will be needed to establish the
existence or otherwise of: Improved drinking water sources (i.e.,
piped water into dwellings, plot or yard;
public taps/standpipes, tube wells/boreholes, protected dug wells,
protected spring, facilities for rainwater
collection, etc.) Sources
Bureau of Infrastructure
Commissioned studies
State Statistical Year Book
National Statistical Reports
Statistics from the Central Bank
Statistics from the National Population
Commission MDGs Reports
Objective 2:
To build the necessary infrastructure that will
assure a modernizing agriculture, tourism,
and industrial
development
Percent increase in
the contribution of
water to the State‟s internally generated
revenue
Yes
Bureau of Infrastructure Reports
State Statistical Year Book
Reports by the National Bureau of
Statistics
Output 1:
Investments in the water sector yields
increased employment
opportunities
Percent increase in
employment in the
water sector including the rural
economy
No
Baseline data will be need for:
Number of people directly and indirectly
employed in water and sanitation construction and maintenance projects
Number of farmers engaged in irrigation
activities
Sources: Commissioned M&E studies
MDGs reports
Bureau of Statistics reports
FADAMA III
Output 5:
Targeted investments
in infrastructure creates an enabling
environment for effective service
delivery, economic growth, employment
and wellbeing
Number and
proportion of the
population within ½ kilometre of safe
drinking water by
location Number and
proportion of
population with good sewage
disposal /sanitation
facilities
No
Baseline data will be required for:
Number of households within ½ of safe
water for x months of year. Number of households who receive more
than 20 litres of water per day
Proportion of communities using hygienic
sanitation facilities.
Sources
Commissioned M&E surveys
MDGs Reports
Surveys of the National Bureau of
Statistics
Note: There is presently a dearth of
40
information concerning water use and status data on the hygiene of people is rarely captured in the studies that have been done so far.
Institutional location and staffing of M&E in the water sector
State Level
The Bureau of Infrastructure has 5 departments: Planning, Research and Statistics; Finance
and Administration, Public Building; and Operation17. The DPRS has two divisions: Planning
and Research, and Statistics. It has staff strength of 3 senior staff and 2 junior staff. The team was not able to establish the number of established posts in DPRS. However, it was
acknowledged that the present number is low mainly as a result of lack of office accommodation since the Bureau and its departments have only recently being created.
Monitoring of Water projects and activities in the State takes place at four levels:
Bureau level;
Water Corporation level;
RUWATSAN level;
Local Government level (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene – WASH) Department.
Bureau of Infrastructure
At the Bureau level, the process of monitoring and evaluation starts with the preparation of an assessment form or template. The templates are designed in collaboration with the
Bureau‟s agencies and so encompass all aspects of infrastructures in the State. As part of the monitoring and evaluation exercise, the Bureau gives monthly monitoring targets to each
of the agencies. The State has been receiving financial grants from the Office of the Special
Assistant to the President on MDGs since 2007 and is expected to monitor and report on its Conditional Grants Scheme (CGS) funded MDGs Water projects separately from those of the
State.
When the State‟s Water Policy and Strategic Water Plan are completed, the Bureau hopes to start the process of using it as the basis for developing a Sectoral Policy Framework for the
Water sector including the preparation of Medium Term Sector Strategies (MTSSs) for managing water projects in the State leading to the achievement of the State‟s Eight-Point
Agenda water goals.
So, until that happens, the Bureau will continue to operate under the current institutional
arrangements aimed at increasing the numbers of people who have access to safe and reliable sources of potable water and adherence to basic hygiene. There also remain
challenges in the maintenance and rehabilitation, let alone expansion, of the infrastructure of water schemes, treatment plants and pipe systems. But the fact remains that MTSS
processes in the State have proceeded without indicative budget envelopes for the water sector resulting in the MTSS process gaining a reputation as “wish lists” of unrealistic
demands. This has damaged attitudes to MTSS as a tool, as well as wasting the resource
involved in their preparation and also leading to expectations that could not be met.
17 The Operation Department is planned and has not yet operational.
41
Water Corporation level
Two departments in the Water Corporation monitor water projects: the Department of
Planning, Research and Statistics and the Department of Design. The main responsibility of the DPRS is to monitor the progress of projects and prepare periodic reports. The focus is on
monitoring, although, some informal evaluation sometimes takes place to know to what extent the people have access to Water. The monitoring templates used make no reference
to project design, and there is no template or structure giving a common pattern to what was looked at for each project, for what purpose, and to what end.
Ekiti State Rural Water and Sanitation Agency
The Ekiti State Rural Water and Sanitation Agency (RUWATSAN) is responsible for the
drilling of boreholes and the provision and servicing of water pumps. It is headed by a General Manager. It has 6 departments18. The monitoring and evaluation department has 2
sections: The Planning section and the Laboratory section. Its M&E Department is supposed
to be manned by a Director but it is presently manned by an individual with a lower rank. The M&E department is responsible for updating water use data in the rural areas of the
State and conduct water surveillance (checking for the quality and quantity of water supply) in collaboration with its counterpart office at the Local Government Area i.e. Water
Sanitation and Hygiene Department –WASH. These offices in the Local Government areas
are run by the Local Government and each has an M&E Unit which sends reports and information to the Planning section at headquarters. There are monitoring Teams both at the
headquarters and at the Local Government level. The M&E teams in collaboration with the Local Government staff go on field monitoring and harmonize their findings.
The M&E teams do not have nor use standard templates for collecting information for their
M&E information. The M&E staff, through experience, have come to anticipate what information to collect and this usually relates to water supply, the number of water and
hygiene facilities on the ground, the condition of VIP19 Latrines, the existence or otherwise of
hand-washing facilities, etc.
Local Government Level
M&E function at the Local Government Level is shared between RUWATSAN and the LGA
administration. Each LGA has a Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) which work hand in
hand with RUWATSAN. LGA WASHs normally have five sections: Water Supply, Sanitation, Disease Control, Hygiene and M&E. They are ran by the Local Government and their M&E
Units conduct monitoring exercises and send reports and information to RUWATSAN for onward transmission to headquarters. Total staff strength in the WASH visited was 49 out of
which 11 were senior staff. M&E at the Local Government is supposed to be linked to the
activities at the State level, however, at present, the linkage is relatively weak.
Financial Resource Allocation to M&E
At the Bureau level, total amount budgeted for M&E for the 2010/2011 year was 5 Million
Naira out of which only 20 percent have been received so far.
Data collection and flow
Individual agencies reports are collated by the Corporation and sent to the supervising Ministry and, where it concerns the MDGs, are sent to the SA20 MDGs. The WASH offices in
the Local Government Areas also send reports to the Planning section at headquarters. This
takes place usually informally by telephone and during periodic meetings. In general, the
18 The departments includes: Sanitation and Hygiene, Administration, Accounts, Mechanization, Water Supply and Monitoring and Evaluation. 19 Very Important Persons 20 Special Adviser
42
reports summarize percentage level of implementation of capital projects by the Water
Corporation and its agencies and make some basic commentary on progress of on-going initiatives. In summary, the reports are extremely general in nature and are observational
rather than technical and analytical, and they usually conclude with general rather than specific recommendations. They appear to be meant only for satisfying requests for payment
(Certificate of Evaluation) obligations i.e., to ensure that the State is receiving value for
money in the execution of Water projects.
Key M&E challenges and capacity issues
The M&E challenges observed are summarized below:
M&E for Water within the Bureau of Infrastructure is fragmented, limited and under-
funded. The Bureau is relatively new and so its DPRS and M&E division within DPRS
are not yet adequately playing the co-ordination role they should be with the various agencies under their jurisdiction, they are not able to get out to monitor with any
frequency or regularity, they are grossly under-staffed, and have no Databank to
talk. The little monitoring that presently takes place focuses mostly on on-site inspection visits as monitoring and no evaluation is taking place;
The M&E function is not properly funded and the status of the M&E staff is often
shrouded by hostility and suspicion by other departments and units. What is worse, the water targets of the Bureau of Infrastructure and the Water Corporation, as
presently defined, do not correspond to the goals of the Government‟s Eight-Point
Agenda;
There is an absence of meaningful baseline data and the capacity to perform routine
basic M&E work does not presently exist. This explains why the current focus of M&E
in the water sector is mostly focused on technical monitoring with little or no real monitoring or evaluation taking place;
There is little or no incentives to do M&E work. As a result, the fact that the M&E Units do not know how their reports are used and/or are not expecting their reports
to be used, means that the conduct of M&E activities and the preparation of routine
M&E reports are not considered by the staff to be a productive use of their time.
Appendix Four: Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance, Budget, and Economic Development
Overall mandate
With the advent of democratic rule in the country, the Budget departments of State
Governments have assumed statutory mandates and obligations to monitor the preparation and implementation of the budgets of their respective State Governments to:
Keep the Executive Governor and his Executive Councils informed of the process and
progress of budget preparation and implementation;
Report to the State Assembly on this process and progress in conformity with the
State Assembly‟s oversight role in the budget process as provided for in the relevant sections of the Nigerian Constitution.
Budget process
Usually, the budget circle of the State follows the following five steps:
Budget Formulation;
Budget Preparation;
Budget Authorization;
43
Budget Implementation;
Budget Auditing.
Budget Formulation
Constitutionally, it is the Executive branch of Government that is responsible for the introduction of money bills in the State Assembly even though in reality many stakeholders
are involved including the MDAs, the State Inland Revenue Service, the Organized Private Sector, OSSAP-MDGs21, International Development Partners, Civil Society, etc. Ideally, the
preparation of a draft of Revenue and Expenditure profile for the State should follow formal
and informal consultations between and among these stakeholders, taking account of the following:
The amount of the expected revenues from the Federation Account and the State‟s
Internally Generated Revenues;
Comparisons of the performance of the budget in the previous year viz a viz the
goals of the budget in the year under consideration;
Growth prospect of the various sectors.
In Ekiti State, during this budget exercise, the Budget department of the Ministry of Finance
focuses on the Recurrent Expenditure Plan, while the preparation of the Capital Expenditure Plan is usually supervised by the State Planning Commission.
Budget Preparation
Because most projects are housed in the MDAs, they are usually the starting point for the
preparation of budgets. The budget preparation process usually starts with the issuance of Call Letters by the Ministry of Finance asking MDAs to send their Expenditure Profile. The
specified period for this profile is from the beginning of the budget year till August of the
present year. The Call letter also requests the MDAs to identify the projects they wish to finance during the coming year. This is followed by a Pre-Treasury meeting chaired by the
Commissioner of Finance. Others in attendance at this meeting are representatives of the State Planning Commission, the Audit Department, the State Accountant General‟s Office,
and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance. This is followed by Treasury Board
meeting headed by the Governor. During these meetings, the MDAs are invited to justify their submission after which the budget goes to the Executive Council for approval. After
approval, a Bill is prepared by the Minister of Justice which accompanies Governor‟s Memorandum transmitting the Budget Proposal to the State House of Assembly.
Budget Authorization
Following the budget submission to the State House of Assembly by the Governor, the
oversight Committees of the House conducts Hearings during which the MDAs are again
called upon to defend their components of the Budget Proposal submitted by the Governor. Sometimes, the State House of Assembly engages outside consultants in carrying out this
vetting. In Ekiti state, Oversight Committees exists for most of the MDAs‟ areas of interest.
Budget Implementation
The Ministry of Finance has the mandate and authority to draw money from the budget
based on the revenue available to the State. In this regard, it issues Capital and Recurrent Warrants as well as Authority to Incur Expenditures (AIE) to source money from the budget.
The amount and speed with which these Warrants are issued depend on a number of processes including scrutiny by the Bureau of Public Procurement. The basis for budgetary
allocations to the MDAs is also based on how much money was given to the MDA during the
last budget cycle and how much of that allocation the MDA was able to access and/or utilize. The State Planning Commission is involved in the decision about the amount of the budget
21 Office of the Senior Special Adviser to the President on Millennium Development Goals
44
that goes to each MDA with regard capital expenditures. However, not every MDA is able to
access what was or is allocated to them.
Budget Auditing
The State Assembly has the mandate to require the Executive arm of the Government to submit periodic reports to it with regards budget performance. Audit queries from the Office
of the Accountant General of the State are forwarded to the State House of Assembly
through its oversight Committees during which they are vetted. Quite often, the State Assembly can and does invite MDAs to come and answer the Audit queries. Budget audits
usually take place throughout the project circle.
M & E Placement
The Budget department has an M&E mandate even though it does not itself presently go out
to monitor project performance. Instead, it obtains returns from MDAs about how they are
faring especially with regards the money released to them during the previous budget cycle. The Budget department also carries out quarterly budgetary appraisals of all projects and if
needed, guides supplementary budget submissions and reviews. The Budget department also coordinates and collaborates with MDAs as well as with the Office of the Accountant
General of the State and the State Planning Commission in monitoring the project “spend” of
the MDAs. However, the M&E collaboration and coordination that takes place is however limited to routine contacts to get information on releases of warrants to MDAs and with the
MDAs themselves in preparation for field visits.
Although the Budget department of the Ministry of Finance has well defined statutory M&E
responsibilities, it is now only carrying out this responsibility in a partial and superficial way which does not really constitute expenditure tracking. The Department is currently only
monitoring recurrent expenditures. Even at that, it does not have the capacity to collect and
prepare reports that can disclose much needed information with respect to results in that it presently focuses primarily on activity rather than outputs and/or outcomes, i.e., it is not
capable of carrying out any ex-post evaluation of projects.
There appears to be a silent consensus that the work of the department is undervalued, that
the staff are insufficiently utilized and that the coverage and depth of the current monitoring
exercise is a fraction of what should be happening not only in terms of financial analysis but also in relation to looking at results of spend by the MDAs. Not only is the Department not
engaged in expenditure tracking, the monitoring that is taking place is not linking activities to higher level results. It is, therefore, not in a position to prepare reports that can provide
the kind of details that would be required to inform the Budget Office (and the Ministry of
Finance) and the Governor on the results of State Government spend on the Eight-Point Agenda projects.
Appendix Five: Ministry of Health Policy/ Strategies (+ M&E Frameworks)
The Ekiti State Ministry of Health has a State Strategic Health Plan (copy not presented).
Though this plan exist, but the ministries activities are currently been driven by the
Governors political promise of free Health care programme. The Ministry envisages the development of a Medium Term Health Sector Strategy (MTSS), but is implementing a free
health programme in communities as a Quick Win. As at January 2011, total number of 123,000 persons have accessed free eye and dental care services in the Communities. Phase
two of this exercise was flagged off during the period of this assessment to target the under-
5, 65+ and the elderly. A total of 37 designated Primary Health Care Centres were designated for the phase two. There was also free Hernia surgical festival in October 2011
without financial support from the State Government. Close to 400 cases registered but was only able to treat 150 persons. There was also free surgical clef lips festival. The Ministry
does not have a separate M&E strategy neither is there a State-wide M&E framework being operated.
45
Legal Mandate
There is no law that created the Ministry, but it has „provision of Health care‟ as its major
mandate. The operating mandates and functions are derived from the generic departmental functional views, national health policy and the Governors policy statements and desires.
The DPRS like most others has the primary function of data and M&E information
management. The strength of the department is evidenced in data collection and information management.
Existing Information Management and Monitoring System
The State has a functional and well equipped MIS unit which houses the MIS. The MIS unit
has a separate VSAT22 and has no ICT facility challenge. Federal Ministry of Health provided the unit with Drug Management Information System (DMIS) software and trained most of
the staff. The unit has only one operational vehicle that has been grounded since 2009.
Data Collection and Verification
The DPRS has a functional State Health Data Centre that is well equipped, good office space and staff with support from World Bank. The centre is headed by the Director, PR&S
department of Ministry of Health. There is a functional HMIS Unit that is primarily responsible for Health data collection, collation, processing, verification, and quality assuring,
analysis and information management. The centre use to track data on over 100 KPIs in the
past and supplied to Federal Ministry of Health with little knowledge on what it is used for. Demands for data are mainly received from National Health Management Information
System in Federal Ministry of Health, WHO and World Bank on disease surveillance, daily labour and delivery records. The various templates from these three sources were
harmonized to reduce multiplicity of demand on facility level data.
The harmonized templates are sent from the HMIS unit to the 16 M&E officers in the 16 LGAs for populating. The M&E officers reports to the LGA medical officer who also doubles
as the Chief Medical Director (CMD) of the Primary Health Centre (PHC) and the chief
accounting officer of the LGA Health data. The main data capturing instrument is the Health Register. Thus, the templates are populated (data collection) from the Health Register (data
capturing tool). The State has 20 Secondary Health facilities, 385 Primary Health Centres and one Tertiary Health facility.
The State HMIS officer sends the template to the Chief Medical Record Officer at the
Hospital Management Board (HMB) who in turn, sends it to the 20 Medical Record Officers (MRO) for secondary facility data collection. The same template is sent by the LGA M&E
officer to the heads of the medical Record units of the 385 PHCs for collecting primary health
facility data, while that for tertiary health facility data collection is sent directly by the state HMIS officer to the Chief Medical Record Officer of Ekiti State University Teaching Hospital.
All the Medical Record Officers, use the template for daily data collection exercise directly
from the patients and health registers and send the populated templates to the LGA M&E and HMIS officer officers monthly through the same channel. All the data are collated and
processed at the MIS unit of the data centre using DMIS software.
For data verification, the unit conducts a spot and unannounced facility visit to a total of 40 percent of the whole facilities randomly selected. The hospital records are cross-checked
directly with the collated data set for one month. The month of selection must be within the
last quarter. In such visits, the submitted data are verified and any wrong entry corrected.
22 Very Small Aperture Terminal
46
Use of M&E Information
The data is stored in the MIS system and quarterly publications are sent to the management
of State Ministry of Health, while others are processed and sent to the WHO, Federal Ministry of Health and World Bank in the format they were demanded for. There is no State
level demand for Health Data.
Organizational Structure and location of M&E functions
Honorable Commission for Health is the overall political leader for the Ministry of Health, while the Permanent Secretary is the Chief Accounting Officer. There are 6 main
departments in the Ministry out of which the DPRs is the one responsible for HMIS. There is no M&E unit in the Ministry and no proper M&E function is being carried out.
The DPR/Data center has the following units:
Health Accounts with 2 staff;
Human Resource with 1 staff;
HMIS with 10 staff; and
Planning unit with 3 staff.
Staffing:
M&E unit
There is no M&E unit or staff.
MIS unit
There is a total of 10 staff in the MIS unit as follow:
Statistician (1): head of unit; responsible for final data analysis using District Health
Information System 1.4 software;
Medical Record Officers (3): collates information from M&E officers of the LGAs;
Scientific officers (4): Doubles as the ICT officer and assists with data entry;
LGA GMIS23 officer (1): Assists in data collation and processing;
Health Human Resources (1): collates data o all the health human resources.
Financial Resources Allocated for M&E Functions
No proper M&E function is performed in the Ministry and most of the information
management activities are funded by the World Bank.
Linking Achievements to Resources
There is no evidence that resources for results analysis are done for the sector.
Other Monitoring Systems
There is no formal institutional linkage with the State Planning Commission of the State Bureau of Statistics, however, they agencies relate functionally as the need arises.
Federal-Level Support
23 Gender Management Information System
47
The major support from the Federal Ministry of Health is in the area of software provision
and training.
Conclusions
The Ministry is yet to fully embrace the M&E activities. Though a total number of 100 KPIs
were stated to be collected data on, but they are yet to be fully aware of the KPI and data
requirements for tracking the Health Care component of the Eight-point Agenda.
Appendix Six: M&E at Local Government Level Background and Scope
Although, this assessment focuses on MDAs M&E at the State and MDA level, it was felt that
it would be useful to look at how the Local Governments organize and manage their M&E processes so as to provide an insight into the picture of MDGs/Eight Point Agenda M&E
processes at the LGA level. One LGA, Ise-orun Local Government Area, was therefore
selected for in-depth look at its M&E arrangements. Monitoring the MDGS and the 8-Point Agenda
The Local Government has a Chairman at its head that is supported by a Vice Chairman and
other political office holders. At the apex of the actually administration of the LGA activities is
the Director of Administration. There are 8 administrative departments in the Local Government: Administration, Finance and Supply, Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Environment and Health Services, Works, Primary Health, Community Development and the newly created department of Budget, Planning, Research and Statistics. Each department is
headed by a Head of Department (HOD). There are also 5 politically appointed Supervisors in the LGA who are responsible for supervising a number of key departments including
Environment and Health, Education, Works, and Agriculture. The LGA also has 3 Special
Advisers on: Due Process, Internally Generated Revenues, and Inter Party Principles.
Each Department is divided into sections with a section head that coordinates the activities
of the units and staff under the section and report to the Head of Department, who in turn reports to the Director of Administration. The staff of the LGA are categorized as either
Unified or Non-Unified staff. The Unified staff comprises all senior staff on levels 07 and
upwards while the non-unified staff comprise of junior staff on levels 01 to 06. Below is a summary of activities of the Local Government Area.
M&E Placement and Staffing Within the Existing LGA Structure
Following an Act of the State House of Assembly, new departments of Budget, Planning,
Research and Statistics (DBPRS) have just been created in each of the LGAs. The core
functions of the LGA DBPRS include evaluation and monitoring of projects at the LGA level and the collation of statistical data in preparation of the LGA‟s budget among other things. It
is also responsible for the issuance of Certificates of No Objection whenever a project is approved and a Certificate of Completion when a project is completed. However, the DBPRS
of the particular LGA visited has not yet carried out any monitoring visits because, it has just
being created. The DBPRS hopes to be in a position to monitor and evaluate all MDGs and the Eight-Point Agenda projects in the LGAs although it does not expect to be in position to
do this for some time due to lack of capacity, resources, and equipment. In the meantime it is going to focus on expenditure monitoring before it moves into evaluation sometimes in the
future.
The activities of the DBPRS at the LGA level are not presently linked to their counterpart
DPRSs‟ at the State level except occasionally when there is a workshop or when there and there is a request for information. In other words, there is no institutional relationship
between the DPRS at the Local Government and that in the Headquarters.
48
Functions, Staffing and Funding of the new DPRS
The total established staff strength of the DPRS in the LGA is seven. At present, there is one
Head of Department, a Deputy Head of Department, 2 Planning Officers, a Statistician and 2 programmers – they are all Unified staff.
Summary of the activities of LGA departments
WASH
The sections under WASH includes: Water Supply, Sanitation, Disease Control,
Hygiene and M&E;
It has more departments than what is obtained in RUWATSAN;
M&E at the Local Government level is supposed to be linked to that at the state level
because, that is the only way to have some ideas of what is going on at the grass root level. However, the current linkage is weak;
Total staff in the department is 49 – only 11 are Unified staff;
The Local Government is not one of the selected Local Governments under the CGS
projects - so, it is not linked to the MDGs projects.
Agriculture Department:
Sections under the department includes: Fishery section, Crop Production section,
Livestock section, Poultry section, Engineering section, and Extension Services
section – each of the section is headed by a professional;
Ideally, the department is supposed to have about 100 staff strength - for instance,
in the livestock section, Cattle were supposed to be reared and staff to manage the rearing of Cattle alone could be up to 20. There are also many other projects that
are not being harnessed for example, the plantations of Citrus and others which were supposed to be manned by adequate members of staff. Similarly, there is
supposed to a Farm Settlement programme where each LGA has been directed to
acquire 100,000 hectares of land where young Agricultural Graduates can be engaged. So, if all of these projects are fully in place, a lot of staff will be required to
man them;
The department has a total of 44 staff which is the established: 26 Unified staff
and18 Non Unified staff;
There is no M&E unit under the department;
There is however no strong link with the parent Ministry - the only interaction is on
personal ground. However, there was a time when the headquarter requested for the secondment of 4 staff from the LGA to carry out extension services at the Local
Government level anytime there is an agricultural programme. In view of that, the
staff concerned has been trained twice;
The Agricultural Development Programmes (ADPs) is linked to the activities going on
at the Local Government level through the Monthly Technology Review Meeting (MTRM) - that meeting is a forum for the training of farmers. The ADP brings the
resource persons while the Local Government makes arrangement for the venue and the availability of farmers – the meeting takes place every month on rotational basis
among the Local Governments in the State. The linkage with the ADPs is much stronger than that with the Ministry.
Department of Budget, Planning, Research and Statistics (BPR&S)
The department came on board a year ago as a result of gaps noticed in the Local
Government system. It was created at the state level and which means it exist in all local government areas;
49
The core functions of the department include: Evaluation and Monitoring of projects
and the collation of statistical data in preparation for budget preparation among
others. However, it has not commenced monitoring visits yet because, it is has just started;
Similarly, the department is responsible for issuing Certificate of No Objection
whenever a project is approved and a Certificate of Completion when a project is completed. Even though that process is not being followed currently, but it means
that the department is supposed to monitor the implementation of projects;
Presently, the department is also not doing evaluation because, it wants to do monitoring effectively first before embarking on evaluation;
The only avenue for relating with other DPRS currently is only when there is a
workshop or when there is a request for information – in other word, there is no
institutional relationship between them;
The total number of staff is 7 and that is the established number: The HOD, Deputy
HOD, 2 Planning Officers, Statistician 1 & 2 and a Programmer. Presently, all are
unified staff.
Department of Community Development
The department has the following sections: Community Development, Sports,
Education, Social Welfare, Women Development, Children Development and Cultural
Unit;
Because education is under the department of Community Development, it is
supervising Public Primary School projects and programmes in collaboration with the Ministry of Education;
The department is only link with the Area Education Office and has no link with the
Ministry of Education in Ado-Ekiti - for example, when there are activities like the Children and Youth Day celebration, National day, quiz competition, Sports, the
department collaborates with the Education Area office in planning and execution;
The department does not monitor any educational activities at the Local Government level – but the local government has its own Nursery and Primary School which is
being monitored by the Local Government and the department.
Appendix Seven: Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs Policy/ Strategies (+ M&E Frameworks)
The Ministry for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs (MLGCA) operates within the general State policy framework and has two main operational arms, Local government and
Community governance. The Ministry provides the governance structure to take reforms down to the Local Government and the Communities. Though they are yet to be sound with
the details of the Ekiti State Development Strategy, but appear knowledgeable on the Eight-
Point Agenda of the Governor.
Legal Mandate
The Ministry derives some of its powers from the Joint Account Committee (JAC) law, while
other are derived from the 1998 Federal Civil service Reform act and the Governors
statements and desires. The key functions of the Ministry are as follows:
To supervise all the LGAs;
Help the LGAs to develop the Communities;
Oversee the affairs of the Traditional Rulers;
50
Oversee the LGA‟s financial spending together with the House Committee on Public
Accounts that has the LGA budget ratification mandate;
Serve as the liaison between the State and the LGAs.
The Departments of Planning, Research and Statistics (DPR&S) was created via a reform mandate published in the 1998 Civil Service Reform Handbook that requires all MDAs to
establish a DPRS. The main functions of the DPRS as stated in the handbook is to coordinate data management, conduct research on socio-economic issues and coordinate planning
activities of the Ministry.
Existing Information Management and Monitoring System
LGA data is currently stored in the file. The Ministry has introduced the use of text messages
in data/information transfer. There is no DPRS in the Ministry as the period of this assessment due to poor office accommodation; however, there is plan to establish one by
January 2012 as soon as the Deputy Governor vacates her current office. There is no functional MIS, but there is desire towards establishing an LGA databank in the DPRS when
created.
Data Collection and Verification
The LGAs are currently headed by Care takers whose tenures ends every 3 months and subject to renewal. All the 16 LGAs have uniform structure of 8 departments as follows:
Finance and Supply;
Works and Housing;
Primary Health Care;
Environmental Services;
Community Development;
Agriculture;
Administration; and
PR&S.
LGA data requests are sent to the Chairmen from the MLGCA when needed. The Chairmen in
turn send such request to the head of Administration Department who collates the required data from the relevant departments and returns them through the same channel.
The PR&S department is the youngest of the departments and it is saddled with the
responsibility of managing data on personnel, wages and budget preparation. They also collect data from the communities. Sometimes, requests are sent to them to collate data on
number of staff, number of hospital beds and they relate with sector departments in such
cases.
All LGAs still store their data in files, but efforts are being made to procure computers for them.
Use of M&E Information
These data are processed and supplied on demand especially to the Central bank of Nigeria
and Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Physical Commission.
Organizational Structure and Location of M&E functions
The Ministry has four departments as follows:
51
Chieftaincy Department;
LGA Affairs Department;
Community Development Department; and
Finance and Admin Department.
Each department is headed by a Director who reports to the Permanent Secretary (PS) as The Chief Accounting Officer of the Ministry. The PS reports to the Honorable Commissioner
who provides the overall political leadership for the Ministry.
There is no designated M&E unit, however, the department for LGA Affairs is said to be
carrying out the LGA field project monitoring functions for the Ministry. Their main monitoring activities of the department revolves around oversight of the LGA capital projects
to check on how they are being executed; whether they comply with government standards and technical specifications; verification of paper presentations/submission against realities
on ground etc.
Staffing:
The total staff strength of the Ministry is 119 out of which 19 belong to the LGA Affairs Ministry responsible for carrying out M&E activities. Most of these 19 staff are temporal staff.
There is no designated MIS unit or staff.
Financial Resources Allocated for M&E Functions
There is no separated budgetary allocation for any M&E functions for the Ministry. Financial expenditure for these project supervision and data collection are taken from the Ministry‟s
overhead cost.
Linking Achievements to Resources
There was evidence to show that Resources for results analysis are done.
Other Monitoring Systems
The ministry only links up with the LGA-DPRS and sometimes the State Bureau of Statistics during data collection. Proper M&E activities are yet to commence.
Federal-Level Support
There are no existing federal supports to the Ministry.
Conclusions
There is an observed strong desire and demonstrated commitment to join the reform vanguard in the State. This desire is however limited by technical capacity and office space.
Strategic guide and necessary technical support would turn this desire and commitment into
strong IM/M&E single window for the 16 LGAs.
Appendix Eight: Ministry of Women Affairs Policy/ Strategies (+ M&E Frameworks)
Women empowerment is one of the key components of the Eight-Point Agenda of the
Governor. The Ministry derives its operating policies from the National Policies, such as the National Policy on Women which address all issues concerning women. This national policy is
limited to women and not expanded to all gender. The Ministry has a broader vision that aims at developing a State Gender and Development Sector Strategy. There is no separate
52
Gender M&E framework being implemented by the Ministry. A State gender summit has
been scheduled to hold before the end of year 2011 to articulate issues of gender and way forward on four levels of development as follows:
Economic;
Social;
Political; and
Educational Development of Women.
There is no Sector Strategy yet for the sector, they have annual departmental work-plans
which are put together as the Ministry‟s work-plan. This work-plan is discussed and approved by the Governor. The departmental annual work-plans are reviewed quarterly
internally by the directors, while the Ministry work-plans are reviewed quarterly by the State
Planning Commission to establish progress against set targets. The Ministry has developed many policy documents such as:
Gender and Development Policy which was approved by the ExCo in June 2001;
Child Rights Law in 2006.
The State Government has established a Family Court in November 2011. A Remand home
has also been established in October 2011 to address Juvenile welfare issues. Legislative effort is on the high level towards prohibiting gender-based violence. The bill has been
passed by the State House of Assembly to be signed by the Governor.
Legal Mandate
There is no specific law establishing the Ministry of Women Affairs, it existed long since the creation of the State. The broad mandates of the Ministry are as follows:
To ensure that women have equal opportunities with men;
To address social welfare issues in the State of the 65-plus, in age; and
To address Child welfare issues in the State.
Existing Information Management and Monitoring System
The ministry has a functional website (www.ekiti.org.ng) but they are yet to develop a
GMIS. The current level of data being collected is stored electronically in the computer
system in the template format.
Data Collection and Verification
The Ministry conducts operational research on challenges of Women and Child periodically,
although, no report of any such research was shared. Data on School enrolment rate of
Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) are also collected routinely in the 16 LGA with support from one of the USAID24 Programmes called Management Science for Health (MSH).
Other forms of data collection are done using templates from the Federal Ministry of Women Affairs. Data verification mechanism is yet to be adapted or established for the sector.
Use of M&E Information
The data collected with the template for Federal Ministry of Women Affairs and Social
Development (FMWA&SD) are collated every month and sent to them. However, a general report on the situation of Women and Children are produced and presented to the
FMWA&SD and at the Council of Women Development, though none of such reports were seen.
24 United States Agency for International Development
53
Organizational Structure and location of M&E functions
The Ministry is headed by an Honorable Commissioner for Women Affairs with a Permanent
Secretary reporting to her. There are four Directors heading technical departments with one Finance & Admin department as follows:
Social Development department;
Child Development department;
Women Affairs department;
Planning, Research and Statistics Department (DPR&S) and
Finance and Administration Department.
Though the Ministry has a DPR&S, but the M&E unit is located in the Child Development
department.
Staffing
The Ministry has total staff strength of 118. There is clear cut out staff for the DPRS. The
Director of F&A undertakes the functions of the DPRS with its departmental staff when it
arises. The M&E unit located in the Child Development Department is headed by a Deputy Director with total staff strength of two (the head and one other staff). There is no
designated staff or unit for MIS functions.
Financial Resources Allocated for M&E Functions
The M&E current level of functions of the unit is funded through the Ministry‟s overhead cost. The unit received support from the USAID programme. The total Ministry‟s monthly
overhead cost is less than five hundred thousand naira.
Linking Achievements to Resources
There was no clear statement or evidence shown to indicate that achievements of the work-plans are linked to resources. Definitely, the Ministry is yet to have any documented report
on Point 8 of the Eight-Point Agenda or link such achievement to resources.
Other Monitoring Systems
There was no clear external monitoring system which the M&E unit links up with.
Federal-Level Support
The Ministry serves as the Secretariat for National Council on Women Affairs and participates in such councils. National Policy Guidelines are provided by the FMWA&SD as part of their
support towards addressing the issues of gender in the State.
Conclusions
The Ministry is yet to operationalize the Gender equality strategies and targets developed by the SPC. The KPIs and their required data do not inform the focus and work plan of the
Ministry.
Appendix Nine: State Bureau of Statistics Policy/ Strategies (+ M&E Frameworks)
The Ekiti State Bureau of Statistics (E-SBS) operates within any existing State Policy
framework. Its existence was as a result of the National guideline by National Bureau of Statistics for States to establish a State level equivalent. The E-SBS activities is expected to
54
support effective operation of evidence based policy, however, this didn‟t appear to be the
case.
There is a draft Statistics Master Plan for the state that provides the standard requirements for a proper functional SBS under the leadership of a State Statistician General (SGS). The
Draft Master Plan, though yet to be endorsed, currently serves as the Bureau‟s policy and strategy framework.
Legal Mandate
The SBS existed as the DPRS of the State Ministry of Finance (SMoF). In September 2009,
this DPRS was established as the State Bureau of Statistics with a bill, under the supervision of the SMoF. As at then, the main functions were limited to management of financial data
and statistics. Later in January 2010, the Statistical edict was signed into law and the bureau was relocated to function under the supervision of the General Administrations Department
(GAD) in governor‟s office. The component of GAD that has to do with data was more on
procurement of government vehicles, tables, chairs, etc. Thus, there was no systematic and professional supervision of the Bureau to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
In 2011, the Bureau was relocated to function under the supervision of the State Planning
Commission and the edict is currently under review to incorporate the provisions of the Statistical Master Plan. In line with the current edict, the main mandates of the Bureau are
as follows:
Collate, analyze and store data;
Certify and publish official statistics;
Carry out targeted surveys to inform policy and plan formulation;
Collation of administrative data from primary and secondary sources; and
Advise government on statistical matter.
Existing Information Management and Monitoring System
The Bureau has only four computers and two photocopiers donated by World Bank in 2010.
There is no statistical software for data analysis, all analysis are done manually and could take up to six months to complete data analysis in one survey. Analyzed data are published
and stored inform of booklet. Assemblage of such booklets is referred to as the State „Data
Bank‟. Such publications include but not limited to the following:
State Statistical Year Book (SYB);
Health Statistics;
Education digest;
Market calendar showing the market days and advise Government on market
location of various products
Data Collection and Verification
The Bureau designs template using the generic SYB or the Bureau‟s initiative for collection of
administrative data from primary and secondary sources. For instance, Education data template is sent to SUBEB for Primary Education data and also sent to the Ministry of
Education. There is no standard data management calendar, but the Bureau targets sending the templates in January with the hope of getting feedback by end of March. MAs delay in
sending feedback, but submitted data from the primary source (e.g. SUBEB) is cross-
55
checked with the secondary data source (e.g. MoE25) submission. Any discrepancy is jointly
addressed and a common position agreed. This process serves as the verification process.
The last published SYB is 2009. Data collection exercise of the Bureau and that of other DPRS are not funded. The little efforts are made from the relevant agency‟s overhead cost.
Use of M&E Information
Data are published and sent to agencies of interest. Data collection and publication are not
demand driven.
Organizational Structure and location of M&E functions
The Bureau has three departments: 2 technical and one service department.
Staffing:
It currently has total staff strength of 38.
Financial Resources Allocated for M&E Functions
No main M&E function is carried by the Bureau; however, the data management function of
the agency is the engine room of M&E. This activity is not well funded. In instances were budgetary provisions are made, release becomes an issue. Example, in 2010, the sum of 60
million naira was provided in the approved estimate as Capital, but there was 0 percent draw down. In 2011, 10million naira was approved as the recurrent and as at the mid November
2011, only 3 million naira has been released and 750,000 released from the 5million naira
Capital Budget approved for 2011. The Bureaus operates with a monthly over head cost of 120,000 naira.
Linking Achievements to Resources
The staff was not familiar with the concept of resources for results.
Other Monitoring Systems
The bureau occasionally relates with the DPRSs of other MDAs but more frequently with the DPRS in the SPC.
Federal-Level Support
Limited support is received from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and it is more in the
area of guidelines and participation in national surveys that build their capacities.
Conclusions
Most of the data produced by the Bureau are not demand driven. The DPRS in SPC carry out similar function and that makes the Bureau‟s function seem irrelevant. There is need to have
one single agency responsible for State official statistics.
Appendix Ten: State Planning Commission Policy/ Strategies (+ M&E Frameworks)
Ekiti State first developed a ten years Strategic Plan in early 2010 covering 2010 to 2020 as
the vision Ekiti-2020. In October 2010, eight priority areas were selected from the EV-2020 linked to the eight MDGs and used as the inaugural speech by the present Governor. These
eight priority areas currently referred to as the Eight-Point Agenda of the Governor with
25 Ministry of Education
56
2010 a as the base year and was later translated into a full strategy document called the
SDS, covering 2011-2014. The SDS contains clear statements of targets, strategies for achieving them and KPIs for tracking progress. The State expects that the SDC will inform
the development of MTEF and MTSS. January 2012 has been set as the latest commencement date for the development of MTEF, MTSS and the State-wide M&E
Framework.
The SDS also contains a chapter that provides the State Policy Framework (chapter 8). The framework seeks to adapt the National M&E framework in the Nigeria Vision 20:2020
document. In this regards, the SPC has defined a total of 115 KPIs and 112 defined data
requirements for their processing at a workshop with all the DPRSs. The Commission has developed a work-plan for developing and full State-wide M&E framework.
Legal Mandate
The State Planning Commission (SPC) was established in 1997 with an edict backing it up. It
has the over-arching mandate for carrying out State-wide M&E functions. The Ekiti State Planning Commission edict, 1998 provides for this mandate but this is not very visible. It is
within the provision of this mandate that the State Government is currently conducting an outcome/impact survey of the CGS-MDGs interventions in the State, covering 16 LGAs.
SPC has the following departments and related functions:
Department for Population Activities, Research and Statistics:
Serves as the focal point for population programmes, especially in the area of
achievement of National population goals at the State level-in charge of mobilizing the people for census exercise;
Vital registration handling both (births and deaths) in collaboration with National
Population Commission to ensure proper data capturing. Currently conducting mop-
up registration of births and deaths from 1991-2011;
Collaborate with other Agencies in the area of family life education;
Carrying population projections and estimates using growth rate;
Conducting demographic and Health Survey in collaboration with the State Ministry
of Health and National Population Commission;
Publishes State databank annually.
Department of Monitoring and Evaluation:
Monitor and evaluate the level of implementation of all capital project in the State;
Ascertain progress in relation to allocation and expenditure;
Issue Certificate of Performance;
Produce output progress report and budget expenditure.
Department of Project Planning and Budgeting
Issue Budget Call Circular;
Coordinate all the processes of capital budget preparation including budget defense;
Coordination of the State policy and plan development;
Coordination of the development of Medium Term expenditure Framework;
Coordination of the Sector Strategies.
57
Existing Information Management and Monitoring System
The department for Population Activities Research and Statistics (PARS) of the SPC publishes
a State databank annually that represents the State level data requirements. This set of data is stored in hard copy. None of the departments has an MIS unit.
Data Collection and Verification
The PARS in SPC collects data from the secondary and primary sources. There is no clear
means of data verification and quality. The PARS department of SPC conducted a KPI development workshop and generated 115 KPIs from the Eight- Point Agenda and the State
Development Strategy. These KPIs have been defined by their data requirements and the
department is at the stage of completing the data collection exercise for these KPIs. The M&E department is also conducting a survey to evaluate the impact of MDGs Conditional
Grant interventions in Health and Water sector. Field data collection has been completed and SBS is at the stage of manual data analysis.
Use of M&E Information
The M&E department of SPC anticipates using the processed data after User Friendly
analysis and presentation to establish a baseline for the Eight- Point Agenda and the SDS. This baseline will eventually be used to track changes in performance on all stages of the
results chain and produce annual performance report.
Organizational Structure and location of M&E functions
The Commission has four technical departments and one service department. The Special Adviser to the Governor on MDGs, Planning and Multilateral Corporation is the political head
of the Commission. There is also a Permanent Secretary who serves as the Chief Accounting Officer and there 5 directors heading the departments.
M&E is a full department in the Commission and headed by a Director, though there are
M&E skills gaps.
Staffing:
The Commission has total staff strength of 62 and these staff are distributed across the departments as follows:
M&E department : 13;
Population Activities, Research and Statistics: 11;
Planning and Budget department : 13;
Multilateral: 11;
Finance and Admin: 12.
Financial Resources Allocated for M&E Functions
There is no separate budget for M&E activities. The ongoing activities are funded from the
Commission‟s overhead cost.
Linking Achievements to Resources
The concept of resources for results has been limited to only process and outputs. The Commission is currently making efforts towards linking resources to higher levels of results
like outcome and impact starting with the on-going MDGs performance survey in Health and Water sector across all the LGA.
58
Other Monitoring Systems
There is no system that is officially linked to the M&E processes in the SPC. All collaboration
activities are on ad-hoc basis.
Federal-Level Support
The State is yet to establish any structure link with the M&E office in the National Planning
Commission. However, the SPC fully participates in all activities of Joint Planning Board and
National council on Development. As an act of commitment, the State hosted the last Joint Planning Board (JPB) and National Council on Development Planning (NCDP) for the year
2010.
Conclusions
The Commission demonstrates strong commitments in leading State- wide M&E implementation, but there is very limited sector wide coordination. Most of the MDAs do not
consider the M&E activities as part of their agencies functions but SPC functions. On completion of the ongoing Eight- Point Agenda data collection, 8PA baseline data profiling
would need to be done to establish a proper baseline for tracking changes on the KPIs and Targets. There is need to establish a multi- ministerial technical working group to be led by
the SPC. Harmonization of the SYB and the State data bank publications would be helpful.
Also, the current work-plan for developing and implementing a State-wide M&E framework has been out-dated, a carefully participatory designed roadmap for strengthening State-wide
M&E system would be desirable.
Appendix Eleven: Ekiti Tourism Board Policy/ Strategies (+ M&E Frameworks)
Tourism in the seventh point of the Eight-Point Agenda of Mr. Governor. The Policy
framework being implemented by the Ekiti State Tourism Board is the National Tourism Plan. The Board has completed plan towards developing an Ekiti State Tourism Plan. A State
Summit geared towards developing a State version of the National Tourism Master Plan has been scheduled to hold in December 2011.
Legal Mandate
Ekiti state Tourism Board was established in January 2000 through an ExCo resolution in
accordance with the Federal Government request. The Board does not have a written legal mandate, but derives its functions from the provisions of the National Tourism Plan and the
laudable initiatives of the Special Adviser to the Governor on Tourism Matters. The functions
of the Board includes, but not limited to the following:
Setting up Local Government Tourism Committee;
Provide Tourism statistics disaggregated by gender;
Record revenue generated from each Tourism centre.
They are yet to establish a DPRS. The data collection activities are currently being carried out by the department for Tourism development.
Existing Information Management and Monitoring System
The board is yet to establish a Tourism Information Management System (TMIS). The
collected data is stored in the official file and referred to when needed.
59
Data Collection and Verification
The Board collects data on revenue generated from tourism activities since its establishment
in year 2000. Data collection on visitors commenced in March 2011. There routine data are from primary sources. There is also an ongoing hospitality survey being conducted in the
office of the Tourism Special Adviser. In all these, there is no clear data verification mechanism.
Use of M&E Information
The data on revenue from tourism is supplied to the Board of Inland Revenue and they are
integrated as part of the State Internally Generated Revenue (IGR). The data on visitors to tourist centres and hospitality data are internally utilized to enhance knowledge of the Board
Management Team.
Organizational Structure and Location of M&E Functions
The board is headed by a Special Adviser to the Governor, who is of cabinet rank. Below the SA are a General Manager and 3 Directors. The Board has two technical departments and
one Admin /Finance department.
Staffing
The total staff strength is 61. They are yet to establish an M&E or MIS unit. There is no specific resource allocation for M&E functions, the resources for the current data collection
exercise is taken from the overhead.
Linking Achievements to Resources
No key performance indicators in the Eight- Point Agenda are currently being tracked through the activities of the Board. Data analysis efforts are yet to commence within the
departments, thus expenditure is yet be linked to clear statements of outcomes and impacts.
Other Monitoring Systems
The Board activities are not related to any other monitoring units. However, they receive guidelines from the National Tourism Board.
Appendix Twelve: State House of Assembly The State House of Assembly
The State House of Assembly is the Legislative Arm of the Government whose primary function is to make laws. It has a critical role to play in M&E through its oversight
responsibility. The Constitution empowers the State Assembly to promote greater accountability in the expenditure of the State financial resources through its Oversight
Committees. It also has the mandate to investigate how the monies it has appropriated have
been used. The State Assembly is involved in the annual budget process by serving as the authority that approves the budget submitted by the Executive Branch and overseeing the
spending thereof. It therefore plays a critical role in holding the Executive Branch of Government accountable for the use of public funds. The State House of Assembly monitors
Government Spending primarily through the activities of its oversight committees. In
addition to conducting monitoring visits, these committees also contract Expert Consultants to assist them partially because of the existing inadequacies in M&E capacities at the
Secretariat.
60
MDG-Eight-Point Agenda Monitoring and Evaluation
MDGs and the State‟s Eight-Point Agenda goals are given special attention by the Oversight
Committees of the State House of Assembly in the light of their perceived importance in the State‟s development strategy. A special Committee has been set up to deal with the MDGs
but there has not been significant spending to activate its monitoring activities. In light of this and given the general quest to improve monitoring of spending on MDGs and Eight-
Point Agenda projects, the State House of Assembly is in the process of setting up Monitoring and Evaluation Units for the Oversight Committees. These Units will be
responsible for the collation of data from the various Committees and the data would
eventually make up the databank of the House‟s DPRS.
M & E Placement and Staffing Within the State House of Assembly
The Secretariat of the State House of Assembly is administered through 10 general support departments as follows:
Finance and Administration;
Legislative;
Publications;
Printing and Technical;
Information;
Legal Services;
Budget, Planning, Research and Statistics;
Protocol;
Medical;
Works and Transport.
The Department of Budget, Planning, Research and Statistics has 3 divisions: Budget and Planning, Research and Statistics, and Library. These divisions are manned by Planning
Officers, Research Officers and Librarians. The various Committees have their Clerk who
collects information and report through the Committees. There are 36 Committees26 in all and each has its own monitoring unit. Each Committee comprises of a Secretary and 5 other
members.
The DPRS of the Secretariat is presently constrained by lack of funding for research and lack of competent M&E staff. Consequently, it now regularly relies on MDAs for M&E information
even though it is aware of the need for independent sources of M&E if it is to carry out its
oversight responsibilities in a credible manner.
Functions and Funding of M&E
The expectation is that, the Planning, Research and Statistics Department, when fully
functional, will be responsible for:
Monitoring and evaluating projects through physical inspection which will be carried
out in collaboration with the State Planning Commission and the Ministry of Finance
respectively on a quarterly basis;
Provision of comprehensive report on each project inspected highlighting their
problems and prospects and making recommendations;
26 Some of the Committees include: Finance and Appropriation, Women Affairs and Gender Equality, Commerce and Industry, Agriculture, Health, Education, Service, etc.
61
Serving as the Secretariat of the Monitoring and Evaluation units of the Oversight
Committees;
Ensuring that the Lessons learned at one level is related to programmes at another
level;
Ensuring that the allocation of funds is made on the basis of accountability and
performance;
Writing reports on all monitoring exercise with copies made available to the State
Planning Commission and the Ministry of Finance.
These activities are not yet institutionalized as the Department is in the process of being established and does not yet have the resources in terms of staff, funding and equipment.
As presently conceived, the DPRS will not have a specific budget but will be applying to the
Executive Office for funds for its activities.
Annex Three Consultation List
Ekiti State Planning Commission
1. Mr. S.I. Folorunso - Permanent Secretary
2. J.B. Folorunso - Director, Project Planning and Budget & MDGs focal Person
3. D.B. Faniyan - Director, Multilateral Corporation
4. M.O. Oguntimehin - Director, Population Activities, Research and Statistics
5. G.A. Atewologun (Mrs.) Director, Project Monitoring and Evaluation
6. Longe K.A. - Planning Officer
7. M.O. Adeogun - Planning Officer
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
1. Dr. AdioFolayan - Honourable Commissioner
2. Mrs. Babadoye, B.A - Director, DPRS
3. Akintunde P.A.O - Deputy Director, Food Crop Division
4. Engr. OsabisiAyoola Deputy Director, Engineering Division
5. Engr. O. Odesanmi - Director, Department of Agric Services
6. Mr. Balogun - - Deputy Director, DPRS
Ministry of Finance, Budget and Economic Development
1. P.A. Amujo - Permanent Secretary
2. Owolabi James - Director of Budget
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
1. DR. EniolaAjayi - Honourable Commissioner
2. O.B Akinyemi - Deputy Director, DPRS
3. S.O. Adameji - DPRS
4. Mr.Balogun G.R - Deputy Director, DPRS
5. Fadeyi L.O - Deputy Director, Inspectorate Department
6. Mrs. Margret O. Olujobi Senior Education Officer (EMIS
State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB)
1. Prof. Modupe A. Adelabu Executive Chairman
Ekiti State Water Corporation
1. Engr. O.S. Ojuola - Ag. General Manager
2. B.J.Ajayi - Director, DPRS
3. Engr. Anise E.O - GM, Ekiti State UNICEF Assisted Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (WASH)
Bureau of Infrastructure
1. S.O. Adunmo - Director, DPRS
2. KayodeJegede - Special Adviser to the Governor (Infrastructures and Public Utilities
63
State House of Assembly
1. B.A.Famoyegun - Clerk of the House
Ministry of Health
1. Dr. WoleOlugboji - Commissioner for Health
2. Dr. Mrs. Folanke Olomojobi Director, DPRS
3. Oni Joseph - HMIS Officer
Bureau of Statistics
1. Olalekan Faromika - Special Adviser/Director General, Bureau of Public Procurement
2. Agbola F.T - Director,
3. Alokan T.A. - Director, Project Evaluation
4. Ajeyoni C.O - Deputy Director
5. Aribilson J.O. - Chief Statistical Officer
Ise-Orun Local Government Area
1. Honorable. Abayomi Ojo Chairman
2. Fasakim M. T. - Director, Department of Administration
3. Ogundana Akintolu - Ag. HOD BPR/S
4. Familade B.I - HOD Agriculture
5. Falaye J. F. - WASH Coordinator/ HOD Environment
6. Babalola Yemi - PAO Administration
7. Dele Daramola B.F - HOD Community Development
8. Chief Adedeji - Department of Primary Health Community Coordinator
Others
1. Mrs. Bunmi Dipo-Salami Special Adviser to the Governor on Planning and MDGs
2. Mr. Segun Ologunleko Special Adviser to the Governor on Tourism
3. Shenna Matthews - Consultant, DFID
4. John Wheeler - Consultant, SPARC
5. Adamalekun - SPARC
6. Andrew Oliko - Consultant, A.N.Oliko & Associates
7. Dr. Mrs. E.A. Dada - Permanent Secretary, Ekiti State Government
8. Ladipo Adamolekun - Independent Scholar
Annex Four List of Documents Consulted
State Planning Commission (SPC)
2009 Ekiti State database 2008;
State Planning Commission (SPC)
2011 Ekiti State Development Strategy (2011-2014);
Department of Population Activities, Research and Statistics (SPC)
2011 Operational Strategies and Indicators Required for the Measurement of the 8-
Point Agenda (2011-2014);
State Planning Commission
2008 Ekiti State Vision 20: 2020. The 1st Ekiti 20:2020 Medium Term Implementation
Plan (2011-2013). Volume 1: the Vision and development imperatives;
State Planning Commission
2011 Performance the 16 Local Government Capital Projects up to end of 2010;
State Planning Commission
2011 MDG-CGS Mid-Year report (2011);
State Planning Commission
2011 Questionnaire for Impact Assessment of MDGs Water and Health Facilities
Projects since 2007;
Department of Population Activities, Research and Statistics (SPC)
2011 Assessment of Performances of the Local Governments on Implementation of
Projects and Programmes in year 2010;
Department of Population Activities, Research and Statistics (SPC)
2011 Assessment of Performances of Ministries, Departments and Agencies on
Implementation of Projects and Programmes in year 2010;
M&E Department, (SPC)
2011 Capital Projects Implemented (January-December 2010):
Performance/Monitoring and Evaluation Report of MDAs Capital Projects;
65
Department of Population Activities, Research and Statistics (SPC)
200... Population Projections by Towns and Villages 2006-2011): Population
Compendium vol: 3;
Department of Population Activities, Research and Statistics (SPC);
Operational Strategies and Indicators Required for the measurement of Performance of the
Government 8-Point Agenda: The Roadmap to Ekiti Recovery;
Ekiti Education Summit, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
2011 Enhancing Functional and Sustainable Education;
Universal Basic Education Commission
2011 Minimum Standards for Basic Education in Nigeria DPRS, Ministry of Finance and
Economic Development,
2007 Medical & Health Statistics in Ekiti State - 2007 edition;
DPRS, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
2008 Education Statistics – 2008 edition;
DPRS, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
2008 Directory of Business and Industrial Establishments (Employing, Three Persons
and Above) in Ekiti State;
Ministry of Health
Achievement of the Fayemi Administration in the Health sector;
Commissioner of Health
2011 Proposal to the Governor for Release of Funds for the take-off of free Health
programme for Children Under-5 years of Age, Pregnant Women, Citizens above 65 years
and the physically challenged;
Ekiti State Health Systems Development Project-II (HSDP-II)
2011 Quarterly Implementation Progress Report-January to March 2011 and Financial
Monitoring Report (FMR);
DPRS, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
2008 Facts and Figures about Ekiti State;
Ekiti Bureau for Public Procurement
20... Procurement Procedures Manual in Ekiti State;
State Bureau of Statistics
2010 “Ekiti State Statistical Year Book (2001-2009);
Ekiti State Bureau of Statistics
2011 Brief on the Activities of the Bureau of Statistics submitted to the Special Adviser
on Planning and MDGs;
66
Ekiti State Government
2010 Ekiti State Statistical Law No.9 of 2010;
Ekiti State Bureau of Statistics
2011 Draft Ekiti State Statistical Master Plan;
Ekiti State Bureau of Statistics
2001 Ekiti State Planning Commission Edict, 1998: Supplement to Ekiti State of Nigeria
Official Gazette No.1, vol.5;
Engr. Segun Oni, ex-Governor, Ekiti State
2010 State of the State-3;
Government Printer
2011 Ekiti State Public Procurement law No. 2 of 2010;
RAFT Committee
2011 Report of Activities of Rapid Action Task Force (RAFT) Submitted to Ekiti State
Government: Progress Report of the Projects Commissioned by Governor Fayemi within 100
days in office;
PRAGMA Policy & Management Consulting
2011 Re-Positioning Ekiti State Planning Commission to drive the 8-point Agenda: Draft
Report on the Institutional Assessment of the Ekiti State Planning Commission (25-29 April,
2011).
67
68
