KANO STATE GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/ MONITORING & EVALUATION SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT

COORDINATED BY

OFFICE OF THE HEAD OF THE CIVIL SERVICE

September 2015

1

Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ..................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 3

Section 1: Overview of Governance Reform ............................................................................. 4

Section 2: Methodology and The Key Features ......................................................................... 8

Section 3: Scores and Rationale ............................................................................................... 10

Section 4: Findings by Key feature ........................................................................................... 15

Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................... 19

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 19

Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 19

Annex 1: Summary of Base line to End line ............................................................................. 22

Annex 2: List of Participants .................................................................................................... 23

2

Abbreviations and Acronyms CSO Civil Society Organisation

ESSPIN Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria

ExCo Executive Council

JAPRs Joint Annual Performance Reviews

MDA Ministry, Department and Agency

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

KPI Key Performance Indicator

KSBS Kano State Bureau of Statistics

KSDA Kano State Development Plan

KSRD Kano State Roadmap to Development

LGAs Local Government Areas

MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies

MoA Ministry of Agriculture

MoE Ministry of Education

MoEnv Ministry of Environment

MoH Ministry of Health

MoLG Ministry for Local Government

MoPB Ministry of Planning and Budget

MTSS Medium Term Sector Strategy

OHoS Office of the Head of Service

PATHS2 Partnership for Transforming Health Systems II

PFM Public Financial Management

PMB Project Monitoring Bureau

PMED Project Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate

PRS Planning, Research and Statistics

PSM Public Service Management

PWD People with disabilities

RUWASSA Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency

SDP State Development Plan

SEAT Self Evaluation Assessment Tool

SBS State Bureau for Statistics

SG Statistician General

SSA Senior Special Assistant

SSMP State Statistical Master Plan

SSS Senior Secondary School

SPARC State Partnership for Accountability, Responsiveness and Capability

SPSs Sector Performance Scorecards

SYB Statistical Year Book

ToR Terms of Reference

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

3

Executive Summary Short Summary This report summarise the 2015 Monitoring and Evaluation Self Evaluation Assessment Tool results for Kano State. It includes the scores and rational for the 2015 scores, and an overview of the baseline, mid line and end line scores. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the scores of the scores is also included. The methodology used was a participatory, self-assessment methodology to ensure ownership and utility of the findings by the Kano State Government.

Full Summary This 2015 self-assessment using the Self Evaluation Assessment Tool (SEAT) was attended by 25 government officials including the Permanent Secretary, Establishment from the Office of Head of Service (OHoS), the Statistician General (SG) and directors from other Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). Prior to the workshop, which was held in Kaduna on July 30th and 31st, the state team reviewed the SEAT template to acquaint themselves of the features and indicators. The assessment was evidence-based and focused not only activities that had occurred, but discussed events that have contributed to policy changes in the state. The results of the assessment were validated in another workshop held on 18th and 19th September 2015. The overall results showed some level of improvement in the internal Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) processes in the state. However, these internal processes have not translated significantly to changing the scores from 2012. Only one of the features which is ‘A Strategy developed setting out scope and purpose of information management / M&E’ showed an increase in score from D to C. Some of the key changes that have happened from the 2009 to 2015 include:

The bill for the establishment of the Bureau for Statistics has been passed into law, the Statistician General appointed, and the Bureau is presently carrying out its functions;

Annual Sector performance review guidelines were approved by the ExCo. A pilot review was conducted in the Agriculture and Environment sectors;

The scorecard methodology for measuring service delivery has been introduced; Since 2009, four Joint annual performance reviews have been conducted covering

four workstream areas SPARC is supporting – Policy and Strategy (P&S) Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), Public Financial Management (PFM) and Public Service Management (PSM).

4

Summary of the findings

2009 2012 2015

Kano Kano Kano

M&E 1 Institutional & legal basis for information management and

monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

C D+ D+

M&E 2 A Strategy developed setting out scope and purpose of

information management / M&E

D D C

M&E 3 Organisational capacity for managing information and carrying

out information management / M&E

D+ D D

M&E 4 Effectiveness of Management Information Systems (MIS),

Statistics and Data

D+ D C

M&E 5 Performance management Processes in support of policy,

strategy and programme adjustment

C D D

M&E 6 Cross-cutting issues addressed in information Management /

M&E

C D D

Key Feature Direction

5

Section 1: Overview of Governance Reform The State Partnership for Accountability, Responsiveness and Capability (SPARC) relationship with Kano State Government started in 2009 and since then, some levels of governance changes related to M&E have taken place. These changes included initiatives taken by the government itself and those facilitated by the development partners, such as SPARC, Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria (ESSPIN), Partnership for Transforming Health Systems II (PATHS2), etc. For example, before SPARC support, the state in recognition of the importance of M&E, established the Directorate of Project Monitoring and Evaluation (PMED) with full structure of a Ministry in place. However the level of the understanding was limited to project supervision and inspection, covering majorly output results. Outcome measurement of service delivery was not understood. But with the state’s partnership with SPARC, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were developed for sixteen sectors of the then State Development Plan, called Kano State Roadmap to Development (KSRD) which was later reviewed to fourteen sectors in the new State Development Plan (SDP). Also, within the period, the state domesticated the national Statistical Master Plan and established the State Bureau for Statistics (SBS). On annual basis, the state has been producing a Statistical Year Book (SYB) but the content of the 2015 publication was enhanced with the support of SPARC. At the inception of SPARC’s partnership with Kano State in 2009, a self assessment of M&E processes was carried out, which provided a first hand situation analysis of M&E systems in the state. Also, an M&E Institutional Capacity Assessment was conducted by SPARC to determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing M&E systems and operations. Given the situation analysis provided by the self-assessment, a governance reform strategic programme (Change Programme/Plan) was developed. This Change Programme/Plan then formed the basis for SPARC support in the state. Since the 2009, four Joint Annual Performance Reviews (JAPRs) have been conducted looking at the four SPARC supported workstreams. The four workstreams are Policy and Strategy (P&S), Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), Public Service Management (PSM) and Public Financial Management (PFM). The JAPRs assess progress achieved, identify challenges and make recommendations that will enhance the reform agendas. The four JAPRs covered the following years 2009/2010, 2011/2012, 2013 and 2014. In addition to the JAPR, for two years, SPARC has supported the state to conduct Sector Performance Reviews in two sectors – Agriculture and Environment covering the years of 2013 and 2014. Also, Sector Performance Scorecards (SPS) were conducted in Agriculture and Environment covering the 2013 activities. In addition to the PMED, some of the structures in place supporting the M&E process in the state include:

– As part of the implementation of the Change Programme/Plan, technical working groups were set up for each workstream, including M&E. The M&E technical working group is coordinated by the PMED with support from SPARC;

– Joint Annual Performance Review of the four workstreams; – Sector Performance Review of service delivery focusing on outcome results and

budget implementation; and – SEAT self-assessment.

6

Lapsed KSDP 2013-2015

Lapsed Change Programme 2009-2014

JAPRsSEAT / PEFA

and PEASynthesis KSDP Paper

Institutional Home:

OHOS (Manpower Directorate) Secretariat

Technical Working Groups

Governor / EXCO

Strategy to Strengthen

Institutional Home:

Setting out options for the

establishment of a Public

Service Reform Institution

(such as BPSR)

State Journey and End Point

8

Section 2: Methodology and The Key Features Please see the guidelines for the detailed methodology. Key features and indicators for M&E/IM:

1. Effectiveness of Management Information Systems (MIS), Statistics and Data; 2. Performance management processes in support of policy, strategy and programme

adjustment; 3. Cross-cutting issues addressed in information Management / M&E; 4. Organisational capacity for managing information and carrying out information

management / M&E; 5. Institutional & legal basis for information management and monitoring and

evaluation (M&E); 6. A Strategy developed setting out scope and purpose of information management /

M&E.

M&E

1

Institutional & legal basis for information management and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

(i) Clarity of legislation and regulations in respect of information management & M&E

(ii) Effectiveness of organisational response in MDA to legislation and regulations in respect of M&E

M&E

2

A Strategy developed setting out scope and purpose of information management / M&E

(i) Availability of a state-wide strategy or policy document on information management / M&E and extent of its implementation by MDAs

(ii) Extent to which the state strategy for M&E includes clear requirements for MDAs to ensure a

sufficient focus on Goals, Outcomes and Targets within their information management / M&E systems

(iii) Extent to which individual MDAs have in place medium-term strategies for the development of

information management / M&E systems

M&E

3

Organisational capacity for managing information and carrying out information management / M&E

(i) Extent to which internal M&E Clients / information users (i.e. within the MDA) are identified

(ii) Extent to which external (to MDA) clients / information users are identified

(iii) Clarity of roles and responsibilities of staff in MDAs relating to information management / M&E

(iv) Comprehensiveness of operational guidelines on information management / M&E processes

(v) The appropriateness of staffing levels and skills mix in MDA re: M&E roles and responsibilities

M&E

4

Effectiveness of Management Information Systems (MIS), Statistics and Data

(i) Effectiveness of Management Information Systems (MIS) supporting decision-making

(ii) Extent to which data is complete, or sufficient quality and verified

(iii) Extent to which data collection and analysis processes allow comprehensive measurement of

performance indicators

(iv) Effectiveness with which data collection and information sharing processes between MDAs are

implemented

M&E 5

Performance management Processes in support of policy, strategy and programme adjustment

9

(i) Results orientation of annual performance assessments and reports

(ii) Extent to which policy, strategies or programmes are adjusted in response to review findings

M&E

6

Cross-cutting issues addressed in information Management / M&E

(i) Extent to which cross-cutting issues are reflected in the information management / M&E systems

10

Section 3: Scores and Rationale KEY FEATURE 1 M&E 1: Institutional and Legal basis for Information Management and

M&E

Indicator 1.1 The clarity of any legislation and regulations in respect of Information Management and M&E

2009 Score: C

2012 Score: C 2015 Score: D

Rationale:

The scores for the previous years were C but on critical analysis of the situation, the state reduced

their score to D. Although the Project Monitoring Bureau (PMB), formerly known as PMED, exists as well as a Department of Planning Research and Statistics (DPRS) in some main Ministries and all

Local Government Areas (LGAs), there is no clearly stated overall state-wide legislation or regulation for M&E that provides detailed M&E requirements. Rather, individual MDAs and LGAs set up M&E

departments/units without regulatory framework of guidance from the state. United Nations

Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is helping the state to develop an M&E framework, but it is not concluded yet. Initially the understanding of the importance of M&E was limited to project supervision and

inspection, which was the basis of establishing the PMB. But now the scope of understanding has increased to cover outcome results measurements. The state is yet to issue state level regulations to

guide M&E in this regard.

Indicator 1.2 Effectiveness of organisational response in MDA to legislation and regulations

in respect of M&E

2009 Score: C 2012 Score: D

2015 Score: C

Rationale: Although there is no overall M&E state-wide legislation or regulation, some Ministries have functional

M&E systems (Departments/Units) in place. Some of these Ministries include Ministry of Agriculture

(MoA), Ministry of Education (MoE), Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry for Local Government (MoLG) and Ministry of Environment (MoEnv). The M&E systems in some of MDAs, like Health and Education,

are mainly facilitated by the presence of donor partners and the Federal Ministries/Agencies.

KEY FEATURE 2 M&E 2: A Strategy developed setting out scope and purpose of information

management / M&E Indicator 2.1 Availability of a state-wide strategy or policy document on information

management / M&E and extent of its implementation by MDAs 2009 Score: D

2012 Score: C 2015 Score: C

Rationale:

There is no state level M&E strategy that is being implemented by the MDAs. Although the State

Statistical Master Plan (SSMP) exists, it is not feeding into the individual MDAs implementation plans. DevInfo software exists in Ministry of Planning and Budget (MoPB) but it is not presently being

11

utilised. A databank used to exist in the MoPB, but was later moved to the Ministry of Science and

Technology until it became inactive. Other Ministries with functional databanks include MoA, MoH,

MoE, MoLG, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency (RUWASSA) under the Ministry of Water Resources, and Ministry of Lands which covers land allocation and activities in only eight out of the 44

LGAs in the State.

Indicator 2.2 Extent to which the state strategy for M&E includes clear requirements for

MDAs to ensure a sufficient focus on Goals, Outcomes and Targets within their

information management / M&E systems

2009 Score: D 2012 Score: D

2015 Score: C

Rationale:

Ideally the score for this indicator was supposed to be D because there is no state-wide M&E strategic document in place. However, the Kano State Development Plan contains a section on Monitoring and

Evaluation and outcome targets (indictors) are captured. Sectoral targets are set out in the SDP but the extent to which these targets are reflected in the sectors/MDAs implementation plans are not

known.

Indicator 2.3 Extent to which individual MDAs have in place medium-term strategies for the

development of information management / M&E systems

2009 Score: D 2012 Score: D

2015 Score: C

Rationale: About 50% of the MDAs assessed have developed sector strategic documents which included an M&E

section and results framework. The strategic documents (e.g. Medium Term Sector Strategy (MTSS))

have clearly stated output and outcome indicators with set out targets. The Ministries of Agriculture and Environment have conducted sector performance reviews for two years, covering 2013 and 2014

tracking the progress made over the outcome targets.

KEY FEATURE 3 M&E 3: Organisational capacity for managing information and carrying out

information management / M&E

Indicator 3.1 Extent to which internal M&E Clients / information users (i.e. within the MDA) are identified

2009 Score: C

2012 Score: C 2015 Score: C

Rationale:

There is understanding of the internal M&E clients within the MDAs, however, the responses to their

needs are more reactive than responsive. The identified internal clients include the Hon. Commissioner, the Permanent Secretary, directors and chief executives of agencies. On a reactive

basis, information generated is sufficient enough to meet the needs of the internal clients and support decisions making. Few MDAs (Ministry of Lands and Ministry of Agriculture) produce monthly report

which is utilised for internal management decisions on programme performance.

12

Indicator 3.2 Extent to which external (to MDA) clients / information users are identified

2009 Score: C 2012 Score: C

2015 Score: C

Rationale: Although the MDAs seem to have acceptable level of understanding of their external clients, they

hardly plan for and respond to their needs as might be required. Most of their responses are on

reactive basis and less responsive. They are rarely proactive in their responses. Their responses could be best described as demand and respond approach. That is, waiting until they (external clients)

demand before responding. They produce reports and seldom distribute to clients who will need them. Ministry of Health produces quarterly reports which are distributed to external clients. Also,

RUWASSA produces a report that is distributed to external clients as well. MDAs that are

receiving external support from development agencies produce reports to meet the needs/interests of such partners. Some of these MDAs are Health, Education and Agriculture.

Apart from the State Statistical Yearbook published by MoPB, as well as some reports from Education and Health, there is no other MDA that have any current publication that is available to the public. Indicator 3.3 Clarity of roles and responsibilities of staff in MDAs relating to information

management / M&E

2009 Score: B 2012 Score: D

2015 Score: D

Rationale:

Apart from the Civil Service schedule of duties and scheme of work, there is no M&E documented material on leadership, managerial and technical roles and responsibilities in any MDA, except Ministry

of Education. M&E departments/units do exist in some MDAs, however, there is no document clearly setting out the roles and responsibilities of designated positions that is different from the Civil Service

Schedule of duties. This means that there is no detailed job descriptions and requirement for each

M&E position.

Indicator 3.4 Comprehensiveness of operational guidelines on information management /

M&E processes

2009 Score: D 2012 Score: D

2015 Score: D

Rationale:

There is no information management/M&E operational guidelines existing in any MDA. However, the MTSS documents contain results frameworks that provide the basis for data generation and collation.

Otherwise, there is no document that spells out the detailed process for data generation, analysis and reporting. A sector performance review guideline exists which has been used for the review of

Agriculture and Environment Sectors for two years – 2013 and 2014. Although this guideline exists, it

is not yet known to all sectors/MDAs and used for state-wide sector performance review.

Indicator 3.5 The appropriateness of staffing levels and skills mix in MDA re: M&E roles and

responsibilities

2009 Score: D 2012 Score: D

2015 Score: D

Rationale:

This indicator has not changed from the scores recorded in 2009 and 2012. Most of the Planning, Research and Statistics (PRS) departments/Units as well as the M&E departments/units do not have

the required number of staff to carry out Information Management/M&E functions. More so, some of the existing staff of the departments/units lack the required skills to perform their expected functions.

Also, adequate consideration is not given to qualification and job requirement in posting/assigning of officers especially that of Director Planning, Research and Statistics (DPRS) and Director M&E.

13

KEY FEATURE 4 M&E 4: Effectiveness of Management Information Systems (MIS), Statistics and

Data

Indicator 4.1 Effectiveness of Management Information Systems (MIS) supporting decision-

making 2009 Score: D 2012 Score: D

2015 Score: C

Rationale:

MDAs are becoming more focused on outcome service delivery performance assessments with the introduction of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and this is gradually beginning to guide data

generation, collection and reporting. PMED is beginning to seek information on service delivery beyond

the output results from the MDAs. However, information in this direction has not significantly improved yet. The Ministries of Agriculture and Environment sector performance assessments is a case in hand.

Some MDAs have developed a functional database for collection of information. Some of these MDAs are Ministries of Agriculture, Education, Health, Local Government and Lands. Health and Education are

presently collating useful data and producing relevant reports that can guide policy decision-making.

The efforts of these two MDAs are not without the support of federal agencies and development partner organisations like DFID sponsored PATHS2 and ESSPIN. Indicator 4.2 Extent to which data is complete, or sufficient quality and verified

2009 Score: D

2012 Score: D

2015 Score: C

Rationale: The focus and drive for outcome results in service delivery is gradually improving data collection and

managers are beginning to get satisfaction in terms of quality and correctness of data being produced. Although the situation of limited number and qualified staff is affecting performance, the increasing

number of databases in MDAs is greatly enhancing quality of data available. This is also helping to

standardise the process of data collection and transmission in the MDAs. Indicator 4.3 Extent to which data collection and analysis processes allow comprehensive

measurement of performance indicators

2009 Score: D

2012 Score: D 2015 Score: C

Rationale: The focus on outcome indicators for service delivery is gaining popularity in the state. In the SDP, all

the sectors have some outcome indicators for measurement of performance however data collection

towards tracking these outcome indicators is still a challenge. Also in the MTSSs produced so far, both output and outcome indicators are included. In addition, the Governor’s forum indicators included both

the output and outcome indictors as well. The actual tracking of the outcome indicators is still a big challenge but data on output indicators are routinely collated as measure of progress. However,

through the support of SPARC, sector performance review tracking output and outcome results have been carried out in two sectors – Agriculture and Environment.

Indicator 4.4 Effectiveness with which data collection and information sharing processes

between MDAs are implemented

2009 Score: B 2012 Score: D

2015 Score: C

Rationale:

The State Bureau of Statistics recently conducted a state wide scorecard survey covering 15 LGAs out of

14

the 44 LGAs in the state, as well as a household survey covering the entire 44 LGAs. The level of

involvement of other MDAs in the surveys was limited and the reports of the surveys are not commonly shared or broadcasted among the MDAs.

KEY FEATURE 5 M&E 5: Performance management Processes in support of policy, strategy and

programme adjustment

Indicator 5.1 Results orientation of annual performance assessments and reports

2009 Score: C

2012 Score: D

2015 Score: D

Rationale: Annual Sector Performance Review Guidelines has been approved by the PMED, through the support of

SPARC it has been used to conduct performance review of two sectors for two years - Agriculture and Environment for 2013 and 2014 activities. Beyond the support of SPARC, this guideline has not been

used to review the performance of any other sector. The majority of the MDAs produce only activity

reports meant to justify expenditure. The Health sector, through the support of federal agencies and a development partner, PATHS2, conducts joint annual performance reviews tracking some levels of

MDGs indicators. Indicator 5.2 Extent to which policy, strategies or programmes are adjusted in response to

review findings

2009 Score: C

2012 Score: D 2015 Score: D

Rationale: Although sector performance reviews have been conducted in two sectors (Agriculture and

Environment), there is no evidence that the recommendations have been ideally used to adjust strategies or programmes. Across the MDAs, annual adjustment to strategies and programmes is mainly

tied to available budget but not much on recommendation from the assessment reports. Also, there is

no evidence to show how the health sector performance review has been used to adjust strategies and programmes.

KEY FEATURE 6 M&E 6: Cross-cutting issues addressed in information Management / M&E

Indicator 6.1 Extent to which cross-cutting issues are reflected in the information

management / M&E systems 2009 Score: C 2012 Score: D

2015 Score: D

Rationale:

Cross cutting issues like gender and inclusiveness are gradually gaining active recognition in the state. For example, a former governor appointed a Senior Special Assistant (SSA) on People With Disabilities

(PWD) with the intention of bringing governance closer to them. Some Ministries like Education,

Agriculture, Health and Environment have started addressing some of the cross cutting issues in their programme implementation. However, data collation is mainly limited to aggregate numbers (outputs)

and not changes resulting from programme implementations.

15

Section 4: Findings by Key feature

Institutional & legal basis for information management and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) Summary of Results

2009 2012 2015

Kano Kano Kano

M&E 1 Institutional & legal basis for information management and

monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

C D+ D+

Key Feature Direction

Quantitative Findings This situation of this feature has decreased from C to D+ from 2009 to 2015. No reasonable improvement has occurred to justify the need for upward review. Some of the remarkable things that have happened include passing into law the bill establishing the State Bureau for Statistics, the appointment of the Statistician General and the commencement of the Bureau. The sector performance review guideline was approved and it has been used to conduct performance assessment in two sectors. Qualitative Findings The Bureau of Statistics has started providing the useful data needed for policy decisions. The Statistical Year Book has been improved and some state level surveys have been conducted. For example, a household survey has been recently concluded which covered the 44 LGAs in the state. Also, service delivery scorecard survey was conducted across 15 LGAs.

A Strategy developed setting out scope and purpose of information management / M&E Summary of Results

2009 2012 2015

Kano Kano Kano

M&E 2 A Strategy developed setting out scope and purpose of

information management / M&E

D D C

Key Feature Direction

Quantitative Findings This feature increased from score D recorded in 2009 and 2012 to C in the 2015 assessment. Although there is no state-wide strategic document for M&E, some individual MDAs like Health and Education have installed databases used in collating useful data that are required for policy decisions.

16

Qualitative Findings The wave of interest in measuring outcome results is increasing in the state and more people are beginning to ask more result oriented leading questions such as programme/project for what? What are the expected or desired changes? The governors’ forum indicators are good example of the increasing interest in tracking outcome measurements.

Organisational capacity for managing information and carrying out information management / M&E Summary of Results

2009 2012 2015

Kano Kano Kano

M&E 3 Organisational capacity for managing information and carrying

out information management / M&E

D+ D D

Key Feature Direction

Quantitative Findings The overall score for this feature decreased from D+ in 2009 to D in 2012 and 2015 assessment. The feature and its measurement was better understood after the initial assessment in 2009. Qualitative Findings It is true that the MDAs understand and identify who their internal and external clients are, but the process of satisfying their information/data needs is more on the reactive basis. Also, the roles and responsibilities of M&E officers are not yet clarified and documented across the MDAs. There are no operational guidelines to support M&E functions in the state. Available staff dedicated to M&E functions is inadequate and majority of the few available ones do not have the required skills to carry out their expected roles and responsibilities.

Effectiveness of Management Information Systems (MIS), Statistics and Data

Summary of Results

2009 2012 2015

Kano Kano Kano

M&E 4 Effectiveness of Management Information Systems (MIS),

Statistics and Data

D+ D C

Key Feature Direction

Quantitative Findings This key feature was initially rated D+ in 2009 but was later reduced to D in 2012. The reduction is probably based on the fact that a better understanding of feature and the

17

measurement was clarified. Finally the score increased from D in 2012 to C in this 2015 assessment. Qualitative Findings More MDAs have installed functional databases and emphasis is increasing on the need for outcome indicator measurements. Two sector performance reviews have been supported in two sectors – Agriculture and Environment. Also, Health is conducting a sector performance review tracking some of the MDGs indicators. Also, a scorecard methodology has been prepared and piloted but it has not been carried forward beyond the pilot test facilitated by SPARC. Despite the support from SPARC to the state to facilitate the preparation of sector performance review guidelines and the piloting of the review in two sectors, the state has not been able to carry out any sector performance review on its own. One major reason contributing to this problem is lack of budgetary provision for performance reviews either at the central MDA (PMB) or at the individual MDAs.

Performance Management Processes in support of policy, strategy and programme adjustment Summary of Results

2009 2012 2015

Kano Kano Kano

M&E 5 Performance management Processes in support of policy,

strategy and programme adjustment

C D D

Key Feature Direction

Quantitative Findings The score for this feature decreased from C in 2009 to D in 2012 and remained at D in the 2015 assessment. The feature and its measurement were better understood after the initial assessment in 2009. The reality showed that the State is at D and not at C level. Qualitative Findings Sector performance reviews have been conducted for Agriculture and Environment, however there is no evidence that the recommendation has been used to adjust strategies or programmes. The budget circle which starts at the middle of the year is a major problem to the utilisation of the performance reviews in adjusting strategies and programme. For example, while the performance review of any year, say 2013 for example, is conducted at the first quarter of 2014, the recommendation will no longer be useful for the 2014 budget which is already approved and implementation has started. Therefore, the findings and recommendations of the 2013 review can only be meaningfully utilised to affect the 2015 budget, which is one year after. This is a major challenge.

18

Cross-cutting issues addressed in information Management / M&E Summary of Results

2009 2012 2015

Kano Kano Kano

M&E 6 Cross-cutting issues addressed in information Management /

M&E

C D D

Key Feature Direction

Quantitative Findings The score for this feature decreased from C in 2009 to D in 2012 and remained at D in the 2015 assessment. The feature and its measurement was better understood after the initial assessment in 2009. The reality showed that the state is at D and not at C level. Qualitative Findings Although awareness is increasing on the cross-cutting issues and the MDAs are beginning to incorporate issues in their programme plan and implementation, the efforts so far have not been able to take the state to a C score. The Ministry of Women Affairs is making efforts to ensure gender and inclusive programme planning and implementation but a major problem is that the budget is grossly not sensitive to the issues. Deliberate effort is required to make the budgetary provisions and implementations to be sensitive to cross cutting issues.

19

Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusion Overall, there are some pockets of governance changes that have happened in the state with regard to few M&E indicators since the partnership with SPARC in 2009. However, these changes were not significant enough to improve the scores of the six features measured. To date, three different assessments have been carried out – 2009, 2012 and 2015. Amongst the six features measured, only one showed a little improvement in score from the baseline score of D in 2009 to C in 2015. The score of the other five features either remained the same or reduced. The six features were made up of seventeen indicators and among the seventeen only six showed an increase in score from the previous assessments, five remained the same, while six recorded decrease scores. The SEAT exercise is adjudged to be worthwhile by the state officials, however, there is no evidence that showed significant implementation of recommendations from the previous assessments. Therefore, it is being regarded as mere exercise sponsored by SPARC and there is no plan for its continuity when SPARC ceases to operate.

Recommendations Overall Recommendations for Embedding Governance Reform Going Forwards

Development of Information Management and M&E framework for the entire state: The self assessment process identified clearly that Kano State has no legal framework or regulations for Information Management and M&E, therefore a process that will build the capacity of MoPB and PMB to institutionalise Information Management and M&E systems in the state will be necessary. The MDAs that have established PRS Units have no formal framework with which to operate. This will require a structural and functional review of the existing PRS units to provide a basis for recommendations on restructuring and development of a framework for information Management and M&E system in the State.

Identification of demand side strategies for information management/M&E capacity development. It was noted that MDAs majorly produce reports (information/data) in response to their internal and external clients on a reactive basis. Therefore, development of demand side information packaging and dissemination among the MDAs would be required. A potential opportunity for developing capacity in the state is to help each MDA to properly identify its internal and external stakeholders that would need information and design strategies to supply such information satisfactorily.

20

Implementation of Annual Sector Review Processes. The Annual Sector Performance Review Process that has been piloted through support of SPARC should be taken forward by making it a state-wide annual sector review. Also, MDAs/Sectors should be made to produce quarterly reports using the framework of the sector performance review. In this regard MDAs/sectors should produce their reports measuring the KPIs already developed.

Effectiveness of Management Information Systems (MIS), Statistics and Data

There is the need to install a functional central database in the Bureau of Statistics tracking performance indicators of all sectors. The DevInfo systems can be improved upon and domesticated to meet this need.

The data generated from the central database will feed into the State Statistical Year

Book thereby making useful data available to users.

Performance Management Processes in support of policy, strategy and programme adjustment

Annual budget planning (preparation) and defence should be made to reflect outcome results as well instead of output results only. Therefore some sections of the budget call circular should be sector specific providing instructions and desirables for the new budget. This will encourage MDAs to begin to measure outcome results instead of measuring output results only.

The sector performance review process should be adopted as annual event for all

sectors/MDAs. In this regard adequate budget provision should be centrally made available at the PMB and Bureau of Statistics to be drawn for this purpose.

Cross-cutting issues addressed in Information Management / M&E

The Ministry of Women Affairs should be empowered to take up the regulatory roles of guiding and scrutinising sectors/MDAs’ annual budget to ensure gender and social inclusiveness before the budgets are approved.

There is the need to produce a legal framework for gender and social inclusive policy

in the state. The framework should be detailed enough to provide roles and responsibilities of sectors/MDAs.

21

The MTSS guideline should be improved upon to extensively include cross cutting issues as well as provide for participation of M&E officers in sector strategy document preparation.

Organisational capacity for managing information and carrying out information management / M&E

There are generally low skills available for Information Management and M&E in the state. Given this fact, it is necessary to conduct an evaluation of the capacity requirement of the Bureau of Statistics and PMB to determine the knowledge gap between what exists and what is desirable in terms of number of personnel and qualifications.

More so, it is necessary to conduct an analysis of data system requirement,

functionality and effectiveness of existing ones to meeting the needs of the state.

Institutional & legal basis for information management and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

It is required to prepare and pass into law M&E framework for the state. UNICEF has started this process and it should be taken forward.

A legal backing should be provided for PMB to guarantee effective and efficient M&E

system in the State. At present the authority of the PMB is to supervise and inspect projects, give job completion certificates, etc. There is no provision to give the directorate authority to enforce and hold sectors/MDAs accountable for service delivery.

Also, there is the need to provide legal backing to the SDP to ensure implementation

thereby providing basis for measuring the sectors/MDAs using the results frameworks.

A Strategy developed setting out scope and purpose of information management / M&E

There is no state level M&E strategic document but pockets of M&E results frameworks exist in sector MTSSs and other strategic documents. On the interim, it is necessary to provide a state level framework for M&E sections in the sector strategy documents. This will guide the sectors to adequately include M&E in their strategy documents and ensure uniformity in the process and approach.

22

Annex 1: Summary of Base line to End line

2009 2012 2015

Kano Kano Kano

(i) Clarity of legislation and regulations in

respect of information management &

C C D

(ii) Effectiveness of organisational

response in MDA to legislation and

C D C

(i) Availability of a state-wide strategy or

policy document on information

management / M&E and extent of its

D C C

(ii) Extent to which the state strategy for

M&E includes clear requirements for

MDAs to ensure a sufficient focus on

Goals, Outcomes and Targets within

D D C

(iii) Extent to which individual MDAs have

in place medium-term strategies for

the development of information

D D C

(i) Extent to which internal M&E Clients /

information users (i.e. within the

C C C

(ii) Extent to which external (to MDA)

clients / information users are

C C C

(iii) Clarity of roles and responsibilities of

staff in MDAs relating to information

B D D

(iv) Comprehensiveness of operational

guidelines on information

D D D

(v) The appropriateness of staffing levels

and skills mix in MDA re: M&E roles

D D D

(i) Effectiveness of Management

Information Systems (MIS) supporting

D D C

(ii) Extent to which data is complete, or

sufficient quality and verified

D D C

(iii) Extent to which data collection and

analysis processes allow

comprehensive measurement of

D D C

(iv) Effectiveness with which data

collection and information sharing

processes between MDAs are

B D C

(i) Results orientation of annual

performance assessments and reports

C D D

(ii) Extent to which policy, strategies or

programmes are adjusted in response

C D D

M&E 6 Cross-cutting issues addressed in

information Management / M&E

(i) Extent to which cross-cutting issues

are reflected in the information

management / M&E systems

C D D

M&E 4 Effectiveness of Management

Information Systems (MIS),

Statistics and Data

M&E 5 Performance management

Processes in support of policy,

strategy and programme

adjustment

M&E 3 Organisational capacity for

managing information and

carrying out information

management / M&E

Key Feature

M&E 1 Institutional & legal basis for

information management and

monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

M&E 2 A Strategy developed setting out

scope and purpose of information

management / M&E

Indicators Direction

23

Annex 2: List of Participants

1. P&S/M&E SEAT Assessment Workshop

1 AISHA M. BELLO HON. COMM MOPB 08034530617 aishat65@gmail.com

2 ENGR KABIR JIBRIL P.S MOPB 08033495813 kabirjibril@gmail.com

3 SANI HAMZA BICHI DP MOPB 08037406112 Shbichi70@gmail.com

4 ENGR. BALARABE SABO DPRS MIN. OF

AGRIC.

08056524991 balarabesabo@yahoo.com

5 MUHAMMAD YARO DRS KSBS 08034533626 myaro125@yahoo.com

6 TAIYEB NA-ABBA DB MOPB 08037133685 taiyebnabba@yahoo.com

7 ABDULNASIR ABDU DDSC MOPB 080654548445 abdul4naseer@yahoo.com

8 YUSUF A. ALIKO DD PLANNING MOLPP 08034247589

9 ABUBAKAR B. GWARZO CPO PMB 08034668535 abg@gmail.com

10 HARUNA I. BELLO DPRS MOLG &

COMM DEV

08036636775 harunabello90@yahoo.com

11 HABU SANI DDDSC MOPB 08054447692 habusn@yahoo.com

12 KUBRA AHMAD BICHI DR&PC MOPB 08066488719 kubra.ahmad.uk

13 IBRAHIM LAWAL MUHAMMAD P.O.I PMB 08032205086 Ilawal10@yahoo.com

14 DR. IBRAHIM BRAJI DG R&D 08032542004 Brajiibrahim7@gmail.com

15 BASIRU BUWA ADAMU DPRS MOENV 08065528572 Bashiradmu.buwa@yahoo.co

m

16 BABALLE AMMANI SG/PS KSBS 08036282462 baammmani@yahoo.com

17 GARBA BELLO IBRAHIM P.O MFLG 08027916791 garbabello7@gmail.com

18 MUHAMMAD YAU DD PLANNING MOPB 08035347636 muhammadyau@yahoo.com

19 YAKUBU A. SABIU CPO MOPB 08101189460

20 HASSAN GARBA CBA MOPB 08082153645

21 RABIU YUSUF ALHAJI DDBME MoE,S&T 080994722884 rabiuya@yahoo.com

22 Jenna Treen M&E SPARC 08072669102 Jenna.treen@sparc-

nigeria.com

23 MUTTAKA BAKO A.A SPARC 07063174234

24 ISMAILA KABIR TCM SPARC 080335347720 kabir.ismaila@sparc-

nigeria.com

25 OBI UGOCHUKWU CONSULTANT SPARC ougochuku@earthlink.com

26 RASHEED ADEBESIN SPM SPARC 08033149539 rasheed.adebesin@sparc-

nigeria.com

24

27 SUNNY KULUTUYE CONSULTANT SPARC 08037057193 kulutuyes@gmail.com

28 HAMZA AHMAD DPRS SMOH 08034459435 hamzaahmadabba@yahoo.co

m

29 ABUBAKAR MAHMUD DPRS MWR 08069767735

30 MOHD SADI YAHAYA DM&E PMB 08065416530 sadiyahaya@gmail.com

31 BASHEER SANI MUHAMMAD DAGS MOPB 08067228333 babaaskibabu@icloud.com

2. P&S / M&E SEAT Validation Workshop

S/N Name Designation Organization Phone No. Email

1 ENGR. KABIR JIBRIL P.S MOPB 08033495813 jibrilkabir@gmail.com

2 SANI HAMZA BICHI DP MOPB 08037406112 Shbichi70@gmail.com

3 ENGR. BALARABE SABO DPRS MIN. OF AGRIC. 08056524991 balarabesabo@yahoo.com

4 MUHAMMAD YARO DRS KSBS 08034533626 myaro125@yahoo.com

5 TAIYEB NA-ABBA DB MOPB 08037133685 taiyebnabba@yahoo.com

6 ABDULNASIR ABDU DDSC MOPB 080654548445 abdul4naseer@yahoo.com

7 AISHA M. BELLO HON. COMM MOPB 08034530617 aishat65@gmail.com

8 YUSUF A. ALIKO DD PLANNING MOLPP 08034247589

9 ABUBAKAR B. GWARZO CPO PMB 08034668535 abg@gmail.com

10 ENGR MOHAMMED Adamu Musa P.S PMB 08033149902 madamu135@hotmail.com

11 HARUNA I. BELLO DPRS MOLG & COMM DEV

08036636775 harunabello90@yahoo.com

12 HABU SANI DDDSC MOPB 08054447692 habusn@yahoo.com

13 KUBRA AHMAD BICHI DR&PC MOPB 08066488719 kubra.ahmad.uk

14 IBRAHIM LAWAL MUHAMMAD P.O.I PMB 08032205086 Ilawal10@yahoo.com

15 DR. IBRAHIM BRAJI DG R&D 08032542004 brajiibrahim7@gmail.com

16 BASIRU BUWA ADAMU DPRS MOENV 08065528572 bashiradmu.buwa@yahoo.com

17 ABBA MUSTAPHA DANBATTA D/DATABANK KSBS 08065305213 abbadanbatta68@gmail.co

m

18 GARBA BELLO IBRAHIM P.O MFLG 08027916791 garbabello7@gmail.com

19 MUHAMMAD YAU DD PLANNING MOPB 08035347636 muhammadyau@yahoo.com

20 YAKUBU A. SABIU CPO MOPB 08101189460

21 HASSAN GARBA CBA MOPB 08082153645

22 RABIU YUSUF ALHAJI DDBME MoE,S&T 080994722884 rabiuya@yahoo.com

23 BINTA UMAR ABDULLAHI T.O SPARC 08038936895 beant285@gmail.com

24 MUTTAKA BAKO A.A SPARC 07063174234

25 ISMAILA KABIR TCM SPARC 080335347720 kabir.ismaila@sparc-nigeria.com

26 OBI UGOCHUKWU CONSULTANT SPARC ougochuku@earthlink.com

27 RASHEED ADEBESIN SPM SPARC 08033149539 rasheed.adebesin@sparc-nigeria.com

25

28 SUNNY KULUTUYE CONSULTANT SPARC 08037057193 kulutuyes@gmail.com

29 HAMZA AHMAD DPRS SMOH 08034459435 hamzaahmadabba@yahoo.com

30 AISHA M. BELLO HON. COMM MOPB 08034530617 aishat65@gmail.com

KANO STATE GOVERNMENT