Executive Summary

The annual performance assessment is one of the modalities established by the Ministry of Monitoring and Evaluation to appraise the delivery and impact of government priority programmes. This report is the first annual performance assessment aimed at reviewing the performance of Government Results Framework for High Priorities in 2017. The report details the progress of priority interventions performance, their   outcomes, sub-outcomes and milestones indicators. It also highlights emerging outcomes and challenges, and provides forward looking recommendations that can enhance delivery and impact of the priority programmes going forward.

 The assessment was mainly a desk review, complemented with face to face and key informant interviews to elicit additional information to validate the initial findings. The study employed the participatory and utilization-focused approach that enables evidence-based decision making at the highest level of Government to strengthen learning and accountability for results among the implementing agencies.

Findings

In line with the Terms of Reference (TOR,) the assessment sought to ascertain: existence of well-articulated strategy or project document; adequacy and timeliness of budget allocation and releases; and performance of the priority programmes in 2017, as detailed below:

Availability of a well-articulated Strategy or Project Document

All the Ministries have or are in the process of developing new Sector Medium Term Development Plans (SMTDP) to guide the design and implementation of their policies, programs and projects. However, save for the Free SHS and the Planting for Food and Jobs Program that have a program document (albeit not containing all relevant components), the rest of the Flagship Programmes do not have comprehensive documents that define their goals, objectives, implementation strategies and detailed results framework.

Robustness of the Results Framework

The results framework was found to be robust and the design logic was clear and consistent with good practice in Managing for Development Results (MfDR). The framework is based on the results chain approach and the design facilitates a logical articulation of the theory of change. The framework allows for a presentation of the goal, outcomes, sub-outcomes, milestones and the corresponding indicators, baselines and targets in a cumulative manner. The framework allows the ministries to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate the delivery and impact of the priority programmes in a transparent, participatory and systematic manner.

However, the study revealed that:

• Some of the outcomes, sub-outcomes and milestones did not have indicators, baselines or targets.
• Some of the indicators seemed ambitious.
• Some of the indicators did not have indicator definition or description and in some cases the definitions provided were inaccurate.

Budget Allocation and Releases

Save for some of the Flagship Programmes such as Planting for Food and Jobs, Free SHS and IPEP, most of the ministries did not receive the required budget allocation during the year under review. Budget releases were also not adequate and timely.    Inadequate and untimely budget release is the most significant challenge identified by the ministries as inhibiting their ability to achieve their annual target.

Progress of Implementation and Achievement of Results.

The overall performance of the priority programmes in 2017 was 38.87%. Out of 701 indicators, 213 were rated GREEN, 63 UMBER,   147 RED   and 278 indicators were not reported.

Aggregate Outcome Performance: The overall outcome performance was 33.5% representing the achievement of 58 (51 GREEN and 7 UMBER) out of 173 indicators. The aggregate performance of the outcome indicators were consistent with the overall performance pattern given the fact that most of the milestone targets were not achieved

Aggregate Milestones Performance: The overall milestone performance stood at 39.33%, representing 177 (130 GREEN and 47 UMBER) indicators. Only two sectors (Economic and Governance & Legal Services) achieved an aggregate annual performance of above 50% (59.34% and 60.60% respectively).

Ministry Performance: Sixteen (16) out of the 32 ministries achieved an annual performance of 50% and above. Out of this number, 8 ministries achieved an annual performance of 75%. However, 274 in total, were not reported.

Emerging Outcomes

The following emerging outcomes were identified:

Increased M&E culture: The introduction and operationalisation of the annualised results framework and the technical support provided by MoM&E has further enhanced the visibility and interest in results-based monitoring and reporting across the ministries.

Increased accountability for results: The introduction of annualised target setting meetings and performance reviews has led to an increased focus on accountability for results. Thus, the ministries showed increased awareness and commitment to tracking and demonstrating the impacts of their interventions.

Improved M&E skills and competencies: The formation and training of M&E focal persons across all the ministries has enhanced the skills and competencies of the Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Directorates (PPMEDs) in the design, monitoring and reporting of their respective results frameworks.

Structured approach towards annual monitoring and reporting of ministries’ performance: The process of drafting, review and reporting on the performance of the results framework has created a structured approach to annual target setting, monitoring and reporting on delivery and impacts of the priority programmes.

Improved real-time monitoring reporting: The roll-out of the results framework with clear timelines and reporting modalities has enhanced timely reporting on the progress of implementation and achievement of the priority programmes.

Findings

Overall performance: The overall performance of the GRFHP was below 50% comprising of 213 GREEN and 63 UMBER out of a total of 701 indicators. The overall performance showed that, although, the ministries demonstrated commitment and effort towards the implementation of the 2017 deliverables, not much was achieved at the end of the year. The actual annual performance stood at 39.37% (30.38% GREEN and 8.98% UMBER). In addition, 151 (21.54%) indicators, were rated RED   with an annual performance of below 50%; and 274 (39.09%) indicators were not reported.

Aggregate Outcome Performance: The overall outcome performance was 33.5% representing the achievement of 58 (51 GREEN and 7 UMBER) out of 173 indicators. The aggregate performance of the outcome indicators were consistent with the overall performance pattern given the fact that most of the milestone targets were not achieved

Aggregate Milestones Performance: The overall performance of the milestones stood at 39.33%, representing 177 indicators (130 GREEN and 47 UMBER). As shown in the Table 3, only two sectors (Economic and Governance & Legal Services) achieved an aggregate annual performance of above 50%, 59.34% and 60.60% respectively

Ministry Performance: Sixteen (16) out of the 32 ministries achieved an annual performance of 50% and above. Out of this number, 8 ministries achieved an annual performance of 75% (See Annex 1). However, as shown in Table 3, a significant number of indicators, 274 in total, were not reported.

Challenges

Key challenges identified are as follows:

Absence of comprehensive Programme Concept Documents: Most of the Flagship Programmes do not have a comprehensive programme document that articulates their aims and objectives, expected outcomes, implementation modalities, stakeholder engagement and communication strategies.

Inadequate and poor scheduling of budget releases: Budget allocated and released to most of the ministries was inadequate. More than 50 percent of the ministries reported that they received less than 30% of their annual budget allocation.

Ambitious targets: There seems to be lack of rigour and adequate scrutiny of the target setting process which led to the delineation of over ambitious and unrealistic targets. 

Inadequate capacity: M&E capacity across the ministries is still inadequate. Most of the ministries struggled to develop realistic results framework and to provide timely performance update of their results framework. 

Inadequate attention and commitment to M&E processes: The delay in submission of the annual performance updates and the gaps in the data provided showed inadequate compliance with the agreed M&E processes. For example, it took some of the ministries more than one month to submit the annual performance update compared to the agreed duration of two weeks.

Weak data collection and reporting systems:  Data collection and reporting systems at the ministries are not robust enough. Some of the ministries struggled to provide succinct and results-focused performance updates.

Lessons Learnt:

Leadership Commitment and support: There is very high political will and leadership commitment and support for the monitoring and evaluation of government programmes especially the priority programmes to promote accountability of learning and for development results.

Lack of comprehensive M&E system: There is evidence that the M&E systems across the Ministries, Departments and Agencies will require additional enhancement. Most of the ministries do not have a comprehensive M&E system that brings together all the different M&E components and actors at the ministry level.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The assessment showed that the ministries have put structures and modalities in place for the implementation of the priority programmes. However, the annual performance of the GRFHP was far below expectation. Most of the ministries achieved less than 50% of their annual target due to initial delays and inadequate release of budget. Notwithstanding the low performance recorded in 2017, the study revealed that introduction and roll-out of GRFHP has contributed to the development of an enhanced system for tracking and reporting on the delivery and impact of the priority programmes in a sequential, transparent and inclusive manner.

To help accelerate implementation and achievement of the expected results of the priority programmes, the following recommendations have been advanced:

Align budget releases with the work plans of ministries:  Budget releases should be aligned with the work plans of ministries. Effort must be made to ensure that adequate resources are released on time to facilitate timely implementation and achievement of expected results.

Development of comprehensive project documents: The ministries must ensure that background documents are developed and properly packaged for all the flagship programmes.

M&E capacity building and technical support: MoM&E should continue to provide fit-for-purpose M&E training and hands-on technical support to the ministries to ensure effective implementation, monitoring and report of project performance and impacts.

Strengthen M&E culture and accountability for results: MoM&E should help deepen M&E culture in the ministries and facilitate involvement of non-state actors in the performance review process.

Develop harmonised instrument and glossary: MoM&E should facilitate the harmonisation of M&E tools and glossary across the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to improve results-based monitoring and evaluation of the priority programmes.

Review and refinement of Annual Target: MoM&E should support the ministries to review and refine their annual targets to make them realistic and achievable within the duration of the GRFHP.