Annual Review – post April 2018

Title: Title: Child Development Grant Programme (CDGP) Nigeria

Programme Value £ (full life): £53.2m Review Date: 30th April to 30 May 2018

Programme Code: 202978

Start Date: 1st April 2013 End Date: 31st July 2019

Summary of Programme Performance

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Programme Score A A A A A+

Risk Rating M H H H Major

DevTracker Link to Business Case and logframe:

https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-202978/documents

A. Summary and Overview Description of programme DFID is providing £49.3m for the Child Development Grant Programme (CDGP). CDGP is a six-year learning programme aimed at tackling poverty and hunger and reducing malnutrition in children in Jigawa and Zamfara states in Northern Nigeria. The programme has flexed to influence the design and implementation of the nascent national social cash transfer programme and to provide additional technical support to the two partner States to enable them to access this programme. Save the Children is leading the INGO consortium delivering the programme, in partnership with Action Against Hunger (AAH). The programme started on 1st April 2013 and will run to 31st July 2019. The CDGP provides a cash transfer of 4,000 NGN (approximately £8) per month for up to 90,000 pregnant women and women with children under the age of 2 in five Local Government Areas in Jigawa (Buji, Kiri-kasama, Gagarawa) and Zamfara State (Anke, Tsafe). The programme aims at universal enrolment within 155 target villages. The transfer is accompanied by nutritional education, advice, and counselling. The transfer is expected to contribute to increased food security, improved intake of more nutritious food, leading to improvement in child nutrition within 90,000 households. An independent evaluation component of the CDGP, conducted by a consortium led by Oxford Policy Management (OPM) (DFID contract valued at £3.9m), will produce evidence of the impact of the programme, inform the political engagement strategy, and provide evidence to other donors and Federal and State governments on the effectiveness of nutrition focused cash transfer programmes. In May 2016 DFID agreed to slow down the roll-out pace of the programme. This extended the programme to July 2019 (from 31 March 2018) reducing the roll-out pace to 15 new wards per month (rather than 35 per month). This allowed the programme to strengthen the quality of all the programme components. In particular this recalibration enabled greater focus on the quality of the Behaviour Change Communication nutrition interventions and the Complaints Response Mechanism (CRM) that complement the monthly cash transfer. At the same time DFID agreed to an extension of the evaluation component and the addition of the midline evaluation. The social protection policy context in which CDGP is operating has changed greatly since inception of the programme. These include: continued commitment and financing from the federal government for social protection in general and the launch of the flagship National Social Safety Net Project (NASSP) in particular; approval of national and Jigawa state social protection policies; commitment by Jigawa state to implement a social protection programme which was accompanied by a budget allocation of NGN2 billion in the 2018 budget and formation of a social protection council and Technical Working Group; and, improved commitment from the Zamfara state government with a proposed one-year maternal and child grant. The programme has adapted well to these changes.

This is the fifth and final annual review of the programme before it closes in July 2019. Summary supporting narrative for the overall score in this review As the CDGP enters its 6th and final year, the programme has demonstrated the ability to implement a cash transfer plus nutrition intervention at scale; the flexibility to work in a rapidly changing implementing environment; the capability to reflect and incorporate lessons to improve programme implementation; and, the aptitude to influence policy agendas and encourage uptake of social protection at federal and state levels. The programme has achieved key outcomes and outputs and is on track to achieve the remaining targets in the final year. It is demonstrating proof of concept. It justifies a programme score of A+ (outputs moderately exceeded expectation). Recommendations for the year ahead There are full and detailed recommendations for all outputs and for section F, delivery, commercial and financial performance. These recommendations focus primarily on ensuring that there is a responsible programme closure that maximises its development impact and legacy. There are specific recommendations on ensuring that the beneficiary exit process is strengthened, on optimising the role and contributions of community volunteers, reinforcing support to the State and Federal government social protection efforts, and on ensuring the effective documentation and dissemination (for advocacy purposes) of programme lesson learning.

B: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING

Output Title Secure payments mechanism providing regular, timely cash transfers to pregnant women and women with under-2s

Output number per LF 1 Output Score A

Impact weighting (%): 30% Impact weighting % revised since last AR?

No

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for

this review Progress

1.1 Cumulative number of beneficiaries registered in the programme

90,000 89,161 beneficiaries registered (or 99%). This target is set to be exceeded by April 2018 (which is the last month of registration for new beneficiaries)

1.2 % of registered beneficiaries receiving correct transfer amounts within 10 days of approval on a monthly basis

97% 96% of beneficiaries received cash within 10 days, despite security challenges in some communities in Zamfara state

1.3 % of traditional wards covered in target villages

100% A total of 95% of traditional wards has been covered. This target is set to be met by April 2018 (which is the last month of registration for new beneficiaries)

1.4 % of community members satisfied with transparency of targeting and enrolment mechanism

90% 91%

1.5 % of beneficiaries satisfied with the transparency and ease of payment mechanism

90% 68% Continued sensitisation and training of beneficiaries, communities, CVs and payment agents on the payment mechanism aims to improve this

1.6 % of exited beneficiaries satisfied with exit process

90% 91%

1.7 Costs per beneficiary – total admin and transfer (without advocacy costs and with advocacy costs included)

£22 £2.68. The initial benchmarks were set too high. These will be reviewed and reset with new benchmarks included in the next quarterly report (July 30th, 2018)

1.8 Total cost/Transfer ratio 30% (70%) See VfM section. For every £1 spent on the CDGP in the quarter, £0.72 was spent on cash transfer (with advocacy cost). That is cash transfer is 72% of total cost of the CDGP (with advocacy) in the quarter. For every £1 spent on the CDGP in the quarter, £0.67 was spent on cash transfer (without advocacy cost). That is, cash transfer is 67% of total CDGP cost (without advocacy) in the quarter. This is the first Annual Review in which this indicator has been reported on and it has been identified that the benchmarks should be rephrased to allow for easier comparison

Provide supporting narrative for the score The programme is demonstrating that it is now a mature programme. It is clear from field visits that the programme is highly valued in beneficiary communities not only for the economic and social value of the cash transfer but also for the strength of the systems (targeting and enrolment, payment, and monitoring)

that it has in place. Within the context of high levels of corruption in Nigeria, the transparency and accountability of the cash transfer is valued particularly highly by state and LGA government officials, traditional leaders (including Emirs and ward chiefs), and beneficiaries. When asked what they would do differently one beneficiary from Sabon Gari community (Tsafe, Zamfara) replied “Absolutely nothing.” The post distribution monitoring (PDM) (Annex 1) survey showed that 91% of community members are satisfied with the ease of targeting and enrolment of beneficiaries, 68% of beneficiaries are satisfied with the payment process, while 91% of matured beneficiaries are satisfied with the exit process. There is still more to do to ensure that the payment system is clear to all beneficiaries. Continued sensitisation and training of beneficiaries, communities, CVs and payment agents on the payment mechanism aims to improve this.

• CDGP re-negotiated and signed the Stanbic Bank and Airtel service agreements for another year (from January 2018 – December 2018) for the delivery of cash transfers to all active beneficiaries in the implementing communities. The existing withdrawal charge of N200 per beneficiary and 1% transaction fee were maintained. During the year, SCI conducted lengthy discussions with a potential alternative service provider, Access Bank, to reduce the risk of relying on one service provider. However, due to their high cost of service delivery and lack of clarity in terms of delivering via mobile network coverage, negotiations ended. The programme is still exploring the feasibility of engaging alternative payment providers to conduct a pilot mobile cash delivery.

• There has been ongoing targeting, enrolment and registration in treatment 1 and treatment 2 communities, with 89,161 beneficiaries by the end March 2018. Random pregnancy testing continues to be one of the measures used to minimise inclusion errors in the programme.

• CDGP continued to enrol and register beneficiaries in new and existing communities and deliver monthly cash transfers. By the end of March 2018, the programme was operating in 95% of treatment villages, in 901 traditional wards. New guidelines for registering any backlog in potential beneficiaries have been developed. These have reduced targeting inclusion error.

• The provision of phone handsets to beneficiaries is not cost effective and has been stopped. The purpose of introducing the phones to facilitate mobile money payments and Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) messaging was not achieved due to poor network coverage. The use of phone numbers/SIM cards as a beneficiary identifier is possible without the use of costly handsets.

• While the security situation has worsened in Zamfara, especially in Anka LGA, leading to delayed registration and payments, the programme continues to respond and adapt well to these challenges by delaying/lumping payments and by continuing to work with traditional leaders to better understand the changing context.

• The programme continued to improve the timeliness of payment of the monthly cash grant. Payment progress is monitored through daily disbursement reports and post-payment analysis. Beneficiaries with 3 months or more of uncollected payments are identified and monitored during payment to minimise fraud. Beneficiaries whose cash transfers have been collected by proxies for more than three months are also monitored to ensure the money is reaching the intended beneficiary.

• Programme quality benchmarks have been developed to guide and ensure adherence to the programme Standard Operating Procedures. These will now serve as the programme monitoring checklist and will be completed through routine monitoring field visits/supportive supervisions. This approach has been shared with state stakeholders to inform their own approaches to social protection. Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output Lesson 1 Thorough analysis of the information technology and payment infrastructure context should be undertaken prior to the design and implementation of cash transfer programmes. Programmes should be informed by and adapted to the local infrastructure context (which may vary over a large geographic area). Recommendation 1 It is clear from this review that community members are satisfied with the transparency of targeting and enrolment mechanisms and that exited beneficiaries are happy with the exit process. With the last month of registration for new beneficiaries in April 2018 it will be important to keep monitoring the exit process (especially for those beneficiaries who will receive less than the planned maximum 1000 days of support), ensuring that communication on this process is timely and clear for beneficiaries and community volunteers, and officials at ward, LGA, and State levels.

Output Title Effective system for mobilising, targeting and delivering complementary interventions established

Output number per LF 2 Output Score A+

Impact weighting (%): 30% Impact weighting % revised since last AR?

No

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for

this review Progress

2.1 Resolved complaints as a % of total reported complaints in all categories

95% 93%

2.2 % of active beneficiaries participating in Infant and young child feeding (IYCF) group sessions (T2 communities only1)

70% 76%

2.3 Number of active beneficiaries participating in 1:1 counselling (T2 communities only)

35% 25% CVs are being trained to improve demand for 1:1 counselling

2.4 Total number of beneficiaries reached with SBCC nutrition awareness sessions

200,000 440,557

2.5 % of pregnant/lactating or both women demonstrating adequate knowledge on key health and nutrition messages (T1 & T2)

55% 81%

2.6 % of pregnant and lactating women with improved health & nutrition practices (T1 & T2)

30% 85%

2.7 % of community volunteers trained on IYCF that passed IYCF training, obtaining 70% and above in post training evaluation test

80% 89%

Briefly describe the output and provide supporting narrative for the score Most of the milestones have been exceeded and, based on the evidence from the evaluation, are contributing to delivering key outcomes on exclusive breastfeeding and improved dietary diversity ahead of schedule and before closure in July 2019. Programme accountability, an important mechanism to ensure that the programme not only ‘does good’ but ‘does no harm’, has improved by increasing the flow of programme information (including IEC - information, education and communication – materials) though existing community structures and other community stakeholders. These include Beneficiary Reference Groups (BRGs), Traditional Ward Committees, Ulamas (religious scholars) and female preachers. Improvements in the nutrition and Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) work have been made over the year.

• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were developed for the Beneficiary Reference Groups to track performance. Quality benchmarks were also developed for programme staff to aide in the monitoring of Complaints Response Mechanism (CRM) activities. The CRM database has been improved by categorising complainants by their status (active beneficiaries, exited beneficiaries, and other community stakeholders). This has enabled filtering of complaints and feedback made by exited beneficiaries. It has been made easier to make complaints through the introduction of additional channels (a Complaints Help Desk and Toll-free Line)

• The nutrition IYCF and Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) work has been reviewed. This included mapping the ratio of Community Volunteers (CVs) to beneficiaries, ensuring a maximum of 20 beneficiaries to 1 CV, especially in T2 communities and the (re)training of CVs where this

was needed. This review of IYCF delivery has led to increases in the participation of beneficiaries in IYCF activities and fostered social cohesion among women in the groups. Despite these improvements, indicator 2.3 did not meet the milestone because 1:1 counselling is based on demand – there is no conditionality attached to the cash grant. Strategies to help stimulate demand will continue to be pursued in 2018/19

• The study on motivation of community volunteers, who play an important role in the delivery of the programme (especially the complementary nutrition interventions and in accountability mechanisms) has been completed. This shows that monetary gain is not a primary motivating factor for their participation in the programme; they are motivated more by altruism and knowledge gained from the programme. The study is due to be presented at the 2018 international SBCC Summit and published in an international peer reviewed journal. It will also form part of the lessons and evidence to be disseminated to government stakeholders in 2018/19.

• CDGP has continued to support and influence the National Safety Nets Programme (NASSP). It has provided technical guidance and support to the development of the health co-responsibility (conditionality) of the National Safety Nets Programme (NASSP) Rapid Response Initiative (RRI) and, in collaboration with other Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), continued support to the RRI led to the development of the co-responsibility implementation/operational manual. CDGP also led the development of the nutrition manuals for soft (irrespective of the co-responsibility of choice in the state) and hard (for states that chose nutrition) co-responsibility for the National Cash Transfer Office (NCTO). The 12-module manual will be used by the Cash Transfer Facilitators (CTFs) to facilitate trainings of the beneficiaries of the cash transfer on how they can help their households to improve nutrition outcomes.

• There have been increasing signs of in kind support received for the nutrition component of the programme from the Local Government Authorities (LGAs). This is evident in the inauguration of LGA Food and Nutrition Committees (LFNCs) in all the LGAs and cash and kind donations for the food demonstrations from traditional leaders and key LGA stakeholders (including farmers). For example, in Zamfara, following advocacy from the programme for increased support for food demonstration activities, traditional leaders donated various food items totalling 25 bags of grains worth N201,000. These actions demonstrate the value of the food demonstrations to communities and will further strengthen their continuation beyond the end CDGP.

Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output Lesson 2 It is important to recognise the role and ‘value’ that community volunteers play in the delivery of development programmes. While they may not benefit directly in monetary terms it is important to understand their motivations and consider these in the design and implementation of programmes. The concerns of financial motivation of CVs have been reduced by selecting them (at least female CVs) from beneficiary groups who receive the cash transfer. Lesson 3 A pre-community entry assessment checklist helps the programme better understand community dynamics before starting any CDGP intervention in the communities and avoid entering randomised control communities or non-randomized villages. Lesson 4 The pre-community entry MoU was developed to provide the traditional institution leadership with adequate information about the programme, its commitment to deliver an effective and quality programme, and the roles and responsibilities expected from them and every member of the intervention community and how their action/inaction can lead to the contamination of the programme. The introduction of the MoU has enhanced understanding and commitment of the community leader to the CDGP and has helped to reduce cross-border issues and inclusion errors from the point of community entry. Recommendation 2 The study highlights the important and visible role that community volunteers play in the CDGP (and other development programmes in Nigeria). Beyond dissemination of the study the CDGP should, working with traditional leaders, and LGA and State officials, develop a short strategy paper to consider how best to optimise their valuable contributions to communities after the closure of the programme. Recommendation 3 Senior LGA staff, Technical Working Committee and Traditional Ward Committees should be strengthened on the management and delivery of SBCC interventions to ensure the sustainability of nutrition SBCC at LGA and community levels.

Recommendation 4 Explore areas of further collaboration with Civil Society Scaling-Up Nutrition in Nigeria (CS-SUNN), other NGOs and private sector working on nutrition to better integrate support to the communities and dissemination of nutrition lessons from the CDGP. Recommendation 5 The classification of fraud into beneficiary’s fraud (unreported cases, cross border beneficiaries, false pregnancy), staff partners, TWC and CV fraud will enhance further the approach to fraud management.

Output Title Enhanced federal and state level engagement in cash transfers led to enhanced capacity of federal and states stakeholders in child poverty and survival by 2019

Output number per LF 3 Output Score A+

Impact weighting (%): 25% Impact weighting % revised since last AR?

NO

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for

this review Progress

3.1 Number of approved Social Protection policies and plans sensitive to key child and nutrition-sensitive social protection issues

4 4. Social protection policies have been approved at the federal level and in Jigawa State. The food and nutrition policy has been approved in both Jigawa and Zamfara states. The programme continues to follow up on the social protection policy in Zamfara State

3.2 Number of government staff trained on social protection and child and nutrition-sensitive social protection

250 263. Both Federal and State government staff have been trained and exposed to social protection and nutrition sensitive social protection. Some of the trainings and study tours provided to government include: - study tour for state government stakeholders to the South Africa Social Safety Net Agency (SASSA) - study tour for federal government stakeholders to Ministry of Social Development in Brazil - Poverty and Social Protection conference in Thailand. A bespoke social protection training manual is being developed by the CDGP and this will be the foundation for training government stakeholders in future.

3.3 Number of active champions and change agents for social protection and child and nutrition-sensitive social protection issues at the state and federal level

7 12. These are Jigawa: the deputy governor, PS Budget, ES Rehabilitation, SIP focal person, Director SDGs Zamfara: Emir of Anka, PS Budget, HoS, PS Government House. Federal Level: Minister of State Budget and National Planning, Senate Committee Chair & House of Rep Chair legislative committees on Poverty Alleviation

3.4 State government contribution (in cash and kind) as a percentage of programme implementation cost

5% 2.5%. A total of £86,642.4 was contributed by both state governments

3.5 Number of MDAs at the federal and state levels provided with technical support (strengthened systems) to deliver social protection and child and nutrition sensitive social protection programmes/interventions

5 18 MDAs

Provide supporting narrative for the score CDGP continues to provide strategic support to the development of social protection (mainly cash transfer systems) at State (in Zamfara and Jigawa) and Federal levels. CDGP is seen by Government as the 'go

to' programme for best practice and TA support on social protection. This support reflects changes in focus noted in the strategic direction review from early 2017. This recognised the changing context for social protection in Nigeria, specifically a strong commitment from the Federal Government to build a national social protection system, and opportunities for the CDGP to support and influence this important initiative and deliver benefits to women and children beyond the life of the CDGP programme. The programme has developed (with support from DFID) very strong relationships with the critical social protection stakeholders at State and Federal level (including with the Senior Special Adviser to the Vice President on Social Investment, the State Minister Budget and Planning, and with the World Bank). The programme has adapted quickly and effectively to these opportunities and CDGP support draws very well on programme generated evidence (including from impact evaluation material). Well targeted study tours for senior government policy makers are demonstrating positive and tangible impact on the development of and commitment to social protection systems at Federal and State levels.

• In a very positive development, Jigawa state government has earmarked NGN2 billion from the 2018 budget to start a state-owned social protection programme while Zamfara government has developed an implementation approach for a one-year maternal and child grant programme. CDGP is working with both states to support the implementation of these (complemented with advocacy for a first 1,000 days approach).

• At the Federal level the programme continues to support the National Social Safety Net Programme (NASSP) to deliver on its poverty reduction ambitions. Important achievements include:

- Approval, by the Office of the Senior Special Adviser to the Vice President on Social Investment Programme (SIP), of a Federal Engagement Strategy. This strategy highlights key areas of support that will be provided by CDGP to NASSP. The document was developed from a series of consultations with DFID, the World Bank, and NASSP.

- Building capability within NASSP through recruitment and secondment of 3 specialists to support: the NSIP payment process; the National Social Safety Coordinating Net Office (NASSCO) on policy and stakeholders’ engagement; and the National Cash Transfer Office (NCTO) on SBCC. Consequently, the payment process that was struggling to pay 6% of beneficiaries moved to 85% within 3 months; more states have been able to carry out community-based targeting and populate their social registers; and nutrition was added as a co-responsibility and a compulsory component for all beneficiaries of the NASSP.

- Support to the establishment of the NASSP steering committee. This committee provides a platform for all supporting development partners to better engage with NASSP. Members include: SCI, AAH, World Bank, UNICEF, DFID, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and NASSP.

- Strengthened the capacity of NASSP to lobby critical stakeholders (including National Bureau of Statistics, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), and OANDO) for further support to the programme.

• The number of staff seconded to CDGP has increased. So far, Jigawa has seconded 38 government staff while Zamfara 30 to support CDGP activities. The capability of these staff to deliver cash transfer programmes is being strengthened as they work on and are trained on the CDGP.

• At the federal level, the Minister of State for National Planning is championing the implementation of the approved national SP policy and leading the SP learning summit in 2018 after her participation in the Brazil study tour.

• An advocacy strategy (Annex II), grounded in and drawing on evidence from the CDGP, has been developed. This outlines engagement strategies at both state and federal level to lobby on and advocate for the approval of social protection policies, the first 1,000 days approach, and child/nutrition sensitive social protection. Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output Lesson 5 International study tours, backed up by tracer studies detailing their value and use to participants, have become a major boost to advocacy efforts, providing an informal benchmark or lens through which the government sees its commitment to social protection. Recommendation 6 Continue to support Zamfara and Jigawa states access to and alignment with the NASSP. Recommendation 7 Review Zamfara’s commitment to social protection (relatively lower compared to Jigawa) and adjust programme engagement and support accordingly.

Recommendation 8 Continue to support the institutionalisation of NASSP by: a. focussing the political economy analysis study on identifying and recommending how to sustainably institutionalise it beyond the present administration. The study should provide immediate steps to be taken towards this objective; b. supporting the development of the advocacy and communication strategy for the NSIP to promote greater accountability to citizens; c. continuing to strengthen NASSP staff capability by sharing evidence and lessons from the CDGP, and supporting study tours and trainings; d. supporting NASSP to conduct a gender analysis ensuring the key outcomes are mainstreamed into the national programme. Recommendation 9 Ensure the immediate rollout and adoption of the social protection bespoke training manual before the programme closes in 2019. Recommendation 10 Develop a tracking tool to better document key capacity building outcomes and activities (learnings and reflections) of stakeholders at national and state levels. Recommendation 11 Continue to provide support to the Social Protection community of practice, strengthening its capacity and impact to meet its objective.

Output Title Evidence of cash transfer modalities and impacts used by policymakers and practitioners at State and Federal levels

Output number per LF 4 Output Score A

Impact weighting (%): 15% Impact weighting % revised since last AR?

NO

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this review

Progress

4.1 Number of recommendations from research, evaluations, assessments and annual reviews that influence changes in programme implementation

8 recommendations applied across the programme

1. Internal programme review influenced the approach to IYCF 2. Internal programme review also influenced the introduction and use of the seconded staff/CV/beneficiary model which maps the seconded staff to CVs and CVs to beneficiaries to ensure easy management and more supportive supervision. This has led to improved data quality 3. Internal programme review on fraud management also influenced the use of MoU at community entry 4. Programme exit strategy and review of programme indicator targets influenced by 2017 Annual review 5. General tightening of programme processes and IYCF delivery after the midline quantitative evaluation result shows there is no significant difference between T1 and T2 communities

4.2 Number of key components of CDGP adopted/adapted by governments

At least 3 components

1. The food demonstration approach was adopted by Anka LGA Food and Nutrition Committee 2. Targeting and payment modality was adopted by the Zamfara state government 3. The SBCC manual was adopted by the NASSCO

4.3 Number of disseminations through different channels to key stakeholders at local and international level

8 disseminations CDGP disseminated its lessons and learnings through 4 international and 1 local dissemination events bringing the total to 8: - Save the Children’s Child poverty working group event in Zambia - Child poverty conference in Ethiopia - Evidence event organised by SCUK - 11th Annual Poverty and Social Protection conference 2018 in Thailand - Midline evaluation dissemination event in Abuja

4.4 Number of cases studies, technical and policy briefs (including operational notes and short learning papers) produced to inform the design of NASSP

12 case studies and 6 technical/policy briefs

16 case studies and 1 policy notes developed. Other products are currently being developed

Provide supporting narrative for the score The programme continues to develop and learn from relevant evidence products. This evidence has been used effectively to shape ongoing programme implementation and engagement with critical stakeholders at Federal and State levels and to influence the wider development community.

• The CDGP shared its lessons on implementing child-sensitive social protection and findings from the midline quantitative evaluation:

- Participation in a SCI child-sensitive social protection learning workshop in Zambia in September 2017. The objective of the workshop was to provide an understanding of Child Sensitive Social Protection, how it is being implemented continent wide and share key lessons. The participants were from Save the Children offices Africa continent wide as well as Zambia social protection stakeholders including civil society, UNICEF, ILO and USAID;

- Presentation of a paper on “Tackling undernutrition in the first 1,000 days using the cash-plus approach” at the Child Poverty Conference in Ethiopia;

- Participated in the Making Cash Transfers work for Children event in London in February 2018. The CDGP representative presented the key evidence and learning from CDGP and participants include Save the Children global offices;

- As part of efforts to improve quality and share its evidence, CDGP organised an abstract and manuscript workshop for key staff from the country and the state offices. Following this a total of 19 abstracts were developed on various themes covering results and lessons from the CDGP - 5 submitted and accepted to an international summit on Social and Behavioural Change Communication (SBCC) in Indonesia - 6 submitted, accepted and presented at the poverty and social protection conference in Thailand

- The Permanent Secretary for the Zamfara State Executive Council was invited for an impact learning visit to the field in Bilbis district of Tsafe LGA. The aim of the visit was to gain first-hand experience of the impacts of the CDGP to subsequently influence social-protection related policies in the Executive Council.

• CDGP shared its lessons and achievements with 300 participants at a knowledge fair organised to mark the national nutrition week in November 2017. The event was jointly organised by the Ministries of Health and Budget and National Planning. Participation at this event has increased CDGP’s visibility and relationships. Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output Lesson 6 The contracting of an external evaluation team should ensure that the results and findings from the evaluation are submitted in time to inform programme review and design so that they enhance programme performance. Recommendation 12 While the elections in February 2019 are considered a risk (see Risks section) they should be seen also as an opportunity for targeting influencing and advocacy work to maintain (or even increase) the momentum. The programme should have ready evidence products (in a very user-friendly format) for new officials at State and Federal level. This evidence should inform also donor influencing in this area. The programme should consider (and budget for) as part of this holding ‘evidence roadshows’ and field visits to beneficiary communities for officials. Recommendation 13 Evidence products should be completed as early as possible in the final year of implementation to maximise their potential advocacy value (in uptake of the CDGP first 1,000 day approach or other components of the CDGP). Recommendation 14 CDGP should maximise the opportunities for LGA teams and stakeholders (bringing together, for example, LGA officials, Traditional ward Committees and Traditional leaders, including Emirate Councils) to learn from each other.

C: THEORY OF CHANGE AND PROGRESS TOWARDS OUTCOMES Summarise the programme’s theory of change and any major changes in the past year (1/2 page) The business case notes that “The primary causes of child malnutrition are a poor diet and illness. These primary causes are affected by whether the family has enough food, access to clean water, sanitation and how the child is cared for (e.g. whether the infant is breastfed and basic hygiene practices are used, such as hand-washing) - the intermediate causes underlying the primary and intermediate causes of malnutrition are poverty, lack of resources and social, economic and political factors (e.g. the status of women) …. This programme will focus on one of the immediate causes – inadequate diet, and one of the intermediate causes – lack of access to food. Cash transfers will improve food security. Nutrition advice and other complementary inputs will help turn food security into a better diet for young children and contribute to addressing two of the underlying causes of malnutrition: income poverty and the low status of women“ (https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-202978/documents). This is complemented by policy interventions and support to the two state Governments to increase their commitment on and capability to deliver social protection and state based cash transfer programmes that can deliver for more people. There have been no major changes to the theory of change in the last year. But, while the programme is on track to achieving its outcome to reduce malnutrition, integration with other activities (including health and water, sanitation, and hygiene activities) would potentially deliver even better nutrition outcomes in the CDGP communities (depending on the causes of nutrition). While this recognition is not new (see https://www.unicef.org/sowc98/fig5.htm) it can inform the design of future nutrition focussed programmes in Nigeria (and possible more widely). The midline quantitative evaluation (complemented by post distribution monitoring) is showing that the programme is making a very positive difference at community level. This is particularly noticeable on the impact of cash transfers on nutrition especially on stunting (an improvement from 71% in non-CDGP communities to 65% in CDGP communities), exclusive breastfeeding (from 20% at baseline and to 70% at midline), and minimum dietary diversity for 6-23 months old (increased to 52% in CDGP and from 40% in non-CDGP communities). But the evaluation has shown also no significant difference between high and low intensity SBCC delivery, little improvement in maternal health indicators (such as stunting) and the use of health facility during illness aside its use for ante-natal care. Consequently, the programme is trying to better understand and address this differential impact. Describe where the programme is on track to contribute to the expected outcomes and impact, and where it is off track and so what action is planned as a result in the year ahead Evidence from programme implementation and the midline quantitative and qualitative evaluation shows that the programme is on track to achieve its outcome indicators before the programme closes in July 2019 (see the table below). The CDGP has made good progress in most of its key output areas. The programme has met 99% of its total target beneficiaries at 89,161 and continues to implement the nutrition SBCC and other complementary activities. The complaints and response mechanism (CRM) has been effective in meeting the minimum time for resolution of complaints and feedback. Satisfaction of communities and beneficiaries with targeting and enrolment process, registration and payment and ease of graduation remains high. The two focus States are still operating at different levels of progress: Zamfara’s progress has been slower in comparison to Jigawa in terms of capacity and commitment to take social protection forward. However, Zamfara has made more recent progress in presenting an implementation approach for a one-year maternal and child grant.

Outcome: A scalable programme showing how cash transfers can bring cost-effective immediate and long-term food security and nutrition benefits to eligible households with young children in poor communities in northern Nigeria Indicator Target Progress

1 Status of federal and state policies and approval of plan for non-contributory social protection

Approved policy and strategy in place and regular annual budget provision for

Jigawa, Zamfara and Federal social protection policies have been developed; the Jigawa and Federal SP policies have been approved. Budget have been allocated to

Social Protection at the Federal and State levels.

social protection in both Jigawa and Zamfara.

2 % of households who borrowed money in the past one year to cope with insufficient food availability in CDGP communities

3% 3%

3 Proportion of children 6-23 months of age who receive foods from 4 or more food groups in CDGP communities.

60% 51.5%

4 % of children 0-6 months who are exclusively breastfed in CDGP communities

75% 70%

Explain major changes to the logframe in the past year There have been no major changes to the logframe. Minor adjustments have been made to the logframe to reflect the recommendations from the 2017 annual review (including the addition of VfM indicators and greater focus on providing more technical support at the Federal level). Describe any planned changes to the logframe as a result of this review No major changes to the logframe are planned for the final year of programme implementation and before closure in July 2019. VfM benchmarks will be reviewed and adjusted if necessary.

D: VALUE FOR MONEY Assess VfM compared to the proposition in the Business Case, based on the past year Key VFM indicators have been included in the logframe at the output level. After discussion with ePact, it was agreed that VFM indicators should not be included at the impact level although the feasibility of including them in the final evaluation study could be considered. Studies to determine cost-effectiveness, to delivering a ‘minimum package’ (rather than the ‘optimum package’ that CDGP delivers) and the multiplier effect of the programme have been commissioned to reinforce advocacy efforts and to assess what can be delivered with the same level of impact at scale. The CDGP continues to make good progress on Value for Money. Key cost drivers and performance Following recommendation from last year’s annual review (and in line with DFIDs VfM guidance on social protection programmes) several indicators - delivery cost of cash transfer; cash transfer as a % of total programme cost; operational cost of cash transfer - have been replaced (with the following: Total Cost per Total Cash Transfer; costs per beneficiary). See the tables below. Efficiency

Cost per beneficiary (£) for the year in review

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total in Y5

Average number of beneficiaries paid 49,026 46,040 47,776 53,795 196,637

Running cost (£) 65,240 58,641 78,865 22,979 225,725

Delivery fee (£) 84,259 69,728 73,004 75,218 302,210

Total administrative cost (£) 149,499 128,370 151,869 98,197 527,935

Cost per beneficiary (£) 3.05 2.79 3.18 1.83 2.68

The CDGP already operates at a fairly good level of efficiency. The cost per beneficiary is calculated as the total administrative cost divided by the average number of beneficiaries paid. For every £1 transferred to beneficiaries it has cost an average of £2.68 for CDGP to deliver it this year. This is well within international best practice. For example, Cost per Beneficiary in four cash and voucher-based transfer projects implemented by CRS in Niger ranged from $7.97 to $19.28 (https://www.crs.org/sites/default/files/tools-research/niger-cost-effectiveness-case-study-final.pdf). Efficiency has improved over the course of the programme as expected (it was £1.35 last year and £1.65 the year before that – which is in line with other large national programmes in the region - especially impressive considering CDGP is a fairly small-scale pilot). The business case target is £1.15. But as the programme comes to an end and the number of beneficiaries decreases (as registration ends and matured beneficiaries continue to exit from the programme) the cost per beneficiary is increasing as administrative costs continue at the same level.

Total Cost – Transfer Ratio (TCTR) (with advocacy costs) for the year in review Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total in Y5

Total cost (£) 1,856,865 1,885,676 2,218,658 2,202,358 8,163,557

Total transfer (£) 1,147,041 1,135,208 1,196,004 1,268,003 4,746,225

TCTR 1.61 1.66 1.85 1.74 1.72

Total Cost – Transfer Ratio (TCTR) (without advocacy costs) for the year in review Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total in Y5

Total cost (£) 1,837,518 1,839,038 2,167,346 2,077,226 7,921,128

Total transfer (£) 1,147,041 1,135,208 1,196,004 1,268,003 4,746,255

TCTR 1.60 1.62 1.81 1.64 1.67

The tables above show that for every £1 spent on the programme, the cash transfer cost is £0.72 pence if advocacy costs are considered (or a Total Cost-Transfer Ratio (TCTR) (i.e. the overall cost per unit of cash transferred) of 1.72. Without the advocacy costs, cash transfer cost is £0.67 pence for every £1 spent on the programme, or a TCTR of 1.67. While this is above the TCTR noted in the business case of 1.23 it does compare well to other programmes which are found only in humanitarian/emergency settings. It is important to add that TCTRs can differ widely depending on a large number of factors such as transfer sizes, size of programme, and the payment mechanism: - In Kenya and Somalia the TCTR for different NGOs ranged from 0.11 to 0.64 (i.e. 11 to 64 pence for each £1 transferred); - IRC has estimated cost: transfer ratios of between 14 cents a dollar (ratio of 0.14) to $1.32 a dollar (ratio of 1.32) in its programme; - Other studies of emergency cash transfer programmes find TCTRs of 0.70 in Burkina Faso and 1.55 in Mozambique’s cash subsidy transfer programme.1 Additional VfM analysis is framed below. Economy The project leverages on the support of Save the Children Technical Assistants in the UK who support implementation of studies at little cost to the programme; these costs would have been higher if national or international consultants were engaged. In situations where external consultants were contracted, they were guided by Save the Children Technical Assistants; this reduced the number of consultancy days required. The implementation of the programme at a local level is largely driven by (around 3,200 currently) Community Volunteers whose responsibilities include mobilising beneficiaries for registration and payment, providing one-on-one counselling to beneficiaries, facilitating health sessions and food demonstrations, and receiving complaints from beneficiaries. The total cost savings per CV per month is £27.60 compared to if they were recruited as full-time staff (see the table below), while the total cost savings for all CVs per month is £88,320 (or £1,059,840 per year).

Savings from using Community Volunteers Cost

A Cost spent per CV (if they are recruited as full-time SCI staff)

£36

B Total cost per CV (under current arrangement) - Transport for monthly programme meeting = £6 - Refreshment for Volunteers during monthly meetings = £2.4

£8.4

C = A-B Total cost savings per CV per month £27.6

D = C x 3,200 Total cost savings for all CV’s per month £88,320

Effectiveness The programme is demonstrating, from evaluation evidence and post distribution exercises, proof of concept - the effectiveness of design and approach. The cost benefit analysis conducted by the programme noted that the estimated impacts on child mortality are tangible: 1.5-1.8% of CDGP beneficiary children will avoid a child death that would otherwise have happened, and extremely poor children are 2.2 times more likely to benefit from this mortality reduction than the wider population as a whole. The impact on child mortality is highly pro-poor. This is because poor children are much more likely to be stunted, and will therefore benefit most from improvements in nutrition. For further evidence in support of this see Section G. Equity The programme monitors inclusion errors, those who are part of the programme but who are not eligible to benefit from it. Random pregnancy testing continues to be one of the measures used to minimise inclusion errors in the programme. A study is being finalised to better understand and quantify the extent

1 See Garcia, M. and Moore, C.M.T. (2012) The Cash Dividend: The Rise of Cash Transfer Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Washington, World Bank ( https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2246 )

of exclusion of those eligible for the programme but not benefiting from it, including Persons with Disability and Fulani pastoralists. Explain whether and why the programme should continue from a VfM perspective, based on its own merits and in the context of the wider portfolio The programme should continue from a VfM perspective, based on its own merits, which are outlined above, and in the context of the wider portfolio. Clearly the CDGP could deliver better value for money in terms of efficiency if it were a longer programme (as the proportion of administrative costs to beneficiaries reduces). The programme continues to influence the design and implementation of State and Federal social protection programmes and the considerable financing behind them for example, the annual Federal budget allocation earmarked for implementation of the National Social Safety Net Programme (up to NGN500 billion allocated to the suite of Social Investment programmes, which include the NASSP) and the World Bank IDA credit of US$500m that supports it. The CDGP also contributes to DFID meeting its departmental results objectives on nutrition and is contributing evidence for nutrition focussed cash transfers that is relevant for DFID and wider development community programming.

E: RISK

Overview of programme risk (noting the rating from p.1) and mitigation The overall programme risk remains at Major (or High in the previous terminology). Northern Nigeria continues to be a high risk operating environment and the risk in Zamfara has continued to escalate due to incidences of criminality, cattle rustling and isolated security skirmishes. The CDGP partners have substantial experience working in the region and manage other programmes in Jigawa and Zamafra States and are well equipped to evaluate and mitigate the ongoing risk environment. CDGP maintains a risk register, updated on a quarterly basis, that covers 20 categories of risk assessment (across all risk areas: delivery; fiduciary; reputational; safeguards; context; operational). The programme has identified mitigating actions in response to each of these categories assessing the impact and probability, arriving at residual risk assessment. The programme has revised its standard operating procedures for handling complaints and mitigating fraud. There have been a few minor incidences of enrolment errors of women from other (non-targeted) wards aiming to be registered on the programme. However, the programme, in consultation with the local community leaders, has overcome this by using peer pressure to identify fraudulent registration. The due diligence assessment has been updated (July 2018) to reflect changes in the programme context and changes in due diligence requirements, including on enhanced safeguards. This notes that there are no areas of concern in the programme. SCI have demonstrated during the ongoing implementation of the CDGP that they have strong control measures in place to address fraud, bribery, corruption and money laundering arising from the cash transfers (the main risk arising from the programme). Previous annual reviews, reinforced by this due diligence, demonstrate a strong commitment to programme performance, strong programme (including risk) management, and a strong and effective partnership between SCI and DFID. There have been no reported safeguards issues in the year under review (or during the full period of implementation). The due diligence assessment notes that SCI have strong enhanced safeguards systems in place. All programme partners (including Stanbic, the community volunteers, government partners, and AAH) are aware of SCI’s safeguarding policies. Refresher training for partners is undertaken every six months and safeguarding is part of the monthly meetings for (both new and old) community volunteers. Looking ahead, the programme has identified the elections in February 2019 as a key risk (broken down to include the manipulation of the programme for political gain; election related violence disrupting programme implementation; and, the possible loss of commitment and momentum on social protection and cash transfers with potential changes in politicians at State and Federal levels. There are concerns around the recent announcement of a 1 year maternal and child grant in Zamfara (see Output 3). While this is a positive development the programme must be careful that their support is not politicised. The programme has developed an election risks and mitigation strategy (Annex III). This includes planning for a double cash payment to beneficiaries in January that will cover the election period (February and March 2019). Update on partnership principles This programme does not use the Partnership Principles for management and monitoring and assessing the partnership principles is not a requirement for this annual review process. Assistance to CDGP is provided directly through an NGO Technical Assistance (DFID Accountable Grant) and there are no conditionality issues associated with the programme. However, CDGP, in partnership with State stakeholders are making a vital contribution to the four core principles. 1. Commitment to reducing poverty and achieving SDGs: CDGP is a programme that addresses poverty and vulnerability and it is making a significant contribution to reducing poverty and addressing the SDGs in partnership with state partners. 2. Commitment to Human Rights and International obligations: CDGP supports and underpins Child Protection policy obligations. 3. Commitment to strengthen financial management and accountability and reducing risk of funds being misplaced through weak administration or corruption: CDGP aims to ensure social protection commitments

are articulated in budget allocations at the State level. Rigorous risk management strategies are in place and being embedded in State engagement strategies. 4. Commitment to strengthening domestic accountability: CDGP works with Traditional Ward structures, local religious leaders and Beneficiary Reference Groups which promote transparency and accountability of local governance systems.

F: DELIVERY, COMMERCIAL & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Performance of partners and DFID, notably on commercial, and financial issues Performance of partnership (s) The programme implementation partnership between SCI and AAH in Nigeria is working well. And collaboration between ePact and CDGP continues to improve; the programme collaborated with ePact to disseminate the midline quantitative and qualitative evaluation results and the logframe review, and ePact are part of annual planning meetings and quarterly programme oversight meetings (between DFID, SCI, AAH, and ePact). The issues around AAH profile in the programme have been addressed. DFID’s partnership with CDGP partners continues to be very positive and responsive. DFID continues to have a critical role to play in supporting the programme’s strategic operating environment at Federal level. DFID has a particular comparative advantage as a critical influencer in social protection policy dialogue; it should continue to support the CDGP in its advocacy efforts especially around the election period and as the programme ends (at Federal and State levels). SCI identifies issues proactively in response to changing circumstances, and shows a welcome willingness to address issues quickly when these are raised (for example, in the regular quarterly programme management meetings). It adapts to changing circumstances effectively and with minimal disruption and is good at communicating these changes to DFID. Reports are always on time, and are clear, accurate and concise, giving DFID staff a clear and easily accessible view of progress made, lessons learned, and decisions required. The updated due diligence notes that SCI have very strong measures in place to prevent and address fraud, bribery, corruption and money laundering issues should any arise. The programme has evolved to better prevent fraud cases occurring and to ensure that they are identified, reported, and treated promptly. Quality of financial management The due diligence notes that SCI is managing correctly UKAid funding. Financial management continues to improve and the programme continues to manage in-year resources well. All SCI finance staff are required to comply with the procedures in the SCI Finance Manual to maintain good financial practices and ensure consistency in accounting and reporting. SCI’s financial accounting system is on accrual basis like that of DFID; they also use Agresso software for project management and financial transactions – the same system used by DFID. Performance for the financial year was 93% (compared to 85% in the previous year). Underspend was due to payments on consultancies that were not made in the financial year. Asset monitoring and control The last asset monitoring control took place in September 2017. No issues were identified; the next one is due in August 2018. DFID is conducting a financial audit of CDGP, due to be completed in August 2018, to provide further reassurance of control measures. This is an expanded ‘forensic’ audit with an emphasis on the cash transfer components and the risks associated with these, including a review of the Stanbic contract for the cash transfer component and the procedures and systems set up by Stanbic and SCI to verify if they are generally fit for the purpose for which they were established. The findings of this audit will be shared with all programme stakeholders (including Government) to inform future cash transfer programming. Recommendation 15 The programme should develop a full asset disposal plan (submitted to DFID by end December 2018). The programme should, in developing this plan, ensure that all assets are disposed of in a way that represents best value for money and greatest developmental impact.

Recommendation 16 Linked to this, the programme (working with ePact) should develop a full knowledge/evidence product dissemination strategy (by January 2019) to ensure that the programme is able to maximise it advocacy and influencing efforts prior to and after programme closure.

Date of last narrative financial report(s) March 2018

Date of last audited annual statement (s) December 2017

G: MONITORING, EVIDENCE & LEARNING Monitoring In addition to routine field visits, several processes have been introduced to improve data quality and programme performance management:

- A monthly data validation exercise has been introduced. This aims at building the capacity of CVs and programme staff on data management and to quality control the monthly reports. This has led to a significant improvement in data quality in the reporting period, especially the elimination of under reporting of IYCF activities.

- Simplified data collection tools have been printed and training of CVs initiated. - As part of the programme’s ongoing effort to strengthen data quality and improve data

management, a routine data quality assessment was conducted in Jigawa and Zamfara states with specific focus on IYCF activities. Key findings from the assessment were used to review the programme IYCF data tools and to redesign these with the low literacy levels of the CVs in mind.

- The SCI Central Monitoring Evaluation and Learning (MEAL) unit from the country office carried out its Q2 2017 programme quality assurance in July 2017. CDGP Jigawa was selected for the assessment. The assessment was generally positive except for the low use of the toll-free line. The programme has worked to address this by increasing awareness of beneficiaries/community members of this important communication channel.

The programme dashboard continues to collect data on a weekly basis providing updates on entry in new communities and re-entry into existing communities, cash transfers, and complementary activities. One quarterly and one mid-year review took place with Abuja and the State teams to review progress and challenges. The Senior Social Development Adviser (and Senior Responsible Owner for the programme) led the annual review process, supported by a DFID programme manager, programme officer, and DFID Regional Coordinator and by the CDGP Abuja based staff (SCI and AAH). The review involved meetings with key stakeholders in Abuja. The review team visited Zamfara State and interacted with State Steering Committee officials, representatives from Technical Working Committees, traditional leaders, and CDGP beneficiaries in three locations in Zamfara. Over the year in review the SSDA met with key stakeholders from the Federal Government and World Bank and UNICEF at the Federal level. DFID visited communities in Zamfara state to review programme progress in September 2017. Evidence The programme has a separate impact evaluation component which is managed by ePact (see http://www.opml.co.uk/projects/evaluation-child-development-grant-programme for the products). CDGP relies on the ePact research framework timelines to shape its own evidence dissemination plans. The dissemination of ePact products is central to the overall success of the knowledge management strategy (see Output 4). All evidence, from the CDGP and from ePact, will be used to inform and develop DFID’s strategic approach to social protection post July 2019 (see Output 3). The midline evaluation (published in November 2017) shows no significant difference between T1 and T2 communities; but:

- Stunting in CDGP communities is at 65% while in non-CDGP communities, stunting is at 71% (a 6-percentage point reduction)

- 76% of women reported having control of how the cash transfer is spent and it is predominantly spent on food

- Approximately 65% of women reported using their last payment on food for the household

- Over 60% of beneficiaries recalled messages on exclusive breastfeeding, compared to 20% in non-CDGP areas, and around 70% recalled messages on nutritious foods compared to 20% in non-CDGP areas

- Around 60% of husbands received nutrition messaging from posters and radio

- Exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months was practiced by 70% of mothers in CDGP communities compared to 20% in non-CDGP communities

- Household income increased by 25% over the baseline figure, and total household expenditure increased over and above the value of the transfer

- The use of antenatal care in CDGP communities is 36% compared to 20% in non-CDGP communities, and

- 52% of children aged between 6-23 months were eating from four or more food groups compared to 40% in non-CDGP communities.

These achievements are highly significant, particularly given the short period which the evaluation covers. Despite these positive trends, indicators on maternal health and the use of health facilities (apart from using Ante Natal Clinics) are lower than hoped for. In addition, it was found that among CDGP beneficiary children, their improvement in height-for-age was matched by a small deterioration in weight-for-height: it appears that while stunting is reducing, the general intake of children and access to a sufficiently diverse diet remains limited, thereby leading to children that are taller, but thinner for their height. Overall, this evaluation is of high quality and provides further evidence to support nutrition focused cash transfers in Nigeria, as well as further refining the CDGP. The ePact team, working with the CDGP, have worked hard to produce information products (including infographics) that are end user friendly (for example, for State and Federal government officials). The evaluation provides valuable evidence to inform policy and Government social protection interventions at both federal and state level and indicates intent to tailor findings for presentation and discussion in multiple platforms with a variety of stakeholders. The Post-Distribution Monitoring Survey showed a general positive trend on all key indicators except for the transparency on ease of enrolment, registration and payment process (composite indicator) which is still probably low due to some level of historical dissatisfaction with the process by some beneficiaries. The entire process has been reviewed and strengthened to reduce inclusion (addressing issues such as cross boarder beneficiaries, false pregnancy registration, unreported miscarriages) and exclusion (ensuring all pregnant women are registered) errors. Learning It is essential that in the last year of the programme opportunities to support, with evidence, State and Federal level social protection efforts are taken. Therefore, a dissemination strategy, that aligns with the advocacy strategy, is under development. Knowledge products (especially abstracts, policy briefs, factsheets, and reports) have been identified from studies and programme implementation. Dissemination channels (including conferences and journals) have been identified for the knowledge products. This approach is aligned with the ePact dissemination strategy for the impact evaluations. Lessons have been noted under each output. Progress on recommendations from previous reviews There has been good progress on most of the recommendations, whilst others have been overtaken by events; in some areas CDGP has experienced minor challenges (see Annex IV).

Smart Guide (version February 2018) i

Smart Guide The Annual Review is part of a continuous process of review and improvement and a formal control point in DFID’s programme cycle. At each formal review, the performance and ongoing relevance of the programme are assessed and the spending team needs to decide whether the programme should continue, be restructured or stopped. Teams should refer to the section on annual reviews in the Smart Rules and may also like to look at relevant Smart Guides e.g on Reviewing and Scoring Projects. When planning a review, re-read the 10 Delivery Questions in the Smart Rules and when writing the findings reflect anything relevant related to them.

The Annual Review includes specific, time-bound recommendations for action, consistent with the key findings. These actions – which in the case of poor performance will include improvement measures – are elaborated in further detail in internal delivery plans.

The Annual Review assesses and rates outputs using the following rating scale. The Aid Management Platform

(AMP) and the separate programme scoring calculation sheet will calculate the overall output score taking account of the weightings and individual output scores

Description Scale

Outputs substantially exceeded expectation A++

Outputs moderately exceeded expectation A+

Outputs met expectation A

Outputs moderately did not meet expectation B

Outputs substantially did not meet expectation C

Teams should refer to the considerations below when completing this template. Suggested section lengths are indicative. Teams can delete spaces between sections on the template as needed, but the headings and sub-headings must not be altered or removed unless otherwise indicated in the template. Some reviews may need to be longer and others can be shorter (eg first year of a programme which has largely focused on mobilisation activities) – it is for the SRO and Head of Department to decide. All text needs to be suitable for publication. Bullets rather than full narrative may make sense for some sections.

A: Summary and Overview

Programme Code is the AMP I.D. number (same on Devtracker)

Enter risk rating (Minor, Moderate, Major or Severe) at the time of the review, taken from AMP Describe the programme in 1-2 paras including what it is aiming to achieve. You might want to include headline points on changes in the operating context, partner performance, DFID management of the programme or other points relevant to the 10 Delivery Questions in the Smart Rules.

Describe –without repeating detail from Section B- progress in the past year and why the programme has scored as it has against the output indicators. Capture the key recommendations for the year ahead factoring in all the text from the report. You don’t need to include the detail of all lessons and recommendations from each output.

B: Detailed Output Scoring

Output Title, Number, Weighting, Indicators and milestones

Use the wording exactly as is from the current logframe. This will need to be entered on AMP as part of loading the Annual Review for approval. Indicate (Yes or No) if the impact weighting has been revised since last Annual Review and if Yes in which direction (up or down). Input progress against the milestone for this review

Output Score

Enter the rating (using the scale A++ to C) exactly as generated on the programme scoring calculation sheet

Provide a brief description of the output (unless obvious from the information in the box above) and supporting narrative for the score

Lessons and recommendations linked to this output. Some of these may inform or need to be included in the summary of recommendations on page 1. For anything that can’t be published please use the Delivery Plan

Repeat above for each Output in the logframe and add new sub-sections for additional outputs.

Smart Guide (version February 2018) ii

C: Theory of change and progress towards outcomes

Theory of Change (ToC). You might want to use a diagram to summarise it. You should flag any major changes in the past year. You should consider if the steps to achieving outcome and impact are still valid e.g. are the ToC logic, supporting evidence and assumptions holding up against implementation experience? Is there any new evidence which challenges the programme design or rationale? If relevant you might also want to flag any major changes since the programme started rather than just over the year in question.

Is the programme on track to contribute to the expected outcomes and impact? Review this in view of the overall programme score; but it is possible that outputs are being delivered but the envisaged outcomes or impact may not be achieved – or vice versa – and consider reasons for this. It is not unusual for programmes to be off track against at least some of the expected outcomes or impact: just set out what you plan to do about it. You should refer to the indicators in the logframe. Are there any unexpected outcomes emerging? Have there been any significant changes in the planned timetable for delivery of the programme? Are there any changes to expected outcomes or impact on gender equality compared to what was described in the approved Business Case?

Logframe. Describe major changes in the past year –including when they were made and why- and what their implications are for the programme. Ideally changes should not be made to any targets or indicators less than six months before they are being reviewed unless agreed with the Head of Department. All changes should be recorded as part of the programme’s documentation (there is a ‘change frame’ tab on the logframe template). If relevant you might also want to flag any major changes since the programme started. Flag any planned changes (impact, outcome, output etc) as a result of the review and once agreed at the approporiate level record them in the change frame tab.

D: Value for Money VfM assessment compared to the proposition in the business case You should refer to VfM measures and metrics from the Business Case and/or previous annual review. Changes in cost drivers (e.g costs of major inputs) and the theory of change may be relevant. The assessment should encompass the 4 E’s of DFID’s value for money framework – economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity, including gender equality (referring back to the relevant text in the approved Business Case’s Strategic Case may be relevant), disability and leaving no one behind.

Explain whether it makes sense to continue with the programme from a VfM perspective Based on the above analysis of outcome and output attainment, theory of change, VfM and evidence analysis, is there sufficient evidence for the programme to continue, or should it be restructured or closed down?

You should also consider the programme as part of the wider portfolio in your department (e.g Business Plan) and if relevant for this document, DFID as a whole (e.g. Single Departmental Plan) or HMG as a whole

E: Risk

Provide an overview of the programme’s risk (noting the rating from page 1) and mitigation Note the overall risk rating now as captured in AMP and on p1. Flag any changes to the overall risk environment/ context and how they impact on the programme, along with key risks that affect the successful delivery of the expected results. Use DFID’s standard risk terminology where possible eg categories of risk and risk appetite.

Are there any different or new mitigating actions that will be required to address these risks and whether the existing mitigating actions are directly addressing the identifiable risks? Remember to take account of any relevant recommendations from Due Diligence Assessments on implementing partners.

Some relevant information may not be suitable for publication but ensure the risk register on AMP and Delivery Plan are updated as necessary following this review

Update on Partnership Principles.

For programmes for where it has been decided (when the programme was approved or at the last Annual Review) to use the PPs for management and monitoring, provide details on:

a. Were there any concerns about the four PPs over the past year, including on human rights?

b. If yes, what were they?

Smart Guide (version February 2018) iii

c. Did you notify the government of our concerns?

d. If Yes, what was the government response? Did it take remedial actions? If yes, explain how.

e. If No, was disbursement suspended during the review period? Date suspended (dd/mm/yyyy)

f. What were the consequences?

For all programmes, you should make a judgement on what role, if any, the Partnership Principles should play in the management and monitoring of the programme going forward. This applies even if when the BC was approved for this programme the PPs were not intended to play a role. Your decision may depend on the extent to which the delivery mechanism used by the programme works with the partner government and uses their systems.

F: Delivery, Commercial and Financial Performance

Issues to consider for both the implementing partner(s) and DFID include: quality and timeliness of narrative reporting and audited financial statements; proactive dialogue on risks and updating of delivery chain maps; quality of financial management eg accuracy of forecasting; monitoring of assets. Consider also how DFID could be a more effective partner to help deliver the programme. If there is a contract involved, set out:

- Delivery against contract KPIs (and Terms and Conditions) - Compliance with the Supply Partner Code, where applicable, drawing on advice from PCD. - Compliance with the new cost and transparency requirements, where applicable (i.e. highlighting any

profit variance and challenge and use of Open Book Accounting) - Performance of Partners. Where applicable, an annual summary of the new SRM scorecard assessment

for each delivery partner involved in delivering this programme.

G: Monitoring, Evidence and Learning

Monitoring. Summarise monitoring activities throughout the review period (field visits, reviews, engagement with stakeholders including beneficiary feedback) and how these have informed programming decisions. Where there is an external M&E supplier, how are they engaging with the programme implementer(s) and DFID. Briefly describe the Annual Review process itself including any inputs from outside the programme team (within or beyond DFID). Evidence Describe any changes in evidence and implications for the programme. Any relevant comments on the quality/breadth of the evidence. Monitoring data, evidence and learning should consider the ‘Leave no one Behind’ agenda and as far as possible disaggregate information by age, sex, disability, geography (update geocoding information on AMP as needed) and other relevant variables.

Where an evaluation is planned set out what progress has been made.

Learning

What learning processes have been used over the past year to capture and share lessons, new evidence and know-how?

What are the key lessons identified over the past year for (i) this programme (ii) wider DFID and development work?

Any specific implications of that learning for this programme and priorities for follow-up in the year ahead may be best captured in the recommendations part of Section A

Do you have any learning aims for the programme for the coming year?

Progress on recommendations from previous review(s)

It is important to keep track of this. Some may not be publishable and feature in the Delivery Plan. But a brief update on progress against any recommendations from previous ARs (unless this is the first) should be provided