Way Forward on Results Monitoring DPG 6 November 2007. Johannes Hoogeveen Poverty Monitoring Group. Why Monitor Results?. Performance Monitoring Have results been achieved? Was value for money delivered? Policy design and planning
Poverty Monitoring Group
MKUKUTA Monitoring System has filled an important information gap that existed until 2001
Major surveys have been done
Monitoring and Analysis have improved
Communications have improved
Despite some progress, the information to adequately inform decision making, to confidently report about progress and to monitor service delivery is still absent.
Demand for and use of data remains low, especially in LGAs/MDAs.
LGA/MDA data production and reporting systems remain weak.
Surveys report outcomes infrequently, too late and at high cost.
Increased focus on economic and spatial statistics needed.
MKUKUTA Monitoring System
The system is bureaucratic, was captured and is unable to deliver value for money.
MMS is not integrated with national system (donor driven?)Reasons for weak results performance
Opportunity I: Harmonized Performance Reporting
How to ensure that the performance reports meet DP needs?
How to how to ensure that performance reports reflect reality accurately?
NBS can support MDAs and LGAs to improve their stats. production.
Performance reports will provide better incentives for improved data production and reporting.
Yet, sector specialists will need to promote the quality of statistics and reporting.
Review data production systems
Use 2007 HBS to rebase CPI and the National Accounts/GDP
National Panel Survey (NPS)
Collect outcome indicators (such as poverty; enrollment; access to infrastructure; water) for PAF and MKUKUTA annually
Validate routine data
Understand income dynamicsTwo Quick Wins of TSMP should be embraced by DPs immediately
With relatively small investments, economic statistics can be greatly improved.
“Without reliable statistics we do not know whether their lives improve”