Measuring Health Policy Development Capacity in Nigeria

1. Measuring Health Policy Development Capacity in Nigeria Allison Goldberg, Ph.D. Candidate Columbia University

2. Outline of Presentation • The Purpose • Innovative Methodology • Baseline Results • What’s Next?

3. Purpose of the Assessment Provide a baseline assessment of health policies developed at the Federal and State Government levels in Nigeria that can be measured against future policies developed with PATHS2 support Output 1.1 and 2.1 Number of new and revised state and federal policies developed with PATHS2 support that are consistent with the National Strategic Health Development Plan (NSHDP) and meet a minimum quality standard

4. What Are We Measuring and Why is this Important? The Policy Cycle Policy Evaluation of Effect on Outcomes Policy Implementation Agenda Setting Policy Formulation Feedback Anderson, James E. (1972). Public Policy-Making. New York: Praeger Publishing.

5. Methodological Underpinnings • Adaptation of the World Bank and partners’ Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) • An international standard for measuring National and State Government performance across a range of areas (e.g. financial, institutional oversight, service delivery) • SPARC and ESSPIN (Parallel Projects of DFID) also adapted the PMF to assess the institutional functionality of State bodies (e.g. QA, policy & planning, budgetary accountability) Performance Measurement Framework (June 2005). PEFA Secretariat, World Bank, Washington DC, USA - PEFA includes World Bank, IMF, European Commission, UK, France, Norway, Switzerland and SPA Strategic Partnership with Africa.

6. Measurement Framework • Minimum Quality Standard • Clear goals and objectives • Clear and actionable implementation plan • Feasible budgets • Baseline information and research findings and/or national or international policies and guidelines are used to inform the policy development process • Consistent with National Strategic Health Development Plan (NSHDP) • The views and opinions of local government, civil society and non-governmental sector actors were taken into consideration • Policies address the needs of disadvantaged groups, such as women and children, the poor, those living with HIV/AIDS, and others • Policies include language that is consistent with the Millennium Development Goals Domain 1 Domain 2

7. Scoring The Indicators

8. Scoring the Domains

9. Complete Scoring Matrix

10. The Policies

11. Overall Results A B C D • Half of the national policies scored a B while the other half scored a C+ • Two out of three state policies* earned a score of a D+ • Only the State Health Policies of Jigawa, Enugu, and Kano were included the baseline assessment. Few state specific health policies were reviewed since many states follow national policy guidelines

12. National Policies Disaggregated by Domain • The modal composite scores for the MQS and NSHPD domains were a C+ and an A • respectively • The policies performed much better in Domain 2: Consistency with the NSHPD

13. More Results on the National Policy Analyses MQS (Domain 1) • All policies assessed were found to have clear goals and objectives • No policies included a feasible budget • Only two policies* contained a clear and actionable implementation plan Consistency with the NSHPD (Domain 2) • The majority of policies (9) clearly described the process by which opinions and views of local government, civil society, NGO, and others were included • All but 2 policies explicitly referenced the need of disadvantaged groups (e.g. women, children, people living with HIV/AIDS) • Benchmarks on the use of language consistent with achieving the MDGs were less commonly met than the other indicators assessed • 4 policies, including the Child Health Policy and the National Policy on HIV/AIDS, referenced less than half of the MDGs and omitted MDG indicators from the goals and objectives • *National Medical Laboratory Services Policy and the National Human Resource Policy for Health

14. State Policies Disaggregated by Domain • None of the include actionable implementation plans, budgets, and indications that • the policies were evidence-based. Only one policy specified clear objectives • 2 policies referenced the need of disadvantage groups • None of the policies referenced the MDGs

15. What’s Next? • Applying same tool in the next 4 months to compare to baseline • Receiving HS 20/20 project funding to link the policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy evaluation stages Policy Evaluation of Effect on Outcomes Policy Implementation Agenda Setting Policy Formulation Feedback Anderson, James E. (1972). Public Policy-Making. New York: Praeger Publishing.

16. www.abtassociates.com/HSRsymposium Thank you