Donor involvement

The degree of continued donor engagement and support is a significant factor in the implementation of the project. The history of development aid within the education sector has already been discussed in Chapter 2. Within the context of this programme, DFID’s approach has undergone significant evolutions from predecessor programmes both in its implementation strategy, and stated goals. With ESSPIN, there has been a very deliberate shift away from the complete control over the implementation process via contracted experts. Rather, it has been designed so that donor presence is relatively limited and most of their work happens indirectly. Operationally speaking, DFID has no official presence in the state. The ESSPIN state offices are independent with contracted staff to work with the local stakeholders to implement the programme. This is a methodical attempt to foster an environment that allows external interventions to withdraw when the programme concludes without disrupting the structures and operations in place. This premise is also reflected in ESSPIN’s approach as described below:

Although we have a very large team our work is only really active in the extent to which we can operate through states and CSOs who deliver the change through agencies at the school community levels. So, a lot of our work goes into developing the capacity of those states and Local Government organisations and CSOs who are themselves responsible for the interactions with teachers, headteachers, SMOs65 _{who deal with community access issues and SSOs who provide} professional development to the critical staff who will be in schools. So, our work is very much dependent on what the states themselves do to limit how much we directly control. In a conventional project, we would engage experts who have trained a cadre of people who themselves are paid to go into schools to make things better. This is far removed from that.

Amara, ESSPIN HQ

64 _{At this time, the ESSPIN office staff had transitioned into other programmes and it proved difficult to} contact them to discuss the implications of this education reform on the programme.

By necessity, this approach relinquishes a lot of control over the implementation process, and by extension, achievement of the objectives set out. Accordingly, phases of ESSPIN are rolled out based on the states’ interest and ability. This approach has its challenges (discussed further below), but it has also allowed each state the flexibility to decide its priorities within dynamic political, economic and social environments. This approach is widely supported by most stakeholders who highlight the state driven nature of the project as critical to ensuring sustainability of the programme. Historically, donor projects attempting to reform state education systems have never been able to provide the resources to achieve sufficient scope without the state. As such, there appears to be a strong focus on preventing aid dependency or foisting an education programme and the programme has been designed to be embedded within, and working through state systems.66 To this end, while the overarching goal of improving learning outcomes is constant,

many of the aims and targets evolved over the life cycle of ESSPIN. Rather than articulating specific targets, reports highlight measurable improvements in teaching quality, learning outcomes, community engagement and state management capacity. This is illustrated by descriptions of high ranking ESSPIN representatives:

[There have been] enormous quantities of those [objectives] and they have continued to evolve and change over the life of the Programme because it’s been an adaptive process rather than a single blueprint.

Fara, ESSPIN Kaduna state You [ESSPIN offices] are welcome to change the immediate results, tweak your [short-term] activities as long as they continue to be focused on delivering your outcomes and stated impact. It is recognising that there is a different combination of activities for delivering the same results or outcomes.

Amara, ESSPIN HQ While this may be perceived as a vague approach with moving targets, it seems to offer ESSPIN state offices and government bodies some flexibility to adjust time-lines, inputs/outputs based on new developments on the ground. However, there is a bit more nuance to this approach – the traditional LFMs are still developed and significant efforts are made not to deviate from the stated purpose and goals. ESSPIN is free to manoeuvre within certain restrictions and this produces a

66 _{It is important to note that international consultants were nonetheless contracted to produce monitoring} and evaluation studies throughout the duration of the project. These consultants periodically trained local government staff for data collection and analysis purposes at the start, mid and end points of ESSPIN.

compromise between the somewhat rigid accountability measures donors require and making adjustments to respond to the dynamism of local contexts. Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis that the programme is state-led, and as such, it must move at each state’s pace and responds to their needs (a primary sustainability consideration of the programme). In describing ESSPIN’s ability to adapt to the changing landscape, it was articulated:

Goals haven’t changed. And that is because in project management terms, in logframe terms, goals67 _{cannot change actually. You would have to get ministerial approval to change the stated} goals of the project. So that is a bit of an administrative constraint. Effectively the key message is that you can be flexible and adaptive and all that but not so adaptive that you are challenging your overall purpose or goal statement.

Amara, ESSPIN HQ The challenge really is strengthening those state authorities to do a better job of their own remit, with that comes the great prize of sustainability and effectiveness at scale, but certainly, it’s never straight forward and as I said before it’s not linear. You don’t just have a smooth trajectory of improvement. Ever. So, we’ve developed what I would call a kind of principled pragmatism in our approach.

Ade, ESSPIN Lagos state This underscores another fundamental matter that occurs in many if not most development projects – navigating the demands of donors, and the responsibility to deliver positive change to the programme recipients. What differentiates the relationship in this programme is the blurry demarcation of the conventional roles of the donor and recipient – here, the Nigerian government is fronting the bulk of the financial resources while the donors offer some technical support with limited monetary assistance. However, donor funds tend to come tied to requirements, that ESSPIN must nonetheless address:

Donors (DFID) are very, very demanding. They have their agenda and they put money on the table. It is a case of constantly shifting goal posts and we are having to balance all of that with our second category of partners, the state government themselves who we are ultimately accountable to in terms of the changes we are trying to bring about. So with these two sets of partners whose two agendas are not always identical – it has been quite challenging while ensuring at the same time you don’t lose sight of the outcomes and impacts that as a program you are set up to help deliver.

67 _{In this case, goals appear to be qualitative aspirations e.g. improved performance of teachers rather than} 80% competency rate amongst teachers.

It sounds very neat but it is anything but... no two states are identical. Effectively, I don’t see ESSPIN as one big fat programme. I prefer to see it as six projects because each state is a project in its own right – different agendas, demands, pressures, different challenges, different people.

Amara, ESSPIN HQ While some things change, many remain the same. The major point of departure for DFID here is a willingness to restructure the programme over time based on feedback from the ground. There have been two developments on this front; the first was the expansion of the teacher development component of ESSPIN into a project in its own right. After recognising the degree to which this aspect overstretched ESSPIN’s resources, the Teacher Development Programme (TDP) was set up to address the significant dearth of qualified and effective teachers in schools. In a synergistic twist, this programme has also become the de facto successor to ESSPIN at its conclusion. The second was establishing another project, Developing Effective Private Education in Nigeria (DEEPEN), in Lagos state to capture the higher number of pupils being served by the private sector. This approach has provided a more comprehensive coverage of basic education in both the public and private spheres.

DFID has also veered from the more old-school management approaches in the way it runs its operations. It is traditional for donor agencies to have fixed term project lifecycles with managers and staff to implement the project to its conclusion upon which the team is dissolved. The main challenge with this approach is the long-term loss of institutional memory and sense of continuity between projects which typically operate in the same sector, amongst the same stakeholders. With the initiation of ESSPIN, all the different projects (TDP and DEEPEN) in the education sector are integrated into sub-teams of one programme. The importance of this shift is two-fold: there is greater communication, and better coordination between the projects because they are programmatically and operationally tied. All projects are served by the same finance, human resources, and IT teams. This improves efficiency and allows projects to learn from each other and leverage resources (financial and technical). In addition, this strategy provides stability to team members beyond the life-cycle of one project – an important consideration for staff who prioritise job security and progression which many donor agencies tend to overlook.

An important element to the dynamics of the stakeholder relationships is the insider-outsider nature of ESSPIN which is mainly staffed, managed and operated by Nigerians (albeit under an international company banner) with the backing (and clout) of an important international partner to the country. There is a good understanding of the state administrative and operational terrain,

as well as a great deal of emphasis on cooperating with the stakeholders tasked with implementing the programme under challenging conditions. As a relatively independent body, ESSPIN attempts to balance the changing needs of the state, and often makes the case for states’ shifts in priorities and abilities to DFID. It frequently plays the role of state champion, justifying changes to schedules, extensions of activities, and expansion of the mandate as highlighted above. In managing the demands of DFID, a recurring difficulty articulated illustrates the complex and far- reaching effects in international development;

What we find really frustrating is when DFID is being high maintenance and starts talking about UK priorities and that becomes really challenging. So, what are you [DFID] doing here? What is your mandate in terms of international development? And again, we know that they are under pressure. Every year they struggle to protect the budget which has been set at 0.7%, and increasingly it is harder and harder to protect that. In recent years, the emergence of ISIS, the war in Syria and all that is eating into that budget. Because apparently, defence activities are funded from the same pot as international development. So, where you draw the line between international development and diplomacy actually becomes an issue and sometimes, diplomacy guys which includes the foreign and commonwealth office for example, command the budget at the expense of international development. And these are the types of challenges DFID has. They constantly change their ministers.

Amara, ESSPIN HQ The various faux pas of visiting diplomats were also a real challenge in implementing the programme and there were problematic incidents related. This appeared to be a factor for the ESSPIN staff who through the fieldwork phase were perceived to have a personal stake and vested interest in the success of the programme. They were tasked with smoothing over relations where needed, moving the conversation forward, and standing up for the states’ interest. This was done with the understanding that nations have agendas, and it was important to consider how the programme fits into the larger picture of international aid, trade, and relations. However, the clear challenge of ESSPIN’s role was underscored:

Some diplomats’ positions are more understandable, but the point is, these are the guys who shape DFID policy worldwide and love them or hate them, they call the shots. Before a programme can be launched in Nigeria or anywhere else, it has to be approved by whoever the minister is. And that is pressure on DFID. Ultimately, DFID is the civil service, how they realise their targets, what defines their in-country programme is us. So sometimes, we take a lot of flak and pressure from

them because they are under pressure from above and we are constantly having to absorb and make sense of it. It is a balancing act.

Amara, ESSPIN HQ