National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda The Republic of Rwanda Imihigo 2017/2018 Evaluation Executive Report
The Republic of Rwanda Imihigo 2017/2018 August 2018 Evaluation Executive Report
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | i
Executive Summary
Since 2006 Imihigo has been a tool for accelerating the development outcomes that have been
envisaged in both the long and medium -term development ambitions. Imihigo have been a reliable
tool for recalibrating performance at the central and district levels.
Every year since 20 06, Imihigo have always been evaluated. However, evaluation modalities have
evolved over time to reflect the development context and continuous improvements to link them
with impact on living standards of the population.
Imihigo evaluation of 2017 -2018 and going forward, will be done by the National Institute of
Statistics of Rwanda (NISR). It is envisioned that the involvement of NISR will add value in terms of
independence, objectivity and evidence based evaluation.
Methodology:
This year a new methodology has been developed with major conceptual addition in evaluation
under the leadership of the Right Honourable Prime Minister and agreed upon with all stakeholders
concerned. Three major changes have been made. 1) Imihigo will focus on key national programs and
projects that are transformative and SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and timely) .
However, other routine projects and programs will also be considered and evaluated under actions
plans. In that regard, all development programs and projects will be evaluated. 2) In implementation,
focus will be on timely completion of projects and, 3) Evaluation will focus on timely development
impact on the population.
Special interest is on projects that are not completed on time and therefore delay intended
development impact. In this case Imihigo were classified in such a way that:
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | ii
Output Imihigo: those that cannot be put to use unless they have been completed for example a
class room, a hospital, a market and so on would be evaluated at 100% if completed and 0% if not
completed on time.
Outcome Imihigo: those that can be put to use progressively as they get implemented for example
terracing, access to electricity, access to health insurance and so on would be evaluated based on the
progressive level of results achievement.
Results
From the evaluation there are both quantitative findings for entities and observations that are
crosscutting.
Joint Imihigo
Energy was the highest performer by sector with 89.9% and urbanisation and settlement the least
performer with 43.2%. The good performance in the energy sector is explained by the fact that most
Imihigo were based on on-grid and off-grid connections. Most of these targets were achieved.
On the other had the low performance in urbanisation reflects the complexity of Imihigo in the sector
such as road networks, secondary city master plans, affordable housing among others and the fact
that the sector has not yet built momentum in delivering expectations.
In-between high and low performance, we observe two outstanding findings: 1) Delays in Imihigo
implementation in complex projects like in agriculture, job creation and others leading to low scores
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | iii
and high completion of soft Imihigo especially in the service sector like committing on conducting meetings that can be easily achieved hence high scores. Figure 1: Performance in Joint Imihigo (%)
Source: 2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation findings 43.2 69.8 72.4 76.5 79.1 83.9 89.9 Urbanization & Settlement Job Creation Export Social Protection Agriculture Service delivery Energy
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | iv
Imihigo by cluster There are substantial interconnections between performance of ministries by cluster and joint Imihigo performance. Economic and social cluster ministries face similar challenges of complex projects like those we see in urbanization, agriculture, social protection and so on. On the other hand, the governance cluster is more aligned to service delivery and high performance in both is observed. Figure 2: Imihigo Performance in Ministries’ Clusters (%)
Source: 2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation findings 73.5 63.6 60.4 64.9 Governance Economic Social Overall
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | v
Districts
There is variation between districts performance with the highest Rwamagana scoring 84.5% and
the lowest Nyanza scoring 53%. Development challenges at district level are mostly homogeneous
however, some districts exhibit good capacity to implement better.
High performing districts exhibit good project planning capability and leadership that is able to
nature a sense of common purpose around Imihigo across the institution and partners. On the other
hand, a key feature of low performing districts is poor desi gn of projects. This affects both
completion and quality. Districts in the middle display a mixture of positive and negative patterns
similar to those found amongst top and bottom performers.
The City of Kigali scored 55.5%, some projects that had been in cluded in Imihigo were not
completed, for example projects related to urbanization and roads. Kigali City is also a partner i n
several joint Imihigo which were not achieved such as construction of Kigali Innovation Village in the
special economic zone, affordable housing, and road construction, among others. These challenges
affected the overall performance of the City.
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | vi
Figure 3: Overall performance of the Districts (2017-2018)
Source: 2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation findings 53.0 53.4 54.1 57.2 59.3 63.1 64.1 64.5 64.7 64.8 65.1 66.0 66.8 67.1 68.4 68.8 70.2 70.9 71.5 71.9 72.1 72.4 72.8 73.5 74.9 76.3 77.5 80.4 82.5 82.5 84.5 Nyanza Ruhango Nyamagabe Burera Kamonyi Gisagara Nyaruguru Rusizi Ngoma Karongi Nyarugenge Huye Nyabihu Nyamasheke Muhanga Average Musanze Nyagatare Kirehe Ngororero Bugesera Rutsiro Rubavu Gatsibo Kayonza Gicumbi Kicukiro Gakenke Rulindo Gasabo Rwamagana
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | vii
Observations and Recommendations
Observations
Key Performance Strength and Challenges
Overall, there is improvement in planning and implementation of Imihigo. However, close
analysis indicate major issues that determine either success or failure in delivering Imihigo
commitments.
A major success factor is clarity of set Imihigo vis-a-vis development objectives. Clarity
requires effective joint planning and consultations that in effect builds knowledge, depth in
understanding and collective ownership. Where this has happened, we have notice d focus in
implementation and successful projects.
Major challenges include poorly designed projects and lack of prioritisation and focus.
Integrity is also an issue where some institutions do not do what needs to be done and
expect to falsely claim that it was done.
Recommendations
Prioritize Imihigo that transform the lives of Rwandans and capture the rest of activities
in the annual action plans;
Improve planning and coordination mechanisms for joint Imihigo with clear division of
roles and responsibilities and hold respective parties more accountable;
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | viii
Strengthen the technical capacity of districts and ministries , especially in undertaking
good feasibility studies and in contract management. Clear and precise guidelines would
be very useful.
In the event of transition of leadership at the district level, the new leadership should
assume responsibility and take ownership for the Imihigo that came into existence
during the tenure of the outgoing leadership.
Strengthen integrity in work practices and reporting achievements or challenges that
affect performance.
In the governance sector planning should shift from processes (meetings, sensitization
and so on) to outcomes (achievements from those processes). Efforts should be made to
draw from the governance sector plans and strategies. They have tangible outcomes that
are expected.
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | ix
Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 3: Evaluation Findings ............................................................................................................ 7 3.1. Performance in Joint Imihigo ..................................................................................................................... 7 3.2. Imihigo Evaluation in the Central Government .................................................................................. 9 3.3. Imihigo Evaluation in the City of Kigali (CoK) ................................................................................. 11 3.4. Imihigo Evaluation at the District level .............................................................................................. 13 3.5. District Performance Analysis ................................................................................................................ 15 3.5.1. The Top Group (top 10 performers) ........................................................................................... 15 3.5.2. The Bottom Group .............................................................................................................................. 16 3.5.3. The middle group ................................................................................................................................ 17 Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 18
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | x
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Rwanda is at a crucial point in its development process. Vision 2020, which has driven tremendous
socioeconomic progress for close to two decades, is approaching its end in 2020 having delivered
millions out of poverty . Economic growth has also been good a veraging about 7.8% between 2000
and 2017.
Rwanda’s ambitions are high going forward. Vision 2050 sets the country’s ambition over the long term towards a high standard of living for Rwandans similar to that of high -income countries. To achieve this level of ambition, a medium term strategy NST -1 (National Strategy for Transformation
- aligned to the Seven Year Government Program 2017 – 2024 has been developed and is already being implemented. In 2006, the Imihigo concept was initiated. Through Imihigo (a Rwandan home - grown initiative) public servants at all levels make commitments to implement development programs. The commitments are signed between His Excellency the President of the Republic of Rwanda and Senior Government officials at national level. Imihigo, the plural term for Umuhigo, is a vow to deliver that is derived from the idea of Guhiganwa that loosely translates into positive competition. The Imihigo performance contracts and their evaluation process is part of this posit ive competition. It is envisioned that involvement of NISR will add value in terms of independence, objectivity and the evidence basis of the evaluation.
Starting with 2017 -2018 Imihigo, a new methodology has been developed under the leadership of the Right Honourable P rime Minister and agreed upon with all stakeholders concerned. Three major changes have been made. 1) Imihigo will focus on key national programs and projects that are 2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | 2
transformative. However, other routine projects and programs will also be considered and evaluated under actions plans. In that regard, all development programs and projects will be evaluated. 2) In implementation, focus will be on timely completion of projects and, 3) Evaluation will focus on timely development impact on the population. 2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | 3
Chapter 2: Methodology
From the beginning, Imihigo evaluation has been part of the Imihigo process. However, evaluation
modalities have evolved over time to reflect Rwanda’s development phase and context. Starting with
self-evaluation at district level, an inter -sectoral committee including government institutions, the
private sector and civil society was established in 2009 to evaluate the Imihigo. In 2013/14 an
independent think tank IPAR (Institute of Policy Analysis and Research) was contracted to do the
evaluation and from 2017 -2018 Imihigo going forward, evaluation will been done by the Na tional
Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR).
From time to time, the methodology of Imihigo evaluation undergoes some adjustment in line with
efforts geared towards deepening the link between the Imihigo and transforming lives of Rwandans.
In previous years, the revisions in methodology introduced different weights that were assigned to
items in economic development, social development and accountable governance. They also included
citizen participation and satisfaction scores. This time, there are majo r conceptual additions in
planning, implementation and evaluation.
In planning, Imihigo will focus on transformative programs and projects with SMART (Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and timely) indicators. However, all other projects will also be
evaluated within action plans. Implementation will focus on both quality and timeliness. Finally,
evaluation will ensure that evidence is the basis for determining timely development impact.
Methodology adjustments included:
2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | 4
Joint Imihigo re-weighting: These are sector -specific outputs that are set and implemented jointly with other ministries and or districts. These are weighed at 30% and 10% for ministries and districts respectively. The weights used in the year before were 30% for ministries and 25 for districts. Individual Imihigo: This category consists of Imihigo that are set and implemented by a particular institution (not in a jointly manner). The new evaluation method also categorized Imihigo into the following two types: Output Imihigo: these are physical products or projects that can be in use and deliver outcome or impact only when completed. In other words, the y are outputs that can be physically verified, counted and cannot be put to use unless they have been completed for example a class room, a hospital, a market and so on. These would be evaluated at 100% if completed and 0% if not completed on time (Output based projects).
Outcome Imihigo: these are Imihigo that can be put to use progressively as they get implemented for example terracing, access to electricity, access to health insurance and so on. These would be evaluated based on the progressive level of results achievement. The evaluation modalities that are attributed to the above two types of Imihigo are summarized in the Table 1 below. 2017-2018 Imihigo Evaluation_Executive Report
Page | 5
Table 1: Evaluation Modalities
Types of
Imihigo
Evaluation
component
Evaluation modalities
For Districts
For Ministries
Output
indicators
Completeness of
Umuhigo
1: Completed
0: Not completed
1: Completed
0: Not completed
Quality of
Umuhigo
1: Excellent
0.75: Above the average
0.50: Average
0.25: Below the average
0: Poor
1: Excellent
0.75: Above the average
0.50: Average
0.25: Below the average
0: Poor
Timeliness of
Umuhigo
1: Completed
0: Not completed
1: Completed
0: Not completed
Outcome
indicators
Outcome
indicators
Full score for achieved target or
above;
Otherwise proportionate to
progress
Full score for achieved target or
above;
Otherwise proportionate to
progress
The figures below depict the scoring approaches for both the ministries and districts: