Lagos Public Programme Learning and Review Policy

Lagos State runs large public programmes across employment, skills development, education, entrepreneurship and social intervention. These programmes already have monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and some report substantial numbers of beneficiaries and outcomes. For example, LSETF reports that its Employability Unit has monitored training projects reaching more than 21,000 young people since 2018. Its 2024 financial report recorded 3,961 youths trained and 2,739 placed through the Lagos State Employability Support Project. (LSETF)

The issue is not whether government measures programmes. It is whether the lessons from those measurements consistently determine what government does next.

I propose a Lagos Public Programme Learning and Review Policy for major government-funded programmes.

Before implementation, each programme would define its intended outcome and a small number of measurable indicators. During implementation, it would track progress, and after the programme, it would assess whether the intended outcome was achieved.

The review would look beyond activities and beneficiary numbers.

For example:

Activity: 3,961 people trained.

Immediate result: How many completed and met the required standard?

Outcome: How many achieved the programme’s intended objective?

Sustainability: How many were still achieving that outcome after an agreed period?

Learning: What worked, what did not, and why?

Decision: What should change before the next cycle?

The policy would require a short Programme Learning Record at the end of each major programme cycle containing:

• the original objective;
• planned and actual outputs;
• outcome results;
• relevant demographic or geographic differences;
• implementation challenges;
• cost information where reliable;
• lessons from the programme; and
• the decision for the next cycle: continue, redesign, expand, merge or exit.

The policy would not impose one outcome on every government programme. A skills programme may measure employment or income outcomes, while an education or health programme would use indicators appropriate to its purpose.

The key change is that evaluation would no longer be treated only as a way of reporting what happened. It would become part of the decision-making process for the next cycle.

Lagos already has examples of outcome-oriented monitoring. For instance, LSETF’s current employability programme includes a mid-programme KPI review and requires verified placement reporting. (LSETF) The proposed policy would build on this type of practice and create a more consistent learning framework across major public programmes.

Expected results

The policy would aim to:

1. reduce repeated programme design mistakes;
2. improve the use of evidence in future programme decisions;
3. make public spending easier to assess against intended outcomes;
4. identify which interventions need redesign rather than automatic continuation; and
5. make successful approaches easier to scale.

The success of the policy itself could be measured by indicators such as:

• percentage of covered programmes with defined outcome indicators before implementation;
• percentage completing post-programme outcome reviews;
• percentage publishing Programme Learning Records;
• percentage of programme recommendations implemented in the next cycle; and
• number of major programme designs changed because of documented evaluation findings.

The central principle is simple:

Government should not only report what it did. It should show what it learned, and what changed because of what it learned.