Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure

Accountability: Cost Effectiveness & Benefit-Cost Analysis of Home

Grown School Feeding & Health, and Education Assistance Programs in
FCT, Nigeria.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
August, 2011

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa (CSEA) received a five-year grant from the
Global Development Network (GDN) for a project entitled ‘Strengthening Institutions to Improve
Public Expenditure Accountability’. This report presents the findings for the second year of the
project on the Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Education sectors of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria.

CSEA wishes to acknowledge the assistance of several individuals and government agencies in
Nigeria in providing data and technical advice for the successful completion of the third phase of
the Strengthening Institutions project – Dr. Bright Okogu; Director-General Budget Office of the
Federation, Alh. Musa Maikasuwa Yakubu; Executive Chairman FCT Universal Basic Education
Board, Universal Basic Education Commission, FCT Scholarship Board and the National Bureau of
Statistics.

Prepared by:
Ebere Uneze, Ph.D.
Ibrahim Tajudeen

©September 2010, Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa

4 Dep Street
Off Danube Street,
Maitama District,
Abuja,
Nigeria.
Telephone: +234 (0) 9 8709070

Page | 2
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
Email: enquiries@cseaafrica.org
Website: www.cseaafrica.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................4
ABBREVATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..............................................................................................5
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 6
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................................8
3. THE NIGERIA EDUCATION SECTOR ........................................................................................11
3.1 Universal Basic Education .................................................................................................... 11
3.2 post–Basic Education........................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Sources and Allocation of Funds .......................................................................................... 14

4. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................16
4.1 Home Grown School Feeding and Health Program .............................................................. 16
4.2 Education Assistance Program ............................................................................................. 18
5. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................18
5.1 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 18
5.2 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................... 19
5.3 PROGRAM Cost Effectiveness Analysis ......................................................................... .......19
5.3.1 Effectiveness Measure...................................................................................................... 20
5.4 Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................... .............................................................21
5.5 Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................................. 21
6. RESULT .................................................................................................................................. 22
6.1 Cost of Programs ................................................................................................................ 22
6.2 PROGRAM Cost Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 23
6.3 Benefit-Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................... 25
6.4 Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................................. 30
6.4.1 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis: Cost-Effective Analysis ................................................... 31
6.4.2 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis: Benefit-Cost Analysis ..................................................... 33
7. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................34
8. POLICY RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................. 35
9. CHALLENGES TO CONDUCTING THIS WORK .........................................................................36
10. LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................36
11. PLANS FOR DISSEMINATION ...............................................................................................37
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................37

Page | 3
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................. 39
LIST OFTABLES PAGE

Table 1. Brief Description of Nigeria Primary Education Sector................................................13

Table 2. Basic and Post-Basic Education Expenditure from 2006 – 2009 (Naira) ......................15
Table 3. Summary Cost (In Naira) of Items in the EA Program (2003 and 2007) .......................22
Table 4. Average cost Ratio for HGSF&H Program.................................................................... 23
Table 5. Estimates of Incremental cost (In Naira) of HGSF&H and EA Programs ......................24
Table 6. Estimates of Cost-Effectiveness Ratios of HGSF&H and EA programs .........................24
Table 7. Projected Enrollment, Expenditure, Repeaters and Beneficial of EA and HGSF&H......26
Table 8. Reduction in Repetition Based on HGSF&H and EA Programs .................................... 27
Table 9. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs) for HGSF&H Program .........................................................28
Table 10. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs) for EA Program ................................................................. 28
Table 11. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs): With and Without Programs ...........................................29
Table 12. One-way and Multi-way Sensitivity Analysis on CEA Results; 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 .............32
Table 13. One-way and Multi-way Sensitivity Analysis on CEA Results; 6 & 7 .........................33
Table 14. One-way and Multi-way Sensitivity of Benefit-Cost Analysis ................................... 34

Appendix 1A. Summary Cost of HGSF&H Program ................................................................... 39

Appendix 1b. Unit Cost Characteristics in Primary Education in Nigeria .................................. 40

Page | 4
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.

ABBREVATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BE Basic Education
BIA Benefit Incidence Analysis
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CEA Cost Effectiveness Analysis
CSEA Centre for the Study of Economies of Africa
CSO Civil Society Organization
EA Education Assistance
ECCDE Early Childhood Care and Development Education
EFA Education for All
FCT Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
FCT SUBEB Federal Capital Territory State Universal Basic Education Board
FME Federal Ministry of Education
GDN Global Development Network
HGSF&H Home Grown School Feeding and Health
JSS Junior Secondary School
LGA Local Government Area
LGIC Local Government Implementation Committee
LGMC Local Government Monitoring Committee
MHTF Millennium Hunger Task Force
NBS National Bureau of Statistics
NBTE National Board for Technical Education
NCCE National Commission for Colleges of Education
NCNE National Commission for Nomadic Education
NEPAD National Economic Partnership for Africa Development
NLSS Nigerian Living Standard Survey
NMEC National Mass Education Commission
NUC National Universities Commission
PARP Policy Analysis and Research Project
PBE Post-Basic Education
R4D Research for Development
SBMC State-Based Management Committee
SIIPEA Strengthening Institution to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability
SIMC State Implementation and Monitoring Committee
SUBEB State Universal Basic Education Board
UBE Universal Basic Education
UBEC Universal Basic Education Commission
VEI Vocational Enterprise Institutions
WFP World Food Program

Page | 5
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.

ABSTRACT

The Federal Government of Nigeria, in its effort to improve access to, and quality of primary
school education, as a way of achieving the Millennium Developments Goals as well as ensuring
Education for All, introduced a series of programs in the education sector, including, but not
limited to the Home Grown School Feeding & Health program and the Education Assistance
program implemented in public primary school in the FCT, Nigeria. This report primarily conducts
a Cost-Effectiveness analysis of Nigeria’s education sector with particular emphasis on the relative
effectiveness and efficiency of HGSF&H and EA programs. However, it is complemented with a
Benefit-Cost analysis. It proceeds with the analysis of the average cost of the education programs,
and then moves on to the program CEA and the BCA. The cost per beneficiary shows that per pupil
cost of HGSF&H program is approximately NGN8, 163 which is higher than the NGN5, 000 per
pupil cost of EA program. This suggests that the EA program is more economical in reaching pupils
in FCT public primary school than the HGSF&H program that appears to be expensive.

The program CEA examines the relative cost and effectiveness of HGSF&H and EA programs.
Following the challenges encountered in identifying a suitable effect measure and in accessing
data for estimating the effectiveness measure, the study used the probable impact of intervention
developed by Schiefelbein and Wolff (2007) as the effectiveness measure. Relying on this
effectiveness measure, this study estimated the incremental unit costs of HGSF&H and EA
program, and later derived their cost-effectiveness ratios. The analysis shows that the EA program
is more cost-effective than the HGSF&H program. On the BCA, the findings show that, though
both programs are beneficial in monetary values, the EA program is more sustainable and
beneficial. This is evidenced by its high NPV and Benefit–Cost ratio.To determine the validity of
the findings, a one-way (for CEA and BCA) and multi-way (for CEA only) sensitivity analyses - worst
and best case scenarios were conducted. Overall, the results show that the EA program is more
successful, efficient and beneficial than the HGSF&H program.

Page | 6
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.

1. INTRODUCTION

For many years, the main priority of government and educational policy makers in several

countries has been to increase access to basic education, whereby quantitative expansion came at

the expense of educational quality. But recently, improving the quality of education has become

even more important than increasing school attendance and participation. However, ascertaining

the most efficient and effective means of attaining these goals remains a great challenge to

several developing countries. What this then means is that certain technique(s) must be applied in

order to identify programs with least costs and greatest positive impact. It is in this instance that

the cost-effectiveness analysis is developed for identifying interventions with optimal impacts,

given the costs of achieving a given marginal outcomes1. However, the major limitation of this

technique is its inability to quantify effectiveness in monetary terms. Accurate measurement of

effectiveness is another challenge that cannot be ignored. These strong limitations have given rise

to the use of complementary techniques. For example, a benefit-cost analysis can help to address

some of these deficiencies associated with cost-effective analysis. Consequently, a combined

analysis based on the CEA and the BCA will provide better information on the effectiveness,

efficiency and benefits of alternative interventions. The broad objective of this study, therefore, is

to carry out a detailed cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analysis of Home Grown School Feeding

and Health and the Education Assistance Programs. In particular, the report aims to provide

answers to the following questions:

1
The concept of Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) is the third analytical component of the project; “Strengthening
Institutions to Improve Public Expenditure Accountability (SIIPEA)” a five year project launched by the Global
Development Network (GDN), in coalition with Results for Development (R4D. This project is geared towards
supporting 15 research and policy institutions in developing economy to produce analysis to achieving expected
outcomes including; to produce an internationally comparable and evidence-based analysis that aims at improving the
institutions capacity to make appropriate policy/program choice for the education sector in the developing countries.

Page | 7
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.

 Which of these government interventions in the education sector of Nigeria namely: Home
Grown School Feeding and Health (HGSF&H) and Education Assistance (EA) program is more
cost effective in terms of beneficiaries covered?
 What is the relative efficiency of HGSF&H and EA Programs in terms of achieving improved
learning outcomes?
 Considering future benefits, impacts & cost which of these government interventions are more
beneficial and sustainable?

Given the enormity of conducting an extensive cost-effectiveness analysis in terms of resource,

time and data requirements, it will be impossible to examine interventions extending to several

parts of the country. With these issues in mind, the scope of the study is limited to the Federal

Capital Territory (FCT). The choice of FCT is informed by the availability of cost data from the FCT

Universal Basic Education Board (FCT UBEB), Abuja. The remainder of this report proceeds as

follows: Section 2 reviews the key and relevant literature on CEA and CBA. Section 3 looks at the

structure of the education sector and sources of funding in Nigeria. Section 4 presents a brief

discussion of FCT UBEB and some background on HGSF&H and EA programs, section 5 presents

the methodology. Section 6 discusses the findings of the analysis. Section 7 concludes. Policy

recommendations and the challenges to the work are presented in section 8 and 9, respectively.

Lastly, limitations and plans for dissemination of the findings are presented in section 10 and 11

respectively.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Studies on CEA and BCA have multiplied since the 1950s, but the application of these tools to

educational decision-making has been much slower to develop (Hitch and McKean, 1960 cited in

Levin, 1995). Until recently the application of CEA and BCA as a policy and decision-making tool in

Page | 8
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
education has been largely restricted to the developed countries, with a few studies on

developing countries. Studies by Quinn et al. (1984), Tatto et al. (1991), Borman and Hewes

(2002), Schiefelbein and Wolff (2007) and Reynolds et al. (2011) are some of the recent and

relevant studies on CEA and BCA of education programs. These studies have adopted varying

effectiveness measures, depending on the objectives of the intervention and in many instances

findings have been mixed.

For example, Quinn et al. (1984) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two math programs; Goal-

based Educational Management System Proficiency Mathematics (GEMS Math) and Traditional

text-oriented Mathematics (Text Math) in the fifth grade of the Jordan School District. Apart from

including the pupil parental socioeconomic status (SES) as a stratifying variable; the study used

two distinct effectiveness measure; an indicator of pupil ability to benefit from maths instruction

as well as the pupil outcomes on standardized test-the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and a district-

developed math test. Their results were mixed - for middle to low SES pupils; GEMS Math was

substantially more cost-effective; while for high SES pupils Text Math was more cost-effective

though performance was not significantly different in the two programs. Tatto et al. (1991)

examined the cost-effectiveness analyses of three main approaches to teachers training in Sri

Lanka; pre-service, conventional in-service and distance in-service between March 1988 and

October 1989, using the teachers’ theoretical and applied knowledge, classroom performance and

pupil achievement as effectiveness measures. The study found that trainees in colleges of

education and in distance learning were more effective in subject theoretical knowledge and

pedagogy than those in teachers colleges. But in terms of pupil achievement it was found that any

type of training was better than to no-training. In addition, distance education costs were found to

Page | 9
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
be very low, suggesting that countries that have shortage of teachers could increase the number

of qualified teachers more efficiently using distance education.

Similarly, Borman and Hewes (2002) analysed the long term effects and the cost-effectiveness of

several programs, including notable interventions, such as: Perry Preschool, the Abecedarian

project and the Tennessee Class-Size Experiment for children at risk. The study employs two key

educational outcomes: reading and mathematics achievement as measures of effectiveness,

ignoring the non-academic outcomes. The analysis revealed a conditional outcome that any one of

the interventions could not serve as a ‘’great equalizer’’. The study concluded that rather than

choose one interventions over the other, the best policy may be to take them as complements.

Additionally, Reynolds et al (2011) examined the cost-benefit analysis of the child parent centre

(CPC) early education program using data on children of up to 26 years of age from the Chicago

longitudinal study. The CPC is the first for a sustained publicly funded early intervention which

provides services for low-income family in 20 school sites. Kindergarten and school age services

were provided up to age 9 (third grade). Findings from this study indicates that from a complete

cohort of over 1400 programs, including the preschool age program, the school age program, the

extended intervention program (4-6years) and comparison group participants, CPC has economic

benefits that exceed the cost. The primary benefits were increased earnings and tax revenue, and

averted criminal justice system cost. Further analysis shows that males, 1-year preschool

participants, and children from high risk families derived greater benefits. Following evidence that

the estimates were robust across a wide range of analyses including Monte Carlo simulations, the

study therefore concluded that sustained programs can contribute to the well-being of individuals

and society.

Page | 10
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
More extensively, Schiefelbein and Wolff (2007) examined the cost-effectiveness of Primary

school interventions in English Speaking East and West Africa countries. Given the enormous cost

and time involved in conducting a rigorous CEA, the authors used an alternative - a ‘’short cut’’

approach, harnessing experts opinions in the education sector. Through this approach a

questionnaire was devised and given to twenty-three educational planners and economists to

estimate the potential impact of 46 possible primary school interventions on learning as well as

the probability that these interventions would be adequately implemented. The study used the

probable impact of the interventions as an effectiveness measure, which is derived by multiplying

the estimated achievement on a test in mathematics and reading, administered to grade four

pupils by the probability of adequate implementation of the program. Alongside, the authors

estimated the incremental unit costs of these interventions, and then calculated the cost-

effectiveness ratios of the interventions. The results of the study were mixed, with various

interventions showing varying levels of cost effectiveness. However, the present study will be

drawing on the work of Schiefelbein and Wolff (2007), particularly the estimated effectiveness

measure.

3. THE NIGERIA EDUCATION SECTOR

The education sector in Nigeria comprises UBE; ECCDE, Primary Schools, Junior Secondary Schools,

and Nomadic and Adult Literacy; Post-basic education including Senior Secondary Schools,

Technical Colleges, VEIs, Vocational Schools and Open Apprenticeship Centre and Tertiary

education which consists of Universities, Polytechnics/ Monotechnics, Colleges of Education, and

IEIs (FME, 2009). However, for the purpose of this report, primary education will be discussed

under basic education of the UBE.

3.1 Universal Basic Education

Page | 11
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
The Universal Basic Education Commission was established to coordinate the implementation of

UBE in Nigeria at the national level as well as supervise the affairs of the SUBEB which is in charge

of the implementation of UBE at the sub-national level. The UBEC and SUBEB are directly

responsible for the provision of primary and Junior Secondary school services. Other commissions

such as the NCNE and NMEC are responsible for the nomadic education and Non-formal Education

aspects of the UBE, respectively. The Universal Basic Education Act (2004) defines “Universal Basic

Education” as early childhood care and education, the nine years of formal schooling, adult

literacy and non-formal education, skills acquisition programs and the education of special groups

such as nomads and migrants, girl-child and women, almajiri2, street children and disabled

groups”. With reference to the 2004 Act, “Basic education” is the education offered to children

within 3 and 14 years of age. This comprises ECCDE, and nine (9) years of formal education. Under

the UBE Act, ECCDE provides for children under the 3-5 age groups by making the provision for

every public primary school to have a pre-primary school (Nursery of Crèches). However, there is

no provision for children in the 0-3 age group3. The nine-year education is free and compulsory for

all children within the ages of 6-14 years. The 9-year period covers six (6) years of primary

education, and three (3) years of junior secondary education 4. Adults and dropout youths at the

primary and junior secondary education levels are catered for under the Adult and Non-formal

education programs of the UBE. During the 6-year Primary Education period children between the

ages of 6 and 12 are given a sound basic education in reading, writing and mathematics along with

an elementary understanding of other subjects such as, history, geography, natural science, social

2
“Almajiri” is an Arabic word for someone who leaves his home in search of knowledge in Islamic religion. In the
Nigerian context, most of those who are involved are mostly young boys, who end up on the street as beggars.
3
UNESCO (Nigeria), Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007.
4
The term “free” is theoretical. Government makes provision for education but parents pay subsidies and levies to
improve on what the government is able to provide.

Page | 12
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
science, art and music” (EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2002). These serve to develop the pupils’

ability to obtain and use information on their immediate environment and nation (FME, 2005).

Primary education comprises six (6) classes; Primary 1 to 6, a year is spent in each class. Junior

secondary education is the first 3-years of secondary education aimed at impacting pre-vocational

and academic skills on students in preparation for senior secondary education. Junior secondary

schools (JSS) comprises three (3) classes; JS1, JS2, and JS3. The characteristics of Nigeria primary

education sector are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Brief Description of Nigeria Primary Education Sector

 Population 140 Million (2006 Census) Rural Population : 53.1%

 Completion rate in primary education (six years): Male 53.02% , Female 47.98%

 Student teacher ratio: 36:1

 Total Primary Schools as at 2008: 54,434

 Number of children in grades (1-6): 21,294,518 as at 2008

 Total cost of primary education system: NGN473.07Billion

 Percentage of budget going to teachers salaries : 72% (average of 2006-2010)

 Unit cost of primary education: NGN22,215.54

Source: NBSs/UBE/PBA and BIA by CSEA/Africa Development Indicators 2008/09

Note: Unit cost of primary education is the 2003 value converted to 2007 (see FME, 2005)

3.2 Post-basic Education

This is the education taught to pupils after a successful completion of the basic education. Post-

basic education is the second stage of the 9-3-4 educational system. It comprises 3 years senior

secondary education or 3 years Technical education, and Continuing Education for those who have

completed the basic and senior secondary but may not further their education. Among others, the

PBE aims include; preparing students for higher education to become meaningful contributors to

Page | 13
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
national development and good ambassadors in the international arena. In addition, the tertiary

education is an important component of Nigeria education system. According to the National

Policy on Education (1998), tertiary education is defined as the “education given after secondary

education in tertiary institution; Universities, Colleges of Education, Polytechnics, and

Monotechnics providing courses leading to the award of degrees or diplomas”.5 Aimed at taught

and research and development programs, the objectives of tertiary institutions include: to

contribute to national development through high-level relevant manpower training; acquire both

physical and intellectual skills, which will enable individuals to be self-reliant and useful members

of the society; forge and cement national unity and promote national and international

understanding and interaction, among others. The activities of the universities are supervised by

the NUC, the National Board for Technical Education for Polytechnics and Monotechnics, and the

NCCE for Colleges of Education.

3.3 Sources and Allocation of Funds

Every year, the Federal Government transfers 2 percent of its Consolidated Revenue Fund to the

UBE. This fund is used in financing the activities of the UBEC according to a pre-determined ratio.

The UBE also receives fund from other sources such as Federal Guaranteed Credits, and local and

international donor grants. The UBE funds are made available to the states based on certain

criteria. The criteria require all states to bring a matching grant of 50 percent of the total cost.

Funds contributed by the Federal and State government are shared among primary school, JSS

and the ECCDE in a 60 percent, 35 percent and 5 percent ratio, respectively. These allocated funds

are further distributed to three (3) categories within the basic education components.

Infrastructural development receives 70 percent, instructional materials 15 percent, and teachers’

5
Nigeria Education Sector Reform Bill Draft

Page | 14
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
professional development 15 percent. To ensure that these funds are properly utilized, the UBEC

is responsible for the disbursement of all funds to the States.

Similarly, the Federal Government through its Unity Schools (senior secondary colleges), provides

senior secondary education and makes provision for it in the national budget. However,

parents/guardians are still expected to pay fees and levies for their children/wards as a way of

complementing the efforts of the government. Table 2 provides the Federal Government

expenditure in Basic (Primary and Junior Secondary) and Post-basic (senior secondary) education

for the period of 2006-2009. The table reveals a fluctuating trend across basic education.

However, PBE (senior secondary) shows some sustained increase from 2006 to 2008, with a

reversal in 2009.

Table 2: Basic and Post-Basic Education Expenditure from 2006 – 2009 (Naira)
2006 2007 2008 2009
Primary school expenditure 22,814,248,836 18,601,895,271 28,003,656,831 18,779,514,913
Junior secondary expenditure 13,308,311,821 10,851,105,575 16,335,466,485 10,954,717,033
Senior secondary 18,565,424,791 21,490,806,891 22,439,793,358 20,228,682,298
Source: Program Budgeting Analysis by CSEA

It shows that junior secondary education received the least allocation in all three categories.

According to the UBEC sharing quota, primary education receives 60 percent of the UBEC

allocation; junior secondary education received 35 percent while the early childhood care and

development education (ECCDE) received 5 percent. However, with the present allocation,

funding remains one of the major challenges to Nigeria education sector. The Benefit Incidence

Analysis report (2010), prepared by CSEA, which partly evaluated the Nigeria education sector in

three major priority areas; access and equity, funding and resource mobilization and utilization,

concluded that the performance of the sector in these areas has been very weak. However, the

federal and state governments of Nigeria, through various agencies, lunched a series of

Page | 15
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
programs/interventions aimed at overcoming some of these challenges. Motivated by these

efforts, this study aims to provide government officials and policy makers with adequate

information on the cost-effectiveness of alternative programs implemented in the FCT.

4. BACKGROUND

This section provides a brief discussion on FCT UBEB and some background on HGSF&H and EA

programs. The FCT UBEB was established to provide quality basic education, which include early

child care, primary, junior secondary and nomadic education to the teeming school age population

in FCT. In order to perform its responsibility, allocation were made to the board by the federal

government through universal basic education commission (UBEC). However, with the present

allocation, funding remains one of the major challenges to education sector in FCT, hampering

education delivery, monitoring, inspection and other quality assurance activities. In fact it is

observed that the actual enrollment rates in early child care and primary education are

significantly below the expected rates, leaving many children out-of-school. It is against this

backdrop as well as other related issues that the federal government, through FCT UBEB, lunched

a series of interventions, especially HGSF&H and EA programs, aimed at overcoming some of

these challenges, especially the problem of low primary school enrollment, poor performance and

learning achievements.

4.1 Home Grown School Feeding and Health Program

The HGSF&H program was first introduced by the WFP as the HGSF to purchase locally produced

food that will be fed to pupils in schools under the program. The primary objective of the HGSF

program was to increase school enrollment, attendance, retention, and completion among

children from rural communities and poor backgrounds. Other objectives of the program include;

Page | 16
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
 increase small-scale farmers’ access to the school feeding market, thereby increasing their
income;
 encourage improved production practices among small-scale farmers;
 increase direct purchase from smallholders, reducing the roles of other participants in the
supply chain who diminish their purchasing power;
 Create an enabling environment for small-scale farmers to access markets by providing market
information, promoting aggregate supply and advocating for rules, regulations and incentives
for smallholder procurement WFP

The initiative was to link a food based program to local agricultural production, with the aim of

both meeting the demands of the program and stimulating the local economy. Following the

initial success of the HGSF program, NEPAD, WFP and the MHTF signed a Memorandum of

Understanding to enhance cooperation on HGSF. This later led to the launch of a pilot HGSF and

Health program in twelve African countries (Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia,

Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda and Zambia). In Nigeria, the

program was first launched in Nasarawa state in September 2005. Later the same year, the

program was launched in Imo, Rivers, Osun, Ogun, Kogi, Bauchi, Yobe, Cross Rivers, Kebbi, and the

Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The FCT HGSF&H program is the focus of the present study. The

HGSF&H program started with only one school and later grew to 30 schools by the end of the

2005. In 2006, the number increased to 80 schools and 144 in 2007. School-based Management

Committees (SBMCs) were set up to manage, supervise the implementation of the program and

ensure quality control. There were 144 SBMCs inaugurated, one in every school under the

HGSF&H Program. In addition to the budgetary allocation, the program received contributions

from other non-governmental organizations such as the Poultry Association of Nigeria, MTN,

Zenith bank, the WTP and parents. The food served to the school children included rice, eggs,

Page | 17
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
indomie and other locally sourced food items. The program was suspended in February 2008

following funding constraints and a change in administration in the FCT. However, the program

recorded an increased enrollment of 17,277 students over the entire implementation period.

4.2 Education Assistance Program

Similarly, in a bid to achieving goal 3 of MDGs as well as the broader target of Education for all,

both of which seek to improve schools enrollment and provide six full year primary education of

good quality, the Federal Government of Nigeria launched the EA program in 2007 in FCT, Abuja.

The EA program is in form of scholarship award to students including those that participated in

sport, indigent indigenes of FCT and residents that cannot lay claim to any states of Nigeria. The

scholarship awards include the provision for NGN5000 per child, which covers the distribution of

school materials such as school uniforms, school bags, textbooks and instructional materials. In

2007, the program started with 6063, 3566 and 982 beneficiaries in the primary, Junior and senior

secondary schools, respectively. The benefiting schools are those in the area councils of Abaji,

Abuja Municipal, Bwari, Gwagwalada, Kuje and Kwali along side with 1055 beneficiaries in the

tertiary institutions. In 2008, the beneficiaries decreased to 5577, 2070 and 699 for the primary,

junior and senior secondary school, respectively. The number of beneficiaries in tertiary

institutions remained the same. School-based Management Committees were also set up to

manage, supervise the implementation of the program and to ensure quality control. To ensure

comparability of both programs, the focus of the analysis will be on primary school education,

given that HGSF&H program was implemented in primary schools.

5. METHODOGY

Page | 18
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
This section sets out the assumptions, sources and methods of data collection, techniques used

for the cost-effective and benefit-cost analyses and the description of the sensitivity analysis.

5.1 Assumptions

To facilitate the analysis, we make several assumptions. We assume that: part of the allocation

from UBEC to FCT UBEB covers personnel cost of implementing HGSF&H program; the present

infrastructure facilities will cater for the projected enrollment of pupils (i.e. infrastructure is not at

full capacity); the average unit cost of primary education in Nigeria is made up of government

expenditure on primary school per pupil as well as average expenditure incurred by parent in

terms of fees, PTA, books and supplies, transportation and uniforms per pupil; that unit cost of

primary education and programs to government remain the same for the period of analysis (zero

inflation); the unit cost of primary education with the programs will exclude average expenditure

by parents on fees and supplies, this is necessary to avoid the problem of double counting;

average repeaters rate of 3% which is constant without the programs; the prospective repeaters

that are saved by the programs will complete their primary education; average incremental

income of first school leaving certificate holder is constant, with minimum of 35 years in service.

5.2 Data Sources

The Major source of data for this report is NBS. Other sources include; FCT UBEB, the World Bank,

UBEC and FME. The NBS data are from the Annual Abstract of Statistics (2009). HGSF&H program

data are from the FCT UBEB while school enrollments figures are from the UBEC and the FME.

Given the challenges of getting the actual information on the programs and their cost

components, especially the EA program, some data were derived through several computations,

following relevant literature. We also had informal discussion with some government officials and

Page | 19
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
program managers. The unit of measurement applied in this study is pupil and the costs of all

projects are expressed in Naira (local currency) and converted to the same base year - 2007.

5.3 PROGRAM Cost Effectiveness Analysis

The Program CEA tries to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the HGSF&H and the EA

programs by examining the achievement and impact of the programs with a given level of cost on

the targeted population, in this case the pupils.

5.3.1 Effectiveness Measure

The HGSF&H and EA programs implemented by the Nigeria government at the public primary

schools in the FCT are relatively new programs with little or no data to capture the effectiveness.

This study sparks an effort to estimate them, but we think that the best available information is in

the Schiefelbein and Wolff (2007) [hereafter SW] estimates based on the opinions of education

planners and economists of 46 possible education interventions. These 46 possible primary school

interventions on learning include those typically thought of in the African context and elsewhere

in the world. They estimated the probable impact (PI) of the interventions as well as the

probability that the interventions would be adequately implemented in typical low income English

speaking African Countries comprising six East and West African countries6. Thereafter, SW

estimated the incremental unit costs (IC) of these programs and then created an index ranking the

cost-effectiveness of each programs. The PI is derived by multiplying the probability of correct

implementation (PCI) with estimated achievement in test scores (ATS) for each intervention.

While PCI represents the average chance of correctly implementing a program, ATS captures the

extent to which an intervention could increase learning over the base score (50 points). Though no

interventions were identified for Nigeria, but it is interesting to note that HGSF&H and EA

6
The opinion of the expert on these programs was actually sorted through a questionnaire devised by the author.

Page | 20
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
programs implemented by Federal Government in the FCT public primary school are similar to

some of the 46 programs identified in their study. For example, we think that the HGSF&H and the

EA programs are closest to the “school feeding programs: free lunch for everyone” and the “give

each student 2 standard textbooks”, respectively. Also, Nigeria is a West African country and has

similar characteristics with the prototypical English speaking East and West African countries

included in the study. This therefore provides a good basis for adopting some of the measures and

the estimation methodology used by SW. The information set out in Tables 1, 3, 4 and the opinion

of the expert reported in SW provide estimates of the following indices for each program:

X = if fully implemented, expected % increase in the test score of the target population.
Y = % probability of full implementation of the intervention; Z = % Estimated Increase in cost
XY = % probable impact; Z/XY = Cost-Effectiveness.

5.4 Benefit-Cost Analysis

This subsection explains the technique of benefit–cost Analysis. For the BCA, the future cost of the

programs is derived by projecting the repetition and enrollment costs over 12 years. The idea is to

generate future cost associated with each intervention using 2007 figures as baselines. Thereafter

the values are discounted to present value, using 3% discount rate. In terms of benefits, the

estimation considers two sources, direct and indirect. Direct benefits are associated with

government savings from the reduction in repetition rate (this is based on the potential impact on

learning and improvement of grade score associated with EA and HGSF&H programs, taken from

SW). The indirect benefit (total value of incremental earnings) is the life-time incremental earnings

of primary school certificate holders saved from repetition. This benefit is distributed over the 35

years allowed in government employment in Nigeria. After computing the costs and benefit of

alternative programs, the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit-Cost ratios are then calculated

Page | 21
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
to evaluate the usefulness (attractiveness) of the programs, so that recommendations for uptake

and implementation are provided.

5.5 Sensitivity Analysis

In order to determine the robustness of the estimates as well as to analyse the impact of

uncertainty based on the underlying assumptions made in the analysis, a one-way (including

worse and best case scenarios) and multi-way (with worse and best case scenarios) sensitivity

analyses are conducted for the CEA and BCA. This will highlights the effect of varying key

parameters estimates which are either uncertain or may change overtime. The essence of the

analysis is to determine the extent to which one can rely on the initial results given that some of

the parameters were taken from the literature. Some of the assumption made also demand that

sensitivity analysis be carried out.

6. RESULTS

This section presents summary of costs, results and discussions of findings of the analysis.

6.1 Cost of Programs

The total cost of HGSF&H program in 2007 was NGN703, 559,157 as against NGN400, 119,644 in

2006 (See Table 1A in appendix). This wide difference is likely to reflect the increase in the number

of beneficiaries as wells as increased budgetary provision. The contributions of government as

well as the communities to the program changed over the period as numbers of beneficiaries

increased. Data on total cost of EA program is not available and deriving is not necessary, given

that the number and unit cost of beneficiaries was made available (see background on EA

program). However, data regarding the unit cost of ingredient in EA program is very important to

conducting adequate sensitivity analysis. In this case, the study computed the cost of the

Page | 22
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
ingredients based on the adjusted 2003 average cost, adopted from FME estimated unit cost of

primary education in Nigeria (See Appendix 1B).

Table 3: Summary Cost (in Naira) of Items in the EA program (2003 and 2007)
Year 2003 2007
Items
Prescribed Textbooks 1,454.40 2,237.54
School Uniform 730.8 1,124.30
School Sandals/Socks 536.1 824.77
School Bags 456.8 702.77
Total 3,178.10 4,889.39
Personnel cost 110.61
Grand Total 5,000
Source: Computed by CSEA based on data from FME, 2005

Table 3 shows the average cost of items for the EA program. The 2007 value was 2033 adjusted

average prices, and was estimated using the consumer price index based on 2007 prices. The

Table shows that in 2003, the estimated average cost of ingredient for EA program per child was

NGN3, 178, while the equivalent value in 2007 is estimated to be NGN4, 889.39. Based on these

estimates the personnel costs per beneficiary were estimated.

Average (Unit) Cost of Program per Pupil

The average cost ratio is derived by dividing the total cost by the total number of pupils reached in

each program that is the cost per child for the provision of the intervention. It is expected that the

program with lower average cost ratio is the more economical program.

Table 4: Average cost estimates for HGSF&H

Year Total Cost of Program (NGN) Total No. of Beneficiaries Average Cost (NGN)
2006 400,119,644 77,278 5177.67
2007 703,559,157 81,547 8,627.65
Total 1,103,678,801 158,825

The per child cost of the HGSF&H program is around NGN5177.67 and NGN8, 627.65 in 2006 and

2007, respectively (see Table 4). These figures exceed the stated unit cost (NGN5, 000) of the EA

program. It suggests that the EA program has a better efficiency in reaching 6063 pupils in FCT

Page | 23
 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
public primary schools than the HGSF&H program which appears to be somewhat expensive.

Similarly, the unit cost of EA program is the same in both periods while the per unit cost of the

HGSF&H program increased by 66.63%, indicating changes in the cost components of the

program.

6.2 PROGRAM Cost Effectiveness

The cost-effectiveness ration (CER) was derived by dividing the Incremental cost of each program

by the Probable impact (Effectiveness). Usually, the program with the least CER is considered to

be the program with the least cost and reasonable impact on beneficiaries. Overall, the cost

effectiveness result shows that the EA program is more successful and efficient than the HGSF&H

program. Table 5 shows the incremental cost and the average cost of primary education by

programs, in Nigeria, while Table 6 presents the Incremental CER.

Table 5: Estimates of Incremental cost (in Naira) of HGSF&H and EA Programs.

Total Average cost Unit Cost of
Number Program cost Unit cost of Primary Primary Incremental Incremental
Intervention
of (NGN) (NGN) Education education with Cost (NGN) Cost (%)
Pupils (NGN) Program (NGN)
Home Grown
School Feeding 81,547 665,639,681 8,627.65 22,215.54 29,518.49 7,302.95 32.87
and Health
Education
6,063 30,315,000 5,000 22,215.54 24,563.69 2,348.15 10.57
Assistance
Source: computed by Authors

Incremental Cost

Prior to the HGSF&H and the EA interventions, average cost of primary education to government

and parents is NGN22, 215.54. The results that emerge show that the introduction of HGHSF&H

resulted in an incremental cost of about 32.87% on what the government and the parents spent

per pupil prior to the program. The value is far higher than the 10.57% incremental cost estimated

for the EA program. However, this does not in any way suggest how efficient the EA program is,

Page | 24
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
relative to the HGSF&H program. Information on the potential performance (effectiveness) of

both programs is provided in the CEA presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Estimates of Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (CERs) of HSGF&H and EA Programs.

X- Estimated Y- Probability of XY- Z- Z/XY- CERs
Intervention Increase in Adequate Probable Incremental
(%) (NGN)
Achievement (%) implementation (%) Impact (%) in Cost (%)
Home Grown
School Feeding 16.7 18.1 3.02 32.87 10.88 2,417.09
and Health
Education
14.4 41.0 5.9 10.57 1.79 397.66
Assistance

= =
Source: Computed by Authors

Cost Effectiveness Ratios

The ratio of estimated increase in cost and probable impact gives the estimated value of the

potential CER of each program. The results presented in Table 6 show that the CER of the EA

program is NGN397.66 per student repetition averted which is relatively lower than the NGN2,

417.09 estimated for the HSGF&H program. The huge difference arises because the EA program is

only not more effective, but also cost less. This implies that the EA program, which has lower unit

cost, has more positive impact on learning than the HSGF&H program. In sum, this suggests that

the EA program is relatively cost-effective than the HSGF&H program.

6.3 Benefit-Cost Analysis

The ratio of the monetary value of the probable impact and the estimated unit cost of the

programs gives the estimated value of the potential benefit-cost ratio of each intervention.

Overall, the BCA shows that the EA program is more sustainable and beneficial than the HGSF&H

program. Table 7 and Table 8 present projections of primary school enrollment, repeaters,

government expenditure on repeaters and number of beneficiaries of the HGSF&H and EA

Page | 25
 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
programs, respectively. Tables 9 and 10 present the estimates of the Benefit-Cost ratio (BCR) for

both programs, respectively. Finally the BCR with and without the programs are presented in

Table 11.

Enrollment, Expenditure, Repeaters and Beneficiaries

Prior to the introduction of the two education programs, the average enrollment in public primary

school is estimated to 14% (see for example NBS, 2007 and PARP, 2010). Using this average, the

study projected the total enrollment for the next 12 years, which stands at 7,447,148 pupils, with

an associated government and household expenditure estimated at NGN165.4billion (see Table 7).

However, with the present average number of repeaters of 3% in public primary schools, the

projected total repeaters by the end of 2018 stand at 223,425 pupils. Recall, the EA and HGSF&H

programs started as pilot programs in a few public primary schools in the FCT. However, the BCA is

only an attempt to provide evidence on the potential gains that can justify the possibility of

extending the programs to every school in the FCT.

Table 7: Projected Enrollment, Expenditure, Repeaters and Beneficiaries of EA and HGSF&H Programs
Total Exp. On
Total Exp. on
Projected primary Projected
Repeaters by Projected % Projected
Enrollment education by Repeater %
Govt. and Hh Number of Projection Number of
Year based on Govt. and Hh based on Projection of
before Beneficiaries of Beneficiaries
14% before 3% Beneficiaries
programs (HGSF&H) Beneficiaries (EA)
average Programs average
(NGN’million)
(NGN’million)
2007 273,083 6.07 8192.49 182.00 81,547 - 6063 -
2008 311,315 6.92 9,339 207.48 311,315 282% 311,315 5035%
2009 354,899 7.88 10,647 236.53 354,899 14% 354,899 14%
2010 404,584 8.99 12,138 269.64 404,584 14% 404,584 14%
2011 461,226 10.25 13,837 307.39 461,226 14% 461,226 14%
2012 525,798 11.68 15,774 350.43 525,798 14% 525,798 14%
2013 599,410 13.32 17,982 399.49 599,410 14% 599,410 14%
2014 683,327 15.18 20,500 455.41 683,327 14% 683,327 14%
2015 778,993 17.31 23,370 519.17 778,993 14% 778,993 14%
2016 888,052 19.73 26,642 591.86 888,052 14% 888,052 14%
2017 1,012,379 22.49 30,371 674.72 1,012,379 14% 1,012,379 14%
2018 1,154,112 25.64 34,623 769.18 1,154,112 14% 1,154,112 14%
Total 7,447,178 165.44 223,415 4,963.30 7,255,642 7,180,158
Source: computed by CSEA

Page | 26
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
The projections show that in the second year of the implementation of the programs, the number

of beneficiaries for HGSF&H and EA program would increase by about 282% and 5035%,

respectively. Thereafter, it will increase by 14% annually for both programs to meet the projected

number of enrollments (see Table 7). As earlier stated, this analysis considers two sources of

benefits for both programs namely; (1) direct benefits: government savings or reduction in

expenditure as a result of the reduction of repetition rates and (2) indirect benefits: life-time

incremental earnings of the primary school certificate holders that would have repeated (the

study considers this as an important benefit of the program as continuous repetition of pupils can

lead to high school drop-out and non-completion rates). Following the initial assumption and the

probable impact of HGSF&H and EA program on student performance, this study estimated the

reduction in repetition in public primary schools by the end of 2018. The result of this exercise is

presented in Table 8. A more in-depth examination of public primary schools in Nigeria shows that

around 15% of repeaters achieve an average score of 35-49%, while 5% and the remaining 80%

achieve average scores of 30-34% and 0-29%, respectively. However, SW show that HGSF&H and

EA programs have the potential to improve pupils test scores by 16.7% and 14.4%, respectively 7.

Therefore, with the EA program, 15% of the repeaters will achieve test scores of over 50%, while

with the HGSF&H 20% will achieve a test score of over 50%. Based on this, the total reduction in

repetitions by the year 2018 was projected at 43,534 and 32,311 for HGSF&H and EA programs,

respectively (see Table 8).

Table 8: Reduction in Repetition Based on HGSF&H and EA Programs

Projected Projected Reduction in Projected Reduction in
Year Repeaters based Repeaters based on Repeaters based on 14.4%
on 3% average 16.7% for HGSF&H for EA program

7
This based on further assumption that the programs will be implemented by the expert, such that probability of
adequate implementation (PAI) becomes one (1).

Page | 27
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
2007 8,192 489 27
2008 9,339 1,868 1,401
2009 10,647 2,129 1,597
2010 12,138 2,428 1,821
2011 13,837 2,767 2,076
2012 15,774 3,155 2,366
2013 17,982 3,596 2,697
2014 20,500 4,100 3,075
2015 23,370 4,674 3,505
2016 26,642 5,328 3,996
2017 30,371 6,074 4,556
2018 34,623 6,925 5,194
Total 223,415 43,534 32,311
Source: computed by CSEA

The associated cost savings and the life-time incremental earnings from reduced repetition are

estimated and the results are presented in Tables 9 and 10. Based on a 3% discount rate and the

projected reduction in repetition as well as other assumptions, it is clear that the government will

save a total of about NGN785.38million by the end of 2018 with the HGSF&H program, in present

value terms.

Table 9: Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs) for HGSF&H Program

Present Value
Total Annual Exp saved Life-time Total benefits Total projected Net Value of
by Govt. and Hh due to incremental earnings of HGSF&H cost of Program HGSF&H
Year
HGSF&H program of beneficiaries Program (HGSF&H) program
(NGN’ million) (NGN’ billion) (NGN’ billion) (NGN’ billion) (NGN’ billion)
2007 10.87 1.06 1.07 0.70 0.37
2008 40.29 4.05 4.09 2.61 1.49
2009 44.59 4.62 4.67 2.89 1.78
2010 49.35 5.27 5.32 3.19 2.12
2011 54.62 6.00 6.06 3.54 2.52
2012 60.46 6.85 6.91 3.91 2.99
2013 66.91 7.81 7.87 4.33 3.54
2014 74.06 8.90 8.97 4.79 4.18
2015 81.97 10.14 10.23 5.31 4.92
2016 90.72 11.56 11.65 5.87 5.78
2017 100.41 13.18 13.28 6.50 6.783
2018 111.13 15.03 15.14 7.19 7.95
Total 785.38 94.48 95.26 50.84 44.43
Source: computed by CSEA Cost-Benefit Ratio 0.53
Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.87
Table 10: Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) for EA program

Page | 28
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
Present Value
Total Annual Exp. Life-time incremental Total Monetary Total Projected
Net Value of
Saved by Govt. and Hh earnings of Benefits of EA Cost of Program
Year EA program
Due to EA program beneficiaries EA Program (EA)
(NGN’ billion)
(NGN’ million) (NGN’ billion) (NGN’ billion) (NGN’ billion)
2007 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.03 0.30
2008 30.22 3.04 3.07 1.51 1.560
2009 33.44 3.47 3.50 1.67 1.83
2010 37.01 3.95 3.99 1.85 2.14
2011 40.97 4.50 4.55 2.05 2.50
2012 45.34 5.13 5.18 2.27 2.91
2013 50.18 5.85 5.90 2.51 3.39
2014 55.54 6.67 6.73 2.78 3.95
2015 61.48 7.61 7.67 3.07 4.59
2016 68.04 8.67 8.74 3.40 5.34
2017 75.31 9.89 9.96 3.77 6.20
2018 83.35 11.27 11.35 4.17 7.19
Total 581.49 70.12 70.70 29.08 41.62
Source: computed by CSEA Cost-Benefit Ratio 0.41
Benefit-Cost Ratio 2.43
Similarly, the life-time incremental earnings for the primary school certificate holders (saved from

repetition - 35 years of service) were estimated and brought to its present value of

NGN94.48billion.8 The NPV of the HGSF&H program which is about NGN44.43billion was derived

by subtracting the total projected cost from the total benefits. Then the BCR was estimated at

1.87. Similar procedure was adopted for the EA program and the results are presented in Table 10.

The results presented Table 10 show that total annual savings by government due to reduction in

repetition by the end of 2018 is NGN581.49 million, while total life-time incremental earnings of

the primary school certificate holders is NGN70.12billion. On the other hand, the total present

cost of EA program stood at NGN29.08billion while the NPV of EA program is NGN41.62billion. The

BCR is found to be 2.43. Overall, both programs appear to be beneficial, recording positive BCRs

that are greater than unity. It is worth noting that the HGSF&H program recorded higher benefits

than the EA program because it has more potential in reducing repetition (i.e. student achieve

8
Average of 3% discount is used to get the present value, the incremental cost of primary school qualification holders
is a year is estimated to be (N101,000) and 35 maximum years of service in Nigeria is employed for the analysis.

Page | 29
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
higher test scores with HGSF&H than with EA) among the pupils. However, when costs and

benefits are simultaneously considered, we find that the EA program is more beneficial- it has a

higher BCR. Further analysis is presented on the total present benefits of government expenditure

on primary school in FCT is presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCRs): With and without the Programs
Total life time benefit Total Projected Net Value of
of primary 6 cost of primary primary education Benefit-
Interventions Year
certificate holders education in FCT in FCT. Cost Ratio
(NGN’ billion) (NGN’ billion) (NGN’ billion)
Base 2007-2018 1,733.77 139.21 1,594.56 12.45
With HGSF&H
2007-2018 2,146.65 169.72 1,976.92 12.65
Program
With EA Program 2007-2018 2,122.09 142.88 1,979.21 14.85

= , ℎ

Source: computed by CSEA

The base case (without the programs) indicates that if government continues with the present

expenditure and cater for the future primary school enrollment in FCT without any program, it will

result in an NPV of NGN1.59trillion with an associated BCR of 12.45. However, with the

introduction of HGSF&H and EA programs, which reduces the repetition rate and increases the

chances of school completion, the NPV of primary school education improves to NGN1.977trillion

for the HGSF&H and NGN1.979trillion for the EA, with associated BCRs of 12.65 and 14.85,

respectively. In both cases the evidence that emerge shows an incremental monetary benefit for

both programs, but with EA program presenting higher net benefits in terms of reaching

government policy objectives.

6.4 Sensitivity Analysis

This sub-section presents the sensitivity analysis on the CEA and BCA results. While the sensitivity

analysis of BCA focuses on the reduction of the benefits for EA and the reduction in costs for

HGSF&H that of the CEA focuses on the adjustment of three key parameters namely; personnel

Page | 30
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
cost, the cost of other Ingredients and the Probable Impact (effectiveness). This exercise entails

re-estimating of the CERs as well as the BCRs of the EA and HGSF&H interventions using different

(lower or higher) values for the parameter. The results are presented in Tables 12 and 13.

The sensitivity analysis of the CEA results presents seven different possible scenarios namely;

1. Sensitivity of EA program to increase in personnel cost or/and sensitivity of HGSF&H program

to decrease in personnel cost.

2. Sensitivity of EA program to increase in the cost of other ingredients or/and sensitivity of

HGSF&H program to decrease in cost of other ingredients.

3. Sensitivity of EA program to decrease in probable impact (effectiveness) or/and sensitivity of

HGSF&H program to increase in probable Impact.

4. Sensitivity of EA program to increase in personnel cost & the cost of other ingredients or/and

sensitivity of HGSF&H program to decrease in personnel cost & the cost of other ingredients.

5. Sensitivity of EA program to increase in personnel cost & decrease in probable impact

(effectiveness) or/and sensitivity of HGSF&H program to decrease in personnel cost & increase

in probable Impact.

6. Sensitivity of EA program to increase in the cost of other ingredients & decrease in probable

impact (effectiveness) or/and sensitivity of HGSF&H program to decrease in the cost of other

ingredients & increase in probable Impact.

7. Sensitivity of EA program to increase in personnel cost, the cost of other ingredients &

decrease in probable impact (effectiveness) or/and sensitivity of HGSF&H program to decrease

in personnel cost, the cost of other ingredients & increase in probable Impact.

6.4.1 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis: Cost-Effective Analysis

Page | 31
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
Overall, the findings of the sensitivity analysis affirm the initial results, which support the

implementation of the EA program. The EA program has to become much worse for the HGSF&H

program to be preferred. For example, increase of 10%, 20% and 30% in the personnel cost of EA

program leads to incremental cost of NGN2,359.22, NGN2,370.28 and NGN2,381.34, respectively.

These therefore increased the CER to 1.80, 1.81 and 1.82, respectively. Similarly, decreases of

10%, 20% and 30% in personnel cost of HGSF&H program still leave the EA program as the

preferable alternative. In all the scenarios, the estimated CERs of the EA are still lower than the

CERs estimated for the HGSF&H program. This implies that the results are robust to changes in the

parameters and assumptions.

Table 12: One-way and Multi-way Sensitivity Analysis on CEA Results; 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5
Education Assistance Program Home Grown School Feeding and Health Program
Sensitivity on personnel cost
Increase in personnel cost Decrease in personnel cost
Base case 10% 20% 30% Base case 10% 20% 30%
Personnel Cost (NGN) 110.62 121.68 132.74 143.80 3,336.63 3,002.97 2,669.30 2,335.64
Unit cost of Program (NGN) 5,000.00 5,011.06 5,022.12 5,033.18 8,627.65 8,293.99 7,960.33 7,626.66
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu. 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu.
24,563.69 24,574.75 24,585.82 24,596.88 28,805.19 28,471.53 28,137.87 27,804.20
in Nigeria After Intervention
Incremental Cost (NGN) 2,348.15 2,359.22 2,370.28 2,381.34 6,589.65 6,255.99 5,922.33 5,588.66
% of incremental Cost (Z) 10.57 10.62 10.67 10.72 29.66 28.16 26.66 25.16
Probable Impact (XY) 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02
Cost- Effectiveness Ratio (Z/XY) 1.79 1.80 1.81 1.82 9.81 9.32 8.82 8.32
Sensitivity on the cost of other ingredient
Increase in the cost of other ingredients Decrease in the cost of other ingredients
Base case 10% 20% 30% Base case 10% 20% 30%
Ingredient Cost (NGN) 4,889.38 5378.32 5867.26 6356.20 5,291.02 4,761.92 4,232.82 3,703.72
Unit cost of Program (NGN) 5,000.00 5,488.94 5,977.88 6,466.82 8,627.65 8,098.55 7,569.45 7,040.34
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu. 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu.
24,563.69 25,052.63 25,541.57 26,030.51 28,805.19 28,276.09 27,746.99 27,217.88
in Nigeria After Intervention (NGN)
Incremental Cost (NGN) 2,348.15 2,837.09 3,326.03 3,814.97 6,589.65 6,060.55 5,531.45 5,002.34
% of incremental Cost (Z) 10.57 12.77 14.97 17.17 29.66 27.28 24.90 22.52
Probable Impact (XY) 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02
Cost- Effectiveness Ratio (Z/XY) 1.79 2.16 2.54 2.91 9.81 9.03 8.24 7.45
Sensitivity on effectiveness
Decrease in probable impact (effectiveness) Increase in probable impact (effectiveness)
Base case 10% 20% 30% Base Case 10% 20% 30%
Unit cost of Program (NGN) 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 8,627.65 8,627.65 8,627.65 8,627.65
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu. 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu.
24,563.69 24,563.69 24,563.69 24,563.69 28,805.19 28,805.19 28,805.19 28,805.19
in Nigeria After Intervention
Incremental Cost (NGN) 2,348.15 2,348.15 2,348.15 2,348.15 6,589.65 6,589.65 6,589.65 6,589.65
% of incremental Cost (Z) 10.57 10.57 10.57 10.57 29.66 29.66 29.66 29.66
Probable Impact (XY) 5.90 5.31 4.72 4.13 3.02 3.32 3.63 3.93

Page | 32
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
Cost- Effectiveness Ratio (Z/XY) 1.79 1.99 2.24 2.56 9.81 8.92 8.18 7.55
Sensitivity on personnel cost and the cost of other ingredients
Increase in personnel cost & the cost of other Decrease in personnel cost& the cost of other
ingredients ingredients
Base case 10% 20% 30% Base case 10% 20% 30%
Ingredient Cost (NGN) 4,889.38 5378.32 5867.26 6356.20 5,291.02 4,761.92 4,232.82 3,703.72
Personnel Cost (NGN) 110.62 121.68 132.74 143.80 3,336.63 3,002.97 2,669.30 2,335.64
Unit cost of Program (NGN) 5,000.00 5,500.00 6,000.00 6,500.00 8,627.65 7,764.89 6,902.12 6,039.36
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu. 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu.
24,563.69 25,063.69 25,563.69 26,063.69 28,805.19 27,942.43 27,079.66 26,216.90
in Nigeria After Intervention
Incremental Cost (NGN) 2,348.15 2,848.15 3,348.15 3,848.15 6,589.65 5,726.89 4,864.12 4,001.36
% of incremental Cost (Z) 10.57 12.82 15.07 17.32 29.66 25.78 21.90 18.01
Probable Impact (XY) 5.90 5.90 5.90 5.90 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02
Cost- Effectiveness Ratio (Z/XY) 1.79 2.17 2.55 2.93 9.81 8.53 7.24 5.96
Sensitivity on personnel cost & effectiveness
Increase in personnel cost & decrease in effectiveness Decrease in personnel cost & increase in effectiveness
Base case 10% 20% 30% Base Case 10% 20% 30%
Personnel Cost (NGN) 110.62 121.68 132.74 143.80 3,336.63 3,002.97 2,669.30 2,335.64
Unit cost of Program (NGN) 5,000.00 5,011.06 5,022.12 5,033.18 8,627.65 8,293.99 7,960.33 7,626.66
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu. 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu.
24,563.69 24,574.75 24,585.82 24,596.88 28,805.19 28,471.53 28,137.87 27,804.20
in Nigeria After Intervention
Incremental Cost (NGN) 2,348.15 2,359.22 2,370.28 2,381.34 6,589.65 6,255.99 5,922.33 5,588.66
% of incremental Cost (Z) 10.57 10.62 10.67 10.72 29.66 28.16 26.66 25.16
Probable Impact (XY) 5.90 5.31 4.72 4.13 3.02 3.32 3.63 3.93
Cost- Effectiveness Ratio (Z/XY) 1.79 2.00 2.26 2.59 9.81 8.47 7.35 6.40

Table 13: One-way and Multi-way Sensitivity Analysis on CEA Results: 6 & 7
Education Assistance Program Home Grown School Feeding and Health Program
Sensitivity on the cost of other ingredient & effectiveness
Increase in the cost of other ingredients & decrease Decrease in the cost of other ingredients & increase
in effectiveness in effectiveness
Base case 10% 20% 30% Base Case 10% 20% 30%
Ingredient Cost (NGN) 4,889.38 5,378.32 5,867.26 6,356.20 5,291.02 4,761.92 4,232.82 3,703.72
Unit cost of Program (NGN) 5,000.00 5,488.94 5,977.88 6,466.82 8,627.65 8,098.55 7,569.45 7,040.34
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu. 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu.
24,563.69 25,052.63 25,541.57 26,030.51 28,805.19 28,276.09 27,746.99 27,217.88
in Nigeria After Intervention
Incremental Cost (NGN) 2,348.15 2,837.09 3,326.03 3,814.97 6,589.65 6,060.55 5,531.45 5,002.34
% of incremental Cost (Z) 10.57 12.77 14.97 17.17 29.66 27.28 24.90 22.52
Probable Impact (XY) 5.90 5.31 4.72 4.13 3.02 3.32 3.63 3.93
Cost- Effectiveness Ratio (Z/XY) 1.79 2.40 3.17 4.16 9.81 8.20 6.86 5.73
Sensitivity on personnel cost, the cost of other Ingredient & effectiveness
Increase in personnel cost, the cost of other Decrease in personnel cost, the cost of other
ingredients & decrease in effectiveness ingredients & increase in effectiveness
Base case 10% 20% 30% Base Case 10% 20% 30%
Ingredient Cost (NGN) 4,889.38 5,378.32 5,867.26 6,356.20 5,291.02 4,761.92 4,232.82 3,703.72
Personnel Cost (NGN) 110.62 121.68 132.74 143.80 3,336.63 3,002.97 2,669.30 2,335.64
Unit cost of Program (NGN) 5,000.00 5,500.00 6,000.00 6,500.00 8,627.65 7,764.89 6,902.12 6,039.36
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu. 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54 22,215.54
Ave.Unit Cost (in Naira) of Pry Edu.
24,563.69 25,063.69 25,563.69 26,063.69 28,805.19 27,942.43 27,079.66 26,216.90
in Nigeria After Intervention.
Incremental Cost (NGN) 2,348.15 2,848.15 3,348.15 3,848.15 6,589.65 5,726.89 4,864.12 4,001.36
% of incremental Cost (Z) 10.57 12.82 15.07 17.32 29.66 25.78 21.90 18.01
Probable Impact (XY) 5.90 5.31 4.72 4.13 3.02 3.32 3.63 3.93
Cost- Effectiveness Ratio (Z/XY) 1.79 2.41 3.19 4.19 9.81 7.75 6.04 4.58
Source: Computed by CSEA with partial adaptation from SW.

6.4.2 Summary of Sensitivity Analysis: Benefit-Cost Analysis

Page | 33
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
This section evaluates the extent to which the risks inherent in the EA program could affect the

overall project life time relative to the benefits and the overall desirability of the project,

compared to the HGSF&H program. Two scenarios are presented in Table 14. First, is a reduction

in life time benefits of the EA program and second, a reduction in the cost of the HGSF&H

program. For the first, the study established three alternatives that considered 10%, 15% and 20%

reductions in the benefits of the EA program. On the second sensitivity scenario, the study

examined the effect of 10%, 15% and 20% reductions in the cost of HGSF&H program. For all

scenarios, the results show that the EA program is more beneficial than the HGSF&H. For example,

a 20% reduction in the total cost of HGSF&H program increased the benefit-cost ratio from 1.87 to

2.34.

Table 14: One-way Sensitivity analysis of Benefit-Cost Analysis

Scenario 1 – reduction in Benefits EA Program
One-way sensitivity Base 10% 15% 20%
Total Benefits (NGN) 70,702,493,531.46 63,632,244,178.31 60,097,119,501.74 56,561,994,825.17
Total Cost (NGN) 29,083,329,259.35 29,083,329,259.35 29,083,329,259.35 29,083,329,259.35
BCRs for EA 2.43 2.19 2.07 1.94
Total Benefits (NGN) 95,262,949,321.43 - - -
Total Cost (NGN) 50,835,419,880.41
BCR for HGSF&H 1.87 - - -
Scenario 2 - reduction in cost of HGSF&H Program
One-way sensitivity Base 10% 15% 20%
Total Benefits (NGN) 95,262,949,321.43 95,262,949,321.43 95,262,949,321.43 95,262,949,321.43
Total Cost (NGN) 50,835,419,880.41 45,751,877,892.37 43,210,106,898.35 40,668,335,904.33
BCRs for HGSF&H 1.87 2.08 2.20 2.34
Total Benefits (NGN) 70,702,493,531.46
Total Cost (NGN) 29,083,329,259.35 - - -
BCR for EA 2.43 - - -
Source: Computed by CSEA

7. CONCLUSION

This report has systematically conducted the cost-effectiveness and benefits-cost analysis of two

education interventions – HGSF&H and EA in FCT, Nigeria. The findings show that EA program has

a lower-cost per beneficiary and a higher effectiveness value. However, the cost effectiveness

Page | 34
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
ratio and in particular, the NPV and the benefit–cost ratio indicate that both programs are

beneficial and implementable. In comparative terms, the EA program is more efficient, beneficial

and sustainable. This result is consistent with similar studies that find that high-cost intervention

like the HGSF&H is less likely to be well implemented, making it relatively less effective and

efficient than some low-cost interventions. The likely reasons for the low-effectiveness and

inefficiency of high-cost program such as HGSF&H are (1) source of program funding and lack of

continuity; (ii) Mismanagement, corruption and misappropriation of funds; (iii) traditions and

values of different homes and families. In sum, the findings provide answers to the first, second

and third research questions asked at the earlier part of this report.

8. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of important policy recommendations emerge from this analysis and include the
following:
 First, for the Government is to achieve the goal of increased public primary school enrollment

and learning outcomes, there is need to re-allocate some resources from the HGSF&H

program to the EA program – for example, if 50% of the resources of the feeding program

were diverted to EA, about 26% additional students would be covered because of the lower

cost of EA program and there would be additional 4% reduction in repetition.

 Second, measures should be initiated to further reduce unit cost in order to extend the

benefits and coverage of EA program to pupils in other parts of the country, while ensuring

that quality of service is not compromised. For example, if a 20% reduction in the unit cost of

the EA program can be achieved, it will increase the exiting coverage from 2.22% to 2.57%.

Page | 35
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
 Third, the savings generated by the government from reduced repetition can be used to take-

up additional school age children/pupils that are not yet benefiting from the program or to

provide additional materials under the EA program. With the present 6063 beneficiaries of EA

program, the money saved from reduction in repetition can cater for additional 121 pupils.

 Fourth, there is a need to extend the program to all parts of the country, especially to the

states where the program has not been introduced. The federal government through UBEC

and other relevant agencies should encourage states and local government to adopt the EA

program in their various states.

 Finally, impact evaluation should be introduced – beneficiaries in public primary school

should be evaluated regularly either through a test score or other related means. This way, it

will be easy to see whether the programs are being adequately implemented and if there are

improvements in performance that can be associated with such interventions.

9. CHALLENGES TO CONDUCTING THIS WORK

The major challenges faced in conducting this study were lack of access to the required data and

program documents. Officials and individuals involved in the programs were not willing to

release/disclose the program documents or answer certain questions. Some of the documents

were termed ‘sensitive’ since some of the program costs are likely to have been manipulated and

were not to be made public. Data on unit cost of primary education and exiting impact of the two

programs were not available; therefore arriving at a good effectiveness measure was a major

challenge. However, we attempted to generate some data through several computations,

interactions and interview with some government officials/individuals, as well as using market

estimates. For the effectiveness measure, the values were generated from similar programs

discussed in the literature.

Page | 36
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
10. LIMITATIONS

This study, like many similar studies, has some limitations. HGSF&H has three main components: –

agriculture, school feeding and health. These components also have their complications in terms

of costing, measuring and isolating effectiveness and benefits. With this in mind, and coupled with

lack of data, the analysis focused on the school feeding as a means of increasing enrollment,

retention and reducing repletion, ignoring other benefits like agriculture and health. This

therefore limits the ability of this analysis to generalize. For a more in-depth understanding of the

usefulness and sustainability of HGF&H interventions this study suggests that additional research

should be carried out on the cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses of HGSF&H taking into

account all the components and the associated benefits.

11. PLANS FOR DISSEMINATION

The findings of this study will be disseminated using various strategies including:
 Media: Press conferences, press releases, policy briefs as well as newspaper publications will

be used to reach out to potential stakeholders and policy makers.

 Collaboration and sharing research findings with Civil Society Groups, Community Based

organizations, academicians, economists and researchers working on similar project.

 Interactive communication: seminars, workshop and conferences will be conducted with

various representatives of civil society organisation, non- governmental organisations, policy

makers and stakeholders to share result of the findings.

 Website: the final report will be available on CSEA website as a source of information to

interested parties, to create awareness and inform different audiences of findings and

implications of projects.

Page | 37
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
REFERENCES
Borman, D.G. and M.G. Hewes (2002), ‘‘The Long-Term Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of Success
for All’’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4): pp. 243-266.

Bundy D., C. Burbano, M. Grosh, A. Gelli, M. Jukes and L. Drake (2009) ‘’ Rethinking School
Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector’’, IBRD/The World Bank,
Washington, D.C.

Ebere U., O. Olubusola and N. Golda (2010), ‘’ Strengthening Institutions to Improve Public
Expenditure Accountability in Nigeria; A Benefit Incidence Analysis of Education and Health
Spending in Nigeria’’, Global Development Network (Latest Report).

Educational Sector Review (2010), redressing the growing sector,

http://ajol.info/index.php/ejc/article/viewFile/52679/41283, viewed 6 September, 2010.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1998), National Policy on Education (3rd Ed.) Lagos: NERDC Press.

Federal Ministry of Education (2005), Nigeria Education Sector Diagnosis, A Framework for Re-
Engineering The Education Sector, Education Analysis Sector Unit.
http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Nigeria/Nigeria%20Education%20Sector%20Diagnosis.pd
f

Federal Ministry of Education (2009), Road map for the education sector.
http://www.signschoolfeeding.org/_dynamic/downloads/Rethinking_School_Feeding.world%20B
ank%20reportpdf.pdf accessed September 6, 2010.

Levin, M.H. (1995), ‘’Cost –effectiveness Analysis’’ in Martin Carnoy (ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Economics of Education, Oxford; Pergamon: 2nd Edition: pp381-386.

National Bureau of Statistics (2007), Annual Abstract of Statistics, Federal Republic on Nigeria.

National Bureau of Statistics (2009), Annual Abstract of Statistics, Federal Republic on Nigeria.

Obong I.J. (2006), “The State Of Basic Education In Nigeria: The Way Forward” a paper presented
at the 47th annual conference of science teachers association of Nigeria (STAN) held at Calabar
from 13th – 19th August, 2006

Policy Analysis and Research Project (2010), Nigeria’s Social Indicators (1999 – 2007), for Policy
and Legislative Guide. Ladi Hamalai (ed.), National Assembly, Abuja.

Quinn B., A. VanMondfrans. and B.R. Worthen (1984), “Cost-effectiveness of two math programs
as moderated by Pupil SES”, Educational Evaluation Policy Analysis, 6(1): pp39-52

Schiefelbein, E. and L. Wolff (2007), ‘’Cost-Effectiveness of Primary School Interventions in English

Speaking East and West Africa: A survey of Opinion by Education Planners and Economists’’.
Washington, DC and Santiago, Chile.

Page | 38
 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
Tatto M. T., D. Neilsen, W. Cummings, N.G. Kularatna and K.H. Dharmadasa (1991), ‘‘Comparing
the Effect and Cost of Different Approaches for Educating Primary School Teachers: The Case of Sri
Lanka’’, Bridges Project, Harvard Institute of International Development, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

UNESCO (2002), Education for All Global Monitoring Report: Is the world on track? Paris, France.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001297/129777e.pdf

Universal Basic Education in Nigeria: Matters Arising

http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JHE/JHE-20-0-000-000-2006-Web/JHE-20-2-000-000-
2006-Abstract-PDF/JHE-20-2-097-101-2006-1418-Aluede-R-O-A/JHE-20-2-097-101-2006-1418-
Aluede-R-O-A-Text.pdf, viewed 6 September 2010.

World Bank (1993), World Development Report. Washington, D.C.

Appendix

 Appendix 1A

Summary Cost of Home Grown School Feeding and Health Program (HGSF&HP).
INPUT Unit cost Quantity Cost as at Quantity Cost as at Incremental Incremental
utilized as 2007 utilized as 2006 quantity cost
at 2007 at 2006
GOVERNMENT
INPUTS
UBEC to FCT UBEB 44,350,000 44,350,000 - -
Federal Capital
Territory Adm. to FCT 499,834,000 204,719,037 295,114,963
UBEB
Total 544,184,000 249,069,037 - 295,114,963
NON-GOVERNMENT
INPUTS
Zenith bank 107,142.86 107,142.86 - -
Eggs (poultry
20 5142.86 102,857.20 5142.86 102,857.20 - -
Association)
Community
10 81,547(195) 159,016,650 77,278(195) 150,692,100 4,269 8,324,550
contributions
MTN (bags of rice) 6189/Bag 21.43 132,630.27 21.43 132,630.27 -
50 gallons of 740.88
21.43 15,877.06 21.43 15,877.06 -
vegetable oil /gallon
TOTAL 159,375,157 151,050,607 303,439,513
Grand Total 703,559,157 400,119,644
Note:
1. The HGSF&H program actually started towards the end of 2005, but since this analysis is annual basis, its
emphasis is on 2006 and 2007.
2. The personnel costs for the HSGF&H Program were recognized in the cost of the project as an allocation to UBEC.

Page | 39
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
3. The 2007 FCTA allocation value to FCT UBEB was based on the budgetary provision, as we could not get to the
actual value
4. Non-Governmental inputs to the program were received at the inception of the program, Sept. 2005. To arrive at
the annual value of donations, the cost was first split over the months, Sept. 2005 to Dec.2007 and later
incorporated accordingly to the estimates.

 Appendix 1B

Unit Cost (in Naira) Characteristics in Primary Education in Nigeria

Year 20003 2007 adjusted
Items Primary
Tuition Fees 1,674.00 2,575.38
Learning Materials
Prescribed Textbooks 1,454.40 2,237.54
Notebooks/Drawing Books 575.20 884.93
Physical Education Materials 532.20 818.77
Pencils 164.60 253.23
Other Materials 629.00 967.69
SUB-TOTAL 3,356.20 5,162.16
Clothing Materials
School Uniform 730.80 1,124.30
Caps/Beret/Badge 282.40 434.46
School Sandals/Socks 536.10 824.77
School Blazer/Cardigan 494.60 760.93
School Bags 456.80 702.77
Pants and other Underwear 454.90 699.85
Umbrella/raincoats 477.80 735.07
Others 838.90 1,290.62
SUB-TOTAL 4,272.40 6,572.77
Miscellaneous Items
Lunch in School 1,324.70 2,038.00
Transportation 1,312.00 2,018.46
School Report Card 129.60 199.38
PTA Levy per annum 216.00 332.31
Development Levy per annum 270.00 415.39

Page | 40
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Education Sector. FCT, Nigeria.
Examination Fees 216.00 332.31
Sports and Games 362.20 557.23
Founder’s Day Celebration 295.40 454.46
End-of-year activities 311.30 478.92
Other areas 700.30 1,077.39
SUB-TOTAL 5,137.50 7,903.85
Total 14,440.10 22,215.54
Source: Adapted from FME, 2005 based on the 2003 field Survey programme

Page | 41