Zamfara Process Monitoring Results_FS-21-523 D4I

The evaluation aimed to describe coordination processes and determine whether assumptions made about how the activities work together to achieve desired outcomes were accurate. The evaluation used key informant interview guides to gather information from Activity and State respondents. Eleven interviews were conducted in March and April 2021, with one female and 10 male respondents. The selection of respondents was based on the relevance of their roles and engagement with the objectives of the evaluation. The interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom due to COVID-19. The Activities coordinate through a monthly partners' meeting, which is attended by a member of the State Malaria Elimination Programme (SMEP). The purpose of the meeting is to harmonize workplans, debrief on activities implemented, and coordinate advocacy activities. Ad hoc meetings are held as issues arise, and the Activities use WhatsApp to address pressing issues from the field that require immediate response. The Activities provide technical and sometimes financial support to numerous State coordination meetings. Multiple Activities participate in many of these meetings, including the quarterly Malaria Advocacy, Communication, and Social Mobilization (ACSM) technical working group meeting, the monthly non-President's Malaria Initiative Malaria Partners' Forum, and the quarterly All Health Partners Forum. The Activities' monthly coordination meetings have helped avoid any overlap of activities and enabled Activities to participate and support each other's activities. PSM's office is located in the Drug Management Agency (DMA) building, which has facilitated coordination between PSM and LCMU staff. SMEP is "100 percent satisfied with the Activities because of what they are doing and whenever the State calls for meetings, they all attend." However, inconsistencies in State policies and the State's reluctance to drive the agenda and fund coordination mechanisms have been challenging. The State does not always follow through on resolutions reached at coordination meetings, which may be due to funding issues. The Activities are not co-located, which poses a challenge with coordination, especially for holding meetings. BA-N's workplan was developed by the national office without direct participation from the State, but the final plan was disseminated to all. The State was not involved in the development of BA-N's workplan but received a copy of the final document. State data were used to inform the plan, including DHIS2, Malaria Indicators Survey (MIS) data, and lessons learned from the previous year. PMI-S's workplan was informed by a baseline assessment in the State, which helped PMI-S determine and prioritize activities. The baseline assessment included information on government priorities from SMEP and the State MOH. PMI-S's workplan is aligned with the State AOP. However, SMEP is satisfied with PMI-S' workplan overall but noted that there are some gaps in terms of funding and scope (coverage) of activities because PMI-S does not cover the whole State. PSM's state workplans are developed by the central office with input from a few LMCU stakeholders in the state. The PSM workplan is aligned with the LCMU workplan. Several State staff members were interviewed by PSM before the development of the workplan, including the HMIS Officer, SMEP M&E Officer, Deputy Program Manager for SMEP, and the current PMI-S State Technical Malaria Lead who was with SMEP at that time. In general, State respondents reported that they were satisfied with the Activities' workplans because they align with the State Malaria AOP and the LCMU workplan. Although they did not have input into all Activities' initial plans, they reported having input via the monthly coordination meetings.