FCSC to Deepen Evaluation, Monitoring Practice in Public Service

The Federal Civil Service Commission ( FCSC) is committed to strengthening reforms to deepen evaluation and monitoring (E&M) practice in the nation’s public service.

This was disclosed by the Chairman of the FCSC, Prof. Tunji Olaopa, during the national symposium of the Nigerian Association of Evaluators ( NAE) held in Abuja on Tuesday.

According to Olaopa in his goodwill message, because the effective practice of evaluation and monitoring is crucial to national development , it should be strongly embedded in the operations of public service.

He noted that from the perspective of the FCSC as the institution charged with appointments, promotions and discipline within the Federal Civil Service, the implications of evaluation and monitoring were clear.

A functional national M&E system, for him, requires not only systems and tools, but a professional workforce equipped with the right skills, values, and incentives.

He disclosed that the experience of the FCSC had shown that many of the barriers affecting M&E practice lie in the human resource environment: unclear job roles, lack of competency frameworks, weak alignment of recruitment with the organisation’s values, inconsistent career pathways, limited recognition of analytical skills in promotion assessments, and posting practices that disrupt continuity and institutional memory.

Olaopa said that in response to these, the commission had begun moves for reforms that strengthen M&E capacity across the public service.

“We believe that establishing standardised job descriptions for monitoring and evaluation officers will create greater clarity and consistency across MDAs. The development of competency frameworks aligned with global evaluation standards will help define the technical and ethical expectations for officers engaged in evaluative work. Clearer career pathways will improve motivation and retention, while better recruitment alignment will ensure that individuals with backgrounds in evaluation, statistics, data science, planning or social research enter roles suited to their expertise. Furthermore, integrating evaluative competence into promotion assessments will reinforce the culture of evidence we seek to build. And finally, stabilising postings for officers in M&E roles will help strengthen institutional knowledge and reporting continuity”, he said.

Acknowledging the NAE as a strategic partner in this regard , Olaopa said that its experience in building evaluation standards, promoting ethical practice, and supporting capacity development made it “a natural ally as we seek to professionalise the evaluation function within the civil service. We look forward to working with you to refine competency frameworks, strengthen ethical guidelines, deepen training opportunities, and build communities of practice that encourage learning and knowledge exchange.”

According to him, if Nigeria is to achieve its development aspirations, stakeholders must collectively reimagine how they plan, implement, monitor and evaluate programmes. They must bridge the gaps between policy and practice, strengthen the capabilities of institutions, improve the coherence of data systems, and cultivate a professional workforce anchored on integrity, analytical rigour, and commitment to results.

“Only then can we build a public service that delivers effectively and consistently for the Nigerian people,” he said.

Earlier, Olaopa said that at a time when public expectations of government were rightfully increasing, the work of the NAE had become central to improving public sector performance and strengthening accountability across the Federation.

He said that monitoring and evaluation were some of the most vital functions in modern public administration worldwide.

“As governments broaden their portfolios, undertake ambitious national development initiatives, and implement complex sectoral reforms, the importance of reliable data and objective assessments grows. No country can achieve significant results for its citizens without clear performance indicators, nor can any government reach its objectives without mechanisms that identify what is succeeding, what is failing, and what needs to be changed. In this context, M&E is not merely a technical task but the core of effective governance”, he said.

But he lamented that while in Nigeria, huge strides in strengthening institutional frameworks had been made, it was clear that significant structural challenges remained.

” One of the issues that continues to concern me deeply is the persistent disconnect between our national plans and the realities of programme implementation. Too often, policies are developed by planners and technical experts in one part of government, while implementation rests with MDAs that may not have been fully involved in the design process or adequately prepared for the responsibilities placed upon them. This siloed approach weakens programme effectiveness, because implementation planning is sometimes insufficient, key performance indicators do not always flow from a coherent results framework, and MDAs’ institutional readiness is not systematically assessed before programmes commence.”

Thus for him, monitoring and evaluation must be positioned not at the tail end of this chain, but at the beginning because when “evaluative thinking is embedded in programme design, we gain clarity about the assumptions that underpin planned results, the risks that could derail performance, and the capabilities required of institutions tasked with implementation. Tools such as the Theory of Change and Results-Based Planning are therefore essential. They enable MDAs to build programmes with clear logic, realistic pathways to outcomes, and measurable indicators anchored in evidence rather than intuition.”