Cost Effectiveness and Benefit Cost Analysis of Some Education Assistance Programmes in FCT, Nigeria

This study conducts a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nigeria’s education sector with emphasis on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of Home Grown School Feeding & Health program and the Education Assistance program implemented in public primary school in the FCT, Nigeria.

Author: Eberechukwu Uneze & Ibrahim Tajudeen

Publication Date: August 2011

Document Size: 41 pages

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.