Making Devolution Work for Service Delivery in Kenya

Page 144

122

|

Making Devolution Work for Service Delivery in Kenya

BOX 6.3

Integrating and institutionalizing citizen engagement: The example of Makueni County Through participatory development, Makueni County has transformed itself from a net recipient of food aid to food self-sufficiency. This was acknowledged by the Cabinet Secretary (CS) for Devolution and the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands during a structured peer learning exercise organized for governors and their technical teams in Makueni. “It is amazing that we can come for a visit to Makueni County and be gifted with food to take back. Previously, as the government, whenever we heard about Makueni, we would always think we needed to provide relief food,” remarked the CS. The county has implemented impactful and value-formoney projects that cut across health, water, and agriculture, endorsed through public participation. How has the county been able to achieve this? Development projects in Makueni undergo a citizen prioritization and validation process through a structured multiple-tier decision-making model that moves from the village level upward, to village clusters, subwards, wards, and finally the county forum. At each of these levels, a development committee comprising 11 citizens is selected by the community to represent the project priorities identified by the community at the next level of engagement. County officials conduct a technical evaluation on the feasibility of the projects before citizens arrive at final decisions on priority projects. By shifting decision-making power to the citizens on the kind of projects they want to implement, Makueni County has significantly altered patronage politics in which elites exchange public resources and material goods for electoral support. Although the County Assembly members in charge of the wards approve the budget presented by the County Executive, it is hard for them to override citizens’ decisions on the ward-level budget and introduce new projects given the elaborate participation structure that logically traces how projects emerged from the village level upward. At the county forum, which is attended both

by governors and members of County Assemblies (MCAs), the citizens present their ward-level projects to the governor, who acknowledges by signing these as a true record of the citizens’ choices. Citizens are also given an opportunity to verify that the investment projects reflect what they agreed upon. Assigning a given portion of the county budget to citizens’ decisions enables citizens to budget with a specific ceiling in mind, which manages their expectations and reduces the wish lists of projects that are often presented to governments operating on limited budgets. This builds the credibility of the budget process, resulting in increased trust between the county and citizens. Citizens are further engaged in budget execution through democratically elected project management committees (PMCs), comprising community representatives who oversee the implementation of projects. This has greatly improved accountability in the use of county funds as well as of the county officials. “The people of Makueni County do not just give us views; they must approve the projects and ensure that they have been completed to the people’s desire before the county can process the payment,” said Makueni County Governor Kivutha Kibwana. During the public forum for the FY2020/21 budget, citizens took the county officials to task over what they termed slow implementation of some water projects. The citizens had also engaged their MCAs to report the slow execution by the County Executive, and the MCAs were able to make follow-up demands on the County Executive to address the matter. The County Executive responded by setting up a rapid results implementation committee comprising subward and ward administrators, subcounty administrators, and department heads. This committee evaluates how the budget is being implemented, reviews the progress of projects, identifies challenges, and addresses them to ensure projects are completed within the stipulated deadlines.

Source: World Bank 2020a.

and CA members in 2013 and 2017. Elections have been hotly contested and, as detailed in box 6.4, governors and MCAs are consistently perceived to be more important than the members of the national parliament (Cheeseman et al. 2019). Citizens have shown themselves ready to vote out people occupying county political posts: less than half of incumbent governors retained their seats during


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

Articles inside

A.4 Service delivery oversight, management, and systems

4min
pages 180-181

A.1 Functions and responsibilities

5min
pages 170-172

A.3 County resource allocation and use

5min
pages 177-179

Major achievements and challenges

10min
pages 154-157

Delivering the future promise of devolution

2min
pages 167-169

The role of development partners

2min
page 166

Policy options to make devolution work for service delivery

18min
pages 158-165

Introduction

1min
page 153

References

2min
pages 151-152

Conclusions

2min
page 149

6.6 Project management committees

2min
page 148

MCA elections

3min
page 145

the civil service

2min
page 143

communication

2min
page 140

Makueni County

3min
page 144

6.1 Elements of social accountability systems

4min
pages 136-137

Citizen engagement and service delivery

2min
page 135

Introduction

2min
page 134

Key Messages

1min
page 133

5.1 Categories of staff on county payrolls in Kenya, FY2018/19

2min
page 127

5.1 Initiatives to improve HRM in Makueni County

2min
page 128

References

1min
page 132

Overarching HRM frameworks

2min
page 126

Capacity building

2min
page 129

Staff performance

2min
page 125

with equitable share funding per capita in FY2018/19

1min
page 118

as a share of FY2019/20 total, by county

1min
page 117

Key messages

1min
page 115

allocation and use of resources

2min
page 112

4.14 Budget execution rates, by county, FY2014/15–FY2018/19

6min
pages 108-110

4.6 Postdevolution asset and liability management remains incomplete

2min
page 106

4.5 Participatory planning in public financial management

2min
page 105

FY2019/20

1min
page 104

expenditure in Kenya, by county, FY2018/19

1min
page 102

4.4 Weaknesses in the structure of budgets at the county level

5min
pages 100-101

4.3 County budget cycle in Kenya after devolution

2min
page 98

4.1 Performance-based conditional grants

2min
page 92

4.2 County creditworthiness

2min
page 95

counties in Kenya, FY2017/18

1min
page 91

Allocation and use of resources at the county level

2min
page 96

spending

2min
page 97

Key messages

1min
page 83

by county, FY2017/18

2min
page 89

3.7 Deficiencies in ECDE information management

2min
page 75

3.8 Quality assurance in the ECDE sector

2min
page 76

Conclusions

2min
page 80

Intergovernmental relations

2min
page 77

under devolution

2min
page 73

3.9 Intergovernmental coordination in the agriculture sector

2min
page 78

County management of sector service delivery

2min
page 69

3.6 Information management in the devolved health sector

2min
page 74

perspectives B3.1.1 Institutional arrangements in the urban water and sanitation

3min
page 66

delivery, by sector

2min
page 59

Disparities in county expenditure on devolved services

2min
page 54

References

1min
pages 31-32

FY2017/18

1min
page 57

Devolution of functions

2min
page 64

2.9 Total county per capita spending, FY2013/14–FY2017/18

1min
page 44

Context

1min
page 23

Kenya

2min
page 65
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.