126
|
Making Devolution Work for Service Delivery in Kenya
Although interviews suggest that these ward-level development funds are used in a relatively responsive manner—which is good for accountability to citizens—they tend to result in the construction of small infrastructure projects without broader consideration for operational costs in the broader county budget. More importantly, there are suggestions that ward development funds further fragment CA oversight, diverting attention away from scrutiny of the county budget and service delivery as a whole. All in all, many CAs are currently in a situation where their members have effectively given up their oversight role in exchange for the right to allocate a share of the budget to projects within their respective wards. This, along with the structural weaknesses of the CA relative to the executive and the lack of acceptance of this mandate on the part of the governor, dilutes horizontal accountability within the county government, with several problematic ramifications for efficient and effective service delivery. Another opportunity for citizens to influence county-level services is to engage with local service providers directly. Although this practice predates devolution, counties have established participatory mechanisms (for example, the PMCs) through which citizens can influence the delivery of public investments and hold service providers accountable across a range of sectors (box 6.6). Another encouraging example of this kind of accountability at the local level is the use of sustainability committees for the water sector in one county, which has been an effective mechanism for ensuring cooperation between the ward and service users in the funding, maintenance, and operation of rural water services. However, social accountability is insufficiently focused on actual service delivery outcomes. While the establishment of PMCs is a step in the right direction of strengthening direct bottom-up accountability, it restricts citizen involvement to overseeing infrastructure provision, reinforcing people’s focus on
BOX 6.6
Project management committees To fulfill their oversight mandate, some counties have established the practice of setting up citizen-led project management committees (PMCs) to oversee project identification, implementation, and monitoring. The committees oversee every investment project that the County Executive is carrying out. PMCs are made up of citizens from the neighborhood in which the investment project is being implemented. This ensures that community residents who live close by develop a sense of ownership of the project, which in turn motivates them to monitor implementation and ensure it is in line with their expectations. The committee members are usually elected by the community, and many committees are inclusive; they Source: World Bank 2020b.
have quotas for women and other special interest groups. The main responsibility of these PMCs is to oversee the contractor on a daily basis and verify that the construction follows the agreed-upon bill of quantities to ensure that the final product has used the materials and other resources as per the contract and that the product meets the expected quality standards. In many instances, the PMC’s formal approval is necessary for contractors to be paid in relation to the project. In one of the study counties, the governor has requested that all PMCs report directly to a unit in his office to ensure his direct and timely access to information about progress on the implementation of investment projects.
