Making Devolution Work for Service Delivery in Kenya

Page 92

70

|

Making Devolution Work for Service Delivery in Kenya

other counties. Some grants have also been linked to county government and national government performance—such as the Kenya Devolution Support Program (KDSP) and the KUSP—and have shown potential in incentivizing improvements in institutional capability to deliver services while providing funding for service delivery (box 4.1). Conditional grants have also been an important modality for development partners to channel support in a way that is consistent with the financing framework for devolved service delivery. From the analyses above, four areas of specific concern regarding the current intergovernmental fiscal transfer system should be flagged.

BOX 4.1

Performance-based conditional grants The conditional grants made available to counties by the Kenya Devolution Support Program (KDSP) and the Kenya Urban Support Program (KUSP), both financed by the World Bank, are linked to county government and national government performance. The KDSP aims to strengthen national and county capacities under devolution, while the KUSP’s objective is to strengthen urban institutions for the delivery of urban infrastructure and services. Through the KDSP and KUSP, counties can access program grants subject to meeting compliance-based conditions and achieving performance scores or standards. In meeting these requirements, counties demonstrate that their institutional performance has either improved or been sustained. In both programs, annual performance assessments are undertaken to verify compliance and to measure performance, thus determining grant allocations. Kenya Devolution Support Program The KDSP makes two types of performance grants available to counties. Modest capacity-building grants (Level 1 grants) are accessed by counties subject to meeting minimum access conditions (MACs). MACs are basic institutional performance benchmarks; all counties that comply with these can access Level 1 grants to finance capacity-building activities. Larger, infrastructure grants (Level 2 grants, which can finance a wide range of county-level investment projects) are accessed by only those counties that meet both MACs and the more-demanding minimum performance conditions (MPCs) such as “clean” financial audits. The size of Level 2 grants varies according to the Sources: KDSP and KUSP program documents and reports.

performance score of each county, measured against a set of performance measures (PMs). PMs are clustered into five categories, each of which corresponds to one of the five Key Results Areas (KRAs) that make up the National Capacity Building Framework (NCBF). The five KRAs cover public financial management (PFM), planning and monitoring, human resource management, civic education and participation, and social and environmental management for investment projects. Kenya Urban Support Program The KUSP provides Urban Institutional Grants (UIGs) and Urban Development Grants (UDGs) to counties on the basis of their performance in the urban sector. As with KDSP grants, counties qualify for UIGs and UDGs by meeting minimum conditions (MCs) and PMs. UIGs are relatively small grants, intended to finance institutional and capacity development activities in the urban sector (such as spatial planning or training) and made available subject to basic MCs. UDGs, which are much larger grants, are intended to finance investments in urban areas. Most MCs and PSs are related to institutional benchmarks (such as establishing and operationalizing urban boards for urban areas, appointing municipal managers, and so on) and to urban service delivery (such as solid waste management, urban planning, and so on). KUSP grants, then, operate as incentives for counties to make progress in setting up effective urban institutional arrangements (as provided for in the Urban Areas and Cities Act 2011) as well as urban infrastructure and service delivery.


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.
Making Devolution Work for Service Delivery in Kenya by World Bank Publications - Issuu