Capacity building

Even if comprehensive general and sector-specific HRM norms and standards were in place, there is little evidence that counties would comply with them. No institutional framework is in place to ensure that counties follow nationally agreed-upon HRM standards and procedures. For example, the important recommendations made in the 2015 Capacity Assessment and Rationalization of the Public Service (CARPS) report6 have never been systematically implemented at the county level. As a result, counties have generally failed to deal with HRM issues such as overlaps in functions, harmonized structures, job grading and compensation, equity in the distribution of scarce skills, and succession planning.

Finally, poor HR data continue to compromise informed decision-making. Decisions on HR planning and budgeting are difficult to make in the absence of complete, accurate, and disaggregated data on employment numbers, service delivery staff distribution, and skills mix in county governments. HR record management systems are underdeveloped, absent, or underused in most counties, and payroll fragmentation and system deficiencies are prevalent.

CAPACITY BUILDING

Capacity building has been something of a devolution mantra—and rightly so. Staff in all county departments need to have the skills and knowledge to plan and budget, to manage public finances, to organize service delivery, and to be technically competent in their respective sectors. Importantly, the Constitution of Kenya of 2010 (in its Fourth Schedule) explicitly recognizes capacity building as an important function and assigns the national government the responsibility for providing counties with capacity-building and technical assistance.

In some areas, capacity building has been effective. Counties have reported, for example, that the national government’s capacity-building support has been effective across a variety of key public financial management functions but that there are areas where implementation could still be improved on both the national and county government levels.

To begin with, capacity building is fragmented. It is not well coordinated within and across sectors. As a result, the impact on county institutional and service delivery performance is unclear. The annual capacity performance assessment (ACPA) under the Kenya Devolution Support Program (KDSP) has been established, but it is not used sufficiently to assess cross-cutting institutional capacity-building needs. There are also no sector-equivalent performance assessment processes to identify sectors’ capacity-building needs.

Capacity building has also suffered from being too classroom-based and insufficiently practical. County officials want to see less classroom training and more on-the-job support as well as capacity building that is better coordinated across the national government. However, counties also need to improve their management of capacity building by reducing staff turnover so those who are trained are also retained in their posts.

Many of the weaknesses of human resource and performance management in the county governments are also present within the national government. Although the constitution provided that national government agencies would build the capacity of the county governments, the former often lacks the requisite competencies, staffing, and authority to provide counties with appropriate support (box 5.2). Additionally, in the first years of devolution, neither the