AND MONITORING & EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
6 MONITORING & EVALUATION, ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
Despite the favourable policy and regulatory framework put in place to guide performance
management, LAs have faced a number of challenges. These challenges are highlighted in this section in order to influence policy-making towards a more effective performance. The
challenge of poorly performing LAs is recogn-
ised at the highest policy levels as cited by Ke- nya’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Local Government. “We must bite the bullet and fold some of the local authorities which have failed to meet their obligations. It is a po- litically explosive issue and even as you resist there is no option. Some surgery will have to
come through the Boundaries Review Commis- sion because local authorities also fall there”
(MoLG 2010). He also said Cap. 265 would be
reviewed to improve management of the local
authorities, but the following challenges will be faced in the reform process.
6.1 Poor Performance
Some of the challenges cited by LA them- selves, and observed through desk research, indicate that the PC process, and other subsys- tems, though very useful, has yet to optimise performance in LAs. The performance con- tracting process measures ‘doing things right’ as opposed to ‘doing the right things’. This is
supported by widely held views and evidence
that the impact of LA projects and their service delivery outcomes are uncertain. Most LA proj- ects are not completed on time and many are stalled ‘white elephants’.
145
Factors limiting its success include the lack of
higher impact results to measure service deliv- ery. As such, no system measures outcomes of services and processes on the lives of citizens. This greatly hampers subsequent service deliv-
ery because all LAs need to do is to score on
process indicators. Processes are just one facet of performance; indicating efficiency. More
results oriented indicators are not captured in various performance instruments and this
makes LAs accountable to non-strategic results omitting the real results of outcomes and im- pacts of service delivery to local communities. Table 7.3 looks at various performance sub-
systems that drive accountability and good
governance in the local authorities. The table
outlines each subsystem and what it measures
in terms of inputs, outputs, quality control and effectiveness. The gaps are marked with a let- ter x to show that a particular variable is not measured.
Table 7.4 shows a number of LATF indicators used to measure annual LATF performance. All of these indicators are financial indicators and
therefore do not demonstrate public service
delivery.
Notably, the recently introduced LATF Higher Performance Account (HPA) and its indicators
are now measuring the rate of project comple- tion, amongst other things, which is a major
improvement of current LATF indicators and a
promising first step in the right direction. It is recommended that this HPA approach be de- veloped into a comprehensive M&E system by including more of, and eventually all, the out-
come indicators that are listed in the compre- hensive LA Performance Audit manual (MoLG 2010) that was recently developed by KLGRP with support from the RPRLGSP team.
A more comprehensive M&E system for LAs with outcome indicators, supported by in- dependent oversight and verification is pro- posed.
6.2 Lack of Formally Established
LA M&E or Performance
Contracting Units and
Specialist Knowledge to
Oversee Results on a
Continuous Basis
Very few LAs have well established perfor- mance contracting units; neither do they run formal M&E systems. The usual practice is to
set up ad hoc monitoring teams to provide
data to relevant parties on demand basis. This interferes with a systematic way of conducting performance and as a result, LAs remain un- focused on results with consequences such as
Local Authorities Performance: Lessons Learned for M&E and Reporting of Projects
Table 7.3- Indicators of M&E subsystems Input Indicators Output/ Workload Indicators Outcomes Effectiveness Quality Control Timeliness Efficiency Cost Effectiveness Definition Amount of resources used to produce units Units produced Public Purpose achieved/ community Condition Changed Process indica- tors Ratio of quantity produced to cost of production Perfor- mance contracts Dynamic quali- tative factors X Service deliv- ery charters Dynamic quali- tative factors Project implementa- tion features LATF LATF budgets LASDAP re-
source enve- lope Special LASDAP LATF impact reports Disbursement criteria Financial ratios External Audits X X X Audit deadlines Accounting principles Financial ratios Procure- ment
X X X Procurement Deviation stan-
dards LAI inspections X X X Legal/ operational compliance Governance issues LATF ratios Project implementa- tion Features
stalled projects, malpractices and fragmented planning. Most LA officers that interacted with
RPRLGSP teams cited wide discontent on the
complexity and lack of credibility of the rank- ing system, citing concerns such as (i) the per-
formance contract ad hoc teams that verify
LA annual performance contracts and MoLG
appraisal teams, do not conduct any physical verifications of reported results. (ii) LAs decry that the performance contracting system is complex and self evaluation made by LAs leads to credibility gaps within the system generally, and makes the results contentious (iii) Lack of sanctions for poor performers and (iv) de-link-
Ratio Description
LATF Personnel Ratio Total Planned Personnel Expenditures compared to Total Expendi-
tures
LATF Capital Ratio Expenditures compared to Planned Capital Expenditures
Total Actual Capital Civic Ratio Total Actual Civic Expenditures compared to Total Recurrent Expen-
ditures
Local Revenue Performance Ratio
Total Local Revenues compared to Planned Local Revenues
Recurrent Expenditure Performance Ratio
Total Actual Local Recurrent Expenditures compared to Planned Recurrent Expenditures
Capital Expenditure Performance Ratio
Total Planned Capital Projects compared to LATF Debt Resolution Performance
Ratio
Total Actual Resolution Payments compared to Planned Resolution Payments
Table 7.4 –Local Authority Transfer, LATF indicators
147
age between PC system and other LA subsys- tems, e.g. procurement, LATF and LASDAP.
A comprehensive capacity building strategy on
performance management is urgent, and so is
a policy process that integrates all performance
sub systems to avoid parallelism.