Apply County Peer Review Mechanism to improve public service delivery (KE0028)

In accordance with resolution 32 of the fourth Devolution Conference, we will apply the sub-national survey instrument -the County Peer Review Mechanism (CPRM) to improve public service delivery performance by ensuring sustained citizens’ engagements with their county governments.

Objective CRPM is an evidenced based framework for promoting rigorous citizens engagement, peer reviews and peer learning for mutual accountability and improved service delivery performance.

Status quo Kenya has voluntarily submitted two comprehensive reviews of governance. The most recent review was undertaken under the two-tier governance system. The resolution was done but has never been implemented. County Governments committed to undertake peer reviews and peer learning activities. They are however yet to set in motion the implementation of the peer review and mutual learning processes.

Ambition • To facilitate extensive governance assessments in the semi-autonomous sub national units and peer reviews between Governors. This will be a pioneer initiative and one of the best ways of spurring democratic dialogue over service delivery. • To publicize a county programme of action for continued citizens’ engagement through an online platform that will enable citizens to interactively track its implementation. • For resilience purposes: Lobby for the preparation of a piece of legislation to anchor the CPRM process. Also promote adoption and endorsement of the review reports by the Senate and County Assemblies (as oversight instruments).

No. Verifiable and measurable milestones to fulfill the commitment Status of milestone Start Date End Date 1. Provide technical assistance to the counties on CPRM New February 2021 July 2021 2. Validation and dissemination of the County self-assessment reports New April 2021 October 2021 3. Hosting the CPRM Summit New June 2021 July 2021 4. Preparation of the County Programmes of Action (CPoA) outlining the commitments by government New May 2021 July 2021 5. Advocate for the use of APRM as a tool for oversight by Parliament New March 2021 July 2022

Action Plan Review

Commitment 5. Improving Public Service Delivery

● Verifiable: Yes

● Does it have an open government lens? Yes

● Potential for results: Modest

Results Report

Commitment 5. Improving Public Service Delivery Performance

This commitment was modelled around the African Peer Review Mechanism, which is a tool designed for identifying and sharing experiences and best practices amongst member states with the aim of fostering positive values such as democracy, economic growth, and sustainable development among others. By seeking to develop and implement such a framework for application at the county level, Kenya sought to improve public service delivery by ensuring sustained citizen engagement with their county government. By implementing the County Peer Review Mechanism (CPRM), Kenya sought to promote inter-county governance assessments, publicize individual county’s action plan via an online platform to enable citizen-engagement, lobby for a legislation to anchor the CPRM process and promote the adoption of review reports by the Senate and individual county assemblies to ensure oversight. There were five key milestones central to the implementation of this commitment.

At the action plan review stage, it had been recommended that for the commitment to attain the desired effect in the context of the OGP framework, the government ought to have ensured that there was sufficient civic participation by creating a space for citizens to use the data published to provide feedback. There was no evidence to demonstrate that this was done and hence rendered the potential for results to be coded as modest.

However, according to the OGP Civil Society Multistakeholder Forum Report, some progress was made towards the implementation of some of the milestones. [63] All 47 Counties agreed to be part of the CPRM framework, whereas 16 out of the 47 counties received training on the use of the CPRM tools. Furthermore, 8 counties had already prepared their county self-assessment reports and were waiting for funding confirmation to proceed with interviews at the ward level. Two counties—Meru and Tharaka Nithi—had completed their final self-assessment reports which were awaiting validation by the panel of eminent persons, which although not listed as one of the milestones under this commitment, was appointed by the President of Kenya to steer and oversee the implementation of CPRM. [64] Meanwhile, there was no evidence of the commencement of milestones 3 and 5 on the hosting of the CPRM summit and parliamentary engagement on the use of the APRM as a tool for oversight respectively.

While it is reported that two counties had prepared their final self-assessment reports, there was no evidence of civic engagement. As a consequence, it is difficult to assess the impact on service delivery as well as the impact on open governance. This milestone could be carried on to the next action plan cycle with more focus on citizen engagement.