Guidelines for the Development of

County Integrated
Monitoring and
Evaluation System
Version 1, March 2016

CIMES
THE PRESIDENCY
Ministry of Devolution and Planning
Monitoring and Evaluation Department
COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS
Published by the Government of Kenya in March 2016
© 2016 Government of the Republic of Kenya,
Ministry of Devolution and Planning
Guidelines for the Development of
County Integrated
Monitoring and
Evaluation System
(CIMES)
Foreword

The legal mechanisms spelt out in the Constitution of Kenya, have necessitated the develop-
ment of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems for county governments. The Constitution
requires adherence to principles of good governance and transparency in the conduct and
management of public programmes/projects. For devolution to succeed in Kenya, county and
national governments are united, in the recognition that performance monitoring and evalua-
tion are pivotal development and service delivery tools for leaders at all levels. Thus the focus
of both county and national governments is increasingly on development results and how
they can best be measured.
The Ministry of Devolution and Planning (MoDP) and the Council of Governors (CoG) are com-
mitted to developing as centres of excellence in performance management for public service
delivery. By coordinating our efforts, we intend to accelerate progress in the counties to achieve
a high quality of life for all Kenyans. We also intend to create a strong feedback mechanism that
will regularly provide county residents with good quality and timely monitoring and evalua-
tion (M&E) information regarding implementation progress of flagship development projects
and programmes.
These guidelines are primarily intended to assist staff in the design and implementation of
M&E plans for the policies, projects and programmes in the County Integrated Development
Plan (CIDP) being implemented in each of the 47 counties. The guidelines will also serve as a
useful reference for staff of the national government, public agencies, commissions and other
institutions involved or interested in the design, implementation, monitoring or evaluation of
CIDP financed by the national government or devolved funds.
These County Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (CIMES) guidelines have been de-
veloped after extensive consultations and dialogue with relevant stakeholders. Their imple-
mentation across all counties will also improve the co-ordination of development planning,
policy formulation and delivery of development and public services by strengthening per-
formance management mechanisms for county and national governments. The use of these
guidelines also prepares counties for electronic support for CIMES.
These guidelines were developed as part of National Capacity Building Framework (NCBF) that
will align and guide ongoing capacity building and mobilizing new resources for devolution.
The implementation of these guidelines requires change in the mind-set and approach of staff.
They place a high premium on coherent and long-range planning around results; involving
county citizens in the design and implementation of development programmes and projects.
They emphasize partnerships with key stakeholders for development change; capacity build-
ing for improving and enhancing ownership of M&E activities at county level; and the promo-
tion of knowledge and learning through the use of county M&E reports.
We are confident, that these guidelines are a useful tool for those responsible for monitoring
and evaluation in the counties, and that they will contribute to the acceleration of service de-
livery and an improvement in value-for-money across county governments.

HON. MWANGI KIUNJURI, MGH H.E. GOVERNOR PETER MUNYA

Cabinet Secretary Chairman
Ministry of Devolution and Planning Council of Governors

iv
Acknowledgements

This document, has been developed through consultations and stakeholder workshops
on County M&E Guidelines organised by personnel from the Monitoring and Evaluation
Department (MED) of the Ministry of Planning and Devolution in collaboration with the Council
of Governors.
The document draws upon detailed discussions with County Governors, deputy governors
and various county officials and is informed by meetings with Independent Commissions in-
cluding; the Commission on Revenue Allocation, the Controller of Budget, the Kenya National
Audit Office, the Kenya School of Government, the Commission on the Implementation of
the Constitution, the Senate, National and County Government Ministries, the Performance
Contracting Department, the Ministry of Devolution and Planning and the Monitoring &
Evaluation Department (MED). The content draws on the constitutional and legal mandates,
regulations, acts, policies and identified needs and challenges of these stakeholders.
This document is informed by the Constitution of Kenya, the County Governments Act (2012)
and the Public Financial Management Act (2012). The content also draws on reviews of County
Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs), discussions with MED, review of MED training materials
and of the CIDP Guidelines. It has greatly benefited from District M&E Guidelines from Ghana,
Budget Service Delivery Implementation Plan Guidelines from South Africa, and the published
performance management policy and practice of Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, South
Africa. This document is consistent with the spirit of Vision 2030 and the Constitution of Kenya.
Good practice from existing documents has been used where possible. The documents used
are presented in the references section.
The Monitoring & Evaluation Directorate of the Ministry of Planning & Devolution and the
Council of Governors, acknowledge the support of Gaiasoft International and the World Bank’s
Kenya Accountable Devolution Programme with funding from the Department for International
Development (DFID), the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the
European Union (EU), Finland, represented by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Swedish International
Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), and the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID).

SAITOTI TOROME JACQUELINE MOGENI

Principal Secretary Acting Chief Executive Officer
State Department of Planning & Statistics Council of Governors
Ministry of Devolution and Planning

v
Abbreviations

ADP Annual Development Plan KNBS Kenya National Bureau of

APR Annual Progress Report Statistics

CIMES County Integrated Monitoring LFM Logical Framework Matrix

and Evaluation System M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
CAMERs County Annual Monitoring and MCA Member of County Assembly
Evaluation Reports
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
CDF Constituency Development
MDP Ministry of Devolution and
Fund
Planning
CGA County Government Act 2012
MED Monitoring and Evaluation
CAMER County Annual M&E Report Department
CAPER County Annual Public MTP Medium Term Plan
Expenditure Report
NIMES National Integrated Monitoring
CIDP County Integrated and Evaluation System
Development Plan
OAG Office of the Auditor General
CEC County Executive Committee
PC Performance Contract
CoB Controller of Budget
PFMA Public Financial Management
CoDC County Development Act (2012)
Committee
PMS Performance Management
CoG Council of Governors System
CoK The Constitution of Kenya PSDU Public Service Delivery Unit
CoMEC County Monitoring and SMEC County Monitoring and
Evaluation Committee Evaluation Committee
CoMEO County Monitoring and SCoMER Sub-County Monitoring and
Evaluation Officer Evaluation Report
CRA Commission on Revenue SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
Allocation
SDS Service Delivery Secretariat
CSO Civil Society Organization
SMER Sector Monitoring and
EMIS Education Management Evaluation Report
Information System
TOC Technical Oversight Committee
HMIS Health Management
WaMER Ward Monitoring and
Information System
Evaluation Report
ICT Information and
ViMER Village Monitoring and
Communication Technology
Evaluation Report
IFMIS Integrated Finance
Management Information
System

vi
Table of Contents

Foreword..............................................................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................................v
Abbreviations.....................................................................................................................................................vi

Basic Concepts and Terminology.......................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................3
1.1. Background................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.2. Purpose of the Guidelines................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. The Structure of the Devolved Government ................................................................................ 4
1.4. Current Status of County M&E Systems........................................................................................... 7
1.5. Justification of Monitoring and Evaluation of CIDP Outcomes/Results ............................. 7
1.6. Linking CIMES to Statistics and County Performance Management Systems................. 8
1.7. Objective and Purpose of the Guidelines....................................................................................... 9

2. Constitutional, Legal and Policy Frameworks for County M&E............................................................ 11

2.1 The Constitution of Kenya 2010.......................................................................................................11
2.2 Legal Framework...................................................................................................................................11
2.3 Policy Framework..................................................................................................................................13

3. Building a Sustainable M&E System and Strengthening Capacity of the Counties..................... 15

3.1 County M&E Guiding Principles.......................................................................................................15
3.2 Linking Monitoring and Evaluation with Other CIDP Phases................................................15
3.3 Ten Steps to Designing, Building, and Sustaining a Results-Based Monitoring and
Evaluation System............................................................................................................................................17

4. Institutional Set-up for County M&E.............................................................................................................. 29

4.1 Organisation of County Governments...........................................................................................29
4.2 Work Planning and Setting of Performance Targets.................................................................29
4.3 Committees at County Level.............................................................................................................30
4.4 Responsibilities and Functions of Stakeholders in the Institutional Framework................34
4.5 Roles and Responsibilities in County Performance and M&E................................................36
4.6 Information Flow from Operations and Projects........................................................................36
4.7 Governor’s Office...................................................................................................................................36
4.8 The County Monitoring & Evaluation Committee (CoMEC)...................................................37
4.9 County Chief Officers...........................................................................................................................38
4.10 Service Delivery Secretariat (SDS) Supporting the CoMEC (Optional)...............................38

5. Reporting, Dissemination and Citizen Engagement............................................................................... 41

5.1 Progress Reporting Standards and Responsibilities.................................................................41
5.2 Dissemination.........................................................................................................................................45

6. Operationalising CIMES...................................................................................................................................... 51
6.1 M&E Core Indicators.............................................................................................................................52
6.2 Resources for Monitoring and Evaluation....................................................................................53

vii
A1 Core County Result Indicators.......................................................................................................... 55
Core County Indicators for Monitoring the Implementation of the
County Budget and Value-for-Money...................................................................................................... 58
A2 Readiness Checklist.............................................................................................................................. 60
A3 CIDP Checklist........................................................................................................................................ 61
A4 Annual Development Plan Checklist............................................................................................. 62
A5 Engagement Checklist........................................................................................................................ 63
A6 Stakeholder Participation Assessment......................................................................................... 64
A7 Maturity Model for Reporting Status of ADP Projects............................................................. 65
A8 Template for CIDP and ADP Performance Management Results Matrix............................... 66
A9 Selection Criteria for Performance Management M&E System........................................... 70
A10 Project Sheet or Project Logical Framework Matrix (LFM)..................................................... 71
A10 Project Sheet or Project Logical Framework Matrix (LFM) continued............................... 72
Project M&E Using Project Sheets............................................................................................................. 73
A11 M&E Reporting Sheet Aggregated by (Sub-)Sector/Project Type....................................... 74
A12 Targets in Project Sheets and Results Matrix.............................................................................. 75
A13 County Governments Administrative Structure Based on Officers.................................... 76
A14 Key Reports to be Prepared at County Level.............................................................................. 77
A15 NIMES Operational Arrangements................................................................................................. 78
References.......................................................................................................................................................... 79

viii
 Basic Concepts and
Terminology

These guidelines deal with a range of concepts and terms which may need clarification for those
unfamiliar with the process of designing a programme or project monitoring and evaluation system.
The definitions and concepts offered below are mainly those used by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations and the World Bank’s Africa Region
Evaluation Groups.

1. Monitoring: Monitoring is the process of collecting, analysing, and reporting data on a project
or programme’s inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts, as well as external factors
to track whether actual investment programme results are being achieved. These data, when
analysed, pinpoint progress or constraints as early as possible, allowing managers to adjust
project or programme activities as needed. Monitoring aims to provide managers, decision
makers and other stakeholders with regular feedback on progress in the implementation of
activities specified in the development plans.
2. Evaluation: Evaluation is a systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed
project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results. An evaluation determines
the relevance and fulfilment of objectives, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.
Evaluation is linked to monitoring. Monitoring provides the basis for evaluation, which involves
answering two questions: “Has the project or programme activity met its objectives?” and “What
accounts for its level of performance?” Evaluation tells managers whether project/programme
activities are moving toward or away from project/programme objective or management goals,
and why. It provides lessons learnt and recommendations for future improvements.
3. Indicators: An indicator is a measure that can be used to monitor or evaluate an intervention.
Indicators can be quantitative (derived from measurements associated with the intervention)
or qualitative (entailing verbal feedback from beneficiaries).
4. Performance vs. Impact Indicators: Project or programme monitoring and evaluation in-
volves two kinds of indicators: implementation performance indicators (project/programme
inputs and outputs) and project impact indicators (achievement of objectives in relation to so-
cio-economic development). Implementation performance indicators measure the progress
in securing project inputs and delivering project outputs against set targets, while project
impact indicators measure the consequence (the “So what”) of implementation.
5. As will be observed in a subsequent section of this document, M&E revolves around a number
of other key elements:
(a) Inputs: Inputs are all the resources that contribute to the production of service delivery
outputs. Inputs are “what we use to do the work”. They include finances, personnel, equip-
ment and buildings.

1
 County Performance Management System Handbook

(b) Activities: These are the processes or steps one takes to reach the project’s or pro-
gramme’s objective. They are written in the sequence or order in which they will be im-
plemented. Each activity completed brings one closer to achieving the project objective.
(c) Outputs: These are the final products, goods or services produced for delivery. Outputs
may be defined as “what we produce or deliver”.
(d) Outcomes: The medium-term results for specific beneficiaries which are the consequence
of achieving specific outputs. Outcomes should relate clearly to an institution’s strate-
gic goals and objectives as set out in its plans. Outcomes are “what we wish to achieve”.
Outcomes are often further categorised into immediate/direct outcomes and intermedi-
ate outcomes.
(e) Impacts: Impacts are about “how we have actually influenced communities and target
groups”. The results or consequences of achieving specific outcomes, such as reducing
poverty or creating jobs.
(f ) Results are the outputs, outcomes, or impacts, either intended or unintended, positive
or negative of a development intervention. The Government only encourages results
that support sustainable improvement in the country’s outcomes – bringing real positive
changes in poor people’s lives.

2
 1
Introduction

Introduction
1

1.1. Background
1. Kenya has undertaken development planning since it gained independence from Britain in
December 1963. However, due to the non-existence of an integrated monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) system, execution of the development plans over the first four decades of independence was
weak. Complaints of non-implementation, or non-completion, of highly ambitious projects were
common. Information collection, analysis and reporting of results was undertaken in an ad hoc man-
ner. Decision-making and feedback at the local level was seldom based on verifiable evidence in the
absence of a comprehensive M&E system.
2. Efforts were made to establish individual project- and programme-based M&E in the country in
the 1980s and 1990s. Most development plans prepared during this period included a section on M&E.
However, most of these M&E plans were prepared in response to donor demands, leading to very spe-
cific project and programme evaluations. As a consequence of the dominance of donor requirements,
the M&E reports produced were rarely shared with the intended project/programme beneficiaries.
3. Development of an integrated M&E system in Kenya began in 2000 with the implementation of
the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP) 2000-2003. It was enhanced during the imple-
mentation of the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ESRWEC), 2003-
2007. The Investment Programme for the ERSWEC recognised the important role of M&E in promoting
accountability and enhancing good governance issues. This resulted in the development of the National
Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES) in 2004; and the creation of the Monitoring
and Evaluation Directorate (MED) in the Ministry of Planning and National Development. Most of the
NIMES activities have been concentrated at the national level, with little emphasis on tracking sub-
national project/programme interventions1.
4. With the introduction of NIMES, M&E has in the past decade become an integral part of the
policy formulation and implementation process at the national level in the past decade. The output
of the NIMES process is used for, amongst other purposes, informing national development planning
and policy dialogue within government and with private sector and civil society organisations and
development partners.

1.2. Purpose of the Guidelines

5. A County Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (CIMES) for a County2, may be defined
as an observation system for County Governors, County Executive Committee Members and other
1 Detailed information about NIMES and its operations are presented in various sections in chapters 1 and 2 of this document.
2 CIMES is for the entire County (not only for National and/or County governments). It brings together stakeholders implementing
the CIDP and all other major investment programmes and projects within a county. It includes programmes and projects being

3
1
Introduction

County Performance Management System Handbook

senior management staff within a county. It verifies whether the activities of each county’s priority
project or programme are happening according to planning timelines and targets presented in the
County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP); and whether resources are being used in a correct and
efficient manner.
6. Disseminating M&E results can raise awareness of a county’s programme and projects among
the general public and help build positive perceptions about the county’s leadership; and this may
lead to increased resource allocation towards the well performing counties. The system will supply
the county with a regular flow of information throughout the course of CIDP programme implemen-
tation, to make it possible to detect changes in status and utilisation of resources allocated to CIDP
priority projects or programmes.
7. These guidelines are primarily intended to assist staff who are involved in the design and im-
plementation of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans for CIDP and other projects and programmes
that are being implemented in the 47 counties. It is anticipated that the guidelines will also serve as
a useful reference for staff of the national government, public agencies, commissions and other insti-
tutions that are either involved or interested in the design, implementation, monitoring or evaluation
of CIDP and other programmes and projects being financed by the national government or devolved
funds within each county.

1.3. The Structure of the Devolved Government

1.3.1. The National Government

8. In 2010, a new Constitution of Kenya was promulgated, ushering in a devolved system of gov-
ernment. The system comprises two distinct but interrelated levels of government: the national gov-
ernment; and the 47 county governments. The national government retains the three arms ofthe
National Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The Judiciary has not been devolved therefore,
county governments comprise the Executive and the Legislature. The National Executive comprises
of the President, the Deputy President and the Cabinet. The Cabinet comprises the President, the
Deputy President, the Attorney-General, and 14-22 Cabinet Secretaries who are appointed by the
President with the approval of Parliament, through the National Assembly. Other state officers who
serve with the Cabinet are the Principal Secretaries and the Secretary to the Cabinet, also appoint-
ed by the President with approval of Parliament. The Constitution of Kenya, Article 93, establishes a
bi-cameral parliament consisting of the National Assembly and the Senate. The National Assembly
represents the constituencies while the Senate represents the counties.
9. The fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya, specifies the functions to be performed by
each level of government. The national government is primarily responsible for a bulk of the policy
making functions on matters cutting across the nation, including making policies relating to agricul-
ture, veterinary, fishing, health, education, energy, housing, tourism, labour standards, international
trade and foreign affairs.
10. The national government also exercises oversight over county governments, operates the na-
tional revenue, national security, and foreign affairs. It is responsible for national economic policy
and planning; monetary policy, currency and banking; national statistics; intellectual property rights;
consumer protection, including standards for social security and professional pension plans; general
principles of land planning and the co-ordination of planning by the counties; universities, tertiary
financed by the national government, the county government, and devolved funds such as the Constituency Development Fund
(CDF), the Women Enterprise Fund, the Youth Development Enterprise Fund, and other development investment initiatives fund-
ed by development partners and civil society organisations.

4
 1
Introduction
County Performance Management System Handbook
Structure  of  the  Devolved  Government
Constitution  
of  Kenya

National   County  
President Government Government Governor

Deputy   President Executive Judiciary Executive Legislature Deputy   Governor

County   Executive  
Cabinet Legislature
Committee

The  national  government  is  primarily  responsible   for  a   The  county   government   is  responsible  for  policy  
bulk   of  the  policy  m aking  functions  on   matters  cutting   making  functions   on  m atters  relating  to  the  county   like  
across  the   nation,  including  m aking  policies  relating  to   agriculture,  education,   etc.  and   for  implementation  of  
agriculture,  veterinary,   fishing,  health,  education,   specific  national  government   policies, ensuring  and  
energy,  housing,   tourism,  labour standards,   coordinating  the   participation  of  communities  and  
international  trade  and  foreign  affairs. locations  in  governance  at  the  local  level.

Prepared  by  Gaiasoft for  t he  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Department,  Ministry  of  Devolution  &  Planning.
Structure of the Devolved Government

educational institutions and other institutions of research and higher learning, and primary schools,
special education and secondary schools and special education institutions, setting of education
standards, curricula, examinations and the granting of university charters.
11. Other functions of the national government include: the use of international waters and water
resources; immigration and citizenship; promotion of sports; transport and communications, includ-
ing road traffic and construction and operation of national trunk roads, railways, pipelines, marine
navigation, civil aviation, postal services, telecommunications, and radio and television broadcasting;
national public works; protection of the environment and natural resources; national referral health
facilities; national disaster management; national elections; capacity building and technical assis-
tance to the counties; and public investment.

1.3.2. County Governments

12. The aims of county governments are established by the Constitution of Kenya at Article 176:
there shall be a county government for each county, consisting of a county assembly and a county
executive. The County Executive Committee comprises of the Governor, the Deputy Governor and
County Executive Committee Members appointed by the Governor. The County Assembly is the leg-
islative arm of each county government.
13. The County Executive operates more or less like the National Executive, only that its scope is
limited to the county only. The Governor is the chief executive of the county, deputised by the Deputy
Governor. The two executives’ work is supported by a County Executive Committee (CEC). The mem-
bers of the CEC are appointed by the Governor subject to the approval by the County Assembly, and
they function as the cabinet at the county level.
14. The county governments are responsible for implementing activities in the following areas: ag-
riculture (crop and animal husbandry); education (pre-primary education, village polytechnics, home
craft centres and childcare facilities); county public works and services, fisheries, county health servic-
es, cultural activities, public entertainment and public amenities; county transport; county trade de-
velopment and regulation; county planning and development including county statistics, land survey
and mapping; control of air pollution, noise pollution, and outdoor advertising; animal control and
5
1

Planning  at  the  County  Level

Introduction

County Performance Management System Handbook

County  governments  were  established  in  March  2013  after  the  first  general  elections  under  CoK
2010.  The  constitution   requires  county   governments  to  plan  and  budget  for  the  delivery  of  
goods  and  services  under  their  mandate through  the  following  plans:  

1 2 3 4 5
County   County   Sectoral County   County   Spatial   Cities   and  
Integrated   Plans Performance   Plan Urban   Area  
Development   Management   Plans
Plan   (CIDP) Plans

In  addition  to  CIDP,  every  county  must  develop  an  Annual  Development  P lan  (ADP)  
and  Annual  Fiscal  Strategy during  the  CIDP  period.

Planning at the County Level

Prepared  by  Gaiasoft for  t he  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Department,  Ministry  of  Devolution  &  Planning.

welfare; implementation of specific national government policies on natural resources, environmen-

tal conservation; fire-fighting services; traffic and parking; ferries and harbours; control of drugs and
pornography; and ensuring and coordinating the participation of communities and locations in gov-
ernance at the local level.
15. Some functions fall under the jurisdiction of both the national government and the county
governments, and are thus referred to as concurrent functions. In this case, the Constitution foresees
a system of devolution based on co-ordination, consultation and co-operation3.

1.3.3. Planning at County Level

16. County governments were established in March 2013 after the first general elections under
the new Constitution of Kenya. The constitution requires county governments to plan and budget
for the delivery of goods and services under their mandate. Thus, among every county’s first tasks
was the preparation of the following plans, to guide expenditure and investment programmes within
the county: (i) County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP), (ii) County Sectoral Plans, and (iii) County
Performance Management Plans; (iv) County Spatial Plan; and (v) cities and urban area plans. These
plans are interrelated as they deal with different aspects of county development. Annual budgets
are to be based on the approved plans by the respective county assemblies. These guidelines are
mainly directed to the monitoring and implementation of programmes and projects outlines in CIDP,
Constituency Development Fund (CDF) and other devolved funds as well as priority government and
private sector priority investment programmes being undertaken within the county.
17. The CIDPs are prepared according to the County Governments Act (2012) and CIDP Guidelines
(July 2013). The CIDP preparation is expected be participatory in nature and to address all aspects
of governance and to be participatory in nature. This is guided by the principles of integrating na-
tional values in all projects planning and implementation processes; linking priority county invest-
ment programmes to the Kenya Vision 20304 and its Medium Term Plans5 (MTP); aligning county

3 See CoK 2010, Article 189 on cooperation between national and county governments
4 The Kenya Vision 2030 is the country’s development blueprint covering the period 2008-2030.
5 The Kenya Vision 2030 is to be implemented in successive five-year medium-term plans, with the first such plan covering the
period 2008–2012, the current MTP is the second, covering period 2013-2017.

6
 1
Introduction
County Performance Management System Handbook

financial and institutional resources to agreed policy objectives and programmes; unification of plan-
ning, budgeting processes; undertaking regular CIDP implementation progress and performance re-
views; and promoting public participation in preparation and implementation of government devel-
opment programmes and projects.
18. In addition to CIDP, every county must develop an annual development plan (ADP) and annual
fiscal strategy during the CIDP period. The CIDP and ADP should integrate the projects and services of
devolved and un-devolved functions, as well as the projects and services of CDF, other devolved funds
and non-government organizations undertaking investment programmes within the county. These
guidelines mainly refer to the monitoring and evaluation of the CIDP, Constituency Development
Fund (CDF), other devolved funds as well as programmes and projects that are funded by develop-
ment partners and other key stakeholders with investment programmes within a county.

1.4. Current Status of County M&E Systems

19. The Monitoring and Evaluation Department (MED) in the Ministry of Devolution and Planning
(MDP), is responsible for coordinating all government monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities.
To do so effectively, MED has developed the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System
(NIMES) and has also developed mechanisms and capacity for working with the various entities in-
volved with data collection and analysis.
20. MED provides leadership and coordination of the NIMES by ensuring that two vital sources of
M&E information, namely Annual Progress Reports (APR) on the Medium Term Plan of Vision 2030,
and the Annual Public Expenditure Review (PER), are produced satisfactorily and on time. The NIMES
has been improved over the years through capacity building and broad consultations.
21. NIMES is used as a mechanism for tracking implementation progress for projects and pro-
grammes outlined in the MTP. NIMES provides information that is used to prepare APRs on imple-
mentation of MTPs. Each APR evaluates performance against benchmarks and targets that are set
for each year for various sectors in the MTP. It provides important feedback to policy makers and the
general public on the national government’s performance progress towards achieving various eco-
nomic and social developmental policies and programmes set out in the MTP.
22. MED has faced several challenges during the implementation of NIMES. Due to delays in issu-
ing Annual Progress Reports (APRs), they have not been used in the budget preparation discussions.
Past APRs have observed some disconnect between priority setting and planning processes within
government agencies, which threaten successful implementation of the MTPs.
23. At county level, the governments are beginning to set up units/departments responsible for de-
veloping crucial systems needed for M&E, performance management, and statistical data collection.
At this initial stage, the counties face a number of challenges relating to the development and use of
M&E systems. The draft M&E Policy and draft M&E Framework, which are crucial to formalisation of the
M&E structures that are being established, have not yet been finalised. M&E units are not yet opera-
tional in some counties, and where they exist, they may not have the required skills and capacity. In
counties that have established M&E units, their M&E reports are not well coordinated resulting in the
use of different M&E definitions and concepts.

1.5. Justification of Monitoring and Evaluation of CIDP Outcomes/Results

24. To ensure the availability of timely and reliable data on economic growth and poverty reduction
and on projects and programmes being implemented in the main sectors (education, health, roads

7
1
Introduction

County Performance Management System Handbook

and water supply) of rural development, the national government and each county government need
to develop an integrated M&E system. This will be used to track implementation progress for invest-
ment programmes outlined in the MTP and CIDP and other projects and programmes financed by
devolved funds, development partners and CSOs. These M&E systems usually include important so-
cial and economic indicators as well as targets used to monitor the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) and key indicators related to economic growth, poverty, education, health and infrastructure
activities that are being implemented at national and county levels.
25. At county level, tracking progress towards the achievement of the policies, projects and pro-
grammes outlined in each CIDP will be undertaken through the County Integrated Monitoring and
Evaluation System (CIMES). Analysis of CIMES results will demonstrate whether the resources spent
on implementing CIDP investment programmes are leading to the intended outcomes, impacts and
benefits for the county population. In this way, the CIMES will also provide essential feedback to the
county budgetary allocation and execution processes, thereby ensuring that future county budget
preparation and execution processes are tailored towards maximising their impact on achieving CIDP
targets. A CIMES will also serve as a vehicle for building partnerships within county governments, and
between national and county governments, the private sector, civil society and external develop-
ment partners. The system will also improve stakeholder communication and help in building agree-
ment on desirable poverty reduction outcomes and strategies. Like the CIDP, which was prepared
through a consultative process, the development of the CIMES should involve all key stakeholders in
the county.

1.6. Linking CIMES to Statistics and County Performance Management Systems

26. Some of the data used as inputs in CIMES targets and indicators are expected to come from sur-
veys and administrative data collected and analysed by the county statistics office and other county
departments, national government ministries and agencies located within every county. It is there-
fore important that each county government establishes strong linkage with statistics units that com-
pile various types of data in the county (including statistics units located in the county planning de-
partment and in other relevant national government ministries and public agencies), to ensure that
these institutions develop robust county statistical information databases that will provide a steady
supply of reliable and timely statistics needed for monitoring and evaluation of the SDGs and other
key performance indicators outlined in the CIDPs and investment programmes and projects financed
by development partners and other devolved funds.
27. To ensure the accountability of individual civil servants involved in the provision of public ser-
vice delivery in the county, a CIMES should be linked to the County Performance Management System
(PMS). PMS involves strategic planning, work planning, target-setting, tracking performance and re-
porting on individual public service providers.
28. Under Section 47 of the County Government Act, the County Executive Committee is expected
to design a performance management system which will evaluate performance of the county pub-
lic service in relation to the implementation of county policies, projects and programmes. The plan
shall provide for: (a) objective, measurable and time-bound performance indicators; (b) linkage to
the county CIMES; (c) annual performance reports; (d) citizen participation in the evaluation of the
performance of county government planning and implementation activities; and (e) public sharing
of performance progress reports.
29. Every Governor shall submit the annual performance reports of the County Executive
Committee and Public Service Board to the County Assembly for consideration. Since the County PMS is
expected to report on annual work programmes for public service providers, (both national and
8
 1 Introduction
Linking  CIMES  to  Statistics  and  County  PMS
County Performance Management System Handbook

2 3
County   Other   county  
statistics   offices departments

Data  used  in   4

1
CIMES   National  
Agencies   within  
targets  and   government  
each  county
indicators ministries

To  ensure  accountability,  CIMES  is  linked  to  the  county  

Performance  Management  System (PMS) involving  strategic  
planning,  work  planning,  target  setting,  tracking  performance  
and  reporting  on  individual  public  service  providers

Linking CIMES to Statistics and County PMS Prepared  by  Gaiasoft for  t he  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Department,  Ministry  of  Dev

county employees) located within every county, the system will provide a suitable vehicle through
which Governors and County Commissioners will prepare combined reports for presentation to
The Intergovernmental Forum, the Council of Governors, the National and County Government
Coordinating Summit and the Senate. The Performance Management System and M&E resultant
reports shall be made public. Devolved M&E, through implementation of the Annual Development
Plan (ADP), enables local accountability, local corrective action and local learning, resulting in the
fast-tracking of local development and results.
30. CIMES provides an integrated structure and process for counties to engage stakeholders, plan,
govern, manage and operate independently and yet in synch with one another. Counties can opera-
tionalise CIMES by adopting these M&E guidelines and connect electronically through dissemination
with the Council of Governors, other counties and with national government.

1.7. Objective and Purpose of the Guidelines

31. The main objective of these Guidelines, is to provide basic principles for designing a clear CIMES
that is essential for guiding the monitoring and evaluation of the projects and programmes that are
outlined in a CIDP and in the investment plans financed by other devolved funds, including those of
development partners and CSOs. The guidelines will: (i) assist in understanding and analysing the
implementation of priority CIDP programmes and projects; (ii) help to develop sound M&E plans and
ensure implementation of M&E activities; (iii) articulate each CIDP project’s or programme’s goals and
measurable short, medium and long-term objectives; (iv) define relationships among inputs, activ-
ities, outputs, outcomes and impacts; (v) clarify the relationship between CIDP programme/project

9
1
Introduction

County Performance Management System Handbook

activities and external factors; and (vi) demonstrate how activities for CIDP programmes and projects
will lead to desired outcomes and impacts.
32. The Guidelines also provide stakeholders and participants involved in preparation and use of
county M&E system with practical steps to operationalise the M&E section (i.e. Chapter 8) of the CIDP
with respect to implementation, through the monitoring and evaluation of indicators and targets for
various projects and programmes included in the CIDP and the devolved funds.
33. The Guidelines have been prepared through extensive collaboration and consultations with all
key stakeholders, including representatives of the national and county governments, and develop-
ment partners. The preparation has taken into account the relevant sections of the Constitution of
Kenya and the subsequent laws relating to devolution and to international best practice.

10
 Constitutional, Legal and
2 Policy Frameworks for
County M&E

2
Policy Frameworks
Constitutional, Legal and
34. This chapter outlines the legal foundation for the compilation of M&E activities in the devolved
system of government. The legal framework for the CIDP and M&E of CIDP implementation is based
on the Constitution of Kenya and its supporting legislation and policy documents listed below.

2.1 The Constitution of Kenya 2010

35. The Constitution of Kenya, is the basis for the process of devolution in Kenya. To ensure great-
er transparency and accountability, the Constitution of Kenya requires that government uses the M&E
mechanism as an integral part of developing and executing government policies, programmes and pro-
jects, and in resource allocation and management at the two levels of government. This requirement is
reflected in several sections of the Constitution of Kenya that relate to good governance and planning6.
36. Schedule 4 of the Constitution of Kenya, defines the functions of each level of government, in-
cluding ensuring and coordinating the participation of communities and locations in governance at
the local level and assisting communities and locations to develop the administrative capacity for the
effective exercise of the functions and powers and participation in governance at the local level. Both
levels need to develop sustainable systems to perform these functions.

2.2 Legal Framework

37. The County Governments Act No. 17 2012 outlines the responsibilities of the devolved lev-
els, and the processes and procedures governing the relationship between the national and coun-
ty levels7. This includes the responsibility to prepare a County Integrated Development Plan that
must include a monitoring and evaluation section (Chapter 8 of every CIDP outlines how county pro-
grammes and projects are monitored and evaluated). Section 108 (1) states “There shall be a five year
CIDP for each county which shall have: (a) clear goals and objectives; (b) an implementation plan with
clear outcomes; (c) provisions for monitoring and evaluation; and (d) clear reporting mechanisms.”
38. The Transition to Devolved Government Act, 2012 in the Fourth Schedule states that the
Transition Authority is required to facilitate the preparation of county profiles, to ensure that the pro-
files of counties are produced, published and publicised; carry out an analysis of functions and com-
petency assignment and ensure a plan for distribution of functions and competency is published.
39. The Intergovernmental Relations Act, 2012 in Section 7 establishes the National and County
Government Coordinating Summit, and Section 8 details the functions of the summit, including the
following functions related to M&E: (a) evaluating the performance of national or county govern-
ments and recommending appropriate action; (b) receiving progress reports and providing advice as
6 See Constitution of Kenya, articles 10, 56, 174, 185,189, 201, 203, 225, 226, and 227.
7 See County Governments Act 2012 Sections 47, 54, 102, 103, 104, 108 and 113.

11
 County  M&E  Frameworks
County Performance Management System Handbook

County  M&E
2 Policy Frameworks
Constitutional, Legal and

Constitutional   Legal   Policy  

Framework Framework Framework

The  Constitution  of  Kenya,  2010

To  ensure  greater  transparency  and  accountability,  the  CoK 2010  r equires  that  government  use  M&E  mechanism  as  an  integral  
part  of  developing  and  executing  government  policies,  programmes  and  projects  and  in  r esource  allocation  and  management  
at  the  two  levels  of  government.    This  r equirement  is  r eflected  in  the  several  sections  of  the  CoK 2010  that  r elate  to  good  
governance  and  planning.

Prepared  by  Gaiasoft for  t he  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Department,  Ministry  of  Devolution  &  Planning.
County M&E Frameworks

appropriate; (c) monitoring the implementation of national and county development plans and rec-
ommending appropriate action; (d) coordinating and harmonising the development of county and
national government policies; (e) consideration of reports from other intergovernmental forums and
other bodies on matters affecting national interest; and (f ) consultation and co-operation between
the national and county governments.
40. Section 19 of the Intergovernmental Relations Act established a Council of County Governors
consisting of the Governors of the 47 counties. Functions of this council are stipulated in Section 20.
The council provides a forum for: (a) consultation among county governments; (b) sharing of infor-
mation on the performance of the counties in the execution of their functions with the objective of
learning and promoting best practice and where necessary initiating preventive or corrective action;
(c) considering matters of common interest to county governments; (d) facilitating capacity building
for Governors; (e) receiving reports and monitoring the implementation of inter-county agreements
on inter-county projects; (f ) considering reports from other intergovernmental forums on matters
affecting national and county interests or relating to the performance of counties.
41. The Public Finance Management Act, 2012 (PFMA 2012) PART IV, addresses county govern-
ment responsibilities with respect to management and control of public finance. Section 104 states
that a County Treasury shall monitor, evaluate and oversee the management of public finances and
economic affairs of the county government. The county government shall plan for the county and no
public funds shall be appropriated outside of a planning framework developed by the county execu-
tive committee and approved by the county assembly. Section 125 sets out the stages in the county
government budget preparation process, and Section 126 requires that the county government pre-
pares a development plan.
42. PFMA 2012, Section 104, defines the responsibility to monitor, evaluate and oversee the man-
agement of public finances and economic affairs of the county government, including the monitoring
of the county government’s entities to ensure compliance with this Act and effective management of
their funds, efficiency and transparency and, in particular, proper accountability for the expenditure
of those funds; and reporting regularly to the county assembly on the implementation of the annual
county budget.
12
County Performance Management System Handbook

43. Additional functions of the County Treasury include: (a) monitoring the county government’s
entities to ensure compliance with this Act; (b) upon request, providing the National Treasury with infor-
mation which it may require to carry out its responsibilities under the Constitution of Kenya and this Act;
and (c) reporting regularly to the county assembly on implementation of the annual county budget.

2
2.3 Policy Framework

Policy Frameworks
Constitutional, Legal and
44. The Kenya Vision 2030 outlines the national level long-term objectives of the country, in par-
ticular to the achievement of middle-income status by 2030. A series of 5-year Medium Term Plans
(MTPs) translates this long-term objective into medium-term priorities, objectives, and programmes.
The government’s efforts towards successful achievement of these priority programmes is tracked
through key performance indicators included in the M&E sections of CIDPs and MTPs.

2.3.1 NIMES
45. The MDP is mandated to implement NIMES as part of the governance reforms of the national
government. NIMES is aimed at strengthening governance by; improving transparency, strengthen-
ing accountability relationships, and building a performance culture within the two levels of govern-
ment to support better policymaking, budget decision-making and management. It is designed to
ensure regular reporting on implementation progress of the country’s priority policies, projects and
programmes outlined in key policy documents such as MTPs, CIDPs, devolved funds programmes, the
National Accountability Management Framework, and Performance Contracts and the Performance
Appraisal System. It is also designed to report on the Government’s commitments to other inter-
national frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the New Partnership for
African Development’s (NEPAD), and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). The operational
arrangements of NIMES are presented in Annex A16.

2.3.2 M&E Policy

46. The draft M&E Policy of 2012 articulates the Government’s commitment to manage for develop-
ment results at all levels. The policy provides a clear framework for strengthening the coverage, quality
and utility of the assessment of public policies, programmes and projects. It proposes that finances for
monitoring and evaluation are clearly allocated within the national budget. It will enable the two levels
of executive government, the legislature and other actors to access greater evidence to inform policy and
programmatic decisions, and to hold the public sector accountable for its application of resources. It sets
the basis for a transparent process by which the citizenry and other development stakeholders can un-
dertake a shared appraisal of results; and outlines the principles for a strong M&E system as an important
instrument for driving the achievements of programmes underpinning the Kenya Vision 2030. This policy
will apply to all public policies, strategies, programmes and projects managed by Ministries, Departments,
and Agencies, County Governments, parastatals and executing agencies of public programmes.

2.3.3 M&E Framework

47. This M&E Framework builds on the M&E policy and brings further detail, clarity and direction
to the NIMES system. The framework captures institutional arrangements and responsibilities put in
place to implement and co-ordinate M&E at both national and county levels, particularly the mech-
anisms to co-ordinate and link national and county level M&E systems. The M&E system and the
requirement to report on progress encompass all levels of government, including national govern-
ment, counties, the judiciary, constitutional commissions and independent offices8. The independent
8 Under Article 248 of the CoK 2010, twelve institutions have been enumerated as commissions and independent offices. The com-

13
 County Performance Management System Handbook

entities report directly to parliament, which represents the people of Kenya. To receive a holistic view
of developments in the country, MDP and the line ministries will compile the different reports to
reflect the national government’s performance and progress towards Vision 2030 and within it the
MTPs.
48. A NIMES computerised platform is recommended in the M&E framework. It will serve as a plat-
form for data collection, analysis, publication and dissemination, building on aggregate M&E data
2

collected automatically through interfaces with the various management information systems that
Constitutional, Legal and
Policy Frameworks

are being established at sector ministries as well as the National Treasury and MDP. This platform will
improve the access, timeliness and publication of national data, and will also serve as a useful data-
base for research and analysis in the country. In addition, the dissemination and utilisation of data and
a communications strategy for M&E data and analyses are included in the M&E framework.
49. Monitoring and evaluation requires competent professionals in the public service. The frame-
work describes competencies needed for M&E staff, and steps that are being taken by the govern-
ment to develop curricula and advanced training in M&E for use by local universities and other train-
ing institutions. In essence a core M&E curriculum at university level will be defined in collaboration
with the institutions, to serve as a basis for universities’ development of suitable M&E programmes.
In-service training courses will also be made available, tailored for different stakeholders and target
groups, covering both awareness raising and in-house training programmes for managers and for
M&E and other programme staff.

2.3.4 Link Between NIMES and CIMES

50. NIMES supports the implementation of Vision 2030 and other development efforts in the public
sector at the national government level. The institutional arrangements for implementing NIMES at
both sector and national levels have been designed to facilitate the active participation of stakehold-
ers to ensure that policy recommendations are relevant and actually contribute to policy formulation
and efficient resource allocation and use.
51. Through the above arrangement, NIMES has had appreciable influence on the national budg-
eting process. M&E information drawn from line ministries and public agencies is synthesised into
the Public Expenditure Review that is now an important input in achieving better value for public
investment projects/programmes. These improvements are realised through extensive budget delib-
erations in which Sector Working Groups and line ministries review proposals, consider trade-offs and
bid for budget allocations.
52. As mentioned earlier, the process of implementing M&E for public projects and programmes at
national and county levels is not yet integrated. The linkages are weak and there is a lack of harmoni-
sation among various M&E systems within each county. This has led to inadequate harmonisation of
the multiple data collection and reporting systems at county level. In addition, there has been little or
no stakeholder participation in the M&E preparation and reporting process in most counties. CIMES is
being developed to support CIDP implementation and to provide solutions to these M&E challenges
currently being experienced by policy and decision makers at the county level. CIMES reports will
provide essential input needs for the preparation of NIMES.

missions include: the Teachers Service Commission; the National Police Service Commission; the Kenya National Human Rights
and Equality Commission; the Parliamentary Service Commission; the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; the
Commission on Revenue Allocation; the Judicial Service Commission; the Public Service Commission; the Salaries and Remu-
neration Commission; and the National Land Commission. The independent offices have been enlisted, such as the Controller of
Budget and the Kenya National Audit Office.

14
 Building a Sustainable
3 M&E System and
Strengthening Capacity of
the Counties
53. This chapter describes general principles of M&E, and ten M&E steps consistent with global best
practice in M&E design and implementation. The guidelines build upon the training that was provid-
ed by MED to the counties during 2014-2015. The Guidelines should be read together with the vari-
ous forms that are presented in the appendixes of this document. The forms in the appendixes have
been developed through hands-on experience and consultations with relevant staff in the counties.
They have been found to be suitable for use at present. The forms should however be considered as

3
work-in-progress, and they may be modified over time to make them more appropriate for setting

M&E System
Building a Sustainable
standards and norms for the evolving county M&E reporting needs. The M&E principles, the ten steps
and the forms in the appendixes will be supported by a forthcoming M&E curriculum and e-learning
materials to be developed in partnership with CoG, MED and the Kenya School of Government, local
universities and colleges.

3.1 County M&E Guiding Principles

54. These general principles have been adapted from the work of Kusek and Rist9, and modified
through consultations with county stakeholders, to meet the specific needs of the counties.
55. A well-designed M&E system will ensure that good quality data are regularly collected during
and after implementation of every project/programme defined in the CIDP. The data will help guide
CIDP and all other county project/programme implementation teams, and to inform strategic policy
decisions to be taken by the County Executive and other management teams in the county.
56. These guiding principles provide a practical opportunity to ensure the CIMES follows key M&E
principles as specified in Table 1. It should be noted that ‘monitoring’ and ‘evaluation’ are closely in-
ter-related. Therefore ongoing monitoring processes should provide an integral part of any evalua-
tion. There needs to be continual crossover, input and mutual enhancement between the two. Their
separation into two distinct columns as presented in Table 1 is intended to provide a checklist of
the most important aspects to be considered in developing an effective monitoring and evaluation
system.

3.2 Linking Monitoring and Evaluation with Other CIDP Phases

57. M&E is not a stand-alone activity. It is an integral link to other phases of the CIDP and ADP
formulation and implementation cycles. The starting point for CIDP implementation is the CIDP de-
sign which is built up through a process of situation analyses – problem identification; stakeholder

9 Kusek and Rist, Ten Steps to a Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation System, World Bank, 2004

15
 County Performance Management System Handbook

Table 1. Principles for Monitoring and Evaluation of County Development Plans

Monitoring Evaluation
(a) Ensure that monitoring is involved at all (a) Ensure that clear targets are identified at the
stages of the programme or project design start of the project/programme implementation
and implementation. process, and that delivery against these targets
is used as the main framework for evaluation.
(b) Involve all stakeholders in monitoring
activities, and ensure that there are (b) Incorporate a clear framework (such as a Results
incentives in place for them to engage Matrix and Gantt chart) in the design of the
therein. project or programme to provide the basis for
subsequent evaluation.
(c) Create an environment in which monitoring
is perceived as beneficial both to individual (c) Make provision for costs of evaluation in original
performance and to organisational capacity. budget.
(d) Use a diversity of methods, including both (d) Ensure that all stakeholders, and particularly
qualitative and quantitative indicators. the intended beneficiaries, are consulted in
3

the evaluation, and that the consultations’

(e) Ensure that monitoring processes address
Building a Sustainable
M&E System

results are used effectively to enhance the

the objectives, outputs of the respective
implementation process of the project/
projects and programmes.
programme.
(f ) Provide opportunities for county M&E
(e) Identify and report important non-intended
staff to be trained in effective monitoring
consequences.
techniques.
(f ) Use a diversity of methods, including both
(g) Build in enough time within the programme
qualitative and quantitative indicators.
and project implementation process for
participants to engage in the consultations (g) Ensure that insights from the evaluation are
and discussions of M&E results. disseminated externally so that others can learn
from them.
(h) Ensure that good practices and lessons
learnt are shared among all stakeholders.
(i) Involve stakeholders in ongoing revision
of the programme in the light of insights
gained from monitoring.
Source: UNESCO Information Communication and Technology for Development, (2008)

identification; organisation analysis; strategy formulation and identification and selection of imple-
mentation options; and these are captured in the relevant chapters of the CIDP.
58. These analyses are thereafter summed up in a Results Matrix or Logical Framework Matrix (LFM).
In this case, the CIDP Results Matrix of Form A8 (see Appendix A8) and the Project Sheet for each CIDP
project is captured in a Project Sheet – Form A10 (see Appendix A10). The LFM gives a time-frame
which identifies how much time will be needed for each activity. It identifies when an activity can
begin and by when it must be completed. The LFM of the CIDP (A8) and projects (A10) has “Indicators”
built into it, thus there is an “automatic” connection between project design and the M&E system.
59. The analysis in preparing the Annual Development Plan (ADP) follows the performance/pro-
gramme based budgeting, which allocates budget expenditure by programme. For effective man-
agement and good governance of public funds, this programme-based budget should preferably be
managed through IFMIS. As required in the CIDP Results Matrix (for CIDP projects in Chapter 7) and
captured in Form A8, targets, indicators and objectives are included in the LFM or the Results Matrix,

16
County Performance Management System Handbook

and any actions/activities necessary to undertake M&E should be included in the project plan and
budget.
60. To ensure simplicity and ease of compliance, CIDP projects should be monitored and data col-
lected at least quarterly, using the Project LFM form presented in Appendix A10. M&E is a dynamic
process and one of the characteristics of an effective M&E system is that it allows for changes in pro-
ject implementation based on results, evidence and evaluation.

3.3 Ten Steps to Designing, Building, and Sustaining a Results-Based

Monitoring and Evaluation System.
61. This section, presents ten steps that are used in designing, building, and sustaining a re-
sults-based M&E system. Following these steps will enable the county to develop a CIMES that will
assist a county government to foster political and financial support for policies, programmes and
projects included in the CIDP. The ten steps are presented in Figure 1.

3
The counties are expected to demonstrate their preparedness and capability to understand and fol-

M&E System
Building a Sustainable
low these ten steps in building their respective CIMES. A summary outlining each of these steps is
provided below.

3.3.1 Step 1: Conduct a Readiness Assessment

62. The readiness assessment is a diagnostic aid that determines where a county stands in relation
to the requirements for establishing a sustainable results-based M&E system. It is an analytical frame-
work to assess a county’s organisational capacity and political willingness to monitor and evaluate its
development goals, and to develop a performance-based framework. It should include sensitisation
of the Governor’s Office and of the Members of the County Assembly to the need for M&E and its
budget implications. The readiness assessment is the foundation of the M&E system. Just as a building
must begin with a foundation, constructing an M&E system must start with a readiness assessment.
Without an understanding of the foundation, moving forward may be fraught with difficulties and
ultimately, failure.
63. The Readiness Checklist of Appendix A2 identifies challenges to carryin gout M&E for a project,
such as lack of political will, expertise or experience. Use the CIDP Checklist in Appendix A3 and

Figure 1. Ten Steps to Designing, Building, and Sustaining a Results-Based Monitoring and
Evaluation System

Selecting Key Planning for

Conducting a Indicators to Improvement
Readiness Monitor — Selecting The Role of Using
Assessment Outcomes Results Targets Evaluations Findings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Agreeing on Baseline Data Monitoring Reporting Sustaining the

Outcomes to on Indicators for Results Findings M&E System
Monitor and Where Are We Within the
Evaluate Today? Organization

Source: Kusek and Rist (2004), World Bank.

17
 County Performance Management System Handbook

the ADP Checklist in Appendix A4 to test the suitability and readiness of the CIDP and the APD for
implementation.
64. Is there demand from the county executive, from the citizenry? Is the legal framework in place?
Is there demand from funding partners? Is there ownership by county managers and staff who will be
involved in implementation? It is important to know where the demand for creating an M&E system is
emanating from and why. Are the demands and pressures coming from internal, multilateral or inter-
national stakeholders, or a combination of these? These requests will need to be acknowledged and
addressed if the response to demand is to be appropriate.
65. It is important to understand the value of M&E to the county executive as well as to citizens and
development partners. They can all play an important part in creating demand for transparency and
accountability, which will in turn create strong demand for M&E reports of the project or programme.
66. The readiness assessment includes a review of a country’s current capacity to monitor and eval-
uate along the following dimensions: technical skills; managerial skills; existence and quality of data
systems; available technology; available fiscal resources; and institutional experience; existence of
3

technical and managerial skills, leadership, and management capacity to achieve the expected re-
Building a Sustainable
M&E System

sults; efficient and reliable information system to monitor and assess effectiveness and efficiency in
delivering outputs to achieve desired outcomes and impacts for the targeted groups; sound budget
planning, formulation and execution that focus on priority policies and programmes. Are there other
organisations such as universities, private consultants or government agencies that have the capacity
to provide technical assistance and/or training?
67. Capacity in the areas mentioned above is needed to develop, support, and sustain the M&E
system. Where capacity is inadequate or lacking, staff need to be trained in modern data collection,
monitoring methods, and analysis. Technical assistance and training for capacity and institutional de-
velopment may be required. The government and development partners are often willing to finance
and support such activities, and share lessons from best practice.
68. Assess the roles and responsibilities and existing structures to monitor and evaluate develop-
ment impact. In most county governments, different departments will be at different stages in their
ability to monitor and evaluate. It should not necessarily be assumed that all departments in a county
are moving in tandem and at the same pace. There will inevitably be some sequencing and phasing
with respect to the building of M&E systems. The readiness assessment serves as a guide through the
political system, and helps identify the ability of county government departments and agencies to
monitor and evaluate. One should first focus on nurturing those elements in the county government
that are able and willing to move faster in developing an effective M&E culture.
69. As already mentioned in section 1.2.2, some functions are shared between the national and
county governments. The readiness assessment will identify overlaps among these concurrent func-
tions, so that overall programme performance can be more effectively and efficiently measured and
achieved. The readiness assessment can assist in brokering differences between departments and
ministries doing the same or similar functions or tasks in a county.
70. County government policymakers need to be in communication with and work in partnership
with agencies responsible for information gathering and dissemination—for example in areas such as
the SDGs. The M&E system needs to be integrated into the policy arena of the SDGs so that it will be
clear to all stakeholders why it is important to collect data, how the information will be used to inform
the efforts of the county government and civil society to achieve the SDGs, and what information
needs to be collected.

18
County Performance Management System Handbook

3.3.2 Step 2: Formulate Outcomes and Goals (impacts)

71. It is important, to distinguish between goals (impacts) and outcomes. Goals are generally longer
term, and from goals we move to outcomes, which are of an intermediate time frame (five to ten years).
From outcomes we derive targets that are generally short-term, of about one to three years. Setting out-
comes is essential in building a results-based CIMES. Building the system is a deductive process in which
inputs, activities and outputs are all derived and flow from the setting of outcomes. Indicators, baselines
and targets (covered in subsequent sections below), all crucial elements of the performance framework,
are derived from and based on the setting of outcomes. This activity must be carried out in formulating
the CIDP, jointly with stakeholders, who work together to formulate goals/impacts and outcomes.
72. At the county level, certain stated county or sectoral goals may already exist. Also, political and
electoral promises may well have already been made that specify improved county government per-
formance in certain areas. In addition, there may be citizen polling data indicating particular societal
concerns. County Assembly actions and legislation are other areas that should be examined in deter-
mining desired county goals. There may also be a set of goals for a given project or programme, or for a

3
particular ward of a county. From these goals, specific desired outcomes can be determined.

M&E System
Building a Sustainable
73. It is important to keep in mind that it is a constitutional responsibility to involve county citizens
and other stakeholders in developing outcomes. The overall process of setting the outcomes should
begin with identifying specific stakeholder representatives who should be consulted. Who are the
key parties involved around an issue (health, education, energy, etc.)? How are they categorised –
for example, CSOs, government, development partners? Whose interests and views are to be given
priority? Use the Engagement Checklist in Form 5A (presented in Appendix A5) and the Stakeholder
Participation Assessment form in Appendix A6 to identify stakeholder representatives to be consult-
ed. The result of consultations and formulation at county level is the County Integrated Development
Plan, defining a set of projects outlined in Chapter 7 of the CIDP. The outcomes and goals of the CIDP
are presented in the CIDP Results Matrix form in Appendix A8.
74. After stakeholder groups have been identified, the following factors are important in compiling
the outcomes:

(i) Identify major concerns of each stakeholder group. Use information gathering techniques
such as brainstorming, focus groups, surveys, and interviews to determine the interests
and priorities of each of the groups involved.
(ii) Translate Problems into Statements of Possible Outcome Improvements. An outcome state-
ment should be formulated positively rather than negatively. Stakeholders will respond
and rally better to positive statements, for example: “We want improved health for in-
fants and children,” rather than “We want fewer infants and children to become ill.” Positive
statements to which stakeholders can aspire carry more legitimacy. It is easier to build a
political consensus by speaking positively about the desired outcomes of stakeholders.
(iii) Outcomes should be disaggregated sufficiently to capture only one improvement area in
each outcome statement. EE.g. Outcome: Increase the percentage of employed people.
To know whether this outcome has been achieved, the goal needs to be disaggregated
to answer the following questions: For which population or target group? Where? How
much? By when?
This outcome can be disaggregated by examining increased employment in terms of a target group,
sector, percentage change and timeframe. EE.g. Disaggregated outcome: Increase employment
among youth in the rural sector by 20 percent over the next four years.”

19
 County Performance Management System Handbook

75. It is important to develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for each project or programme. This
is addressed in later steps, where each project must be monitored and reports compiled regularly.
Timelines for M&E are clearly defined by using the quarterly calendar.
76. Note that, according to these guidelines, there is a standard M&E plan and there are standard
responsibilities for all county projects and programmes. Coordination and joint reporting for each
county department is the responsibility of a designated M&E officer. The coordinated reporting of
the whole county and upwards towards the County Executive, Council of Governors, national gov-
ernment level and the Senate is the responsibility of the M&E Unit, providing reports for approval by
the County Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (CoMEC). It is essential that clear outcomes and
targets be defined at county and national levels. Monitoring is essential to determine whether devel-
opment and service delivery is on track.
77. In these guidelines, the outcomes and goals (impact) of every project and programme includ-
ed in the CIDP are recorded in the CIDP Results Matrix Form A8 and in more detail in the Project
Sheet (see Appendix 10A). Check list A3 (see Appendix A3) should be used to assess the quality of
the process used during the CIDP preparation process and for related documents. Checklist A4 (see
3

Appendix A4) should be used to assess the quality of the process used in developing the ADP and the
Building a Sustainable
M&E System

related documents.

3.3.3 Step 3: Select Outcome Indicators to Monitor and Evaluate

78. Indicators should be developed for all levels of the M&E system. This means that indicators are
needed to monitor progress with respect to inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and goals. Progress
needs to be monitored at all levels of the system to provide feedback on areas of success and in areas
where improvement may be required.
79. Although indicators are already defined in the CIDP, it is recommend that they are revisited for
every CIDP project to find out if they meet the performance characteristics listed in the above table.
Where possible, it is preferable to use the standard indicators presented in Appendix A1.
80. Outcome indicators are important because they focus the attention of officials, stakeholders,
decision makers and policy makers on essential results. Setting indicators to measure progress with
inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and goals is important in providing necessary feedback to the
county management. It will help CEC members and other senior management staff to identify those
parts of a county government that are and are not achieving results as planned. Where appropriate,
indicators form Appendix A1 should be used, or other indicators that are already collected and for
which a reliable baseline is available from operational systems. Use the CIDP Results Matrix Form A8
and the Project LFM Form A10 to record the indicators for the overall CIDP and individual projects. The
following are the characteristics of good indicators:
• Each outcome needs to be translated into one or more indicator
• Jointly identify indicators that show an outcome has been achieved
• An outcome indicator answers the question: “How will we know success when we see it?”
Example of Indicators:
• Percentage change in gross primary school enrolment rates
• Percentage decrease in child mortality.
81. For each activity in the ADP, ensure that someone has been identified as responsible for carry-
ing out the actions. Identify which system will be used for data capture, analysis, reporting, etc.

20
County Performance Management System Handbook

3.3.4 Step 4: Gather Baseline Information on the Current Condition

82. A performance baseline is information that provides data at the beginning of, or just prior to,
the monitoring period. The baseline is used to learn about recent levels and patterns of performance
of the indicator; and to gauge subsequent policy, programme or project performance.
83. At the most basic level, a baseline is required to determine whether there is a project manager,
a budget, mobilised funds, and if the project is off track, on track or delivering. As captured in the
CIDP, is the project stalled or running? It is also important to understand the priority placed on the
CIDP project that is being monitored, for example is it a flagship project required for Vision 2030? Is it
included in the Performance Contract of the CEC Member responsible for the sector, and/or the man-
ifesto of the Governor?
84. The basics mentioned above will determine the importance and likelihood of delivery of the
project. These basics can be captured in the CIDP Results Matrix form A8. Is the project mature and
on-track or not even properly formulated? The status of each CIDP project should be recorded as
a part of the baseline using the traffic-light maturity scale of the Project Implementation Maturity

3
Model, based on form A7. The results from all CIDP projects can be simply recorded in the appropriate

M&E System
Building a Sustainable
column of the CIDP Results Matrix A8, and when available in the online in e-CIMES. Baseline indicator
values should be recorded at CIDP level in the CIDP Results Matrix Form A4, and at project level in the
Project LFM Form A10.
85. Performance indicators should be Specific, Measurable, Accountable, Realistic and Time-bound
(SMART10). The more precise and coherent the indicators, the better focused and useful the measurement
strategies will be. If any one of these five criteria are not met, formal performance indicators will suffer.
Specific Precise and unambiguous
Measurable Provide a sufficiently quantified basis to assess performance; or at least a
perception of performance, on say a 5-point scale
Accountable Responsibility assigned
Realistic Achievable
Time-bound Specify when the result(s) can be achieved
86. Performance indicators should be as specific, direct, and unambiguous as possible. Indicators
may be qualitative or quantitative. Quantitative indicators should be reported in terms of a specific
number (number, mean, or median) or percentage. “Percentages can also be expressed in a variety
of ways, e.g., percent that fell into a particular outcome category . . . percent that fell above or below
some targeted value . . . and percent that fell into particular outcome intervals…” (Hatry 1999, p. 63).
Outcome indicators are often expressed as the number or percent (proportion or rate) of something.
Managers of CIDP projects and programmes should consider including both forms.
87. Qualitative indicators/targets imply qualitative assessments. A qualitative indicator might meas-
ure perception, such as the level of empowerment, that local government officials feel, so they can
adequately do their jobs. Qualitative indicators might also include a description of a behaviour, such
as the level of mastery of a newly learned skill. Although there is a role for qualitative data, it is more
time consuming to collect, measure, and distil, especially in the early stages. Furthermore, qualitative
indicators are harder to verify because they often involve subjective judgments about circumstances
at a given time. For this reason, qualitative indicators should be used with caution.
88. Sometimes it is difficult to measure the outcome indicator directly, so proxy indicators are
needed. Indirect, or proxy, indicators should be used only when data for direct indicators are not avail-
able, when data collection will be too costly, or if it is not feasible to collect data at regular intervals.

10 SMART was outlined first by Peter Drucker in 1954.

21
 County Performance Management System Handbook

However, caution should be exercised in using proxy indicators, because there has to be a presump-
tion that the proxy indicator is giving at least approximate evidence on performance.
89. Constructing indicators can be complex or difficult work. Therefore it is especially important
that competent technical and policy experts participate in the process of indicator construction. All
perspectives need to be taken into account when considering indicators. The indicators should be
substantively feasible, technically doable, and policy relevant.
90. Figure 2 contains an example of baseline data for a policy area – primary education. It builds
on the performance framework mentioned in section 3.3.2. The challenge is to obtain adequate base-
line information on each of the performance indicators for each outcome. This can quickly become
a complex process. It is important to be judicious in the number of indicators chosen, because each
indicator will need data collection, analysis and reporting systems behind it. The selected outcome
is to improve children’s learning. So in this case there must be an indicator for students. Scores on
achievement tests could be a suitable indicator that meets the “SMART” test.
91. The next challenge is to obtain adequate baseline information on each of the performance
3

indicators for each outcome presented in Figure 3. The following key questions should be asked in
Building a Sustainable
M&E System

building baseline information for every indicator: What are the sources of data? What are the data
collection methods? Who will collect the data? How often will the data be collected? What is the cost
and difficulty of collecting the data? Who will analyse the data? Who will report the data? Who will use
the data? These questions need to be answered for each of the identified indicators. Table 2 presents
a framework that can be used to complete the required information for each of the indicators.

Figure 2. Developing Baseline Data for one Policy Area – Primary Education

Outcomes Indicators Baselines Targets

1. County X children 1. Percentage of eligible 1. In 2000, there were 70% of
have better access to children in county X enrolled inchildren in age group 3-5 years
pre-primary school pre-primary school education. enrolled in pre-primary school
programmes. education.
1. Primary school 2. Percentage of standard 7 2. In 2012, there were 70% of
outcomes for pupils scoring 70% or better in the students who scored 50%
children in County X average mathematics or science or better in maths, and 55% or
are improved. subjects in the Kenya Primary better in science.
School Examinations.

Table 2. Building Baseline Information

Indicator Data Data Who will How What will Who will Who will Who will
Source Collection collect the frequently be cost analyse report on use the
Method data? will the and the the data? the data? data?
data be difficulties
collected? involved in
collecting
the data?
1
2
3
4

22
County Performance Management System Handbook

3.3.5 Step 5: Set Targets and Timelines

92. The time-frame component identifies how much time will be needed for each activity. It iden-
tifies when the activity can begin and when it must end. Targets indicate the levels of desired output,
outcome or impact for a defined period or at a defined milestone. Targets are important because they
define a level against which success can be measured. Besides the CIDP and Ministry workplans, each
County Executive Committee (CEC) Member signs a Performance Contract (PC) with the Governor.
93. In Section D of the PC, the operational output objectives of the PC are defined. These outputs
should align to the outputs of the county department or sector work plan and to the ADP projects of
the county department for the current year. The relationship between CIDP projects and PC Section
D can be indicated in the County Results Matrix Form A8. Guidance on setting targets for recording in
the CIDP Results Matrix A8 is provided in Appendix A12.
94. After gathering baseline data on indicators, the next step is to establish results targets—what
can be achieved in a specific time toward reaching the identified outcome. Several important fac-
tors should be considered when selecting performance indicator targets. One factor is the impor-

3
tance of taking baselines seriously. There must be a clear understanding of the baseline starting point.

M&E System
Building a Sustainable
Another consideration is the expected funding and resource levels expected to be availed through-
out the target period. A third factor is political concerns. For example, what has the county govern-
ment promised to deliver in its election manifesto?
95. Note that setting realistic targets involves the recognition that most desired outcomes are not
quickly achieved. Thus there is a need to establish targets as short-term objectives on the path to
achieving an outcome. The tendency is to set interim targets over shorter periods of time when inputs
can be better known or estimated. “Between the baseline and the targeted outcome, there may be
several milestones (interim targets) that correspond to expected performance at periodic intervals”11
(UNDP 2002, p. 66). In the case of CIMES, quarterly indicator targets should be entered into the Form
A8 for the CIDP as a whole, and in Form A10 for each individual project or programme.
96. The completed matrix of outcomes, indicators, baselines, and targets becomes the perfor-
mance framework. It defines outcomes and plans for the design of a results-based M&E system that
will, in turn, begin to provide information on whether interim targets are being achieved on the way
to the longer-term outcome. Figure 3 illustrates the completed performance framework for a coun-
ty education development policy area. The formula for arriving at the target performance, involves
setting baseline indicator levels and desired levels of improvement over a specified period of time.
Figure 3. Example of a Framework for Developing Targets for Primary Education Policy Area

Outcomes Indicators Baselines Targets

1. County X children 1. Percentage of eligible 1. In 2000, there were 1. In 2017, 85% of
have better access to children in county X enrolled 70% of children in age children in age group
pre-primary school in pre-primary school group 3-5 years enrolled 3-5 years enrolled in
programmes. education. in pre-primary school pre-primary school
education. education.
1. Primary school 2. Percentage of standard 7 2. In 2012, there were 2. In 2017, 80% of the
outcomes for pupils scoring 70% or better 70% of the students who students will score 50%
children in County X in average mathematics or scored 50% or better or better in maths, and
are improved. science subjects in the Kenya in maths, and 55% or 65% or better in science
Primary School Examinations. better in science in in Kenya Primary School
Kenya Primary School Examinations.
Examinations.

11 UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluation of Results, UNDP 2002.

23
 County Performance Management System Handbook

The desired improvement levels needed to realise the set targets should be arrived at through a par-
ticipatory and collaborative process with relevant stakeholders and any development partners.

3.3.6 Step 6: Regularly Collect Data to Assess Whether the Targets are Met
97. Monitoring tests whether the targets set are achieved in reality. Since targets are set quarterly,
indicator data should be collected quarterly or as designated in the CIDP Results Matrix Form A8 or
the Project LFM Form 10. Data to monitor CIDP, CDF or devolved funds may be collected quarterly,
monthly, biannually or annually as appropriate. There is a pre-existing responsibility and process in
the counties which is to report the PC results of each CEC member and their respective ministry quar-
terly by the 14th of the month following each quarter. The data collection process for PC results is
already required, and the results are already assessed against targets.
98. The monitoring system strategy being designed should include a clear data collection and anal-
ysis plan, detailing the following: units of analysis (for example, school district, community, hospital,
village, region); sampling procedures; data collection instruments to be used: frequency of data col-
3

lection; expected methods of data analysis and interpretation; those responsible for collecting the
data; data collection partners, if any; those responsible for analysing, interpreting and reporting data;
Building a Sustainable
M&E System

for whom the information is needed; dissemination procedures; and follow-up on findings.
99. People need to know and understand what information is being collected by their own depart-
ment and by other departments within the county. For instance, there might be one county depart-
ment that is collecting data that would be suitable for another. In addition, if each department starts
its own information system, there may not be sufficient capacity to sustain all of the systems, and
there may be incompatibilities.
100. Timeliness consists of three elements: frequency (how often data are collected); currency (how
recently data have been collected); and accessibility (data availability to support management de-
cisions). If the data are not available to county decision-makers when they need it, the information
becomes mere historical data. County management teams require accurate and timely information.
Real-time, continuous data that decision-makers can use to lead and manage in their work environ-
ment is essential. It makes little sense to manage county governments using data that may be three
or more years old.
101. The data are collected by the project managers responsible for each project of the CIDP, and re-
ported in the CIDP Results Matrix Form A8. Results are approved by the Director12 of the Department
in which the project is located; the approved results are then collated in each department by the M&E
Officer responsible for that Department, and the M&E Unit thereafter compiles an M&E report that
is passed to the CoMEC for approval and onward submission to the PMS Unit and the relevant M&E
committees.
102. The intent of both the project manager reporting and evaluation, followed by the director’s ap-
proval, is to verify results and record lessons learned, and this goes into the subsequent decision-mak-
ing process. It is the responsibility of the project manager to record lessons learned; for the M&E
Officer to collate learnings per county department; and of the County M&E unit to consolidate and
disseminate learnings for the county. An evaluation can also be undertaken to confirm the viability of
the design before a project or programme is implemented.

12 In a case where a project manager reports to the deputy director of a county department, the latter will be responsible for ap-
proving the Results Matrix.

24
County Performance Management System Handbook

3.3.7 Step 7: Mid-Term and End Term/ Terminal Evaluations

103. An evaluation is needed after full implementation of one phase of a project and before com-
mencement of other phases. These guidelines, which focus on implementation of the ADP projects,
require that quarterly and six monthly data is collected, analysed and reported, supported by evidence
and related evaluation results. These results can be used in formulation of CAMER and CAPER, as well
as in formulation of the quarterly County M&E Report. Reporting on Sub-counties, wards and villages is
not expected at this time, although it could be considered in future as the county’s capacity grows.
104. For a small number (say 3) of priority projects per county, a full scale evaluation should be un-
dertaken midway and at the end of the project. These reports should be linked to the quarterly re-
porting of each department PC, which is already being reported on at county level.
105. Another stage at which it is common to recognise the M&E role is in mid-term evaluations.
In this case, M&E reports compiled at the half-year of each ADP project using the Project Sheet
(Appendix 10) are used to produce mid-term review reports. In respect of county performance as a
whole, the County Annual M&E Progress Report (CAMER) and the County Annual Public Expenditure

3
Report (CAPER) are produced, based on any sub-county disaggregated reporting and according to

M&E System
Building a Sustainable
the county’s annual calendar, as indicated in Appendix A14. This timing is necessary and should be
strictly followed to facilitate timely input to the national APR as per the calendar specified in the
National M&E Framework.

3.3.8 Step 8: Analyse and Report the Results

106. In these guidelines, the standardised approach for analysing and reporting Annual Development
Plan results is a quarterly process, linked to implementation of projects/programmes outlined in CIDP.
This is the responsibility of PDOs, and of the M&E Officer responsible for the relevant department.
Validated reports are immediately availed to the County M&E Officer (i.e. the head of the County M&E
Unit) for line-by-line validation, before consolidating them with other county reporting information
systems and preparing the M&E report that is forwarded to CoMEC for formal approval and onward
dissemination to key stakeholder groups.
107. Quarterly and annual reports for each county department and for the whole county are impor-
tant because they:
• Give information on the status of projects, programmes, and policies
• Provide clues to problems
• Create opportunities to consider improvements in the project/programme/policy imple-
mentation strategies
• Provide important information over time on trends and directions
• Help confirm or challenge the theory of change or project design
108. Reports are prepared in the agreed format of Form A8 (Appendix A8) for all CIDP projects and
for individual projects. Further aggregated reports may be developed. It is recommended that the
standardised forms presented as appendices to these guidelines be used by every county to facilitate
further analysis and comparison within and between counties. The use of these standardised forms
will also make it easy for each county to compile and submit reports that are required for the compi-
lation of CAMER for the county and the APRs for the national government.
109. County Annual Progress and Public Expenditure Reports. The contents of the CAMER can
be summarised, based on the contents of appropriate Project Results Matrix Forms A8, and this
can further be used alongside budget information to inform the CAPER. Later, as local capacity is
built, these reports could be generated at disaggregated levels within the sub-counties, wards and
25
 County Performance Management System Handbook

villages. Preparation of detailed progress reports for the sub-counties and below is not included in
these guidelines.
110. The Form A11 can be used to aggregate the results of multiple Project LFM Forms to produce
an aggregated result for the county (CoMER), for a sector (SMER), a sub-county (SCoMER), a ward
(WaMER) and village (ViMER) sector or for the county. In practice, these disaggregated reports should
only be considered when there is robust capacity and timely, dependable M&E and economic report-
ing at county level. The Appendix A14 will be added and updated from time to time to provide simple
M&E Report (MER) Forms and Appendix A14 will similarly provide simple Economic Progress Report
Forms with versions for sub-county levels as and when required.

3.3.9 Step 9: Using the Results Findings

111. Information gathered through M&E progress reports is useful to a number of different audienc-
es. Results findings are used to manage for development results, driving service delivery; to dissemi-
nate lessons learnt and develop good practice; to inform the county inter-governmental forum, coun-
3

ty assemblies, Council of Governors and the National and county government summit; to engage
citizens, development partners and other stakeholders; and to inform constitutional commissions
Building a Sustainable
M&E System

and independent offices. In this way the legal responsibilities of the county government to report
and contribute to national M&E products, including the APRs and the national aggregation of M&E
reports, will be fulfilled.
112. At county sector level, a quarterly review of results at sector department should be chaired
by the CEC Member responsible for the sector in the county, with the Chief Officer as Secretary, to
determine the level of ADP and workplan progress for the department, and to define preventive
and corrective actions as required. The content of this report is prepared by the M&E Officer for the
Department; however its content and presentation is the responsibility of the Director responsible for
the Department.
113. The quarterly sectoral review meetings mentioned above are followed by a quarterly review of
aggregate results, broken-down by county departments, to determine the level of progress made in
the entire county and to define preventive and corrective actions as required. This quarterly review
meeting is chaired by the Governor, with the County Secretary as secretary. The preparation of re-
ports at county level is the responsibility of the M&E Unit, and the formal approval is the responsibility
of the CoMEC. The CoMEC will review the findings of the county APR, and recommend actions to be
taken to address issues highlighted in the report.

3.3.10 Step 10: Sustaining the M&E System

114. M&E should become a culture, a standard process and a habit of the county. This is supported
by the simple quarterly rhythm of data collection, periodical evaluation and action-taking, as de-
fined in these guidelines. Further, the sharing of M&E results with the Governor’s Office, with MCAs
and stakeholders, helps to sustain demand for better development results. Quarterly reviews by the
County Executive ensure that everyone in the county knows that M&E and accountability for results is
a permanent feature of the county culture.
115. The PC process is now a standard feature of the Kenyan public service, hence it is further advis-
able to maintain and strengthen the linkage of key M&E results achieved against the commitments
made in Schedule D of the PC, in particular commitments that relate to the CIDP implementation
targets and indicators of each CEC Member.

26
County Performance Management System Handbook

116. Sustained use of M&E is better ensured through the clear roles and responsibilities and insti-
tutional arrangements as set out in chapter 4 of these Guidelines. Further process, habits, roles and
responsibilities all combine to strengthen the ongoing readiness of the county for M&E.
117. A draft County Performance Management System Handbook (PMS Handbook) is being pre-
pared to further assist in sustaining M&E as a part of the County Performance Management Cycle. The
Handbook will provide further detail of roles, responsibilities, job descriptions and meeting agendas
that may be used to operationalise and embed M&E within the county.
118. To ensure the sustainability of county M&E, be aware of the following critical components of
demand:
• Political Leadership — from the Governor’s Office and from the MCAs
• Adequate Budget — budget is set aside for both the projects to be monitored and for the
M&E process itself
• Clear Roles and Responsibilities — Establish formal and clear organisational lines of au-
thority for collecting, analysing and reporting performance information

3
• Use of Trustworthy and Credible Information — information produced by the M&E system

M&E System
Building a Sustainable
should be transparent and subject to independent verification
• Accountability and Transparency — the media, the private sector and others all have ac-
cess to the M&E reports, and problems are acknowledged and addressed.
• Regular Review Meetings — results- and action-focussed meetings are regularly con-
ducted to ensure that accountable officers are delivering the results expected
• Capacity building — sound technical skills in data collection and analysis are built; and
also managerial skills in strategic goal setting and organisational development
• Incentives — success is acknowledged and rewarded; lessons learnt are applied to influ-
ence design of future projects
• Relevance — M&E reports service the needs of county senior management staff, includ-
ing the Governor, CEC members and the County Commissioner.

27
 Institutional Set-up for
County M&E 4

Committees  at  the  County  Level

Co-­‐ordination  of  development  
Receive  M &E  reports,  review  and   activities  and  harmonization  of   Provide  feedback  for  M &E  reports  
present  to  county  assembly services and  develops  CIDP

County  Assembly   County   County  Citizen  

Committee Intergovernmental   Participation  Fora
Forum

Responsibilty and  
Oversee  delivery,   County  M&E   Technical  Oversight   Sector  Monitoring   frequency  of  S MEC  at  
quality,  timeliness  and  
Committee Committees and  Evaluation   Sector  level  in  support  
fitness  for  purpose  of  
Prescribe  methodologies  and  expert   of  functions  of  CoMEC
M&E  reports (CoMEC) advice Committees  (SMEC) in  county

M&E  Unit Service  Delivery   Sub-­‐county,   Ward  

Secretariat and  Village  M&E  
(SDS) Committees
To  coordinate  County  I ntegrated   Provides  real-­‐time  information  for  
M&E  S ystem  (CIMES) use  by  the  CoMEC

Prepared  by  Gaiasoft for  t he  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Department,  Ministry  of  Devolution  &  Planning.
 Institutional Set-up for
4 County M&E

119. This chapter, provides guidelines for M&E reporting arrangements in a county government.
County public service performance management involves; strategic planning, work planning, target
setting, tracking performance through the M&E system and reporting. To understand better the M&E
reporting arrangements at county level, we give a brief description of the organisational structure,
and work planning and setting of performance targets for individual staff members of the county
government.

4.1 Organisation of County Governments

120. As stated in section 1 of these Guidelines, the county governments are composed of an
Executive and Legislative arm. The Executive arm of county governments comprises the Governor
and the County Executive Committee (CEC) appointed by the Governor and approved by the County
Assembly. The county public service is headed by the County Secretary who is also the secretary to
CEC. The CEC members are individually and collectively accountable to the Governor in the exercise
of their powers and the performance of their duties and responsibilities.

4
County M&E
Institutional Set-up for
4.2 Work Planning and Setting of Performance Targets
121. At the beginning of every financial year, every project manager, who is responsible for imple-
mentation of each CIDP project or programme, develops an individual work plan and signs a perfor-
mance appraisal report with his/her supervisor, (i.e. the Director of the county Department in which
the project/programme is located), based on agreed project/programme performance indicators
and targets outlined in the CIDP Results Matrix Form A8. The individual work plans are derived from
the departmental work plans and the officer’s job description. The work plan briefly describes the
M&E performance targets or expected results from specific tasks and activities for which the project
manager is responsible during that fiscal year. The M&E performance indicators and targets for each
project manager are then collated by the M&E Officer responsible for each departmental work plan,
which includes among others, departmental priority projects and programmes that are outlined in
the CIDP.
122. Directors of Departments will thereafter discuss the work plan and performance targets with
individual project managers, and ensure that the objectives and performance targets of the depart-
ment are understood. The expected results may include tracking progress on agreed activities of CIDP
projects/programmes during the period of assessment. For each activity to be assessed properly,
there must be clear and measurable indicators of success. A chart showing the County Governments
Administrative Structure, based on administrative staff, is presented in Appendix A13.

29
 County Performance Management System Handbook

4.3 Committees at County Level

123. Although the resourcing of the county M&E function may be flexible, the County Secretary’s
office should monitor this, and ensure that each county establishes the required M&E infrastructure—
that is, the M&E Unit, County M&E Committee, County Intergovernmental Forum, County Citizens
Participation Forum, M&E Technical Oversight Committee and Sector M&E Committees. For individ-
ual county government departments and agencies, the heads of these institutions are required to
provide adequate resources for building M&E capacity appropriate to their organisations, together
with the mechanisms needed for follow-through on delivery of credible M&E reports.
124. Table 3 below lists the main committees involved in discussing reports relating to monitoring
and evaluation of CIDP preparation and implementation progress at county level.

Table 3. Membership and Responsibilities of Major Committees on M&E preparation and Reporting.

Committee or Forum Membership Responsibilities Frequency

(Meetings)
County Assembly MCAs Receive county M&E reports,
Committee review and present to the County
responsible for Assembly
Finance & Planning
County Inter- Chair: Governor or Deputy • harmonisation of services Quarterly
governmental Forum Governor in Governor’s absence, delivered in the county;
or member of Executive • coordination of development
Committee nominated by the activities in the county;
4

Governor. • (coordination of intergovern-

Institutional Set-up for
County M&E

mental functions; and

Membership:
• (Other functions provided for
• All Heads of Department
by or under any law.
of National Government
• Receive M&E reports from
at county level including
CoMEC, review, endorse and
County Commissioner.
pass to the County Assembly
• County Executive Committee
Committee responsible for
members or their nominees
Finance & Planning,
in writing.
• Give policy directions on M&E
Convenor: CEC member at the county level.
responsible for finance and
economic planning functions at
the county level.

30
County Performance Management System Handbook

Committee or Forum Membership Responsibilities Frequency

(Meetings)
County Citizen Chair: • Protect and promote the Annually
Participation Fora • Chief Officer or CEC responsi- interest and rights of minori-
ble for the topic of the forum. ties, marginalised groups and
communities and their access
Membership:
to relevant information.
• Representatives of NGOs, and
• Participate in process of for-
Civil Society Organisations.
mulating and implementing
• Representative of Evaluation
development CIDP projects
Society of Kenya.
and programs.
• Representatives of rights
• Participate in establishing spe-
of minorities, marginalized
cific performance standards.
groups and communities.
• Promote public-private part-
• Representative of private sec-
nerships and encourage direct
tor business community.
dialogue and concerted action
• Development partners’ repre-
on sustainable development.
sentatives in the county.
• Review and give feedback to
Convenor: M&E reports.
• Responsible CEC or Chief • Develops and reviews CIDP.
Officer.

County M&E Co-Chairs: • Oversee delivery, quality, time- Quarterly

Committee CoMEC. • County Secretary and senior liness and fitness for purpose
representative of the national of M&E reports.

4
government nominated by • Drive service delivery through

County M&E
Institutional Set-up for
the County Commissioner in Performance Management
writing. and M&E.
• Receive, review and approve
Membership:
county and sub-county CIDP,
• Heads of technical depart-
Annual Development Plans,
ments of the national govern-
workplans, M&E workplans
ment at county level
and M&E reports.
• County chief officers
• Convening County Citizen
• County Assembly Clerk
Participation Fora.
• Court Registrar
• Mobilisation of resources to
• Representatives from de-
undertake M&E at county and
volved funds
sub-county level.
• Technical Representatives
• Approve and endorse final
managing all other Non-
county indicators.
Devolved Funds in the
• Submission of M&E reports
County.
to CEC, Council of Governors,
Convenor: constitutional offices and
• Chief Officer or county direc- other relevant institutions,
tor responsible for planning including MED.
and M&E functions. • Dissemination of M&E reports
and other findings to stake-
holders, including to County
Fora.

31
 County Performance Management System Handbook

Committee or Forum Membership Responsibilities Frequency

(Meetings)
Technical Oversight Chaired by: Chief Officer, or • Prescribe methodologies on Quarterly
Committees (ToC) Director, Finance and Planning. evaluation.
• Up to ten technical officers • Provide expert advice and re-
versed in M&E from a bal- view of the M&E report before
anced group of county de- it is passed on to CoMEC for
partments and non-devolved endorsement.
function department
Convenor:
• Head of M&E Unit

M&E Unit Chair: Director of County • Provide technical support and Quarterly
Economic Planning Department. coordination of CIMES, in-
cluding its institutionalisation
Membership:
within the county;
• M&E Officers under Director of
• Prepare periodic CIMES per-
Economic Planning.
formance reports for presenta-
Convenor: County M&E Officer tion to CoMEC;
(CoM&EO). • Supporting the development
of capacity for M&E through
training, coaching and
mentoring.
4

• Coordinate regular M&E

Institutional Set-up for
County M&E

reports produced within the

county departments and other
agencies resident in county.
• Support the implementation
of the CIMES Guidelines and
Standards as the main M&E
tool across the county
• Maintaining the support
systems that underpin report-
ing, such as the monitoring
website and database of M&E
(annual progress reports,
ADPs, findings and recom-
mendations, meta-evaluation
data, etc.);
• Systematically capture lessons
learnt from successes and
failures

32
County Performance Management System Handbook

Committee or Forum Membership Responsibilities Frequency

(Meetings)
Sector Monitoring Chair: A Chief Officer or Responsibility and frequency of
& Evaluation Director from a relevant county SMEC at Sector level in support of
Committees (SMEC) department responsible for M&E. functions of CoMEC in county.
• Sector relevant county
departments’ Chief Officers,
NB: This is optional, equivalent national gov-
for counties with ernment representative
adequately high level from that sector and sector
of M&E capacity relevant CSOs. (The County
may define sector as a
department or crosscutting
ministries such as Production
Sector, Social Sector and
Governance Sector.)
Convenor: Chief Officer or
Director of County Economic
Planning Department.

Service Delivery • Efficiency Officers reporting Reports directly to the Governor’s Monthly
Secretariat (Optional) on behalf of each depart- Office on service delivery, and
ment to the Governor’s accountability issues to drive CIDP

4
Office. SDS members may be implementation and results.

County M&E
Institutional Set-up for
called upon to attend CoMEC • Provides real-time information
meetings as information and for use by the CoMEC.
evidence providers. • Governor’s office and chief
officers do not need to wait for
CoMEC vetted and approved
reports to know the status of
service delivery.
• However, the CoMEC is re-
sponsible for final vetting
of reports for release to
recipients

33
 County Performance Management System Handbook

4.4 Responsibilities and Functions of Stakeholders in the Institutional Framework

125. The Responsibility and functions of the different stakeholders with relevance for M&E at county
level are outlined in Table 4 below:

Table 4. Responsibilities of Stakeholders in M&E Preparation and Progress Reporting

Stakeholder Responsibilities
County • Provides vision and leadership and drives delivery of the CIDP projects and pro-
Governor grammes through each ADP.
• Holds county CEC Members to account through their Performance Contracts.
• Chairs Performance Management and M&E sessions at county level (executive com-
mittee meetings).
• Holds CEC Members and County Secretary to account for use of the PMS to provide
real-time reporting on service delivery and results.
County • Responsible for coordination of activities in county government.
Secretary • Personally accountable for ensuring that all Chief Officers’ ministries operate as
required
• Provide timely and accurate reporting according to the County PMS Policy.
Development • Coordinates integrated development planning within the county.
Planning • Ensures integrated planning within the county.
Director • Ensures linkages between CIDP, MTP and Vision 2030.
• Ensures meaningful engagement of citizens in the CIMES and CIDP preparation and
implementation processes.
• Ensures the collection, collation, storage and updating of data and information need-
ed for the planning and M&E processes.
4

Directors • Report their sector performance.

Institutional Set-up for
County M&E

of sector
departments at
county level
County M&E A. Set up the monitoring and evaluation system:
Officers a. Develop the overall framework of the integrated monitoring and evaluation activities;
b. Clarify the responsibilities and prepare the work plan and the detailed budget for
the monitoring and evaluation activities;
c. Supervise the work of the Monitoring and Evaluation office staff; provide guidance
and technical support;
d. Guide and coordinate the review of the Results Matrix including:
i. ensuring that realistic intermediate and end-of-programme/project targets are
defined;
ii. conducting a baseline study on monitoring and evaluation;
iii. identifying sources of data, collection methods and resources needed and related cost;
e. Contribute to the development of the county M&E Implementation Plan, ensuring
alignment with CIDP, agreement on project/programme indicators and inclusion
of monitoring and evaluation activities in the work plan;
f. Establish contacts with national and other county monitoring and evaluation
stakeholders;
g. Review and provide feedback to programmes on the quality of methodologies es-
tablished to collect monitoring data, and document the protocols that are in place
for the collection and aggregation of this data;
h. Establish an effective system for assessing the validity of monitoring and evalua-
tion data through a review of CIDP implementation activities, completed monitor-
ing forms/databases, and a review of aggregate-level statistics reported;

34
County Performance Management System Handbook

Stakeholder Responsibilities
B. Implementation of monitoring and evaluation activities
a. Oversee the monitoring and evaluation activities included in the CIDP, with par-
ticular focus on results and impacts as well as in lesson learning;
b. Promote a results-based approach to monitoring and evaluation, emphasising
results and impacts;
c. Coordinate the preparation of all monitoring and evaluation reports; guide staff
and executing partners in preparing their progress reports in accordance with
approved reporting formats and ensure their timely submission;
d. Prepare consolidated progress reports for the CoMEC, including identification of
problems, causes of potential bottlenecks in implementation, and provision of
specific recommendations;
e. Check that monitoring data are discussed in the appropriate committees, (includ-
ing citizens participation fora), and in a timely fashion in terms of implications for
future action;
f. Undertake regular field visits to support implementation of monitoring and
evaluation, check the quality of data produced, and identify where adaptations
might be needed; monitor the follow up of evaluation recommendations with
Programme Managers;
g. Foster participatory planning and monitoring;
h. organise and provide refresher training in monitoring and evaluation for CIDP
projects/programmes and other agencies implementing staff, county-based NGOs
and key county stakeholders with a view to developing local monitoring and eval-
uation capacity;

4
C. Lessons learnt:
a. Consolidates a culture of lessons learning involving all project’s staff and allocate

County M&E
Institutional Set-up for
specific responsibilities;
b. Facilitate exchange of experiences by supporting and coordinating participation in
network of CM&EOs working in the all the county governments sharing common
characteristics;
Identify and participate in additional networks such as NIMES networks that may also
yield lessons that can benefit implementation of CIMES.
Central level External Facilitator and neutral validator
representative
(MED)
Representatives Other stakeholders
from other
counties
M&E County To be headed by a County M&E Officer, assisted by several sector M&E officers/
Unit: With two focal points, each responsible for compilation of M&E data for a number of projects/
sub-units (1 for programmes of specified departments and national government: Several IT Officers
county & 1 for assisting the county departments with M&E computerisation activities. The M&E Officer
national) and ICT Officer ensure that the PMS system is supported by projects in their county
departments. M&E officer works with the M&E Technical Committee.
• The overall responsibility for ensuring use of the M&E system in the county lies with
the Director of County Economic Planning Department, who is also responsible for
preparation of the overall CIDP document, and works closely with the Chief Officer in
the Governor’s office to ensure timely production of M&E reports.

35
 County Performance Management System Handbook

Stakeholder Responsibilities
Technical • Sets the strategic direction for CIMES.
Oversight • Approves M&E Unit’s work plan and advises M&E unit on actions to be taken on vari-
Committee ous M&E issues.
• Approves indicator reports for use by CoMEC.
• Endorses M&E unit’s reports to be presented to CoMEC and to the Governor and CEC.
• Chaired by Director of County Planning Department
• Reports to County Secretary.

4.5 Roles and Responsibilities in County Performance and M&E

126. Governance, monitoring and reporting of the CIDP implementation progress are prescribed
in section 54 of CGA 2012, including committee structures, roles, responsibilities and memberships.
Performance Management joins-up all aspects of county operations and development within a sin-
gle, integrated strategic process. The performance management framework connects activities from
the M&E Results Matrix in CIDP, MTP2 and Vision 2030, to the Performance Contracts of individual sen-
ior management staff members, and to the operation of service delivery and the implementation of
projects and programmes in the county. The M&E information system should generate reports to be
shared between the project manager and the director of the department, who approves the project
M&E information, the PMS Unit, and the Governor’s Office, which uses the information. To support the
Performance Management and M&E processes of the county, the roles identified below are required:
(See Figure 4).
4

4.6 Information Flow from Operations and Projects

Institutional Set-up for
County M&E

127. Accountability and responsiveness are improved when information flows transparently through
a service delivery organisation or project. Preparation of M&E and related performance information
should happen as close to the point of service delivery as possible, with project managers held ac-
countable for ensuring that their projects are suitably monitored and evaluated. This means that the
project sheets/forms presented in the Appendixes to these Guidelines must be regularly completed
and updated, and the results submitted to the relevant staff in the M&E Unit. The M&E Evidence
Base must be made accessible and visible within the M&E county information system. This could be
achieved much more readily through the development of an online system that meets the selection
criteria in Appendix A9.

4.7 Governor’s Office

128. The Executive Office of the Governor, includes the Governor, the County Executive Committee,
the County Secretary, the Chief of Staff, and optionally a Vision/Results Delivery Unit (See Appendix
A14). Key functions and responsibilities of the Governor include to: i) provide leadership for the coun-
ty’s governance and development; ii) provide leadership to the CEC and administration, based on
the county policies and reforms outlined in the CIDP; iii) promote democracy, good governance,
unity and cohesion within the county; iv) promote peace and order within the county; v) promote
the competitiveness of the county; vi) be accountable for the management and use of the county
resources; and vii) promote and facilitate citizen participation in the development of policies and
CIDP projects and programmes, and of delivery of services in the county. He/she uses M&E reports in
decision-making.

36
County Performance Management System Handbook

129. The Governor’s roles relating to the M&E process include: (i) Championing, tracking and im-
plementing the county’s vision through the CIDP; (ii) Ensuring that M&E structures are established in
the county; (iii) Championing M&E and Performance Management as tools for delivery of develop-
ment and services in the county; (iv) Promoting the role of the M&E Unit in advancing Results Based
Management and public service delivery that ensures the CIDP objectives and outcomes meet the
needs of citizens; and (v) Sharing County APR reports on implementation of the CIDP with the County
Assembly, MED, the Council of Governors, county citizens and other stakeholders.

4.8 The County Monitoring & Evaluation Committee (CoMEC)

130. The CoMEC ensures that the CEC and County Assembly have good quality information needed
to make decisions, and to lead and direct county initiatives. To do this, the CoMEC provides quality
assurance by verifying whether the M&E information given in the reports and the underlying data
collection and analysis processes are of the needed quality and conform to the M&E requirements
outlined in these guidelines. The CoMEC oversees overall county compliance and results of projects
implementation and service delivery within the CIDP and ADP. The CoMEC is charged with preventing
duplication and wastage, and providing the evidence base for policy making and management.
131. The County Secretary must ensure that the PMS system and good practices are used to pro-
duce quality reports in a timely manner by all ministries and through the county’s senior manage-
ment (at least at Chief Officer and Director Level). The roles of the County Secretary relating to M&E
are to: (i) assist the County M&E officer to coordinate the M&E operations of departments; (ii) en-
sure timely tracking and implementation of the county’s vision, as identified in the CIDP; (iii) ensure
that the Director of the County Economic Planning Department operationalises the M&E Unit and
Performance Management Unit as tools for the monitoring and evaluation of delivery of develop-

4
ment and services in the county; (iii) work with the Director of the Economic Planning Department to

County M&E
Institutional Set-up for
ensure timely production and distribution of the County APR report on CIDP implementation to the
CEC, the Intergovernmental Forum, the County Assembly, the MDP, the Intergovernmental Summit
and the Senate.

4.9 County Chief Officers

132. Each County Chief Officer is responsible for the portfolio of services, programmes and projects
within a devolved function. They carry significant responsibility as their leadership and management
determine the success of the devolved functions. The quality of their budget reports and M&E reports
determines whether the Controller of Budget (CoB) disburses adequate resources for the projects/
programmes that are under their administration. The Chief Officer can draw on the support of the
Efficiency Officer to drive forward the M&E and Performance Management of their function.
Efficiency officers - Embedded SDS Staff (Optional)
133. Efficiency officers are trained specialists on Performance Management, engaged to fast-track
CIDP implementation progress and public service delivery in the counties. They play an important
role in delivering the benefits of devolution. They are selected for their ability to build collaboration,
motivate, influence and get things done. They work within devolved functions to ensure that select-
ed devolved functions deliver accurate, timely and high quality performance information. While the
Efficiency Officer assists with reporting, the ultimate responsibility for reporting on a sector is the
Chief Officer for that sector, working closely with the county M&E Officer.

37
 Institutional Set-up for
County M&E 4

Figure 4.

National and County Government Coordinating Summit

Senate

County Assembly County Governor’s

County
Commissioner’s Office
County Budget & Constitutional
Office Deputy Governor & CEC Commissions &
Economic Forum
Independent
County Intergovernmental Forum Offices
CoMEC
Oversees county compliance and results of projects/programs, CIDP, CAMER, CAPER, etc.

Citizen County Delivery Unit

CoG MED
Citizen and Stake- Council of Sets M&E Policy. Provides

38
holder Reporting Governors templates, processes and
and Consultations Non-Devolved M&E Unit Devolved M&E Unit Information checklists.
Devolved Secretariat to CoMEC. Devolved Secretariat to CoMEC. Sharing
Supports compliance with M&E Policy. Supports compliance with PMS Policy. Mandate
Role of the CoMEC in County Monitoring & Performance

Non-Devolved Function Programs Devolved Function Programs

(CDF, National Projects, UWEZO Fund) (10 Devolved Function Departments)

Chief Officers: one per program Chief Officers x 10

Delivery Officers: one per program Delivery Officers x 10
Senior Responsible Owners Senior Responsible Owners
(SRO per project) (SRO per project)
Program Delivery Officers Program Delivery Officers
(PDO per project) (PDO per project)
County Performance Management System Handbook
County Performance Management System Handbook

4.10 Service Delivery Secretariat (SDS) Supporting the CoMEC (Optional)

134. It is advisable to establish an SDS to assist the Governor’s office with the day-to-day activities
relating to prioritised operations in the county. This Secretariat could comprise a small dedicated per-
formance management team that provides mentoring and hands-on support for selected priority
projects and service delivery managers within the county. The SDS uses online tools to build capacity,
and coach and mentor project and service managers across the devolved functions. The SDS uses
desk-side training and digital tools to reduce the learning curve for project and service managers and
their teams. The SDS uses technology to provide real-time visibility of results to the Governor and oth-
er CEC members, both to inform their decision making and to draw on the authority of the Governor
in driving results.
135. The Service Delivery Secretariat:
• Is located in the Office of the Governor, and provides the engine to drive results for the
Governor
• Is led and managed by a Director who is trusted and supported by the Governor
• Has the authority of the Governor to require timely reporting
• May request weekly “status update” reporting from senior county management staff for
flagship projects and services
• Requires monthly reporting of project sheets in support of Budget Reports and Value for Money
reporting to CoB. This is essential to support timely release of funds from CoB to the county.
• Acts as consultant, mentor and coach to service and project managers to ensure projects
and services can be monitored and evaluated for impact and value for money
• Coaches and mentors project and service managers prior to approval, during imple-

4
mentation and evaluation – both directly and through Efficiency Officers embedded in

County M&E
Institutional Set-up for
devolved functions
• Is the one stop-shop for instant access to all county development reports
• Uses technology-supported Performance/M&E/Reporting systems for efficient, account-
able and transparent working
• Prepares reports for all Constitutional Commissions and independent offices, e.g. CoB
and Commission of Revenue Allocation (CRA), and provides evidence of value for money
in support of the Audit office (AOG)
• Ensures programmes are implemented as per the budget, the CIDP and the Annual Work
Plans
• Reports to the Governor, the County Executive Committee and CoMEC
• Makes annual progress reports available to Members of the County Assembly
• Provides flow of approved results information for media and citizens
136. The work of the SDS and CoMEC may be supported by inclusion of compliance and reporting
requirements in the job descriptions and performance contracts of Chief Officers, project and service
managers.
137. It is highly recommended that SDS work be computerised. If no computerised system is in
place, the SDS has a huge task of collating and aggregating the data in hundreds or thousands of pro-
ject sheets from all projects for each sector within the county, and from these to deliver sector-level
performance reports. Thus manual processing of project data is more than likely to delay SDS’s key
function of submitting reports in real time to the Governor’s Office, CoMEC and other stakeholders.

39
 County Performance Management System Handbook

138. The less analytical capacity the County has, the more important it is for the county to have au-
tomated Performance Management and M&E Systems, rather than rely on spreadsheet documents
which must be manually managed in a cumbersome process. Appendix A9 provides criteria for the
selection of an online system for performance management of the CIDP implementation.
4 County M&E
Institutional Set-up for

40
 Reporting, Dissemination
5 and Citizen Engagement

139. This chapter helps county management teams, programme and project staff and staff of the
county M&E units to effectively apply information from monitoring and evaluation in their daily work.
This is done in the context of accountability, performance improvement, decision making and learn-
ing. It emphasises the need to design standard forms that can be used by all county governments
to collect data and other information used in compiling M&E progress reports. It further presents an
effective means of publishing and disseminating M&E results.
140. Directors of county departments are accountable for establishing M&E work plans for their in-
dividual departments, and also for the M&E results structure, which links all programmes/projects of
the department to the expected CIDP outcomes. This is the basis for performance monitoring and
reporting, and its development is monitored closely by the county M&E Unit to ensure adherence to
the CIMES guidelines and the overall national M&E Policy. The performance monitoring of individual
project/programmes is an ongoing responsibility of individual PDOs and their supervisors (senior
project delivery managers), although development of the underlying programme/project results ma-
trix and the identification of appropriate performance targets and indicators will be undertaken with
the assistance of the County M&E Officer.

5.1 Progress Reporting Standards and Responsibilities.

5.1.1 Standardised M&E Reporting Mechanism and Formats
141. This section emphasises the need to design standard forms that can be used by all county gov-
ernments to collect data and other information used in compiling M&E progress reports. M&E re-
porting is essential for county and national governments because it is used to: (a) determine the
extent to which the CIDP and other county programmes/projects are on track and to make correc-
tions accordingly; (b) make informed decisions regarding operations, management and service deliv- 5
ery; (c) ensure the most effective and efficient use of resources; (d) evaluate the extent to which the
and Citizen Engagement
Reporting, Dissemination

programme/project is having or has had the desired impact; and (e) whether new information has
emerged that requires a strengthening and/or modification to the project management plan.
142. Standardised M&E reporting forms enable M&E unit staff to aggregate data from many pro-
jects/programmes. It also facilitates aggregation of M&E reports from the 47 county governments.
A simple, standardised reporting format also reduces the need for capacity building required to do
the job, and enables comparison of results within and between counties. For this reason, all counties
are required to report based on standard reporting templates that are similar and simplified so as to
eliminate unnecessary reporting burdens.
143. Priority should be given to preparing high quality reports at county level annually, followed
by brief quarterly reports at sector and sub county levels. MED and CoG have developed simplified

41
 County Performance Management System Handbook

reporting formats, and will soon provide these to the county governments. A summary of the reports
to be produced by every county government is outlined in Appendix A14.

5.1.2 County M&E Reporting and the Annual Progress Report

144. The CIMES reports and ADPs provide results information that serves a variety of needs and
users at different levels throughout the county. At an operational sectoral level, CIMES will be expect-
ed to serve as a learning tool to assist in programme/project improvements and developing sound
management practices. At the level of an individual county department, with the Director account-
able for good governance and performance of the department, CIMES represents key management
and accountability tools for the Director, and provides important inputs to strategic reviews that may
be required to make management decisions regarding programme/project priorities and possible
changes.
145. At the county level, the M&E Unit is an important player in the production of M&E information.
It is useful in informing funding decisions about overall implementation performance of various pro-
jects/programmes outlined in the CIDP. In a legislative context, CIMES reports about county govern-
ment programmes and operations are submitted directly to the County Assembly and the Senate on
a regular basis, through ADP reviews and CoMEC reports. The aim is to enhance the transparency and
accountability of county government operations with members of the County Assembly and county
residents.
146. Counties are expected to submit annual PSM reports by 30th July. M&E play an important role
in each county’s PSM inputs. County M&E progress reports (COMERs), also contribute to the national
M&E report. They should be submitted to MED by 30th August, according to the NIMES requirements.
While it is the responsibility of the county to plan and manage internal reporting, taking the electron-
ic approach of e-CIMES means that in future, data gathered at each devolved level can be automati-
cally aggregated from village to ward to sub-county to county. Villages will make monthly reports in
a simple and practical form, following CoG and MED guidance.
147. In order to play its role in the national APR reporting timetable, a county may adopt the follow-
ing schedule:
(a) Villages, (through the VIMEC) give their reports to the Wards one week before the last day
of each quarter.
(b) Wards then aggregate their VIMEC results for one week and present their summarised
report (through the WaMEC) to the Sub-Counties (and their SCoMEC) by the first day of
5

the next quarter.

Reporting, Dissemination
and Citizen Engagement

(c) Sub-counties, through the SCoMEC, submit their reports to County M&E unit seven days
after the quarter ends, following the quarter to which the report is referring.
(d) County M&E units can thereafter compile the county M&E report for onward submission
to CoMEC.
148. If CIMES is computerised, all of these reports will automatically populate a CoMER (County M&E
Report) template within e-CIMES. The County M&E Officer will edit free sections of the COMER e-form
to complete the quarterly and annual progress report (APR) for the county. Reporting for the Sub-
county will be completed by the 15th day of the month following the reference month, with reporting
by the county of the county APR completed by 31st July. This fits in with the timeline of the National
M&E Framework, which requires that counties submit their M&E reports to MED by 30th August for
MED to prepare its national APR in good time.
149. For reasons given in the above paragraph, these M&E Guidelines recommend electronic cap-
ture of results into e-CIMES, which could also be linked to the county PMS. At the county level, CIMES
42
County Performance Management System Handbook

is a PMS with knowledge sharing links to CoG and to MED. It is at the discretion of the county to have
WaMER forms filled in at Sub-county level for their wards, and to have ViMER forms filled in at ward
level for their villages. A village M&E report may be as simple as monitoring the key development
priorities and issues of the village. If these forms are filled at Ward level for villages, the MCA for the
Ward may then choose to engage citizens in contributing to and approving the forms at Ward level to
help to drive forward the priority projects/programmes of each village in the Ward.
150. Where production of progress reports is devolved to the village level, village Secretaries may
engage a technically skilled youth to fill the appropriate form on a mobile device. Over time and
based on experience, CoG and MED will extend and improve the CIMES online forms used for report-
ing by counties, sub-counties, wards and villages. Initially, these forms must be simple enough to
ensure success, but easily extensible as the capacity of counties and depth of capacity within counties
grows. Each M&E form will prescribe how the M&E will be conducted, what data will be required, and
the depth of reporting.

5.1.3 Computerisation of Reporting at County Level

151. The increasing computerisation of public office functions, is providing county government
management teams with new opportunities to computerise the collection and analysis of M&E infor-
mation for the projects and programmes included in the CIDPs. Most of the existing M&E information
is compiled manually. Therefore, there is an urgent need to explore the possibilities of computerising
the existing manual systems to take advantage of the potential uses of microcomputers for M&E oper-
ations within the counties. Computerisation of the M&E information system, must also address issues
of cooperative partnership in M&E information activities, systems compatibility and sustainability.
152. In a well-designed electronic reporting format, indicator-related textual analysis, proposed
corrective measures and related learnings can all be reported automatically. Standard progress re-
ports should be designed for annual CIDP review, quarterly CEC meetings and monthly sector team
meetings. An M&E progress report is also required for the entire CIDP, based on the Results Matrix of
Appendix A8. Each of these automated progress reports should be made accessible to the SDS, the
CoMEC, the Governor’s Office and other internal stakeholders.

5.1.4 Performance Reporting at County Level

153. Progress reporting within the county enables the Governor, county management team and
stakeholders to track ADP implementation progress. Participants in the CEC meetings, the county 5
Intergovernmental Forum, and CoMEC should review these progress reports as a basis for decision
and Citizen Engagement
Reporting, Dissemination
making and for agreeing on action plans for development13. To facilitate a smooth decision making
process, all agendas of relevant county meetings should include a review of indicators and sector pro-
gress reports as a standing item, with full reporting documents sent in advance to the participants.
Where possible, progress reports should be available in an electronic format, and should combine
data and associated narrative commentary and evidence.
154. In general, progress reports should be designed and structured in a way that minimises the
time required to understand the report and decide on the preventive or corrective measures to be un-
dertaken. The county should automate the production of reports in a way that once data are entered,
they can be viewed selectively by those who have access rights and can automatically be populated
in all other required formats. Within a year, this approach will deliver significant efficiency savings for
the county.

13 Members of the committees mentioned here are listed in Table 5.

43
 County Performance Management System Handbook

155. It is recommended that all progress reports, including interim reports, are made available to the
Commissions and Independent offices created by the Constitution of Kenya to build trust and receive
feedback from them early in the budget cycle. In every county, it is the county M&E unit’s responsibil-
ity, working closely with county SDS where this exists, to produce reports. As emphasised in chapter
3 of these Guidelines, the M&E reports should be prepared in consultation with the key producers and
users of the reported information. Data comes from aggregated data in the form of Appendix A12 (or
similar formats) produced by M&E Officers and their Directors of departments in the devolved func-
tions, or persons of equivalent rank managing devolved funds and other related agencies.
156. Recommended standard progress reporting systems have been developed by the Council of
Governors and in consultation with MED. These formats will be improved over time. They should be
automated using the Performance Management and M&E System developed by counties. Continuous
improvement of these report formats should be the responsibility of the M&E Units, working closely
with MED and the Council of Governors.
157. The performance of the county against service delivery, programme and project goals and
targets is measured through the ADP Results Matrix. All projects and services contribute to results.
These results should be gathered through completing and updating Project Sheets. The M&E Officers
responsible for each department should then aggregate the collected information by sector, under
the guidance of the M&E Unit. Consolidation of the results to sector level targets should be done
using an auditable and reliable system. (Spreadsheet aggregation is time consuming, unreliable and
expensive to audit.)
158. Based on the review of aggregated progress reports at sector level, weekly or monthly corrective
actions should be defined and delegated at sector level. These sector reports are prepared by M&E Officers
for each Director of Department and submitted to the county M&E Unit for validation, aggregation and
production of reports, which are forwarded to the PMS Secretariat, the CEC and CoMEC. Monthly or quar-
terly performance reviews are recommended at the county level, prepared by the M&E Unit in close collab-
oration with SDS where this exists, and submitted to CoMEC and the Governor’s Office.

5.1.5 Linking M&E to Performance Management System

159. For county Performance Management and M&E systems to be successful, they must have the
commitment of the political leadership from the county government, in particular; the Governor’s
Office, CEC members, the County Secretary, Directors of County Departments, the Senate and the
County Assembly. For purposes of buy-in and commitment to Results Based Management of the
5

CIPD, it is recommended that the Governor’s Office and county M&E Unit work together to develop
Reporting, Dissemination
and Citizen Engagement

performance reports for the County Governor, the CEC, the County Development Board, the County
Assembly and the Senate. Performance reports should also include county projects that strengthen
the performance of e.g. Independent Commissions, or building of law courts in the counties. Quick
and simple configuration of easy to use reports by the M&E Unit staff is an important requirement of
effective Performance Management and M&E systems (see Appendix A9).
160. Wherever progress reporting from county to national departments is required, the data cap-
ture should be carried out consistently in all counties, with the aggregate results made available
for comparison at national and county levels. This is another important reason for the Performance
Management and M&E system to sit on a commonly shared service platform for all counties. In the
absence of a shared system, the Council of Governors and MED should prescribe appropriate formats.

44
County Performance Management System Handbook

5.1.6 Integrating National and County Government Progress Reporting Arrangements

161. Sharing the M&E information between county and national governments has the following
overarching objectives:
(i) Promote accountability for the achievement of Kenya’s overall economic development
objectives, through the assessment of results, effectiveness, processes and performance
of the development activities of both levels of government. Each county government de-
velopment result needs to be monitored and evaluated for its contribution to the whole
country’s development. The contribution of each county government to the overall coun-
try’s development, will be visible only if county governments submit their CIMES results/
reports to the national government Ministry of Planning and Devolution through MED.
Through this process, MED is able to compile and produce aggregated report for the per-
formance of county governments, national government, as well as for the whole country.
(ii) Promote learning, feedback and knowledge-sharing among the county governments and
between county governments and national government, as a basis for decision-making
on policies, strategies, programme management and projects, and ultimately to improve
performance.
(iii) Strengthen monitoring and coordination of national government projects that cut across
multiple counties. Some national projects are implemented across county boundaries,
for example the Standard Gauge Railway that is being constructed from Mombasa to
Nairobi and beyond. Monitoring and evaluation of such projects will require close coop-
eration and coordination of M&E reports from several counties. These M&E reports will
be assembled together and aggregated by MED to produce the performance results for
each county and for the project as a whole. Thus the implementation of such projects
reinforces the need for sharing M&E objectives and targets, so that county M&E plans are
synchronised with the national government plan for the project, and also to ensure that
methods for collecting, analysing and reporting data in the participating counties are
compatible.
162. Sector progress reports, (e.g. the Health Management Information System (HMIS) and EMIS),
from the staff performing national government functions within the counties, are routinely made to
the headquarters of the respective national ministries and agencies, or into their information systems.
It is recommended that all such flows of indicator statistical data be standardised and made available
to MED and the respective county M&E Units and other county planning units, based on the principle
of data sharing as well as to reduce the data collection burden among government organs. Where
5
possible, all county indicator values should be captured into a single database.
and Citizen Engagement
Reporting, Dissemination

163. Data capture and analysis should be done online, and be a shared service so that the data of
all counties can be benchmarked, compared and accessed subject to security rights by consumers of
that data. This does not mean that all counties or national government entities can access the data of
a county, but rather that all data is stored in a compatible form, providing benefits of comparison and
economies of scale. Each national data user, including Independent Commissions and Independent
offices, should be able to access the subset of information relating to their role and function. As stated
in the Selection Criteria of Appendix A9, this should be a requirement of any ICT support platform for
County M&E.

5.2 Dissemination
164. There are several important reasons for using and disseminating county M&E results. The
Constitution of Kenya considers that most M&E Reports must be available to the public, and as such
45
 County Performance Management System Handbook

should be shared with county citizens and other stakeholders. Other reasons for disseminating M&E
results include: (i) to improve programme/project interventions; (ii) to strengthen projects/pro-
grammes institutionally; (iii) to advocate for additional resources; (iv) to create citizen awareness and
ownership, and promote “people-friendly” policies; (v) to ensure that county development activities
are captured in NIMES; and (vi) to contribute to the county and national understanding of what works.
This chapter explains these reasons.

5.2.1 Justification for Disseminating Progress Reports

165. Dissemination goals must be clearly understood, and returns on investment assessed and
assured, before spending money on expensive formats such as advertising to spread information.
Dissemination should strengthen democracy and promote good governance in the county:
• Growing the trust of citizens in the government, by demonstrating that the voice of the
stakeholder has been heard and the electoral promises of the Governor have been met
in reality
• Engaging citizens, stakeholders, women, youth, business, religious and other groups in
informed dialogue on county performance and providing evidence of what the county
can and does provide for them
• Strengthening participation in county planning, budgeting and development, as meas-
ured by the assessments of Appendix A5 and Appendix A6
166. M&E results can help stakeholders and the community understand what the CIDP projects/
programme are doing; how well they are meeting their respective objectives and goals; and whether
there are ways that progress can be improved. Sharing results can help ensure social, financial and
political support and help the Governor and the CEC members to establish or strengthen the network
of individuals and organisations with similar goals of working with county citizens. By publicising
positive results, one gives public recognition to stakeholders and volunteers who have worked hard
to make the programme a success.
167. Disseminating M&E results can raise awareness of CIDP projects/programmes among the gen-
eral public and help build positive perceptions about the devolved governments’ programmes. M&E
results often shape development partners’ decisions about resources in terms of what and how much
to allocate to county programmes. Results can also be used to lobby for policy or legislative changes
that relate to county governments by pointing out unmet needs or barriers to programme success.
168. In the results-based development approach adopted by the Kenya government, dissemination
5

should be evidence-based and representative and not selective or misleading. For this reason, dis-
Reporting, Dissemination
and Citizen Engagement

seminated information should be linked to the complete evidence from which the claimed success or
failure is drawn.

5.2.2 Demand for Greater Accountability through M&E

169. With increased allocation of public resources to county governments, public expenditure in the
counties is expected to grow rapidly in absolute terms, along with the size of the economy in each
county. The need for ensuring effectiveness of these growing county expenditures is already begin-
ning to be felt, not only by decision makers in county governments but also by the media and county
assemblies.
170. This growing interest from county assemblies in monitoring and evaluation of CIDP pro-
grammes/projects, as well as in performance management, is in compliance with the Constitution
of Kenya, which has mandated these assemblies to ensure prudent use of public resources at county
level. Thus, CoMEC reports need to be regularly submitted to each county assembly for debate and
46
County Performance Management System Handbook

adoption. It is recommended that each county assembly creates a calendar that will allow county
assembly representatives to review CoMEC reports biannually.

5.2.3 What to Disseminate and to Which Recipients

171. The county M&E reports (CoMER), and public expenditure reports (PER) of Chapter 6 of CIDP,
are considered to be part of the public domain, (unless otherwise agreed), and as such should be dis-
seminated through the Citizen Participation Fora and representatives of other groups mentioned in
Table 4. These reports should also be posted on every county’s website.

5.2.4 Share both Successes and Challenges

172. While every programme manager wants to highlight positive findings, sharing results about
what did not work is also important. Stakeholders need to understand what works and what does not
work, to guide support for the most effective development strategies. In addition, most development
partners and senior government officials appreciate programme managers who are willing to critical-
ly review their work; admitting what has not worked well will improve the credibility of county CIDP
implementation teams; and assist the county to solicit funds for changes in CIDP or ADP strategy.

5.2.5 Dissemination Channels

173. Many possible channels exist for presenting evaluation results. An all-day retreat with pro-
gramme staff, may be sufficient for some audiences since one approach may suffice. In other cases,
results may be disseminated via numerous channels to ensure that the county key messages reaches
varied targeted audiences.
174. The most commonly used formats or channels for disseminating M&E results are written re-
ports, oral presentations, press releases, fact sheets and computer-based presentations:
(a) A written report combined with visual aids is an effective means of disseminating M&E re-
sults. Written reports are the most frequent dissemination mechanisms used to provide
updates on progress of development programmes; document M&E procedures, findings
and recommendations; maintain and publicise important programme information and
experiences. Visual aids such as maps, tables, charts, graphs, and photographs can be
used effectively to summarise information and add “life” to a written report.
(b) Oral presentation provides a direct, concise overview of the M&E findings and allows for 5
discussion. The M&E staff may give presentations at national meetings, in one-on-one
meetings with the management teams, development partners, or to county citizen fora.
and Citizen Engagement
Reporting, Dissemination

(c) Press releases can generate media coverage of findings. As more people gain access to
newspapers, radio, television and the Internet, media coverage of M&E findings is gaining
in importance. Many programmes find that the most effective way to reach policymakers
is to encourage media coverage of their evaluation results.
Fact sheets convey findings in a short, concise format. They are especially effective for advocacy, con-
veying information to policymakers and those who do not have the time to read longer reports.
175. Other channels for disseminating M&E Reports and information include:
• Smartphone and tablet computer access
• Performance Management updates
• Performance Dashboards
• Open Data Portals

47
 County Performance Management System Handbook

• Ad hoc analyses (comparison and benchmarking)

• E-mail, text messages and mobile notification messages
• County websites
Further communication and dissemination tools are described in the National M&E Framework under
section 6.2.

5.2.6 Maximising Utilisation

176. This section addresses the critical process of maximising the likelihood that decision-makers will
actually use the information provided in the M&E reports. The reports should be easy to access and to
use in assessing progress – well summarised against outputs and outcome targets outlined in CIDP.
177. Ownership of the M&E Process: Experience suggests that the likelihood of results being used
is often directly proportionate to the sense of ownership that decision-makers feel in regard to the
process. If decision-makers have a strong sense of ownership, they are more likely to incorporate the
results into ongoing or future activities. Decision-makers presented with final reports into which they
have had little input, are less likely to accept the results, particularly if the results are not consistent
with their own preconceptions or assumptions.
178. Effective Presentation of Findings and Recommendations: The likelihood of results being
used increases if findings are presented effectively. The most common channels of presenting M&E
results are presented in section 5.6 below.
179. Timeliness: Results must be available at the time when decisions are to be made. External
events may dictate the timelines of evaluations (e.g., legislative debates, project review deadlines,
budgetary decisions); an M&E team should be knowledgeable about the timing of such decision-mak-
ing cycles. Often valuable M&E reports results have been unusable, at least in the short run, because
they arrived too late. For monitoring systems, timeliness is defined by internal needs, where the pro-
gramme manager has more discretion over when results will be used. Periodic compilation of data
should be set when creating a monitoring system and followed throughout the course of a project.
180. Feasibility potential: The usability of results and recommendations also depends on the ex-
tent to which they can be put into practice. Efforts to tailor the report, at least in part, to the range
of policy choices open to the decision-makers, and concrete and realistic suggestions to address
project-specific problems, increases its usefulness. If the evaluation suggests concrete and realistic
steps to address project specific problems, its findings are more likely to be implemented rather than
5

disregarded.
Reporting, Dissemination
and Citizen Engagement

5.2.7 Public Participation: Political Value and Legal Responsibility

181. Public participation is a legal responsibility and is required before a county government be-
gins spending on implementation of the CIDP. In the spirit of the Constitution, citizen participation
is about engaging, understanding and meeting the needs of people in the county by mobilising all
the insight, energy and commitment of individuals and groups. Participation allows the county to
understand what is needed and to gain commitment to a way forward. Participation includes dis-
semination and gathering feedback as part of a holistic development process. The County Executive
can mobilise more innovation, opportunity, commitment and resources through community partic-
ipation in development planning. Participation in development, monitoring, review and evaluation
of the CIDP and ADP strengthens county citizen awareness and ownership of the CIDP programmes/
projects that are being implemented by the county government. It also provides a check formula to
ensure value for money, accountable spending and good governance. Participation can be used to:

48
County Performance Management System Handbook

• Capture the ideas, energy and commitment of stakeholders.

• Ensure and provide evidence that the county executive has met the legal duty of partici-
patory development.
• Strengthen accountability and good governance.
Without following the legally required process, including stakeholder consultation and approval of
the County Assembly, a County Executive cannot legally begin spending on implementing projects
outlined in the CIDP.
182. Participatory Public Expenditure Management (PPEM) has recently emerged as an important
means for involving citizens and civil society organisations in public expenditure management. PPEM
has already been adopted at the national government level in an effort to ensure greater transpar-
ency, better targeting and tracking of resources, and increased overall responsiveness. MED annual-
ly produces Public Expenditure Reviews (PERs), which are discussed widely by all stakeholders and
made available via MED’s website. This has increasingly contributed not only to greater development
effectiveness, but also to increased accountability for the use of public resources at the national level.
183. To ensure greater accountability and support from county residents and civil society, county
governments should invest in measures to increase the participation of various stakeholder groups
in public expenditure management. The county PERs prepared by each county government, should
also be discussed with these stakeholders, and the county management team should ensure that the
recommendations emanating from these consultations are considered in the budget preparation and
execution process. Each county PER should also be made publicly available by being placed on the
county government’s website.
184. Appendix A5 and Appendix A6 provide a framework for monitoring participation, enabling the
county executive to demonstrate and provide evidence of a systematic and measurable approach to
participation.

5
and Citizen Engagement
Reporting, Dissemination

49
Operationalsing CIMES 6
 Operationalising CIMES
6

185. Operationalising CIMES is based on the structure of the county (Appendix A13) and delivers re-
ports as set out in Appendix A14. Committees (Table 1) and Responsibilities of Major Players (Table 4)
have a responsibility to deliver reports according to the reporting calendar as also defined by the report-
ing obligations of the county, as set out in Appendix A15. Producers, approvers and recipients of reports
are also detailed in Appendix A14.
186. It is important that the county leadership – both the Governor’s Office and the County Secretary
– are active drivers and users of the CIMES. Refer to the Readiness Checklist of Appendix A2 for criteria
that must be met for initiating county M&E for results.
187. To ensure the required emphasis on M&E receives full attention from all county staff involved
in its preparation and reporting, M&E targets and indicators should be linked directly to the perfor-
mance management of the county, including Performance Contracts of CEC members and the work
plans of chief officers and ministries.
188. As recognised in the principles of Chapter 3, M&E must be incorporated as a part of the larg-
er CIDP planning, performance management and implementation cycle. A separate County PMS
Handbook addresses the detailed responsibilities in the county PMS implementation programme,
which will ensure that the M&E of CIDP and ADP projects is linked to PMS in every county. Quarterly
performance reviews by ministry and for the entire county should be chaired by the CEC Member and
the Governor respectively. The schedule of meetings and related agendas, roles and responsibilities
are detailed in the County PMS Handbook.
189. County PMS processes incorporate evidence-based M&E, following the ten steps presented in
Chapter 3. Staffing of the Service Delivery Secretariat is drawn from each county department. Further,
the M&E of individual projects within the CIDP Results Matrix is performed by project managers and
approved by the respective Director of the Department in which each project is located. Results are
required quarterly, and meetings to discuss these results should be chaired by the Governor, who
should also ensure that all ministerial programmes and priority projects are monitored and managed
for results. Project managers and their Directors are required to ensure that the county M&E pro-
gramme is given adequate attention within the county performance management process.
190. To get started with county M&E, use the 10 steps of Chapter 3 in the given sequence. To opera-
tionalise the regular process of county M&E and performance management, use the detailed recom-
mendations and processes of the County PMS Handbook.
To assist all counties to monitor and evaluate the implementation of their CIDPs, MED has been de-
veloping these Guidelines, and will work with the Council of Governors and the Kenya School of
6

Government to provide other required materials, including:

Operationalsing CIMES

51
 County Performance Management System Handbook

• Detailed instructions to accompany each of the forms in Appendices from A1-A15 as

required.
• A roll-out model for capacity building and ongoing support of counties.
• These Guidelines and detailed hands-on e-learning for the ten steps in Chapter 3.
• A county PMS handbook to operationalise the required process and meetings and to
provide a process for engagement of the Governor’s Office, the County Secretary and
Directors of County Departments.
• A county PMS system to work seamlessly with CIMES.
This combined toolkit addresses political will and success factors, and provides further detail on the
meetings calendar, agendas and staffing.
191. In operationalising CIMES, expenses for the following items should be budgeted:
• Training of officers
• Facilitation of senior meetings convened by the Governor
• Training of CEC Members, Chief Officers, Directors and Project managers.
• Commissioning and training for the CIMES system computerisation (e-CIMES), to
manage data entry, aggregation and reporting consistent with the criteria identified in
Appendix A9
The cost, time, effort and risk of CIMES implementation is to be minimised by the above resources as
a defined toolkit that has been tested and will be refined and improved, based on the experience of
successive county implementations.
192. The evidence that the county is performing the M&E as required, comes at a time when the
county is driving CIDP implementation through M&E, part of county performance management.
193. To enable all 47 counties to implement their CIDPs, funds must be set aside at the national level –
for training and for the development of a nationally available PMS and M&E toolkit and at county
level for capacity building, procurement of e-CIMES software and for maintaining and operating the
system.
194. An appropriate budget should be allocated for the Performance Management of the CIDP, in-
cluding for County M&E and other project M&E. A well planned and well implemented County PMS
and M&E will deliver high returns to the county. The contributors to efficiency gains are derived from
the impact achieved, efficiency savings and effectiveness improvements.
195. The benefits and financial returns of effective, results-based performance management and
M&E significantly outweigh the costs, and can be estimated based on savings in administrative time
savings and also in terms of improved effectiveness.

6.1 M&E Core Indicators

196. MTP indicators and county indicators may come from numerous sources. Detailed monthly in-
dicators come from operational and management systems such as IFMIS and HMIS. Indicators are
collected by surveys or from census data, and hence provide historic reality. CRA, CoB, and AOG each
6

use indicators to inform their work, and KNBS have developed a template of indicators for county
Operationalsing CIMES

governments. Where possible, it is important to ensure that the core indicators in CIMES are aligned
to the revised MTP-2 indicators. Core indicators that are regularly collected and made available for
official use are presented in Appendix A1.

52
County Performance Management System Handbook

197. The CIDP Guidelines and the County Government Act No. 17 2012 outline priority indicators
that must be collected as follows:

“Each CIDP should provide clear input, output and outcome performance indicators, includ-
ing the percentage of households with access to basic services contemplated under Article
43 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution; the percentage of a county’s capital budget ac-
tually spent on capital projects identified for a particular financial year in terms of the coun-
ty’s ADP; the number of jobs created through any local economic development initiatives,
including capital projects; and financial viability of the integrated development plan in ac-
cordance with nationally applicable ratios.”
198. MED will work closely with CoG to ensure inter-county coordination during the development
of CIMES for each county government. In addition, MED will provide assistance to capacity building
needed at county level. It will also maintain research and M&E services that cater for the needs of both
county and national governments.

6.2 Resources for Monitoring and Evaluation

199. Allocation of inadequate resources to the county M&E activities will lead to poor quality mon-
itoring and evaluation. To ensure effective monitoring and evaluation, it is critical to set aside ade-
quate financial and human resources for M&E at the CIDP projects/programmes planning stage. The
required financial and human resources for monitoring and evaluation should be considered within
the overall costs of delivering the agreed results and not as additional costs.
200. Financial resources for monitoring and evaluation should be estimated realistically at the plan-
ning stage. The M&E Framework document recommends that the management team responsible for
project/programme preparation and implementation should provide for financial resources for M&E
in their budgets.
201. While it is critical to plan for monitoring and evaluation together, resources for each function
should be catered for separately. Each project should have two separate budget lines for its moni-
toring and evaluation agreed in advance with partners. This will help the county government and
its partners to be more realistic in budgeting. It will also reduce the risk of running out of resourc-
es for evaluation, which often takes place at mid-term or towards the end of project/programme
implementation.
202. The M&E Unit staff should assist project managers and their county directors to identify M&E
costs associated with CIDP projects and programmes. These costs could then be charged directly to
the respective project/programme budgets with prior agreement among the relevant county depart-
ments and partners, through inclusion in the project budget or Annual Work Plan (AWP) signed by
various Directors of Departments.
203. It is essential that each county government and its development partners consider the resourc-
es needed for monitoring and evaluation and agree on a practical arrangement to finance the as-
sociated activities. Such arrangements should be documented during the preparation of each CIDP
project and programme to enable a county government and its development partners to transfer the
6

necessary funds in accordance with their procedures, which could take considerable time and effort.
Operationalsing CIMES

204. Human resources are critical for effective monitoring and evaluation, even after securing ade-
quate financial resources. For high-quality monitoring and evaluation, there should be:

53
 County Performance Management System Handbook

• Dedicated staff time — Specific staff members should be assigned to the M&E func-
tion. The practices of deployment of personnel for monitoring may vary among county
governments. County governments could establish monitoring and evaluation units with
specific terms of reference, skilled staff, work plans and other resources.
• Skilled personnel—Staff entrusted with monitoring should have the required techni-
cal expertise in the area. Where necessary, skill levels should be augmented to meet the
needs, taking into consideration the ongoing county investment portfolio.
205. Except for counties in strong fiscal positions and with low existing capacity, no additional staff
is mandated or proposed for additional M&E responsibilities outlined in the CIMES Guidelines. Most of
these responsibilities should be reassigned among existing county staff, especially planning officers
or economists working in the department responsible for county economic planning and develop-
ment. However, in order to ensure that the county staff members reassigned to M&E activities fully
meet the county government’s M&E needs and, ultimately, increase the quality of M&E programming
at county level, the skills of the selected staff will be augmented through in-house M&E training and
other courses to be offered by MED and other suitable M&E training institutions.
6
Operationalsing CIMES

54
 A1 Core County Result Indicators

Sector No Indicator Unit Responsible MDA* Frequency

1. Agriculture 1 Cost of fertilizer inputs KES Ministry of Agriculture Annually
2 Number of livestock No. Ministry of Agriculture Annually
(% change) showing (%)
breakdown by kind.
3 Crop production (key crops, No. Ministry of Agriculture Annually
in Tones)
Rural Market Prices of main No. KNBS/ Ministry of Monthly
crops by type of crop. Agriculture
2. Education 4 % of female students % Ministry of Education Annually
enrolled.
5 Population with secondary % Ministry of Education Periodically
education
6 Adult literacy (can read and % KNBS Periodically
write)
7 Primary Net Enrolment Rate % Ministry of Education Annually
8 Primary to secondary % Ministry of Education Annually
transition rate

APPENDICES
9 Pupil:Teacher ratio Ratio Ministry of Education Annually
10 Textbook:Pupil ratio Ratio Ministry of Education Annually
11 Primary exam result average No. National Examination Annually
(Math) Board
12 Primary exam result average No. National Examination Annually
(English) Board
3. Energy 13 Electricity (% households % KNBS Periodically
2009)
4. Gender 14 Women in County % Ministry of Devolution Annually
Assemblies and Planning
15 Proportion of women % Ministry of Devolution Annually
recruited in the public and Planning
sector
5. General 16 Population size No. KNBS Periodically
information 18 Annual population growth % KNBS Periodically
rate (1999-2009) %
19 Surface area (km²) No. KNBS Periodically
20 Density (people per km²) No. KNBS Periodically
21 Poverty rate, based on KIHBS % KNBS Periodically
(%)
22 Share of urban population KNBS Periodically
(%)
23 Labour force participation % KNBS Periodically
rate

55
 County Performance Management System Handbook

Sector No Indicator Unit Responsible MDA* Frequency

6. Health 24 Proportion of fully- % Division of Health Annually
immunised population of Management
children under one year. Information Systems
25 Malaria (as % of all 1st % Division of Health Annually
outpatient visits) Management
Information Systems
26 Proportion of babies % Ministry of Health Annually
delivered in a health centers (HMIS)
27 Adequate height for age % Ministry of Health/ Periodically
(stunting) KNBS
28 Maternal mortality rate % Ministry of Health Periodically
29 % of mothers who received % Ministry of Health Annually
complete 4 courses of ANC
services
30 % of births assisted by % Ministry of Health Annually
qualified health staff
31 Under 5 mortality rate % Ministry of Health Periodically
32 Nurses (per 100,000 people) No. Ministry of Health Annually
33 Doctors (per 100,000 No. Ministry of Health Annually
people)
34 Preventive services budget KES Ministry of Health Annually
APPENDICES

35 Proportion of HIV-infected KAIS KNBS Periodically

persons among the county’s
total population by sex
36 Percent receiving KAIS KNBS Periodically
antiretroviral treatment
(ARV) among those eligible
for ARV treatment by sex
37 Curative services budget KES Ministry of Health Annually
7. ICT 36 Households with access to % Ministry of ICT/KNBS Periodical
radios
37 Households with access to % Ministry of ICT/KNBS Periodically
TVs
38 Population with mobile % Ministry of ICT/KNBS Periodically
phones
39 Population using the % Ministry of ICT/KNBS Periodically
internet
8. Security 40 Police:Population Ratio Police Annually
41 Reported violent crime (no. No. Police Annually
Per 100,000)
9. Social Security 42 Eligible households No. Ministry of Devolution Annually
with vulnerable persons (%) and Planning
receiving government cash
transfers

56
County Performance Management System Handbook

Sector No Indicator Unit Responsible MDA* Frequency

10. Tourism 43 No. of visitors arrivals and No. Ministry of East Annually
departures African Community
Affairs, Commerce and
Tourism
44 Tourism earnings KES Ministry of East Annually
African Community
Affairs, Commerce and
Tourism
11. Transport 45 Classified roads maintained % Ministry of Transport Annually
and/or rehabilitated and Infrastructure
46 Share of tarmac roads in % Ministry of Transport Annually
good/fair condition and Infrastructure
47 Share of gravel roads in % Ministry of Transport Annually
good/fair condition and Infrastructure
48 Paved roads (as % of total % Ministry of Transport Annually
roads 2012) and Infrastructure
12. Water and 49 Access to improved water % KNBS Periodically
Sanitation (% households 2009)
50 Improved sanitation (% % KNBS Periodical
households 2009)
51 Urban households with % Ministry of Periodically

APPENDICES
access to piped water Environment, Water &
Natural Resources
52 Rural households with % Ministry of Periodically
access to safe drinking water Environment, Water &
Natural Resources
53 Urban households with % Ministry of Periodically
individual or shared access Environment, Water &
to toilet facilities Natural Resources
54 Rural households with % Ministry of Periodically
individual or shared access Environment, Water &
to toilet facilities Natural Resources

57
 Core County Indicators for Monitoring the Implementation of the
County Budget and Value-for-Money

Indicator Measurement Frequency Source

A. Credibility of the budget

1. County Budget (in ‘000 KES) KES Quarterly CoB

2. Aggregate expenditure out-turn compared to the most current Percentage Quarterly CoB
budget
3. Share of approved unconditional transfers remitted (in the Percentage Quarterly CoB
County Allocation of Revenue Act)
4. Aggregated revenues out-turn in % of the original approved Percentage Quarterly CoB
budget
5. Ratio of own revenues to total spending Percentage Quarterly CoB
6. Development expenditures as percentage of total aggregated Percentage Quarterly CoB
expenditure
7. Wage bill as % of recurrent expenditures Percentage Quarterly CoB
8. % change in wage bill (of aggregated total expenditures) Percentage Annual CoB
compared to last year
9. Share of county expenditures recorded in IFMIS Percentage Quarterly CoB
APPENDICES

10. Approved (most recent) vote (sector) KES Quarterly CoB

11. Total county expenditure by vote (sector/department) KES Quarterly CoB
12. Expenditures by project KES Quarterly CoB
13. S ubmission of quarterly (budget#) reports on time (within two Yes/No Quarterly CoB
weeks after the end of each quarter)
14. County Fiscal Strategy Paper approved Yes/No Annually CoB
B. Comprehensiveness and transparency

15. Public participation in the annual budget process Meetings held, Annually CoG
feedback in
CIDP
16. S hare of mandatory citizen engagement/consultation Percentage Annually Online
meetings held
17. P ercentage of county citizens that are aware of public Percentage Annually Survey
planning, budget, and results consultations TBD
18. S hare of awarded procurement contracts with decision criteria Percentage Annually Survey
publicised TBD
19. C
 ounty budgets published online Percentage Annually CoG

58
County Performance Management System Handbook

Indicator Measurement Frequency Source

C. Budget cycle

20. Total value of audit qualifications (in ‘000 KES) Measured in Annually AOG
KES, out of total
expenditures
21. Audit qualifications in % of total expenditures Percentages Annually AOG
of total
expenditures
22. Settled audit qualifications in % of value of audit qualifications Out of total Annually AOG
qualified
23. Compliance with cashbook standards (are counties using AOG to clarify Annually AOG
IFMIS for budget management, not just accounting) measurement
D. Value for money

24. Average price paid for a bag of cement (50kgs) KES, AOG Annually AOG
sample
25. Average price paid for a biro pen (normal) KES, AOG Annually AOG
sample
26. Average price paid for a bottle of water (500ml) KES, AOG Annually AOG
sample

APPENDICES
27. Average price paid for a photo copy paper (A4 80mg one KES, AOG Annually AOG
ream) sample
28. Average price paid for a desktop computer KES, AOG Annually AOG
sample

59
 A2 Readiness Checklist

The checklist below indicates what actions need to be completed by the county in each ✔/✘
quarter of the financial year. The bold items relate directly to these guidelines.
1 The Expenditure Review is completed in Q1.
2 CIPD Annual Update is made in Q2 through participatory dialogue and
prioritization
3 Annual Budget Revised Outlook Paper is produced from the CIDP update in Q3.
4 From this & the CIDP Annual Update, the Annual County Fiscal Strategy Paper is
produced, in Q3.
5 Annual County Fiscal Strategy Paper includes revenue modelling and budget by
sector, in Q3
6 In Q3 the Returns to the CoB of the Budget Outlook Paper must be made.
7 Budget by sector used by Chief Officers to define service and project plans in
Q4.
8 Annual Development Plan is produced combining sectorial plans in Q4.
9 Performance Contracts of County Secretary & Chief Officers from ADP in Q4.
10 From the ADP, the Annual Budget Estimate is produced in Q4.
11 The Assembly (MCAs) must be sensitized and approve the Budget based on
Annual Budget Estimate in Q4.
APPENDICES

12 ADP approval by Assembly required before implementation inQ4.

13 Performance Contracts of County Secretary and Chief Officers signed by July 1st
14 Implementation and Spending on ADP can begin on July 1st.
15 Annual Accounts Statements must be published/ returned by 30th September.
16 Throughout the year, a report of sufficient quality must be made to CoB by 10th
of the month following expenditure to ensure receipt from CoB of funds by 15th
of the month.

60
 A3 CIDP Checklist

Use this checklist to test CIDP process and document quality. A quality CIDP is more likely to be
successfully implemented. Refer to CIDP guidelines Ch. 5-7, Sec 108 of CGA2012.
QUALITY CRITERION YES NO
1 Does CIDP reflect all plans/projects to be implemented in coming year by any
o o
organ of state?
2 Are the CIDP Implementation Matrix (Chap 5) and resource mobilisation (Chap 6)
o o
complete?
3 Were Priority Programmes and Projects developed as per Chap 7 of CIDP
o o
guidelines?
4 Has the CIDP been updated in preparation for the next Annual Development Plan? o o
5 Has there been full consultation to identify & prioritise needs based on value for o o
money?
6 Have alternative scenarios for development been identified with diverse and o o
expert input?
7 Were women and girls consulted and their priorities identified and included in o o
CIDP?
8 Were youth consulted and their priorities identified and included? o o
9 Were private sector consulted and their priorities identified and included? o o

APPENDICES
10 Were the development priority programmes and projects for the county
(Chapter 7) identified:
(a) Through an inclusive participatory process? o o
(b) On the basis of a thorough County Development Analysis (Chapter 2), o o
(c) Informed by the County Spatial Framework (Chapter 3), o o
(d) Including linkage with other Plans (Chapter 4), o o
11 Has a comprehensive implementation matrix been developed (Chapter 5)? o o
12 Is the implementation matrix supported by expected resource mobilisation o o
projections (Chapter 6)?
13 Are the development priority programmes and projects described in sufficient
detail, with respect to:
(a) Complete Logical Framework with Hierarchy of Objectives? (Use Project o o
Sheet A10)
(b) Corresponding indicators at all four levels? o o
(c) Quantitative targets including deadlines and phased timing? o o
(d) Budget and personnel resources required? o o
14 Are Chief of Staff, Chief Officers and Efficiency Officers inspired & committed to the o o
Plan?

61
 A4 Annual Development Plan Checklist

The Annual Development Plan is the work plan for the current year of the CIDP. The CIDP is imple-
mented one Annual Development Plan at a time.
QUALITY CRITERION YES NO
1 Does the ADP turn the Governor’s Vision into an actionable plan in the year? o o
2 Does the Annual Development Plan reflect the objectives of the CIDP for the year? o o
3 Has there been full consultation to identify & prioritise needs based on impact for
o o
money?
4 Were women and girls consulted and their priorities systematically identified and o o
included?
5 Were youth consulted and their priorities systematically identified and included? o o
6 Were private sector consulted and their priorities systematically identified and o o
included?
7 A comprehensive implementation matrix has been developed. (Chapter 5) o o
8 This is supported by expected resource mobilisation projections. (Chapter 6)? o o
9 Are the development priority programmes and projects described in sufficient
detail, with
(a) Complete Logical Framework with Hierarchy of Objectives? o o
(b) Corresponding indicators at all four levels?
APPENDICES

(c) Quantitative targets including deadlines and phased timing?

(d) Budget and personnel resources required?
10 Have quick wins been identified based on what can be done for low cost with high o o
impact?
11 Are quick wins included in priorities of Chief of Staff, Chief Officers & Efficiency o o
Officers?
12 Are Chief of Staff, Chief Officers and Efficiency Officers inspired & committed to the o o
Plan?
If CIDP or Annual Development Plan indicators and targets by sector are found to be incomplete
for M&E purposes, the CIDP or Annual Development Plan can be improved or supplemented with
additional indicators.

62
 A5 Engagement Checklist

Has the county developed a stakeholder “map” identifying stakeholder groups to consult throughout
the CIDP process?
Stakeholder Group for Quarterly % Representative Body % of population
Engagement Monitoring population represented by
in category representative bodies
Business
Youth
Women
Civil Society
Religious and Faith Leaders
Minorities
People with disabilities

Percentage of budget allocated to projects delivering top 3 priorities of stakeholder group:

Stakeholder Group Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 % of
budget

APPENDICES
Business
Youth
Women
Civil Society
Rel. Leaders
Minorities
People with disabilities

Does the county have a working process for engagement and participation of stakeholder groups?
Stakeholder Group Please describe:
Business
Youth
Women
Civil Society
Religious Leaders
Minorities
People with disabilities

63
 A6 Stakeholder Participation Assessment

Use this rating sheet to assess the degree of participation and engagement of key stakeholder groups
in development projects and service delivery of the county. Stakeholder groups should be those
identified in A5. The CIDP, Annual Development Plan and Sector Plans should all be informed by
Stakeholder Participation.
Achievement Description Stakeholder 1 Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder 3
Contact
Representative
Agenda
Round table
Included
Resourced
Output
Outcome
Impact
This maturity model is indicative of CIMES checklists.
APPENDICES

64
 A7 Maturity Model for Reporting Status of ADP Projects

Achievement Description Relating to tables of Chapter 7 of CIDP

Proposed o Status “Proposed” from Table i of Chapter 7 of CIDP
Stalled o Status “Stalled” from Table ii of Chapter 7 of CIDP
Unassigned o
Assigned o
Resourced o
Plan o
“Unassigned” – “Impact”
Off Track o
On Track o Relate to Status “Running” from Table i of
Output o Chapter 7 of CIDP
Outcome o
Impact o
This maturity model is indicative of CIMES ADP and CIDP project status checklists.

APPENDICES

65
 A8 Template for CIDP and ADP Performance Management Results Matrix

Template for capture of CIPD/ADP M&E and Performance Management project results. Projects listed
in Chapter 7 of CIDP in Tables i-iv.
This form indicates the information to be collected, but cannot be conveniently used in an A4 docu-
ment format. In practice, to monitor, manage and evaluate CIPD projects an electronic system e-CIMES
is required. In practice, to print this information, an A3 landscape printout is required. This template
will be updated from time to time and available from MoDP (MED) and Council of Governors.

A B C D E F G H
Ministry/ Priority Flagship Project is In CEC Project or Status SMART
Sector A, B, C ✔/✘ in ADP? Member’s Service Name (See A7 for Objectives
PC? ADP Reporting for each
✔/✘ Location/
✔/✘ Maturity project
Division/
Model)
Or Name Constituency
APPENDICES

Example maturity models are provided in e-CIMES for each of:

• County Annual Development Plan Projects (as indicated in A7 above)
• County Performance Contract (PC) objectives (as defined for county and national PC
weighted scoring and evaluation).
RRI use: focus on 3 projects (Col F) per department (Col A) defining managers (Cols O and P) and
SMART actions (Col M) using A10 SMART Action format.

66
I J K L M N O
Measures Evidence to be Annual and Description SMART Actions SRO PDO
for each provided for Quarterly of Activities (see second
Senior Resp. Project
Objective evaluation of Target page of
Owner Delivery
each indicator for each Appendix A10
Officer
objective for format

APPENDICES

67
 COUNTY: ___________________ DATE: _______________
EFFICIENCY OFFICER: ___________________ MINISTRY: _____________________
1. Ensure the commitment of the Governor to performance management and M&E as a tool
for driving development results and a tool for holding CEC Members to account and for
CEC Members to drive results.
2. Ensure the commitment of the County Secretary to performance management and M&E
as a tool for coordinating the work of ministries and a mandated tool for Chief Officers
and Directors.
3. Complete form A8 to define three high priority and high impact ADP projects per ministry.

A B C D E F G H
Ministry/ Priority Flagship In ADP? In Mins PC? Project or Service Status (See SMART
Sector A, B, C ✔/✘ ✔/✘ ✔/✘ Name A7 for ADP Objectives
Reporting for each
Or Name Location/Division/
Maturity project
Constituency
Model)
APPENDICES

68
I J K L M N O
Measures Evidence to be Annual and Description of SMART Actions SRO PDO
for each provided for Quarterly Activities (see second
Senior Project
Objective evaluation of Target page of
Resp. Delivery
each indicator for each Appendix A10
Owner Officer
objective for format

APPENDICES

69
 A9 Selection Criteria for Performance Management M&E System

A1 Selection Criteria for Performance Management M&E System

Access, Reporting and Dissemination ✔/✘

1 Proven for use in performance management of Performance Contracts including o
weighted scoring.
2 Proven support for tracking CIDP projects based on Appendix A8 County Results o
Matrix.
3 Proven support for stakeholder engagement and advocacy management based on o
Appendix A5 and A6.
4 Easy personalised, selective data access based on role and county. o
5 Aggregation of county data from sub-county, ward and individual projects. o
6 Peer Learning through benchmarking of indicators between counties and access to o
shared knowledge.
7 Selective access to CIDP project subsets: CIDP, ADP, Flagship and Performance Contract o
projects.
Configuration and administration
8 Configurable organisations (county, sub-county, ward, parastatal, CDF, Non-State o
APPENDICES

Actor)
9 Configurable Results Matrix (CIDP, Annual Development Plan) o
10 Definable indicators, budgets, targets, variance, traffic lights o
11 Definable assessments using maturity models such as in Appendix A7 o
12 Definable security roles and access (based on county responsibilities) o
13 Delegation of administration rights for local administration o
14 Master administration rights for cross-cutting administration o
15 Indicator definitions can be updated as national or shared indicator definitions are o
changed and improved.
16 The system must support multiple, concurrent read-write, replicas to allow for o
distributed delivery.
Audit, Approval and Evidence
17 Approval of indicators and evidence by Chief Officer reflects ultimate responsibility to o
the Governor.
18 Individual accountability for indicator update, release and tracking of who needs to o
update what.
19 Capture of indicator results with audit log of who made what update and when. o
20 Capture of evidence such as photos, scanned documents, etc. to demonstrate outputs o
and outcomes.
21 Capture of historic results fixed after closing of reporting time window. o

70
 A10 Project Sheet or Project Logical Framework Matrix (LFM)

Fill in this Project Sheet for each project or service for which budget has been allocated. These data
sheets are to be added as Annexes to the Annual Development Plan.
County Geo Coord. S
Sector Geo Coord. E
Project Name Responsible
Financial Year Start - End
Quarter Start - End
M&E Data Sheet in results matrix format
(To be read from bottom up: Inputs → Outputs → Outcomes → Impacts)
A B C D
Hierarchy of Indicators Targets Means of Verification
Objectives
Annual Quarterly
Impact (optional) (COUNTY LEVEL INDIC.)
- Direct Benefit (as
assessed by citizens)
- Indirect Benefit

APPENDICES
(statistical sector
indicators)
Outcomes
- Utilisation of services /
infrastructure
- Appreciation of services/
infrastructure.
(as assessed by citizens)
Outputs
- Physical structure
completed
- Services in place (or
advise/training provided,
or campaign done)
Inputs
- Financial Approved budget (in KSHs)
- Personnel Percentage (%) of
approved budget
received from start of FY
Funds (KSHs) spent in
the reporting period:
a) Total (KSHs)
b) Broken down on
major funding sources:
(KSHs):

71
 A10 Project Sheet or Project Logical Framework Matrix (LFM) continued

Funds (KSHs) spent

cumulative from the
start of the FY:
a) Total (KSHs).
b) Broken down on
major funding sources
(KSHs):

Priority Actions Assigned to: Due by: Status

! !
SMART action required Person Responsible mm/dd/yy Initial, Accepted, Not
for action Agreed, Not Now, Off Track,
(Named user of On Track, Revoked, Closed.
system)
APPENDICES

72
 Project M&E Using Project Sheets

Use the template above to record a project results matrix for a project or Project Service Delivery Unit
(PSDU). Start with the 3-5 priority projects or services per ministry. Record the county (and sub-coun-
ty), ministry, project name, financial year as well as location or geo coordinates of the project where
applicable. Define the person responsible (PDO) and the planned start and end date. Targets should
be set for annual and quarterly achievements. For each target a means of verification should be de-
fined. The project sheet results should be updated at least quarterly by the PDO with the assistance of
the Efficiency Officer of their ministry. Key actions to be taken by the PDO or others should be record-
ed in the SMART Actions table of A10 and the status of these actions should be updated at least quar-
terly. The report, together with evidence and explanation, should be approved by the SPDM before
passing to the M&E Unit for collation with other results for quarterly M&E reports and performance
management reporting to CoMEC and the Governor’s office as appropriate.
This requires identifying input level indicators (money, resources, activities), output level indicators
(describing the expected deliverables), outcome level indicators (utilisation and appreciation of de-
liverables), and – where practical – impact level indicators, i.e. benefits that are directly attributable to
the utilisation of the deliverables. The logical levels are:
1. Inputs: Budget Implementation and Activities. Indicators refer to the degree to which the al-
located budget for the respective sector has a) been disbursed, and b) been utilised for the
planned activities.
• Example: % of allocated amounts for the construction of new health centres disbursed

APPENDICES
and spent to implement the planned health centre
2. Outputs: Achievement, project completion. This level of indicator describes to what extent
the intended goods have been delivered by the respective sector agencies, or the degree to
which a project has been completed, or the services are ready for service delivery.
• Example: New health centre in the county constructed, equipped, staffed, and operational
3. Outcomes: Utilisation / User satisfaction. This level assesses to what extent the sector services
have actually been used, with users adopting, appreciating or expressing satisfaction with the
services provided.
• Example: Number of assisted deliveries in the health centre
4. Impacts: Benefit. This level assesses the benefits received by the target population from use of
the outputs. Direct benefits are as experienced and assessed by beneficiaries. Indirect bene-
fits are typically measured as statistical changes in highly aggregated development indicators
which can still be attributed to the improvements in the services provided, and the utilisation
of these services by the people in the county. For this level it may only be practical to get data
aggregated at county level, not by individual PSDU or project.
• Example: Change in maternal mortality rate in the county

73
 A11 M&E Reporting Sheet Aggregated by (Sub-)Sector/Project Type

Fill in this data sheet for each type of project or service (sub-sector), aggregated from the individual
reporting sheets. During implementation, weekly or monthly status updates should be recorded.
The impact level indicators should be collected from KNBS annually.

County Sector Health

Sub-Sector Rural Health Centres Date
Financial Year 2013/14 Responsible
M&E Reporting Sheet in results matrix format
(To be read from bottom up: Inputs → Outputs → Outcomes → Impacts)
Hierarchy of Objectives Indicators Target Actual Deviation Comment /
Recommen-
dation for
Correct. Action
Impact (optional) (COUNTY LEVEL INDIC.)
- Direct Benefit (as % of patients who fully
assessed by citizens) recovered as a result of the
treatment received
- Indirect Benefit (statistical Mortality rate in the county
sector indicators) decreasing
APPENDICES

Outcomes
- Utilisation of services / Number of patients treated
infrastructure per month
- Appreciation of services % of patients who rate the
/ infrastructure. services received as “good” or
(as assessed by citizens) “very good”
Outputs
- Physical structure No. of rural health centres
completed established and operational
- Services in place (or No. of rural health centres fully
advise/training provided, equipped and staffed with at
or campaign done) least 1 doctor, 3 nurses
Inputs
- Financial Approved Budget ( in Ksh)
- Personnel % of approved budget received
Funds (KSHs) spent in the
reporting period:
a) Total (KSHs):
b) Broken down on major
funding sources (KSHs):
Value of audit qualifications
(in ‘000 Ksh)
Additional Comments
Priority Actions Assigned to: Due by: Status

! !
SMART action required Person Responsible mm/dd/yyyy Initial, Accepted, Not
for action (Named Agreed, Not Now, Off Track,
user of system) On Track, Revoked, Closed.

74
 A12 Targets in Project Sheets and Results Matrix

Setting targets
Define realistic objectives and targets in terms of quantity and time for indicators and projects and services
listed. Start with the high priority, high impact projects.

The importance of targets

Setting targets and measuring results enables comparisons to be made between actual and planned performance.
Target setting is when the CIDP is defined, and then targets may be revised or added to during the annual
update of the CIDP.
Realistic targets, have to be defined in terms of quantity and time, (monthly, quarterly, yearly targets and/or
deadlines), for all indicators and for all projects and services listed. These targets must be sufficiently ambitious,
to convince all stakeholders including decision-makers and the public that this is indeed good value for money.

Stakeholder participation
Targets must be set, based on the developmental needs of communities. Remember that there may be quick-
win policy changes, tasks or projects with a low cost and high impact for stakeholders. Use the consultation
process to identify quick-win projects and ensure they are built into the sector plans and objectives of Chief Of-
ficers and their Efficiency Officers. Use Appendix A5 to ensure that participation covers all stakeholder groups
adequately. Use Appendix A6 to ensure that participation is an ongoing process built-into county governance.
Political leaders must provide clear direction as to the importance of the target and how it will address the

APPENDICES
public need, while municipal employees must advise as to what a realistic and achievable target is, given the
available resources, capacity and challenges.
Managers, after consulting operational staff, must advise on seasonal changes and other externalities to be
considered in the process of target setting. By finalising the Annual Development Plan, the county makes a
commitment to achieve these targets within agreed time-frames and to notify all stakeholders of the targets
and time-frames. Since this commitment is cascaded down to the individual level through performance agree-
ments, directorate performance plans and individual performance plans, it is critical that all staff be involved
in the target setting process.

Guidance for Target Setting

To set meaningful targets in the Annual Development Plan and county sector plans, refer to:
(a) Vision 2030, the county vision, and values, mission, and long-term development strategy.
(b) National MTP-2, sector and county policies, priorities and legislation, in particular comparing cur-
rent service standards with what is generally regarded as acceptable and expected standards.
(c) Inputs from stakeholders, including citizens, and for quick-wins.
(d) Information contained in the current adopted CIDP.
(e) Previous performance and current baseline performance information.
(f ) Envisaged performance to be achieved in the following financial year, on the basis of the expect-
ed resource envelope (resources available over time).
(g) What is working in this county and in other counties?
(h) Lessons learnt, as well as challenges, resource constraints and success stories.
On the basis of annual institutional performance targets, quarterly targets may also be agreed upon for all
indicators where this is possible and feasible. This should be done in consultation with the relevant stakehold-
ers, e.g. political leaders, sector management teams and staff. The resulting quarterly targets become agreed
upon performance, alerting CEC members, management and staff about what is expected and to what extent
they will be held accountable for performance (Include quarterly targets in the Results Matrix Template for
CIDP Performance Management of Appendix A8). The Results Matrix and quarterly targets are the basis for the
Performance Contract of the CEC members for each sector.

75
 A13 County Governments Administrative Structure Based on Officers

The Governor

Deputy Governor
Heads of National Officers from
Government Functions National Police
Service

Managers of Cities and

Municipalities The County Secretary

The County Chief Officers

APPENDICES

Sub-County Administrators

Ward Administrators

Village Administrators

Village Council
© 2012 Gabriel Lubale.

76
 A14 Key Reports to be Prepared at County Level

Approver Report Frequency Prepared Approved Recipient & Dissemination

by: by: Date or month following

CoMEC APR on CIDP-County Annual Senate, Council of

Annual Monitoring Governors, County inter-
and Evaluation Report governmental Forum,
(CAMER) County Assembly, CEC, MED,
Citizen, 15th
County Monitoring and Quarter Citizen, County Departments
Evaluation Report (Internal use), 15th
County Annual Public Annual Senate, Council of Governors,
Expenditure Review County intergovernmental
(CAPER) Forum, County Assembly,
CEC, MED, Citizen ,15th
SCoMEC Sub-County Annual Annual TOC, Sub-County
Monitoring and Departments (Internal use),
Evaluation Report Citizen, 7th
(SCAMER)
Sub-County Monitoring Quarter TOC, Citizen, County

APPENDICES
and Evaluation Report Departments (Internal use),
7th
Sub-County Annual Annual TOC, Citizen, County
Public Expenditure Departments (Internal use),
Review (SCAPER) 7th
SMEC Sector Monitoring and Quarter TOC, Sub-County/Ward/
Evaluation Report (SMER) Village Departments
(Internal use), Citizen 7th
Sector Monitoring and Annual TOC, Sub-County/Ward/
Evaluation Report (SMER) Village Departments
(Internal use), Citizen, 7th
Sector Public Annual TOC, Sub-County/Ward/
Expenditure Reports Village Departments(Internal
(SPER) use), Citizen, 7th
WaMEC Ward Monitoring and Quarter Sub-County/ Departments
Evaluation Report (Internal use), Citizen, 1st
(WaMER)
WaMEC Ward Monitoring and Annual Sub-County/
Evaluation Report Departments(Internal use),
(WaMER) Citizen, 1st
ViMEC Village Monitoring Month Ward/ Departments (Internal
and Evaluation Report use), Citizen, 23rd of the last
(ViMER) month previous

77
 A15 NIMES Operational Arrangements

1. The operational arrangement for implementation, coordination and reporting of NIMES re-
sults at national level consists of two guiding committees and five Technical Advisory Groups
(TAGs). The committees and the five TAGs are as given below.

A. Ministry of Devolution and Planning

2. The MDP is responsible for the coordination of NIMES through MED. MPD leads the M&E ef-
forts, backed by various policies and pieces of legislation mentioned in this chapter. It is also
expected to be backed by adequate skilled staff as well as infrastructural capacity to under-
take robust M&E of policies, projects and programmes that are being implemented by the two
levels of government, the private sector, and CSOs.

B. Monitoring and Evaluation Department (MED)

3. MED has the mandate as a Department in the Ministry of Devolution and Planning to co-ordi-
nate NIMES with the aim to:
(a) Build and promote the M&E practice throughout Kenya, ensuring integration of
Government and its non-state partners in the M&E reporting process;
(b) Strengthen capacities for M&E at all levels and for all components of practice;
(c) Produce policy research and key M&E reports;
APPENDICES

(d) Track follow-up on the implementation of major monitoring reports; and

(e) Develop and institutionalise standards and guidelines for harmonised project monitor-
ing and reporting at the national and sub-national levels.

C. National M&E Steering Committee (NSC)

4. The National Monitoring and Evaluation Steering NSC is the highest policy advisory body un-
der the NIMES institutional arrangements. The NSC provides overall endorsement of the policy
direction to NIMES. It endorses the work plans of TAGs. The NSC also advises and promotes the
use of best international practice, and assists in mobilising resources for the functioning of
NIMES and the TAGs. Its composition includes representatives of the government, civil society,
and private sector and development partners.

D. M&E Technical Oversight Committee (TOC)

5. The M&E Technical Oversight Committee (TOC), is the technical / professional advisory organ in
strategy and direction for NIMES. It approves NIMES work plans and tracks progress in their im-
plementation. It also approves monitoring and evaluation reports before publication. TOC mem-
bership comprises senior government officers drawn from MPD and selected line ministries.

E. Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs)

6. The Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs), provide guidance in the following five areas deemed
strategic for M&E: (i) Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection and Storage, and Indicator
Construction; (ii) Research and Results Analysis; (iii) Dissemination for Advocacy and Sensitisation:
(iv) Project Monitoring and Evaluation; and (v) Capacity Development and Policy Coordination.
7. Detailed requirements of Kenya’s devolved system of government are provided in the Draft
National M&E Framework 2014. These Guidelines are designed to ensure that concepts and
terminologies used in building CIMES are standardised and linked to NIMES.
78
References

1. George Kimotho, The Government of Kenya, 2012

2. Ministry of Planning and National Development, “Master Plan for the Implementation of
A National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System, 2007-2012”, July 2007.
3. Ministry of Devolution and Planning, “M&E Framework for Kenya, 2014” 2nd Draft.
4. Tim Unwin and David Hollow, “UNESCO Information Communication and Technology for
Development”, 2008.
5. Kusek and Rist (2004), the World Bank, Ten Steps to A Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation
System
6. Regional Centre for Learning and Evaluation on Results, African Monitoring and Evaluation
Systems Workshop Report, February 2013.
7. Government of Kenya (June 2003), Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment
Creation, June, 2003.
8. Hand book on Monitoring and Evaluating for results, UNDP, 2002.

79
CIMES Guidelines and the National Capacity Building Framework
These County Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (CIMES) Guidelines were
developed as part of the Government of Kenya’s (GoK), National Capacity Building
Framework (NCBF). The NCBF provides a mechanism for facilitating and coordinating
capacity building initiatives and provides a basis for monitoring and evaluating capacity
development for devolution.
Through the NCBF and GoK strategies, national and county governments, development
partners and other stakeholders will align and guide capacity building efforts to leverage
on ongoing capacity building initiatives as well as mobilizing new resources around the
devolution agenda.
It is through this framework county staff will upgrade their skills and competencies to
perform their responsibilities adequately to enhance service delivery, build structures
and systems to promote and ensure sustainable social economic development and
enhance capacities of management of financial and human resources, county institutions,
community and stakeholders participation.