COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK FOR COUNTY
GOVERNMENTS

2017
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK FOR COUNTY
GOVERNMENTS

© 2017
Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADP Annual Development Plan

ADP Annual Development Plan

CFSP County Fiscal Strategy Paper

CGA County Government Act

CIDP County Integrated Development Plan

CIMES County Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System

CPMF County Performance Management Framework

ERS Economic Recovery Strategy

ISO International Standards Organization

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

MTPs Medium Term Plans

NARC National Rainbow Coalition

NPMF National Performance Management Framework

PAS Performance Appraisal System

PBB Program Based Budget

PC Performance Contracting

PFM Public Finance Management

RBM Result Based Management

 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

Table of Contents

FOREWORD iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v

1 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICE IN KENYA

1.1 Introduction
1
1

2 THE COUNTY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

2.1 Introduction
4
4
2.2 National Development Plan: Vision 2030 6
2.3 10-Year County Spatial & Sector Plans 6
2.4 County Integrated Development Plan 6
2.5 Five-Year Departmental Strategic Plans 9
2.6 Annual Development Plan 9
2.7 Work Plans 9
2.8 Annual Budget; Resource Mobilization 10
2.9 Performance Contracting and Staff Performance Appraisal 10
2.10 Staff Performance Appraisal 11
2.11 Monitoring & Evaluation, Reporting and Learning 11

ANNEX
Members of the Intergovernmental Performance Management Technical Committee 14

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 County Performance Management Framework 8

ii

iii
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

Foreword
Governments all over the world are coming under increasing pressure from their citizens to
demonstrate development results from the resources collected in form of taxes. Increasingly,
governments are also being pressured to be accountable to the electorate for the promises made
in form of political manifestos, development plans, electoral pledges and the international
commitments. Additionally, citizens are increasingly demanding for transparency not only on
what the government has done but also to demonstrate the impact of government’s interventions
in improving citizens’ quality of life. Paradoxically, governments’ resource envelope has not
expanded in tandem with citizens’ demands and therefore there have been calls for governments
to “do more with less”.
Institutionalizing a Performance Management Framework (PMF) in County Governments
is therefore imperative in ensuring that Counties demonstrate their development results.
Embracing this Performance Management Framework in County Governments marks a
paradigm shift in the sense that Counties will no longer just demonstrate what they have done
but rather how their activities and interventions have benefited the people of Kenya.
The underlying objective of developing this Performance Management Framework is to
eliminate the “Silo Approach” in the management of public affairs and create harmony in
planning and utilization of public resources for the betterment of the lives of citizens. Although
the previous administrations have practiced variants of performance management such as
Results-Based Management, these past reforms have largely been introduced and implemented
intermittently. The current framework builds on the previous efforts and goes further to
package all the instruments of performance management into one framework comprising of
the following components;
1. Vision 2030 which is the National Development Plan
2. 10 Year Sector and Spatial plans as prescribed in Section 109 and 110 of the County
Governments Act 2012 respectively.
3. 5 Year County Integrated Development Plan as prescribed in Section 108 of the County
Governments Act
4. 5 Year Departmental Strategic Plans aligned to the County Integrated Development Plan
5. Annual Development Plan derived as prescribed in Section 126 of the PFM Act
6. Performance Contracting and Staff Performance Appraisal which is an accountability tool
7. Monitoring and Evaluation, Reporting and Learning
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

This framework is aligned to the pillars guiding the National Performance Management
Framework to bring congruence and synergy in the implementation of national and county
development priorities for the good of Kenyans.
The Performance Management Framework gives credence to Section 8 (f ); (h) & (j) of
the Intergovernmental Relations Act, 2012 which mandates the Summit to; “evaluate the
performance of the National or County Governments and recommend appropriate action”.
In this respect, and going forward, a key agenda for the Summit will be an assessment of the
milestones achieved in the implementation of the Performance Management Framework for
County Governments.
This framework shall be supported by the following guidelines;
• Guidelines for the preparation of CIDPs;
• Guidelines for Preparation of Annual Development Plan;
• Performance Contracting Guidelines;
• Guidelines for the development of County Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation
System (CIMES);
• County Service Delivery Handbook;
• Guidelines for Staff Performance Appraisals;
• Guidelines for Public Participation;
• Guidelines for County Spatial Planning;
The Council of Governors is optimistic that this framework shall promote accountability in
service delivery at the County level by ensuring that tasks are performed efficiently, effectively
and economically. It also provides a mechanism for Citizens to engage and evaluate the
performance of their county governments.

H.E PETER MUNYA

CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS

iv

v
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

Acknowledgments
The Council of Governors (COG) appreciates the work of the Intergovernmental Technical
Committee that was put together to align the County Performance Management Framework
with the National Performance Management Framework. The Intergovernmental Technical
Committee comprised of representatives from both levels of Government, chaired by the
Ministry of Devolution and Planning. The institutions that were represented in the committee
in addition to the Ministry of Devolution and Planning are; Executive Office of the President,
The National Treasury, Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender Affairs, Office of the
Attorney General, Office of the Controller of Budget, Commission for Revenue Allocation,
Kenya School of Government, Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee, Office of the
Clerk of the Senate, County Assemblies Forum, Public Service Commission, Intergovernmental
Budget, PricewaterhouseCoopers for Technical Support and Economic Council and select
County Governments representatives.
This exercise would not have been successful without the support of our partners. Specifically,
we wish to appreciate the support received from USAID- AHADI, UNDP and World Bank for
their technical and financial support in this process. Special appreciations also go to individual
counties that sent and facilitated the participation of their officers in this assignment.
Lastly, special gratitude goes to the leadership of the Council of Governors under the
Chairmanship of H.E. Peter Munya and H.E James Ongwae, EBS for supporting this process.
The joint execution of this assignment has proved that both levels of government can work
together in the Spirit of Article 6 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.

MS. JACQUELINE MOGENI

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
COUNCIL OF GOVERNORS
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

01 Performance Management
in Public Service in Kenya

1.1 Introduction
The genesis of performance management in the public service
in Kenya is traceable to the Economic Recovery Strategy
(ERS) and Wealth and Employment Creation of 2003-2007
inaugurated by the Coalition Government of NARC. Upon
assuming power in December 2002, the NARC Government
developed the ERS as a way of reversing the negative economic
growth trajectory that had caused poverty and joblessness. The
RBM is a management ERS was anchored in good governance under a democratic
strategy that seeks to republic and the rule of law as the foundations of economic
achieve important growth.
changes in the way The ERS specifically and clearly identified key infrastructural,
government agencies institutional and sectoral policy measures and programs that
work with improving were to be pursued by the government in a 5-year period to
performance achieve the desired economic recovery, grow wealth, create
employment and reduce poverty. In the public sector, the ERS
reforms introduced a number of targeted measures including
but not limited to;
• Accelerating ministerial rationalization and developing
strategic plans for ministries/departments in order to
allow for:
űű Proper utilization of resources on clearly identified
core functions,
űű Determine appropriate staffing levels,
űű Objective appraisal of staff,
űű Better and improved method of supervising staff
based on achievements of set targets among others.

vi

1
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

• Developing, introducing and the Government institutionalized RBM in

institutionalizing performance-based the Public Service in April, 2005 to deliver
management practices in the public effective, efficient, ethical and targeted
service, results for Kenyans1.
• Undertaking service delivery surveys RBM is a management strategy that seeks
in all ministries/departments to achieve important changes in the way
and developing and installing government agencies work with improving
service charters with clear service performance (achieving better results) as the
benchmarks and standards in order to overarching goal. RBM and performance
enhance efficiency, transparency and management are synonymous and often
accountability in service delivery, and used interchangeably in the Kenyan context.
• Putting all Permanent Secretaries and A key feature of RBM or performance
Chief Executive Officers of parastatals management is the emphasis on improving
on Performance Contracts. performance and ensuring that government
activities achieve the desired results2.
The core objective of public service reforms,
at the time, was to create a leaner, efficient, The institutionalization of RBM in the
motivation of staff and more productive Kenyan public service marked the beginning
public service that concentrates public of the implementation of a performance
finance and human resources on the management system. Performance
delivery of core government services. As management in the public service is anchored
such, the ERS performance framework was in the National Economic Development
not initially introduced and developed as Blue Print which is Vision 2030 and the
a well thought-out National Performance preceding ERS of 2003-2007.
Management Framework (NPMF). This
Key Principles of Kenya’s RBM include:
notwithstanding, it is evident from above
• Citizen-centered service delivery
that the key components of the NPMF
were clearly laid in the ERS under the • Results-oriented
public sector reforms. In this respect, • Accountability and transparency
therefore, the development and subsequent • Horizontal integration
implementation of NPMF in the public
• Performance measurement
service has been a matter of evolution rather
than revolution. • Stakeholder participation
• Performance monitoring and
In operationalizing the expected outcomes of
reporting.
the public sector reforms, the Results-Based
1 Otwori, M. J. (2013). “Institutionalizing Results-Based
Management (RBM) system was introduced Management in the Kenyan Public Service”. Presentation to
in September, 2004 as a means of delivering High-Level Policy Makers in Nairobi, June 2013.
2 Binnendijk, A (2000). Results Based Management
the ERS. Subsequently, through a Circular, in Development Cooperation Agencies: A Review of
Experiences. DAC Working Paper on AID Evaluation.
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

As indicated, the implementation of performance management in Kenya’s public service has

evolved over time since the institutionalization of RBM. This is explained by a number of
initiatives that have been employed intermittently to implement performance management.
These initiatives include;
• Performance contracting (PC),
• Rapid results initiatives (RRI),
• Performance appraisal system (PAS),
• Service/Citizen charters,
• Program-based budgeting (PBB), and
• ISO Certification etc

3
02 The County Performance
Management Framework

2.1 Introduction
Performance management framework operational in the
public service in Kenya has evolved over the years as a globally
acceptable good management practice. At the National level,
performance management has not been legally prescribed by
any applicable legislation but rather as a policy document
adopted by the Cabinet in 2004. At the County Government
level, however, performance management is legally prescribed
through various sections of the County Government Act,
2012 (CGA) and the Public Finance Management Act, 2012
(PFM). The following Sections of both the CGA, 2012 and
PFM 2012 hint at a performance management system;

The PFM Act, 2012

Section 126 (1) requires every county to prepare a development
plan which identifies:
1. Strategic priorities for the medium term that reflect the
county government’s priorities and plans;
2. Programs to be delivered with details for each program
of;
a) The strategic priorities to which the program will
contribute
b) The service or goods to be provided
c) Measurable indicators of performance where
feasible, and
d) The budget allocated to the program
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

The CGA, 2012 Whereas both the PFM, 2012 and CGA,
2012 mandate the development and
Section 37 identifies the role of Executive
adoption of a performance management
Committee in the urban area or city planning
plan or system, the latter goes further to
to include among other things;
require such plan or system be aligned to
• Facilitate the coordination and National strategies, plans or frameworks. It is
alignment of the integrated in this context that the County Performance
development plans of different Management Framework (CPMF) has
cities or municipalities within the been developed and aligned to the National
county with the plans strategies and Performance Management Framework
programs of the National and county (NPMF).
governments
The components of the CPMF presented
Section 47 requires the Executive Committee in figure 1 borrow from the NPMF and
to design a performance management plan are sequentially presented as such to
to evaluate performance of the county promote harmony, facilitate the exchange
public service and the implementation of of information, coordinate the execution
the county policies. public services and enhance the capacity of
The plan shall provide for among others; the County Governments as required under
a) Objective measurable and time- Article 189 of the Constitution.
bound performance indicators The underlying objective of a County
b) Linkage to mandates Performance Management Framework is to
c) Annual performance reports promote accountability in service delivery
by ensuring that tasks are performed
d) Citizen participation in the evaluation
efficiently, effectively and economically.
of performance of county government,
Also, a performance framework provides
and
a mechanism for citizen to engage and
e) Public sharing of performance evaluate the performance of their county
progress report government. The CPMF is composed
Section 103 identifies the objectives of of seven (7) components or steps. These
county planning that include; components include; Vision 2030, 10-
• To ensure harmony between national, Year county special/sector plans, 5-Year
county and sub-county spatial County Integrated Development Plan,
planning requirements. 5-Year departmental strategic plans,
Annual Development Plans, Performance
Section 105 Planning in the County requires Contracting, Performance Appraisal
a county planning unit to; System and Monitoring and Evaluation
• Ensure linkages between county plans and Reporting. The section that follows
and the National planning framework. highlights the contents of each component.
4

5
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

2.2 National Development Beyond Spatial Plan, County Governments

are also required to develop 10-Year Sectoral
Plan: Vision 2030 Plans as per Section 109 of the CGA, 2012.
Although Article 6 (1 & 2) of the These plans serve as the basis for budgeting
Constitution 2010 divides the territory of and performance management at the county
Kenya into 47 Counties and identifies the level and should also be developed and
governments at the National and county aligned to development priorities of the
levels as distinct and interdependent, the various sectors of the three pillars of Vision
Republic of Kenya is a Unitary State with 2030. The main divergence between the
one overriding development blue print NPMF and the CPMF in this regard, is that
which currently is the Vision 2030. Whereas the former’s sector plans last for five years
the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution just like the MTP while the latter’s sector
identifies different functions for each level plans last for ten (10) years.
of government, both the CGA, 2012 and
The other big difference is that a sector in
the PFM, 2012 require that the long-term
the county government is synonymous to a
development and execution plans of the
department or ministry while in the national
functions of either level of government be
government a sector has 2-3 ministries and
anchored in Vision 2030 which outlines the
a number of departments and agencies/
nation’s development agenda. In developing
parastatals. Although sector plans identify
long-term development plans, county
departmental development and programme
development priorities should be aligned
priorities that are to be achieved within a
to Vision 2030’s development priorities
period of ten (10) years and are subject for
identified in the different sectors of the
review after every five years, the law allows
three pillars (economic, social and political
counties to update these plans annually.
governance) of the Vision.
This flexibility therefore allows sector
plans’ priorities to be adjusted during
2.3 10-Year County Spatial the development of the CIDP and the
& Sector Plans department’s strategic plan (both done after
every five years) and during the development
Section 110 of the County Government
of the ADP which is done annually.
Act, 2012 requires each county to develop
a 10-Year Spatial Plan which forms part
of the county integrated development 2.4 County Integrated
plan. This plan gives guidance on the use Development Plan
and management of land in a county and
County Integrated Development Plan
the required land investment needs. The
(CIDP) at the county level are the equivalent
development of the spatial plan should be
of the Medium Term Plans (MTP) at the
aligned to various sector priorities of the
National level. At the county level, CIDPs
three pillars of Vision 2030 and the attendant
are ideally the 5-Year plans that implement
Vision 2030 enablers such as land reforms.
Vision 2030.
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

CIDP is 5-Year development plan that the plan, a monitoring and evaluation
paints the development vision of a county framework and a clear reporting mechanism.
and identifies all development priorities and
To effectively measure performance, the law
the attendant strategies required to achieve
requires CIDP programmes and projects to
the county’s development agenda. CIDP’s
incorporate performance management tools
development priorities should be aligned
such as M&E, PC, strategic planning, PAS,
to the 10-Year spatial and sectorial plans’
and RRI so as to measure the impact and
development objectives. The development of
outcomes of county investment in those
CIDP can also borrow from and be aligned
projects and programmes. This will help
to the National government’s MTP if and
managers make course correction decisions
when those plans are available although it
if and when development objectives are not
is not obligatory that CIDPs draw from the
achieved and manage for results. Successful
MTP.
achievement of development objectives
The key components of a CIDP include; of the CIDP contributes towards the
a clearly laid out vision for the county, achievement of the objectives of the 10-Year
clearly stated goals and objectives, an spatial and sector plans and subsequently
implementation plan that outlines resource the achievement of the aspirations of Vision
mobilization and utilization strategy, an 2030. Figure 1 schematizes the County
institutional framework to implement Performance Management Framework.

7
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

Figure 1: County Performance Management Framework

Vision 2030

10 Year County Spatial & Sector Plans

5 Year County Integrated

Medium Term Plan
Development Plan

5-Year Departmental
Strategic Plans

Annual Development Annual Budget &

Plans & Work Plans Resource Mobilization

RRI; PBB; ISO

Performance Contracting
Service Charters

Performance Appraisal

M&E, Reporting, Dissemination and Learning

KEY
M&E applies to all components of the performance framework
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

2.5 Five-Year Departmental operationalizes, on an annual basis, the

strategic objectives of a department’s strategic
Strategic Plans plan. While the Annual Development
To operationalize CIDP, county sectorial Plans (ADPs) should be derived from the
and spatial plans in accordance with County CIDP as outlined in Section 126 of the
Government Act under Section 109, each Public Finance Management Act, they
county department or ministry shall develop nonetheless must be aligned to the strategic
a 5-Year strategic plan with clearly identified objectives identified in the departmental/
strategic priorities. The strategic objectives ministerial strategic plans. ADPs provides
of departmental strategic plans should be a roadmap for implementation of county
derived from the priorities and development projects, programmes and initiatives for each
objectives of the CIDP, sectorial plans and department as stipulated in the CIDP and
spatial plans. The strategic plan should as prioritized in the departmental strategic
outline a departmental human resource plan plan.
and the proposed organizational structure.
ADP details prioritized projects, planned
Each department’s strategic plan shall activities, locations, actors, budget, risks
develop a vision, mission, strategic goals, and assumptions for each year. In drawing
shared values and an implementation the ADP, attention should be paid to the
matrix to guide the department’s strategy in resource envelop appropriated annually
the 5-Year period. These should be aligned to each department/ministry. The annual
to the county’s development priorities development plan should embrace public
identified in the CIDP. The purpose of the participation and stakeholder engagement.
strategic plan is to give strategic direction
of where, when and how the departments 2.7 Work Plans
intend to implement projects, programmes
and initiatives identified in the sectorial Work plans are a set of activities or tasks
plans within a specified budget. It provides undertaken at an individual or organizational
an accountability mechanism to the level within a specified period (quarterly,
implementers and a basis for monitoring semi-annually or annually). Activities
and evaluating progress made against the are all those things, services /goods for
desired targets. which resources are expended to enable a
department execute its mandate. Work plans
should be developed or identified from the
2.6 Annual Development ADPs and from the strategic objectives of
Plan the departments’ strategic plans. Work plans
An Annual Development Plan (ADP) largely apportion responsibility to departmental
relates to the capital investment priorities sections or divisions and to individual or
that are annually identified within the employees.
scope of a department’s strategic plan and Each section/division within a department/
available resources. The ADP therefore ministry shall develop its work plan aligned 8

9
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

to the departmental strategic objectives. deliverables of each budgeted activity/task,

The individual employees shall develop and project or programme. Additionally, each
derive their work plans from the divisional/ department should indicate or propose
sectional work plans. The individual work measures or activities that will be undertaken
plans will provide specific details on activities, to secure new or additional resources
tasks, timelines, and verifiable indicators. internally (annual allocations and/or
Departmental work plans provide the basis appropriation-in-aid) or externally (loans or
for setting targets that are subsequently grants from either the National Government
used during negotiations for performance or development partners).
contracting. At the individual level, work
plans enable an organization evaluate 2.9 Performance
employee performance using performance
appraisals.
Contracting
A performance contract (PC) is a negotiated
2.8 Annual Budget; agreement which allocates obligations
and responsibilities between the county
Resource Mobilization government and its agents. It seeks to enhance
An annual budget is an estimate of income results, make governments more accountable
and expenditure for a given government and use resources more prudently for
entity as approved by the County Assembly quality services. It entails negotiation
for a given fiscal year. It is formulated in of performance targets, assignments of
accordance with the PFMA Act, 2012. It weights to performance criteria, vetting of
outlines government expenditure priority performance contracts, implementation
programmes/projects in line with the CIDP of PCs, performance reporting, mid-year
and cascaded down to departmental strategic evaluation and release of results.
plans.
The targets of PC should be derived from
Departmental work plans and the activities/ a department’s, division’s or section’s
tasks identified therein provide the basis for work plan and ADP as prioritized in the
costing and estimating budgetary resource department’s strategic plan. PC targets
requirements. Each department’s County are categorized into four components i.e.,
Executive Member should therefore annually finance and stewardship, good governance,
formulate and cost activities, tasks, projects institutional transformation and operations
and programmes that are consistent with the and service delivery. Each component has a
objectives of the CIDPs and the department’s set of activities/items and indicators and are
strategic plan’s priorities and ensure that assigned weights that have been agreed upon
they are incorporated in the County Fiscal and not subject to alteration.
Strategy Paper (CFSP).
Beyond the four components, PC track
In developing budget estimates, each performance on a set of cross-cutting issues
department should identify the expected that help national government agencies
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

monitor compliance, accessibility or placement of staff, provide feedback on

availability of certain services. performance and form a basis for rewards
and sanctions. Whereas PC is linked
The signing of PC is cascaded downwards.
to organization-wide work plan, staff
At the apex, the CEC members sign their
performance appraisal is linked to individual
PC with the Governor, followed by Chief
work plans. Under the performance
Officers signing their PC targets with their
management framework, the collective
CEC members, directors sign their PC
attainment of individual work plan targets
targets with Chief Officers followed by sub-
leads to the achievement of departmental
county, ward and village administrators in
work plan targets set out in the department’s
that order. For PC to effectively work, it
PC. Subsequently, this translates to the
requires commitment from the Governor
achievement of the strategic objectives of
and the institutionalization of a reward
the departmental strategic plan priorities.
and sanction mechanism where those who
excel are rewarded and those who fail are
sanctioned. Achievement of PC targets help 2.11 Monitoring &
an agency achieve its strategic objectives as Evaluation, Reporting and
identified in the strategic plan.
Learning
Under the County Performance Management
2.10 Staff Performance
Framework (CPMF), all its components are
Appraisal annually monitored and evaluated. Like in
Just like PC, service charters or RRI, staff the NPMF, the Vision 2030, 10-Year Spatial/
performance appraisal is an initiative or Sector plans, CIDP, departmental strategic
management tool that helps implement plans and annual work plans and budgets,
a performance management framework all should have a set of targets and indicators
or system within an organization. Staff that are used to track progress. Data for each
performance appraisal is an assessment indicator for all the CPMF components
or evaluation on employees’ performance should be collected and evaluated or assessed
against some pre-determined and agreed against pre-determined and agreed upon
upon targets undertaken either quarterly, targets. The monitoring and evaluation of
semi-annually or annually between an all the data for each indicator for all the
employee and his or her supervisor. projects, programmes and policies of all the
components of the CPMF against pre-set
A performance appraisal spells out the
targets and objectives is collectively called
expectation of the employer on the employee,
the County Integrated Monitoring and
the mutual setting of targets as well as the
Evaluation System (CIMES).
expected behavior during the applicable
period. To effectively create a CIMES, each project,
programme or policy of all the components
Appraisal seeks to measure compliance,
of the CPMF should have a results logframe
document lessons learnt, personal 12
(results chain) that clearly shows the inputs
development, identify capacity gaps, right
13
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

required, the activities to be undertaken, In reporting, the M&E report should

the outputs or to be achieved and the presents results on each element of the
outcomes of benefits that will accrue to the results chain (inputs, activities, outputs and
community. Indicators to track progress outcomes). This way citizens are able to hold
should also be developed for all the their county government to account. For
elements of the results chain. To effectively an effective M&E system, key components
monitor county performance, each project, should be in place. These include, an M&E
programmes or policy implemented under unit, adequate human resource capacity,
each component of the CPMF should also indicator handbook, appropriate policy
develop a performance matrix that must framework and an M&E plan for the county.
identify; the outcomes to be achieved,
The implementation of the CPMF
the indicators to measure the outcomes, a
presents an opportunity for both levels of
baseline status of the outcome indicator and
government to develop, set and agree on a
the target or expected change to be achieved.
set of indicators to measure the performance
The expected change based on the current
of the public service in Kenya against set
status of performance and the set targets
standards nationally and internationally.
enable departments to estimate the amount
Also, the framework provides the basis
of time and resources required to achieve the
for inter-county comparability on service
desired change.
delivery and performance. This will go a
The M&E reports should be used in two long way to enhance learning and sharing
ways. First to make management decisions of information and knowledge.
such as resource allocations or change of
strategy (managing for results). And second,
to inform the citizens on the progress the
county government has made or otherwise
(managing for accountability).
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

Annex

Members of the Intergovernmental Performance

Management Technical Committee

NAME INSTITUTION POSITION

1 Angeline Awino Hongo Ministry of Devolution and Director Devolution
Planning(MODP)/SDD Affairs
2 Benson Kimani Ministry of Devolution and Director
Planning(MODP)/SDP
3 Brendah Okungu Council of Governors (COG) Administration Assistant
4 David Kiboi Ministry of Devolution and Senior Economist
Planning(MODP)/SDP
5 David Odhiambo Tambo Ministry of Devolution and Ag. Deputy Director
Planning(MODP)/SDD
6 Dr. Lawrence Esho Kenya institute of Planners Chair
7 Dr. Obuya Bagaka Price Water Coopers(PwC) Consultant
8 Elizabeth Ouma Ministry of Devolution and Advisor
Planning(MODP)/SDD
9 Florence Wahome Executive Office of The President- Deputy Director
Performance Management and
Coordination Office
10 Gilbert Kimutai Ego Price Water Coopers(PwC) Consultant
11 James Mwanzia Ministry of Devolution and Chief Economist
Planning(MODP)/SDD
12 Joshua Mwiranga Executive Office of The President- Director
Performance Management and
Coordination Office
13 Jeremiah Nyambane Price Water Coopers(PwC) Manager
14 Joseph Malonza Ministry of Devolution and Director
Planning(MODP)/SDP

14

15
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

15 Joseph N. Kung’u Council of Governors(COG) Programme Assistant

Finance
16 Joseph N. Mukundi Ministry of Devolution and Economist
Planning(MODP)/SDP
17 Kamangu Gachuru Kenya School of Lecturer
Government(KSG)
18 Ken Mike Oluoch Council of Governors (COG) Programme Officer SDGS
19 Lawrence E. Sakon Tuk Consultant
20 Lenah Mulyungi Council of Governors (COG) Programme Assistant
21 Lineth Nyaboke Oyugi Commission on Revenue Director
Allocation(CRA)
22 Mary Mwongeli Ndeto Ministry of Public Service Youth Director
Social Services and Gender Affairs
(MOPYSG)/SDPs
23 Mugure Gituto KNA Legal Counsel
24 Njambi E. Muchane intergovernmental Relations Member
Technical Committee(IGRTC)
25 Oscar Rodgers Achieng Ministry of Devolution and Senior Economist
Planning(MODP)/SDP
26 Paul Mbuni Executive Office of The President- Performance Management
Performance Management and Specialist
Coordination Office
27 Peter Kinyua Wachira National Treasury Economist
28 Prof. Alfred Omenya Eco-Build Africa Director
29 Rosemary Wangechi Council of Governors (COG) Citizen Engager
Irungu
30 Samuel M. Mutisya Council of Governors (COG) Monitoring and
Evaluation Officer
31 Selina Iseme Office of The Controller of Director
Budget
32 Sharon Makena Oyugi, Council of Governors (COG) Director of Programmes
HSC
33 Simon M. Mutinda Price Water Coopers(PwC) Partner
34 Sophia K. Sitati Office of The Attorney General- State Counsel
Department of Justice
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

NAME COUNTY POSITION

1 Ali Letura Kajiado County County Executive in
Charge of Urban Planning
2 Benjamin Philip Okeng’o Taita Taveta County Economic
Planning Officer
3 Christine Muchiri Kiambu Senior Planner
4 Daniel Mishael Masetu Nairobi City Director
5 Eunice Kamunga Kiambu County Executive in
Charge of Urban Planning
6 Isaac Abuya Homa Bay Chief of Staff
7 Isaac Yeko West Pokot Head of Monitoring and
Evaluation
8 James Goro Kisumu Principal Administrator-
Performance Management
9 Justus Ipapo Emukule
10 Kefa Omanga Nairobi City Director Economic
Planning
11 Kennedy K. Tegeret West Pokot Head of Economic
Planning
12 Matthew Kitungu Kilifi Head of Economic
Musyoka Planning
13 Pamela Rita Kiarie Embu County Executive in
Charge of Public Service
and Administration
14 Eng. Philemon Kachila Taita Taveta County Chief Officer
- Service Delivery Unit
(SDU)
15 Priscillah Chebbet Mugo West Pokot County Head of Budget
16 Rachel J. Okumu, OGW Kakamega County Executive in
Charge of Public Service
and Administration
17 Rose Omondi Kakamega Head of Performance
Management
18 Samuel W. Wamukoya Kakamega Administration
Performance Management
16

17
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

19 Samwel Mukindia Marsabit County Development

Planning Officer
20 Sarah Masaki Muranga County County Executive in
Charge of Urban Planning
21 Steve Otieno Siso Kisii Director Economic
Planning
22 Victor Mutati Mwangu Kitui Ass. Director Statistics

NAME INSTITUTE POSITION

1 Angela Kabiru AHADI Team Leader Governance

2 Consolata Mwololo AHADI Procurement
3 Elizabeth Mueni Ndeleva AHADI Consultant
4 Faith Ogollah UNDP Programme Assistant
5 Guiliano Bosi AHADI Consultant
6 Joanne Morrison AHADI Technical Specialist
7 Mary Njoroge UNDP Programme Manager
8 Maureen C. Korir AHADI Programme Assistant
9 Philip Jespersen World Bank Senior Social Development
Specialist
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

Notes

18

19
 Performance Management Framework
for County Governments

Notes
 The Council of Governors
Delta Corner, Tower A, 2nd Floor, Chiromo Road,
Off Waiyaki Way
P. O. Box 40401 - 00100 Nairobi Kenya
Tel: +254 (020) 2403313/4 Cel: +254 (0) 729 777 281
Email: info@COG.go.ke Website: http://www.COG.go.ke