EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE

SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

IMPLEMENTED IN THARAKA NITHI,
LAIKIPIA, SAMBURU AND WEST POKOT
COUNTIES IN KENYA

July 2017
Edit of Technical Content: Mr Wainaina Kiganya
Design & Layout: Eddie Concepts
Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES i
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iii
Acknowledgement 7
Foreword 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10

BACKGROUND 14
1.1 Project’s profile 16
1.1.1 Project’s outcomes 16
1.1.2 Project’s outputs 16
1.1.3
Project’s focus counties 17
1.1.4 Project’s stakeholders 17
1.2
Project baseline survey 18
1.3
Project evaluation 18

METHODOLOGY 19
1.4
Review of project document 19
1.5
Field data collection exercise 19
1.6 Data analysis and report writing 20

EVALUATION FINDINGS 22
1.7 Social Budgeting Observatory Frameworks 22
1.7.1 Establishment and functioning of County Social Budgeting 23

3
 Observatories
1.8 Participation of religious leaders in CSBOs 25
1.8.1 Involvement of religious leaders in county planning 26
1.8.2 Involvement of religious leaders in county budgeting 27
1.8.3 Involvement of citizens in county planning 29
1.8.4 Involvement of citizens in county budgeting 31
1.8.5 Access to county plans and budgets by citizens 32
1.9 Implementation of community-led priorities, budgets,
social spending and reporting by county governments 33
1.9.1 Involvement of religious leaders in monitoring 33
service delivery
1.9.2 Involvement of citizens in monitoring service delivery 36
1.10 Citizens’ participation in the management of 37
public resources

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 39
COMPARISON OF BASELINE AND EVALUATION FINDINGS 40
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION RELATED CHALLENGES 42
CONCLUSION 44
RECOMMENDATIONS 45
REFERENCES 48
ANNEX 1 – EVALUATION DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 49

4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of facilities visited 20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Summary of Respondents categorized by sex 21

Figure 2: Summary of respondents who are persons living
with disability 21
Figure 3: Proportion of citizens who believe that religious leaders
are involved in planning 26
Figure 4: Proportion of citizens who believe that religious leaders
are involved in county budgeting 27
Figure 5: Proportion of citizens who had been involved in
county planning 29
Figure 6: Proportion of citizens who had been involved in
county budgeting 31
Figure 7: Proportion of citizens who had accessed copies of
county plans and budgets 32
Figure 8: Proportion of citizens who believe that religious leaders
are involved in monitoring service delivery 33
Figure 9: Proportion of citizens who are involved in
monitoring service delivery 36
Figure 10: Proportion of citizens who are involved in
managing public resources 37
Figure 11: Proportion of citizens who believe that religious
leaders are involved in managing public resources 38

5
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BQs Bill of Quantities
CBEF County Budget and Economic Forums
CBSO County Social Budgeting Observatory
CEC County Executive Committee Member
FGD Focus Group Discussion
IRCK Inter-Religious Council of Kenya
KII Key Informant Interview
NG-CDF National Government Constituency Development Fund
PWDs Persons with Disability
SAP Social Accountability Project
SBO Social Budgeting Observatory
SBOF Social Budgeting Observatory Framework
SIR Social Intelligence Reporting
SWG Sector Working Groups

6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

T
his final project evaluation report is a culmination of rigorous processes
that involved collection and analysis of data from four counties in which
the project was implemented. These counties represent some of the most
difficult to reach areas in Kenya; Samburu, Tharaka Nithi West Pokot Counties and
Laikipia. The experiences and lessons learned from this survey will inform post
project initiatives, scale up and improvement for better delivery.

The Inter-Religious Council of Kenya (IRCK) is indebted to various individuals and

organisations who contributed in one way or the other towards making the survey
possible.

I extend my sincere gratitude to the IRCK Executive Committee for authorising

the implementation of this exercise, the Institute for Policy and Governance for
carrying out the survey and the Peace Governance and Economic Justice Standing
Commission for providing technical input to the development of the survey tools
and overseeing the implementation of the entire process.

I thank IRCK secretariat staff Linus Nthigai who is the monitoring and evaluation
manager and Rolex Mwamba, the programme officer governance and economic
justice for their diligence in coordinating and providing leadership to the exercise.

I also recognise stakeholder representatives, policy makers at the national and

county government officials, civil society organisations, religious leaders and
community members from the project sites who took part in the interviews and
discussions.

The research assistants who endured long hours in the field to ensure collection of
data from community members deserve special mention.

I thank you all for your contribution to this very important exercise.

Dr. Francis Kuria

Executive Director
Inter- Religious Council of Kenya
7
 FOREWORD

T
he hallmark of the IRCK is embodied in its mission to promote tolerance
and understanding among faith communities in Kenya through mobilising
joint actions for social economic development.

Established in 1983, the IRCK is a coalition of all major faith communities in Kenya.
It is a forum for the communities to work together to deepen inter-faith dialogue
and collaboration among members to jointly mobilise the unique moral and social
resources of religious people and address shared concerns. The purpose of the IRCK
is to:
(I) Promote inter-faith fellowship, inter-religious dialogue and sharing of
values for a peaceful and just Kenya, and the world at large;
(II) Encourage and assist the religious communities in Kenya to discern areas of
convergence in their respective faith traditions’ moral commitments that
can be harnessed to building a peaceful and just society in Kenya;
(III) Plan and implement collaborative advocacy programmes based on shared
moral commitments in all thematic areas within Kenya and other parts of
the world;
(IV) Mobilise resources for capacitating faith communities to implement
programmes and activities geared towards improved health and livelihood,
governance, economic justice, environmental management, peaceful co-
existence and institutional strengthening for a better society; and
(V) Research and document the issues and their causations that limit the full and
just fulfillment of the life of Kenyans, as God’s creation.

8
Making available reliable empirical information is important to religious leaders for
informed decision-making and evidence-based advocacy at national and county
levels. The findings of this survey will, therefore, go a long way in informing the
involvement of religious leaders in advocating for the prioritisation, planning,
budgeting and monitoring of the provision of social services in Tharaka Nithi, West
Pokot Samburu and Laikipia counties.

The information contained in this report will be useful to various stakeholders,

including national and county governments’ leadership and policy makers,
development partners, CSOs, academic institutions and the general public in making
objective decisions regarding the role of citizen participation in the management
and running of both central and devolved government structures.

Sheikh Adan Wachu

Chairman
Inter-Religious Council of Kenya

9
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

T
he Inter-Religious Council of Kenya (IRCK) implemented a Social
Accountability Project (SAP) in Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia, Samburu and West
Pokot counties in Kenya from June, 2013 to April, 2016 whose goal was to
contribute to proper utilisation of public resources and improved social services
delivery at the county and national levels. The expected project outcomes were to
ensure that:
• Social Budgeting Observatory Frameworks (SBOF) are mainstreamed in the
operation of targeted counties;
• Targeted county governments are implementing community-led priorities,
budgets, social spending and reporting; and
• Citizens are participating in the management of public resources through the
county social observatories in the targeted counties.

At the beginning of the project implementation, a baseline survey was conducted

whose results included:
• Low awareness of social budgeting and social intelligence reporting;
• Low citizens’ participation in the budget process and monitoring of service
delivery;
• Low levels of involvement of religious leaders in the budget process and
monitoring the provision of services;
• Forums for engagement in the budget process and monitoring of service
provision were rarely held; and
• Few stakeholders were involved in efforts to improve citizens’ participation
and that the effectiveness of their initiatives was low.

With the project implementation having ended, an evaluation was conducted to

10
examine the key issues and related root causes the project was designed to address;
its progress towards the realisation of intended results; its contribution to the results
achieved and sustainability strategies.

The evaluation process included a review of project documents and field data
collection exercise. Among the documents reviewed were the project proposal, log-
frame, annual reports and monitoring and evaluation report. Data was collected in
all the four counties through the use of key informant interview (KII) guides, focus
group discussion (FGD) guides and questionnaires. A total of 327 respondents (136
females and 191 males) were reached. Data analysis was done through the use
of the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) and thereafter a draft report
presented for validation and feedback utilised to generate the final report.

The key findings from the evaluation include:

• Increased level of awareness about Social Budgeting and Social Intelligence
Reporting among county government development planning officers and the
leadership of the inter-faith networks;
• Low awareness among citizens on Social Budgeting Observatories (SBO) and
Social Intelligence Reporting (SIR);
• All the four counties had established Social Budgeting Observatories and their
operations effected at selected sub-counties by rolling out the Social
Intelligence Reporting;
• Low citizens’ participation in planning and budgeting;
• Improvement on involvement of religious leaders in the budget process and
monitoring service delivery, albeit with challenges of lack of access to
information;
• There are existing platforms for citizens’ engagement in the budget process,
which include public hearings led by the county executives and the county
assemblies;

11
 • Minimal information available to the public to enable them to determine
whether resources are being managed effectively. Citizens are still concerned
that county governments do not share progress reports on financial management
and project implementation; and
• Improved stakeholder involvement in facilitating citizens’ participation. The
county planning offices have records of stakeholders that continue to support
public participation.

The main conclusion from the evaluation is that the technical and financial support
offered by the IRCK to Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia, Samburu and West Pokot counties
contributed to an increased interest among stakeholders to be more involved
in government decision-making processes, such as planning and budgeting.
Specifically, the involvement of religious leaders in planning, budgeting and
monitoring service delivery has fairly improved as a result of IRCK’s sensitisation
and capacity building sessions. Citizens’ participation in planning and budgeting
remained low due to lack of adequate investments and tracking programmes and
initiatives, especially at the grass root levels, by both county governments and non-
state agencies. On the other hand, the functioning of the SBO has been relatively
effective as it initiated considerable engagement between religious leaders and
county government leadership within the targeted counties. The inter-faith networks
are good platforms, which if well nurtured, sustained and encouraged to mobilise
their constituents, a critical mass would emerge at the grass roots to guard against
misappropriation of public resources.

The IRCK and partners have presented the following recommendations:

• Need to continue supporting religious leaders, especially the inter-faith
networks to utilise various approaches to facilitate their members to engage
in governance and development affairs right from the villages, sub-locations,
locations, wards, sub-counties, counties and the national level.

12
• Promote collaboration with the offices of the sub-county and ward administrators
who have a legal responsibility to facilitate and coordinate citizens’
participation in development planning, while at the same time integrating with
the National Government officials, such as the Deputy County Commissioners
(responsible for National Government function in the Sub-County) and the
Assistant County Commissioners (at the Ward level).
• Sensitise religious leaders and the general public on the standards for service
delivery in each of the sectors to enable meaningful engagement in monitoring
service delivery.
• Strengthen collaboration with government departments to enhance access to
planning and budget related documents to the public.
• Provide technical support to the religious leaders to enable them to participate
meaningfully in the development of the Second County Integrated Development
Plans

13
 BACKGROUND

I
n June 2013, IRCK began the implementation of a Social Accountability Project
(SAP); aligned with the Government’s Social Budgeting Framework (SBF), which
entailed the use of the Social Intelligence Reporting (SIR) tool.

According to the Government, SBF was envisioned to strengthen participatory

planning and budgeting at the sectorial and devolved levels to improve service
delivery. This was to be achieved through enabling meaningful engagement of
stakeholders in public planning, budgeting, service delivery monitoring, reporting
and accountability for equitable and prudent utilisation of public resources. In this
regard, the Government developed social budgeting guidelines for all stakeholders
in their efforts towards facilitating participation in planning and budgeting,
transparency and mutual accountability in all public affairs and community
empowerment to ensure equitable development.

The social budgeting guidelines emphasised the use of SIR and developed a
manual to guide in collecting information and evidence from social networks and
community interaction that enables different actors, including government and
private institutions, to design and implement policies and programmes in a faster
and cost effective manner.

Various social accountability initiatives in the country have a strong constitutional

basis. For instance, Article 10 of the Constitution provides for specific principles
of governance that support any social accountability undertaking. These principles
include participation of the people, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality,
good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability. In addition, the objects
of devolution as provided for in Article 174 equally support social accountability.

14
The objects include to give powers of self-governance to the people and enhance
the participation of the people in the exercise of the powers of the State and in
making decisions that affect them; and to recognise the right of communities to
manage their own affairs and to further their development.

Other constitutional provisions that support social accountability include various

aspects in the Bill of Rights under Chapter Four; Article 118 and 196 that provide
the public with an avenue to engage with parliament and county assemblies
respectively; Article 201 that provides for the principles of public finance; Article
232 that articulates the values and principles of public service; and Function No. 14
of county governments that focuses on ensuring and coordinating the participation
of communities and locations in governance; among others. There are also other
legal frameworks with specific provisions that support social accountability. These
include the County Governments Act of 2012 and the Public Finance Management
Act of 2012.

The IRCK, through the implementation of its Social Accountability Project, was
therefore to a large extent advancing the implementation of constitutional and legal
frameworks that support public participation in decision-making in public planning,
budgeting, service delivery, accountability for results and public resource use.

15
 1.1 Project’s profile
Project’s start date: June 2013
Project’s end date: April 2016
Project’s goal
The goal of the IRCK’s Social Accountability Project was to contribute to proper
utilisation of public resources and improved social services delivery at the county
and national levels.

1.1.1 Project’s outcomes

The project was designed to contribute towards ensuring that:
(i) Social Budgeting Observatory Frameworks (SBOF) are mainstreamed in the
operations of Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia, Samburu and West Pokot counties.
(ii) Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia, Samburu and West Pokot county governments are
implementing community-led priorities, budgets, social spending and
reporting.
(iii) Citizens are participating in the management of public resources through
the county social observatories in Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia, Samburu and
West Pokot counties

1.1.2 Project’s outputs

The intended outputs of the project were:
(i) County officers and transitional authority adopt and implement SBOF and
SIR.
(ii) Religious leaders actively participate in county SBOs.
(iii) Local inter-faith networks are established and agitate for community led
social priorities, budgets and expenditure.

16
1.1.3 Project’s focus counties
The project was implemented in Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia, Samburu and West Pokot
counties.

Tharaka-Nithi County borders Embu County to the south and south-west, Meru to
the north and north-east, Kirinyaga and Nyeri counties to the west and Kitui to the
east and south-east. It has 15 wards distributed across three constituencies, namely
Tharaka (five wards), Chuka/Igambang’ombe (five wards) and Maara (five wards).

Laikipia County borders Samburu County to the north, Isiolo to the northeast, Meru
to the east, Nyeri to the south-east, Nyandarua and Nakuru to the southwest and
Baringo to the west. It has 15 wards in its three constituencies, namely Laikipia East
(five wards) Laikipia West (six wards) and Laikipia North (four wards).

Samburu County borders Turkana County to the northwest, Baringo to the southwest,
Marsabit to the northeast, Isiolo to the east and Laikipia to the south. It has 15 wards
— five in Samburu West constituency, six in Samburu North and four in Samburu
East.

West Pokot County borders Turkana County to the north and north-east, Trans
Nzoia to the south, Elgeyo Marakwet to the south-east and Baringo to the east. It
also borders Uganda. It has 20 wards in its four constituencies, namely Kapenguria
(six wards) Kacheliba (six wards), Sigor (four wards) and Pokot South (four wards).

1.1.4 Project’s stakeholders

The project’s stakeholders were:
• Government officials at departmental levels and service delivery facilities/
points

17
 • Religious organisations and leaders
• Health facility management committees
• School boards of management
• Water user committees
• Groups of citizens/communities (rights/claim holders)

1.2 Project baseline survey

IRCK conducted the SAP baseline survey and released a report in October, 2013, to
provide critical information on the status of affairs before the project implementation
began. The survey’s findings, if compared with the evaluation findings, would then
help in determining the extent of the project’s contribution to any changes specific
to the expected project result areas. The baseline survey established that:
• The level of awareness of Social Budgeting and SIR was low
• Citizens’ participation in budget process and monitoring of service delivery
was low
• Religious leaders’ involvement in the budget process and monitoring the
provision of services was low
• Forums for engagement in the budget process and monitoring service
provision were rarely held
• Citizens were concerned that county resources would not be managed
effectively since such processes lacked transparency, accountability and
inclusivity
• Few stakeholders were involved in efforts to improve citizens’ participation
and that the effectiveness of their initiatives was low.

1.3 Project evaluation

In July 2017, IRCK commissioned its SAP project evaluation to examine the:

18
 (i) Key issues / problems and related root causes that project was designed to
address
(ii) Progress made by the project towards the realisation of intended results
(iii) Project’s contribution to the results achieved
(iv) Project’s sustainability strategies

METHODOLOGY

This evaluation largely adopted a descriptive study design that involved both
quantitative and qualitative approaches, review of project documents and field
data collection.

1.4 Review of project document

A review of the following IRCK’s SAP documents was undertaken.
• Proposal
• Log-frame
• Annual reports
• Monitoring and evaluation report
The review of the above documents helped in establishing the key focus areas that
required that data be collected through primary sources.

1.5 Field data collection exercise

The field exercise was purposively conducted in all the four project sites using the
following tools:
• Key informant interview guides
• Focus group discussion guides
• Semi-structured questionnaires
In each of the four counties, three specific service points/facilities were purposively
identified by IRCK.

19
 Table 1: List of facilities visited

Category of Tharaka Laikipia County Samburu West Pokot

the facilities Nithi

Health Kiini Health Muramati Wamba Sigor Sub-

Education Centre Dispensary Health Centre County
Water Maguna Primary Muramati Wamba Hospital
School Primary School DEB Primary Sigor Primary
Kamwene Water Muramati School School
Centre Borehole Wamba Water Ministry of
Centre Water Borehole

Key informant interviews were conducted for the representatives from the office
of the county departments responsible for planning, health, water and education.
Others were the assistant county commissioners, ward administrators, health
facility in-charges, school heads and water facility in-charges.

Focus group discussions were conducted with the religious leaders (inter-faith
network members), health facility management committee members, school
boards of management, water user management committee members, and youth
leaders.

20
Figure 1: Summary of respondents categorised by gender

There were 327 respondents (136 females and 191 males) spread across the
four counties as illustrated above. There was a good gender balance observed
in all the targeted counties, with only West Pokot registering less than a third of
females by proportion.

Figure 2: Summary of respondents living with disability

The inclusion of persons with disability (PWDs) as respondents was high. Three
of the counties had more than three per cent of the respondents being PWDs.

21
 1.6 Data analysis and report writing
Data entry was done on MS-Excel of 2016 and later exported to the Statistical
Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) v.22 for analysis, which involved making
deductions and inferences followed by interpretation of findings. The draft report
was thereafter prepared and formally submitted to IRCK for review and input
before validation at a meeting of participants from all the counties and IRCK staff.
The comments and feedback during the validation exercise were considered in
developing this final evaluation report.

EVALUATION FINDINGS

1.7 Social Budgeting Observatory Frameworks

Mainstreaming of SBOF in the counties was aimed at promoting synergy,
transparency, participatory engagement of stakeholders, mutual accountability
in social service delivery while avoiding duplication of efforts and wastage of
resources. Among the key functions of the CSBO was to:
• Identify the social sector priorities in the county and work out programmatic
interventions to ensure equity in social outcomes
• Engage the communities in the process of priority identification, planning
and implementation.
• Participate in joint planning and budgeting to develop integrated plans and
budgets
• Monitor the uptake and efficient use of budget allocations to the social
sectors
• Partner with local and national institutions to undertake and disseminate
social intelligence reports.
• Share information on best practices, new developments or emerging issues
requiring policy and strategy development

22
1.7.1 Establishment and functioning of County Social Budgeting Observatories
In all the four counties, it was established that the SBOs sensitisation sessions
were conducted as guided by the SBO guidelines. The output was the formation
of SIR teams, which were not necessarily the SBO as the use of the SIR tool is just
one of the functions of SBOs. The SIR teams as formed in all the four counties,
therefore, undertook just one function of the SBO, which was to partner with
other institutions to undertake monitoring and disseminate social intelligence
reports.

The operationalisation of the envisaged CSBO was affected by the issuing of

separate guidelines from the County Executive Committee (CEC) Member
responsible for finance in the respective counties that provided for specific steps
to be undertaken in developing departmental plans and budgets. The issuing of
the said separate guidelines were informed by the requirement of Section 128
(2) of the Public Finance Management Act of 2012 that provides that: “Not later
than the 30th August in each year, the County Executive Committee member for
finance shall issue a circular setting out guidelines to be followed by all of the
county government’s entities in the budget process.”

None of the guidelines issued by the CEC (Finance) made reference to the CSBO.
However, opportunities still existed for the CSBO to be executed within the
spaces created by the CEC (Finance) guidelines. They included opportunities to:
• Review and update sectoral plans
• Prepare annual development plans
• Develop the county budget review and outlook papers
• Develop the quarterly projects implementation reports
• Develop the quarterly county budget implementation reports
• Develop annual sector reports

23
 • Convene public sector hearings
• Develop county fiscal strategy papers
• Develop the county programme-based budgets

All the county governments departmental teams, (who ordinarily had

representation in the SIR teams as had been established) have had direct
involvement in the above process. This implies that most of the functions that
were to be discharged by the CSBO are being undertaken within the framework
of county budget process as guided by the CEC (Finance) circular in all the
project-targeted counties.

The evaluation also established that the Ministry of Devolution and Planning and
the Council of Governors (CoG) developed specific County Public Participation
Guidelines. The usage of these guidelines is anticipated to promote closer
collaboration, consultation and communication between the two levels of
government, civil society and citizens in policy formulation, planning, budgeting
and service delivery. The guidelines include a sample checklist for scrutinising the
county plans and budgets. Notably, the County Public Participation Guidelines
do not make any reference or linkage to the SBO guidelines that were developed
by the Devolution Ministry.

On the other hand, the National Treasury also developed a detailed budget
preparation module that was used to conduct induction sessions to county
government officials on the budget process. This module had no reference to
the social budgeting guidelines; hence the county government officials found it
difficult to fully embrace CSBO and SIR since that was not a requirement from
the National Treasury.

24
1.8 Participation of religious leaders in CSBOs
The evaluation sought to find out if the religious leaders were represented in
the CSBO and whether they were indeed participating in the execution of the
CSBO’s functions. In all the four counties, it was established that most of the
religious leaders had participated in a number of sensitisation and training
sessions organised by IRCK. The knowledge they acquired enabled them to be
well prepared to engage in CSBO and SIR activities. This contributed to some
religious leaders being included as part of the SIR teams, which were taken to refer
to SBO, as was established during the initial stages of the project implementation.

However, with the move by all the county governments to take up the functions of
the envisaged CSBOs to be within their annual planning and budgeting calendar,
the religious leaders had minimal opportunities to be directly involved in SIR
since they were viewed as non- government officials. It was established that
much of the SIR process involved government officials with minimal chances for
direct involvement of religious leaders.

It was also established that some of the county stakeholders were uncomfortable
with the use of the term Social “Intelligence” Reporting and hence recommended
the use of the term projects monitoring and reporting.

A critical aspect of involvement in the CSBO process is participation in planning

and budgeting. The evaluation assessed the involvement of religious leaders in
planning and budgeting and the findings are as presented herein below.

25
 1.8.1 Involvement of religious leaders in county planning
Figure 3: Proportion of citizens who believe that religious leaders are involved
in planning

From the above graph, it is evident that most of the respondents did not believe
that religious leaders are being involved in planning processes by the county
governments. However, discussions with the inter-faith representatives in one
of the counties revealed that although not all religious leaders are involved in
planning, some in the inter-faith networks have had a chance to be directly
involved in county planning.

During the FGD sessions with religious leaders in another county, they indicated
that they are being involved in planning, which was largely by way of participation
in the open public participation forums and minimal of strategic participation
at the county technical level. In a different county, religious leaders who were
participants in an FGD indicated that they were minimally involved in planning
by the counties and that whenever they are, they seem to be just “affirming”
what the county officials had already planned. Lack of unity among the faith
community was also cited as a contributing factor to the minimal involvement
of religious leaders in county planning. There were cases where religious leaders

26
 also convened meetings by themselves to discuss their community issues. In one
of the cases, one religious leader had this to say:

“I happened to be facilitating a focus group meeting, planned by our religious

network. The county got wind of this meeting and sent officials who hijacked the
meeting to control it. The original agenda was on security but it was later turned
into county government development outline meeting.”

1.8.2 Involvement of religious leaders in county budgeting

Figure 4: Proportion of citizens who believe that religious leaders are involved
in county budgeting

In all the counties, the respondents generally believed that religious leaders
are not being involved in county budgeting as shown in the graph above.
However, during the FGDs with the religious leaders in one of the counties, it
was established that some few religious leaders have made constant effort to be
involved in the county budget process with little success. Those who participate
do so through the public budget hearing forums. Some of their comments during
the FGD sessions in different counties include:

27
 “I have been involved in the budgeting, we sent our comments on budgets and
the feedback was never incorporated. The amendments were not adhered to,
we threatened to go to court but the government has long arm, so we gave up.”

“We have been sending letters to be involved in the budgeting process. We

presented two names but up to date, there is no feedback.”

“Religious groups are not involved. The counties pass the information as they
want not as per religious comments or community representatives’ thoughts.”

“As a person I think the involvement of religious leaders is selective. The ‘vocal’
ones are the ones involved. One time I tried to attend such meetings and I was
told that I had not been invited hence I could not participate.”

“We have noticed that the government uses the same cadre of participants year
in year out … public participation forums must also be spread out up to the ward
level to ensure views are collected from everyone.”

From the findings, it is clear that whereas some religious leaders have attempted
to participate in county budgeting, they encountered barriers to meaningful
participation.

28
1.8.3 Involvement of citizens in county planning
Recognising that the SIR teams had been expected to engage communities in
the process of priority identification, planning and implementation, citizens’
participation in planning and budgeting was also assessed. Specifically, the
inter-faith networks were expected to mobilise county residents to participate in
county planning and budgeting.

Figure 5: Proportion of citizens involved in county planning

These findings as illustrated in the above graph show that citizens’ involvement
in county planning is still low in all the four counties. Poor communication and
publicisation of public participation forums was noted as one of the contributing
factors to low citizens’ participation in planning.

29
 The FGDs with various facility management committees, however, showed that
the citizens who receive services from such facilities are usually involved in
planning meetings, especially through the chiefs’ barazas and school meetings.
This implies that whereas the citizens are not properly involved in the annual
county planning processes, they are somehow being involved in facility-specific
planning processes. Citizens who find opportunities to participate in planning do
so within the same spaces that the religious leaders use. The evaluation established
that there isn’t much difference between citizens’ participation in planning and
religious leaders’ participation in planning. The same groups mostly rely on the
public forums as the spaces for participation and that during such forums there
is no special recognition of any group.

30
1.8.4 Involvement of citizens in county budgeting
Figure 6: Proportion of citizens involved in county budgeting

Citizens’ participation in county budget was low as shown in the graph above.
For those citizens who had a chance to engage in the budgeting process, there
was no meaningful participation since the public forums were not well structured
and hardly were budget details for community priorities discussed. Some of the
comments made by the respondents in this respect are:

“Citizens are just called to be read for the budget as opposed to participation
in the budgeting process and when a rare chance is offered to add or raise
priorities for inclusion in the budget, the same citizens’ issues are not
incorporated for resource allocation.”

“Citizens raised an issue as to why copies of relevant documents to be

used during the budgeting process are never availed before such meetings.
Their response was that the department that produces relevant documents
produces less documents and at a late stage. Citizens at this point resolved
that if such documents cannot be provided early enough for them to study
them, then they would not participate in this process.”

31
 1.8.5 Access to county plans and budgets by citizens
One of the ways of establishing whether people are aware of what a government
has planned to implement in their communities is to first access government
plans and budgets for ease of verifying priority community needs. Access to
county plans and budgets by religious leaders and citizens was, therefore,
assessed during the evaluation.

In all the counties, all the religious leaders who participated in the FGD sessions
revealed that accessing county budgets is a challenge. Those that accessed copies
of their county budgets were not sure if what they had were the duly approved
final versions of the budgets. On the other hand, citizens who responded to the
questionnaires also indicated that they were unable to access county plans and
budgets. In Laikipia County, for instance, none of the respondents had accessed a
copy of their county plan. Across all the counties, the proportion of respondents
who had accessed county plans and budgets was below 10 per cent.

Figure 7: Proportion of citizens who had accessed copies of county plans and
budgets

32
 From the above graph, it is clear that in all the counties, few citizens have access
to the county plans and budgets. Whereas the county plans and budgets were
available at the county headquarters, the county governments had not made
the documents available within the community level public offices, such as the
office of the ward administrator, for ease of access by citizens.

1.9 Implementation of community-led priorities, budgets, social spending and

reporting by county governments
Including community priorities in the government plans and budgets is one thing,
while ensuring that such plans and budgets are executed is another. Examining
whether a government is implementing community priorities as provided for
in the plans and budgets is possible through monitoring service delivery. The
evaluation, therefore, assessed whether religious leaders (being representatives of
citizens within the faith community) on the one hand and the citizens themselves
on the other were involved in monitoring service delivery.

1.9.1 Involvement of religious leaders in monitoring service delivery

Figure 8: Proportion of citizens who believe that religious leaders are involved
in monitoring service delivery

33
 According to the respondents, the involvement of religious leaders in monitoring
service delivery is low. While it was acknowledged that some of the religious
leaders had been sensitised on SIR, a number of them were not aware of SIR.
However, through the FGD sessions, it was established that some of the religious
leaders had been involved in SIR. Such leaders made the following comments:

“We went to the schools to check the CDF performance. The chairman was
tasked with reporting. We have engaged in SIR activities twice. The SIR reports
were shared and we followed up.”

“We are sometimes blocked by facilities staff and politicians and are regarded as
outsiders without technical expertise in monitoring service delivery.”

“We have given the county government numerous reports on social sector
improvement but little has been done. More needs to be done to supply water
to the residents because it is a major challenge in the county. More programmes
of child protection and nutrition should also be implemented to improve the
current situation.”

Examples of results achieved through SIR

Whereas religious leaders’ involvement in SIR activities was low, generally, there
were some positive results achieved through SIR. Among these results were:

• At Muramati Primary School in Laikipia County, there has been increased

involvement of parents in school planning and engagement in development
activities. Some parents have successfully advocated for allocation of
resources for renovation of classes, construction of sanitary facilities and
installation of water tanks.

34
• At Muramati Dispensary in Laikipia County, the stakeholders influenced the
county government to supply a water tank.
• At Kiini Health Centre in Tharaka Nithi County, suggestion boxes were
placed with an objective of enhancing community feedback on access to the
facility, quality and timeliness of services.
• At Kamwene Water Centre in Tharaka Nithi County, communities took up
the role of monitoring and helping the project to manage water
service delivery through reporting leakage points and supporting repairs,
and participating in all meetings convened by the project’s in-charge. Timely
payment of water bills by the communities enabled the project
to support the neighbouring Mogona Primary School’s sanitation
efforts through construction of a toilet.
• At Wamba Health Centre in Samburu County, stakeholders lobbied the
county government to fence the facility and build a gate to improve
the safety of patients and staff. The health centre now has two ambulances,
a kitchen, a dining hall, air conditioners, a water tank for water harvesting
and storage and is also connected to electricity. A laboratory technologist
has been employed and community health workers no longer play that role.
• At Sigor Sub-County Hospital in West Pokot County, a drugs and essential
medicine storage block has been constructed and the facility is now well
stocked. An additional nurse has also been employed.

35
 1.9.2 Involvement of citizens in monitoring service delivery
Figure 9: Proportion of citizens who are involved in monitoring service delivery

In all the counties, there was low level of involvement of citizens in monitoring
service delivery as shown in the graph above. For those who had a chance to
be involved, there was no clarity on the tools and approaches to be used in
monitoring service delivery. Limited sharing of information by government was
cited as one of the reasons hindering citizens from participating in monitoring
service delivery. A respondent commented that:

“Monitoring is difficult because documents are not available but we look at

ongoing projects ……… but it is difficult to assess progress in the absence of a
plan.”

36
1.10 Citizens’ participation in the management of public resources
The participation of the citizens and the religious leaders in management of
public resources was examined.
Figure 10: Proportion of citizens who are involved in managing public resources

In Laikipia County, no respondent had been involved in managing public resources,

while in the other three counties, the involvement of citizens was low.
The concerns raised by some of those who had been involved in managing public
resources included:

“Construction of a toilet was identified as a project and resources allocated but

when it comes to implementation, citizens were not aware which department of
the county was in charge of that particular project and getting to understand who
is in charge equally became difficult. Knowing who is in charge is very hard as
the contractor was harsh to the citizens, no BQs are shared and citizens were not
sensitised to take care of such a project as their own.”

“A contract was awarded to a school for Kshs500,000 but prior to getting that
award, the school had to part with Kshs50,000, normally called “receiving money”.
With this kind of situation, involvement of citizens has to be limited or non-existent
so as to ensure such practices do not come to light.”

37
 Figure 11: Proportion of citizens who believe that religious leaders are involved
in managing public resources

In all the four counties, the levels of involvement of religious leaders in managing
public resources are low. One of the religious leaders commented:

38
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1. The implementation of the SBO guidelines seems to have been shelved by the
Ministry of Devolution and Planning. The ministry has already published County
Public Participation Guidelines with similar aspects to those in the SBO guidelines.
Such aspects include an outline on how county governments should engage the
public in policy-making and planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring
and evaluation and seeking redress through public petitions and referenda.
2. According to the community respondents, both the involvement of citizens
and religious leaders in planning, budgeting, monitoring service delivery and
management of public resources is low. However, there were a few religious
leaders who confirmed during the FGDs that they had indeed been involved in
planning, budgeting and some SIR processes.
3. Whereas some religious leaders have directly engaged in the annual county
planning and budgeting processes, this has not been adequately informed by
the evidence generated from monitoring service delivery in the various county
facilities.
4. For those religious leaders involved in SIR processes, the use of the SIR tool
provided some basis for service providers and decision makers to act on specific
needs identified in selected facilities. However, most of the service consumers
(rights/claim holders) were not aware of the SIR tool. Only few government officials
and religious leaders were aware of the tool.
5. Access to government documents, such as plans and budgets is very low. Many
citizens do not have copies of their respective county government plans and
budget. Thus many citizens may not authoritatively state that their community
priorities have informed county plans and budgets. Many citizens still faced the
challenge of knowing how much money had been allocated to a specific project
or programme in their communities.

39
 6. The formation and launch of inter-faith networks was a major milestone
towards rallying a critical mass of people of different faiths and belief systems
to directly engage the political and administrative leadership during decision-
making processes. However, there is minimal evidence to demonstrate the
effectiveness of these networks in achieving their objectives.
7. There is an overwhelming interest among the citizens and religious leaders
to be fully involved in public planning, budgeting, monitoring service delivery
and management of public funds. However, the county governments provide
limited regular spaces at the grass-root levels to enable the people to actively
engage in decision-making processes. Poor communication and lack of timely
feedback by county governments to citizens deny the people great opportunities
for meaningful participation in governance and development affairs.

COMPARISON OF BASELINE AND EVALUATION FINDINGS

Baseline findings (October 2013) Evaluation findings (July 2017)

The level of awareness of social budgeting There was increased level of awareness
and SIR was low. about Social Budgeting and SIR among
County Government Planning Officers and
the leadership of the inter-faith networks.

Awareness among community members on

SBO and SIR, however, remained low.

Citizens’ participation in budget process Citizen participation in planning and

and monitoring of service delivery was budgeting was low.
low.

40
Baseline findings (October 2013)
Religious leaders’ involvement in the
budget process and monitoring the
provision of services was low.
Forums for engagement in budget process
and monitoring service provision were
rarely held.
Citizens had concerns that county
resources would not be managed
effectively since such processes lacked
transparency, accountability and
inclusivity.
Evaluation findings (July 2017)
There is some considerable improvement
in the involvement of religious leaders in
the budget process and monitoring service
delivery.
However, there are challenges associated
with lack of access to information and
weak communication between the county
government officials and inter-faith
networks.
There are platforms for citizens’
engagement in the budget process, which
include public hearings led by the county
executive and others that are led by the
County Assembly.
There is minimal information available to
the public to enable them to determine
whether resources are being managed
effectively.
Citizens are still concerned that county
governments do not share progress reports
on financial management and project
implementation.
41
 Baseline findings (October 2013) Evaluation findings (July 2017)

Few stakeholders were involved in efforts There is improved stakeholder involvement

to improve citizens’ participation and
that the effectiveness of their initiatives
was low.
in facilitating citizens’ participation. The
county planning offices have records of
stakeholders who continue to support
public participation in their respective
counties.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION RELATED CHALLENGES

1. During the first year of the project implementation, IRCK, in collaboration with
the Ministry of Devolution of Planning, supported and facilitated the training
of 47 County Development and Planning Officers, most of whom were also
involved in the validation of the Social Budgeting Framework and guidelines.
This was one of the avenues for ensuring ownership in the establishment and
functioning of the SBOs in the counties. Although all the counties committed
to roll out SBOs and SIRs, new guidelines from the National Government on
planning and budgeting the slowed the implementation of the SBO guidelines.
It was envisioned that IRCK would sign a memorandum of understanding with
each of the four targeted county governments. Signing of the agreements would
have ensured operationalisation of the SBOs in the counties and that all the
activities were to be planned and budgeted for as part of the county government
programmes. Whereas the county leadership provided verbal commitments to
support the roll out of SBO frameworks in their counties with support from IRCK,
only two County Planning Officers included SIR activities as part of their official
departmental plans. It follows, therefore, that there was no way to hold the county
officials accountable for not undertaking SIR activities.

42
2. Since county networks fully relied on IRCK funding for implementation of all
the activities, absence of sustained financial support from IRCK meant that not
all county level activities could be implemented as planned, resulting in delayed
implementation and sometimes lack of full implementation of some activities.

3. Other than routine monitoring visits, the project was implemented without a
clearcalender of events on the implementation of CSBO/SIR teams. Whenever
IRCK team made field visits, determining the functionality of SIR teams was a
challenge. For example, the number of SIR reports submitted was one of the
output indicators. However, how to extract specific issues in the SIR reports
and track whether they had been acted on and at what level was never defined
during the project implementation. The project ended without an aggregated
documentation of the summary of issues identified through the SIR that were
addressed, who addressed them, the level at which they were addressed and
which issues are pending.

4. The project had some gaps associated with outlining indicators in the log-
frame. The indicators seemed not to have been well defined at the onset. A
review of the project reports showed that there were no specific targets for each
of the baseline values. This posed a challenge in determining the extent to which
the targets and indicators at outcome levels were achieved.

43
 CONCLUSION

IRCK’s Social Accountability Project as designed focused on involving religious

leaders towards ensuring enhanced participation of citizens in the prioritisation,
planning, budgeting and monitoring process of public finances for equitable social
development in the targeted counties. This was to include working directly with
the leadership of county inter-faith networks and holding sessions with county
government officers on the implementation of community-led priorities, budgets,
spending and reporting mechanisms in their respective counties. It is evident
from the evaluation that indeed the project worked with county governments
and religious leaders and ensured that the leaders acquired some knowledge on
SBO, SIR, planning and budgeting. However, it was not clear how the evidence
from SIR exercises were used to influence government plans and budgets.

At the onset of the project, it was envisioned that religious leaders, through their
respective local inter-faith networks, were to lobby their county governments
to implement social budgeting framework. The evaluation has shown that there
was indeed a considerable engagement with the targeted county governments
to mainstream SBO. While the term SBO is not being used by the county
government officials, what the SBOs were intended to achieve is to a large extent
being actualised through the opportunities created within the annual planning
and budgeting calendars in the counties.

The baseline survey had established that citizens’ and religious leaders’
participation in planning, budgeting process and monitoring of service delivery
was low. Forums for engagement in budgeting process and monitoring service
provision were rarely held. From the evaluation findings, the level of participation
in planning, budgeting and monitoring service delivery is still low. Citizens’

44
participation in planning, budgeting and monitoring service delivery equally
remains low. This is as a result of lack of adequate investments and tracking of
citizens’ participation programmes and initiatives, especially at the grass-root
levels, by county governments and non-state agencies.

The overall goal of the project was to promote proper utilisation of public resources
and improved social services delivery at the county and national levels. Some
gains have been made. For instance, the formation and launch of the inter-faith
networks, whose mandate includes working towards peace and social progress,
has enabled communities to advocate for the needs of the local communities
in a move that if sustained would build a critical mass that will guard against
misappropriation of public resources. The fact that some religious leaders have
taken up their rightful space in the county platforms for planning and budgeting,
such as in the county budget and economic forum, clearly demonstrates IRCK’s
contribution in the quest towards sustaining a culture of proper use of public
resources.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Recalling the objects of devolution, specifically Articles 174 (c&d) that

emphasises on enhancing the participation of the people in making decisions
affecting them; and recognising the right of communities to manage their own
affairs and to further their development; a life time opportunity exists for the inter-
faith networks to provide leadership on citizens’ participation at the grassroots.
This includes the utilisation of various approaches for facilitating regular and
consistent engagement of religious groups in governance and development affairs
right from the villages, sub-locations, locations, wards, sub-counties, counties
and the national level. The County Public Participation Guidelines as published

45
 by the Ministry of Devolution and Planning and the Council of Governors should
be embraced.

2. With the establishment of the office of the sub-county and ward administrators
who have a legal responsibility to facilitate and coordinate citizens’ participation
(as provided for in sections 50 and 51 respectively in the County Governments
Act of 2012), there is need to support and facilitate religious leaders to work with
these offices to strengthen citizens’ participation platforms at the grass-root and
ward levels, with a linkage to the sub-county and county levels. This requires an
integrated approach that includes the National Government officials, such as the
Deputy County Commissioner (responsible for National Government function in
the sub-county) and the Assistant County Commissioner (at the ward level).

3. Different forms of basic service delivery such as water, health, and education
have specific standards of service delivery that require some expertise to track.
The inter-faith networks may need to consider investing resources in building
capacity of their members and other religious groups on various standards
of service delivery. This will enable them to improve on monitoring service
delivery and examining the extent to which such services are being provided in
comparison to government set standards of service delivery.

4. Whereas all county government departments have a direct opportunity to

shape county planning and influence county budgets through various avenues,
such as sector working groups, strategic discussions and decisions still need to
be explored to ensure that religious leaders and community representatives take
their rightful space within the sector working groups (SWG) and county budget
and economic forums (CBEF).

46
5. The copies of approved county governments budgets for the previous and
current financial years; and the quarterly county budget implementation reports
and project implementation reports are publicly available in the respective
county government offices. Initiatives that focus on building citizens capacity
to analyze and track budgets should be scaled up and citizens facilitated to
examine the extent to which county governments are using public resources
prudently. Any misappropriations detected should be recommended for further
investigations and possible prosecution.

6. The development of the 2nd CIDPs provides an opportunity for religious

leaders to rally the citizenry to meaningfully participate in the process and ensure
that they set the development agenda to be implemented over a period of five
years (i.e. 2018 – 2022) in their respective counties. Strengthening the inter-faith
networks capacity to mobilise the citizens and to facilitate them to participate
at all possible stages and spaces in the development of the 2nd CIDPs is highly
recommended.

47
 REFERENCES

County Integrated Development Plans for Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia, Samburu and
West Pokot
Inter-Religious Council of Kenya Social Accountability Project Proposal
Inter-Religious Council of Kenya (2013) Social Accountability Project Baseline
Survey Report
Inter-Religious Council of Kenya, Social Accountability Project Monitoring
Reports
Inter-Religious Council of Kenya, Social Accountability Project Annual Reports
The Constitution of the Republic of Kenya (2010)
Republic of Kenya, County Governments Act (2012)
Republic of Kenya, Public Finance Management Act (2012)
Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Planning (2013), Guidelines for the Establishment
and Operation
of the Social Budgeting Framework
Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Devolution and Planning and the Council of
Governors (2016)
County Public Participation Guidelines
Republic of Kenya, National Treasury (2014) Public Financial Management,
Budget Preparation
Module, Participants Book

48
 ANNEX 1 – EVALUATION DATA COLLECTION TOOLS

Figure 1: Training of Research Assistants held at Banshade Hotel, WeiWei Ward on led by
researcher for West Pokot County Mr. Tony Apollo (Standing)

Figure 1: Training of Research Assistants held at Banshade Hotel, WeiWei Ward on led by
researcher for West Pokot County Mr. Tony Apollo (Standing)

49
Figure 3: Indepth Interview held at Weiwei market centre, Weiwei Ward on led by
Dominic Rotich (white and black polka dot shirt)

Figure 4: School of Board Management Board Focus Group Discussion held at Sigor
Girls Primary School, Weiwei Ward on led by Mr. Tony Apollo (blue shirt)

50
Figure 5: Interview held at Weiwei market centre, Chief’s office Weiwei Ward on led by
Mr. Tony Apollo (blue shirt) assisted by Hosea Pkemei (Brown and Yellow checked shirt)

Figure 6: Religious Leaders Focus Group Discussion held at Jirime Hotel, Saku sub-
county, Marsabit county led by Mr. Linus Nthigai (Standing)

51
 The Research assistants:

Laikipia:
i. Samuel Kariuki
ii. Peter Kariuki
iii. Mercy Nyambura
iv. Mary Wanjiru

West Pokot:
i. Ezekiel Chepkilim
ii. Mark. K. Alemreng
iii. Dominic Rotich
iv. Hosea Pkemei

Samburu:
i. Purity Ntejewa Lesiyalni
ii. Musa Lendorop
iii. Abdirahmun Issa
iv. Luke Lekatik

Tharaka Nithi
i. Catherine Njeri
ii. Kelvin Mugambi
iii. Silas Micheni
iv. Mercy Karimi Nyagah

52
Notes

53
Notes

54
55
 P.O BOX 6352-00200 Nairobi, Kenya
Mararo Avenue / Off Gitanga
Tel: (020) 3877791 / 3872070
Fax: 3861397, Web: www.interreligiouscouncil.or.ke