Last year, the Kenyan government won a United Nations award for its efforts at improving transparency, accountability and responsiveness in Public Service.
This
report, dated October of last year, is the culmination of that process, an effort that began with the negotiation of
Performance Contracts for Ministries/Departments, State Corporations and Local
Authorities in May/June 2006.
All
public institutions are required to prepare and submit quarterly performance
reports to designated agencies, and annual performance reports to the
Performance Contracts Secretariat. The basis of the evaluation of the
performance of public institutions is these annual performance reports.
The
performance evaluation for the Public Agencies was carried out in
August/September 2007. The performance of Ministries/Departments was evaluated
by the Ad-Hoc Evaluation Task Force. Evaluation of the performance of State
Corporations was undertaken by the Ad-Hoc Evaluation Task Force in
collaboration with the Inspectorate of State Corporations. Local Authorities
were evaluated by the Task Force with the assistance of a few public officers
who had been fully trained in performance contracting.
Below is a copy of the report for your consideration.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ————— CABINET OFFICE REPORT ON EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC AGENCIES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006/2007 OCTOBER, 2007 REPORT ON EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC AGENCIES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006/2007 OCTOBER, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Preface..................................................................................................iv Executive Summary............................................................................vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION......................................................1 CHAPTER TWO: THE PROCESS OF PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING AND EVALUATION...................................................4 CHAPTER THREE: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................6 CHAPTER FOUR: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS .................................................................................................. 7 4.1 Ministries/Departments.........................................................7 4.2 State Corporations................................................................8 4.3 Local Authorities..................................................................10 CHAPTER FIVE: LESSONS LEARNT .............................................11 5.1 Guidelines/Methodology………………….............................11 5.2 Impact on the Ground ………………………….....................12 5.3 Process of Performance Contracts Negotiations and Evaluation............................................................................13 CHAPTER SIX: OBSERVATIONS, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD ...............................14 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Observations ........................................................................14 Conclusion …………………………........................................14 Recommendations ………………………….............................14 Way Forward ………………………….....................................16 ANNEXES.................................................................................................17 Annex I: Members of the AdHoc Negotiation/Evaluation Task Force…18 Annex II: Performance Evaluation Guidelines..........................................23 1. Basic Framework..................................................................23 2. Operating Rules……………………….....................................24 3. Basic Requirements ……………........................………………25 4. Computation of the Raw Score …………...............................25 Annex III: Performance Evaluation Results for Ministries/Departments. .28 1. Ministries/Departments Evaluated……….................………28 Annex IV: Performance Evaluation Results for State Corporations..........30 1. State Corporations Evaluated..................................................30 2. State Corporations not on Performance Contracts and, therefore, not Evaluated.......................................................... 38 3. State Corporations whose Financial Year is 1st January to 31st December………………………..............................................…39 4. State Corporations whose Financial Year is 1st April to 31st March ......................................................................................39 5. Subsidiary State Corporations that signed Performance Contracts with their parent Ministry/State Corporations….....39 6. State Corporations that signed Performance Contracts but did not submit reports for evaluation..................................…… 39 Annex V: Performance Evaluation Results for State Corporations by Functional Category …............................................................... 40 1. Financial....................................................................................40 2. Commercial/Manufacturing……………… .................................41 3. Regulatory……………………………………................................42 4. Public Universities………………………… ................................44 5. Training and Research………………………………………..........44 6. Service………………………………..................................………45 7. Regional Development…………………………….........................47 8. Tertiary Education…………………………..................................48 Annex VI: Performance Evaluation Results for Local Authorities ...........49 Annex VII: Performance Evaluation Results for Local Authorities by Category ................................................................................55 PREFACE This report is the culmination of a process that began with the negotiation of Performance Contracts for Ministries/Departments, State Corporations and Local Authorities in May/June 2006. All public institutions are required to prepare and submit quarterly performance reports to designated agencies, and annual performance reports to the Performance Contracts Secretariat. The basis of the evaluation of the performance of public institutions is these annual performance reports. The performance evaluation for the Public Agencies was carried out in August/September 2007. The performance of Ministries/Departments was evaluated by the AdHoc Evaluation Task Force. Evaluation of the performance of State Corporations was undertaken by the AdHoc Evaluation Task Force in collaboration with the Inspectorate of State Corporations. Local Authorities were evaluated by the Task Force with the assistance of a few public officers who had been fully trained in performance contracting. In order to harmonize and standardize the evaluation reports, a team comprising twelve members drawn from the Task Force was appointed. The team comprised Dr. Florence K. Nyamu (Chair), Mr. Stanley K. Mbugua (Deputy Chair), Eng. Peter Wambura, Eng. Erastus K. Mwongera, Mr. Johnson M. Otenyo, Mr. Michael Karanja, Mr. Dan S. Omino, Prof. Kihumbu Thairu, Mr. Paul Matelong, Dr. Stephen M. Mwikya, Prof. Jasper A. Okelo and Mr. Stephen Karekezi. In addition to the above moderators, the following were called upon to assist the moderators; Prof. Rosalind Mutua, Mr. James Mureithi, Mr. Joshua Kimulu. The Terms of Reference for the team were to: • • • • Ensure uniformity in the manner evaluators had applied evaluation guidelines; Identify and document critical experiences and lessons learnt in the processes of negotiation, evaluation and moderation; Make recommendations on the way forward in the implementation of Performance Contracts; and Compile a performance evaluation report for onward transmission to the Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of the Public Service. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The policy decision to introduce Performance Contracts in the management of the public service was conveyed in the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS), (2003 2007). The process began in October 2004 when sixteen pilot state corporations signed and implemented Performance Contracts. In the Financial Year, 2005/2006, all of the then 35 Ministries/Departments, 116 State Corporations and five pilot Local Authorities signed and implemented Performance Contracts. The Financial Year 2006/2007 is the second year of full scale implementation of Performance Contracts in the Public Service by all Government Ministries/Departments, State Corporations and Local Authorities. In a midterm review of the ERS carried out by the Ministry of Planning and National Development for the period 20032006, it was observed that the underlying objective of Performance Contracting is to align Strategic Plans, Annual Work plans and budgets of Public Agencies in order to improve accountability while focusing resources on the attainment of key national policy priorities. In the performance evaluation report of 2005/2006, the AdHoc Evaluation Task Force concluded that, performance contracting is, on the whole a valid and necessary strategy. It observed further, that the success of the strategy is highly dependent on political goodwill and focused leadership. The speedy entrenchment of the process is attributable to the consistent support and encouragement given by H.E. the President. The enthusiasm, commitment, competence and focus provided by the Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of the Public Service, the Performance Contracts Steering Committee (PCSC) together with its Secretariat, have significantly contributed to the success of the Strategy. Among the recommendations made by the Task Force during the evaluation of Performance Contracts for 2005/2006 was the need to extend the strategy to cover all arms of Government. In addition, the Task Force recommended the need to legislate the Strategy, strengthen the Performance Contracts Steering Committee and its Secretariat to be able to monitor and provide timely feedback on quarterly performance reports to the Public Agencies, and to develop a Communication Strategy that clearly spells out methods of packaging, marketing, disseminating information and sensitizing all stakeholders. These recommendations are yet to be implemented. The Task Force wishes to reiterate the same position. In the Financial Year 2006/2007, 38 Ministries/Departments, 127 State Corporations and 175 Local Authorities signed Performance Contracts. The performance of these institutions was evaluated in August and September 2007. The process was participatory and diligently undertaken in accordance with the Evaluation Guidelines issued by the Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of the Public Service. As was the case in 2005/06, none of the Ministries/Departments, State Corporations and Local Authorities evaluated in respect of 2006/07 achieved the “Excellent”1 grade. 29 Ministries/Departments (or 76%) attained the “Very Good”2 grade, while 9 of them (or 24%) achieved the “Good”3 grade. 1 2 3 4 5 Excellent performance represents achievement between 30% and 100% above agreed target. Very Good Performance represents achievement of the agreed targets in the Performance Contracts, between 100% and 129.9%. Good Performance represents achievement below agreed target but >2.57% over previous year’s performance. Fair performance is achievement between 100% and 102.57% of previous year’s performance. Poor performance is achievement below previous year’s performance. Out of 124 State Corporations that were evaluated, 80 (or 65%) achieved the “Very Good” grade, while 44 of them, representing 35% achieved the “Good” grade. It is commendable that, this time around, there were no Ministries/Departments and State Corporations in either the “Fair”4 or “Poor”5 grades. This is a remarkable general improvement in performance. Out of the 175 Local Authorities that signed Performance Contracts and were evaluated, only four (4) representing 2% achieved the “Very Good” grade. A total of 105 local authorities (or 60%) achieved the “Good” grade while six (6) (or 4%) and 60 (or 34%) achieved, respectively, the “Fair” and “Poor” grades. From the conclusions made by the Task Force at the end of the performance evaluation for the financial year 2006/2007, there is ample evidence that the process of performance contracting has created and compounded accountability and transparency in the management of public resources. Of particular significance has been the inclusion of the Citizens’ Service Delivery Charter and Customer Satisfaction Surveys in the Performance Contracts Strategy. These are vital instruments for measuring and enhancing the quality of service delivery and, ultimately, eradicating corruption. Further, Kenya’s Vision 2030 has recognized performance contracting among the key strategies to strengthen public administration and service delivery. The strategies will, in this regard, focus on deepening the use of citizens’ service delivery charters as accountability tools, and inculcating a performance culture in the public service. Following conclusion of the second year of the implementation of Performance Contracts by Ministries/Departments, State Corporations and Local Authorities, there is ample evidence that the Performance Contracts Strategy has enhanced overall performance and service delivery in Public Agencies. It has also promoted the principle of meritocracy, reward and sanction. Sustained application of the Performance Contracting Strategy should turn around and streamline the management and operations of the public service. In order however for the strategy to be fully integrated, it is imperative that it is extended to the other two arms of the Government, that is, the Judiciary and the Legislature. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1. A Performance Contract is a management tool for measuring performance against negotiated performance targets. It is a freely negotiated performance agreement between the Government, acting as the owner of a public agency, and the management of the agency. The Performance Contract specifies the mutual performance obligations, intentions and responsibilities of the two parties. 2. The expected outcomes of the introduction of Performance Contracts include: o improved efficiency in service delivery to the public by ensuring that holders of public office are held accountable for results; o Improvement in performance and efficiency in resource utilization and ensuring that public resources are focused on attainment of the key national policy priorities; o institutionalization of a performanceoriented culture in the Public Service; o ability to measure and evaluate performance; o ability to link reward for work to measurable performance; o instilling accountability for results at all levels in the government; o ensuring that the culture of accountability pervades all levels of Government; o reduction or elimination of reliance on Exchequer funding by public agencies; 3. The policy decision to introduce Performance Contracts in the management of public resources was conveyed in the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (20032007). Further, Kenya’s Vision 2030 has recognized performance contracting among the key strategies to strengthen public administration and service delivery. The strategies will, in this regard, focus on deepening the use of citizen service delivery charters as accountability tools, and entrenching performance as a culture in the Public Service. 4. On 15th January, 2004, the Government, vide Cabinet Memo No. CAB(03)115, directed that all Permanent Secretaries/Accounting Officers of Ministries/Departments and Chief Executive Officers of State Corporations be placed on Performance Contracts by June 2004. To roll out the strategy, the Government established the Performance Contracts Steering Committee (PCSC) in August 2003. The Committee was gazetted on 8th April, 2005. The PCSC is responsible for the overall administration and coordination of Performance Contracts in the public service. In the process of implementing performance contracts, the Committee is assisted by an AdHoc 5. Negotiation/Evaluation Task Force comprising experts drawn from outside the public service. The AdHoc Task Forces are responsible for negotiating Performance Contracts and evaluating performance of Ministries/Departments on behalf of the Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of Public Service. The AdHoc Evaluation Task Force evaluates also the performance of State Corporations and Local Authorities, the former, in collaboration with the Inspectorate of State Corporations. 6. Performance Contracts were first introduced on 1st October, 2004 in 16 largely commercial State Corporations. In 2005/2006, all the then 35 Government Ministries/Departments, 116 State Corporations and five pilot Local Authorities signed Performance Contracts and were evaluated in September 2006. 7. In the performance evaluation report of 2005/2006, the AdHoc Evaluation Task Force concluded that, performance contracting is, on the whole a valid and necessary strategy. It observed further, that the success of the strategy is highly dependent on political goodwill and focused leadership. The speedy entrenchment of the process is attributable to the consistent support and encouragement given by H.E. the President. The enthusiasm, commitment, competence and focus provided by the Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of the Public Service, and the Performance Contracts Steering Committee (PCSC) together with its Secretariat, have significantly contributed to the success of the Strategy. 8. In an address on 20th July, 2007 on the occasion to receive the United Nations Public Service Award, which Kenya won in the first category on improving Transparency, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Public Service, His Excellency the President Hon. Mwai Kibaki, CGH, MP, observed that: “Performance Contracting is a local initiative which has benefited from best practices from countries world over which have successfully implemented the system. It has also been fully locally funded and is not donor driven. This is clear evidence that our public servants have the requisite capacity and competence to help the country realize Vision 2030.” The award was the result of successful implementation of Performance Contracts in the Kenyan Public Service. 9. In an earlier address to the nation during the official announcement of the evaluation results of the performance of Public Agencies for the Financial Year 2005/2006 on 8th December, 2006, His Excellency the President pointed out that, “The Government is steadfast in its resolve to transform the public service into a formidable engine that will propel the country to achieve its Vision 2030 along with the Millennium Development Goals”, through amongst others, “ensuring full integration and comprehensive cascading of the Performance Contracting process in all Government institutions.” 10. Evaluation of performance in respect of the 2006/2007 financial year involved 38 Government Ministries/Departments, 124 State Corporations, and all the 175 Local Authorities. 11. This evaluation report is divided into six chapters. Chapter One covers the introduction; Chapter Two contains the process of performance contracting and evaluation; Chapter Three contains the performance evaluation methodology; Chapter Four contains the performance evaluation results of Ministries/Departments, State Corporations and Local Authorities; Chapter Five explores the experiences and lessons learnt, and Chapter Six contains the observations, conclusions, recommendations and the way forward. CHAPTER TWO THE PROCESS OF PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING AND EVALUATION 12. The Performance Contracts Steering Committee has continued to develop tools and instruments for implementing Performance Contracts and evaluating performance which include: subsidiary legislations for State Corporations and Local Authorities; Model Performance Contracts; Performance Contracts Matrices; Training Manuals and Information Booklets; Guidelines for Drafting and Implementing Performance Contracts and Evaluation of Performance. Of particular significance, has been the inclusion in the Performance Contracts, of Citizens’ Service Delivery Charters and Customer Satisfaction Surveys as strong instruments for enhancing and measuring the quality of service delivery and eradicating corruption. 13. Considerable importance is attached to the process of negotiating Performance Contracts and evaluating performance. An AdHoc Task Force (Annex I) appointed by the Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of Public Service to negotiate Performance Contracts with Permanent Secretaries/Accounting Officers is already in place. The current members comprise eminent persons drawn from professional associations, academia, business community and retired senior public servants. The AdHoc Negotiations Task Force doubles up as the AdHoc Evaluation Team to evaluate performance of Ministries/Departments, State Corporations (in collaboration with the Inspectorate of State Corporations) and Local Authorities.The Task Force members have been adequately trained on the process of negotiations and evaluation of Performance Contracts. 14. For the purpose of continuous monitoring and reporting on performance, public agencies are required to file quarterly and annual performance reports in prescribed formats. Performance evaluation for each public agency is based on the signed Performance Contract and the annual performance report. 15. Evaluation of the performance of Ministries/Departments, State Corporations and Local Authorities was carried out by the AdHoc Evaluation Task Force in August and September 2007. The process was undertaken in accordance with the Evaluation Guidelines (Annex II) issued by the Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of Public Service. 16. A team of twelve members of the Task Force was appointed to: • Ensure uniformity in the manner evaluators applied evaluation guidelines; • Identify and document critical experiences and lessons learnt in the processes of negotiation, evaluation and moderation; • Make recommendations on the way forward in the implementation of Performance Contracts; and • Compile a performance evaluation report for onward transmission to the Permanent Secretary, Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of Public Service. CHAPTER THREE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 17. Evaluation of the performance of public agencies entails the rating of actual achievements against performance targets negotiated and agreed upon at the beginning of the year. The resultant differences are resolved into raw scores, weighted scores and ultimately denominated into Composite Scores. The performance rating of the institutions is based on the following attributes and criteria: Attribute Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Criteria achievement between 30% and 100% above target achievement of the agreed target in the performance contract up to 129.9% of the target achievement below agreed target but >2.57% over previous year’s achievement achievement between 100% and 102.57% of previous year’s achievement achievement below previous year’s achievement Performance is accordingly rated as Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor as shown in the Table 1. Table 1 – Performance and Composite Score Performance Excellent Very Good Good Fair Composite Score Upper Lower 1.00 1.49 1.50 2.49 2.50 3.49 3.50 3.59 Poor 3.60 5.00 Guidelines for evaluation of performance are shown in Annex II. CHAPTER FOUR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS 4.1 Ministries/Departments 18. All 38 Ministries/Departments signed Performance Contracts for the period starting 1st July, 2006 and ending 30th June, 2007. All the 38 Ministries/Departments were evaluated. Table 2 shows the distribution of Ministries/Departments by grades. Table 2 Performance of Ministries/Departments by Grade Performance Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total Number 0 29 9 0 0 38 Percentage 0 76 24 0 0 100 19. The complete list of Ministries/Departments, indicating the Composite Scores and the ranking is shown in Annex III. The best 10 performing Ministries are shown in Table 3 below: Table 3 – Best Performing Ministries/Departments No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Ministry Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services Ministry of Regional Development Authorities Ministry of State for Special Programmes Ministry of Energy Ministry of Housing Office of the Vice President and Ministry of Home Composite Score 2.1936 2.1975 2.2466 2.2477 2.2553 2.2599 7. 8. 9. 10. Affairs Ministry of State for National Heritage Ministry of Health Ministry of Immigration and Registration of Persons Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs 2.2922 2.3263 2.3281 2.3324 4.2 State Corporations 20. A total of 124 State Corporations that were on Performance Contract were evaluated. Three (3) state corporations, which signed Performance Contracts, were however, not evaluated, because their management did not submit their performance reports for evaluation. These are the following: i. ii. iii. Numerical Machining Complex Kenya National Shipping Line, and School Equipment Production Unit In addition, the following eleven (11) state corporations did not sign Performance Contracts: i. Muhoroni Sugar Company ii. Gilgil Telecommunications Industries iii. Safaricom Kenya Limited iv. Development Bank of Kenya v. Kenya National Trading Corporation vi. Rift Valley Textiles Limited vii. Deposit Protection Fund Board viii. National Bank of Kenya ix. National Council for Children Services x. National Council for Law Reporting xi. Miwani Sugar Company Messrs Muhoroni Sugar Company, Miwani Sugar Company and Rift Valley Textiles Limited were under receivership/liquidation. They could therefore not sign Performance Contracts. The remainder of the institutions in the two categories were accordingly assigned each a composite score of 5, and ranked in the “Poor” performance category. The performance evaluation results are shown in Table 4 below: Table 4 Performance of State Corporations by Grade Performance Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor* Total *State Corporations not evaluated. 21. No. of State Corporations 0 80 44 0 10 134 Percentage 0 60 33 0 7 100 The complete listing of State Corporations indicating the composite scores and ranking is shown in Annex IV. The top ten performing State Corporations are shown in Table 5. Table 5 Best Performing State Corporations No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 State Corporation Parent Ministry Kenyatta Education University Nyayo Tea Zones Agriculture Development Corporation Kenya Wine Trade Agencies Ltd Kenya Medical Health Training College Athi Water Water and Services Board Irrigation University of Nairobi Education Functional Composite Category Score Public 1.6219 Universities Commercial / Manufacturing 1.7070 Commercial / Manufacturing Tertiary Education Service Public Universities 1.7436 1.7443 1.7471 1.8094 7 Maseno University Education Public Universities 1.8138 8 9 10 22. Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Cooperative College of Kenya Bomas of Kenya Information and Communications Commercial / Manufacturing 1.8416 Cooperative Tertiary Development and Education Marketing Tourism and Service Wildlife 1.8420 1.8614 The performance of State Corporations is further presented in accordance with functional categories in Annex V. 4.3 Local Authorities 23. A total of 175 Local Authorities that were on Performance Contracts were evaluated and the results are shown in Table 6 below. Table 6 Performance of Local Authorities by Grade Performance Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Total No. of Local Authorities 0 4 105 6 60 175 Percentage 0 2 60 4 34 100 24. The details of the performance of all Local Authorities including their categorization are given in Annexes VI and VII respectively. The best ten performing Local Authorities are shown in Table 7. Table 7 – Best Performing Local Authorities No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Local Authority City Council of Nairobi Municipal Council of Chuka County Council of Bungoma County Council of Makueni Town Council of Molo Municipal Council of Mumias Town Council of Karuri Town Council of Maralal Town Council of Chogoria County Council of Mbeere Composite Score 2.2783 2.4859 2.4911 2.4920 2.5023 2.5287 2.5954 2.6137 2.6144 2.6220 CHAPTER FIVE LESSONS LEARNT 25. The lessons learnt during the process of negotiation, evaluation and moderation were categorized into three broad areas, viz: • guidelines and methodology; • impact on the ground; and, • process of negotiation and evaluation. 5.1 (a) Guidelines/Methodology There is need to standardize management accounting and reporting formats, as is the case with the standard signed reports submitted to the Controller and AuditorGeneral by Accounting Officers. The indicator on fulfillment of statutory obligations should be broken down into specific obligations. The explanations thereof should be included in the Performance Contracts notes. Inconsistency in the implementation of dynamic indicators should be discouraged. For example, where a public agency had a Baseline Survey as its target, follow up on implementation should be in the subsequent year. There is a visible mismatch between annual work planning of public agencies and performance contracting. Strategic Plans for many public institutions implementing Performance Contracts are cast beyond the timeline of the ERS (20032007), but are not yet synchronized with the Vision 2030. There is now urgent need to link all public service strategic plans to the Vision 2030. (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Inadequate emphasis on the operation and maintenance of plants and equipment and also other services, contributes to poor performance in the long term, leading to higher replacement costs of plant and equipment. The standardized reporting formats should be enforced. The Ministry of Local Government should assist Local Authorities in improving performance in service delivery and other indicators; in this regard, it may need to consider strengthening and revamping itsInspectorate Unit. 5.2 Impact on the Ground (g) (h) (a) There has been visible improvement in the overall performance of institutions and even individual officers, since performance contracts were introduced. Additional capacity building should be directed towards improving the quality of the human resource. The commitment of the Performance Contracts Steering Committee Secretariat is exemplary and has been key to the success of the Performance Contracting process. The performance ranking and public recognition have been instrumental in motivating public agencies to pursue achievement of the agreed targets competitively and with commitment. This has resulted in remarkable improvement in performance, and positive impact on economic growth. Emphasis on visibility of achievements should be factored into the Performance Contracting framework to attract the support of the public. (b) (c) (d) (e) A significant number of Chief Executive Officers in Ministries (including Permanent Secretaries), State Corporations, and Local Authorities, are still not quite fully committed to the process. Lack of reward/sanctions in the first year of Performance Contracting is toning down efforts at mainstreaming the Performance Contracting process in Government. 5.3 Process of Performance Contracts negotiation and evaluation (f) (a) (b) The use of an external team of independent negotiators, evaluators and moderators has ensured a more independent outcome. Regular monitoring of the implementation of the Performance Contracts Strategy is a vital aspect for its success. Providing feedback on quarterly reports and taking corrective action, where necessary, are key ingredients for the attainment of a performance culture. The inclusion in the Performance Contracts of Citizens Service Delivery Charters and Customer Satisfaction Surveys should be fully integrated in public service management. The Performance Contracting process in the Public Service has grown from a pilot phase of 16 State Corporations to the current level of 38 Ministries/Departments, 128 State Corporations and 175 Local Authorities. The staff compliment of the PCSC Secretariat should be expanded commensurately. There is a need to cascade the Performance Contracts process further downstream to the provincial and district levels so that every public official is brought on board. (c) (d) (e) CHAPTER SIX OBSERVATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAY FORWARD 6.1 26. Observations The overall performance of Ministries/Departments and State Corporations has greatly improved over the last financial year. While none of the Ministries/Departments or State Corporations was in the Excellent Performance Category, none achieved either Fair or Poor performance. This is with the exception of Numerical Machining Complex and School Equipment Production Unit, which were ranked at the bottom because of failure to submit their performance to the independent evaluation. Given that the financial year 2006/2007 was the first year of implementation of Performance Contracts for the 175 Local authorities, it is commendable that four of them achieved Very Good Performance and 105 achieved Good performance. Conclusions It is evident that as a result of introduction of the Performance Contracts Strategy, there is greater accountability in the management of public resources. Regular monitoring of the implementation of the Performance Contracts Strategy is a vital aspect for its success. Providing feedback on quarterly reports and taking corrective action, where necessary, are key ingredients for successful entrenchment of a performance culture. 27. 6.2 28. 29. 6.3 30. Recommendations Based on the lessons learnt and an overview of the implementation of the Performance Contracts Strategy, the following recommendations are made: i. To ensure smooth implementation of the Performance Contracts Strategy, particularly with regard to providing feedback on quarterly, midyear and annual reports, there is an urgent need to strengthen the capacity of the PCSC Secretariat; To ensure that the requirement for growth orientation and improvement is sustained, a separate award category for the top three (3) mostimproved public agencies should be introduced; While the broad approach of encouraging improved performance is sound, it would be wise to include in the evaluation and moderation guidelines, the stipulation that the top three (3), five (5) or 10 public agencies would be judged not only on their recorded improvements but also on their ability to attain and maintain broadly recognized indicators. In addition, the top public agencies should be evaluated and moderated with reference to their peers within the region as well as in other developing countries. This will ensure that only truly worldclass public agencies feature in the top ranks; A midterm review should be undertaken for all Public Agencies during the contract year in order to assess progress towards achievement of the annual performance targets; To ensure full integration of the Citizens’ Service Delivery Charters, there is need to urgently roll out and implement the charters in grassroots institutions; ii. iii. iv. v. vi. To ensure sustainability of the Performance Contracts Strategy as a management tool, it should be legislated and entrenched in the Laws of Kenya; There is a need to ensure that the Performance Contracts being implemented by Public Agencies fully comply with the national planning instruments and at the same time are linked to the longer term Vision 2030. it is necessary therefore, that the PCSC takes the initiative, in conjunction with all Ministries, to hasten the review of Strategic Plans of Public Agencies in line with the Vision 2030; Each Public Agency should create and/or strengthen a Performance Contracts unit at a senior level directly responsible for the implementation of the Strategy; There is need to review the existing legal and institutional frameworks that currently govern the operations of public agencies to harmonize them with the requirements of the Performance Contracts Strategy; There is need to assess the impact of the Performance Contracting process at the grassroots level; There is need to change the definition of “Good” performance to avoid misinterpretation of the literal meaning of the word. The word “Average” may be considered as a substitute. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. 6.4 Way Forward 31. The current composition of PCSC may not confer requisite autonomy to the Secretariat to spearhead the process. The transitional arrangement made through Gazette Notice No. 2431 dated 8th April, 2005, should now be reviewed and possibly replaced by an autonomous institutional arrangement. 32. 33. A Performance Incentives/Sanctions system should be put in place. The necessary amendments and/or enactment of legal instruments should be pursued in order to make future performance contracting, evaluation and moderation orderly and within the legal framework. The midterm evaluation during the contract year should be introduced to ensure that remedial action is taken and possibilities of exogenous considerations dealt with including the possible negotiation of the targets in advance. There is need to develop sectoral performance indices for benchmarking purposes, as the performance contracting process enters future cycles. 34. 35. ANNEXES I. II. III. IV. V. Members of the AdHoc Negotiations/Evaluation Task Force Performance Evaluation Guidelines Performance Evaluation Results for Ministries/Departments Performance Evaluation Results for State Corporations Performance Evaluation Results for State Corporations by Functional Category Performance Evaluation Results for Local Authorities Performance Evaluation Results for Local Authorities by Category VI. VII. ANNEX I MEMBERS OF THE ADHOC NEGOTIATION/EVALUATION TASK FORCE AREA OF SPECIALIZA TION Scientist Consultancy Business Scientist Forestry Finance ORGANIZA TION Ms Vedaman FPEAK University of Nairobi Egerton University NEMA Commercial Bank of Africa Kanyue & Partners Architects HABITAT S.C.M. Wafula & Associates Marketing Society of Kenya Kenyatta University Diamond Trust Creta Consultants Ltd. Moi University NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 NAME Dr. Rachael Masake Dr. Stephen Mbithi Mwikya Prof. Peter K’Obonyo Prof. Shaukat Abdulrazak Dr. Dominic Walubengo Mr. Isaac Awuondo DESIGNATION Consultant Managing Director Lecturer Lecturer Director Managing Director Managing Director/ Consultant Architect Deputy Director General Quantity Surveyor Lecturer Lecturer Managing Director Director Lecturer 7 Arch. Patrick Kanyue Dr. Florence Muli Musiime Mr. Silvester C. Wafula Mr. Peter Wafula Dr. M. K. Otube Mrs. Nassim Devji Dr. Florence Nyamu Prof. Battan Khaemba Architecture Social Scientist Consultancy Business Business Business Academia Botany/Zoology 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NO 15 16 17 18 NAME Mr. Stanley K. Mbugua Mr. Michael Karanja DESIGNATION Retired Senior Public Servant Director Retired Senior Public Servant Consultant AREA OF SPECIALIZA TION Consultancy Engineering Engineering Marine Law Marine Specialist Scientist ORGANIZA TION Private Consultant Centre for Corporate Governance Private Consultant Kimani Kairu and Company Advocates Wambua & Company Advocates Intermediate Technology African Energy Policy Research Network University of Nairobi Tegemeo Institute EM Baseline Consultants USIU Kenya Kountry Business Incubator Consultant Triad Architects Eng. Mugambi Wanjohi Mr. Lewis Kamau 19 Mr. Wambua Musili Consultant Senior Programme Manager Managing Director Lecturer Senior Research Fellow Water Engineer Dean Executive Director Engineer Architect 20 Mr. Daniel Theuri 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. Stephen Karekezi Prof. Francis Kibera* Mr. James Nyoro Eng. Erastus Mwongera Prof. Meoli Kashorda Prof. Atieno Amadi Eng. Shem Oduor Noah Mr. James N. Gitoho Scientist Business Agricultural Economist Engineering Academia Information Technology Engineering Architecture NO 29 30 31 32 33 34 NAME Mr. Paul Matelong Prof. Jasper Okelo Mr. Nicholas Nyagah Mr. Norman Brooks Prof. Freida Brown Mr. Eliud Kinuthia DESIGNATION Managing Director Lecturer Finance Director Managing Director ViceChancellor Programme Officer Immediate Vice Chancellor Consultant Senior Lecturer Chairman Chairman Lecturer Managing Director Director Programme Manager AREA OF SPECIALIZA TION Business Economics Trade Specialist Finance Business Academia Academia ORGANIZA TION Rift Valley Bottlers University of Nairobi Magadi Soda Company Homa Line Co. USIU FAWE Kiriri Women University of Science and Technology Corplan Consultants University of Nairobi Armed Forces Pay Review Board Diju Investments Consultant Deacons Kenya Ltd. JICA Kenya HIV/AIDS Private Sector Business Council 35 Prof. Rosalind Mutua Mr. Daniel S. Omino Dr. Odhiambo Sule Mr. Simon P. Njau Mr. Tom Owuor Prof. Makumi Mwagiru Mr. Wahome Muchiri Dr. Willy Makori Academia Corporate Consultancy Academia Human Resource Specialist Law (Labour Issues) Law Business Public Health 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Mr.Francis Njangiru Counselling NO 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NAME Mr. Fred Kibaara Nabea Eng. Peter Wambura Mrs. Marion Waithaka Mr. Chris H. Malavu Prof. O. Odek Mr. Ndungu Gathinji Mr. Geoffrey Orao Obura Mr. Claude Mwende DESIGNATION Managing Director Retired Senior Public Servant Consultant Managing Director Chief Executive Chairman Lawyer General Manager AREA OF SPECIALIZA TION Security Services Engineering Security Business Law Accounting Law Business ORGANIZA TION Paragon Private Consultant Millenium Private Security Services 4M Enterprises KIPI Drummond Investment Bank Private practice Marshalls (EA) Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Central Bank of Kenya Consultant Association of Kenya Insurers Kenyatta University Peak Performance International 52 Prof. Henry Thairu Professor Academia 53 54 55 56 57 Prof. Terry Ryan Mr. Johnson Otenyo Mr. David Ngugi Ms. Farida Abdul Mr. James Gitau Consultant Retired Senior Public Servant Chairman Lecturer Chief Executive Economics Economics Business Academia Business NO NAME DESIGNATION Retired Senior Public Servant Lecturer Retired Senior Public Servant Director Retired Senior Public Servant Consultant Chairman 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Mr. Benjamin Nthiga Prof. Evans Aosa Amb. Bethuel Kiplagat Dr. Eddah Gachukia Mr. Elias Birichi Mr. Martin Mulandi Mrs. Susan Mudhune AREA OF SPECIALIZA TION Human Resource Specialist Business Diplomacy Academia Agricultural Economist Horticulture Business Health and Academia Academia Economics Military ORGANIZA TION Consultant University of Nairobi Africa Peace Forum Riara Group of Schools Private Consultant Private Practice Kenya Commercial Bank Commission for Higher Education Africa Nazarene University Kenyatta University Export Processing Zones Authority School of Continuing Education, Egerton University Centre for Corporate Governance 65 66 67 68 Prof. Kihumbu Thairu Prof. Leah Marangu Mr. Harris Mule Gen (Rtd) Daudi Tonje Chairman ViceChancellor Chancellor Chairman 69 Prof. Francis Wegulo Director Military Science 70 Dr. Joshua Okumbe Programme Coordinator Educationist NO NAME DESIGNATION AREA OF SPECIALIZA TION Counselling ORGANIZA TION Amani Counselling Centre 71 Mrs. Elecah Mbithi Counsellor * Participated during negotiations only ANNEX II PERFORMANCE EVALUATION GUIDELINES 1. Basic Framework The following framework is the core basis for performance evaluation. Criteria Range Range Span Performance upper lower Grade 1.00 – 1.49 0.49 Excellent 0.49 Excellent 1.50 – 2.49 0.99 Very Good 0.99 Very Good 2.50 – 3.49 0.99 Good 0.99 Good 3.50 3.59 0.09 Fair Fair 3.60 – 5.00 1.40 Poor 1.49 Poor/very poor Excellent = achievement >30% above the agreed performance target However, the following are exceptions to this general rule: Indicators whose achievement cannot exceed 100% e.g. capacity utilization and ISO certification, except in instances where “current status” is <77%. Indicators where achievement in excess of 100% for example in procurement of plant and equipment would be wasteful. Indicators of this kind, and where achievement is 100% or lower, will attract raw scores as indicated below: Achievement No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Performance Indicator Compliance with Strategic Plan Development of Service Charter Submission of Annual Accounts Corruption Eradication Disposal of Idle Assets Customer Satisfaction Survey (baseline) Employee Satisfaction Survey (baseline) Compliance with set Budget Limits HIV/AIDS Behavioural Change Fulfillment of statutory obligations Safety Measures Utilization of Allocated Funds Project Implementation Repair & Maintenance 100% <100% Raw Score 2.49 Compute 2.49 5.00 1.49 5.00 2.49 Compute 1.49 Compute 2.49 5.00 2.49 1.49 2.49 1.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 5.00 Compute Compute Compute Compute Compute Compute Compute There is room for furthering performance on any indicator whose achievement is assigned a criteria value of 2.49. In this regard, achievement above 100% may be assigned higher criteria value in proportion to the “additional” performance. Very Good = achievement of the agreed target in the performance contract between 100% to 129.9%. Good = performance below agreed target but >2.57% over previous year’s achievement performance between 100% and 102.57% of previous year’s achievement. performance below previous year’s achievement Fair = Poor = 2. Operating Rules Rule 1 Performance cannot rise above criteria value of 1. Achievement of >200% of the target therefore attracts a raw score of 1. It is accordingly not necessary to engage in further calculation of raw score when achievement is >200% of the target. Performance cannot fall below criteria value of 5. Achievement of <0 therefore attracts a raw score of 5. It is therefore not necessary to engage in further calculation of the raw score when achievement is zero or negative. Rule 2 3. Basic Requirements 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Strategic plan 4th Quarter/Annual performance reports in standard formats Guidelines for evaluating performance contracts Approved budget Copies of: • Vetted Performance Contract; • Letter of Vetting • Other supporting documents as need arise. 4. Computation of the Raw Score Computation of the Raw Score entails determining the proportion of the span (as indicated above) which will go into the achievement units (or values) in order to determine wherein within the range, the achievement falls. It therefore presumes the criteria value range in which the specified achievement level falls is already known. The Methodology for calculating raw score is dependent on criteria value range in which achievement falls. It is more like measuring the distance which performance has “traveled” inside the span of respective range. It is therefore not the same for different criteria value ranges. Step 1: Determine the criteria value range where the actual performance falls, as follows: (Where Xo = Previous year’s achievement, T= target, and, Xa= Actual achievement): (A) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Excellent = 1.3 T≤ Xa ≤ 2T Very Good = T≤ Xa <1.3T Good = 1.0257Xo< Xa < T Fair = 0.4T≤ Xa < 0.7T Poor = 0 ≤ Xa < 0.4T (iii) (iv) (v) GOOD FAIR POOR T 0.7T 0.4T 0 Step 2:Calculate Raw Score using the following formulae The following units XU, XL will be used with the indicated meanings: XU = value corresponding to upper criteria value range; XL = value corresponding to lower criteria value range. For example in the case of “excellent” performance, XU = 2T XL = 1.3T XU and XL will differ for different performance ranges depending on where Xa falls. The following formulae will be used to calculate the Raw Score: EXCELLENT V. GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR 2T 1.3T T 1.0257Xo Xo 0 (1.00) (1.49) (2.49) 3.50 3.59 5 XU Xa XL XU Xa XL (Xa − XL) (Xa − XL) (Xa − XL) (Xa − XL) Raw Score = lower criteria value limit = upper criteria value limit + span (Xu – Xa) – span (Xa – XL) (Xu – XL) OR (Xu – XL) Raw Score ANNEX III PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS FOR MINISTRIES/DEPARTMENTS 3. Ministries/Departments Evaluated NO. MINISTRY/DEPARTMENT EXCELLENT None VERY GOOD Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services Ministry of Regional Development Authorities Ministry of State for Special Programmes Ministry of Energy Ministry of Housing Office of the Vice President and Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of State for National Heritage Ministry of Health Ministry of Immigration and Registration of Persons Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Ministry of Education Ministry of Labour and Human Resource Development State House Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security Public Service Reform & Development Secretariat Ministry of Lands Ministry of Information and Communications Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife Ministry of Finance Cabinet Office Ministry of East African Community Ministry of Transport Ministry of Science and Technology Ministry of Youth Affairs Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Cooperative Development and Marketing Ministry of State for Public Service Ministry of Local Government GOOD Ministry of Trade and Industry Ministry of Water and Irrigation Public Service Commission Ministry of Roads and Public Works COMPOSITE SCORE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 2.1936 2.1975 2.2466 2.2477 2.2553 2.2599 2.2922 2.3263 2.3281 2.3324 2.3337 2.3640 2.3686 2.3788 2.3831 2.3857 2.3898 2.4042 2.4155 2.4257 2.4330 2.4331 2.4335 2.4353 2.4604 2.4642 2.4796 2.4879 2.5387 2.5512 2.5922 2.6287 ANNEX IV PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS FOR STATE CORPORATIONS 1. State Corporations Evaluated NO. CORPORATION PARENT MINISTRY EXCELLENT None VERY GOOD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Kenyatta University Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation Kenya Wine Agencies Ltd Kenya Medical Training College Athi Water Services Board University of Nairobi Maseno University Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Cooperative College of Kenya Bomas of Kenya Education Agriculture Trade Health Water and Irrigation Education Education Information and Communication s Cooperative Development and Marketing Tourism and Wildlife Public Universities Commercial / Manufacturing Commercial / Manufacturing Tertiary Education Service Public Universities Public Universities Commercial/ Manufacturing Tertiary Education Service 1.6219 1.7070 1.7436 1.7443 1.7471 1.8094 1.8138 1.8416 FUNCTIONAL SCORE CATEGORY 9. 10. 1.8420 1.8614 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24 25. 26. 27. Tea Research Foundation Ewaso Ng'iro North Development Authority Kenya Meat Commission Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd National Oil Corporation of Kenya Commission for Higher Education Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis Kenya Airports Authority Tana Water Services Board Capital Markets Authority NGO Coordination Board Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute Jomo Kenyatta Foundation Kenya Literature Bureau Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services Kenya Accountants and Secretaries National Examinations Board Agricultural Development Corporation Agriculture Regional Development Authorities Livestock & Fisheries Development Finance Energy Education Planning and National Development Transport Water and Irrigation Finance Home Affairs Livestock & Fisheries Development Education Education Agriculture Finance Agriculture Training and Research Regional Development Commercial / Manufacturing Financial Commercial / Manufacturing Regulatory Training and Research Commercial / Manufacturing Service Regulatory Regulatory Training and Research Commercial / Manufacturing Commercial / Manufacturing Regulatory Service Service 1.9199 1.9261 1.9436 1.9655 1.9721 1.9993 2.0236 2.0259 2.0540 2.0592 2.0665 2.1008 2.1068 2.1144 2.1235 2.1271 2.1329 28. Kenya Industrial, Research and Development Institute Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology National Hospital Insurance Fund Kenya Pipeline Company Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation Kenya Medical Research Institute Kenyatta International Conference Centre Kenya Forestry Research Institute New Kenya Cooperative Creameries Ltd Egerton University National Council for Persons with Disabilities Kenya Electricity Generating Company Kenya Dairy Board Catering & Tourism Training Development Levy Trustees Kenya Institute of Administration Kenya Maritime Authority Trade and Industry Education Health Energy Trade and Industry Health Tourism and Wildlife Environment & Natural Resources Cooperative Development and Marketing Education Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services Energy Livestock & Fisheries Development Tourism and Wildlife Public Service Transport Training and Research Public Universities Financial Commercial / Manufacturing Financial Training and Research Commercial / Manufacturing Training and Research Commercial / Manufacturing Public Universities Service Commercial / Manufacturing Regulatory 2.1332 29. 30. 31. 32. 33 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 2.1347 2.1350 2.1425 2.1503 2.1611 2.1705 2.1736 2.1863 2.1866 2.1890 39. 40. 2.1929 2.1967 41. 42. 43. Regulatory Training and Research Regulatory 2.2061 2.2187 2.2233 44. 45. 46. 47. Kenya Wildlife Service Water Services Regulatory Board Higher Education Loans Board Tana & Athi Rivers Development Authority Kenya National Assurance Company (2001) Limited Communications Commission of Kenya Agro Chemical & Food Company Kenya Water Institute Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Moi University Coffee Research Foundation Kenya Utalii College Tourism and Wildlife Water and Irrigation Education Regional Development Service Regulatory Service Regional Development 2.2308 2.2388 2.2721 2.2845 48. Finance Information and Communication s Agriculture Water and Irrigation Agriculture Education Agriculture Tourism and Wildlife Financial 2.3000 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. Regulatory Commercial / Manufacturing Tertiary Education Training and Research Public Universities Training and Research Tertiary Education Public Universities Service Service Financial 2.3032 2.3042 2.3056 2.3057 2.3062 2.3068 2.3074 56. 57. 58. 59. Masinde Muliro University Education of Science and Technology Lake Victoria South Water Services Board Lake Victoria North Water Services Board Kenya Roads Board Water and Irrigation Water and Irrigation Roads and Public Works 2.3164 2.3211 2.3247 2.3265 60. 61. 62. 63. 64 65. 66. 67. Export Promotion Council Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Ltd Local Authorities Provident Fund National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation Kenya Sugar Research Foundation Northern Water Services Board Trade Energy Finance Local Government Water and Irrigation Agriculture Water and Irrigation Regulatory Commercial / Manufacturing Financial Service Service Training and Research Service Service 2.3328 2.3423 2.3427 2.3524 2.3609 2.3612 2.3706 2.3788 Gender, Sports, Sports Stadia Management Culture and Board Social Services Council for Legal Education Ewaso Ng'iro South Development Authority National Irrigation Board Rift Valley Water Services Board Tea Board of Kenya Postal Corporation of Kenya National Museums of Kenya Kenya Post Office Savings Bank Water Resources Management Authority National Commission on Gender and Development Justice and Constitutional Affairs Regional Development Authorities Water and Irrigation Water and Irrigation Agriculture Information and Communication s Home Affairs Finance Water and Irrigation Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services 68. 69. 70. 71. 72 73. 74. 75. 76. 77 Regulatory Regional Development Regulatory Service Regulatory Commercial / Manufacturing Training and Research Financial Service Service 2.3903 2.3982 2.3989 2.4104 2.4131 2.4204 2.4222 2.4227 2.4416 2.4420 78 79. 80. Kenya National Examinations Council Kenya Revenue Authority Kenya Tourist Board Education Finance Tourism and Wildlife GOOD Trade and Industry Agriculture Trade and Industry Planning and National Development Agriculture Housing Service Financial Service 2.4595 2.4725 2.4943 81. 82. 83. 84. Kenya Investment Authority Kenya Seed Company Export Processing Zones Authority National Coordinating Agency for Population and Development Chemelil Sugar Company National Housing Corporation Moi Teaching & Referral Hospital Kenya Ferry Services Kenya Civil Aviation Authority Horticultural Crops Development Authority Retirement Benefits Authority Kenya Industrial Property Institute Nzoia Sugar Company Teachers Service Commission Regulatory Commercial / Manufacturin g Regulatory 2.5094 2.5114 2.5160 2.5202 Service Commercial / Manufacturin g Commercial / Manufacturin g Service Service Regulatory Regulatory Regulatory Service Commercial / Manufacturin g Service 85. 86. 87. 88. 89 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 2.5209 2.5439 2.5510 2.5568 2.5573 2.5818 2.5837 2.5848 2.5857 2.5903 Health Transport Transport Agriculture Finance Trade and Industry Agriculture Education 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108 109. 110. 111. Agricultural Finance Corporation Electricity Regulatory Commission Industrial Development Bank Water Services Trust Fund Kenya Bureau of Standards South Nyanza Sugar Company National Aids Control Council Agriculture Energy Trade and Industry Water and Irrigation Trade and Industry Agriculture Special Programmes Financial Regulatory Financial Service Regulatory Commercial / Manufacturin g Service Commercial / Manufacturin g Financial Regulatory Financial Commercial / Manufacturin g Commercial / Manufacturin g Financial Regulatory Service Service Commercial / Manufacturin g 2.6229 2.6258 2.6339 2.6596 2.6997 2.7047 2.7078 2.7509 2.7632 2.7966 2.8041 2.8084 2.8199 2.8348 2.8589 2.8656 2.8686 Pyrethrum Board of Kenya Agriculture Kenya Industrial Estates Kenya Sugar Board National Social Security Fund National Cereals & Produce Board Telkom Kenya Ltd Kenya Tourist Development Corporation Coffee Board of Kenya Trade and Industry Agriculture Labour & Human Resource Development Agriculture Information and Communications Tourism and Wildlife Agriculture Kenya Ordinance Factories Defense Corporation Kenya National Library Services Kenya Railways Corporation Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services Transport 112. 2.8873 113 114 115. 116. 117. Coast Water Services Board Water and Irrigation Service Service Commercial / Manufacturin g Commercial / Manufacturin g Tertiary Education Regulatory Regional Development 2.9026 2.9137 2.9542 2.9572 2.9824 Kenyatta National Hospital Health East African Portland Cement Company Kenya Safari Lodges & Hotels Ltd Kenya College of Communications and Technology National Environment Management Authority Kerio Valley Development Authority Kenya Ports Authority Kenya Sisal Board Lake Basin Development Authority Kenya Medical Supplies Agency Coast Development Authority FAIR None POOR Numerical Machining Complex*a School Equipment Production Unit*a Kenya National Shipping Line*a Transport Education Transport Trade and Industry Trade and Industry Information and Communications Environment and Natural Resources Regional Development Authorities Transport Agriculture Regional Development Authorities Health Regional Development Authorities 118. 3.0237 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 3.0269 Commercial / Manufacturin 3.0512 g Regulatory 3.0545 Regional Development Service Regional Development 3.1043 3.1160 3.1402 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 125. 126. 127. Commercial/ Manufacturing Commercial/ Manufacturing Commercial/ Manufacturing 128. 129. 130. 131. 132 133. 134. Development Bank of Kenya*a Kenya National Trading Corporation*a Deposit Protection Fund Board*a Safaricom Limited*a Gilgil Telecommunication Industries*a National Council for Law Reporting*a National Council for Children Services*a Trade & Industry Trade & Industry Finance Information & Communication Information & Communication Judiciary Home Affairs Financial Financial Financial Commercial/ Manufacturing Commercial/ Manufacturing Service Service 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000 2. State Corporations NOT on Performance Contracts and, therefore, NOT evaluated: i. Muhoroni Sugar Company ii. Gilgil Telecommunications Industries iii. Safaricom Kenya Limited iv. Development Bank of Kenya v. Kenya National Trading Corporation vi. Rift Valley Textile Limited vii. Deposit Protection Fund Board viii. National Bank of Kenya ix. National Council for Children Services x. National Council for Law Reporting xi. Miwani Sugar Company 3. State Corporations whose financial year is 1st January to 31st December, and were evaluated and ranked with those whose Financial Year is the Government Financial Year: i. Consolidated Bank of Kenya ii. Kenya Post Office Savings Bank iii. Kenya ReInsurance Corporation *a State Corporations not evaluated iv. Kenya National Assurance Company (2001) Ltd v. Industrial Development Bank 4. State Corporation whose financial year is 1st April to 31st March, and was evaluated and ranked with those whose Financial Year is the Government Financial Year: Agricultural Development Corporation 5. Subsidiary State Corporations that signed Performance Contracts with their parent Ministries/State Corporations. i. ii. iii. University of Nairobi Enterprise Services signed with the University of Nairobi. Sunset Hotels signed with Kenya Tourists Development Corporation. Pests Control Products Board signed with the Ministry of Agriculture. Note: The Performance Contracts signed by the subsidiary StateCorporations were not countersigned by the Treasury and, therefore, were evaluated by the Principal. 6. State Corporations that signed Performance Contracts but did not submit their performance for evaluation: i. ii. iii. Numerical Machining Complex Kenya National Shipping Line School Equipment Production Unit ANNEX V PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS FOR STATE CORPORATIONS BY FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY 1. Financial No. 1. 2. Composite Score 1.9655 2.1350 State Corporation Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd National Hospital Insurance Fund Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation Kenya National Assurance Company (2001) Limited Kenya Roads Board Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Ltd Kenya Post Office Savings Bank Kenya Revenue Authority Agricultural Finance Corporation Industrial Development Bank Parent Ministry Finance Health 3. Trade and Industry 2.1503 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Finance Roads and Public Works Finance Finance Finance Agriculture Trade and Industry 2.3000 2.3265 2.3427 2.4227 2.4725 2.6229 2.6339 11. 12. Kenya Industrial Estates National Social Security Fund Kenya Tourist Development Corporation Trade and Industry Labour & Human Resource Development Tourism and Wildlife 2.7632 2.8041 13. 2.8348 2. Commercial/Manufacturing No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. State Corporation Nyayo Tea Zones Development Corporation Kenya Wine Agencies Ltd Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Kenya Meat Commission National Oil Corporation of Kenya Kenya Airports Authority Jomo Kenyatta Foundation Kenya Literature Bureau Kenya Pipeline Company Parent Ministry Agriculture Trade Information and Communications Livestock & Fisheries Development Energy Transport Education Education Energy Composite Score 1.7070 1.7436 1.8416 1.9436 1.9721 2.0259 2.1068 2.1144 2.1425 10. 11. Kenyatta International Conference Centre New Kenya Cooperative Creameries Ltd Kenya Electricity Generating Company Agro Chemical & Food Company Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd Postal Corporation of Kenya Kenya Seed Company Chemelil Sugar Company National Housing Corporation Nzoia Sugar Company South Nyanza Sugar Company Pyrethrum Board of Kenya National Cereals & Produce Board Telkom Kenya Ltd Kenya Railways Corporation East African Portland Cement Company Tourism and Wildlife Cooperative Development and Marketing Energy Agriculture Energy Information and Communications Agriculture Agriculture Housing Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Information and Communications Transport Trade and Industry 2.1705 2.1863 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 2.1929 2.3042 2.3423 2.4204 2.5114 2.5209 2.5439 2.5857 2.7047 2.7509 2.8084 2.8199 2.8873 2.9542 26. 27. Kenya Safari Lodges & Trade and Industry Hotels Ltd Kenya Ports Authority Transport 2.9572 3.0512 3. Regulatory No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State Corporation Parent Ministry Composite Score 1.9993 2.0592 2.0665 2.1235 2.1967 Commission for Higher Education Education Capital Markets Finance Authority NGO Coordination Home Affairs Board Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services Kenya Dairy Board Catering & Tourism Training Development Levy Trustees Kenya Maritime Authority Water Services Regulatory Board Communications Commission of Kenya Export Promotion Council Council for Legal Education Agriculture Livestock & Fisheries Development Tourism and Wildlife Transport Water and Irrigation Information and Communications Trade and Industry Justice and Constitutional Affairs 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 2.2061 2.2233 2.2388 2.3032 2.3328 2.3903 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. National Irrigation Board Tea Board of Kenya Kenya Industrial Property Institute Kenya Investment Authority Export Processing Zones Authority Kenya Civil Aviation Authority Horticultural Crops Development Authority Retirement Benefits Authority Electricity Regulatory Commission Kenya Bureau of Standards Kenya Sugar Board Coffee Board of Kenya National Environment Management Authority Kenya Sisal Board Water and Irrigation Agriculture Trade and Industry Trade and Industry Trade and Industry Transport Agriculture Finance Energy Trade and Industry Agriculture Agriculture Environment and Natural Resources Agriculture 2.3989 2.4131 2.4253 2.5094 2.5160 2.5573 2.5818 2.5837 2.6258 2.6997 2.7966 2.8589 3.0237 3.0545 4. Public Universities No 1. 2. 3. State Corporation Kenyatta University University of Nairobi Maseno University Parent Ministry Education Education Education Composite Score 1.6219 1.8094 1.8138 4. 5. 6. 7. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology Egerton University Moi University Education Education Education 2.1347 2.1866 2.3062 2.3164 Masinde Muliro University Education of Science and Technology 5. Training and Research No 1. 2. State Corporation Tea Research Foundation Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute Parent Ministry Agriculture Planning and National Development Livestock & Fisheries Development Composite Score 1.9199 2.0236 3. 2.1008 4. Kenya Industrial, Research Trade and Industry and Development Institute Kenya Medical Research Institute Kenya Forestry Research Institute Kenya Institute of Administration Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Health Environment & Natural Resources Public Service Agriculture 2.1332 5. 6. 7. 8. 2.1611 2.1736 2.2187 2.3057 9. 10. 11. Coffee Research Foundation Kenya Sugar Research Foundation National Museums of Kenya Agriculture Agriculture Home Affairs 2.3068 2.3612 2.4222 6. Service No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. State Corporation Athi Water Services Board Bomas of Kenya Tana Water Services Board Kenya Accountants and Secretaries National Examinations Board Agricultural Development Corporation National Council for Persons with Disabilities Kenya Wildlife Service Parent Ministry Water and Irrigation Tourism and Wildlife Water and Irrigation Finance Agriculture Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services Tourism and Wildlife Composite Score 1.7471 1.8614 2.0540 2.1271 2.1329 2.1890 2.2308 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Higher Education Loans Board Lake Victoria South Water Services Board Lake Victoria North Water Services Board Education Water and Irrigation Water and Irrigation 2.3075 2.3211 2.3247 2.3524 2.3609 2.3706 2.3788 2.4104 2.4416 2.4420 2.4595 2.4943 2.5202 2.5510 Local Authorities Provident Local Government Fund National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation Northern Water Services Board Sports Stadia Management Board Rift Valley Water Services Board Water Resources Management Authority National Commission for Gender and Development Kenya National Examinations Council Kenya Tourist Board Water and Irrigation Water and Irrigation Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services Water and Irrigation Water and Irrigation Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services Education Tourism and Wildlife Planning and National Development Health National Coordinating 20. Agency for Population and Development Moi Teaching & Referral 21. Hospital 22. Kenya Ferry Services Kenya Industrial Property 23. Institute Teachers Service 24. Commission 25. Water Services Trust Fund 26. 27. National Aids Control Council Kenya Ordinance Factories Corporation Transport Trade and Industry Education Water and Irrigation Special Programmes Defence 2.5568 2.5848 2.5903 2.6596 2.7078 2.8656 2.8686 2.9026 2.9137 3.1160 Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services Water and 29. Coast Water Services Board Irrigation Kenya National Library 28. Services 30. Kenyatta National Hospital Health 31. Kenya Medical Supplies Agency Health 7. Regional Development Authorities No 1. State Corporation Ewaso Ng'iro North Development Authority Tana & Athi Rivers Development Authority Ewaso Ng'iro South Development Authority Parent Ministry Regional Development Authorities Regional Development Authorities Regional Development Authorities Composite Score 1.9261 2. 2.2845 3. 2.3982 4. Kerio Valley Development Authority Lake Basin Development Authority Coast Development Authority 5. 6. Regional Development Authorities Regional Development Authorities Regional Development Authorities 3.0269 3.1043 3.1402 8. Tertiary Education No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State Corporation Kenya Medical Training College Cooperative College of Kenya Kenya Water Institute Kenya Utalii College Kenya College of Communications and Technology Parent Ministry Health Cooperative Development and Marketing Water and Irrigation Tourism and Wildlife Information and Communications Composite Score 1.7443 1.8420 2.3056 2.3074 2.9824 ANNEX VI PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES No. Local Authority EXCELLENT None VERY GOOD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. City Council of Nairobi Municipal Council of Chuka County Council of Bungoma County Council of Makueni GOOD Town Council of Molo Municipal Council of Mumias Town Council of Karuri Town Council of Maralal Town Council of Chogoria County Council of Mbeere County Council of Kilifi County Council of Masaku Municipal Council of Nyeri County Council of Kakamega Town Council of Luanda Municipal Council of Bungoma County Council of Busia County Council of Baringo County Council of Nzoia Town Council of Ugunja Town Council of Kajiado 2.5023 2.5287 2.5954 2.6137 2.6144 2.6220 2.6410 2.6652 2.6675 2.6816 2.6833 2.6889 2.6961 2.6975 2.6976 2.7023 2.7141 2.2783 2.4859 2.4911 2.4920 Composite Score 22. No. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 49 51. Town Council of Malaba Local Authority County Council of Kirinyaga Town Council of ItenTambach Town Council of Mwingi Municipal Council of Naivasha County Council of Nakuru Town Council of Port Victoria County Council of Meru South County Council of Nyeri Municipal Council of Garissa Municipal Council of Embu Municipal Council of Mavoko County Council of Lamu Town Council of Kendu Bay Municipal Council of Malindi County Council of Thika Municipal Council of Kiambu Town Council of Kandara County Council of Vihiga Town Council of Funyula County Council of Kwale Town Council of Kilifi County Council of Bondo County Council of Nyandarua Town Council of Malava Town Council of Kipkelion Town Council of Othaya County Council of Wajir Town Council of Mariakani County Council of Nyambene 2.7189 Composite Score 2.7343 2.7409 2.7468 2.7562 2.7620 2.7702 2.7790 2.7983 2.7993 2.8049 2.8154 2.8169 2.8193 2.8204 2.8244 2.8339 2.8445 2.8958 2.9015 2.9129 2.9262 2.9383 2.9406 2.9443 2.9468 2.9474 2.9570 2.9570 2.9610 52. No. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. County Council of OlKejuado Local Authority Municipal Council of Homa Bay County Council of Malindi Municipal Council of Nakuru Municipal Council of Siaya County Council of Keiyo Municipal Council of Runyenjes County Council of Tana River Town Council of Malakisi County Council of Teso Town Council of Londiani County Council of Koibatek County Council of Garissa Town Council of Bondo Town Council of Mandera Municipal Council of KerugoyaKutus County Council of Marakwet County Council of Nyando Town Council of Narok Municipal Council of Karatina Town Council of MtitoAndei Municipal Council of Murang’a Municipal Council of Bomet Municipal Council of Vihiga Town Council of Rongo County Council of Maragua Municipal Council of Meru County Council of Turkana Municipal Council of Mombasa County Council of TransMara 2.9637 Composite Score 3.0025 3.0075 3.0234 3.0249 3.0295 3.0357 3.0409 3.0474 3.0753 3.0814 3.0859 3.0908 3.0915 3.0926 3.1007 3.1173 3.1263 3.1410 3.1413 3.1636 3.1666 3.1678 3.1718 3.1855 3.1972 3.2045 3.2227 3.2273 3.2306 82. No. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. County Council of Suba Local Authority County Council of Mandera Town Council of Sotik Town Council of Mbita Point County Council of Samburu Municipal Council of Voi County Council of Ijara Town Council of Muhoroni Municipal Council of Kericho Municipal Council of Kisumu County Council of Pokot Municipal Council of Lodwar Municipal Council of Kehancha County Council of Siaya Municipal Council of Kitale County of TaitaTaveta Town Council of Oyugis Town Council of Nandi Hills County Council of Murang’a Town Council of Sirisia County Council of Wareng County Council of Bomet Municipal Council of Kapsabet Town Council of Nambale Municipal Council of Eldoret Municipal Council of Kitui County Council of Tharaka County Council of Isiolo 3.2317 Composite Score 3.2378 3.2647 3.2729 3.3041 3.3051 3.3053 3.3070 3.3097 3.3179 3.3423 3.3652 3.3793 3.3809 3.3818 3.3868 3.3945 3.3971 3.4010 3.4067 3.4126 3.4238 3.4450 3.4466 3.4629 3.4699 3.4778 3.4944 No. Local Authority FAIR Composite Score 3.5341 3.5360 3.5584 3.5586 3.5890 3.5912 3.6173 3.6220 3.6230 3.6304 3.6428 3.6430 3.6434 3.6574 3.6703 3.6769 3.7110 3.7128 3.7275 3.7383 3.7576 3.7689 3.7716 3.7908 3.7987 3.7989 3.8012 110 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. County Council of Migori County Council of Nyamira County Council of Gusii Town Council of Taveta Town Council of Rumuruti Municipal Council of Kabarnet POOR County Council of Kisumu Municipal Council of Nyahururu County Council of Meru Central Municipal Council of Kisii County Council of Embu Municipal Council of Thika Municipal Council of Limuru Town Council of Litein Municipal Council of Ruiru Town Council of Nyamarambe County Council of Narok Municipal Council of Kimilili County Council of Gucha Town Council of Eldama Ravine Town Council of Ukwala Municipal Council of Kakamega Town Council of Makuyu County Council of Lugari County Council of Kitui Town Council of Burnt Forest County Council of Nandi No. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. Local Authority Town Council of Tabaka Town Council of Sagana Town Council of Kikuyu Town Council of Wote Municipal Council of Maua Town Council of Kangundo County Council of ButereMumias Town Council of Kwale Town Council of OlKalou Municipal Council of Busia County Council of Laikipia Town Council of Matuu County Council of Mount Elgon Town Council of Awendo County Council of Moyale Municipal Council of Machakos Town Council of Ahero County Council of Marsabit Municipal Council of Nanyuki County Council of Kipsigis County Council of Mwingi County Council of Kiambu Municipal Council of Kapenguria Town Council of Nyansiongo County Council of Rachuonyo Town Council of Maragua Municipal Council of Webuye Town Council of Nyamira Town Council of Suneka Municipal Council of Migori Composite Score 3.8140 3.8209 3.8262 3.8336 3.8360 3.8360 3.8522 3.8638 3.8686 3.8760 3.8761 3.8905 3.9103 3.9155 3.9456 3.9474 3.9487 3.9512 3.9561 3.9672 3.9698 3.9757 3.9797 3.9852 3.9889 3.9900 4.0193 4.0357 4.0498 4.0739 No. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. Local Authority Town Council of Ogembo Town Council of Yala Town Council of Kangema Town Council of Masimba County Council of Homa Bay Town Council of Keroka County Council of Bureti Town Council of Nyamache Town Council of Chepareria Composite Score 4.1529 4.1643 4.2187 4.2761 4.2878 4.3076 4.3779 4.4369 5.0000 ANNEX VII PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES BY CATEGORY 1. Ranking of City/Municipal Councils by Grade No Local Authority EXCELLENT None VERY GOOD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. City Council of Nairobi Municipal Council of Chuka GOOD Municipal Council of Mumias Municipal Council of Nyeri Municipal Council of Bungoma Municipal Council of Naivasha Municipal Council of Garissa Municipal Council of Embu Municipal Council of Mavoko Municipal Council of Malindi Municipal Council of Kiambu Municipal Council of Homa Bay Municipal Council of Nakuru Municipal Council of Siaya Municipal Council of Runyenjes Municipal Council of KerugoyaKutus Municipal Council of Karatina Municipal Council of Murang’a Municipal Council of Bomet Municipal Council of Vihiga Municipal Council of Meru 2.2783 2.4859 2.5287 2.6675 2.6889 2.7562 2.7993 2.8049 2.8154 2.8204 2.8339 3.0025 3.0234 3.0249 3.0357 3.1007 3.1413 3.1666 3.1678 3.1718 3.2045 Composite Score 22. 23. Municipal Council of Mombasa Municipal Council of Voi 3.2273 3.3051 No 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Local Authority Municipal Council of Kericho Municipal Council of Kisumu Municipal Council of Lodwar Municipal Council of Kehancha Municipal Council of Kitale Municipal Council of Kapsabet Municipal Council of Eldoret Municipal Council of Kitui FAIR Municipal Council of Kabarnet POOR Municipal Council of Nyahururu Municipal Council of Kisii Municipal Council of Thika Municipal Council of Limuru Municipal Council of Ruiru Municipal Council of Kimilili Municipal Council of Kakamega Municipal Council of Maua Municipal Council of Busia Municipal Council of Machakos Municipal Council of Nanyuki Municipal Council of Kapenguria Municipal Council of Webuye Municipal Council of Migori Composite Score 3.3097 3.3179 3.3652 3.3793 3.3818 3.4450 3.4629 3.4699 3.5912 3.6220 3.6304 3.6430 3.6434 3.6703 3.7128 3.7689 3.8360 3.8760 3.9474 3.9561 3.9797 4.0193 4.0739 2. Ranking of County Councils by Grade No. Local Authority EXCELLENT None 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. VERY GOOD County Council of Bungoma County Council of Makueni GOOD County Council of Mbeere County Council of Kilifi County Council of Masaku County Council of Kakamega County Council of Busia County Council of Baringo County Council of Nzoia County Council of Kirinyaga County Council of Nakuru County Council of MeruSouth County Council of Nyeri County Council of Lamu County Council of Thika County Council of Vihiga County Council of Kwale County Council of Bondo County Council of Nyandarua County Council of Wajir County Council of Nyambene County Council of OlKejuado County Council of Malindi County Council of Keiyo County Council of Tana River 2.6220 2.6410 2.6652 2.6816 2.6961 2.6975 2.6976 2.7343 2.7620 2.7790 2.7983 2.8169 2.8244 2.8958 2.9129 2.9383 2.9406 2.9570 2.9610 2.9637 3.0075 3.0295 3.0409 2.4911 2.4920 Composite Score No 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. Local Authority County Council of Teso County Council of Koibatek County Council of Garissa County Council of Marakwet County Council of Nyando County Council of Maragua County Council of Turkana County Council of TransMara County Council of Suba County Council of Mandera County Council of Samburu County Council of Ijara County Council of Pokot County Council of Siaya County of TaitaTaveta County Council of Murang’a County Council of Wareng County Council of Bomet County Council of Tharaka County Council of Isiolo FAIR County Council of Migori County Council of Nyamira County Council of Gusii POOR County Council of Kisumu County Council of MeruCentral County Council of Embu County Council of Narok County Council of Gucha Composite Score 3.0753 3.0859 3.0908 3.1173 3.1263 3.1972 3.2227 3.2306 3.2317 3.2378 3.3041 3.3053 3.3423 3.3809 3.3868 3.4010 3.4126 3.4238 3.4778 3.4944 3.5341 3.5360 3.5584 3.6173 3.6230 3.6428 3.7110 3.7275 54. County Council of Lugari 3.7908 No 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. Local Authority County Council of Kitui County Council of Nandi County Council of ButereMumias County Council of Laikipia County Council of Mount Elgon County Council of Moyale County Council of Marsabit County Council of Kipsigis County Council of Mwingi County Council of Kiambu County Council of Rachuonyo County Council of Homa Bay County Council of Bureti Composite Score 3.7987 3.8012 3.8522 3.8761 3.9103 3.9456 3.9512 3.9672 3.9698 3.9757 3.9889 4.2878 4.3779 3. Ranking of Town Councils by Grade No. Local Authority EXCELLENT None VERY GOOD None GOOD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Town Council of Molo Town Council of Karuri Town Council of Maralal Town Council of Chogoria Town Council of Luanda Town Council of Ugunja Town Council of Kajiado 2.5023 2.5954 2.6137 2.6144 2.6833 2.7023 2.7141 Composite Score No 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Local Authority Town Council of Malaba Town Council of ItenTambach Town Council of Mwingi Town Council of Port Victoria Town Council of Kendu Bay Town Council of Kandara Town Council of Funyula Town Council of Kilifi Town Council of Malava Town Council of Kipkelion Town Council of Othaya Town Council of Mariakani Town Council of Malakisi Town Council of Londiani Town Council of Bondo Town Council of Mandera Town Council of Narok Town Council of MtitoAndei Town Council of Rongo Town Council of Sotik Town Council of Mbita Point Town Council of Muhoroni Town Council of Oyugis Town Council of Nandi Hills Town Council of Sirisia Town Council of Nambale FAIR Town Council of Taveta Town Council of Rumuruti Composite Score 2.7189 2.7409 2.7468 2.7702 2.8193 2.8445 2.9015 2.9262 2.9443 2.9468 2.9474 2.9570 3.0474 3.0814 3.0915 3.0926 3.1410 3.1636 3.1855 3.2647 3.2729 3.3070 3.3945 3.3971 3.4067 3.4466 3.5586 3.5890 POOR No 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 49 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. Local Authority Town Council of Litein Town Council of Nyamarambe Town Council of Eldama Ravine Town Council of Ukwala Town Council of Makuyu Town Council of Burnt Forest Town Council of Tabaka Town Council of Sagana Town Council of Kikuyu Town Council of Wote Town Council of Kangundo Town Council of Kwale Town Council of Ol Kalou Town Council of Matuu Town Council of Awendo Town Council of Ahero Town Council of Nyansiongo Town Council of Maragua Town Council of Nyamira Town Council of Suneka Town Council of Ogembo Town Council of Yala Town Council of Kangema Town Council of Masimba Town Council of Keroka Town Council of Nyamache Town Council of Chepareria Composite Score 3.6574 3.6769 3.7383 3.7576 3.7716 3.7989 3.8140 3.8209 3.8262 3.8336 3.8360 3.8638 3.8686 3.8905 3.9155 3.9487 3.9852 3.9900 4.0357 4.0498 4.1529 4.1643 4.2187 4.2761 4.3076 4.4369 5.0000
Open Thread
About the author:
Please send the editors an email at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
on suggestions for topics on Open Thread.
The low performers written by Wuod Aketch , May 20, 2008
10 ministers named and shamed in State report : Link here
The worst performing former ministers, according to the evaluation, include Mr Musikari Kombo (Local Government), Dr Mukhisa Kituyi (Trade), Mr Mutua Katuku (Water), Mr Simeon Nyachae (Roads and Public Works) and Mr Raphael Tuju (Foreign Affairs).
Others are Mr Joseph Munyao (Livestock), Prof Kivutha Kibwana (Environment), Mr Henry Obwocha (Planning) and Attorney General, Amos Wako (State Law Office).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by aeichener , May 20, 2008
I sincerely doubt the validity and worth of the report. Some notorious underperformers are listed in table 5 among the "best state corporations", e.g.
The report in in no way comparable tro a real independent audit. I regard it as a worthless PR exercise where everybody is pre-scheduled to pass either as "very good" or as "good".
Alexander
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
targets written by Stephen Wanyama , May 20, 2008
This is all I think it is about, against what parameters were these ministries, departments, etc measured. There was a World Bank report that had the Ministry of Health down as one of the worst ministries, Ngilu herself admitted last year that she had not done a good job, shocking to find her here with laurels and everything.
Alex, Public relations exercise? Who by? The report is embarassing to some very important and influential people.
Be happy about Kituyi and Tuju at least, .
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Kibaki\'s regime biggest achie written by Pndiangui , May 20, 2008
As I have always said in these pages, I will continue to say that performance conracting is the biggest innovation in governance that the Kibaki regime has done. While in 2003-2007 , the fiscal and monetary policies might have been average and a pretty poor energy policy , I must admit public service administration through performance contracting need to be applauded by anyone who understands it's riple effect even if only 20% of the strategy will be implemented. It is the quickest way way to change the culture in a bottom performing , corrupt public service. As the culture of measuring and rewarding results takes root, the civil service will start attracting better talent from young graduates who will be looking at climbing up the ladder through performance and these are the ones who will transform how the service delivers services to Kenyans. There is no shortcut in this transformation; it'll be long and painful but in 20 years time if we continue investing in this upward improvement, a civil service career will be an envy of many, not because it as a ground for eating but as training ground for high performing leaders.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by aeichener , May 20, 2008
I am far more critical of performamce contracting as a tool that serves hardly anything beyond itself, but I am willing to entertain your argument.
Setting low and diffuse standards and then reaching them is nothing to be proud of. The Kenyan version of performance contracting is paper-pushing for its own sake.
The "rapid results initiative" of GJLOS in contrast was very successful, and well thought out, but the performance contracts that I have seen on the website are not impressive. And just read Joyce Nyamweya Nyakeya's long-winded and pretentious bureaucracy-speak, full of empty phrase and short of substance, and you will see why she is the wrong person in the wrong place.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
. 
Show/Hide comment form
