By Morara and Orina

For most governors the beginning of their operations in the counties is going to be a nightmare as virtually all non-legal aspects of running the county are only vaguely known.

This is not to mention that the setting up of the necessary structures, systems and processes is going to test in a big way the abilities of even those who have had long experience in organisational development and/or transformational leadership.

In many cases, the governors will be navigating in uncharted waters since counties are new entities in our political and administrative setup in which most people have limited experience, with client populations whose expectations as well as the magnitude of their demand for goods and services are yet to be fathomed.

Matters are further complicated by the reality of a staff component that is yet to be sufficiently reoriented to effectively serve in a devolved system. Moreover, on the political front, the governor has to contend with evolving power relations and dynamics at both national and local levels.

Overall, it is a situation whose ramifications are yet to be fully appreciated.

Making a successful start in these circumstances requires the governor to take stock of the county’s facilities and resources to know their nature, quantities, status, and locations as a basis for establishing the county government’s capacity for providing required services. It is through the asset mapping that the county government can be in a position to identify gaps that will need to be filled through capacity building over the next five years.

It is equally important that information on the status of service delivery be documented as early as possible in a governor’s term of office. After the five-year term, the governor will also use the baseline information to demonstrate his/her achievements by comparing the situation at the end of the term with the situation at the beginning. It is these considerations that make undertaking a baseline survey a critical starting point for any conscientious governor.

The 2010 Constitution provides for citizens’ participation in the governance processes, including monitoring the performance of the county government.

In this regard, the citizens as well as civil society organisations (CSOs) – whose mandates include governance – also have an interest in baseline surveys as they will use the outputs, together with any subsequent reports, to evaluate the performance of the county executive and to establish accountability (or lack of it) for the use of public resources.

Competent expertise

Both the public and the CSOs are therefore duty bound to require that baseline information be collected and availed at the beginning of a county government’s term.

Although baseline surveys are the preferred modes of collecting primary data and other information, it may not be feasible for the county governments to do so in their first year in office.

It requires time to plan, to get sufficient resources to undertake it, and getting competent expertise to carry it out. In these circumstances, therefore, the county governments must resort to the alternative of using secondary data and information.

There are many sources of comprehensive and reliable information in the country that may be used by the county governments in the planning and management of their operations.

Of these sources, the various ministries’ and departmental reports would be the most authoritative ones as they are based on reports from districts, which now comprise counties.

County governments should therefore be able to get reliable and more current information from the districts under their jurisdictions.

The 2009 National Population and Housing Census reports also have very comprehensive information on many areas that would be of interest to the county governments. These reports would therefore be an invaluable source of relevant information, which can be used by the county governments.

In addition to the ministries’ and departmental reports, there are many national survey reports by ministries and other government agencies that would also have pertinent information.  These include reports by Ministries of Medical Services, Public Health and Sanitation, National Planning and Vision 2030, the National Council for Population and Development, among others.

Monitoring and evaluating the performance of county governments on their own or by other stakeholders requires use of indicators — the tools to measure and assess the performance. Consequently, the baseline information should include the appropriate indicators.

The following considerations should be taken into account in the selection of indicators at the county level: The indicators should be in line with the county development objectives and they should reflect the key activities to be implemented over the relevant period.

Routine tracking

Secondly, the indicators should be few, clearly defined, verifiable, and measurable with ease. They should be limited to those whose data is readily available to avoid the necessity to look for the pertinent information.

Finally, as far as possible, the indicators should be linked to those developed by the National Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate and routinely tracked by the Government at the national level. This will facilitate the integration of the county’s monitoring and evaluation approaches with the national system.

An effective management system is one whose planning and implementation of programmes and activities is based on adequate, relevant, and reliable information. This is what the county governments should seek to have in place as early as possible in their administrations.

-Anderea Morara & Charles Orina are management consultants.