Introduction
The National Government has taken significant strides in institutionalizing Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) practices within the public sector. The National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES) is aimed at tracking implementation of all government policies, programmes, and projects. The electronic County Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (e-CIMES), a cutting-edge system is designed towards improving reporting and enhancing accountability of government activities at the county level. CIMES guidelines are primarily intended to assist staff in the design and implementation of M&E plans for the policies, projects, and programmes in the County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) being implemented in each of the 47 counties. However, despite these advancements, there is still a pressing need for better integration of M&E outcome indicators in development systems at the county level.
This blog will delve into the gaps and consequences of weak M&E system and provide recommendations on how counties can enhance and foster integration of monitoring, evaluation, and learning frameworks in their systems.
Figure 1: Level of M&E reporting by counties on the projects
Source: State Department for Economic Planning e-NIMES (2023)
Figure 1 indicates that Baringo County has the highest count of reported projects, whereas Migori County has the lowest count. Siaya County stands out for reporting the highest number of projects initiated at the county level, while Baringo County takes the lead in sub-county-oriented projects. Notably, there were only a limited number of flagship, national, and inter-county projects reported. This suggests that many counties are yet to fully integrate their monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reporting on the e-NIMES platform. Furthermore, the presence of inconsistent and ambiguous data points towards existing challenges in M&E reporting within the counties.
Emerging Issues in Monitoring and Evaluation
It is evident that 17% of the counties, namely Busia, West Pokot, Marsabit, Vihiga, Narok, Tana River, Nakuru, and Samburu reported their success stories and updated their projects to 2022/2023. Conversely, 23% of the counties, including Kilifi, Isiolo, Bomet, Turkana, Kajiado, Mandera, Lamu, Kisii, Garissa, Trans Nzoia, and Uasin Gishu, reported success stories but failed to update their platform for 2022/23. Only 11% of the counties did not report any of their success stories; however, they did update their portal up to 2022/2023. These counties include Siaya, Bungoma, Machakos, Kericho, and Wajir.
Figure 2: Percentage of counties uploading project success stories and updated e-NIMES up to 2022/2023
Source: State Department for Economic Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Report (2020)
A substantial 49% of the counties neither reported their success stories nor updated their e-CIMES platform up to 2022/2023. This includes Baringo, Taita Taveta, Embu, Kakamega, Laikipia, Nairobi, Kisumu, Elgeyo Marakwet, Kwale, Nandi, Mombasa, Nyandarua, Murang’a, Makueni, Kiambu, Nyamira, Nyeri, Homa Bay, Kitui, Kirinyaga, Tharaka Nithi, and Migori.
The data presented in Figure 2 strongly suggests that a significant proportion of counties are facing challenges in effectively utilizing the e-CIMES platform. This struggle is resulting in unreliable, inaccurate, and untimely monitoring and evaluation (M&E) reports. Consequently, the quality and validity of the information provided through the platform may be compromised. The repercussions of these difficulties in M&E reporting can have far-reaching effects on decision-making within the counties. When vital decisions are based on unreliable or incomplete data, it becomes difficult to make well-informed choices that can lead to effective and efficient resource allocation, programme improvements, and development initiatives.
The existence of inadequate policy and institutional frameworks stands as a key factor contributing to the existing deficiencies in integration. In the absence of strong guidelines and well-established structures, the endeavor to establish a cohesive and harmonized monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is critical. To date, no county has been reported to possess a validated, approved, and fully implemented M&E policy or enacted M&E legislation (SDEP M&E Report, 2020). An M&E framework provides for the decentralization to the departmental levels. However, most counties are yet to establish the units.
In the counties where M&E units have been operationalized, the activities are inadequately funded. This funding constraint presents a critical obstacle to successful implementation of comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategies, impeding the progress of counties in their efforts to collect, analyze, and utilize relevant data. Welimbe (2019) pointed out that, without adequate financial resources, counties may find themselves struggling to put in place the necessary infrastructure, acquire modern data collection and analysis tools, and establish teams of skilled professionals to carry out M&E activities effectively.
Another crucial aspect that needs attention is the inadequate technical capacity among county staff. Monitoring and evaluation require specialized skills and knowledge, which are often lacking at the county level. Most counties do not have M&E focal persons in each department. Most counties have not established crucial M&E committees as provided by the CIMES guideline. These deficiencies compromise the quality of data collection, analysis, and reporting, ultimately undermining the integrity and usefulness of M&E systems. This culminates in M&E reports hardly informing decision making at the counties SDEP M&E Report (2020).
Most counties have not enacted any legal framework for stakeholders’ engagement on matters monitoring and evaluation, leading to minimal stakeholders’ linkage. Limited involvement of key stakeholders poses a considerable challenge to effective and comprehensive execution of integrated monitoring and evaluation efforts, as highlighted by Warinda (2017). Active engagement of key stakeholders, including community organizations and civil society is vital for ensuring that M&E initiatives are not only accurate but also contextually relevant and representative of the diverse perspectives and needs of the local population. By involving community organizations, policy makers can tap into valuable on-the-ground insights and local knowledge that can inform the design, implementation, and assessment of development programmes and policies. Civil society groups play a crucial role in advocating for transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in M&E process, promoting data-driven decision-making, and ensuring that the benefits of development initiatives are equitably distributed across various segments of society.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The effects of gaps in integration of M&E are far-reaching and detrimental in the counties. It becomes difficult to compare the performance of different counties due to variations in data collection and reporting practices. Consequently, decision-making suffers from inadequate and unreliable M&E reporting. The low quality of reports stemming from disjointed M&E systems further exacerbates these issues, as decision-makers are unable to make well-informed choices based on accurate and comprehensive data. E-CIMES platform is also superficially utilized, hence denying the citizens their right to accurate and authentic information as envisaged in Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya.
To enhance integration in monitoring and evaluation systems, the following recommendations are proposed to county governments:
- Review and strengthen policy and institutional frameworks: County Governments need to fast-track the development of their policy and institutional frameworks and ensure comprehensive integration of M&E practices as provided in the M&E Policy, 2018 and the CIMES.
- In compliance with the national M&E framework, counties need to consider establishing M&E units at the departmental levels. This will ensure timely and reliable M&E information on projects and programmes being undertaken at the departmental levels transmitted to the county unit for posting at the CIMES. Consequently, counties may have to allocate adequate funds to support the monitoring and evaluation functions at the unit level.
- Build technical capacity: Technical skills ensure an effective and efficient M&E system entailing quality data collected during and after implementation of every project or programmes. Staff in the M&E function at the county lack essential skills. The Kenya School of Government may be engaged to conduct training programmes and capacity building initiatives for county staff engaged in M&E activities. These programmes could focus on equipping personnel with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively carry out monitoring and evaluation tasks and make reliable reports for appropriate decision-making.
- Improve stakeholders’ involvement: County governments need to actively engage stakeholders throughout the monitoring and evaluation process. Counties may begin by enacting stakeholders’ engagement legal frameworks. The legal framework should identify who, when and how the key stakeholders are to be involved in the county projects and programmes. This will foster collaborative partnerships, promote participatory approaches, and create platforms for regular dialogue between stakeholders and authorities.
- CIMES provides M&E integration platform for the counties, though counties have not capitalized on it by timely updating their M&E reports. By addressing the existing gaps and implementing the recommended actions, counties could enhance their M&E practice. Strengthening M&E at the counties is crucial in promoting accountability, transparency and effective decision-making.
Authors: Adrian Motoufari , KIPPRA Young Professional
Tobias Opana, KIPPRA Young Professional
