County management of sector service delivery

been fulfilled by national MDAs (such as the Kenya Urban Roads Authority) is never easy and often slow. • The constitution’s provisions regarding functional responsibilities are not always crystal clear and thus subject to different (and competing) interpretations. For example, in the urban water supply sector, infrastructure planning has been retained at the national level under the Water Act 2016 on the basis of the national government’s constitutional responsibility for “national public works.” (See box 3.1, which shows how the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution assigns functions across the national and county levels.) • Finally, national MDAs have long worked in a predevolution paradigm that gave them operational responsibilities. In many cases, this is their default modus operandi, and shifting away from it to a more “federal” government modus operandi has required skills, knowledge, and mindsets that have yet to develop.

Whatever the reasons for continued conflict or confusion over functional responsibilities in sectors, the lack of functioning and effective frameworks for sector coordination between national government structures at the county level and the county governments has hampered clarification over the devolution of service delivery functions (box 3.1).

COUNTY MANAGEMENT OF SECTOR SERVICE DELIVERY

The basic institutional framework for service delivery is in place and has been improving. Counties have established the essential management structures for providing services. Public financial management systems have enabled them to spend funds, planning and monitoring systems are in place, HRM systems have enabled them to manage and recruit staff, citizens have been able to engage with their county governments, and basic social and environmental management policies have been set up.

As discussed in box 3.2, the State Department for Devolution’s annual capacity and performance assessments (ACPAs) show that county performance across a range of core dimensions (financial management, planning, HRM, civic education and participation, investment implementation, and social and environmental management) has steadily improved since fiscal year (FY) 2016/17.

All counties have put into place basic management arrangements for their devolved service delivery sectors, although these may vary from county to county. County health sectors, for example, have continued to operate based on health management teams (HMTs) at county and subcounty levels. In the agriculture sector, county management arrangements vary from one county to another, but all have established core units (crops, livestock, veterinary services, and fisheries) and a service delivery hierarchy (counties, subcounties, and wards).

County institutions have overseen a continuation and expansion of services, which demonstrates a degree of management capacity. County institutions have maintained and, in some areas, expanded service delivery within sectors. This means they have established a decision-making capacity.

The ECDE sector has seen a significant increase in gross enrollment rates over the last decade, the number of trained teachers has increased, and counties have invested in the construction of new ECDE centers. Counties have also