Performance framework: Can Kenyans see results?

This story has significance for readers across Kenya and beyond.

As Kenya enters the final year before the 2027 General Election, one question deserves more attention: How should we objectively determine whether a government is performing?

It sounds simple. It is not.

Government performance is often discussed through competing political narratives. Those in government point to roads, housing, health reforms, agriculture programmes, jobs and infrastructure. Critics point to the cost of living, unemployment, taxation, public debt and difficulties accessing essential services.

Somewhere between these competing narratives should be something less political and more measurable: evidence of performance.

Kenya does, in fact, have an extensive planning and performance architecture. The Fourth Medium Term Plan 2023–2027 is the current five-year implementation plan for Kenya Vision 2030 and is aligned to the Bottom-Up Economic Transformation Agenda. Performance contracting has long been used in the public service to strengthen accountability and service delivery. Government institutions also generate planning, budget and implementation reports, while the Office of the Controller of Budget publishes regular reports on national and county budget implementation.

The question, therefore, is not whether Kenya generates performance information.

The bigger question is: Can the ordinary Kenyan see, understand and experience the results?

From promises to results

Every administration begins with commitments. But a political commitment should eventually become something measurable.

Promise → Programme → Budget → Target → Delivery → Outcome → Impact

At the beginning of an administration, we should know the baseline: Where were we?

We should know the target: Where did we promise to be?

During implementation: Where are we now?

And at the end: What changed in the lives of Kenyans?

This distinction matters because government activity is not necessarily government performance.

Launching a project is an activity. Completing a facility is an output. Citizens receiving better services is an outcome. Their quality of life improving is impact.

Consider healthcare. Reporting that new health facilities have been constructed is important, but performance measurement should go further. Are they operational? Are they adequately staffed? Are medicines available? Are waiting times improving? Are more Kenyans accessing quality services? Ultimately, are health outcomes improving?

The same applies to employment programmes. Training thousands of young people is an important output. But how many subsequently secured decent work, increased their income or established sustainable businesses?

These are the questions that connect government activity to people’s lives.

Why might citizens still feel dissatisfied?

If government reports significant achievements while sections of the population remain dissatisfied, the gap deserves investigation rather than dismissal.

Is government failing to deliver? Is it delivering, but not at the scale or speed citizens expected? Are projects being completed without producing the intended outcomes? Are benefits reaching some communities but not others? Are economic pressures cancelling out gains made elsewhere? Or are genuine results being achieved but not measured and communicated in ways citizens can understand and verify?

The answer may be a combination of these factors.

Public perception should not simply be dismissed as a communication problem. At the same time, perception alone cannot provide a complete assessment of government performance. Both need evidence.

Kenya may not have a data problem

Government already produces substantial performance information. Ministries, departments and agencies prepare plans and reports. Performance contracts set institutional targets. The public service performance-management system evaluates public institutions. The Office of the Controller of Budget reports on budget implementation and compares actual performance with annual targets and stated objectives.

The challenge may therefore be less about producing more data and more about bringing existing information together and translating it into a simple, accessible national performance story.

For every major commitment, a citizen should be able to establish five things:

What was promised? What was the baseline? How much has been spent? What has been delivered? What difference has it made?

If answering these questions requires navigating numerous government websites, budget documents and technical reports, then we may have extensive reporting systems without yet having a sufficiently accessible public performance system.

Imagine a publicly accessible platform that brings together existing performance information around the country’s major commitments.

A citizen selects health, agriculture, housing, employment, education or infrastructure. The platform shows the baseline, five-year target, annual milestone, budget allocation and expenditure, latest achievement and performance status.

On track. At risk. Off track.

Performance management

But it should go beyond colours. Where delivery is behind schedule, the public should be able to see the bottleneck, the corrective action being taken and who is accountable for follow-through.

Such a platform would not merely be a communications tool. It could also strengthen management by helping the President, Cabinet Secretaries, Principal Secretaries and heads of public institutions see where intervention is required.

The objective should not necessarily be to create another reporting system, but to make existing government performance information easier to connect, interpret and use.

Too often, monitoring and evaluation is viewed as something that happens after implementation: specialists collect indicators and prepare reports for management, donors or accountability requirements.

That misses its larger purpose. Performance belongs at the leadership table. Leaders should routinely ask: What are our most important national results? Are we on track? Where are we falling behind? Why? Who is accountable? What decision needs to be made, and by when? Performance information becomes valuable when it triggers action.

Christine A. Ngwawe is a Strategy, Institutional Performance and Programme Delivery professional with over 15 years of experience across national, regional and international development programmes. [email protected]

Reporting originally appeared via Nation Africa. Read the full source for additional context.