UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

KENYA

MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF

AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIES PROJECT
KEN/88/034

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

by
John Thinguri Mukui (Consultant/Team Leader)
Elphas Nyaga Njeru (Consultant)
and
Nelson Muturi
(Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Planning and National
Development)
July 1995
A

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACC-SCN
ADDO
AIE
APS
BRP
CBS
CSD
CSRP
CTA
DAO
DDC
DEC
DFRD
DHWMES
DIDC
DPU
DRSRS
DSO
ERD
FAO
FNPU
GCS
GOK
IDA
IFAD
ILO
IMEC
ISCO
KANU
KNOCS
M&E
MISD
MOA
MOALDM
MOF
MOLD
MPND
NASSEP
NCPB
NGO
NHWMES

United Nations Administrative Committee on Coordination, Sub-Committee on

Nutrition
Assistant District Development Officer
Authority to Incur Expenditure
Agricultural Production Survey, 1986/87
Budget Rationalization Programme
Central Bureau of Statistics
Child Survival and Development, UNICEF
Cereal Sector Reform Programme
Chief Technical Advisor
District Agricultural Officer
District Development Committee
District Executive Committee
District Focus for Rural Development
District Household Welfare Monitoring and Evaluation System
District Information and Documentation Centre
District Planning Unit
Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (Ministry of Planning)
District Statistical Officer
External Resources Department (Ministry of Finance)
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
Food and Nutrition Planning Unit (Ministry of Planning)
Government Computer Services
Government of Kenya
International Development Association of the World Bank
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International Labour Office
Inter-Ministerial Monitoring and Evaluation Committee
International Standard Classification of Occupations
Kenya African National Union
Kenya National Occupational Classification System
Monitoring and Evaluation
Management Information Services Division (Ministry of Planning)
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Livestock Development
Ministry of Planning and National Development
National Sample Survey and Evaluation Programme
National Cereals and Produce Board
Nongovernmental Organization
National Household Welfare Monitoring and Evaluation System

NPC
OOP
OPS
PIMS
PIP
PMEC
PPEU
PROREG
RDF
RHBS
RMRD
RPD
RSCTS
RSD
SIMS
SPAD
SPSS
SRDP
TPR
UHBS
UNDP
USAID

National Project Coordinator

Office of the President
United Nations Office for Project Services
Project Implementation Monitoring System
Public Investment Programme
Provincial Monitoring and Evaluation Committee
Project Planning and Evaluation Unit (Ministry of Finance and Planning)
Project Registry
Rural Development Fund
Rural Household Budget Survey, 1981/82
Resource Management for Rural Development (Ministry of Planning)
Rural Planning Department (Ministry of Planning)
Rural Services Coordination and Training Section (Rural Planning Department)
Rural Services Design Project
Social Impact Monitoring System
Strategy and Policy Analysis Division (Ministry of Planning)
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
Special Rural Development Programme
Tripartite Review (UNDP)
Urban Household Budget Survey, 1982/83
United Nations Development Programme
United States Agency for International Development

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND TO THE MISSION ................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT .............................................................. 10
CHAPTER 3: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE PROJECT DOCUMENT ......................... 13
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 13
THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 13
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ........................................................................................... 14
IMPACT SURVEY DATA ............................................................................................................... 15
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING .......................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPACT STUDIES PROJECT COMPONENT .... 20

RURAL HOUSEHOLD BUDGET SURVEY, 1981/82.................................................................... 20
CEREAL SECTOR REFORM PROGRAMME ............................................................................... 22
MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE RURAL SERVICES DESIGN PROJECT .................................... 23

CHAPTER 5: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING .......................................... 24

BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................... 24
OUTLINE OF THE ACTIVITY....................................................................................................... 24
DATA CAPTURE ............................................................................................................................ 25
SERVICE DELIVERY TO THE PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS ................................................... 26
OUTPUTS ........................................................................................................................................ 28

CHAPTER 6: PROJECT MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ 30

PROJECT COORDINATION ARRANGEMENTS......................................................................... 30
PROJECT FINANCING................................................................................................................... 31
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS ................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 7: PROJECT RESULTS AND EFFECTS .............................................................. 35

FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 35
PROJECT INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND SUSTAINABILITY ................................................ 36

CHAPTER 8: THE WAY AHEAD ......................................................................................... 38

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 38
MINISTRY OF PLANNING AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT HEADQUARTERS .............. 38
CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS ........................................................................................... 40

iii

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ..................................................................................... 42

ANNEX 2: ITINERARY FOR THE EVALUATION MISSION ............................................ 45
ANNEX 3: REPORT OF THE FIELD VISITS ........................................................................ 47
MACHAKOS DISTRICT ................................................................................................................. 47
KITUI DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................. 48
BARINGO DISTRICT...................................................................................................................... 49
BUNGOMA DISTRICT ................................................................................................................... 50
KISUMU DISTRICT ........................................................................................................................ 51
NYERI DISTRICT............................................................................................................................ 52
KWALE DISTRICT ......................................................................................................................... 53

ANNEX 4: DISTRICT INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROJECT .................. 55

DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE .................................................................................. 55
DISTRICT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ......................................................................................... 55
DISTRICT PLANNING UNIT......................................................................................................... 56
DISTRICT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION CENTRE ............................................. 56
PROVINCIAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION COMMITTEE .......................................... 57

ANNEX 5: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED .................................................................. 58

ANNEX 6: REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 61

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
1.
The project (UNDP KEN/88/034) forms part of the GOK/IDA umbrella activity - the Rural
Services Design Project - and was implemented by UNDP under the Fourth UNDP Programme Cycle.
The project is the result of a project preparatory assistance by the UNDP KEN/87/015 (Monitoring and
Evaluation of Impact of Agricultural and Rural Development Strategies). The project (UNDP
KEN/88/034) was to build on the experiences accumulated under UNDP/FAO project KEN/85/001
(Monitoring Impact of Agricultural and Rural Development Projects on Food and Nutrition). Building
on the previous UNDP projects, the project was to develop and institutionalize monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) system for use at the district and central levels to assess the effectiveness of the
agricultural and rural development strategies contained in Sessional Paper No 1 of 1986 on Economic
Management for Renewed Growth and the sixth National Development Plan (1989-93). The specific
aims of the project were:
a) To establish an effective and sustainable system for the monitoring and evaluation of
agricultural/rural development activities at the district and central level;
b) To make effective use of already collected survey data and new M&E data for improving the
implementation and design of agricultural and rural development policies and strategies; and
c) To strengthen district-level policy analysis and decision-making capacity in order that
programme/project adjustment and refinement may be undertaken at this level, where
appropriate, in line with the district-focus strategy of Government.
2.

The purpose of the evaluation is to determine:

a) Whether the project design was logical and coherent, focusing on the appropriateness of the
institutional framework for the project; whether objectives and outputs were realistic,
measurable and achievable; and the strong and weak points in conceptualization and design of
the project;
b) Review policy workshops, consultancies and staff development training undertaken under the
project;
c) Select a sample of six districts where M&E system has been established under the project and
review its viability, sustainability and replicability.
d) Assess the impact of the project on the development of a comprehensive monitoring and
evaluation system in Kenya.
e) Articulate the Governments policy in the area of monitoring and evaluation and make
recommendations on future activities, strategies and approaches for implementation as a
component of the sixth country programme and on a long-term basis.

INTERPRETATION OF THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS

3.
At the institutional-level, the Government in 1983 adopted the District Focus for Rural
Development (DFRD) strategy as an attempt to decentralize various management responsibilities to
the districts. Building on the previous UNDP projects in the M&E territory, the project was to develop
and institutionalize M&E system for use at the district and central levels to assess the effectiveness of
the agricultural and rural development strategies contained in Sessional Paper No 1 of 1986 on

Economic Management for Renewed Growth and the sixth National Development Plan (1989-93).
4.
The agricultural sector strategies included increased crop production, improved research,
study of land use patterns for switch to more profitable farming, improved marketing and storage, and
efficient provision of farm inputs. Rural development sector strategies included rural-urban balance,
strengthening of administrative capacities of lower-level authorities, and promotion of non-farm
employment. The eleven Social Impact Monitoring System (SIMS) questionnaires (social
development, nutrition, health, energy, water, public works and environmental components)
developed under the preparatory assistance to the project were to be used to capture data for
monitoring.
5.
The project document stated that the Ministries and Departments to be directly involved in
the project implementation were (a) Ministry of Planning and National Development: Rural Planning
Department (RPD), Management Information Services Division (MISD), and Central Bureau of
Statistics (CBS); and (b) Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing (MOALDM).
The major responsibility for implementing the district-level M&E project sub-component was vested
in the Rural Planning Department of MPND as the institutional linkage between the project
district-level activities. A newly created division to house the project, Strategy and Policy Analysis
Division (SPAD), would ensure the smooth coordination and implementation of the projects various
components. To facilitate inter-ministerial coordination, an Inter-Ministerial Monitoring and
Evaluation Committee (IMEC) was to be established consisting of participating line ministries. The
division of responsibilities gave MPND a liaison role with the Office of the President, the line
ministries, and districts.
6.
The project activities were intended to fall under three major categories: (a) district-level
agricultural production/marketing and household welfare monitoring surveys under the Social Impact
Monitoring System; (b) analysis of existing impact surveys data; and (c) project implementation
monitoring. The three components were jointly supposed to monitor strategies/policies and how
policies are translated into actual projects.
ANALYSIS OF IMPACT SURVEY DATA
7.
The already collected survey data included (a) the Agricultural Production Survey (APS),
1986/87, (b) the Rural Household Budget Survey (RHBS), 1981/82, (c) the Urban Household Budget
Survey (UHBS), 1982/83, and (d) the Social Impact Data. The data was supposed to be analyzed, used
in the preparation of policy and analytical reports, and summary results displayed using computerized
mapping software.
8.
Some of the 1986/87 APS data was lost. The 1982/83 UHBS data tapes were found in 1993 to
have been overwritten with customs data. It is not possible to judge whether the project would have
carried out these activities if the data was available. However, the project assisted in the transfer of
1981/82 RHBS data from mainframe to microcomputers and in the preparation of a basic report based
on the database. The draft basic report of the 1981/82 RHBS was discussed in a workshop but has not
been finalized. The project successfully completed the baseline study of grain market liberalization.
However, the project has not prepared policy papers based on the grain marketing study.

9.
The impact studies have been coordinated by SPAD but have not had substantial involvement
of other units of Government e.g. the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development, and
Marketing. There has also been too much delay between submission of draft reports and policy
workshops to discuss the findings, making the reports unusable in the intervening period. It is difficult
for a consultant to do substantial revision on a draft report prepared over two years earlier.
10.
The project document also included analysis of social impact survey data. The project
KEN/85/001 finalized the Social Impact Monitoring System (SIMS) and created an enabling
environment for its institutionalization under KEN/87/015 through: installing the information
management system (ARIEL) on the Government Computer Services (GCS) IBM 37 mainframe
computer and in four microcomputers procured under the project. Indicators of social impact included
(a) nutrition and health: food consumption patterns, health status, malnutrition; (b) socioeconomic
status: household demographics, employment, literacy, housing; (c) access to basic social services:
physical access and intensity of use; and (d) food production and food security: crop and livestock
production patterns.
11.
The SIMS project component was expected to collect district-level data and prepare reports
based on the findings. During the first Tripartite Review meeting in February 1991, the Ministry of
Planning and National Development stated that it was not aware of the existence of the Social Impact
Survey Data. A more detailed look at the preparatory assistance documents would have assisted in the
identification of the activities that were envisaged under the SIMS project sub-component.
12.
A consultant was in 1986 funded by FAO under the project UNDP KEN/85/001 to assist in the
preparation of a sampling frame for the purpose of developing a monitoring system. The activities
performed under the project sub-component included the development of a computer program for
determining the sample size and actual sample selection using the hierarchically nested spatial and
administrative organization of the nation (i.e. from nation, province, district, division, location to
sub-location). Other proposed codes were ecological zones and seasonal regimes due to their
explanatory role in rural households food security. The project, UNDP KEN/88/034, was expected to
install and manage a computerized mapping system which would show the regional differences in the
impact of sector-wide development policies and strategies. Such data would come from analyzed
survey data, Government allocations of recurrent and development expenditures, population censuses,
etc. No computerized mapping software was installed during the lifetime of the project.
13.
The project was expected to assist the Rural Planning Department in the analysis of
infrastructure inventory data. In the first Tripartite Review meeting dated February 1991,
uncertainty was expressed as to whether this exercise should be incorporated into the project. The
project budget was not used to support the Rural Planning Department in its maintenance of the
infrastructure inventory. The new division (SPAD) created to house the project managed the
substance rather than the process, hence the inability to implement project activities that could
not be transferred from their host departments to SPAD.
14.
The responsibility for coordination of mid-term evaluation of the umbrella Rural Services
Design project was vested in the M&E sub-component. The study was commissioned by the Ministry
of Planning and National Development in July 1992 to assess the successes and failures of the 13
sub-projects under the RSD project, and to offer guidelines on the future direction of the

sub-components. The RSD impact study was completed in November 1993. The findings of the study
have not been discussed in a policy workshop. However, since the World Bank financed the RSD
impact study and the umbrella RSD project closed in April 1995, the consultant report can be
considered final.
15.
On the M&E sub-component, the RSD impact study found out that, despite the late start, the
sub-project had made substantial progress in establishing a system for monitoring development
projects. However, a comprehensive system for monitoring and evaluation and for explicitly linking
data collection and analysis with key strategies and programmes outlined in the Sessional Paper No. 1
of 1986 and the sixth National Development Plan (1989-93) had not been developed. In addition, the
impact study recommended the formation of an inter-ministerial steering committee and
identification of one counterpart from the headquarters of each participating line ministry to work in
close collaboration with SPAD on a regular basis in completing development and institutionalization
of the M&E system. The recommendations, if acted on, could have redirected the project to its original
objectives and ensured ownership of the M&E activity by the entire central Government.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING SYSTEM (PIMS)
16.
The project was to facilitate data collection at the district-level, to enable the districts to utilize
the information, and serve the data demands at the central level. In February 1991, MPND held a
workshop in Naivasha with the prime objective of introducing basic concepts of the monitoring and
evaluation to key planning and budgeting staff within the ministries who will play the major role in
ensuring the effectiveness and the success of the system. The workshop did not allude to the
extensive literature prepared under the project preparatory activities (KEN/87/015) and the projects
predecessor (KEN/85/001).
17.
Efforts to develop and institutionalize project implementation monitoring dates back to the
early 1970s. The Project Implementation Monitoring process had its roots in the Special Rural
Development Programme (SRDP) which was phased into a new national system of district
development planning (Belshaw and Chambers, 1973; Institute for Development Studies, 1973;
Livingstone, 1976; Holtham and Hazlewood, 1976). Before PIMS was taken over by SPAD, submission
of project information sheets was by headquarters of line ministries rather than the districts. The
PIMS project component was viewed as a pilot activity since the source of information was the district
headquarters. The project implementation information sheets largely correspond to the ones used by
the Office of the President in the early 1980s. However, the participating districts have made useful
recommendations on the design of PIMS sheets and the PROREG (Project Registry) computer
program, which could form the basis for the revision of the instruments.
18.
The main data gaps encountered in the districts are background data on project cost and
project financial and physical scheduling. District departmental heads stressed the importance of
creating institutional arrangements to facilitate districts to receive original and revised project
documents. The project purchased six computers without printers. Sensitization workshops have been
held to acquaint participants with the project implementation monitoring sheets, but does not cover
technical issues e.g. the project cycle, and the logical framework for M&E of projects and programmes.
19.

Two issues of concern on service delivery relate to the efficiency/costs and coordination

arrangements with the headquarters of line ministries and other departments within the Ministry of
Planning and National Development. The project does not coordinate its activities with headquarters
of line ministries and other departments in the Ministry of Planning and National Development. This
reduces commitment of district departmental heads to the project implementation monitoring activity
as there are no sanctions for noncompliance. The project concept was not sold to the District
Executive Committees (DEC) and could not therefore be assumed to have been delivered from the
Ministry of Planning headquarters to the districts. Workshops on computer training are not
coordinated with other agencies, e.g. UNICEF which also provides similar computer training in its
Child Survival and Development (CSD) districts.
PROJECT INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND SUSTAINABILITY
20.
Throughout the lifetime of the project, the project has not facilitated other departments and
ministries to carry out the project components. The project therefore concentrated on project
implementation monitoring at the district level, but did not finance, say, the Rural Planning
Department to maintain the District Infrastructure Inventory. The lack of coordination between
SPAD and other stakeholders in the project document therefore compromised the number of activities
that could be undertaken by the project, and the success of those activities it undertook.
21.
The success of the project implementation monitoring was adversely affected by high staff
turnover due to minimal coordination of the project with headquarters of line ministries (for district
departmental heads) and the Rural Planning Department in MPND (for district development officers).
Second, the lack of institutionalization of the project implementation system within the entire central
Government with clear technical guidelines and sanctions for noncompliance reduces institutional
memory when a participating staff member is transferred. Third, since the project did not cover all the
districts, some staffs trained under the project were transferred to districts which were not in the
projects catchment districts.
22.
According to the World Bank staff appraisal report for Rural Services Design project dated
November 1988, UNDP funds will be on a parallel (vis--vis IDA funds) and grant basis in accordance
with standard UNDP terms, and would contribute to primarily the technical assistance and training
requirements of these sub-projects. It is agreed that the Government implementing agency concerned
will execute the sub-projects co-financed with UNDP. In April 1990, the World Bank clarified in an
amendment to the Rural Services Design project that it would open special accounts with Central
Bank of Kenya to cater for the operational costs of all RSD sub-projects in the IDA credit agreement.
However, the UNDP project document states that IDA inputs, to be administered through UNDP,
will cover all equipment and miscellaneous costs. There was therefore apparent misunderstanding
between the World Bank and UNDP on the mode of administering the IDA contribution to the
project.
23.
The project was expected to hire experts, namely, an internationally-recruited Senior
Planner/Data Analyst, consultant on Evaluation Surveys to finalize the analysis of the APS data,
consultant on Agricultural Strategies to work with the ministry of agriculture (MOA) in analysis of
farm management data, consultant on Agricultural Growth Potential to assist MOA in agricultural
commodity analysis, consultant on Multi-Market Analysis to assist in preparation of policy papers on
the bases of analyzed impact survey data, and a consultant on Spatial Mapping. The project did not

hire consultants to undertake the abovementioned activities on the basis that there was sufficient
capacity within Government.
24.
The chief technical advisor (CTA) was hired in May 1990 to assist in the district-level M&E
activities. His tenure was reduced from three to two years, and the Government counterpart to the
CTA took over the management of the project.
25.
Technical training was provided to five officers in SPAD. However, the short courses should
be more appropriately considered as workshops, rather than the advanced training in agricultural
policy analysis and project implementation monitoring envisaged in the project document. The skills
demanded to undertake various activities in the project required higher level training in agricultural
policy analysis and the logical framework for analysis of implementation of strategies/polices and
projects/programmes, especially after it was decided that it was imprudent to recruit national
consultants. The project did not therefore transfer the appropriate capacity to supervise analytical
reports based on analysis of impact survey data, and project appraisal/logical framework as the
theoretical foundations for project implementation monitoring.
26.
The tripartite review process was responsive to the changing needs of the project emanating
from the early expiry of project financing from the World Bank. UNDP provided six computers
without printers and with no budgetary provisions for operation (e.g. stationery) and repair and
maintenance of computers. The computers were intended to assist the initial six participating districts
in analysis of project implementation monitoring data. The UNDP non-response on the printers and
expendables raised project costs by probably more than the cost of the facilities due to the need to
transport diskettes from the districts for the tables to be printed in SPAD.
27.
The effectiveness of the tripartite review process was somewhat compromised by the quality
of project performance review reports, inadequate follow-up by Government, and UNDP/OPS delay
in response to requests by the project. The quality of reporting progress was not adequate, especially
on impact studies.
28.
The PIMS sheets were not introduced to the entire central Government through a Treasury
Circular, which is the initial step in introducing systems of Governments budgetary data collection
using administrative budget records. The project information sheets are not known in the
headquarters of line ministries and are only known to departmental heads of participating districts.
The district-level activities are not coordinated with headquarters of line ministries and provincial
planning offices. The involvement of the latter would have been crucial in the institutionalization of
the activity, since the activity was in every province except North Eastern province.
29.
The activity is important in the planning process and in assessing the quality of public sector
service delivery. It is, however, important to institutionalize the system in future M&E activities with
the districts. This would guarantee wider participation, and introduce sanctions for noncompliance
among the departmental heads in the participating districts.
PROJECT OUTPUTS AND EFFECTS
30.

Analysis of Impact Survey Data:

Some of the 1986/87 APS data was lost, while the

1982/83 UHBS data tapes were overwritten with customs data. It is not possible to judge whether the
project would have carried out these activities if the data was available. The project assisted in the
preparation of a basic report based on the 1981/82 RHBS database but the draft basic report has not
been finalized. The project successfully completed the mid-term review of the Rural Services Design
Project. The findings of the study have not been discussed in a policy workshop, and the
recommendations of the study were not acted upon. The project facilitated the baseline study of grain
market liberalization, but did not prepare policy papers based on the study. The project was expected
to assist the Rural Planning Department in the analysis of infrastructure inventory data. The project
budget was not used to support the Rural Planning Department in its maintenance of the
infrastructure inventory.
31.
The project was expected to install and manage a computerized mapping system which would
show the regional differences in the impact of sector-wide development policies and strategies. Such
data would come from analyzed survey data, Government allocations of recurrent and development
expenditures, population censuses, etc. No computerized mapping software was installed during the
lifetime of the project.
32.
The SIMS Project Component:
The SIMS project component was expected to collect
district-level data and prepare reports based on the findings. The SIMS project component was not
implemented, due to a problem in the interpretation of the project document occasioned by little
reference to the documents prepared under the project preparatory phase.
33.
Project Implementation Monitoring: Before PIMS was taken over by SPAD, submission of
project information sheets was by headquarters of line ministries rather than the districts. The project
implementation information sheets largely correspond to the ones used by the Office of the President
in the early 1980s. However, the participating districts have made useful recommendations on the
design of PIMS sheets. There are also data gaps in the districts on project cost and project financial and
physical scheduling.
34.
Two issues of concern on service delivery relate to the efficiency/costs and coordination
arrangements. The project does not coordinate its activities with headquarters of line ministries and
other departments in the Ministry of Planning and National Development. The project concept was
not sold to the District Executive Committees and could not therefore be assumed to have been
delivered from the Ministry of Planning headquarters to the districts. Workshops on computer
training are not coordinated with other agencies e.g. UNICEF.
35.
Overall, the project did not address the broad goals envisaged in the project documents. One of
the initial failures was the loose link between the vision of the project (as outlined in the project
preparatory assistance documents) and the actual project implementation. The lack of coordination
between SPAD and other stakeholders in the project document compromised the number of activities
that could be undertaken by the project, and the success of those activities it undertook. The three
project activities, namely, district-level agricultural production/marketing and household welfare
monitoring surveys, analysis of existing impact surveys data, and project implementation monitoring,
were jointly supposed to monitor strategies/policies and how policies are translated into actual
projects. Therefore, project implementation monitoring alone did not fulfil the vision of the project.

RECOMMENDATIONS
36.
The current three-year Development Plan (1994-96) underscores the importance of
monitoring and evaluation of strategies, policies and projects/programmes. The Governments stated
policies in the seventh National Development Plan (1994-96) and the Sessional Paper No 1 of 1994 on
Recovery and Sustainable Development to the Year 2010 demonstrates a commitment to the centrality
of M&E in the process of economic management. The Mission supports the M&E system as
conceptualized in the project document.
37.
However, it is important to increase managerial and technical capacity of the Ministry of
Planning to undertake the enhanced role of M&E under a deregulated economy. Within the
organization of the Kenya Government, one of the major constraints to effective coordination of
planning function is the proliferation of ministries, which brings conflict and problems of horizontal
coordination between ministries. Within the Ministry of Planning, there is need for reorganization of
departments to minimize overlap of responsibilities. The reorganization should ensure that Divisions
are organizationally nested within Departments, i.e. a divisional head reports to a departmental head,
who in turn reports to the Director of Planning.
38.
The functional classification of departments should also focus on the Central Bureau of
Statistics vis--vis other departments at the Ministry of Planning headquarters. For example, the
activities undertaken by SPAD (for the UNDP KEN/88/034 project) and the Human Resources and
Social Services Department involve support to the Central Bureau of Statistics to carry out surveys and
analysis of data. The fact that this support is not direct may conceal the strengths and weaknesses of
CBS in a standalone environment and hence delay the implementation of remedial measures that may
be necessary to increase CBS capacity to collect and analyze survey data.
39.
The M&E activity envisaged in the current National Development Plan (and which
corresponds to the vision in project UNDP KEN/88/034) requires personnel with background
academic training in: (a) project appraisal, including project cycle and logical framework for project
implementation monitoring; and (b) economic theory and econometrics and their application in
empirical work, i.e. the transformation of theoretical paradigms into real world applications.
Administratively, the head of M&E activity should be a chief economist, so as to have sufficient
authority to coordinate line ministries and other departments in MPND.
40.
CBS should undertake the following activities as a matter of priority. First, a technical report
on the NASSEP ought to be published once the inclusion of the currently non-NASSEP districts is
completed. There is also need to publish the National Statistical Needs Assessment Project report
completed in 1992 (Kenya, 1992b) and the Directorate of Personnel Managements (Office of the
President) Report on the Organization, Operations and Staffing of the Central Bureau of Statistics
(Kenya, 1992c). This would help to focus donor attention on CBS activities, and invite debate on the
institutional developments necessary to strengthen CBS capacity to undertake its role in a more
demanding socio-political and economic environment.

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND TO THE MISSION

1.1.
A UNDP/GOK Mission consisting of John T. Mukui (Consultant/Team Leader), E.N. Njeru
(Consultant) and Nelson Muturi (Government Counterpart) carried out a terminal evaluation of the
UNDP project: Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural and Rural Development Strategies Project
(KEN/88/034) from Wednesday, March 22 to Friday, May 19, 1995. The Mission interviewed project
staff in the Ministry of Planning and National Development and United Nations Development
Programme, and thereafter travelled to seven district headquarters to interview district development
officers and district departmental heads of line ministries. The Mission received tremendous assistance
from the offices of UNDP, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Ministry of Finance, the
project staff, and the participating districts that were visited.
1.2.
The project forms part of the GOK/IDA umbrella activity - the Rural Services Design Project and implemented by UNDP under the Fourth UNDP Programme Cycle. According to the Project
Document (November 1989) and IDA Rural Services Design Staff Appraisal Report (November 1988),
the specific aims of the project were:
a) To establish an effective and sustainable system for the monitoring and evaluation of
agricultural/rural development activities at the district and central level;
b) To make effective use of already collected survey data and new M&E data for improving the
implementation and design of agricultural and rural development policies and strategies; and
c) To strengthen district-level policy analysis and decision-making capacity in order that
programme/project adjustment and refinement may be undertaken at this level, where
appropriate, in line with the district-focus strategy of Government.
1.3.

The purpose of the evaluation is to determine:

a) Whether the project design was logical and coherent, focusing on the appropriateness of the
institutional framework for the project; whether objectives and outputs were realistic,
measurable and achievable; and the strong and weak points in the conceptualization and
design of the project.
b) Review policy workshops, consultancies and staff development training undertaken under the
project.
c) Select a sample of six districts where M&E system has been established under the project and
review its viability, sustainability and replicability.
d) Assess the impact of the project on the development of a comprehensive monitoring and
evaluation system in Kenya.
e) Articulate the Governments policy in the area of monitoring and evaluation and make
recommendations on future activities, strategies and approaches for implementation as a
component of the sixth country programme and on a long-term basis.

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

2.1.
The UNDP project KEN/88/034 has a rich history. The purpose of the introductory section is
to give a background to the project in an attempt to seek a consensus on the vision and expectations of
the project designers. The project is the result of a project preparatory assistance by the UNDP
KEN/87/015 (Monitoring and Evaluation of Impact of Agricultural and Rural Development Strategies).
The project (UNDP KEN/88/034) was to build on the experiences accumulated under UNDP/FAO
project KEN/85/001 (Monitoring Impact of Agricultural and Rural Development Projects on Food and
Nutrition). Since the preparatory assistance project (KEN/87/015) initiated a limited number of
activities in the main five year project (KEN/88/034), a short review of both KEN/85/001 and
KEN/87/015 would shed light on where project (KEN/88/034) took off from and the activities it was
supposed to initiate and implement.
2.2.
The tenth session (March 1984) of the United Nations Administrative Committee on
Coordination, Sub-Committee on Nutrition (ACC-SCN) decided to support an analysis in one country
of the food and nutrition problems, structures, and opportunities for strengthened action (see also,
Sahn, Lockwood and Scrimshaw, 1981; FAO, 1982; and FAO, 1984). Kenya was invited to participate
in a joint investigation of food and nutrition problems and opportunities for strengthened
agency-government action. Organizational questions concerned district-level planning, national
strategy formulation, and coordination and institutional development. A two-day symposium
involving SCN members and the Kenya government was held in Nairobi in February 1985. At the
district-level, the symposium identified the need to improve capabilities for analyzing, understanding
and setting priorities to problems through training, and technical and logistical support. At the
national level, studies were proposed on projected food and nutrition implications of population
trends, income, etc, and development of policies on how to adapt major rural development projects to
take into account nutritional factors. These activities were to be coordinated by Food and Nutrition
Planning Unit (FNPU) of the Ministry of Planning and National Development (MPND).
2.3.
The project, Monitoring Impact of Agricultural and Rural Development Projects on Food and
Nutrition (KEN/85/001) was funded by UNDP and executed by the FAO. This project set out to design
a system for monitoring the impact of rural and agricultural development projects on household food
security and the nutritional situation at the district level for the purpose of: providing a continuous
flow of reliable information concerning household food availability and access to food, nutrition and
health; and anticipating the onset of food shortages so that appropriate remedial measures can be
undertaken before the nutritional situation of the population deteriorates to a critical level. The
project was also to assist in the analysis of survey data already collected by CBS and Food and Nutrition
Planning Unit of the Ministry of Planning and National Development.
2.4.
The project assisted in the development, pretesting and standardization of monitoring
questionnaires e.g. household demographics, income, expenditure, access to services, agricultural
production, nutrition, health, and child survival. The Social Impact Monitoring System (SIMS) was to
be institutionalized under a much broader project (KEN/87/015).
2.5.
In April 1987, a Project Formulation GOK/FAO/UNDP Mission reviewed the M&E activities
of MPND. The Mission recommended, among other things, the establishment of a sector-wide M&E

10

project. The Mission noted that:

There is an urgent need to develop procedures for use in an agricultural sector-wide
disaggregated M and E system.... A systematic information system based on an integrated set
of direct measurements, indicators, and more qualitative but regular judgements, some of
which are already in place, needs to be designed and implemented. The most useful M and E
system would be one which covered not only agricultural strategy, but also food (including
consumption and nutrition aspects) and rural development strategies (i.e. including
non-farm employment, transport and retail trade performance in rural areas...).
2.6.
In November 1987, a World Bank Mission on Kenyas Agricultural Sector Adjustment
Operation (ASAO) reviewed the MPND proposal for establishing sector-wide monitoring and
evaluation. The Government agreed to formally include the ASAO monitoring as a specific
component of the proposed M&E project, and to formulate a set of performance indicators that would
be included in the monitoring programme. A Preparatory Assistance Document (PAD) was
subsequently prepared.
2.7.
The objectives of the preparatory assistance project (KEN/87/015) were (a) completion of the
basic analysis of selected records of the 1986/87 Agricultural Production Survey (APS) data; (b)
completion of review, presentation and publication of results from the 1982/83 Urban Household
Budget Survey (UHBS); (c) setting of targets against which monitoring and evaluation of the strategies
of the 1989-93 National Development Plan can be carried out during the full project; and (d)
preparation of a full Project Document which incorporates the results of the abovementioned
objectives.
2.8.
To accelerate the production of the results of the APS data, CBS identified about 45 percent
priority records for analysis. The outputs included (a) frequency distributions on the priority records;
and (b) a basic report on Land Use Patterns (Field Document No 7) covering per capita holding by
district and household size, holding patterns and rental arrangements for 24 surveyed districts,
coefficient of variation in land holding by district, and estimated Gini coefficient for land holdings by
district. The outputs from the Urban Household Budget Survey database included income distribution,
household expenditure, patterns of urban household food purchasing behaviour, and food demand
elasticities. The field reports from the UHBS project sub-component were summarized in Urban
Household Budget Survey, 1982/83 (Kenya, 1990b) see also Ofwona (1991).
2.9.
Three workshops were organized to discuss key issues of the full-scale M&E project as well as
performance indicators. Two of the workshops (held in Kisumu and Nyeri) invited participants from
senior district-level decision makers, while the third workshop (held in Nairobi) drew participants
from the central-level decision makers. The workshops also discussed the draft five-year full-scale
project, while the lessons from the workshops were used in the preparation of a Guide to the
Organization of Workshops. A 121-page report was prepared covering the conceptual framework to
M&E system and programme of action to implement M&E system (i.e. the then existing monitoring
and evaluation efforts), proposed activities under the project, project costs and financing, and
responsibilities and proposed financial allocations of each participating institution (see, L.M. Wasonga,
Report on Monitoring and Evaluation of the Impact of Agricultural and Rural Development Strategies,
Office of the President, September 1988).

11

2.10. The workshops covered the data collection instruments to be used in the full project
(KEN/88/034). The instruments included (a) project implementation monitoring forms, and (b)
framework for monitoring and evaluation of impact and effects of development strategies and policies.
Item (b) included nationwide surveys conducted under the national sample frame and the proposed
district-level social impact monitoring to be undertaken under the full project using larger district
sample sizes than the national surveys. The workshops also discussed the institutions to be involved in
project implementation e.g. CBS, Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS),
Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Livestock Development, and district-level institutions e.g. District
Information and Documentation Centres (DIDC) and District Planning Units (DPU). A manual to be
used in data collection titled Monitoring and Evaluation of National Development Policies and
Strategies: Illustrative Version (July 1989) was prepared.
2.11. As noted in the sixth National Development Plan (1989-93), Currently, there is no effective
monitoring and evaluation system that can provide information necessary to indicate the extent to
which the process of development programming meets set objectives. In a situation where structural
adjustment programmes are to be implemented based on policy reforms, with the demands emanating
from the District Focus for Rural Development strategy and the envisaged increase in the
responsibility of communities through cost-sharing, the need for monitoring and evaluation of
programmes and projects has become more urgent. The Government prepared the implementation
version of the sixth National Development Plan as a basis for monitoring progress in achieving targets
set out in the Plan. The Government also included the proposed project in the GOK Programme
Review and Forward Budget for the period 1988/89-1990/91 and in the Revised Estimates for
1987/1988. The importance of the project to the Government was therefore patent.
2.12. According to the World Bank Presidents report on the Second Agricultural Sector
Adjustment Operation, one of the experiences with the first ASAO included focusing on financing
the preparatory steps for adjustment (studies, elaboration of policy papers, and restructuring plans)
rather than on implementation. A new initiative under ASAO II was strengthening planning and
management capacity in selected Ministries which deal with major subsector issues, and undertake
strategic studies which cut across subsectors, or have macroeconomic and environmental implications.
The Report further stated that for detailed monitoring it [the ASAO II programme] will depend on
the Development Planning Divisions of MOA and MOLD, and the Policy Analysis and Monitoring
Unit of MPND; the Unit will have overall responsibility for monitoring and evaluation of the key
actions, as part of an ongoing project funded by UNDP and IDA; and the agricultural data component
will be funded by the Monitoring and Evaluation Project, using IDA funds to be channelled to the
Central Bureau of Statistics and MOA. A consultants report was prepared to provide a framework for
the monitoring and evaluation of the Second Agricultural Sector Adjustment Operation (see K.
Altemeier, A Suggested Framework for the Monitoring and Evaluation of the Agricultural Sector
Adjustment Operation - ASAO II, World Bank, July 1990).
2.13. The above summary of historical roots of the project has helped to focus on the initial terms of
reference of the project in both areas of developing systems for district-level monitoring and
evaluation and the impact studies expected under the project. A further analysis of the Project
Document will shed light on the objectives, and the degree of consistency between objectives and
vision of the project.

12

CHAPTER 3: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE PROJECT DOCUMENT

INTRODUCTION
3.1.
The above summary of the background to the project provides a basis for interpretation of the
vision of the project. This is important because, for some program components, there was divergence
between the vision of the project (as demonstrated in the projects preparatory activities) and the
objectives (as narrowly defined in the project document). M.E. Harvey, a consultant who worked
under the chief technical advisor (CTA) in the project that preceded KEN/88/034, in his December
1986 report to the FAO complained that the CTA is not getting support needed for the volume of
work that needs to be done. He was involved in all aspects of the project. Who, besides him,
understands what is going on? Presently, there is nobody. The lack of effective counterparts in the
preceding project may have contributed to the lapse in institutional memory.
3.2.
This chapter provides the Missions interpretation of the project document. For the project
activities that were not implemented, the chapter gives details of the data collected and uses of the
data in planning, and monitoring and evaluation.

THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

3.3.
At the institutional-level, the Government in 1983 adopted the District Focus for Rural
Development (DFRD), as an attempt to decentralize various management responsibilities to the
districts1. Building on the previous UNDP projects in the M&E territory, the project was to develop
and institutionalize M&E system for use at the district and central levels to assess the effectiveness of
the agricultural and rural development strategies contained in Sessional Paper No 1 of 1986 on
Economic Management for Renewed Growth and the sixth National Development Plan (1989-93).
3.4.
The agricultural sector strategies included: increased crop production, improved research,
study of land use patterns for switch to more profitable farming, improved marketing and storage, and
efficient provision of farm inputs. Rural development sector strategies included: rural-urban balance,
strengthening of administrative capacities of lower-level authorities, and promotion of non-farm
employment. Annex III of the project document contained a sample of the various agricultural/rural
development strategies and programmes that the project was to monitor and the performance
indicators that would be evaluated. The eleven Social Impact Monitoring System (SIMS)
questionnaires (social development, nutrition, health, energy, water, public works and environmental
components) developed under the preparatory assistance to the project were to be used to capture data
for monitoring.
3.5.

The indicators proposed largely focused on efficiency in the agricultural sector, infrastructure

.
There has been debate on whether DFRD was deconcentration or devolution of power.
Deconcentration is the mere dispersal of central government offices outside the national capital without tangible
transfer of decision-making authority and financial and management responsibilities to the local level.
Devolution is generally understood to mean the transfer of authority for decision-making, development
planning and management to independent or semi-autonomous local governments, the functions and
responsibilities of which are outside the direct control of national governments.
1

13

supply and utilization, and household welfare and access to basic services (water, etc.). This was in line
with the development theme of the Sessional Paper No 1 of 1986 on Economic Management for
Renewed Growth, namely, to increase efficiency in the public sector (through budget rationalization
and other measures to enhance delivery of public sector services) and private sector (through
strategies and policies that increases the private sectors role in development). The project therefore
focused on measures of effects at the household level. However, since both Governments recurrent
and development expenditures have implications on delivery of public services and the private sector
costs of doing business, it is not immediately apparent whether the project was to concentrate on
monitoring public sector development projects, and ignore recurrent expenditures.

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
3.6.
The project document stated that the Ministries and Departments to be directly involved in
the project implementation were:
(a)

Ministry of Planning and National Development: Rural Planning Department (RPD),

Management Information Services Division (MISD), Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and
Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS);

(b)

Ministry of Agriculture: Development Planning Division, Farm Management Division and

Crop Production Division; and

(c)

Ministry of Livestock Development: Development Planning Division, Livestock Production

Division, and Department of Veterinary Services.

3.7.
The major responsibility for implementing the district-level M&E project sub-component was
vested in the Rural Planning Department of MPND as the institutional linkage between the project
district-level activities. A newly created division to house the project, Strategy and Policy Analysis
Division (SPAD), would ensure the smooth coordination and implementation of the projects various
components. To facilitate inter-ministerial coordination, an Inter-Ministerial Monitoring and
Evaluation Committee (IMEC) was to be established consisting of participating line ministries. The
division of responsibilities gave MPND a liaison role with the Office of the President, the line
ministries, and districts DPUs and DECs. The Office of the President had administrative authority on
the Provincial Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (PMEC), District Development Committee
(DDC), DEC/DPU and project managers. The line ministries had administrative authority on district
departmental heads. The project was supposed to establish close links with the USAID-financed
project in Rural Planning Department in the field of district planning and Ford Foundation $1 million
component for training district personnel on monitoring and evaluation techniques.
3.8.

The project was expected to hire experts, namely:

(a)

An internationally-recruited Senior Planner/Data Analyst to assist MPND and participating

line ministries to design and implement a system for monitoring and evaluating Kenyas
agricultural and rural development projects/programmes, policies and strategies;

(b)

Consultant on Evaluation Surveys to finalize the analysis of the Agricultural Production

14

Survey (APS), 1986/87 data;

(c)

Consultant on Agricultural Strategies, to work with the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) in the
processing and analysis of farm management data, including fertilizer distribution and its
pricing;

(d)

Consultant on Agricultural Growth Potential, to assist the Ministry of Agriculture in

agricultural commodity analysis;

(e)

Consultant on Multi-Market Analysis to assist in preparation of policy papers on the bases of

impact survey data e.g. APS 1986/87, RHBS 1981/82, UHBS 1982/83 and Farm Management;
and

(f)

Consultant on Spatial Mapping.

3.9.
The project distributed responsibilities and gave financial allocations to the stakeholders (i.e.
participating institutions). The project therefore envisaged that the newly created division would
manage the process rather than the substance of the project components. In particular,
district-level M&E was to be closely coordinated with participating ministries, while economy-wide
strategic policy issues were vested in the relevant institutions e.g. MOA.

IMPACT SURVEY DATA

3.10. The main objective of the activity was effective use of already collected survey data and new
M&E data for improving the implementation and design of agricultural and rural development policies
and strategies. The already collected survey data included (a) the Agricultural Production Survey,
1986/87, (b) the Rural Household Budget Survey, 1981/82, (c) the Urban Household Budget Survey,
1982/83, and (d) the Social Impact Data. The data was supposed to be analyzed, used in the preparation
of policy and analytical reports, and summary results displayed using computerized mapping software.
The maps were to be disseminated to central, provincial and district planning units to be used in policy
and project design.
3.11. The basic objectives of the Urban Household Budget Survey 1982/83 were to provide basic
information on the incomes and patterns of consumption of different socioeconomic groups, and to
provide weights on which to base revision of the cost of living index. The APS collected data on
household size and holdings, land use, and the use of agricultural inputs. The results of the
Agricultural Production Survey 1986/87, which covered 24 districts mostly in high and medium
potential areas, were highlighted in capsule form in Economic Survey 1989.
3.12. While many authors have decried (and is implicit in some of the UNDP KEN/88/034 projects
objectives) the inability of CBS to analyze survey data and release survey results on time, this has
probably been caused by lack of a clear policy on data archival system. For example, the 1986/87
Agricultural Production Survey was combined with the Fourth Rural Child Nutrition Survey so as to
provide interrelationships between nutritional indicators and food security. However, some of the
APS data was lost, and the original intentions of the survey planners were never realized. The 1982/83
Urban Household Budget Survey data tapes were found in 1993 to have been overwritten with

15

customs data. The project was expected to utilize the databases in the preparation of policy and
analytical reports. It is not possible to judge whether the project would have carried out these
activities if the data were available.
Social Impact Survey Data
3.13. The project document included analysis of social impact survey data. The project KEN/85/001
finalized the Social Impact Monitoring System (SIMS) and created an enabling environment for its
institutionalization under KEN/87/015 through: installing the information management system
(ARIEL) on the Government Computer Services (GCS) IBM 37 mainframe computer and in four
microcomputers procured under the project. Indicators of social impact included (a) nutrition and
health: food consumption patterns, health status, malnutrition; (b) socioeconomic status: household
demographics, employment, literacy, housing; (c) access to basic social services: physical access and
intensity of use; and (d) food production and food security: crop and livestock production patterns.
3.14. The SIMS project component was expected to collect district-level data and prepare reports
based on the findings. During the first Tripartite Review meeting in February 1991, the Ministry of
Planning and National Development stated that it was not aware of the existence of the Social Impact
Survey Data. It appears that the reference to analyze 1987 social impact survey data in the project
document was a typo since SIMS was to be implemented through collection and analysis of
household-level variables. A more detailed look at the preparatory assistance documents would have
detected the anomaly.
3.15. However, some of the survey modules prepared under the preparatory activities for SIMS
project sub-component were subsequently used in the District Household Welfare Monitoring and
Evaluation System. The district household welfare monitoring survey was undertaken in six districts
and one municipality covered by the UNICEF Child Survival and Development (CSD), namely,
Kisumu, Baringo, South Nyanza, Embu, Kitui, Kwale and Mombasa municipality. The information
generated from the district welfare exercise had important distinctions with the national household
welfare monitoring survey undertaken in December 1992: (a) information from the district surveys
was of immediate benefit to the participating districts since data was disaggregated to the division level
(the administrative unit below a district), and (b) repeat surveys were to be undertaken on a regular
basis.
3.16. The Central Bureau of Statistics and Human Resources and Social Services Department
(HRSSD) in the Ministry of Planning and National Development undertook the National Household
Welfare Monitoring Survey in December 1992, funded by the World Bank under the Health
Rehabilitation Project (World Bank, 1991), to fill the lacuna in poverty statistics on Kenya.
Consequently, the Government has produced a basic report on the 1992 National Welfare Monitoring
Survey (Ayako, 1994) and poverty profiles for rural 1981/82 and urban and rural Kenya 1992 (Mukui,
1994). However, the project completion report (July 1994) and the World Banks Rural Services
Design projects Implementation Completion Report (February 1995) gives credit for conducting the
National Household Welfare Monitoring Survey to SPAD, rather than to the relevant participating
institutions. The project can however claim credit for funding the transfer of the 1981/82 Rural
Household Budget Survey data from the mainframe to the microcomputers since the 1981/82 RHBS
data were used as the baseline in the creation of poverty profiles for the 1982 and 1992 interval. In

16

addition, the Poverty Profiles (1982-92) and the Basic Report of RHBS were coordinated by a data
analyst/statistician from SPAD and an economist from HRSSD because (a) of overlap of functions of
SPAD and HRSSD, and (b) both studies used the RHBS database.
Computerized Mapping System
3.17. A consultant was in 1986 funded by FAO under the project UNDP KEN/85/001 to assist in the
preparation of a sampling frame for the purpose of developing a monitoring system. The activities
performed under the project sub-component included the development of a computer program for
determining the sample size and actual sample selection using the hierarchically nested spatial and
administrative organization of the nation (i.e. from nation, province, district, division, location to
sub-location). Spatial codes were devised so that the scheme could be used on diverse projects ranging
from national surveys to location-based studies. Other proposed codes were ecological zones and
seasonal regimes due to their explanatory role in rural households food security. The report also
recommended the development of capability to display information using, say, maps, charts, and
histograms, as an integral part of the National Food Monitoring System. A mapping computer program
was installed for that purpose.
3.18. The project, UNDP KEN/88/034, was expected to install and manage a computerized mapping
system which would show the regional differences in the impact of sector-wide development policies
and strategies. Such data would come from analyzed survey data, Government allocations of recurrent
and development expenditures, population censuses, etc. No computerized mapping software was
installed during the lifetime of the project.
District Infrastructure Inventory
3.19. A major objective of the Governments Budget Rationalization Programme (BRP) is to ensure
that districts use development resources efficiently. The District Infrastructure Inventory is an
important input in the attainment of this objective, since it incorporates information on location,
condition and utilization of infrastructure facilities. The infrastructure inventory is a valuable input in
the preparation of district development plans, as the database is used to support arguments for the
need to construct or maintain particular facilities in different locations and sub-locations in a district.
3.20.

The facilities included in the infrastructure inventory are:

a) Roads (classified and unclassified) and airfields;

b) Primary schools;
c) Secondary schools;
d) Service and training institutions (teachers training colleges, Colleges of arts and Technology or
Harambee Institutes of Technology, medical training centres, farmers training centres, village
polytechnic, craft centres, district development centres, etc);
e) Water facilities;

17

f) Health facilities (hospitals, health centres, clinics/dispensaries, maternity centres, nursing

homes, mobile clinics, etc);
g) Cattle dips;
h) Livestock holding grounds and auction facilities;
i)

Grain storage facilities (off-farm); and

j)

Cooperative societies (coffee factories, milk collection and cooling stations, housing
cooperatives, savings and credit societies, etc)

3.21. According to the guidelines issued by the Rural Planning Department (RPD) of MPND, the
District Development Officer (DDO) is supposed to ensure that the inventory schedules are completed
by the district head of the Ministry responsible for the facility being surveyed. The completed
infrastructure schedules should have: (a) clear description of the nature and function of the facility, (b)
location of the facility, (c) careful evaluation of the extent to which the facility is utilized, and (d)
specific statements on the condition of the facility and what improvements are necessary to maximise
the facilitys service delivery.
3.22. The Management Information Services Division of MPND developed a computer program
written in Dbase, which allowed the data collected to be processed and returned to the districts. This
provides the district departmental heads and District Development Committees with well-organized
and readable data, which is also used in support of district planning activities. The Inventory shows
the facilities which are underutilized and the spatial distribution of the facilities. It therefore guides
the Government on whether new projects should be undertaken or existing projects rehabilitated. The
Inventory is therefore useful during planning and budgeting stages. However, the Inventory was not
intended to be used as a monitoring and evaluation tool2. The monitoring and evaluation tool was the
Annual Annex to the district development plan, detailing (a) a status report on projects implemented
in the previous financial year, (b) the annual work plan for the current year on projects and
programmes included in the Development Estimates, and (c) the forward budget that gives priority
projects drawn from the project bank of the District Development Plan.
3.23. The project was expected to assist the Rural Planning Department in the analysis of
infrastructure inventory data. In the first Tripartite Review meeting dated February 1991,
uncertainty was expressed as to whether this exercise should be incorporated into the project. The
management of RPD were not aware that the project was supposed to assist the RPD in district
planning and the maintenance of the infrastructure inventory. The project budget was not used to
support the Rural Planning Department in its maintenance of the infrastructure inventory. The new
division (SPAD) created to house the project was supposed to manage the process rather than the

The Inventory is related to strategies and policies. As MPND noted in a background document before
the project became operational, cattle dips are built to eradicate ticks and promote meat production; schools are
built to educate children and raise their potential for productive employment; and heath facilities are built to
provide treatment and prevent illness. The Inventory gives insights into whether the facilities are contributing
to these strategies/policies.

18

substance, hence the inability to implement project activities that could not be transferred from
their host departments to the new division (SPAD).
Other Impact Surveys
3.24. The project was expected to support the analysis of farm management data, agricultural
inputs [e.g. fertilizer and seed use], pricing policies, marketing and storage strategies. Farm
management data are collected annually by the Farm Management Division in the Ministry of
Agriculture. It has information on the prices of farm inputs, production costs, transportation costs and
yields, among others. The data provides insight on the trends of yields, costs and prices, and therefore
provides useful indicators of efficiency of farm production.
3.25. According to the draft Project Implementation Report (August 1990), the project was to
coordinate special studies on the effects of implementation of policy reforms in agriculture. Based on
the discussion paper prepared by K. Altemeier, consultant for the World Bank, the three studies
agreed on with the World Bank were on maize market reform, fertilizer market liberalization, and
beef price decontrol. The project was also expected to carry out an impact evaluation of all the
components of the Rural Services Design Project. The consultancy inputs for the three studies, RSD
mid-term review, and establishment of indicators of efficiency in the agricultural sector were to be
financed under the World Bank contribution to the project.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

3.26. During the projects preparatory phase, project implementation monitoring was conducted by
the Office of the President. The formats were filled at the ministerial level every six months. The
system was not therefore used for evaluation of programmes at the district-level. Neither the Ministry
of Planning (other than MISDs support in computerizing the data) nor Treasury was involved in this
process; hence there was weak linkage in reflecting the results of this activity to the planning and
budgetary processes.
3.27.

The purpose of the project implementation monitoring system was to:

a) Enable implementing ministries to know whether approved projects have adequate funding;
b) Detect whether projects are being implemented;
c) Provide information on rate of disbursement by donor; and
d) Enable the Ministry of Planning in the compilation of Compendium on Donor Support and
update this on an annual basis.
The project was expected to transfer data collection responsibilities for district projects from line
ministry headquarters to the districts, and for line ministries to coordinate data collection for national
and multi-district projects.

19

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPACT STUDIES PROJECT COMPONENT

RURAL HOUSEHOLD BUDGET SURVEY, 1981/82
4.1.
The 1981/82 RHBS utilized the multi-stage NASSEP II frame. In all, 648 clusters were selected
which contained more than 69,000 households, or about 2.8% of the rural population. Overall, 27
strata were formed. North-Eastern province and the northern districts of Rift Valley (Turkana and
Samburu) and upper Eastern province (Marsabit and Isiolo) were excluded. The exclusions comprised
54% of the total land area and 5% of the national population. The following sparsely populated
contiguous districts were merged to form common strata: Kilifi/Tana River/Lamu, Baringo/Laikipia,
Narok/Kajiado and West Pokot/Elgeyo Marakwet. The rest of the districts were covered separately as
distinct strata.
4.2.
During 1981/82, 11 forms were used to collect detailed information on each sampled
household regarding its composition, labour force participation, description of dwelling and
availability of social amenities, ownership of farm equipment and consumer durable goods, farm and
non-farm income, and consumption and expenditure. The detailed results of the Rural Household
Budget Survey 1981/82 have never been published, and only highly aggregated information was
released as Chapter 3 of Economic Survey 1988, six years after the field work was completed. The
results were also used by the World Bank in a number of sector reports in describing the structure of
the rural economy. These sector reports include Kenya: Industrial Sector Policies for Investment and
Export Growth (1987) and Employment and Growth in Kenya (1988). In addition, the data from the
RHBS and a demographic module that collected data on fertility and mortality experience of all
women over the age of 12 years living in the same households covered by the first round of RHBS, was
published in 1989 (see, Impact of Socio-Economic Development on Fertility in Rural Kenya, Central
Bureau of Statistics, January 1989).
4.3.
In 1991, the project contracted Harvey Herr, who had previously worked on the household
budget survey data for four years, to transfer the summary files of the database from the mainframe at
CBS to microcomputers. The transfer of summary files was completed in June 1992 (see, Harvey Herr,

Consultancy for Transfer of a Sub-set of the RHBS Data from Mainframe to Microcomputer for use in
Development of Poverty Profiles, MPND, July 1992).
4.4.
The data used in the preparation of Poverty Profiles was not the original data entered from the
questionnaires, but data aggregated or truncated by the systems analyst. In the case of household
composition, data aggregation problems related to age of household members, relation of household
members to household head, and occupation of the head of the household. Information on the age of
individual household members was not available since it was aggregated to number of members per
household per specified age group by sex. The differentiated age groups, classified by sex, included 0-4
years, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, and 50 and above. The age categories in the aggregated
data permitted the use of adult equivalence scales which requires age groups of 0-4, 5-14, and ages 15
and above. Household size derived by summing up household members by age groups was different
from that of summing up using relation to household head (daughters, sons, and other relatives)
in some cases.

20

4.5.
The legend of the codes for occupation of the household head was not availed to the
consultants who prepared the Basic Report and Poverty Profiles, making it difficult to generate
meaningful socioeconomic groupings. Under each occupation of the household head (e.g.
professional, technical class), there were different codes (numbers) rather than a single code as would
be expected. A frequency count of occupation of the household head under each occupation category
did not give a lead on the meaning of the codes (numbers) in the aggregated database. The occupation
codes in the database do not tally with those of the Kenya National Occupational Classification System
(KNOCS) used in the 1981/82 Rural Household Budget Survey and which was adapted from the
International Labour Offices (ILO) International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-1968).
For example, agricultural, forestry and related workers not working on their holdings (KNOCS
category 55) is shown to represent 74 percent of all household heads who responded to the survey
questionnaires, although the figure probably represents all agricultural workers working on and
outside their holdings. This put a binding constraint on the use of the 1981/82 Rural Household
Budget Survey database, since it was initially envisaged that poverty measurements and
interpretations would be meaningful with socioeconomic groupings based on occupation of the
household head. The problems encountered in using the data in preparing a basic report and the
poverty profiles may have been due to inadequate guidance to the systems analyst on the data needs
for the abovementioned outputs.
4.6.
The 1981/82 RHBS database provided a baseline for comparison with the 1992 National
Household Welfare Monitoring Survey. In addition, since consumption data was disaggregated in the
1981/82 RHBS, the RHBS consumption basket was used in the computation of poverty lines for rural
1981/82 and both rural and urban 1992. It was not feasible to compute itemized food expenditure
using the 1992 survey data since consumption from own-production was not itemized.
4.7.
The 1981/82 Rural Household Budget Survey was used in the preparation of a basic report
using UNDP contribution to the project. Two local consultants were contracted for the activity, and
started the analysis of the data in May 1993. The consultants were supervised by a data
analyst/statistician from SPAD and an economist from Human Resources and Social Services
Department (HRSSD). The draft basic report was completed in April 1994 and was discussed in a
workshop in June 1994. The grouping of data and exclusion of some variables collected in the survey
delayed the analysis and finalization of the basic report and reduced the soundness of the conclusions
emanating from the analysis. The workshop made extensive recommendations on the need to:
a) Reorganize the sequence of ideas in the draft report;
b) Disaggregate the analysis to the district-level for some variables to serve as a pivot for district
planning; and
c) The need for in-depth analysis for some of the datasets and the comparison of the results with
those of other surveys previously conducted in Kenya.
4.8.
The basic report was accepted with minimum improvements. According to the projects
terminal report, one of the key outputs from the workshop was production of terms of reference for
finalization of the report. The exercise was supposed to commence in September 1994. However,
arrangements have not been made to act on the recommendations so that a final report could be

21

prepared. It is necessary for funds to be identified to complete the activity.

CEREAL SECTOR REFORM PROGRAMME

4.9.
The cereal sector reform programme (CSRP) was initiated in 1988 with the objectives of
minimizing Government intervention in grain marketing and creating an enabling environment for
participation of private traders. In order to understand whether the policy reforms were generating
the intended effects, the Government, with the support of the World Bank, initiated a system for
periodic assessment of the effects of reforms on vulnerable groups. A consultant was hired for the
purpose.
4.10. The study was conducted using (a) a household survey from a stratified sample of 1,670
households covering 8 districts, and (b) secondary data supplied by CBS, Ministry of Agriculture and
the then Ministry of Supplies and Marketing (e.g. area and production of maize, quantities and prices
of marketed production). The implementation of the survey was in three phases. Phase 1 involved the
development and refinement of a conceptual framework for M&E of the effects of maize market
reforms on vulnerable groups, covering identification of the poor, methodology for linking policies
and the poor, and the monitoring system and its data requirements. Phase 2 piloted the survey
instruments in two districts (Muranga and Machakos) and conducted a rapid assessment of maize
market performance in five districts. The pilot survey was used to refine the survey instruments. The
final phase covering 8 districts was conducted during March-April 1992 in Bungoma, Siaya, and South
Nyanza (surplus stratum), Kiambu and Nyeri (marginal stratum) and Kitui, Taita Taveta and Kilifi
(deficit stratum). The survey period coincided with the relaxation of maize movement controls, since
traders were officially allowed to transport up to 88 bags of maize across districts without permit in
April 1992. The final report was submitted in July 1992, but was discussed two years later (in June
1994).
4.11.

The results showed that:

a) Maize was the dominant item in the households consumption basket in all the districts;
b) In all the districts, the main marketing outlets were private traders followed by the National
Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB), and private traders paid higher producer prices in all
districts except Nyeri and Kitui where the prices were almost at the same level; and
c) The incidence and severity of calorie-deficit (food poverty) was highest in the surplus and
deficit strata compared with the marginal stratum.
4.12. However, on questionnaire design, some food items were omitted which might bias results on
calorie-deficiency as an indicator of household vulnerability; and the supply side was not adequately
captured in the survey (quality of fertilizer and seeds). In addition, the results of some of the variables
collected are not reported in the final report. The study was coordinated by SPAD and the Central
Bureau of Statistics, and had little direct supervisory links with the Ministry of Agriculture, due to the
fact that the entire M&E project did not co-opt the stakeholders (headquarters of line ministries)
envisaged in the project document.

22

As reported in the projects Terminal Report dated July 1994, the study on Monitoring and
Assessing the Effects of Maize Marketing Liberalization on Vulnerable Groups in Kenya (Kenya,
1992d) could not be discussed in a policy workshop nor could the recommendations be immediately
implemented as restrictions on maize movement were reintroduced soon after the completion of the
report3. This frustrated the success of the projects sub-component in two ways. First, although a
sequence of studies were planned so as to create a time series of the indicators, new studies could not
be undertaken while the first study was officially in draft form since it had not been discussed.
Secondly, the outcome of the study was supposed to influence the direction of policy but the reverse
was now true: policy was influencing the research studies. The projects terminal report (July 1994)
states that a more comprehensive impact study on the performance of the maize sector since
liberalization was reintroduced is scheduled for September 1994 and would cover 25 randomly
selected districts. However, the process has not been set in motion e.g. identification of consultants
for the activity.
4.13.

MID-TERM REVIEW OF THE RURAL SERVICES DESIGN PROJECT

4.14. The responsibility for coordination of mid-term evaluation of the umbrella Rural Services
Design project was vested in the M&E sub-component. The study was commissioned by the Ministry
of Planning in July 1992 to assess the successes and failures of the 13 sub-projects under the RSD
project, and to offer guidelines on the future direction of the sub-components. The RSD impact study
was completed in November 1993. The findings of the study have not been discussed in a policy
workshop. However, since the World Bank financed the RSD impact study and the umbrella RSD
project closed in April 1995, the consultant report can be considered final.
4.15. On the M&E sub-component, the impact study found out that, despite the late start, the
sub-project had made substantial progress in establishing a system for monitoring development
projects. However, a comprehensive system for monitoring and evaluation and for explicitly linking
data collection and analysis with key strategies and programmes outlined in the Sessional Paper No. 1
of 1986 and the sixth National Development Plan (1989-93) had not been developed. In addition, the
impact study recommended the formation of an inter-ministerial steering committee and
identification of one counterpart from the headquarters of each participating line ministry to work in
close collaboration with SPAD on a regular basis in completing development and institutionalization
of the M&E system. The recommendations, if acted on, could have redirected the project to its original
objectives and ensured ownership of the M&E activity by the entire central Government.

The Government abolished maize marketing controls in late 1993.

23

CHAPTER 5: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

BACKGROUND
5.1.
The 1971 Report of the Commission on Public Service Structure and Remuneration (Kenya,
1971) and the third National Development Plan (1974-78) argued that the Government should make
sustained efforts to strengthen its appraisal and monitoring of public investment activities. The then
Ministry of Finance and Plannings Project Planning and Evaluation Unit (PPEU), with substantial
technical assistance from the Canadian Government, strived from 1970 to 1983 to design a system to
provide a list of public sector projects and programs and produce guidelines for an integrated system
for appraising and evaluating projects and programs. The Canadian-supported project was
implemented by York University.
5.2.
The PPEU produced a number of studies and reports e.g. the 1976 Public Sector Project List
and the 1976 Public Sector Projects Handbook. A Project Registry Information Sheet was developed
(see Public Sector Projects Handbook, 1976, for description of the system and a sample of the project
registry information sheets). As a logical follow-up to these initial efforts, the Ministry of Planning in
1982 issued a circular to all line ministries titled Implementation Scheduling and Monitoring of
Development Projects, on monitoring the physical and financial progress of project implementation.
The World Bank (1986) notes that the Ministry of Economic Planning and Development (MEPD)
issued a circular in January 1982 establishing a project implementation monitoring system for the
Government, whose framework included (a) a forward implementation schedule, which would set out
physical and performance targets for the financial year, and would be used by the Estimates Working
Groups in the budget formulation process; (b) project implementation reports issued on a quarterly
basis, which would summarize project expenditures and progress in implementation, and describe
major project issues and recommendations from technical ministries; and (c) a project registry to store
this information, located in both MEPD and the implementing ministries. This was followed by

Guidelines for the Preparation, Appraisal and Approval of New Public Sector Investment Projects
issued in January 1983. The initial efforts to establish an effective project monitoring system were not
successful (World Bank, 1986).
5.3.
However, in the mid-1980s, a joint initiative of the Office of the President (OOP) and MPND
attempted to gather information on the implementation status of Government projects and programs,
beginning with July-December 1984 reporting period. A Project Implementation Review report for
each reporting period was published, roughly one year after the end of the reporting period, e.g.
January-June 1985 data was published in May 1986. In 1987, the responsibility for operating the
system was passed solely to MPNDs Project Monitoring Unit in MISD. Without the OOPs
commanding authority, the Project Implementation Monitoring System (PIMS) was unable to gather
comprehensive data in a timely manner. The information sheets were filled by the line ministries
rather than the districts.

OUTLINE OF THE ACTIVITY

5.4.
The major responsibility for implementing the project rested on the Ministry of Planning, in
the newly created Strategy and Policy Analysis Division (SPAD). To facilitate inter-ministerial

24

coordination and spread the ownership of the project to the entire central Government, an
Inter-ministerial Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (IMEC) was to be established, consisting of
participating line ministries and chaired by MPND. The project coordinator was to be the secretary to
IMEC.
5.5.
According to the Project Plan Implementation Report (August 1990), the project was to
facilitate data collection at the district-level, to enable the districts to utilize the information and serve
the data demands at the central level. In February 1991, MPND held a workshop in Naivasha with the
prime objective of introducing basic concepts of the monitoring and evaluation to key planning and
budgeting staff within the ministries who will play the major role in ensuring the effectiveness and the
success of the system. The presentations included write-ups on the roles of the Project
Implementation Section (PMS), the Management Information Services Division (MISD) and the
District Information and Documentation Centres (DIDCs); and briefs on the Rural Development Fund
(RDF) project and EEC Micro-Projects project. The workshop did not allude to the extensive literature
prepared under the project preparatory activities (KEN/87/015) and the projects predecessor
(KEN/85/001).

DATA CAPTURE
5.6.
The project implementation information sheets are divided into seven sections: project
identification; terms and dates; finance/funding; project expenditure; budget information; project
revision; and remarks on funding, project management, physical environment and
manpower/supplies.
5.7.
The project implementation information sheets largely correspond to the ones used by the
Office of the President in the early 1980s. In the section on project identification, the only addition is a
question on project rank - core, high, medium, other so as to conform with the submissions under
the Public Investment Program (PIP). The section on Terms and Dates was amended by deleting the
item actual start date, which, when compared with planned start date would be important in
detecting delays in project start-up. The sections on finance/funding, project expenditure, budget
information and project revision have largely been left intact. However, the section on remarks
was elaborated by giving codes/legends to use in filling in information on problems affecting project
implementation.
5.8.
Blank forms are submitted to the districts to be filled in by the district departmental heads
representing the line ministries. The main data gaps encountered in the districts are background data
on project cost and project financial and physical scheduling. This information is expected to be in the
project documents and agreements with donors, which are not forwarded to the districts. It therefore
becomes difficult to use the data collected to establish the financial and physical implementation of
projects vis--vis original designs. During the field visits, district departmental heads stressed the
importance of creating the institutional arrangements to facilitate districts to receive original and
revised project documents. They argued that this would facilitate project implementation monitoring,
and give consideration to district concerns/interests when budget reallocation decisions are made at
the line ministry headquarters.
5.9.

Departmental heads reported that they are inclined to consider PIMS as an inventory of

25

investment projects, while Development Estimates contain donor projects whose expenditures,
especially on operations and maintenance, are largely recurrent in nature. This is because donor
projects are not included in the Recurrent Estimates. This is one of the reasons behind differences in
the number of projects reported under the PIP and PIMS. This factor may also have a distortionary
impact on the economic classification of Government expenditures.
5.10. The district departmental heads fill in the information sheets and forward them to the District
Development Officer (DDO), who organizes for the data to be keyed in at the district using clerks from
the DDOs office or the District Information and Documentation Centre (DIDC). The computer
diskettes containing data files are then forwarded to the Ministry of Plannings headquarters for
printing. The printed forms containing the original data entered by project and analytical tables from
the PROREG computer program are forwarded back to the districts. An analytical report based on the
districts submissions is also prepared by the project staff, and forwarded to the district. These
analytical reports form the background information for feedback workshops where the district or
several districts meet to discuss their experiences in filling the project implementation monitoring
sheets.

SERVICE DELIVERY TO THE PARTICIPATING DISTRICTS

5.11. The projects service delivery is mainly in the form of workshops and computer training.
Workshops are grouped into (a) sensitization workshops, designed to introduce the projects
monitoring system to the districts, data capture formats, and the analytical tables produced by the
PROject REGistry (PROREG) computer program; and (b) feedback workshops to discuss the analysis
of the data submitted by the respective district(s).
5.12. Another support to the districts was the purchase of six computers under UNDP contribution
to the project, which were reportedly supplied to six out of the 14 participating districts, namely,
Kitui, Nyeri, Baringo, Bungoma, Kisumu and Kwale. The six computers were supplied without
printers. However, even those districts with access to printers are not able to print the outputs from
the PROREG computer program.
5.13. The sensitization workshops are designed to acquaint participants with the project
implementation monitoring sheets. However, one of the districts recommended that the teaching
should begin with instructions on the project cycle, and the logical framework approach for M&E of
projects and programmes. This would lead to uniform definitions of, say, when a project is deemed to
be a candidate for reporting under the PIMS (date of approval, release of funds, contractor on site, etc).
Such background training would assist in better understanding of the reporting sheets and the
usefulness of the M&E system for the needs of programme managers and horizontally within the DEC.
5.14. During the field visits, some departmental heads expressed concern about the project support
with respect to computers and the necessary improvements to the PROREG computer program in
generating useful analytical tables. On computers, the project did not provide printers and computer
paper, thus putting demands on district departments e.g. the District Planning Units which do not
even have budget lines in the central Government budget.
5.15.

District departmental heads are sometimes requested to travel to venues of sensitization,

26

training and feedback workshops with computers supplied by the project or supplied by other
programs4. This has led to breakdown of computers while in transit. Districts felt that the computers
supplied by the project should not have been moved by the project staff after they were officially
handed over to the districts. The project computers supplied to Baringo and Bungoma broke down due
to frequent movement to various training venues organized by the project; Kwale claimed that no
computer was supplied by the project; while Kitui, Nyeri and Kisumu are the only districts whose
projects computers were functional during the Missions field visit.
5.16. The PROREG program was thought inadequate for data capture since it does not contain
validation rules within a given project report or in comparison with previous submissions. Secondly,
the program and the project implementation information sheets on which it is based do not provide a
complete management information system. For example, if information on actual dates of release of
Authority to Incur Expenditure (A-I-E) were continuously entered into the computer, issues like
delays in release of A-I-E would be an output of the computer programme, rather than an input,
which would assist in standardizing definitions of time periods that constitute a delay. This would
reduce subjectivity in reporting.
5.17. Two other issues of concern raised by the district departmental heads on service delivery
relate to the efficiency/costs and coordination arrangements with the headquarters of line ministries
and other departments within the Ministry of Planning. The workshops are held in expensive hotels
which reduces the number of participants from each district. This affects coverage of reporting since
departmental heads who have not received training in computers and/or in filling the forms are
usually unwilling to fill in the forms and submit their returns. The project implementation monitoring
status workshops are attended by departmental heads and DIDC clerks, which is expected given the
latters role in coordinating PIMS submissions and in data entry. However, some departmental heads
felt that formal computer training (e.g. Lotus 1-2-3 and Word Perfect) should not combine
departmental heads and clerical officers.
5.18. Some departmental heads recommended that such a project should have concentrated on
supplying computers, printers, paper and software manuals, and save on training expenses by training
at the district headquarters. Those trained would then train other officers in the districts. Such
training would reach more beneficiaries, and reduce computer breakage since the computers would
not be moved to other locations for training workshops.
5.19. The project does not coordinate its activities with headquarters of line ministries and other
departments in the Ministry of Planning. This is expected to reduce commitment of district
departmental heads to the project implementation monitoring activity. The District Development
Officer, who is the linchpin of project implementation monitoring, officially reports to the Rural
Planning Department (RPD) of the Ministry of Planning. Since the activity is not coordinated with
RPD, there are no sanctions for noncompliance on the part of the DDO. The DDOs felt that they were
also not properly empowered to undertake the activity since the project concept was not sold to the
DEC and could not therefore be assumed to have been delivered from the Ministry of Planning
headquarters to the districts.

.
The computers were not formally handed over to the districts, and are therefore not reflected in the
districts and Rural Planning Departments inventories of equipment. The DDO, who is the head of DPU and
secretary to DDC, falls within RPD in MPND.
4

27

5.20. In some districts, the process of service delivery has also created friction between the
collaborating DDOs and the provincial planning offices. This is mainly because the workshops on
computer training are not coordinated with the Provincial Planning Offices, nor with other agencies
e.g. UNICEF which also provides similar computer training in its Child Survival and Development
(CSD) districts.

OUTPUTS
5.21. In Machakos, project coverage had increased from 10 for reference period July-December
1993 to 33 for period July-December 1994, but full coverage had not been achieved because some
departments had not reported at all while others did not report on all their projects. There were also
some inconsistencies between Report No 17 and No 19, e.g. a project being reported in design stage
in Report No 19, while it was reported as delayed in Report No 17. The district did not report on
Report No 18 covering the period January-June 1993.
5.22. In Kituis Report No 15, only 10 district departmental heads submitted their reports, while in
Report No 16, the number of departments dropped to 8. There was no full coverage of all ongoing
projects compared to the number of projects in the District Annex, Development Estimates and the
Public Investment Programme (PIP). The number of projects reported on in Baringo decreased from
47 for Report No 15 to 33 for Report No 16, and has since increased to 65 for Report No 20. Only 15
departments have submitted information sheets since the exercise started.
5.23. In Bungoma, reporting for the period July-December 1991 (Report No 15) to July-December
1993 (Report No 19) shows that the number of reporting ministries for Report No 15 were 8 covering
59 projects, compared with Report No 16 (9 ministries, 62 projects), Report No 17 (10 ministries, 61
projects), Report No 18 (10 ministries, 59 projects) and Report No 19 (8 ministries, 51 projects). The
district has not therefore ensured full coverage of ministries and projects for the reporting ministries.
5.24
Analysis of Kisumus project implementation status reports shows that, 9 departments
reported on a total of 76 projects under Report No 16, compared with Report No 17 (2 ministries, 7
projects), Report No 18 (9 ministries, 36 projects), Report No 19 (9 ministries, 65 projects) and Report
No 20 (12 ministries, 87 projects). The district has therefore made improvement in the coverage of
reporting. Analysis of Nyeris reporting status shows that, for Report No 16 (January-June 1992), 11
departmental heads reported on 48 projects compared with Report No 17 (11 ministries, 41 projects),
Report No 18 (10 ministries, 33 projects) and Report No 19 (6 ministries, 27 projects). The falling trend
in reporting is attributed to reduced number of reporting departments and lack of full coverage for the
reporting departmental heads. The reports are also submitted late e.g. Report No 19 (July-December
1993) was submitted in October 1994, when they were supposed to submit Report No 20 covering the
period January-June 1994.
5.25. In Kwale, the project implementation sheets are not filled and there is minimal activity
involving the project, though line ministries have their own ways of monitoring projects in their
ministries.
5.26.

In most pro-forma submitted by districts, information on (a) project duration was missing,

28

which made it difficult to determine whether the project implementation was progressing or delayed;
and (b) project original and revised costs were missing, making it difficult to assess the actual stage of
financial implementation as well as the projects physical progress. This is mainly because
departmental heads are not provided with copies of project documents by their line ministry
headquarters.
5.27. The data and the analytical tables based on the data are accessible to the project staff and the
district departmental heads. The information is not fed to the headquarters of line ministries by either
the MPND project staff or district-level staff due to lack of institutional arrangements for coordination
of project activities. In the districts where potential for use of the data in project management is high,
there is limited use of the data since the process was not delivered to the District Executive
Committee. The Mission was not shown any evidence that the data has been used for policy analysis.

29

CHAPTER 6: PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PROJECT COORDINATION ARRANGEMENTS
6.1.
Some of the prerequisites for effective project implementation were (a) establishment of
Strategy and Policy Analysis Division (SPAD) and the appointment of staff, National Project
Coordinator and chief technical advisor, and (b) formation of an inter-ministerial monitoring and
evaluation committee and the identification by participating ministries (principally agriculture and
livestock) of a senior technical person to coordinate with SPAD. Within the Ministry of Planning, the
project was to facilitate the Rural Planning Department to prepare the District Infrastructure
Inventory and assist CBS in the analysis of impact studies. Since most of the activities were ongoing in
the respective ministries, the project therefore envisaged that SPAD would principally facilitate the
actors to manage their respective activities, in addition to handling limited activities on its own.
6.2.
Within the Ministry of Planning, the project was transferred from Economic and Basic
Infrastructure Department to answer directly to the Director of Planning. However, since all
Departments are headed by chief economists who report directly to the Director of Planning, this
meant that the Division (which should fall under a Department) was accorded equal status with a
Department.
6.3.
The project implementation report (1990) stated that an inter-ministerial monitoring and
evaluation committee had been established, and would hold meetings on a regular basis. There was
also a project review committee chaired by the Director of External Resources Division in the
Ministry of Finance to assess progress made by each of the sub-projects of the Rural Services Design
project. Although an inter-ministerial committee on M&E was established, the committee was
short-lived. After the project became fully operational in 1991, the committee had ceased operation.
Throughout the lifetime of the project, the project has not facilitated other departments and ministries
to carry out the project components. The project therefore concentrated on project implementation
monitoring at the district level, but did not finance, say, the Rural Planning Department to undertake
the District Infrastructure Inventory. The lack of coordination between SPAD and other stakeholders
in the project document therefore compromised the number of activities that could be undertaken by
the project, and the success of those activities it undertook.
6.4.
The success of the project implementation monitoring was adversely affected by high staff
turnover of district departmental heads and district development officers and their assistants. The staff
turnover was reportedly high, and has affected implementation of district-level projects and reduced
institutional memory at the district level. However, the project implementation monitoring has had
higher than normal staff turnover for three main reasons. First, due to minimal coordination of the
project with headquarters of line ministries (for district departmental heads) and the Rural Planning
Department in MPND (for district development officers and their assistants), there are no
consultations with SPAD when transfers are effected. Second, the lack of institutionalization of the
project implementation system within the entire central Government with clear technical guidelines
and sanctions for noncompliance reduces institutional memory when a participating staff member is
transferred, as in Kitui. Third, since the project did not cover all the districts, some staffs trained under
the project were transferred to districts which were not in the projects catchment districts.

30

6.5.
During the tripartite review meetings and in the report of the mid-term review of the Rural
Services Design project, concern has been raised about the projects coordination with other
departments and ministries. The prerequisites fulfilled at the start of the project are expected to have
been maintained, and proof sought that the initial conditions had been preserved during the lifetime
of the project.
6.6.
The project staff have been instrumental in the training of district-level staff on technical
issues of filling the project implementation monitoring forms, and elementary and intermediate
computer training in Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect, Dbase and SPSS. The project deals directly with the
District Development Officers who in turn coordinate with district departmental heads. During the
projects initial stages, mainly in 1991 and 1992, these activities were coordinated with Provincial
Planning Officers, but did not involve the headquarters of line ministries or the Rural Planning
Department in the Ministry of Planning headquarters. The minimal involvement of the project with
line ministries implied that there were no sanctions for noncompliance among the DDOs or district
departmental heads. Since the DDOs are the official representatives of the Ministry of Planning at the
district-level and SPAD is located in the same Ministry, their cooperation in the exercise was higher
than that of district departmental heads. The achievements of the project in project implementation
monitoring and computer training is substantial given the minimal support from the other
departments and headquarters of line ministries, which was prompted by noncompliance with the
institutional arrangements and coordination envisaged in the project document.
6.7.
One of the major problems faced by district departmental heads is the dearth of information
on project costs and the implementation schedules, which is normally contained in the project
documents and feasibility studies. During the projects initial phase, arrangements were made with the
Ministry of Finance for such financial data to be provided from the budgetary database (Public
Investment Program, the Forward Budget, and the Recurrent and Development Estimates), and
analysis was undertaken of the process to be used in incorporating the financial data as an input to the
project implementation monitoring forms filled by the district departmental heads. Such a process of
harmonization was expected to extend to headquarters of line ministries. However, attempts to
coordinate the SPAD and Ministry of Finance databases does not seem to have been implemented after
the departure of the chief technical advisor in May 1992.
6.8.
It is difficult to pass judgement whether the participation of line ministries in providing
district-level project financial data would have succeeded. However, regardless of the success that
would have obtained in providing financial data and implementation schedules to ease the work of the
district departmental heads, such an arrangement would have spread the responsibilities for success or
failure to the entire central Government rather than to the Ministry of Planning or the project itself.
The success or otherwise of the envisaged institutional arrangement would have been an important
lesson from the first phase of the project.

PROJECT FINANCING
6.9.
The UNDP had agreed to co-finance the following four sub-projects in the Rural Services
Design project: smallholder credit, cooperatives management, oilseeds development, and monitoring
and evaluation of agricultural strategies and policies. According to the World Bank staff appraisal

31

report for Rural Services Design project dated 23 November 1988, UNDP funds will be on a parallel
(vis--vis IDA funds) and grant basis in accordance with standard UNDP terms, and would contribute
to primarily the technical assistance and training requirements of these sub-projects. It is agreed that
the Government implementing agency concerned will execute the sub-projects co-financed with
UNDP. On 12 April 1990, the Rural Services Design project clarified in an amendment to the project
that the World Bank would open a special account in Central Bank of Kenya to cater for the
operational costs of all RSD sub-projects in the IDA credit agreement.
6.10. However, the UNDP project document stated that IDA inputs, to be administered through
UNDP, will cover all equipment and miscellaneous costs, valued at US$ 443,500. The IDA
contribution was further increased to $2.2 million. There was therefore apparent misunderstanding
between the two agencies on the mode of administering IDA contribution to the project. Although
UNDP viewed the amendment (i.e. opening of a special account) as eliminating the planned
cost-sharing agreement between UNDP and the Government, the World Bank/Government of Kenya
amendment to the credit agreement was in conformity with the staff appraisal report.
6.11. The World Bank contribution was used to finance the purchase of 13 microcomputers
(including mainframe) and related accessories, and four vehicles (3 Mitsubishi Pajero and a Peugeot
504 saloon). The impact studies financed by the World Bank were (a) the maize market liberalization
study, and (b) the mid-term review of the Rural Services Design project. The World Bank credit
disbursed $1.7 million out of total credit of $ 2.2 million, i.e. about 76 percent. The credit stopped
further disbursements to the M&E component in December 1993.
6.12. The UNDP contribution to the M&E component was $ 1,508,300. The UNDP contribution has
been used to finance the recovery of the 1981/82 Rural Household Budget Survey database from
mainframe at the Government Computer Services to microcomputers, to meet the running costs of the
vehicles bought with IDA funds, purchase of six computers (without printers) for the six districts that
first participated in the M&E initial pilot exercise, and computer training and workshops for district
departmental heads. The consultancy financed by the UNDP contribution was the preparation of the
basic report of the 1981/82 Rural Household Budget Survey.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

6.13. The analysis of the project implementation process will focus on project management, training
undertaken for headquarters staff to improve their capacity to implement the activities envisaged in
the project document, and the usefulness of the tripartite review meetings in taking stock of progress
and overseeing the implementation of remedial actions where necessary.
6.14. The project was expected to hire experts, namely, an internationally-recruited Senior
Planner/Data Analyst, consultant on Evaluation Surveys to finalize the analysis of the APS data,
consultant on Agricultural Strategies to work with MOA in analysis of farm management data,
consultant on Agricultural Growth Potential to assist MOA in agricultural commodity analysis,
consultant on Multi-Market Analysis to assist in preparation of policy papers on the bases of analyzed
impact survey data, and a consultant on Spatial Mapping.
6.15.

The chief technical advisor (CTA), Mr. Roy Thompson, was hired in May 1990 to assist in the

32

district-level M&E activities. His tenure was reduced from three to two years, and the Government
counterpart to the CTA took over the management of the project. The Mission was not able to
interview the CTA since he was not in Kenya. However, according to Hussein Abby, the counterpart
felt professionally equal to or better than the expert (see H. Abby, Assessment of Capacity Building
Needs for Economic Management in Kenya, UNDP, June 1994, page 66).
6.16. The project did not hire local consultants to undertake the abovementioned activities on the
basis that there was sufficient capacity within Government. The three national project staffs absorbed
by the project from the previous Resource Management for Rural Development (RMRD) project were
used to conduct computer training for district-level staff, rather than undertaking the activities
envisaged in the project document. The capacity gaps envisaged in the project document were in the
areas of project appraisal and economic theory/econometrics, and the involvement of MPNDs
national project officers should therefore have been considered complementary to local consultants in
ensuring the success of the project.
6.17. Technical training was provided to five officers: a one-month course on Project Management
at the ESAMI institute, Arusha, in 1990 (Mr B. T. Otieno); a two-month course on Agricultural Policy
Analysis in Wye College, U.K. in 1991 (Mrs Z. Njogu); a three-month course on Monitoring and
Evaluation of Development Projects at the University of Sheffield, U.K. (Mr L.O. Obidha and Mr K.
Karuri); and a three-week course on Monitoring and Evaluation of Agriculture and Natural Resources
in Gambia (Mrs Winnie Karingithi). However, the short courses should have been more appropriately
considered as workshops, rather than the advanced training in agricultural policy analysis and project
implementation monitoring envisaged in the project document. The skills demanded to undertake
various activities in the project required higher level training in agricultural policy analysis and the
logical framework for analysis of implementation of strategies/polices and projects/programmes,
especially after it was decided that it was imprudent to recruit national consultants. The project did
not therefore transfer capacity to supervise analytical reports based on analysis of impact survey data,
and project appraisal/logical framework as the theoretical foundations for project implementation
monitoring.
6.18. The project installed a statistical computer package (SPSS) and provided manuals to be used in
the analysis of impact survey data. The survey data is analyzed within the Ministry of Planning due to
confidentiality of primary data collected under the Statistics Act. The fact that consultants analyze
survey data within the Ministry has guaranteed greater involvement of SPAD personnel in data
analysis. This has assisted the data analysts to learn on the job, and already two staff members of SPAD
are fully conversant with the SPSS package.
6.19. The capacity transferred to the districts by way of formal computer training and in filling the
project implementation sheets has focused on departmental heads and DIDC and DPU clerks. Staff
turnover has been a more serious problem among departmental heads since they can be transferred to
headquarters, while DIDC clerks (especially library assistants) stay within the loop of DIDCs across
the country. In addition, the DPU and DIDC clerks have received additional or identical computer
training from the Government and other agencies e.g. UNICEF. The knowledge transferred to the
DIDC staffs is therefore likely to be available in the next phase of the project. They provide the main
element of continuity in the activity.

33

6.20. The tripartite review process was responsive to the changing needs of the project emanating
from the early expiry of project financing from the World Bank. UNDP provided six computers
without printers and with no budgetary provisions for operations (e.g. stationery) and repair and
maintenance of computers. The computers were intended to assist the initial six participating districts
in analysis of project implementation monitoring data. The UNDP non-response on the printers and
expendables raised project costs by probably more than the cost of the facilities due to the need to
transport diskettes from the districts for the tables to be printed in SPAD.
6.21. The effectiveness of the tripartite review process was somewhat compromised by (a) quality of
project performance review reports, and (b) inadequate follow-up by Government and UNDP/OPS
delay in response to requests by the project. The quality of reporting progress was not adequate,
especially on impact studies. Contrary to claims in several project performance reports, the maize
market reform study did not use the APS data, and the overall responsibility for the National
Household Welfare Monitoring and Evaluation Survey was vested in CBS and HRSSD, rather than
SPAD. Due to the fact that the World Bank was originally to finance impact studies, there were also
delays in responding to request for financing the Basic Report of RHBS. Some of the delays could have
been due to inadequate communication between World Bank and UNDP on their joint-financing
arrangements to the project.
6.22. The UNDP tripartite review (TPR) process in monitoring the implementation of its projects is
mainly based on a periodic Project Performance and Evaluation Report (PPER), which is normally
prepared by the project coordinator. The report becomes the subject of discussion in a tripartite review
meeting. It is difficult to envisage a case where the project coordinator would report incriminating
information on his/her performance. If there is no independent verification of the issues reported on
in the PPER, other interested parties may not have a realistic picture of the project performance on the
ground.

34

CHAPTER 7: PROJECT RESULTS AND EFFECTS

FINDINGS
Impact Studies
7.1.
Building on the previous UNDP projects in the M&E territory, the project was supposed to
develop and institutionalize M&E system for use at the district and central levels to assess the
effectiveness of the agricultural and rural development strategies contained in Sessional Paper No 1 of
1986 on Economic Management for Renewed Growth and the sixth National Development Plan
(1989-93). The agricultural sector strategies included: increased crop production, study of land use
patterns for switch to more profitable farming, improved marketing and storage, and efficient
provision of farm inputs. Rural development sector strategies included rural-urban balance,
strengthening of administrative capacities of lower-level authorities, and promotion of non-farm
employment. The eleven Social Impact Monitoring System (SIMS) questionnaires developed under
the preparatory assistance to the project were to be used to capture data for monitoring.
7.2.
The project activities were intended to fall under three major categories: (a) district-level
agricultural production/marketing and household welfare monitoring surveys under the Social Impact
Monitoring System; (b) analysis of existing impact surveys data, and (c) project implementation
monitoring. The three components were jointly supposed to monitor strategies/policies and how
policies are translated into actual projects. Therefore, project implementation monitoring alone would
not fulfil the vision of the project. This is mainly because an economically and socially unviable
project could be implemented efficiently and on schedule, without contributing to the Governments
strategies/policies.
7.3.
The already collected survey data included (a) the Agricultural Production Survey, 1986/87,
(b) the Rural Household Budget Survey, 1981/82, (c) the Urban Household Budget Survey, 1982/83,
and (d) the Social Impact Data. The data was supposed to be analyzed, used in the preparation of policy
and analytical reports, and summary results displayed using computerized mapping software. On item
(d), some of the modules included in SIMS were carried out in six districts and one municipality with
the assistance of the Kenya Economic Association and UNICEF in the designated UNICEF Child
Survival and Development (CSD) districts.
7.4.
The 1986/87 Agricultural Production Survey was combined with the fourth rural child
nutrition survey so as to provide interrelationships between nutritional indicators and food security.
However, some of the APS data was lost. The 1982/83 Urban Household Budget Survey data tapes
were found in 1993 to have been overwritten with customs data. It is not possible to judge whether the
project would have carried out these activities if the data was available. The project assisted in the
transfer of 1981/82 RHBS survey data from mainframe to microcomputers and in the preparation of a
basic report based on the database. The draft basic report was discussed in a workshop but has not been
finalized. The project has successfully completed the mid-term review of the Rural Services Design
Project and the baseline study of grain market liberalization. However, the project has not prepared
policy papers based on the analysis of impact survey data. As Hussein Abby states, the unit [SPAD]
does not do any development policy analysis (see H. Abby, Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for

35

Economic Management in Kenya, UNDP, June 1994, page 21).

7.5.
The impact studies have been coordinated by SPAD and a few units of MPND (mainly CBS
and HRSSD), but have not had substantial involvement of other units of Government e.g. the Ministry
of Agriculture. There has also been too much delay between submission of draft reports and policy
workshops to discuss the findings, making the reports unusable in the intervening period. It is difficult
for a consultant to do substantial revision on a draft report prepared over two years earlier.
Project Implementation Monitoring System
7.6.
Efforts to develop and institutionalize project implementation monitoring dates back to the
early 1970s. Before PIMS was taken over by SPAD, submission of project information sheets was by
headquarters of line ministries rather than the districts. It is for this reason that PIMS project
component was viewed as a pilot activity, since the source of information was the district
headquarters. In February 1991, MPND held a workshop to introduce basic concepts of monitoring
and evaluation and to analyze the adequacy or otherwise of the implementation systems existing in
MPND. The project implementation information sheets largely correspond to the ones used by the
Office of the President in the early 1980s. However, the participating districts have made useful
recommendations on the design of PIMS sheets and the PROREG computer program, which could
form the basis for the revision of the instruments.
7.7.
The main data gaps encountered in the districts are background data on project cost and
project financial and physical scheduling. District departmental heads stressed the importance of
creating the institutional arrangements to facilitate districts to receive original and revised project
documents. The project purchased six computers without printers. Sensitization workshops have been
held to acquaint the participants with the project implementation monitoring sheets, but does not
cover technical issues e.g. the project cycle, and the logical framework for M&E of projects and
programmes.
7.8.
Two issues of concern raised by the district departmental heads on service delivery relate to
the efficiency/costs and coordination arrangements with the headquarters of line ministries and other
departments within the Ministry of Planning. The workshops are held in expensive hotels which
reduce the number of participants from each district, and formal computer training (e.g. Lotus 1-2-3
and Word Perfect) combine departmental heads and clerical officers, which is not in accordance with
Government normal protocol. The project does not coordinate its activities with headquarters of line
ministries and other departments in the Ministry of Planning. This reduces commitment of district
departmental heads to the project implementation monitoring activity as there are no sanctions for
noncompliance. The project concept was not sold to the DEC and could not therefore be assumed to
have been delivered from the Ministry of Planning headquarters to the districts. Workshops on
computer training are not coordinated with other agencies e.g. UNICEF which also provides similar
computer training in its Child Survival and Development (CSD) districts.

PROJECT INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND SUSTAINABILITY

7.9.
The PIMS sheets were not introduced to the entire central Government through a Treasury
Circular in accordance with The Exchequer and Audit Act (Cap 412 of the Laws of Kenya), which is

36

the initial step in introducing systems of Governments budgetary data collection using administrative
budget records. The project information sheets are not known in the headquarters of line ministries
and are only known to departmental heads of participating districts. The district-level activities are
not coordinated with headquarters of line ministries and provincial planning offices. The involvement
of the latter would have been crucial in the institutionalization of the activity, since the activity was in
every province except North Eastern province.
7.10. The activity is important in the planning process and in assessing the quality of public sector
service delivery. It is, however, important to institutionalize the system in future M&E activities with
the districts. This would guarantee wider participation, and introduce sanctions for noncompliance
among the departmental heads in the participating districts.

37

CHAPTER 8: THE WAY AHEAD

INTRODUCTION
8.1.
The project KEN/88/034 - Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural and Rural Development
Strategies - was designed to establish a system for monitoring and evaluating implementation effects
and impact of agricultural and rural development strategies within the context of the Sessional Paper
No 1 of 1986 on Economic Management for Renewed Growth and the sixth National Development
Plan (1989-93). As a part of the preparatory activities, the Government prepared the implementation
version of the sixth Development Plan to provide targets and guide in formulating indicators to be
used in monitoring progress in achieving the strategies and policies of the Plan. The responsibility for
coordinating Governments monitoring and evaluation of progress under the sixth Development Plan
was vested in the Strategy and Policy Analysis Division.
8.2.
The current three-year Development Plan (1994-96) underscores the importance of
monitoring and evaluation of strategies, policies and projects/programmes. However, the
implementation version of the current Plan has not been published, despite the fact it is only 18
months to the end of the Plan period. However, the Governments stated policies in the seventh
National Development Plan (1994-96) and the Sessional Paper No 1 of 1994 on Recovery and
Sustainable Development to the Year 2010 demonstrates a commitment to the centrality of M&E in
the process of economic management. The Mission supports the M&E system as conceptualized in the
project document.
8.3.
However, it is important to increase managerial and technical capacity of the Ministry of
Planning to undertake the enhanced role of M&E under a deregulated economy. The analysis below
focuses on the need for reorganization of the Ministry of Planning headquarters and the need for
increased technical and financial support to the Central Bureau of Statistics and Management
Information Services Division to oversee the M&E of strategies/polices and projects/programmes.

MINISTRY OF PLANNING AND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT HEADQUARTERS

8.4.
Within the organization of the Kenya Government, the role of the Ministry of Planning is to
coordinate the planning function of the entire central Government, including those of local
authorities via its planning unit in the Ministry of Local Government. However, one of the major
constraints to effective coordination of planning function is the proliferation of ministries. The
proliferation of Ministries and overlap of functions contribute to (a) decline in efficiency of public
service mainly due to spreading the budget too thinly, thereby eroding the implementation capacity of
each ministry, and (b) conflict and problems of horizontal coordination between ministries.
8.5.
The Government is undertaking a civil service reform programme. However, the reform effort
was not preceded by a rationalization of the organization of Government so as to depress the demand
for labour. A leaner organizational structure with fewer ministries would create a clearer division of
labour and good mechanisms for coordination by the Ministry of Planning. Lack of clear division of
labour within central Government has also affected the operation of MPND since some planning
functions have been conducted by the Office of the President (e.g. PIMS in the 1980s) and Ministry of

38

Finance (e.g. PIP before 1992).

8.6.
Within the Ministry of Planning there is need for reorganization of departments to minimize
overlap of responsibilities. The reorganization should ensure that Divisions are organizationally nested
within Departments, i.e. a divisional head reports to a departmental head, who in turn reports to the
Director of Planning. The fragmentation of the Ministry has been caused, in part, by demands of
donors to create new departments/divisions to undertake project activities. The first step is a
functional classification of departments, and design of donor projects that benefit the departments that
perform a particular function, rather than the current practice of moving the donor-funded functions
to a department created to house the project. As was demonstrated in this report, the unwillingness to
share resources with those departments that traditionally undertake those functions can compromise
the achievement of outputs envisaged in a project.
8.7.
The functional classification of departments should also focus on the Central Bureau of
Statistics vis--vis other departments at the Ministry of Planning headquarters. For example, the
projects undertaken by SPAD (for the UNDP KEN/88/034 project) and the Human Resources and
Social Services Department (HRSSD) involve support to the Central Bureau of Statistics to carry out
surveys and analysis of data. The fact that this support is not direct may conceal the strengths and
weaknesses of CBS in a standalone environment and hence delay the implementation of remedial
measures that may be necessary to increase CBS capacity to collect and analyze survey data. If the
technical capacity to undertake analysis of survey data indeed exists in the MPND headquarters, the
personnel should then be transferred to CBS.
8.8.
The Management Information Services Division (MISD) undertakes computer training in
software packages, develops computer packages (e.g. PROREG), and preventive maintenance and
servicing of existing computers and accessories. The Division has 17 members of staff. Three out of
these were absorbed to support the UNDP KEN/88/034 in computer training and in the use of
PROREG after the former Resource Management for Rural Development (RMRD) project ended in
June 1992.
8.9.
The Division has faced a high staff turnover. In addition, although the Division is mandated by
the Ministry to undertake preventive maintenance, there is no budgetary provision for the purchase of
spares. Computers have therefore been non-functional due to lack of minor spares. Although the
project was supposed to support the Division, the support provided was through cooptation of three
project staff, rather than direct support that would have addressed the critical issues compromising the
performance of the Division, mainly equipment, training and operation and maintenance expenses
(spares, acquisition of software packages, etc).
8.10. The M&E activity envisaged in the current National Development Plan (and which
incidentally corresponds to the vision in project UNDP KEN/88/034) requires personnel with
background academic training in: (a) project appraisal, including project cycle and logical framework
for project implementation monitoring, and (b) economic theory and econometrics and their
application in empirical work, i.e. the transformation of theoretical paradigms into real world
applications. Administratively, the head of M&E activity should be a chief economist, so as to have
sufficient authority to coordinate line ministries and other departments in MPND.

39

CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS

8.11. Since the late 1980s, CBS has undergone a process of self re-examination that resulted in two
symposia, on household-based and establishment-based data collection activities. In September 1988,
CBS organized a symposium on statistical censuses and surveys, mainly focusing on household-based
surveys undertaken using the national sample. In November 1990, CBS held another symposium of
producers and users of statistics to take stock of data collected and statistics produced, and to prepare a
forward action plan. The review of CBS activities in the 1990 symposium covered nearly all regular
data collection activities that feed into the annual Economic Survey and Statistical Abstract.
8.12. There were also two external reviews, carried out by Judith Heyer (1990) and K.W. Mwarania
(1991). Heyer (1990) evaluated the range of data available in Kenya on living conditions including
demography, food, poverty, education, communication, housing and amenities, and employment. The
review also included an assessment of census and household-based surveys undertaken within the
national sample survey programme. Heyer recommended that CBS reduce its data collection and
analysis in line with available resources, and make a major effort to solicit for funds and expertise to
expedite processing and analysis of survey data that had been collected but not analyzed. These
included the 1981/82 Rural Household Budget Survey and the 1982/83 Urban Household Budget
Survey. Mwarania (1991) argued for strengthening of CBS capacity (personnel and financial resources)
so as to allow for generation of economic and social data disaggregated to the district level.
During January-October 1992, the Central Bureau of Statistics undertook a National Statistical
Needs Assessment Project headed by Harris Mule, former Permanent Secretary in Kenyas Ministry of
Finance and with financial support from Netherlands Government. The report, which runs to 375
pages, identified some of the problems facing the Bureau as its outdated institutional structure; the
general resource constraint; inadequacy of professional personnel; methodological problems; statutory
problems; and problems of collaboration between producers and users of statistics. The needs
assessment recommended the elevation of CBS into an autonomous institution, but attached to a
parent ministry. CBS should hasten the publication of the study so as to give the Government, users of
statistics, and the donor community a chance to discuss the findings.
8.13.

8.14. The Directorate of Personnel Management in the Office of the President in July 1992
completed the Report on the Organization, Operations and Staffing of the Central Bureau of Statistics
(Kenya, 1992c). The report recommended a reorganization of CBS, including expansion in staff and
facilities, the creation of a Finance and Administration section to handle all the finance,
administrative and personnel matters so as to relieve the professionals from these duties, creation of a
Public Relations section to handle clients queries and organize seminars/workshops, and redefine
levels of confidentiality of data so that users can access data for analysis so as to reduce CBS workload
in data processing. This report has not received wide circulation.
8.15. Beginning 1993, the Government has made some far reaching policies aimed at reducing the
role of the state in production, enhancing efficiency, and reducing corruption. However, economic
liberalization should be accompanied by training of economic managers and statisticians on
economy-wide effects of changes in key variables (e.g. money supply) and new ways of collecting
economic data e.g. valuation of imports and exports under a floating exchange rate regime and
collection of agricultural price and production data in a competitive market structure. The extensive

40

marketing and privatization reforms have increased production and sales from sources other than
parastatals, companies and estates which have been the traditional sources of most information. In
future, such information would come from imputations of production per hectare for individual crops
and livestock products, from both smallholdings and large farms/estates. The CBS staff need to be
retrained in data collection in a deregulated environment, and more funds be allocated in the
recurrent account to carry out these activities.
8.16. While many authors have decried the inability of CBS to analyze survey data and release
survey results in time, this has probably been caused by lack of a clear policy on data archival system.
Although CBS has now moved from the mainframe to personal computers, the risk of loss of data still
remain5. An urgent need is for CBS to undertake an assessment of its data archival system, transfer
data for previous surveys and censuses to more advanced and recent magnetic media, and explore the
possibilities of opening a safe-custody account with the Central Bank of Kenya or a commercial bank
for storage of magnetic archives of survey data files.
8.17. CBS plans to add the non-NASSEP districts (Isiolo, Marsabit, Samburu, Turkana districts and
the whole of North Eastern province) to the NASSEP frame. However, obtaining staff to maintain the
NASSEP and data collection in the currently non-NASSEP districts may initially face some difficulties
due to (a) the ongoing civil service retrenchment, and (b) identifying and employing at least six
enumerators in every district who understand the local dialect. District statistical officers can however
be posted from the existing personnel at CBS.
8.18. CBS should undertake the following activities as a matter of priority. First, a technical report
on the NASSEP ought to be published once the inclusion of the currently non-NASSEP districts is
completed. There is also need to publish the National Statistical Needs Assessment Project report
completed in 1992 and the Directorate of Personnel Managements (Office of the President) Report on
the Organization, Operations and Staffing of the Central Bureau of Statistics (1992). This would help
to focus donor attention on CBS activities, and invite debate on the institutional developments
necessary to strengthen CBS capacity to undertake its role in a more demanding socio-political and
economic environment.

5 The mainframe computer of the Government Computer Services is under the control of the Ministry of
Finance, and CBS therefore lacked computing autonomy as it had to compete for computer time with other data
processing tasks from the Ministry of Finance and other agencies.

41

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE

In-Depth Evaluation of Project KEN/88/034: Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural and Rural
Development Strategies
1.

Background and Information

The project started operations in 1990 as part of the multi-donor financed Rural Services Design
Programme. It is the result of a project preparatory assistance by the UNDP (KEN/87/015). It is
executed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (OPS) and implemented by the Office of
the Vice-President and Ministry of Planning and National Development. The overall budget of the
project was $1,915,800 with an anticipated cost-sharing from Government of $443,500.
It was designed to run for five years and was operational from 1990 to 1994. A terminal report has
already been produced and deliberated upon in a terminal tripartite review meeting. In view of the
importance of the rural (and agricultural) sector to the economy and the likely impact of effective
follow-up of resource allocation and management in the sector to the economy, it was felt necessary to
field a mission to evaluate the impact of the project, and outline lessons learnt. The meeting hence
recommended an extension of the project by six months (this was granted) to allow for an in-depth
evaluation. This will form an important basis for UNDPs future activities in the M&E area.
2.

Project Objective and Outputs

The overall objective of the project is to enable the Government at all levels (from the district to the
Office of the President) to effectively implement agricultural and rural development programmes with
appropriate feedback/feed-forward mechanisms that will ensure maximum impact on the targeted
rural population and improve development resource allocation at the district level.
The following were to be the projects outputs:
i

A set of reports assessing the institutional, technical, and logistical issues which
constrain/facilitate the monitoring and evaluation of district-level rural development.

ii

An official document outlining a schedule for the implementation of the M&E system in the
41 (now 53) districts.

iii

Design/dissemination of inputs and introduction of a system for monitoring and evaluating the
implementation and impact of the countrys agricultural/rural development strategies in the
41 districts on the basis of a phased work-plan.

iv

Capacity established at the district and central level to operate the M&E system.

Reports on already collected impact evaluation survey data.

vi

Maps showing regional differences in the allocation of development resources and impact of

42

development policies and strategies.

vii

A periodically updated document on the critical factors responsible for unsatisfactory

implementation of agricultural and rural development policies and strategies.

viii Provision of advanced training to seven staff members in planning and policy
analysis/formulation.

3.

ix

Four policy papers and related recommendations on critical policy/strategic issues as reviewed
by in-depth analyses of existing impact evaluation survey data and the M&E findings.

Strengthened district level policy analysis and decision analysis capacity to facilitate
programme/project adjustment and refinement in line with the district focus policy.

xi

A smooth functioning district level system comprising the District Planning Unit, District
Executive Committee, and District Development Committee.
Specific Terms of Reference

The evaluation mission will undertake the following:

a) Determine whether the project design was logical and coherent.
b) A review of the project as designed to determine its soundness and whether, based on the
situation at the time, the institutional framework for the project was appropriate.
c) Review of the project as designed, and determine whether objectives and outputs were clearly
stated, realistic, measurable and achievable given the time and resources endowed to the
project.
d) Determine the strong and weak points in conceptualization and design of the project which
promoted or impeded the production of outputs and achievement of immediate objectives. It
should offer suggestions for improvements in future.
e) A review of policy workshops, consultancies and staff development training undertaken under
the project.
f) Select a sample of six districts where M&E system has been established under the project and
review its viability, sustainability and replicability.
g) Assess the impact of the project on the development of a comprehensive monitoring and
evaluation system in Kenya.
h) Articulate the Governments policy in the area of monitoring and evaluation and make
recommendations on future activities, strategies and approaches for implementation as a
component of the sixth country programme and on a long-term basis.

43

4.

Composition of the Mission

The evaluation mission will be undertaken by a team of experts:

a) One member to be appointed by the UNDP who will act as team leader. This member will also
represent the executing agency (OPS/UNDP). The team leader will be responsible for the
finalization of the report.
b) One member to be appointed by the Government of Kenya.
5.

Consultations in the Field

The Mission will maintain close liaison with the UNDP Resident Representative, the Director of
Planning and staff of the Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Planning, staff of the Ministry of
Agriculture, and district level staff of districts to be visited.

44

ANNEX 2: ITINERARY FOR THE EVALUATION MISSION

(Wednesday, March 22 to Friday May 19, 1995)
Wednesday, March 22
(afternoon):

Briefing at UNDP office

Friday, March 24
(morning):

Briefing at the Ministry of Planning and National Development offices

Monday, March 27 Thursday, March 30:

Review of project documents and other materials

Friday, March 31:

Interview Project Coordinator and UNDP personnel

Monday, April 3:

Complete interviews with the Project Coordinator and start

interviews with other staff of Strategy and Policy Analysis Division
(SPAD) in the Ministry of Planning and National Development

Tuesday, April 4:

Complete interviewing of staff of Strategy and Policy Analysis

Division (SPAD) in the Ministry of Planning and National
Development

Wednesday, April 5:

Interview staff members of the Public Investment Programme (PIP) in

the Ministry of Planning and National Development

Thursday, April 6:

Interview staff of the Rural Planning Department (RPD) and

Management Information Services Division (MISD) in the Ministry of
Planning and National Development

Friday, April 7:

Interview Project Coordinator

Monday, April 10:

Finalize interviews with SPAD personnel

Tuesday, April 11:

Interview Director of Planning, Ministry of Planning and National

Development, followed by further review of background documents

Wednesday, April 12:

Conduct interviews in Machakos District headquarters

Thursday, April 13:

Conduct interviews in Kitui District headquarters

Friday, April 14:

Travel back to Nairobi

Monday, April 17:

Travel to Baringo

45

Tuesday, April 18:

Conduct interviews in Baringo District headquarters

Wednesday, April 19:

Conduct interviews in Bungoma District headquarters

Thursday, April 20:

Conduct interviews in Kisumu District headquarters

Friday, April 21:

Travel back to Nairobi

Monday, April 24:

Travel to Nyeri and interview the Provincial Planning Office

Tuesday, April 25:

Conduct interviews in Nyeri District headquarters

Wednesday, April 26:

Travel to Kwale

Thursday, April 27:

Conduct interviews in Kwale District headquarters

Friday, April 28:

Travel back to Nairobi, conduct interview with head of DIDCs in the

Rural Planning Department

Monday, May 1:

Holiday (Labour Day)

Tuesday, May 2:

Interview UNDP staff

Wednesday, May 3:

Report writing

Friday, May 19:

Hand in the draft report

Friday, May 26:

Presentation of report

Monday, May 29:

Finalization of report

Tuesday, May 30:

Finalization of report

46

ANNEX 3: REPORT OF THE FIELD VISITS

1.
The evaluation Mission visited seven district headquarters to verify the impact of the project at
the district-level. Six of the districts visited were involved in the first phase of project implementation
monitoring (Kitui, Baringo, Bungoma, Kisumu, Nyeri and Kwale), while the seventh (Machakos) was
included in the project later. The Mission held discussions with the departmental heads in joint
meetings. However, discussions with the provincial administration, i.e. District Commissioners and
District Officers, were held separately, as was discussions with Provincial Planning Officers. The
views of each of the three parties - provincial administration, departmental heads, Provincial Planning
Officers - have however been reproduced here without reference to source of the information to
protect the respondents. The write-up is based on the information collected from the field and the
reports available at the MPNDs headquarters.

MACHAKOS DISTRICT
2.
A one-week sensitization workshop for Machakos and Embu districts was held in Nyeri in
May 1993 to (a) suggest measures for improving the process of data collection and dissemination at the
district level; (b) find out problems and potentials that hinder or promote monitoring at the district
level; (c) assess the adaptability of the PIMS data capture format used by MPND; and (d) make
proposals for effective data collection and analysis on a continuous basis. The workshop was attended
by 13 departmental heads from Machakos, while Embu had 11.
3.
The sensitization workshop recommended changes to the data capture format, including: (a)
putting the title Ministry of Planning and National Development, (b) including Local Authority as
a possible institution responsible for the project, and (c) the forms should be validated by the
respective head of department. On support to the district, the workshop stressed the need for
provision of copies of project documents to the district, equipping the DIDCs with computers and
stationery, and training clerical staff and departmental heads in computer literacy (Lotus, Word
Perfect and Dbase) and project registry program (PROREG).
4.
A one-week workshop for departmental heads was held in Nyeri in September 1994 to
evaluate the progress Machakos district had made in filling out the project registry forms, especially
report No 19 (for July-December, 1993). The workshop noted that, although project coverage had
increased from 10 for reference period July-December 1993, to 33 for the period July-December 1994,
full coverage had not been achieved because some departments had not reported at all while others did
not report on all the projects. In addition, most departments reported only on projects which were
under implementation. Some inconsistencies were also noted between report No 17 and No 19, e.g. a
project being reported in design stage in report No 19, while it was reported as delayed in report No
17. The district did not report on Report No 18 covering the period January-June 1993.
5.
Six clerks from various departments represented in Machakos district were in May 1993
trained in data collection and data entry into the PROREG program. One clerk has been transferred.
The clerks have very limited access to the computer, and therefore hardly apply the knowledge learnt.
The departmental heads are not trained in PROREG. However, four departmental heads received
three-weeks training on Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect 5.1 and Dbase 3 software packages.

47

6.
The project did not supply a computer to Machakos. There is only one computer at the DSOs
office. Although the computer is available for PROREG work, it is not accessible to other users. The
printer broke down, and hence no printing of PROREG forms is done at the district level.
7.
On project design and implementation, the departmental heads reported that the district
requirements are not strictly followed in the preparation of the Public Investment Programme (e.g.
new projects slotted in which were not proposed at the district-level), which affect the monitoring
exercise since background project information is not available to the departmental heads. Most
departmental heads consider projects as candidates for PIMS if they involve capital formation, while
PIP includes all donor projects regardless of whether they finance recurrent expenditure (e.g.
UNICEF-sponsored child immunization). There is little horizontal coordination at the district-level
on project data, except for a project implemented by more than one Ministry. In such cases, each
Ministry reports its component separately. The Mission was informed that, if computer facilities were
available, training expenses would be considerably reduced as trained departmental heads can act as
trainers at the district level.
8.
The DIDC is located far from the District headquarters where the DDO and departmental
heads are housed. The DIDC is manned by a trained assistant librarian, who works alone. The DIDC
therefore closes when he is on leave. The DIDC does not have water and electricity. In addition, the
DIDC needs burglar proofing before computers can be installed. Cataloguing of publications is done in
Nairobi as the Dewey book classification system is not available in Machakos. The demand for the
DIDC services is low due to (a) its location in relation to the departmental heads, and (b) shortage of
relevant Government publications. For example, the DIDC did not have copies of the 1989 Population
Census, the 1994-96 National Development Plan, 1994-96 District Development Plans (other than for
Machakos) and recent Sessional Papers. The Mission was informed that demand for DIDC services
would increase if regular Government publications sent to the District heads are finally domiciled in
the DIDC.

KITUI DISTRICT
9.
Kitui was among the first six districts to implement the project at the local level. A
sensitization workshop for departmental heads was held in Nyeri in October 1991, which was
followed by a similar workshop for DPU staff in July 1992. In March 1994, departmental heads were
trained in Dbase, Word Perfect and Lotus, which was followed by advanced training in the same
packages in December 1994. The trained staff complained that program manuals are not provided after
training for reference at the district headquarters, and hence can not advance the training received at
the workshops. Departmental heads have not been trained in PROREG, but the Assistant District
Development Officer (ADDO) and DIDC staffs understand and use the program.
10.
A project implementation monitoring workshop for departmental heads was held in Nyeri in
February 1993. The workshop noted that in Report No 15, only 10 departmental heads submitted their
reports, while in Report No 16, the number of departments dropped to 8. There was no full coverage of
all ongoing projects compared to the number of projects in the District Annex, Development Estimates
and the Public Investment Programme (PIP). In most pro-forma submitted, information on (a) project
duration was missing, which made it difficult to determine whether the project implementation was

48

progressing well or delayed; and (b) project original and revised costs were missing, making it difficult
to assess the actual stage of financial implementation as well as the projects physical progress. The
workshop participants emphasised the need for departmental heads to be provided with copies of
project documents by their line ministry headquarters.
11.
There are two computers at the DIDC office: (a) an Olivetti M240 21.2 Megabytes computer
donated by UNICEF, which runs on DOS 3.3, and (b) a 486 speed, 167 Megabytes computer donated
by KEN/88/034. For the purpose of data management, the Olivetti computer is not capable of handling
database programs. The only printer at the DIDC had broken down. The computers are accessible to
all DPU staff as well as other computer-literate officers at the district headquarters. The computers
also handle work from the DCs office. Among the departmental heads, only the DSO has a
microcomputer in his office.
12.
Some of the problems experienced in filling out project registry forms include lack of
background project financial information. Kitui and Kisumu are currently using a revised PIMS
questionnaire, but some of the variables can not be analyzed and feedback received since the PROREG
program has not been amended. The critical resources required were: (a) project documents and other
project details from the Ministries headquarters, (b) maintenance budget for computers and printers,
and (c) the need for advanced training in the software packages, especially Dbase. The departmental
heads reported that the data needs for the PROREG has now made it necessary to compile more
information on their projects, which is useful in their day-to-day project management.
13.
The DIDC is manned by a trained assistant librarian, while the assistant has received
on-the-job training. The head of DIDC was in 1992 trained on Lotus, Dbase and Word Perfect under
UNICEF funding. The DIDC staff input data into the PROREG program on behalf of departmental
heads who are not computer literate. As in Machakos, the DIDC did not have copies of the 1989
Population Census, the 1994-96 National Development Plan, 1994-96 District Development Plans
(other than for Kitui) and recent Sessional Papers. The DIDC serves about six users per week.

BARINGO DISTRICT
14.
A sensitization workshop for departmental heads was held in Nakuru in July 1991, followed
by another workshop in March 1992 to assess the submissions from the district. A three-day project
implementation monitoring workshop for 4 departmental heads and 3 clerical officers was held in July
1992. The workshop covered instructions for filling the PIMS information sheet; the use of PROREG
program for data entry and generation of analytical tables; and introduction to computer Disk
Operating System (DOS). The workshop also discussed the adequacy of the PIMS form and the
PROREG computer program and made useful recommendations to the existing formats.
15.
The number of projects reported on decreased from 47 for Report No 15 to 33 for Report No
16, and has since increased to 65 for Report No 20. Only 15 departments have submitted information
sheets since the exercise started. Majority of the reporting departments omit information on
implementation schedules and project costs, making it difficult to determine the financial
implementation of the projects. Departmental heads have suggested improvements to the information
sheets and the PROREG computer program, e.g. the need for validation checks during data entry
based on a particular periods other data fields or on information already entered for the previous

49

periods.
16.
Seven departmental heads were in April 1994 trained in introduction to computers, Lotus,
Dbase and Word Perfect 5.1. Out of the seven, three were in December 1994 trained at intermediate
level on the same software packages, including introduction to SPSS. Three clerical officers were
trained in the same software packages in April 1993. There has been no training on PROREG,
although one clerk at the DIDC knows how to operate the PROREG program. The project provided
the district a computer without printer. In late 1994, the project computer broke down due to frequent
movement to various training venues organized by the project. The district had been using PROREG
on a UNICEF-provided computer which has also broken down. There were no backups of the
PROREG database for Baringo at the district headquarters
17.
The DIDC is manned by a Library Assistant, while the DDOs clerk also assists if the DIDC
Library Assistant is on leave or has to attend to other official duties. The DIDC had the 1994-96
National Development Plan, 1989 census reports, and Baringo District 1994-96 Development Plan, but
does not receive sessional papers. The DIDC serves about 2-3 clients per day.

BUNGOMA DISTRICT
18.
A three-day sensitization workshop for departmental heads and DIDC staff was held in
September 1991. The workshop covered the objectives of the project implementation monitoring at
the district-level, and introduction to Participatory Approach in Problem Solving (PAIPS) as applied
to Bungoma district. This was followed by the project implementation monitoring workshop for 3
departmental heads and 5 clerical officers in June 1992, which covered the historical background of
the existing PIMS system, instructions on filling the project monitoring sheets, the analytical tables
from PROREG using database for Bungoma district (July-December 1991, for the only Ministry that
reported). In August one departmental head, two deputy heads and 2 library assistants received
introductory computer training in Lotus 1-2-3, DOS, Word Perfect and Dbase. This was followed by
intermediate-level training in December 1994 on the same packages plus SPSS for one departmental
head, one deputy and one library assistant.
19.
A project implementation workshop held in November 1992 assessed submissions for report
No 15 (July-December 1991). The quality of information was incomplete, and in some cases
inaccurate. Out of 14 sectoral departments responsible for project implementation in the district, only
nine reported covering 63 ongoing projects. The participants made extensive recommendations on
improvement in the project information sheet and the PROREG computer program.
20.
A comparative analysis of reporting for the period July-December 1991 (Report No 15) to
July-December 1993 (Report No 19) shows that number of reporting ministries for Report No 15 were
8 covering 59 projects, compared with Report No 16 (9 ministries, 62 projects), Report No 17 (10
ministries, 61 projects), Report No 18 (10 ministries, 59 projects) and Report No 19 (8 ministries, 51
projects). The district has not therefore ensured full coverage of ministries and projects for reporting
ministries. The departmental heads explained that it was difficult to obtain background financial
information on projects.
21.

The district departmental heads argued that mode of delivery of services has implications on

50

the number of people who can be trained. They recommended that the future focus should be on
provision of sufficient equipment and running costs, while the training can focus on district-level
trainers followed by local training at the district headquarters. In addition, the training does not
provide the logical framework for measuring efficiency in implementation of projects, and does not
even provide information on the project cycle which is a necessary component of project monitoring.
This would avoid ambiguity on, say, when a project is deemed to have started (e.g. when contractor on
site, when funds approved, or when funds released). This also affects the conceptualization of delays in
project implementation and reasons for such delays.
22.
The district management expressed concern about the domicile and rights of ownership of
items donated to the districts by the project. The computer provided by the project broke down after it
was transported to Embu in December 1994 for a workshop.
23.
The DIDC is manned by a trained library assistant while the deputy has not received formal
library training. The DIDC does not receive publications from departmental heads on an organized
basis. The departmental heads rarely use the DIDC facilities.

KISUMU DISTRICT
24.
A project implementation monitoring workshop for five district departmental heads and two
DIDC clerks was held in August 1992, which covered historical development of the existing project
monitoring system, instructions on filling the project information sheet, and application of the project
registry computer program. A further workshop to evaluate the quality and coverage of submissions
from the district was held in November 1992. The data is entered in the districts and submitted to the
Ministrys headquarters in Nairobi for printing.
25.
A comparative analysis of project implementation status reports shows that 9 departments
reported on a total of 76 projects under Report No 16, compared with Report No 17 (2 ministries, 7
projects), report No 18 (9 ministries, 36 projects), Report No 19 (9 ministries, 65 projects) and Report
No 20 (12 ministries, 87 projects). The district has therefore made improvement in the coverage of
reporting. However, some of the departments submit forms with blank spaces especially on
implementation schedules, and background information on project costs. Due to the limited number
of departmental heads invited to the project implementation workshops, there is tendency to invite
those who have previously submitted forms, thereby reducing the scope for netting those who have
not reported adequately or not reported at all.
26.
The departmental heads expressed the need for better coordination by headquarters of line
ministries in the design of monitoring and evaluation instruments e.g. manuals and information sheets
to reduce the burden in the districts. However, the monitoring and evaluation exercise was described
as very useful since it would also compel the headquarters of line ministries to disclose to the districts
the financial allocations, thereby reducing reallocation of budgeted funds at ministry headquarters.
27.
The district heads expressed concern over high staff turnover due to transfers. This has
affected project implementation in a number of line ministries. It was felt that the Government should
endeavour to observe the guide in the Blue Book (1987, page 39) which states that officers should stay
in an area for at least three years to enable them to see some projects through from proposal to

51

completion. The high staff turnover also affects project implementation monitoring due to loss of
institutional memory.
28.
The training, workshops and seminars for Kisumu district are conducted without the
involvement of the provincial planning office, making it difficult to coordinate training with other
sponsors in the province e.g. UNICEF which has been involved in computer training in Kisumu
district under its Child Survival and Development programme. Some of those who have received
computer training under the project had previously received similar training especially from UNICEF
due to lack of coordination of computer training activities within the district.
29.
There are two computers within the DPU: a 21 megabytes computer belonging to the District
Statistical Officer and a 167 megabytes computer supplied by the project. The computers can not be
housed in the DIDC since the DIDC is a wooden structure.

NYERI DISTRICT
30.
A sensitization workshop for Nyeri district departmental heads was held in October 1991.
Other workshops held include (a) a training workshop on filling the forms and the PROREG computer
programme, and (b) project implementation monitoring workshops to share experiences with other
districts. Computer training on introductory knowledge of Lotus, Word Perfect and Dbase for
departmental heads and clerical officers was conducted in November 1992. A similar introductory
course for 6 departmental heads was conducted in April 1994, followed by intermediate-level training
in the same packages in December 1994 which was attended by three out of the six departmental
heads that attended the introductory course. Four clerks from the district received introductory
training in Lotus, Word Perfect and Dbase in June 1993.
31.
A comparative analysis of reporting status shows that, for Report No 16 (January-June 1992),
11 departmental heads reported on 48 projects compared with report No 17 (11 ministries, 41
projects), Report No 18 (10 ministries, 33 projects), and Report No 19 (6 ministries, 27 projects). The
falling trend in reporting is attributed to reduced number of reporting departments and lack of full
coverage for the reporting departmental heads. The reports are also submitted late e.g. Report No 19
(July-December 1993) was submitted in October 1994, when they were supposed to submit Report No
20 covering the period January-June 1994. The majority of the reporting departments submitted
information sheets with blank spaces especially in respect of implementation schedules, budget codes
and costs. The apparent lack of interest in the activity was attributed to the fact that many
departmental heads have not been trained by the project and therefore do not feel the need to commit
their time and their respective departments resources to the exercise. The departmental heads felt
that the project added responsibilities to the district departmental heads and the district planning unit
without matching with resources.
32.
The training, workshops and seminars for Nyeri district are conducted without the
involvement of the provincial planning office. The team work initiated in 1991 did not endure for long
after the SPAD headquarters decided to pilot the project on its own. Initially the provincial planning
office understood that the project would be piloted in Nyeri district as a show case study, but the
project can not be easily replicated in other districts in the province since the activities in the pilot
district were implemented without official procedures and protocols. The district team felt that

52

increased cooperation between the project and the Rural Planning Department at the Ministrys
headquarters (the department under which the district and provincial planning offices fall) and the
project and the headquarters of line ministries would have made it possible for the Government to
replicate the project with minimal technical support from the project. The departmental heads also
recommended that the cost of training could be substantially reduced if training was decentralized to
the district headquarters.
33.
The departmental heads reported that background financial information was difficult to
obtain from headquarters of line ministries, and suggested that SPAD should create a centralized
record of all Government projects in a district. The recommendations the district has made on the
necessary amendments to the information sheet and the PROREG program have not been
implemented. In addition, some of the information collected on the revised forms was not keyed in as
the PROREG software package has not been amended.
34.
The project provided the district with a 167 megabytes computer without a printer in 1993.
An Epson dot-matrix printer was taken to the Ministrys headquarters in August 1994 and has not
been returned.
35.
The DIDC is located in a modern complex constructed by IFAD, which also houses the
members of the DPU other than the District Statistical Officer. Departmental heads do not deposit
documents in the DIDC regularly, although plans are under way to bring up the issue in a future
meeting of the district executive committee.

KWALE DISTRICT
36.
A sensitization workshop for district departmental heads was held in July 1991 covering the
objectives of the project implementation monitoring and the relevance of the problem analysis matrix
for district level project monitoring. A follow-up workshop was conducted in September 1992 on the
historical background of the existing project implementation monitoring, filling the project
information sheet and the analytical tables produced by the PROREG computer programme. In May
1993, a project implementation monitoring workshop for Kwale and Taita Taveta departmental heads
was held, representing 13 departments from Kwale while Taita Taveta had 11. The workshop also
covered the historical background of the existing project implementation monitoring, filling the
project information sheet and the analytical tables produced by the PROREG computer programme.
37.
Due to staff turnover, very few departmental heads currently in Kwale have received training
under the project. There is very little information from the departments on their ongoing projects, and
there are no operational computer facilities. The project did not provide a computer to Kwale and the
other computers provided by UNICEF and IFAD were not in working condition.
38.
The PROREG program was last used in 1992. The project implementation sheets are not filled
and there is minimal activity involving the project, though line ministries have their own ways of
monitoring projects in their ministries. SPAD has not followed up on the lack of reporting by Kwale.
The departmental heads felt that the project was not wholly handed over to the district since it did not
involve all ministries through, say, the DEC. Staff turnover would not have had such a deleterious
effect on the success of the activity if the project implementation procedures were institutionalized (as

53

in personnel and accounts departments of the central Government). In addition, there was poor
coordination since the DDO was not facilitated by provision of resources and the right institutional
setup e.g. by creating a district steering committee.
39.
The DIDC is manned by a trained library assistant and a clerical officer from the DDOs office.
The DIDC had copies of latest Economic Survey, national Development Plan, and district
development plans for all the districts in Coast province. The DIDC clients are researchers (about 4-5
per week) and departmental heads (about one per week).

54

ANNEX 4: DISTRICT INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE PROJECT

DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
1.
The District Development Committee (DDC) is the supreme body on matters pertaining to
development in the district. The membership of DDC includes the District Commissioner (chairman),
departmental heads of line ministries, members of Parliament, and District KANU Chairman6. The
DDC establishes local development priorities, monitors the technical work of its Executive Committee
and other subcommittees, and monitors the progress of rural development activities in the district.
2.

The DDC is expected to:

a)
b)
c)
d)

Consider new project proposals submitted by the Divisional Development Committees;

Establish priorities for future projects in the District Development Plan;
Ensure that implementation of all district-specific projects is undertaken;
Ensure that completed projects and existing infrastructure are effectively operated and
maintained;
e) Endorse the districts annual submission of project proposals to the ministries in the Annual
Annex to the District Development Plan; and
f) Monitor the private sector investments with a view to (i) encouraging private sector
development as a source of income and employment opportunities; (ii) creating an enabling
environment through provision of infrastructure e.g. roads, water and electricity; and (iii)
coordinating private sector investments with Government and NGO-sponsored activities to
ensure complementarity and avoid unnecessary duplication.

DISTRICT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

3.
The District Executive Committee (DEC) is the technical arm of the District Development
Committee and provides the necessary advice on design and feasibility of proposed development
priorities. The DEC is headed by the District Commissioner (DC) and its membership is dominated by
district departmental heads of each line ministry. The principal functions of the DEC are:
a) Service the District Development Committee;
b) Make operational decisions within the guidelines provided by the DDC;
c) Coordinate and monitor project implementation to ensure efficient utilization of the resources
available in the district;
d) Prepare District Development Plans and Annual Annexes for submission to the DDC;
e) Prepare briefing notes on all project proposals and reports to be submitted to the DDC; and
f) Ensure that project proposals from the districts conform with overall national development
6

.
The membership of the district ruling party (KANU) chairman has not been repealed although Kenya
conducted its first multiparty elections in December 1992. The various district institutions covered in this Annex
are controlled by the provincial administration and the civil service. Although members of Parliament attend
the DDC, the DDC does not exist in the statutes enacted by Parliament.
55

strategy and objectives.

DISTRICT PLANNING UNIT

4.
The main objective of the District Planning Unit (DPU) is to serve as a secretariat to the
district executive committee for day-to-day coordination of the planning and implementation work in
the district. The members of DPU are the District Development Officer (chairman), District Statistical
Officer (secretary), programme officers, physical planner, and quantity surveyor. The other
responsibilities of the DPU are:
a) Assemble the district database for the purpose of monitoring and evaluation of development
activities;
b) Analysis of data related to district development planning;
c) Preparation of reports on the progress of development activities in the district;
d) Assist district development institutions to prioritize projects and programmes in a manner that
conforms to the Government policy guidelines;
e) Assist the sectoral officers to formulate and prepare projects and programmes that ensure
inter-sectoral coordination for the proper use of scarce resources;
f) Monitoring the implementation of projects and programmes stipulated in the District
Development Plans and Annual Annexes;
g) Coordination of the preparation of the District Development Plan to ensure adherence to the
guidelines, deadlines and consistency with the National Development Plan policies;
h) Coordination of the preparation of the District Plan Annual Annexes and ensure that they are
produced in time for incorporation into the Forward Budget; and
i)

Coordination of the preparation of the District Infrastructure Inventory and to ensure that it is
updated periodically.

DISTRICT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION CENTRE

5.
The District Information and Documentation Centre (DIDC) is an important component of
the District Planning Unit. It serves as the information arm of the DPU and provides essential
development information to the DDC and other development committees, and individuals and
organizations involved in planning development activities in the district.
6.
The District Focus Circular No 1 of 1986, issued by the Office of the President, spelt out the
objectives of the DIDCs and provided guidelines on their establishment and use in the districts. The
DIDC is a source of information on development statistics, national and district development plans,

56

and technical information for each sector as an input to the planning, monitoring and evaluation of
development projects and activities in the district. The DIDC therefore serves as a collection, storage
and dissemination point for data and information on the district. Although the DDCs were given the
responsibility of establishing the DIDCs, the source of funding DIDCs was not specified.
7.
Coordination of the DIDCs is the responsibility of the Rural Services Coordination and
Training Section (RSCTS) in Rural Planning Department, Ministry of Planning and National
Development. The Section provides technical advice to the districts on the organization of DIDCs and
procurement of documents. The Ministry of Planning does not have a budget line for the DIDCs and
construction and furnishing of DIDCs has mainly depended on donors with projects/programmes in
the districts.
8.
In 1987/88, the Rural Services Coordination and Training Section embarked on a training
programme for clerical officers, who were identified by their respective District Commissioners to
head the DIDCs. The selected clerical officers underwent a three-week in-service training course at
Embu Government Training Institute. Between 1988/89 and 1991/92, the RSCTS sponsored 65 DIDC
clerks in a one-year professional certificate course in library and information studies at the Kenya
polytechnic. DPU and DIDC clerks in the UNICEF Child Survival and Development (CSD) districts
have benefitted from three microcomputer training courses each lasting for a period of 2-6 weeks.

PROVINCIAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION COMMITTEE

9.
The Provincial Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (PMEC) has the responsibility for
facilitating inter-district coordination of rural development. The PMEC performs the following
functions and tasks:
a) Providing technical support to the DDCs and DECs;
b) Coordinating the planning and implementation of inter-district projects and programmes;
c) Monitoring of all public and NGO activities in the province with a view to identifying projects
and programmes with design, implementation or maintenance problems;
d) Promoting integration between sectors;
e) Preparing briefs on successes and problems of project implementation in the province and
distributing them to the operating ministries with a view to ensuring effective implementation
of projects; and
f) Serving as a resource for the district-level training activities.

57

ANNEX 5: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Ministry of Planning and National Development
Dr. Kangethe Gitu
Dr. I.A. Onyango
Martin M. Tsuma
L.O. Obidha
S. Kariuki
Mrs. W. Karingithi
A.N. Ngoru
Waweru Kamau
Luke Jakoywa
Calvin Ogutu
E.M. Onserio
Fred Mwangi

Director of Planning
National Project Coordinator, Strategy and Policy Analysis Division
(SPAD)
Acting Chief Economist, Head of Rural Planning Department
Planning Officer, Strategy and Policy Analysis Division (SPAD)
Planning Officer, Strategy and Policy Analysis Division (SPAD)
Planning Officer, Strategy and Policy Analysis Division (SPAD)
Planning Officer in charge of DIDCs, Rural Planning Department
Planning Officer, Economic and Basic Infrastructure Department
Programmer/Systems Analyst, Management Information Services
Division (MISD)
Computer Technician, Management Information Services Division
(MISD)
Senior Economist/Head, Management Information Services Division
(MISD)
Programmer/Systems Analyst, Management Information Services
Division (MISD)

United Nations Development Programme

J.N. Kabutha
F.J. Mumina

Programme Officer
Programme Officer

Ministry of Finance
John R. Wheeler

Advisor

Machakos District
Wilson Chepkwony
R.O. Nyaliech
A.V. Mulewa
George Odeny
J.W. Kuyiah
Patrick M. Ndonye
Thomas M. Kaloki
Peter Ndwiga

District Commissioner
Assistant District Development Officer
District Statistical Officer
District Livestock Officer
District Agricultural Officer
Clerical Officer, District Veterinary Office
Assistant Water Engineer
Library Assistant, District Information and Documentation Centre

Kitui District
S.N. Gitonga

District Officer I

58

Michael Mwilu
F.K. Matheka
E.M. Kaindi
C.N. Manyara
F.A. Miencha
Eva Muli

Assistant Water Engineer

Agricultural Project Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
Range Planner (Livestock)
Forest Department
Assistant District Development Officer
Clerical Officer, District Information and Documentation Centre

Baringo District
Hussein Hassan Dado
K.J. Rutto
D.K. Mwangi
K.M. Macharia
J.N. Mutukuh
D.K. Syumah
F.W. Obewa
S.M.T. Wambua
J.L. Kipyator
D.M. Muindi
B.I. Indeje

District Commissioner
District Animal Production Officer
Clerical officer, District Development Officers office
District Farm Management Officer
District Programme Officer, Jamii na Mazingira Baringo (JAMABA)
Library Assistant, District Information and Documentation Centre
Acting District Development Officer
District Statistical Officer
World Vision
Engineering Assistant, District Water Engineers Office
District Health Administrator

Bungoma District
Wilfred K. Ndolo
K.N. Gekonde
R.O. Ochieng
F. Nyakundi
D.S. Omukaga
C.K. Wachira
P.M. Macharia
P.J. Akhonya
A.L. Shikanda
A.O. Ogolla
A.K. Olang
Dr. M. Nasongo
L.M. Atema
M.S. Nganga
S.O. Makori

District Commissioner
District Development Officer
Representing, District Works Officer
Cooperatives
Town Clerk
District Forestry Officer
District Education Officer
District Statistical Officer
District Public Health Officer
District Fisheries Officer
Representing, District Agricultural Officer
Representing, District Veterinary Officer
District Information and Documentation Centre
District Information and Documentation Centre
Representing, District Water Engineers office

Kisumu District
John M. Nandasaba
J.K. Karu
D. Okech
Alice Okoth
Calleb Ochieng

District Commissioner
Provincial Planning Officer, Nyanza Province
Clerical Officer
Higher Clerical Officer
Library Assistant I, District Information and Documentation Centre

59

L.M. Onkoba
D.O. Ombalo
Apollo Athiambo
M.O. Ogot
Lucas Ahambo
Helen Odhiambo
Joan Wandega

Senior Education Officer

Agricultural Project Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
Storeman I
District Statistical Officer
District Development Officer
Statistical Officer, Ministry of Health
M&E Officer, Municipal Council of Kisumu

Nyeri District
C.N. Wanyoike
John Gichire
Peter H. Njenga
John N. Karuma
Karanja A. Nganga
S.M. Gitau
N. Ngariama
J.M. Nganga
D.V. Kisoa
K. Ngugi
Teresa Nguria
Josephine Njeri
Dennis Ndegwa
V.N. Githinji
Jane S. Wairimu
J.N. Njue

District Commissioner
Provincial Planning Office, Central Province
Representing, District Water Engineer
District Agricultural Officers Office
District Livestock Production Officers office
District Water Engineers office
District Development Officer
District Social Development Officer
Representing, Ministry of Energy
District Programme Officer, IFAD
District Information and Documentation Centre
Senior Clerical Officer, District Information and Documentation
Centre
Library Assistant II, District Information and Documentation Centre
District Livestock Production Officer
Secretary, District Development Officers office
Deputy District Forest Officer

Kwale District
D.A. Makuba
Victoria Ogajas
Babisho A. Abalon
Juma H. Tambaa
Stephen Mwachoki
J.K. Kitala
P.N. Kamau

District Statistical Officer

Clerical Officer, District Information and Documentation Centre
Library Assistant II, District Information and Documentation Centre
Clerical Officer
Clerical Officer
District Development Officer
District Programme Officer

60

ANNEX 6: REFERENCES
Abby, Hussein, Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Economic Management in Kenya, UNDP,
June 1994
Altemeier, K., A Suggested Framework for the Monitoring and Evaluation of the Agricultural Sector
Adjustment Operation - ASAO II, World Bank, July 1990
Ayako, A.B., The First Welfare Monitoring Survey (WMS1): Draft Basic Report, Consultant report
prepared for the Central Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Vice President and Ministry of Planning
and National Development, Nairobi, Kenya, February 1994
Barasa, M., and M. Wakanyora, 1981/82 Rural Household Budget Survey: Basic Report, Consultant
report prepared for Strategy and Policy Analysis Division, Office of the Vice President and Ministry of
Planning and National Development, Nairobi, Kenya, April 1994
Barkan, J.D., and M. Chege, Decentralising the State: District Focus and the Politics of Reallocation in
Kenya, Journal of Modern African Studies, 27(3), 1989
Belshaw, Deryke, and Robert Chambers, PIM: A Practical Management System for Implementing
Rural Development Programmes and Projects, Discussion Paper No. 162, Institute for Development
Studies, University of Nairobi, January 1973
Cohen, J.M., and J.R. Wheeler, Improving Public Expenditure Planning: Introducing a Public
Investment Program in Kenya, Discussion Paper No 479, Harvard Institute for International
Development, March 1994
FAO, Integrating Nutrition into Agricultural and Rural Development Projects: A Manual, Nutrition in
Agriculture Series No. 1, Nutrition Planning, Assessment and Evaluation Service, Food Policy and
Nutrition Division, Rome, 1982
FAO, Integrating Nutrition into Agricultural and Rural Development Projects: Six Case Studies (Haiti,
Kenya, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Zambia), Nutrition in Agriculture Series No. 2, Nutrition
Planning, Assessment and Evaluation Service, Food Policy and Nutrition Division, Rome, 1984
Herr, Harvey, Consultancy for Transfer of a Sub-set of the RHBS Data from Mainframe to
Microcomputer for use in Development of Poverty Profiles, Ministry of Planning and National
Development, July 1992
Heyer, Judith, Kenya: Monitoring Living Conditions and Consumption Patterns, United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, Switzerland, 1990
Holtham, Gerald, and Arthur Hazlewood, Aid and Inequality in Kenya: British Development
Assistance to Kenya, Overseas Development Institute, London, 1976
Institute for Development Studies, An overall evaluation of the Special Rural Development

61

Programme, Occasional Paper 8, Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi, 1973
Kenya, Report of the Commission of Inquiry (Public Service Structure and Remuneration
Commission), 1970-71 (Chairman: D. N. Ndegwa), Government Printer, May 1971
Kenya, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, Implementation Scheduling and
Monitoring of Development Projects, Nairobi, 20th January 1982
Kenya, Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1986 on Economic Management for Renewed Growth, Government
Printer, Nairobi, 1986
Kenya, Office of the President, District Focus for Rural Development (Blue Book), Government
Printer, Nairobi, 1987
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Economic Survey 1988 (Chapter 3: Rural Household Budget
Survey 1981/82), Government Printer, Nairobi, 1988a
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Kenya Symposium on Statistical Surveys: Integration of
Population Data into National Development, September 1988b
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Impact of Socio-Economic Development on Fertility in Rural
Kenya, January 1989a
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Economic Survey 1989 (Chapter 3: Agricultural Production
Survey, 1986/87), Government Printer, Nairobi, 1989b
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Proceedings of the Symposium of Producers and Users of Statistics,
June 1990a
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Urban Household Budget Survey, 1982/83, 1990b
Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development, KEN/88/034 - Monitoring and Evaluation:
Project Performance Evaluation Report, January 1991a
Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development, KEN/88/034 - Monitoring and Evaluation:
Draft Report of the Naivasha Workshop, February 1991b
Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development, KEN/88/034 - Monitoring and Evaluation:
Project Performance Evaluation Report, February 1992a
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, National Statistical Needs Assessment Project: Final Report,
Nairobi, Kenya, 1992b
Kenya, Directorate of Personnel Management, Report on the Organization, Operations and Staffing of
the Central Bureau of Statistics, Government Printer, Nairobi, 1992c

62

Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Monitoring and Assessing the Effects of
Cereals Sector Reforms on Vulnerable Groups in Kenya, Consultant report prepared by Dr. H.B.
Lunogelo and H. Gordon, July 1992d
Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development, KEN/88/034 - Monitoring and Evaluation:
Project Performance Evaluation Report, June 1993a
Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Rural Services Design (RSD) Project Impact
Evaluation Study, Final report prepared by African Development Economic Consultants (ADEC),
Nairobi, August 1993b
Kenya, Development Plan 1994-1996, Government Printer, Nairobi, 1993c
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Economic Survey 1993 (Chapter 3: National Household Welfare
Monitoring and Evaluation Survey), Government Printer, Nairobi, 1993d
Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Sessional Paper No 1 of 1994 on Recovery
and Sustainable Development to the Year 2010, Government Printer, Nairobi, 1994a
Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development, KEN/88/034 - Monitoring and Evaluation of
Agricultural and Rural Development Strategies: Terminal Report, Nairobi, July 1994b
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Economic Survey 1994 (Chapter 3: Welfare Perspectives),
Government Printer, Nairobi, 1994c
Kenya, Central Bureau of Statistics, Economic Survey 1995 (Chapter 3: Welfare Monitoring Survey:
Fifth Child Nutrition Survey, 1994), Government Printer, Nairobi, 1995
Livingstone, Ian, Experimentation in Rural Development: Kenyas Special Rural Development
Programme, Working Paper No. 259, Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi,
March 1976
Mukui, John T., Kenya: Poverty Profiles, 1982-92, Consultant report prepared for the Office of the
Vice President and Ministry of Planning and National Development, Nairobi, Kenya, March 1994
Mukui, John T., Kenyas Capacity to Monitor Childrens Goals: A Medium-Term Assessment,
Consultant report prepared for UNICEF, Kenya Country Office, July 1994
Mwarania, K.M., Statistical Production by the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS): An Evaluation
Report, Prepared for the World Bank, 1991
Ofwona, Alice Catherine, A Profile of Poverty in Urban Kenya: A Case Study of Nairobi, Research
Paper, Master of Arts in Economics, Department of Economics, University of Nairobi, July 1991
Opondo, F.A., Rural Household Budget Survey 1981/82: Highlights, in Kenya Symposium on
Statistical Surveys, Central Bureau of Statistics, September 1988

63

Sahn, David E., Richard Lockwood, and Nevin S. Scrimshaw, Methods for the Evaluation of the
Impact of Food and Nutrition Programmes, United Nations University/United Nations ACC
Sub-committee on Nutrition, September 1981
Smoke, Paul, Local Government Fiscal Reform in Developing Countries: Lessons from Kenya, World
Development, 21(6), 1993
United Nations, Coordinated Support to Nutritional Activities at Country-Level: The Experience of
Kenya, Report of Symposium held at the 11th Session of ACC-SCN, Nairobi, Kenya, 11-12 February
1985
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Consultancy Report of Milton E. Harvey to
Food Policy and Nutrition Division, FAO, December 1986
United Nations Development Programme, Project Document: KEN/88/034 - Monitoring and
Evaluation of Agricultural and Rural Development Strategies, November 2, 1989
United Nations Development Programme, Monitoring Impact of District Rural and Agricultural
Development Projects on Food and Nutrition: Kenya: Project Findings and Recommendations ,
Terminal Report on Project UNDP KEN/85/001, 1990
Wasonga, L.M., Report on Monitoring and Evaluation of the Impact of Agricultural and Rural
Development Strategies, Office of the President, September 1988
World Bank, Kenya: Agricultural Sector Report (in two volumes), Volume II, Report No. 4629-KE,
Eastern and Southern Africa Projects Department, Central Agriculture Division, January 7, 1986
World Bank, Kenya: Industrial Sector Policies for Investment and Export Growth, Eastern Africa
Department, Washington D.C., 1987
World Bank, Employment and Growth in Kenya: A World Bank Economic Report, Eastern Africa
Department, Washington D.C., 1988a
World Bank, Staff Appraisal Report: Kenya Rural Services Design Project, Report No. 7441-KE, Africa
Region, Country Department II, Agriculture Operations, November 23, 1988b
World Bank, Development Credit Agreement: Kenya Rural Services Design Project, Credit No.
1974-KE, March 6, 1989
World Bank, Project Completion Report: Kenya: Agricultural Sector Adjustment Operation (ASAO),
Report No. 8797, Agriculture Operations Division, Eastern Africa Department, Africa Regional Office,
June 22, 1990
World Bank, Report and Recommendation of the President of the International Development

Association to the Executive Directors on a Proposed IDA Credit of SDR 52.2 Million to the Republic

64

of Kenya for a Second Agricultural Sector Adjustment Operation, December 14, 1990
World Bank, Staff Appraisal Report: Kenya Health Rehabilitation Project, Report No. 9174-KE,
Population and Human Resources Division, Eastern Africa Department, October 7, 1991
World Bank, Implementation Completion Report: Rural Services Design Project, Credit No. 1974-KE,
February 1995

65