PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY (Social Services)– KENYAN EXPERIENCE March 2009

1. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY (Social Services)– KENYAN EXPERIENCEMarch 2009 PERSPECTIVES ON IMPACT EVALUATION Presenter: Paul O. Omondi The Steadman Group

2. Discussion Outline This discussion is outlined as follows: 1. Background - This provides the case for current evaluation activity in the Kenya public service. 2. Notable downsides with the existing public service evaluation technique. 3. Explore potential value for Cost Benefit Analysis as an evaluation technique

3. Background Information The Government has recognized the need for evidence based decisions on targets relating to service quality. Thus The New Performance Appraisal System (PAS) has become a key element of the government’s quality service strategy. From 2004, the PAS has expanded from a pilot of 16 commercial enterprises to cover to cover the entire public service. PAS is based on the need for sustainable, efficient, effective and quality public service delivery.

4. Background Information (Cont…) PAS requires every public institution to outline its Citizen Service Delivery Charter, which empowers the public to demand and to expect specific service standards. The PAS assessments are intended to lead to improvements in service quality, particularly among those institutions that failed to meet previous performance targets.

5. Background Information (Cont…) • PAS focuses on 3 parameters: • Performance and quality of service • 2. Involvement of service consumers • 3. Comparative ranking of institutions by performance

6. Measurement Approaches • The government currently uses customers satisfaction information to guide operational decisions to improve service. • The range of measurements used include: • Benchmarking • Gap analysis • Ranking based on composite score

7. Downsides of Current Evaluation Technique The recent PAS ranking demonstrated that the performance appraisal process presented challenges, which require review of the process. In a number of some instances, there has been a disconnect between comparative rankings and citizens’ perceptions of services. Hence evaluation outcomes and rankings have been seen by many as politically contentious.

8. Gaps in the Evaluation Process • In defining survey target group, it is evident that the “customer” concept is largely inapplicable in the public service setting. • Evaluation does not take into consideration resource allocation decisions, both in terms of amount and efficiency of disbursement. • Evaluative effort does not adequately examine the underlying need for new services. • Poor coordination has meant limited consistency on tracking of key indicators as well as definition of survey target group.

9. Overarching Questions • The overarching questions are: • 􀂃 Is the national evaluation system as it exists feasible? • Probably a more realistic approach is to focus on key sectors, programs and projects. • 􀂃Does the evaluation system have the potential to drive service improvement? • - It has potential to drive service improvements if the right techniques are applied

10. Overarching Questions 􀂃 Are customer satisfaction surveys appropriate techniques in evaluating the public sector? - This very much depends on the sector. However, it does not adequately demonstrate the competitiveness in terms of the extent to which public expenditure reflect the likely cost benefits

11. Discussion Questions • What would be the advantages and downsides of a cost benefit analysis approach in evaluating public services? • Does it create increased accountability? • Does it create ensure better distribution of resources? • Does it allow for more efficient decisions?