Purpose: This report was commissioned by the NTA (National Taxpayers Association) to gauge citizen perceptions of public accountability in Kenya. The study will be used to design a more comprehensive quantitative survey to inform strategy and mechanisms for improved citizen participation in public accountability processes.

Methods: The study is based on a representative cross section of citizens in 8 regions across Kenya. The research involved 24 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) in rural and semi-urban areas across Kenya, comprising women, men & youth. In addition, 22 Key Informant Interviews (KII) were conducted Malaa, Western Province and Mukirunge, Coast Province.

1. Citizen Perceptions of Government Funds and Services

Citizens could mention roughly half the available government funds and services, and were sometimes confused as to which was which, showing that more civic education is needed.

All groups understood that it was citizens who paid for government services and funds through taxation, and specifically through VAT. This showed a high level of awareness of the dependence of government spending on the contributions of ordinary citizens.

Women were universally of the opinion that it was their right to receive government services and funds. Men and youth were more divided, with a number of groups stating that it was both a right to receive high quality services and a responsibility to see that services are effectively delivered. Youth were the most proactive in perceiving their responsibility in the effective delivery of government provisions. This may indicate that youth will provide a ready constituency for the NTA’s initiatives to involve citizens in public accountability, but that the NTA are likely to have to try harder to draw in women.

When asked why citizens had a ‘right’ to receive good quality services from government, the main response was ‘because I pay tax’; ‘its our money’. This shows that citizen’s perceive their relationships with the state to stem not only from their political rights, but because also from their economic contribution to the state - they pay for government spending and government salaries. This factor should be leveraged to the maximum in drawing citizens into play a larger part in public accountability systems.

Non-government providers were rated as ‘good’, while government services were rated as ‘average’ and government funds as ‘poor’.

Devolved funds were valued mainly because of evidence of construction. However this becomes a façade for low quality construction and unfinished buildings. Rampant corruption and lack of information / inaccessibility were also mentioned as barriers to the effectiveness of devolved funds. The poor rating of devolved funds is an interesting finding, given that devolved funds have been designed to increase citizen involvement in planning and execution.

Government services were valued for the fact that they were universally accessible and low cost. Criticisms of government services centred partly around low quality and partly around ‘hidden costs’. Greater involvement of citizens in budgeting and planning, e.g. through DDCs, may make it clearer to citizens how far government resources can meet existing needs, and how far communities or non-government and private sector need to step in.

Citizens clearly appreciated quality as well as price, in which respect non-government providers were highly rated. Non-government providers were also rated highly on accountability and delivery (services being delivered ‘straight to the people’ without complicated bureaucracies). However, they are inaccessible to the majority either because of price or because interventions are targeted to specific groups, and, in the case of NGOs, services are normally short term.

Most often mentioned services were Education, Health, Roads, Water, Agriculture, Security and Electricity. Most often mentioned funds were the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), Local Authority Transfer Fund (LATF), Constituency Bursary Fund (CBF), Women and Youth Funds. This information indicates citizen priorities in relation to services and funds- which matter most, and/or are most visible. The NTA may wish to prioritise these particular services and funds as entry points to increasing overall public accountability systems.

2. Barriers to Accountability

The citizen-state interface has been significantly altered over the past two decades through decentralization and public service reforms. While the greater role played by citizens could be a positive factor, thinly spread resources, expensive administrative structures, proliferation of roles and responsibilities and distorted incentives (e.g. electoral populism vs development planning) undermine the efficiency and accountability of public spending. Particularly with respect to CDF and LATF, government monies are used to boost political power rather than in accordance with strategic development agendas. These issues are systemic, and need to be addressed at a constitutional level.

Decentralisation has created a new managerial layer in which citizen participation has been foregrounded. This is expressed principally through representative committees, where citizens, government representatives and other stakeholders jointly engage in the management of public monies and development planning. Given the centrality of committees for citizen participation, much more investment is needed to build the capacity of committee members and streamline management structures (electoral processes, constitutions, reporting channels etc.). This applies not only to committees, but also to barazas, suggestion boxes, accessibility of government offices and so forth. Linkages need to be developed between committees and local sites of power and representation (especially religious, women’s groups & youth groups). Otherwise, committees will tend to support individual rather than collective interests, and be subject to malpractice.

Alongside managerial and systemic factors, behavioural dynamics also undermine the effectiveness of the governance system and create barriers to citizen participation. These include intimidation, exclusion and theft, which feed off ignorance and lack of empowerment. In order to address the problem of ignorance, massive civic education is needed on the nature of government provisions (funds and services), the channels of reporting, monitoring and management. Education and awareness will also help to address lack of empowerment or ‘fear’.

In the Kenyan context, decentralization processes suffer from a number of more widespread factors that have accompanied contemporary governance reforms. Decentralisation reforms are implemented in a top down fashion rather than being instigated from the bottom up by citizens actively claiming a greater role in governance systems, thereby undermining ownership and the extent of genuine citizen participation. Decentralization processes are under-resourced and under-capacitated undermining their effectiveness to deliver good governance. Decentralization processes tend to support normative power structures, even while shifting the locus of power from national to local levels. (Hadiz , Cornwall and Coelho, 2007).

While the increased involvement of citizens in governance is generally seen as positive, informants stressed time and again that this needs to be accompanied by civic education, capacity building and managerial reforms. Without these provisions, citizen involvement