Results, Outcomes, KPIs & Ministry Performance Framework
How the performance of the 90-Day Founding Implementation Programme is measured, evidenced, reported and reviewed. One Big Change Kenya, September-December 2026.
This Appendix defines how the performance of the One Big Change Kenya Founding Implementation Programme will be measured, evidenced, reported and reviewed. It converts the programme from a set of activities into a measurable implementation proposition.
The framework distinguishes clearly between:
Inputs
resources committed
Activities
work undertaken
Outputs
tangible products delivered
Early outcomes
observable changes during the 90-day programme
Learning outcomes
evidence generated about implementation
Scale-readiness outcomes
evidence required for a national decision
Longer-term outcomes
changes that may reasonably emerge beyond the founding period
The programme will not claim long-term educational impact where the evidence or time period does not support such a claim.
The programme uses the following results chain:
Government commission and programme resources
↓
Kenyan leadership, schools, experts and partners mobilised
↓
10 schools assessed through the Change Lens
↓
School-specific barriers and strengths identified
↓
10 implementation priorities agreed
↓
Targeted support, resources and capability deployed
↓
Implementation practice changes are evidenced
↓
Cross-school learning is captured
↓
Hub and national implementation requirements are understood
↓
Government receives an evidenced and costed Year 1 scale proposition
The founding phase is judged not simply on whether activities took place, but on whether they generated credible implementation evidence.
Ten Kenyan schools across ten different county contexts will have completed a structured implementation diagnostic, selected and acted upon a priority barrier, gathered evidence of implementation progress, shared learning across the cohort and contributed to a costed national implementation architecture for Year 1.
Performance will be monitored at five levels.
Level 1
Programme Mobilisation
Has the infrastructure required to deliver the programme been established?
Level 2
School Participation and Implementation
Are the ten schools participating meaningfully and implementing agreed priorities?
Level 3
Early Change
Is there evidence that school practice, capability, coordination or access to resources has begun to change?
Level 4
Learning and Replicability
Are we learning what works, for whom, under what circumstances and at what cost?
Level 5
National Scale Readiness
Is there sufficient evidence to make an informed Government decision on Year 1?
The programme will be assessed across ten performance domains:
| Performance Area | 90-Day Target | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Participating counties | 10 | Confirmed county / school register |
| Founding schools | 10 | Participation agreements |
| Senior school sponsors | 10 | Named sponsor records |
| School champions | 10 | Champion appointment / training records |
| Evidence contacts | 10 | Named evidence-contact records |
| Change Lens baselines | 10 | Completed baseline reports |
| School implementation priorities | 10 | Approved priority statements |
| School implementation plans | 10 | Signed / approved implementation plans |
| Implementation cycles activated | 10 | Activity and expenditure records |
| First MicroSummits | 10 | Attendance and outputs |
| Review MicroSummits | 10 | Attendance and learning records |
| Cross-site analysis | 1 | National founding analysis |
| Traction Partner needs matrix | 1 | Completed resource matrix |
| National implementation architecture | 1 | 50-Hub / 500-core / 6,000-connected model |
| Costed Year 1 programme | 1 | Detailed financial model |
| Final evidence report | 1 | Approved founding evidence report |
| Decision Gate | 1 | Formal review meeting and decision record |
Objective
Establish the management, governance, institutional and operational infrastructure required to deliver the founding phase responsibly.
Indicators
| Indicator | Target | Verification |
|---|---|---|
| Programme leadership functions confirmed | 100% of critical roles | Contracts / appointment records |
| Programme governance structure approved | 1 | Governance framework |
| Advisory Committee mobilisation commenced | Yes | Terms of reference / meeting records |
| Programme workplan approved | 1 | Approved inception plan |
| Financial controls established | Yes | Finance procedures |
| Safeguarding framework established | Yes | Safeguarding protocol |
| Data-management framework established | Yes | Data / ethics protocol |
| Risk register operational | Yes | Updated risk register |
| Ministry reporting mechanism agreed | Yes | Reporting schedule |
Success condition
The programme can demonstrate that implementation is being managed through an accountable structure rather than an informal project network.
Objective
Secure meaningful participation from ten schools capable of completing the full founding programme.
Indicators
| Indicator | Target |
|---|---|
| Counties represented | 10 |
| Schools onboarded | 10 |
| Senior sponsors confirmed | 10 |
| School champions confirmed | 10 |
| Evidence contacts confirmed | 10 |
| Participation agreements completed | 10 |
| Champion induction completed | 10 |
| Baseline information packs submitted | 10 |
Quality indicators
- leadership engagement
- timely participation
- willingness to share challenges
- staff participation
- evidence availability
- openness to peer learning
- implementation ownership
Attendance alone will not constitute successful participation.
Objective
Develop a credible baseline of implementation strengths, barriers and priorities for every founding school.
Core indicators
| Indicator | Target |
|---|---|
| Change Lens processes completed | 10 |
| School baselines completed | 10 |
| School strengths identified | Minimum 3 per school |
| Priority barriers identified | Minimum 3 per school |
| Primary implementation priority selected | 1 per school |
| Evidence measure agreed | 1+ per implementation priority |
| Resource / capability requirements identified | 10 schools |
| Cross-site comparison completed | 1 |
Quality criteria - a baseline must:
- draw on more than one source of evidence
- involve relevant school personnel
- distinguish observation from assumption
- identify existing good practice
- identify barriers
- prioritise rather than catalogue every issue
- result in an actionable next step
Objective
Increase the ability of school leaders and champions to manage implementation rather than depend permanently on external support.
Possible indicators
Because individual priorities will differ, indicators may include:
- champion confidence
- leadership clarity
- implementation-planning capability
- evidence-use capability
- staff engagement
- peer-support activity
- internal review processes
- use of implementation tools
- ability to identify and escalate resource needs
Founding-phase target
Each founding school must demonstrate at least one documented improvement in its capacity to manage the selected implementation priority. Evidence may include:
- before / after confidence measures
- leadership interviews
- implementation records
- observation
- meeting records
- completed implementation tools
- evidence of internal replication
Objective
Demonstrate that each school can move from diagnosis to practical action during the founding period. Every school must complete the following sequence:
Baseline
↓
Priority
↓
Action Plan
↓
Implementation
↓
Evidence
↓
Review
↓
Next Step
Indicators
| Indicator | Target |
|---|---|
| Implementation priorities approved | 10 |
| Implementation action plans agreed | 10 |
| Implementation cycles commenced | 10 |
| Implementation cycles reaching review stage | 10 |
| Schools producing implementation evidence | 10 |
| Schools agreeing continuation actions | 10 |
The measure is not whether every educational problem is resolved in 90 days. The measure is whether the programme can demonstrate a disciplined mechanism for turning an identified barrier into action, evidence and learning.
Each school will have outcome measures aligned to the priority it selects. Examples may include:
Teaching and Learning
- teacher use of agreed teaching practices
- lesson-planning quality
- learner participation
- use of competency-based teaching strategies
Competency-Based Assessment
- teacher confidence using assessment approaches
- quality / use of formative evidence
- learner-feedback practice
- assessment recording or moderation processes
Leadership
- implementation-planning capability
- clarity of responsibilities
- staff engagement
- review frequency
Inclusion
- identification of learner needs
- adaptation of classroom practice
- access to specialist support
- participation of previously underserved learners
Wellbeing
- staff or learner support processes
- referral pathways
- wellbeing engagement
- targeted attendance or participation measures
Family and Community
- parent understanding
- participation
- pathway-information engagement
- communication quality
Technology or Resources
- access
- utilisation
- staff confidence
- impact on the selected implementation priority
The programme will not impose one universal outcome measure on all ten schools where the priorities materially differ.
Objective
Create a mechanism through which schools learn from one another rather than operating as isolated intervention sites.
Indicators
| Indicator | Target |
|---|---|
| Initial MicroSummits | 10 |
| Review MicroSummits | 10 |
| National cohort learning sessions | Minimum 2 |
| Good-practice examples documented | Minimum 10 |
| Shared implementation problems documented | Minimum 5 |
| Peer connections established | Evidence across all schools |
Qualitative measures
- whether schools borrow useful practice from one another
- whether contextual differences are understood
- whether school champions communicate outside formal sessions
- whether peer learning can form the foundation of future LocaeHubs
Objective
Test whether evidenced school needs can be translated into coordinated external support.
Indicators
| Indicator | Target |
|---|---|
| School resource-needs profiles | 10 |
| National needs matrix | 1 |
| Potential Traction Partners identified | Minimum 20 |
| Qualified partner conversations | Minimum 10 |
| Needs matched to potential partner categories | 100% of evidenced needs |
| Cash / in-kind commitments secured | Report actual value |
| Leverage ratio | Calculated at Decision Gate |
Leverage measure
The programme will report Government programme expenditure against additional cash and in-kind value mobilised. This allows Government to assess whether the model creates additional value beyond the public commission.
No unconfirmed partner contribution will be reported as secured.
Objective
Ensure that claims made at the Decision Gate are supported by proportionate and credible evidence.
Evidence-quality dimensions
- relevance
- completeness
- consistency
- traceability
- timeliness
- triangulation
- context
- limitations
Indicators
| Indicator | Target |
|---|---|
| Baseline evidence sets | 10 |
| Implementation evidence sets | 10 |
| End-of-phase review evidence sets | 10 |
| Data-quality reviews | Minimum 2 |
| Evidence limitations recorded | 100% of final reports |
| Unsupported impact claims | 0 |
Objective
Deliver the programme within appropriate financial and operational controls.
| Indicator | Target |
|---|---|
| Monthly financial reports | 100% |
| Budget versus actual reporting | Monthly |
| Material variances explained | 100% |
| Activation-fund expenditure linked to approved plans | 100% |
| Procurement / supporting records retained | 100% |
| Conflicts declared and managed | 100% |
| Contingency utilisation reported | 100% |
| Material safeguarding incidents escalated | 100% |
| Material delivery risks recorded | 100% |
Objective
Determine whether the founding model is sufficiently effective, affordable, governable and replicable to justify expansion.
50 LocaeHubs · ~500 Core Implementation Schools · 6,000 Connected Schools
This is not treated as approved simply because the founding programme was commissioned.
Scale-readiness tests
Effectiveness
Did meaningful implementation change occur?
Replicability
Can the approach operate beyond the ten founding schools?
Adaptability
Can the model work in substantially different Kenyan contexts?
Cost
Are the delivery costs understood?
Capability
Can enough Kenyan implementation capability be created?
Governance
Can it be managed responsibly at scale?
Technology
Can data and coordination systems support scale?
School demand
Is there evidence of willingness to participate?
Partner leverage
Can useful additional resources be mobilised?
Sustainability
Can capability become increasingly school and Hub-led?
Each dimension will receive a Decision Gate assessment:
| Dimension | Rating | Evidence | Required Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| School implementation effectiveness | TBD | Founding evidence | TBD |
| Model adaptability | TBD | 10-county comparison | TBD |
| School leadership capability | TBD | Champion evidence | TBD |
| Peer learning / Hub potential | TBD | Cohort evidence | TBD |
| Evidence quality | TBD | Evaluation review | TBD |
| Cost viability | TBD | Actual cost analysis | TBD |
| National operating capacity | TBD | Workforce model | TBD |
| Technology readiness | TBD | Platform review | TBD |
| Resource leverage | TBD | Traction Partner report | TBD |
| Governance readiness | TBD | Governance review | TBD |
Weekly
Internal operational reporting: delivery progress, upcoming milestones, field activity, risks, decisions required.
Monthly
Formal programme performance report: KPI status, school progress, financial performance, risks, evidence, Traction Partner activity, actions for next period.
Milestone Reporting
Formal evidence packs at: M1 Mobilisation complete, M2 Baselines complete, M3 Implementation evidence available, M4 Founding programme complete and Decision Gate reached.
Every contracted KPI will be reported using:
On target or completed.
At risk but recoverable.
Off target or requiring intervention.
Not yet due.
A Red rating will require:
- explanation
- consequence
- corrective action
- owner
- recovery date
A Ministry-facing programme dashboard should provide a concise view of:
Programme
- overall RAG status
- budget utilisation
- milestone status
- major risks
Schools
- 10-school participation status
- baseline status
- implementation status
- evidence status
Geography
- ten-county programme map
Traction Partners
- identified needs
- partner pipeline
- secured resources
- cash / in-kind value
Evidence
- baseline completeness
- implementation evidence
- outcome evidence
- data-quality status
Scale Readiness
- ten Decision Gate dimensions
- current RAG assessment
The dashboard will not publicly rank individual schools.
Each major result will have a responsible programme owner, an accountable executive, an evidence source, a reporting frequency, and a Ministry acceptance point where relevant.
Detailed responsibility allocation is contained in Appendix 3 - Governance, Leadership & RACI.
Completion of an activity does not automatically mean acceptance of a deliverable. For example:
A school visit is an activity.
A completed, quality-assured Change Lens baseline is a deliverable.
Evidence that the baseline led to a meaningful implementation priority is an early outcome.
This distinction will be maintained throughout programme reporting.
The programme will not automatically claim that:
- national learning outcomes have improved
- CBE implementation has been solved nationally
- 6,000 schools have been transformed
- all resource barriers have been removed
- a Hub model has been proven nationally
- causal impact has been established where evidence does not support it
The founding phase is designed to generate the evidence required to determine what can responsibly be claimed and scaled.
The model helped participating schools identify meaningful barriers, act on them, generate useful evidence, coordinate support and build local capability - and there is sufficient evidence that the mechanism could be responsibly adapted for wider implementation.
At the end of the founding phase, the evidence should allow Government to answer:
The Year 1 performance framework will be developed from founding evidence. It is expected to distinguish between:
Deep Implementation
Schools receiving structured Change Lens, implementation and evidence support.
Hub Participation
Schools directly participating through LocaeHubs and peer-learning structures.
Connected Reach
Schools accessing the wider national learning, evidence, communications and resource network.
6,000 connected schools will never be presented as equivalent to 6,000 intensively supported schools.
This distinction will remain explicit in programme reporting.
One Big Change Kenya will be judged not by the number of meetings held, but by whether schools move from identified implementation barriers to practical action, credible evidence, shared learning and stronger local capability.
The founding phase exists to prove that mechanism before Government is asked to commission national scale.