Kabul City Organizational Assessment

The assessment found that despite managers' claims, directorates and districts do not universally use written standard operating procedures (SOPs), severely hindering unit effectiveness. Written policies and procedures are absent in finance, planning, licensing and permitting, human resources, and public information, leading to lapses in critical functions and inconsistent performance. Financial planning is also a concern, with financial plans and budgets rarely extending beyond one year. Three-year financial statements, development budgets, and asset depreciation schedules are lacking, and few managers can identify required financial plans or indicate their presence, effectiveness, or efficiency. The lack of policies and procedures has hindered the city's capacity to effectively administer other essential functions in districts and departments alike. Human resource functions are present in all districts and departments, but policies are mostly unwritten and duties are inconsistently performed. Nearly two-thirds of HR management personnel confess that they are unaware of human resource duties, and the lack of standard HR policies and procedures has produced a heavy dependence on job descriptions and organizational charts. This has increased the likelihood that unwritten policies are applied arbitrarily and inconsistently, creating internal pay inequities and pay rates that are well below rates of other municipalities and the private sector. The current environment serves as an incubator for employee discontent and less effective staff performance. The distribution of responsibilities and span of control appear appropriate, but both will need to be realigned in the future. Both Directorate Generals and District Managers appeared unclear as to the importance, requirement, and effort required to perform various functions, and KCI should revisit or clarify the degree to which departments and districts are involved in key functions of the municipality. The inspections function appears to be well staffed and structured, but the municipality has very limited authority over enforcement and fines non-compliance. This enforcement deficiency is resulting in significant uncollected revenue and significant unregulated construction activity. In licensing and permitting, nearly 60 percent of managers stated that they do not have standard policies and procedures, and the assessment found very limited licensing and permitting activities performed universally, especially in the areas of land transactions and contractor verification. In Planning, the assessment found that the city's general plan is 30 years outdated, though it is currently being updated. An integrated Capital Improvement Program is nonexistent, the Building Code is outdated, and the Planning Process lacks clarity. This assessment also revealed deficiencies in the administration of capital equipment, capital facilities, and infrastructure. With regard to capital equipment, there exists no formalized or universal fleet maintenance program, and while a little more than half of departments maintain a list of vehicles, more than half of department managers say there are too few vehicles. The assessment involved the careful examination of the organization's structure, functionality, planning, processes, policies, procedures, staffing, and overall performance of the municipality and its management. The assessment incorporated a variety of methodologies, including site visits, staff discussions, internal appraisals, and written assessments. The assessment included input and participation from 180 mid-level and senior managers, including Deputy Mayors, Directorate Generals, Deputy Directorate Generals, District Managers, Deputy District Managers, General Managers, and Department Managers. The information provided in this report is presented in three contexts or sections: statistical information, institutional capacity, and management capacity. Findings are the products of a close examination of the organization's institutional and management capacities. Institutional capacity refers to the city's systems, tools, and processes, while management capacity refers specifically to the examination of management's capacity to effectively perform essential duties and improve the organization. Results contained in this report determine where there is potential for immediate organizational improvement and outline steps and activities towards sustainable organizational improvement. The assessment found that the municipality has a dedicated workforce, but the lack of clear policies and procedures, as well as inadequate management capacity, hinders the organization's ability to deliver quality services and maintain accountability and efficiency. The assessment recommends revisiting or clarifying the degree to which departments and districts are involved in key functions of the municipality, revising the distribution of responsibilities and span of control, and implementing a formalized or universal fleet maintenance program. The assessment also recommends updating the city's general plan, developing an integrated Capital Improvement Program, and revising the Building Code and Planning Process.