Programme-Based Budgeting in
Kenya: Past challenges and way
forward for 2015/16
Vivian Magero
Jason Lakin, Ph.D.
Background
• National government shifted from line-item to
program-based budgeting in 2013/14 (following
international best practice and PFM Act)
• First year was challenging….but in 2014/15, Kenya
made big improvements in its PBB presentation.
• Still a number of challenges
Question: have we built on successes and
addressed challenges of 2014/15 in 2015/16?
What is a PBB?
• Budget organized around a set of programs
• What is a program? A group of government
activities that help to achieve a common
objective
• Example: Crime Prevention Program
• Objective of CPP: "Reduced crime and greater
security of persons and property“
• CPP might then include various activities
related to policing, security cameras, etc.
requiring both recurrent and capital, staff, etc.
A good PBB…
• Focuses on outputs and service delivery objectives of
spending, not inputs.
• Has substantive narrative link between inputs and outputs
and explanation of changing priorities
• Is arranged around a set of programs with clear and
specific objectives, not just administrative units
• Is usually broken down further into subprograms to provide
clearer information about activities and objectives
• Program performance measured through clear indicators
and targets with credible baselines and timelines.
Has Kenya’s PBB improved budget
presentation and transparency?
Kenya’s 2012/13 Line item budget
• Focused on inputs only, like fuel and stationery
• Limited or no narrative explanation and link
between inputs and outputs
• Ministries defined by administrative units, no
programs or subprograms
• No measures of performance (indicators and
targets)
Kenya’s 2013/14 PBB
• Eliminated certain information e.g. wage
information, key personnel and job groups
• Inadequate narrative information on programs,
unclear links between narrative and budget figures
• Limited number of programs, no subprograms and
unclear objectives
• Some indicators and targets lacked actual figures,
had no clear timelines or baselines
• Difficult to understand how public money used to
generate things we care about
Kenya’s 2014/15 PBB: Major Improvements
• Revised PBB format, rectified a number of
flaws.
• Substantive narrative information available in
many areas
• Increased number of programs with somewhat
clearer objectives
• Introduction of subprograms, broken down
further into economic classification
• Improved presentation of indicators and targets
• Additional documents available to clarify PBB
Despite achievements, 2014/15 PBB lacked:
• Narrative clearly linking priorities and budget allocations
• Clear and distinct program objectives (program
objectives overlap)
• Clear/sensible targets and baselines (e.g. “% of facility
based maternal deaths had a target of 100%)
• Clear economic classifications (e.g. use of “other
development” for major spending)
• Information on key personnel and costs that was
available in old format
• Any information on Appropriations in Aid (eliminated
completely information on external funding)
Kenya’s 2015/16 PBB: Overview
• On balance: minor improvements, but lack of explanation
for changes leads to confusion
• Reorganization of programs and subprograms, leading to more
logical presentation but confusion about changing allocations
• Reorganization of indicators and targets leading to improved
focus, but also confusion as certain indicators have
disappeared without explanation
So….some challenges to be able to compare with last year’s
budget
2015/16 PBB: Overview Continued
• Improvement in comparability over time with inclusion of
column for 2014/15 approved budget
• Narrative is similar to 2014/15; weak connection to budget
numbers
• Program objectives have improved, but still challenges
• Indicators and targets are improved, but still lack baselines
that allow us to track if money=improving services
• Vague economic classifications still major share of spending
• Information on wage costs and Appropriations in Aid still
missing
2014/15 vs 2015/16 PBB in Detail
• Narrative information
• Programs with clear objectives
• Indicators/targets
• Subprograms and further disaggregation
• Information on key personnel and costs
• Appropriation in Aid (AiA)
Narrative Information
Narrative Link to Allocations? 2014/15
Narrative links to allocations 2015/16?
Narrative challenges continue…
• There is no real explanation of changes in emphasis at
program/subprogram level from year to year (why
some programs receive larger share than others?)
• For example, big change in health sector in 2015/16 is
increase in funding for Health Policy subprogram, but
not mentioned
• How do proposed initiatives and allocations for the year
respond to challenges mentioned each year?
Programs with clear and distinct
objectives
Programs and objectives, 2014/15 and 2015/16
Curative health services program 2015/16
Indicators, targets and timelines
Indicators/targets and timelines
• Indicators still have no baselines
• Some of the indicators/targets that did not make sense
dropped. E.g. % maternal facility deaths with target of 100%
But some targets still at odds with other government figures
• In 2014/15 budget, % births conducted by skilled attendant
target 44%, but this was below what was already achieved as
per other government figures (66% in-facility births)
• In 2015/16, same issue with Average Length of Stay target at
Kenyatta National Hospital: target for 2015/16 is 10.7 Days but
sector report says have already achieved this in 2014/15
Key Performance Indicators
2014/15
2015/16
From 2014/15 (Above) to 2015/16 (Below) we have lost two indicators
Clear subprograms and further
disaggregation of allocations
Do subprograms have clear objectives?
• SPs are meant to be further breakdown of
programs, so they are meant to align with the
objectives of the larger program
• Neither 2014/15 nor 2015/16 have clear
subprogram objectives
• Many subprograms are not clear, and are not
clearly aligned with the program objectives
Program: General Administration, Planning &
Support Services
• 2014/15 objective: To improve service delivery and provide
supportive function to government agencies under the health
sector.
• 2015/16 objective: To strengthen Leadership, Management,
Planning & Financing of the health sector
• In both years, these program have a subprogram
“Health Policy, Planning and Financing”.
What does this SP do to contribute to admin and
planning?
Subprogram: Health Policy, Planning and Financing
2014/15
2015/16
Does the economic breakdown help?
Information on personnel costs
• Still no information about staff, job group, wages
or benefits of staff by ministry in 2014/15 or 15/16
• This information was present in 2012/13 line item
budget as shown in the next slide
• No breakdown beyond “compensation to
employees” at program/subprogram level
2012/13 Line Item Budget
Generic economic classification
Appropriation in Aid (AiA)
• AiA includes donor funding and some local funds raised
by ministries on their own (user fees, etc.)
• In 2012/13, extensive information was provided for each
ministry, administrative unit on the source, type of donor
etc.
• In 2013/14, information on AIA was provided by program
with medium term projections but no breakdown by local
v. external, source, or purpose
• 2014/15 PBB eliminated this information altogether
• Same in 2015/16 PBB
ARE THERE GOOD EXAMPLES
FROM COUNTIES IN 2014/15?
Consider same aspects of the budget
…but also project breakdown
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Narrative quality
Program Clarity and distinctness
Indicators and targets
SP Clarity and further disaggregation
Staff information
AIA
Project information to ward level
Narrative: West Pokot example
Homa Bay
Bungoma: Project breakdown
Some challenges at county level in
2014/15
• Many of same challenges as national level, but more severe
• Lack of summary tables in many budgets
• Weak connection between priorities in narrative and budget numbers
• Limited breakdown of economic classification
• Programs have unclear objectives, and lack of clear subprograms
makes it difficult to understand what they do and how they do it
• Main staff costs are improperly classified under administration
• Indicators and targets are extremely weak, incoherent or simply nonexistent
2015/16 County Budgets: Improving?
We have looked so far at:
• Nyeri
• Taita Taveta
• Elgeyo Marakwet
• Lamu
• Nairobi
• There are successes and cross cutting issues in
these budgets
Good practices in 2015/16 County PBBs
• Summary table at the program level (Lamu, Taita
Taveta and Elgeyo Marakwet)
• Summary table at both the program and subprogram
level (Elgeyo Marakwet)
• Most indicators and targets improved from last year,
but still lack baselines
• Budget broken down into items under programs;
combining line item and program provides additional
information that is useful (Lamu)
Cross cutting issues in 2015/16 County
PBBs
• Narrative is not linked to program allocations or does
not explain trends adequately (all counties)
• Subprograms lack or have no objectives (All
counties)
• Staff put under the Administration program rather
than service delivery programs (All counties)
• No staff breakdown apart from Nyeri county
• Indicators lack baselines, while some lack targets
(Taita Taveta)
Recommendations
• Major programs should be broken down into subprograms, with sufficient detail provided to
understand their distinct objectives
• Narrative details should be improved, particularly
to ensure clear link with allocations at
program/subprogram level
• All indicators should be clearly linked to a specific
program and to specific program objectives, with
baselines and clear and realistic targets
Recommendations
• If there is a shift in programs or subprograms that
would affect the indicators and targets over the years,
explanation should be provided for the shift.
• Information on the breakdown of employees should be
restored to the budget as per the 2012/13 budget
• The economic classification could be further broken
down for all categories
• Reduce the use of “other recurrent” and “other
development” for major spending
Thank you