GPRFM Indicators
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
GRPFM–1 Gender impact analysis of budget policy proposals
D
Notes:
GRPFM–1.1 Gender impact analysis of expenditure policy proposals
D
Notes:
Hence, the score for the dimension is “D” as during the period there were no gender impact analysis done on budget policy proposals.
GRPFM–1.2 Gender impact analysis of revenue policy proposals
D
Notes:
The score is a “D” as there were no gender impact analysis of revenue policy proposals.
GRPFM–2 Gender responsive public investment management
D
Notes:
GRPFM–2.1 Gender responsive public investment management
D
Notes:
The economic analysis is not published except for the ones fulfilling the financier’s requirements but during the previous financial year (2020/21) there were no new projects financed by external parties hence the score is “D” for this performance indicator.
GRPFM–3 Gender responsive budget circular
D
Notes:
GRPFM–3.1 Gender responsive budget circular
D
Notes:
The score is a “D” as budget Circular and most of ministerial budget documents lack sex disaggregated data and also the information is limited to figures with the few ministries that have budget objectives showing intention of mainstreaming gender with their budget proposals.
GRPFM–4 Gender responsive budget proposal documentation
C
Notes:
GRPFM–4.1 Gender responsive budget proposal documentation
C
Notes:
The score is “C,” as even though the budget documentation do not include priorities or initiatives the budget outcomes within some line ministries is reported in sex disaggregated format and the reports were published.
GRPFM–5 Sex-disaggregated performance information for service delivery
C+
Notes:
GRPFM–5.1 Sex-disaggregated performance plans for service delivery
C
Notes:
Key Performance Indicators for the procurement affirmative action notwithstanding, some ministries have performance targets in line with their service provision mandate which were guided by internal service provision frameworks hence the score is a “C”.
GRPFM–5.2 Sex-disaggregated performance achieved for service delivery
B
Notes:
The achievements are published annually and are part of the in-year and end-of-year sectorial reports.
GRPFM–6 Tracking budget expenditure for gender equality
C
Notes:
GRPFM–6.1 Tracking budget expenditure for gender equality
C
Notes:
The score is “C” as tracing of expenditure items is very limited during the budget preparation and it is worsened by weak collaboration on linking the budget to gender mainstreaming between the MYSC, MoF and other MDAs during budget planning, execution and reporting.
GRPFM–7 Gender responsive reporting
B
Notes:
GRPFM–7.1 Gender responsive reporting
B
Notes:
There are some reports like some MDAs Committee of Supply Speeches that cover annual budget outcomes and other individual sectorial reports have sex disaggregated data hence the rating is a “B”.
GRPFM–8 Evaluation of gender impacts of service delivery
B
Notes:
GRPFM–8.1 Evaluation of gender impacts of service delivery
B
Notes:
The score is “B” as majority of MDAs have cooperated with development partners to review their performance in line with gender mainstreaming or the progress made by the country up to date.
GRPFM–9 Legislative scrutiny of gender impacts of the budget
D
Notes:
GRPFM–9.1 Gender-responsive legislative scrutiny of budgets
D
Notes:
The score for the dimension is a “D” as the oversight bodies do not conduct gender impact analysis within budget documents and audit reports.
GRPFM–9.2 Gender responsive legislative scrutiny of audit reports
D
Notes:
Due to absence of gender responsive scrutiny of audit reports and there is no structured review of budget expenditure for validation of gender responsive public finance management as form of specific feedback to the legislature the indicator is scored at “D”.