Kenya GRPFM 2023 /Gender Annex/



The PEFA Gender Assessment has been conducted concurrently with the national PEFA. The assessment was funded by the European Union. The management and peer review mechanisms are the same as the main PEFA assessment. The purpose of the PEFA is to assess the PFM performance since the 2017 PEFA assessment. The assessment utilized the PEFA 2016 framework in addition to the supplementary guidelines on PEFA gender dated January 2020 to provide evidence-based scores and analyses on the overall performance of Kenya’s PFM systems and institutions since 2017 regarding aggregate fiscal discipline, strategic resource allocation, and efficient service delivery.

The GRPFM assessment applied the Supplementary Framework for Assessing Gender Responsive Public Financial Management 2020. The assessment results will promote policy dialogue on the pace and impact of the recent PFM reforms, and therefore inform the reform agenda. Given that this is the first time that Kenya is undertaking a GRPFM assessment, the assessment will provide a baseline for measuring progress towards a gender responsive PFM framework in Kenya. The information will also promote policy dialogue and inform the monitoring and evaluation of how PFM systems support the efforts to close the gender gap in development. Currently, GRB efforts are being spearheaded by the state Department of Gender and the National Gender and Equality Commission.

UN Women has also been supporting the state actors to push the GRB agenda.

The assessment covered three years, i.e., 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 and was undertaken between July and August 2022. The assessment covered the central government and 17 main budgetary units, including The National Treasury and Planning, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Co-operatives, Ministry of Public Service and Gender, Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing, Urban Development and Public Works, National Assembly, among others. The assessment team that undertook the GRPFM is the same team that carried out the national PEFA.

Overview of assessment findings

This section provides an overview of findings of the PEFA assessment of gender responsive PFM practices compared with the PEFA GRPFM framework. It also highlights key PFM tools and processes in place to promote gender equality.

All nine GRPFM indicators scored ‘D’, showing a poor performance. The assessment findings reveal major weaknesses in the Gender Responsive PFM, where the PFM process can be termed as “gender irresponsive”. The government does not undertake gender analysis of budgets, despite evidence that shows that budgets have different impacts on men and women. Appraisal of investments does not also include an analysis of the implications of the investment on gender equality. While the budget circular forms a key entry point for gender responsive budgeting, the Kenyan budget circular does not give any specific guidance to MDAs on how to mainstream gender in their budget documents.

Budget documentation is also not gender responsive, even though programme-based budgets are a good opportunity for mainstreaming gender into budgets. Without mainstreaming gender in the budget documentation especially sector reports, tracking gender-related expenditure is difficult. That is why the government can only track gender-related expenditures that are towards either gender machineries or affirmative action funds, which form a very small proportion of the budget. Service delivery reports, especially the performance contracting evaluation, has minimal focus on gender mainstreaming (accounts for only 1% and gender responsive procurement accounting for 3%). Lastly, because the budget documentation has no gender perspective, the legislative scrutiny of budgets and audit reports are also not gender sensitive.

Given the findings that PFM is largely not gender responsive, there is need to design and implement PFM reforms that will support implementation of GRPFM focusing on how GRB programmes can be implemented to guarantee that they influence budget allocations to ensure gender equity and equality. The findings point to the need to:

  • Target the right entry point, which is the National Treasury to spearhead the GRB process, with support from Gender Machineries (State Department for Gender and NGEC).
  • Institutionalize GRB through review of PFM guidelines to incorporate GRB and also incorporate GRB guidelines in the budget circular. This will ensure that all indicators in the programme-based budgets and service delivery reports are disaggregated by sex. From other country experiences, the government can first pilot GRB using 2-3 sectors, starting with education, health and agriculture).
  • Compile and analyse sex-disaggregated data to inform the GRB process.
  • Mainstreaming gender throughout the budget cycle ensures that policies are designed from a gender perspective, resources are allocated to implement them, systems are in place to track the resources, and the impacts of policies are evaluated by considering gender aspects
  • Ensure strong oversight for GRB (Office of the Controller of Budget, Parliament and Office of the Auditor General).