2012年-世界发展银行全球_Kenya_Social_Protection_Sector_Review___Executive_Report_36页_2mb

Kenya Social Protection Sector Review (June 2012) Executive Summary

Core Content

The Kenya Social Protection Sector Review, conducted by the Ministry of State for Planning, National Development, and Vision 2030, provides an overview of the current state of social protection in Kenya, highlighting both progress and challenges. The review was guided by a Technical Committee and a Steering Committee, and supported by the World Bank, UNICEF, and DFID.

Main Points

1. Definition and Scope of Social Protection

Social protection in Kenya is defined as policies and actions that enhance the capacity of and opportunities for the poor and vulnerable to improve and sustain their lives, livelihoods, and welfare. It includes:

• Social security measures
• Income security initiatives
• Healthcare access
• Social assistance for the unemployed, elderly, and people with disabilities

2. Trends in Social Protection Spending

• Between 2005 and 2010, social protection expenditure increased from Ksh 33.4 billion to Ksh 57.1 billion, or 2.28% of GDP in 2010.
• Contributory programmes saw a 53% increase in spending, driven by rising membership.
• Civil service pension expenditure increased by 70%, reaching 1% of GDP by 2010.
• Safety nets doubled in spending, from Ksh 11.9 billion to Ksh 20.5 billion, or 0.80% of GDP.
• Relief and recovery accounted for 53.2% of safety net spending.

3. Funding Sources

• Government is the largest funder (55%).
• Development partners (22%) and contributory scheme members (22%) are the other major sources.
• Safety nets are largely funded by development partners (71%), while contributory schemes are primarily funded by the government.

4. Coverage of Social Protection Programmes

• On average, social protection programmes covered 13% of the population.
• Safety nets covered almost 14% of the population by 2010.
• Contributory schemes covered only an estimated 1% of the population.
• Relief and recovery programmes remain dominant, especially in emergency contexts.

5. Targeting Methods

• Three common targeting methods were evaluated: categorical targeting, community-based targeting, and proxy means tests (PMT).
• Community-based targeting and PMT are more accurate in identifying poor households than categorical targeting.
• However, categorical targeting is easier for communities to understand and less costly.
• PMT has been met with some skepticism due to perceived lack of accuracy.

6. Use of ICT

• Social protection programmes are increasingly using ICT to improve efficiency and performance.
• Agency banking and smart card technology are being used to deliver cash transfers.
• Mobile network platforms are being explored to reduce the costs and time for beneficiaries to collect payments.

7. Accountability Mechanisms

• Social protection programmes have developed accountability mechanisms to ensure fiduciary control and upward accountability to policymakers and parliamentarians.
• Downward accountability is promoted through community-based organisations, service charters, and complaints procedures.
• These mechanisms are important for ensuring transparency and responsiveness to beneficiaries, but the reliance on voluntary community involvement raises concerns about sustainability.

8. Monitoring and Evaluation

• Monitoring and evaluation of social protection programmes in Kenya is weak, despite the need for robust data.
• There is a lack of comprehensive and publicly available data, making it difficult to assess programme performance and impact.
• Some programmes have shown positive outcomes, such as increased household consumption, school enrolment, and health outcomes (Box 3).

9. Challenges in Safety Net Programmes

• Safety net programmes are fragmented and uncoordinated, with over 19 programmes implemented by multiple agencies.
• These programmes tend to be small in scale and geographically overlapping, reducing efficiency and economies of scale.
• Implementation capacity is often limited, and registration systems are manual and slow.
• Delays in payments are common due to the complex process of moving funds through government systems and claiming benefits from contributory schemes.

10. Impact on Vulnerable Groups

• Vulnerable groups, including orphans and vulnerable children (OVCs), older persons, and people with disabilities, face higher poverty rates.
• Poverty rates in rural areas (50%) are higher than in urban areas (34%).
• Poor households are 78% more likely to report negative effects of shocks than wealthier ones.
• Social protection programmes have been shown to reduce chronic poverty and improve health and education outcomes.

11. Reforms and Future Directions

• Reforms are underway to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of social insurance schemes.
• The NSSF is transitioning from a provident fund to a pension fund to improve investment returns and governance.
• The NHIF is also undergoing reforms to increase coverage and improve fiscal sustainability.
• There is a growing recognition of the need for a single beneficiary registry to improve data collection and programme coordination (Box 4).

Key Information

• Social protection is a key tool in poverty reduction and inclusive growth.
• Safety nets are the most common form of social protection in Kenya, with a focus on cash transfers and public works.
• ICT is being used to improve the delivery and efficiency of social protection programmes.
• Accountability mechanisms are in place but face sustainability challenges.
• Monitoring and evaluation remains a major weakness in the sector.
• Relief and recovery programmes are not effective in addressing chronic poverty.
• Fragmentation and limited coordination among programmes hinder efficiency and impact.
• Reforms are being implemented to improve coverage, governance, and financial sustainability of social insurance schemes.

Conclusion

The Kenya Social Protection Sector Review highlights the need for a more integrated, coordinated, and sustainable approach to social protection. While there have been significant investments and reforms, challenges such as fragmentation, weak monitoring, and limited coverage remain. The review calls for the development of a single beneficiary registry, the improvement of targeting methods, and the strengthening of accountability and implementation capacity to ensure that social protection effectively supports the most vulnerable populations.