17 th July to 21 st July 2017

Transcription

1 LAIKIPIA COUNTY ANNUAL CAPACITY & PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (ACPA) REPORT From 17 th July to 21 st July 2017 Presented by Lead Consultant Matengo Githae & Associates Certified Public Accountants (K) Head office: 2nd floor, Chaka place, Chaka Rd. off Argwings Kodhek Rd Tel: Website:

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY METHODOLOGY, ASSESSMENT TEAM AND ACTIVITIES Methodology Time Plan SUMMARY OF RESULTS Minimum Access Conditions (MAC) Minimum Conditions Conditions Table 5: The summary of results for Conditions SUMMARY OF CAPACITY BUILDING REQUIREMENTS Summary of s CHALLENGES IN THE ASSESSMENT SPECIFIC AND GENERAL COMMENTS TO INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS MAC s MPC s Issues PMs NOTIFICATION OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY NOTED DURING THE FIELD-TRIP OVERVIEW OF THE 5 WEAKEST PERFORMANCES ANNEX 1: MINUTES OF THE ENTRANCE MEETING HELD AT LAIKIPIA COUNTY ANNEX 2: MINUTES OF THE EXITMEETING HELD AT LAIKIPIA COUNTY... 93

3 ACRONYMS ACPA - Annual Capacity and Assessment ADP - Annual Development Plans CB - Capacity Building CEC - County Executive Committee CFAR - County Financial and Accounting Report LCG - Laikipia County Government CIDP - County Integrated Development Plan CO - Chief Officer CPG - County Grants CRA - Commission on Revenue Allocation EA - Environmental Audits EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment EMCA - Environmental Management and Coordination Act FS - Financial Secretary FY - Financial Year ICT - Information Communication Technology IPSAS - International Public Sector Accounting Standards KDSP - Kenya Devolution Support Programme KRA - Key M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation MAC - Minimum Access Conditions MODP - Ministry of Devolution and Planning MPC - Minimum Conditions NEMA - National Environment Management and Coordination Authority NT - National Treasury NWCPC - National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation PFM - Public Finance Management (Act) POM - Programme Operation Manual 1

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The consulting team from Matengo Githae & Associates thanks all Laikipia County Government and County Assembly Officials, Senior Management and staff who participated in the Annual Capacity and Assessment. The officials made valuable contributions throughout the assessment and document review processes and provided useful information and insights to the assessors. The consulting team liaised with the County Government Officials throughout the assessment process. The County Officials provided vital support by following up with departmental heads to avail all records and explanations that the consulting team required. We sincerely acknowledge the contribution made by Mr. J.M Mathenge, the Head of Public Participation and the focal point who presided over the assessment entry meeting and set the tone for the superb cooperation and coordinated support that we received from all the County Government and County Assembly Officials, senior management and staff we interacted with during the assessment. Mr. J.M Mathenge was also the focal point and the tireless coordinator of the assessment exercise on behalf of the County Government and County Assembly of Laikipia. Finally, we want to acknowledge the County Secretary, Mr. Charles Nderitu who presided over the exit meeting and assured the consulting team that the Annual Capacity and Assessment program is welcome and its output will help the Laikipia County to continuously improve its performance and service to the County at large. 2

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Government of Kenya developed a National Capacity Building Framework NCBF, in 2013 to guide the implementation of its capacity building support for county governments. The program is a key part of the government s Kenya Devolution Support Program - KDSP supported by the World Bank. The NCBF spans PFM, Planning and M & E, Human Resource Management, Devolution and Inter-Governmental Relations and Public Participation. The Ministry of Devolution and Planning MoDP, state department of devolution subsequently commissioned Matengo Githae & Associates to carry out an Annual Capacity and Assessment ACPA in forty seven counties. The ACPA assessment aims to achieve three complementary roles. Evaluating the impact of capacity building support provided by national government and development partners under the NCBF will inform the introduction of a performance-based grant (the Capacity & Grant, which will be introduced form FY 2016/17) to fund county executed capacity building and to increase the incentives for counties to proactively invest in their own capacity. In preparation for the assessment process, MoDP carried out an induction and sensitization training to the consulting team to help them internalize the objectives of the ACPA, size of capacity and performance grants, County Government s eligibility criteria, ACPA tool, and the ACPA assessment criteria. This report documents the key issues that arose during the final assessment of Laikipia County Government spanning the methodology used for the assessment, time plan and the overall process, summary of the results, summary of capacity building requirements and the need for follow up, challenges in the assessment in general and the training methods. Table 1: The summary of the assessment was summed as follows: ACPA Measures MAC MPC Outcome All have complied with MAC except for item 3 and 4, which has not been implemented Have met 8 MPCs. MPC 5-Adherence to investment menu are not applicable in this assessment. 3

6 ACPA Measures Outcome Score PM KRA 1: Public Financial Management 12 KRA 2: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 13 KRA 3 :Human Resources Management 6 KRA 4: Civic Education and Participation 7 KRA 5: Investment implementation & Social 5 And environmental performance TOTAL 43 Achievements The County performed well in the area of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation where there are annual progress reports for the various sectors. Further, there were proper systems in place for financial management and planning documents in place. The County performed well in the area of civic education and public participation as evidenced in the many records availed to the assessors. Weaknesses In the area of Investment Implementation & Social and Environmental the main weakness was lack of a project completion register and also records to show the actual costs incurred for projects so as to ensure that projects were implemented according to costs no maintenance budgets for completed projects. It was noted county environmental committee was not in place, members have been identified awaiting gazettement and that no annual environmental and social audits are undertaken. Challenges The main challenges faced during the assessment include: Lack of preparation by the staff for the assessment Documents required for the assessment were not provided Unreliability of the IFMIS system as it was experiencing a down time during this period hence getting some reports from the system was difficult 4

7 s of Improvement The county should improve on the following areas: Train budgeting staff on the use of IFMIS Hyperion module in budget preparation; Put in place and training the audit committee to be effective; Fully automating revenue collection for all the revenue streams; Putting in a place a project completion register for the whole county Setting up of a competent and proactive centralized M&E unit that will lead and coordinate the activities of various sectional/departmental M&E units or staffs Development of a comprehensive M&E framework and system and training of M&E staff on result based M&E Out in place a Monitoring Committee Put in place approved staffing plans and annual target; Develop a skills and competency framework; Put in place proper monitoring and evaluation systems for project implementation; Train and sensitize County Assembly s Public Finance and Investment Committee to scrutinize external audit reports in a timely manner; Ensure that the annual financing requirement of the CIDP is not far off the budgetary allocations; Put in place a focal planning and M & E officer in all sectors; Publish and sharing county core financial materials and performance assessments reports on the county website; Training on project management to ensure of projects implementation within the budget estimates Providing of sufficient budget for maintenance of projects after their completion. Put in place a fully functional, with adequate staff and well-funded civic education and public participation unit to handle all civic education and public participation programs and activities Build capacity of staff in the environmental and social safeguards department in terms of resources, skills and approve environmental policy documents to undertake their work effectively. Carry out annual environmental and Social Audits / reports as is required. 5

8 1.0 METHODOLOGY, ASSESSMENT TEAM AND ACTIVITIES 1.1 Methodology The consultants relied on the following activities in carrying out the capacity assessments a) Entrance Meeting The consultants held an entrance meeting with the top County Officials. The purpose was to provide the County Management with the opportunity to appreciate the purpose and objective of the exercise and to point out the need to support the exercise since its outcome would assist counties to strengthen their programmes and at the same time avail them with evidence to demonstrate change. This also provided the consultants with opportunity to conduct background review of the County and its operations from internal and external documents. b) Data Administration The consultants administered the questionnaire within three (3) working days. The consultants applied experiential learning (EL) to conduct Key group and other interviews, engaged with key Laikipia County Government and County Assembly Officials, senior management and staff who were knowledgeable in areas that related to the ACPA assessment to identify key capacity building issues and areas. The consultants also used compliance modeling (CM) and organization review (OR) to review whether Existing County Integrated Development Plan CIDP, Annual Development Plans ADP s, Budgets, Financial Reports, key project documents, policy documents and strategies; and departmental reports complied with underlying laws, regulations and were modelled to produce the intended results in compliance with current national government laws, guidelines, policies, regulations and ACPA participation and assessment guidelines; and action planning (AP) to develop capacity building recommendations. c) Exit Meeting-Debriefing The consultants held a debriefing session with the entire Laikipia County team that also comprised members of county assembly to share the outcome of the assessment process. This was meant to iron out issues and any differences arising from the assessment process, and agree on the said issues if any in order to reduce any potential conflict on the outcome of the results, by explaining the basis for outcome. The debriefing meeting agenda comprised of the following: Preliminary key findings and outcomes of the assessments. Sharing of the final results. The level of information availed and the expectation from the manual The final scoring of the results. 6

9 1.2 Time Plan The time plan for the assessment and respective activities is as shown below; Table 2: Activity Work Plan Activity Inception meeting Assessing the Minimum Access Conditions Assessing minimum Measures Assessing Measures Exit Meeting Preparing Report 17 th July th July th Jul th July st July

10 2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS The summary of the results of the assessments are provided in the tables 3, 4 and 5 below by MACs, MPCs and PMs respectively. 2.1 Minimum Access Conditions (MAC) Table 3: Summary of results for Minimum Access Conditions Minimum Conditions for Capacity and Grants (level 1) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification (MoV) Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met Finding 1. County signed participation agreement To ensure that there is ownership and interest from the county to be involved in the Program, and to allow access to information for the AC&PA teams. Signed confirmation letter/expression of interest in being involved in the Program MoV: Review the confirmation letter against the format provided by MoDP/in the Program Operational Manual (POM). First ACPA. Met A signed participation agreement by the governor dated on 28 June 2016 was availed to consulting team. 8

11 Minimum Conditions for Capacity and Grants (level 1) 2. CB plan developed Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification (MoV) Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met Finding Is needed to guide use of funds and coordination. Shows the capacity of the county to be in driver s seat on CB. CB plan developed according to the format provided in the Program Operational Manual/Grant Manual (annex). MoV: Review the CB plan, based on the self- assessment of the KDSP indicators: MACs, MPC and PMs, and compared with format in the POM /Grant Manual (annex). At the point of time for the ACPA for the current FY. First year a trigger to be achieved prior to the start of FY. Met CB Plan for 2016/17 developed according to the format in POM/Grant Manual It was signed by the County Secretary and the Focal Person on 28/6/2016 availed to the team CB Plan for 2017/18 developed in June 2017 according to the format in POM/Grant Manual. It was signed by the County Secretary and the Focal Person on 30/6/2017. Funds had not been disbursed for this 3. Compliance with investment menu of the grant Important to ensure quality of the CB support and targeting of the activities. Compliance with investment menu (eligible expenditure) of the Capacity and Grant) documented in progress reports. N/A 9

12 Minimum Conditions for Capacity and Grants (level 1) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification (MoV) Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met Finding MoV: Review of grant and utilization progress reports. Reporting for the use of CB grants for previous FYs in accordance with the Investment menu 4. Implementati on of CB plan Ensure actual implementation. Minimum level (70% of FY 16/17 plan, 75% of FY 17/18 plan, and 80% of subsequent plans) of implementation of planned CB activities by end of FY. MoV: Review financial statements and use of CB + narrative of activities (quarterly reports and per the Grant Manual). N/A There has been a delay in the program implementation and funding is yet to be given. 10

13 2.2 Minimum Conditions Table 4: Summary of results for Minimum Conditions MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met Minimum Access Conditions complied with 1. Compliance with minimum access conditions To ensure minimum capacity and linkage between CB and investments. Compliance with MACs. MoV: Review of the conditions mentioned above and the MoV of these. At point of time for the ACPA Met A signed participation agreement by the Governor dated on 28 June 2016 was availed to the consulting team. CB Plan for 2017/18 developed in June 2017 according to the format in POM/Grant Manual. It was signed by the County Secretary and the Focal Person on 30/6/2017. Financial Management 2. Financial statements submitted To reduce fiduciary risks Financial Statements with letter on documentation submitted to the Kenya National Audit Office by 30 th September and National Treasury with required signatures (Internal auditor, heads of accounting unit etc.) As per the PFM Act 3 months after closure of the FY (30 th of September). Complied with if the county is submitting Met Separate Financial Statements for FY 2015/2016 for the County Executive and the County Assembly were submitted to the Kenya National Audit Office on 30 th September 2016 as evidenced by submission 11

14 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met Art.116 and Art. 164 (4). This can be either individual submissions from each department, or consolidated statement for the whole county. If individual statements are submitted for each department, the county must also submit consolidated statements by 31 st October. The FS has to be in an auditable format. MoV: Annual financial statements (FSs), submission letters to Office of the Auditor General (OAG) + records in OAG. The opinion in the audit report of the financial statements for county legislature and executive of the previous fiscal year cannot be adverse or carry a disclaimer on any substantive issue. MoV: Audit reports from individual department statements: 3 months after end of FY for department statements and 4 months after end of FY for consolidated statement. If the council is only submitting consolidated statement: Deadline is 3 months after end of FY. Note. This will be last trigger for release as report is not yet there upon time for the ACPA. letter and received stamp. Consolidated financial statements for the County were submitted on 31 st October 2016 as evidenced by approval stamps. The financial statements are signed as required and are in accordance with the IPSAS template provided by the PSASB. The financial statements are signed as required by the chief officer and head of treasury. 3. Audit opinion does not carry an adverse opinion, or a disclaimer on any substantive issue To reduce fiduciary risks Transitional Met The County Executive s audited financial statements for the year 2015/2016 carry a qualified opinion based on the following grounds: i)the accuracy of financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2016 could 12

15 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Office of the Auditor General. Transitional arrangements: Transitional arrangements are in place as audit report may be disclaimed due to balance sheet issues. First year where the Minimum Conditions are applied (i.e. 2 nd AC&PA starting in September 2016) the conditions are as follows: Audit report shows that the county has: Provided documentation of revenue and expenditures (without significant issues leading to adverse opinion); No cases of substantial mismanagement (which in itself would lead to adverse audit opinion) and fraud; Spending within budget and revised budget; Quarterly reports submitted in last FY to Timing arrangements: First ACPA where MPCs are applied i.e. in the 2016 ACPA: Issues are defined for the core issues, which disqualify counties as per audit reports, see previous column. Assessment Met/ Not Met not be ascertained due to variances between balances as per the financial statement and balances as per the supporting schedules provided for audit, specifically for acquisition of assets. ii)the accuracy and completeness of acquisition of assets balance of Kshs 778,198,464 as at 30 June 2016 could not be ascertained. iii) The accuracy of the cash and bank balances reflected in the financial statements could not be confirmed. iv) The County Revenue Fund balance of Kshs 297,884,877 as at 30 June 2016 was not remitted to the Exchequer as required. vi) The accuracy of cash on hand balance of Kshs 108,108 could not be confirmed. 13

16 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Cob; Books of accounts (cashbooks) posted with bank reconciliations up-todate. Assets register for new assets in place Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met vii) Rent and rates arrears The county reported nil balance in respect of rates arrears for the year ended at 30 June However, review of revenue records and receivables for the year ended 30 June 2016, revealed that the County had rates arrears of Kshs 2,507,637,939. viii) There were unsupported payments for ward development projects amounting to Kshs 9,990,706. ix) There were variances between financial statements balance and IFMIS balances for Cash equivalent, payables, receipts, payment and receivables. Therefore, the accuracy and completeness of the financial statements could not be confirmed. 14

17 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met The County Assembly s carry a disclaimer opinion based on the following grounds: i) Unreconciled financial statements figures with IFMIS figures for receipts, payments, cash and cash equivalents, receivables and payables. ii) Unexplained variance of Kshs 5,766,278 in the figure for compensation of employees stated in the financial statements and ledgers. Compensation of employees Kshs 212,337,100 ii)accounts payable deposits and retention Kshs 17,802,689 iii)unsupported sitting allowance payments Kshs 2,310,000 iv)car loan and mortgage 15

18 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met scheme for MCAs Kshs 6,916, v)modernization of Assembly chambers and offices Kshs 5,625,000 v)domestic travel and subsistence expenses - Kshs 48,458, Annual planning documents in place To demonstrate a minimum level of capacity to plan and manage funds CIDP, Annual Development Plan and budget approved and published (on-line). (Note: The approved versions have to be the version published on county website) (PFM Act, Art 126 (4). MoV: CIDP, ADP, and budget approval documentation, minutes from council meetings and review of county web-site. At the point of time of the ACPA, which will take place in Sep- Nov, the plans for current year are reviewed. Met CIDP for the year developed in July October 2014 hard copy availed and published on the county website. Annual Development 2017/2018 was received by the County Assembly on 26th August 2016 as per stamp. The ADP FY 2017/2018 was posted to the county website. The approved budget for the financial years 2017/2018 was availed. The budget is 16

19 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met posted to the county website. Budget FY 2017/2018 was received by the county assembly on 29/4/2016 and approved on 27/5/2016. Use of funds in accordance with Investment menu 5. Adherence with the investment menu To ensure compliance with the environmental and social safeguards and ensure efficiency in spending. Adherence with the investment menu (eligible expenditures) as defined in the PG Grant Manual. MoV: Review financial statements against the grant guidelines. Check up on use of funds from the CPG through the source of funding in the chart of accounts (if possible through the general reporting system with Source of Funding codes) or special manual system of reporting as defined in the Capacity and Grant Manual) Review budget progress reports submitted to CoB. In 2016 ACPA (Q3 2016) this MPC will not be measured as the level 2 grant starts only from FY 2017/18. N/A The investment menu relates to the actual capacity building grant which is yet to be given 17

20 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Procurement 6. Consolidate d Procurement plans in place. Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met To ensure procurement planning is properly coordinated from the central procurement unit instead at departmental, and to ensure sufficient capacity to handle discretionary funds. Up-dated consolidated procurement plan for executive and for assembly (or combined plan for both). MoV: Review procurement plan of each procurement entity and county consolidated procurement plan and check up against the budget whether it encompass the needed projects and adherence with procurement procedures. The procurement plan(s) will have to be up-dated if/and when there are budget revisions, which require changes in the procurement process. At point of the ACPA (for current year) Met Procurement plans for the County Executive are prepared at the departmental level and then consolidated for the County. Consolidated procurement plan and plans for the FY 2016/2017 for all the Eight (8) departments were availed. Procurement plan for the County Assembly for the FY2016/2017 was availed. The individual plans were uploaded on IFMIS. Note that there is need to check both the consolidated procurement plan for 1) the assembly and 2) the executive, and whether it is revised when 18

21 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Core Staffing in Place 7. County Core staff in place Reason and Explanation To ensure minimum capacity in staffing Detailed indicator and Means of Verification budget revisions are made. Core staff in place as per below list (see also County Government Act Art. 44). The following staff positions should be in place: The country secretary Chief officer of finance, Planning officer, Internal auditor, Procurement officer Accountant Focal Environmental and Social Officer designated to oversee environmental and social safeguards for all sub projects M&E officer MoV: Staff organogram, schemes of service to review the qualifications against requirements (hence the staff needs to be substantive compared to the schemes of Timing At the point of time for the ACPA. Assessment Met/ Not Met Met All the core staff are there and captured on the organogram both at the Count Executive and the Assembly Staff organogram in place with explanation on the county structure. The following positions have been filled by qualified staff who have been substantially appointed: Ag. County Secretary Chief officer of finance Planning officer Internal auditor Procurement officer Accountant Focal environmental and social officer designated M & E Officer The positions indents, 19

22 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met service), sample check salary payments, job descriptions, interview and sample checks. Staff acting in positions may also fulfill the conditions if they comply with the qualifications required in the schemes of service. adverts, shortlists, award reports, letters of offer and appointment were availed. Job descriptions are provided in the letters of offer on which staff sign on acceptance. Staff in acting capacity such as County Secretary is held on acting capacity by the duly qualified Director of Economic planning and County development. Environmental and Social Safeguards 8. Functional and Operational Environment al and Social Safeguards Systems (i.e. screening/vet ting, clearance/ approval, enforcement To ensure that there is a mechanism and capacity to screen environmental and social risks of the planning process prior 1) Counties endorse and ratify the environmental and social management system to guide investments (from the ACPA starting September 2016). 2) All proposed investments screened* against set of environmental and social criteria/checklist, safeguards Note that the first installment of the expanded CPG investment menu covering sectoral investments starts from July 2017 (FY 2017/18). Met 1. LCG embraces EMCA and collaborates with NEMA in the environmental and social screening, vetting and licensing of all projects within the county including those it funds. 2. The county environment office is a NEMA 20

23 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) & compliance monitoring, grievance redress mechanisms, documentati on & reporting) in place. Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met to implementatio n, and to monitor safeguard during implementatio n. To avoid significant adverse environmental and social impacts To promote environmental and social benefits and ensure sustainability To provide opportunity for public instruments prepared. (Sample 5-10 projects). (From the second AC&PA, Sept. 2016). 3) Prepare relevant RAP for all investments with any displacement. Project Reports for investments for submission to NEMA. (From the 3 nd AC&PA, Sept. 2017). Sample 5-10 projects. 4) Establishment of County Environment Committee. MoV: Review endorsements from NEMA, ratification, screening materials and documentation, and contracts. Evidence that all projects are reviewed, coordinated and screened against checklist in Program Operating Manual. Screening may be conducted by various departments, but there is a need to provide an overview and evidence that all Hence some of the conditions will be reviewed in the ACPA prior to this release to ascertain that capacity is in place at county level, and other MPCs will review performance in the year after start on the utilization of the expanded grant menu (i.e. in the 3 rd AC&PA, see the previous column for details). designated Lead Agent and receives all project reports for the county to input its perspectives before environment licensing of proposed projects. This is evidenced in the seven reports availed vide: i) PR/LKP/5/2/374 Proposed Ewaso Ngiro river Bridge Laikipia North. ii) PR/LKP/5/2/664 Proposed rehabilitation of Ndindaka Dam, Gathiga Ward iii)pr/lkp/5/2/163 propose Marmanet-salama electric fence Laikipa West subcounty IV) PR/LKP/5/2/459 Proposed rehabilitation of Ainapmoi Dam, Rumuruti ward. v) PR/LKP/5/2/417 Proposed Laikipia West electric game 21

24 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation participation and consultation in safeguards process (free, prior and informed consultations FPIC) Detailed indicator and Means of Verification projects are screened. * In cases where the county has clear agreement with NEMA that it does the screening and that all projects are screened, this condition is also seen to be fulfilled. Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met fence, Laikipia West vi) PR/LKP/5/2/539 Propose drilling of a borehole at Ngishishi Location Timau division vii) PR/LKP/5/2/412 Proposed construction of Laikipia county Headquarters Rumuruti ward. 3. There is no project which has been undertaken since 2013 that required resettlement of citizens 4. The County Environment Committee (CeC) is in place as evidenced by a letter dated 29/11/2017. Evidence of gazettement of the committee was not availed. 5. The environment focal point person and the social point person were appointed as evidenced by a letter dated 22

25 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met 29/11/2017. a) LCG has established an operational complaints handling system in the public participation unit as evidenced by a letter dated 29/11/2017. b) The grievances redress flowchart indicates that the County Secretary (CS) is the central person to whom county complaints are addressed, directed, received and who files substantive complaints at the registry. There is a designated social focal point person who receives, sorts, forwards and monitors complaints. c) Citizens complaints are registered through a complaints handling selfregistration form which is available to the public. 9. Citizens Complaint system in place To ensure sufficient level of governance and reduce risks for mismanageme nt. Established an operational Complaints Handling System, including a: a) complaints/grievance committee to handle complaints pertaining to fiduciary, environmental and social systems. b) A designated a Focal Point Officer to receive, sort, forward, monitor complaints c) simple complaints form/template designed and available to the public d) Multiple channels for receiving complaints e.g. , telephone, anti-corruption boxes, websites etc.) e) Up to date and serialized record of complaints coordinate implementation of the Framework and a grievance committee is in place. At point of time for the ACPA. Met 23

26 MPCs for Capacity & Grants (level 2) Reason and Explanation Detailed indicator and Means of Verification MoV: Review county policy, availability of the focal office (recruitment files, salary payments, job description for focal point, and evidence for operations, etc. + members of grievance committee, minutes from meetings, various channels for lodging complaints, official and up to date record of complaints etc. See also County Government Act Art. 15 and 88 (1) Timing Assessment Met/ Not Met d) Complaints are received through s, telephone, short message system for a short code 22031, suggestion boxes and complaint letters received in the various offices. e) Complaints are received in the general registry, date stamped, coded (Folio) and filed in a complaints file. The county secretary then delegates response by forwarding the folio relevant department (office) or committee with directions for action and timeline. Once complaint is addressed, the attendant folio goes back to the county secretary who gives feedback to complainant (S) as appropriate. 24

27 2.3 Conditions Table 5: The summary of results for Conditions Measure KRA 1: Public Financial Management Max score: Maximum 30 points. Strengthened budget formulation, resource mobilization and allocation 1.1 Program Based Budget prepared using IFMIS and SCOA Budget format and quality The annual budget approved by the County Assembly is: a) Program Based Budget format. b) Budget developed using the IFMIS Hyperion module. Review county budget document, IFMIS uploads, the CPAR, Check use of Hyperion Module: all budget submissions include a PBB version printed from Hyperion (submissions may also include line item budgets prepared using other means, but these must match the PBB budget spot check figures between different versions). Maximum 2 points. 2 milestones (a & b) met: 2 points 1 of the 2 milestones met: 1 point a)1 b)0 a) The budget is program based. Various sector specific programmes are clearly defined and have been duly approved and have been approved. Program based budgets for the FY 2015/2016, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 were availed to the consulting team. b) Budget is not developed using IFMIS Hyperion module. The generic budget is prepared from all the sectors and consolidated because of the 25

28 1.2 Budget process follows clear budget calendar Measure Clear budget calendar with the following key milestones achieved: a) Prior to end of August the CEC member for finance has issued a circular to the county government entities with guidelines to be followed; b) County Budget review and outlook paper submission by county treasury to CEC by 30 September to be submitted to the County PFM Act, art 128, 129, 131. Review budget calendar, minutes from meetings (also from assembly resolutions) circular submission letters, county outlook paper, minutes from meetings and Financial Statements. Max. 3 points If all 5 milestones (a-e) achieved: 3 points If 3-4 items: 2 points If 2 items: 1 point If 1 or 0 items: 0 points. approval processes. Once the budget is approved by the County Assembly, the accounting department with the help of the National Treasury uploads it to the IFMIS Hyperion module. 2 a) County Treasury issued a budget process circular no LAI/TREASURY/CO/VO L/CT/61 for budget of FY 2015/2016 on 28 th August Evidence availed. b)county Budget Review and Outlook paper for financial year 2015/2016 submitted to County Assembly on 29 th September 2014 as per receiving stamp c) The County Treasury 26

29 Measure assembly 7 days after the CEC has approved it but no later than 15 th October. submitted the County Fiscal Strategy Paper 2015/2016 was submitted to the County Assembly 27 th February 2015 as per submission letter. c) County fiscal strategy paper (FSP) submission (by county treasury) of county strategy paper to county executive committee by 28 th Feb, County Treasury to submit to county assembly by 15 th of march and county assembly to discuss within two weeks after mission. d) CEC member for finance submits budget estimates to county assembly by 30 th April latest. d) The CEC-Head of Treasury submitted budget estimates to county assembly on 30 th April 2015 as per the submission letter. e) County assembly passed budget for the FY 2015/2016 on 1st July 2015 as evidenced by submission letter. Were late in approving the budget e) County assembly passes a budget with or without amendments by 27

30 Measure 30 th June latest. 1.3 Credibility of budget a) Aggregate expenditure out-turns compared to original approved budget. b) Expenditure composition for each sector matches budget allocations (average across sectors). Review the original budget and the annual financial statements, budget progress reports, audit reports, etc. Use figures from IFMIS (general ledger report at department (sub-vote) level). Max. 4 points. Ad a): If expenditure deviation between total budgeted expenditures and total exp. in final account is less than 10 % then 2 points. If % then 1 point. More than 20 %: 0 point. Ad b): If average deviation of expenditures across sectors is less than 10 % then 2 points. If % then 1 point. More than 20 %: 0 point. a)1 b)2 Actual Expenditure for FY 2015/2016 was Kshs. 4,149,000,191 versus overall original budget of Kshs. 5,133,879,602 which was 80%. This translates to positive deviation of 20%. b)average deviation of expenditure across sectors for the FY 2015/2016 was 0.81% as is illustrated below: i) Agriculture sector expenditure was Kshs. 89,917,259 against a budget of Kshs.121, 226,000. This represents a positive deviation of 25.83%. ii)education, Gender, Sports, Culture & Social Services sector expenditure was Kshs. 93,472,668 against a 28

31 Measure budget of Kshs.115,098,000 This represents a positive deviation of 18.79%. iii) Public Service and County Administration sector expenditure was Kshs. 2,201,132,047 against a budget of Kshs.2,408,980,000. This represents a positive deviation of 8.63% iv) Lands, housing and development sector expenditure was Kshs. 292,685,687 against a budget of Kshs.317, 320,000. This represents a positive deviation of 7.76%. v) Finance and Economic Planning sector expenditure was Kshs. 511,088,006 against a budget of 29

32 Measure Kshs.348, 001,001. This represents a negative deviation of 46.86% vi) Trade, Tourism and Co-operative Development sector expenditure was Kshs. 86,020,098 against a budget of Kshs.78, 700,000. This represents a negative deviation of 9.30% vii) Health and sanitation sector expenditure was Kshs. 326,664,262 against a budget of Kshs.202, 100,000. This represents a negative deviation of 61.63% viii) Water, Environment, Forestry & Natural Resources sector expenditure was Kshs. 89,849,960 against a budget of 30

33 Measure Kshs.132, 240,000. This represents a positive deviation of 32.06% ix) County Assembly expenditure was Kshs. 410,721,749 against a budget of Kshs.411, 560,000. This represents a positive deviation of 0.20% Revenue Enhancement 1.4 Enhanced revenue management and administratio n in revenue administrati on Automation of revenue collection, immediate banking and control system to track collection. Compare revenues collected through automated processes as % of total own source revenue. Max: 2 points. Over 80% = 2 points Over 60% = 1 point 0 Revenue collection in the County is not fully automated for all the revenue streams. The Laikipia County Integrated revenue system was adopted in July 2016 in a phased process. The county has fully automated the unstructured revenue like street parking, 31

34 Measure market fees, cess etc. Own source of revenue in FY 2016/2017 was Kshs.496,229, out of which 27% (Kshs. 133,245,946) was collected through the automated processes. The county is currently automating the structured revenue collection streams like single business permits property taxes etc. 1.5 Increase on a yearly basis in own source revenues (OSR). % increase in OSR from last fiscal year but one (year before previous FY ) to previous FY Compare annual Financial Statement from two years. (Use of nominal figures including inflation etc.). Max. 1 point. If increase is more than 10 %: 1 point. 0 There was a 3.8% increase in the collection of OSR for the FY 2015/2016. FY2014/2015 OSR Kshs.428,777,357 FY 2015/2016 OSR Kshs. 444,929,340. Enhanced capacity of counties on execution (including procurement), accounting and reporting 32

35 1.6 Reporting and accounting in accordance with PSASB guidelines Timeliness of in-year budget reports (quarterly to Controller of Budget). 1.7 Quality of financial statements. Measure a) Quarterly reports submitted no later than one month after the quarter (consolidated progress and expenditure reports) as per format in CFAR, submitted to the county assembly with copies to the controller of budget, National Treasury and CRA. b) Summary revenue, expenditure and progress report is published in the local media/web-page. Formats in PFMA and CFAR, and standard templates issued by the IPSAS board are applied and the FS include cores issues such as trial balance, bank Review quarterly reports, date and receipts (from CoB). Check against the PFM Act, Art CFAR, Section 8. Review website and copies of local media for evidence of publication of summary revenue and expenditure outturns. Review annual financial statements, bank conciliations and related documents and appendixes to the FS, date and receipts (from CoB and NT). Max. 2 points. (a &b) Submitted on time and published: 2 points. (a only): Submitted on time only: 1 point. Max. 1 point. Quality as defined by APA team or NT assessment (excellent/satisfact ory): 1 point 0 a) 1st and 2 nd quarter reports and financial statements for the period ended 30 th September 2016 and 31 st December 2016 availed with no submission letters to establish compliance with set reporting timelines. b) Summary of revenue, expenditure and progress report was availed for the quarters ending September 2015 and December 2015 was not published on the county website. 1 The annual financial statements for FY 2015/2016 were submitted to the CoB, CRA and the National Treasury on 18/10/

36 Measure reconciliations linked with closing balances, budget execution report, schedule of outstanding payments, and appendix with fixed assets register. Check against the PFM Act, Art. 166 and the IPSAS format. CFAR, Section 8. Check against requirements. If possible review ranking of FS by NT (using the County Government checklist for in-year and annual report), and if classified as excellent or satisfactory, conditions are also complied with. Financial statements for 2015/2016 were in the format prescribed by the PSASB. The format used comprises of statement of receipts and payments, statement of assets, statement of cash flow, statement of appropriation (recurrent and development), summary of provisioning, significant accounting policies as well as notes to the financial statements. 1.8 Monthly reporting and up-date of accounts, including: The monthly reporting shall include: 1. Income and expenditure statements; 2. Budget execution report, 3. Financial statement including: a. Details of income Review monthly reports. See also the PFM Manual, p. 82 of which some of the measures are drawn from. Max. 2 points. If all milestones (1-3): 2 points If 1 or 2: 1 point If none: 0 points. 1 Budget execution reports for FY2015/2016 were availed. Bank reconciliations for 30 June 2016 for all the accounts operated by the Executive were availed. 34

37 Measure and revenue b. Summary of expenditures c. Schedule of imprest and advances; d. Schedule of debtors and creditors; e. Bank reconciliations and post in general ledger. 1.9 Asset registers upto-date and inventory Assets registers are up-to date and independent physical inspection and verification of assets should be performed once a year. Review assets register, and sample a few assets. PFM Act. Art 149. Checkup-dates. Max. 1 point. Registers are upto-date: 1 point. Transitional arrangements: First year: Assets register need only to contain assets acquired by county governments since their establishment. Second year 0 The County Assembly s assets register was updated up-to 30 June The assets register maintained by the County Executive was not up to date (updated on 4/11/2014). The assets register detailed the date of acquisition, value of the assets, location of the assets, condition and asset tags, names 35

38 Measure onwards: register must include all assets, including those inherited form Local Authorities and National Ministries (particulars) for all assets acquired by the County Assembly and the Executive from the year No evidence was availed to establish whether independent annual physical inspection and verification of assets was performed. Audit 1.10 Internal audit Effective Internal audit function Internal audit in place with quarterly IA reports submitted to IA Committee (or if no IA committee, in place, then reports submitted to Governor) Review audit reports. Check against the PFM Act Art 155 Max. 1 point. 4 quarterly audit reports submitted in previous FY: 1 point. 1 The internal audit unit at the Executive is in place with 5 members of staff. The department currently reports administratively to the CFO and functionally to the Governor. Quarterly internal audit reports for the quarters ending September 36

39 Measure 2015, December 2015, March 2016 and June 2016 were availed to the consulting team. The proposed internal audit charter and the work plan for the FY 2017/2018 were also availed to the consulting team. 0 The internal audit Committee for the Executive is not in place Effective and efficient internal audit committee. IA/Audit committee established and review of reports and followup. Review composition of IA/Audit Committee, minutes etc. for evidence of review of internal audit reports. Review evidence of follow-up, i.e. evidence that there is an ongoing process to address the issues raised from last FY, e.g. control systems in place, etc. (evidence from follow-up meetings in the Committee). PFM Act Art 155. Max. 1 point. IA/Audit Committee established and reports reviewed by Committee and evidence of follow-up: 1 point. The County Executive is at an advanced stage of recruiting internal audit committee members with interviews having been already conducted. The internal audit committee for the County Assembly was appointed to office but the committee has not 37

40 Measure held any meeting External audit Value of audit queries The value of audit queries as a % of total expenditure Review audit report from KENAO. Total expenditure as per reports to CoB. Max. 2 points Value of queries <1% of total expenditures: 2 points <5% of total expenditure: 1 point 0 The value of audit queries for the County Executive for the FY 2015/2016 was Kshs.3,586,530,712 while the County Assembly s was Kshs. was Kshs.293,449,354. The total value of audit queries is Kshs 3,879,980,066 out of the consolidated expenditure for the county Kshs 4,520,153,482 (85.84%) 0 The total value of audit queries for the FY 2015/2016 was Kshs 3,879,980,066 while for the FY 2014/2015 was Kshs 847,744,470. Therefore, there was no reduction in value of audit queries in both FYs. NB. The audited 1.13 Reduction of audit queries The county has reduced the value of the audit queries (fiscal size of the area of which the query is raised). Review audit reports from KENAO from the last two audits. Max. 1 point. Audit queries (in terms of value) have reduced from last year but one to last year or if there is no audit queries: 1 point. 38

41 Measure County Assembly s financial statements for the FY 2014/2015 were not available on the KENAO websites for our review Legislative scrutiny of audit reports and follow-up Greater and more timely legislative scrutiny of external audit reports within required period and evidence that audit queries are addressed Minutes from meetings, review of previous audit reports. Max. 1 point. Tabling of audit report and evidence of follow-up: 1 point. 0 There was no evidence availed to establish whether the Finance Committee of the County Assembly undertook legislative scrutiny and follow-up of audit reports for the FY 2014/2015. Procurement 11.5 Improved procurement procedures Improved procuremen t procedures including use of IFMIs, record keeping, adherence to procuremen t thresholds Note: When PPRA develop a standard assessment tool, APA will switch to using the score from the PPRA assessment as the PM (PfR may incentivize PPRA to do this in DLI 1 or 3). a) 25 steps in the IFMIS procurement process Annual procurement assessment and audit by PPRA and OAG Sample 5 procurements (different size) and review steps complied with in the IFMIS guidelines. Calculate average steps complied with in the sample. Max. 6 points. a) IFMIS Steps: <15steps=0 points; 15-23=1 point; 24-25=2 points b) Timely submission of quarterly reports to PPRA (both a)0 b)0 a) 13 steps in IFMIS are adhered to in the procurement and payment processes. b) Annual reports for the FY 2015/2016 were submitted the PPRA on 2 nd November Forwarding letter for the same availed. 39

42 Measure and tender evaluation. adhered with. b) County has submitted required procurement reports to PPRA on time. c) Adherence with procurement thresholds and procurement methods for type/size of procurement in a sample of procurements. d) Secure storage space with adequate filing space designated and utilized for a sample of 10 procurements, single files containing all relevant documentation in one place are stored in this secure storage space (1 point) e) Completed evaluation reports, including individual evaluator scoring against pre- Review reports submitted. Check reports from tender committees and procurement units. Check a sample of 5 procurement and review adherence with thresholds and procurement methods and evaluation reports. Check for secure storage space and filing space, and for a random sample of 10 procurements of various sizes, review contents of files. annual reports plus all reports for procurements above proscribed thresholds): 1 point c) Adherence with procurement thresholds and procurement methods for type/size of procurement in a sample of procurements: 1 point d) Storage space and single complete files for sample of procurements: 1 point e) Evaluation reports: 1 point c)1 No evidence was provided that quarterly reports were submitted to the PPRA. c)the County adheres to PPRA 2006 regulations and PPDA 2015 to ensure adherence with various with the following procurement thresholds: Low value procurements for procurements below Kshs.30,000 Open tender for procurements above Kshs.5,000,000 Request for quotations for procurements below Kshs.5,000,000 The following procurements were 40