APRM • SECOND COUNTRY REVIEW REPORT OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA Special Funds 343. The CRM finds that there are several devolved funds dispensed. Examples of the funds are Constituency Development Fund (CDF) renamed the National Constituency Development Fund (NGCDF), Constituency Bursary Fund (CBF), Youth Employment Fund (YEF) and Women Employment Fund (WEF). The objectives of these funds are good as they are drivers of economic activities and employment. The CRM found from various reports, including that of the Task Force on Review of Legal, Policy and Institutional Framework for Fighting Corruption in Kenya, submitted to Government in 2015 and during consultative forums that each of the funds has its own administrative structure with their operations lacking transparency and accountability, low participation of the people, and gross mismanagement. The general perception is that the funds are prone to corrupt practices. In the case of NG-CDF, for instance, the CRM was informed during the consultative forums that it was a success story in the initial years of its establishment. However, it was said that the Government and powerful members of parliament manipulate the fund for electoral gain. This defeats the main purpose of establishing the fund. Improved Revenue Collection 344. Huduma Centres have been established by the Government to serve as a one-stop shop for processing services offered by the public sector. This initiative is driven by the Presidency through the Ministry of Devolution and Planning. Among the services provided in the Huduma Centres are issuance of identity cards and birth certificates, assessment of stamp duties, registration of business name, police clearance certificate, National Social Security (NSS) member registration, and tax clearance certificate. The Huduma Centres, which are available across the country, have improved accessibility to the services provided by the government, reduced personal contact and minimized the opportunity to offer bribes and above all improved revenue collection. Participation in Budget Process 345. The CRM found, during the consultative forums, that participation of the people in the budget process at the county level is very low (this finding is consistent with the APRM Household Survey Report, 2014, p. 78). In some counties, the structural framework for participation was not articulated. It was also revealed that in many of the counties where there is participation, the participants in the forums were usually handpicked, and in most cases they are friends or allies (or associates) of those in authorities. Some of the reasons listed for the low participation were distance and the high burden of transportation cost, inadequate understanding of the policies and programmes of the government, and poor publicity. The CRM was also informed that the documents or materials, which form the basis of discussion during public forums by counties where participation took place, are only circulated at the meetings. It follows that issues to be discussed are not known until the day of consultation. The low level of participation in economic decision making process undoubtedly makes it difficult for the communities to claim full ownership of the programmes and projects executed. | 160 |