I. Budget reliability
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
1. Aggregate expenditure outturn
D
Notes:
1.1 Aggregate expenditure outturn
D
Notes:
Aggregate expenditure outturn for the last 3 fiscal years ranged between 68% and 83%.
2. Expenditure composition outturn
D+
Notes:
2.1 Expenditure composition outturn by function
C
Notes:
Variance in expenditure for 2013/14, 2014/15, and 2015/16 was 27%, 12%, and 12%, respectively.
2.2 Expenditure composition outturn by economic type
D
Notes:
Variance in expenditure composition by economic classification averaged 32% for the last 3 FYs.
2.3 Expenditure from contingency reserves
A
Notes:
Actual expenditure charged to a contingency vote was on average 0.4% for the last 3 FYs
Notes:
3.1 Aggregate revenue outturn
C
Notes:
The aggregate revenue outturn has been 98% and 93% in 2 consecutive years.
3.2 Revenue composition outturn
D
Notes:
In none of the 3 years the revenue composition outturn was less than 15%
II. Transparency of public finances
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
4. Budget classification
C
Notes:
4.1 Budget classification
C
Notes:
Budget formulation, execution, and reporting are based on administrative and economic classification using two-level classifications
Notes:
5.1 Budget documentation
D
Notes:
Scored 2 basic elements and 2 additional elements.
6. Central government operations outside financial reports
D
Notes:
6.1 Expenditure outside financial reports
D*
Notes:
No evidence has been provided.
6.2 Revenue outside financial reports
D*
Notes:
No evidence has been provided.
6.3 Financial reports of extrabudgetary units
D*
Notes:
No evidence has been provided.
7. Transfers to subnational governments
NA
Notes:
7.1 System for allocating transfers
NA
Notes:
There is no subgovernment under this level
7.2 Timeliness of information on transfers
NA
Notes:
There is no subgovernment under this level
8. Performance information for service delivery
D+
Notes:
8.1 Performance plans for service delivery
D
Notes:
The PBB for the next fiscal year was not found published on the county website
8.2 Performance achieved for service delivery
A
Notes:
The county prepares and publishes Quarterly Budget Implementation Status Reports which are published on the website of the county www.baringo.go.ke.
8.3 Resources received by service delivery units
D*
Notes:
No explanation of variances according to the program units in line with the budge
8.4 Performance evaluation for service delivery
D
Notes:
No explanation of variances according to the program units in line with the budget.
9. Public access to fiscal information
D
Notes:
9.1 Public access to fiscal information
D
Notes:
Only 2 basic elements and 1 additional element were met.
III. Management of assets and liabilities
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
10. Fiscal risk reporting
D
Notes:
10.1 Monitoring of public corporations
NA
Notes:
The 2 public corporations owned by the county are still being established.
10.2 Monitoring of subnational governments
NA
Notes:
No subnational units under the county government level
10.3 Contingent liabilities and other fiscal risks
D*
Notes:
There is no evidence of what percentage of the contingent liabilities is quantified.
11. Public investment management
D
Notes:
11.1 Economic analysis of investment proposals
D
Notes:
Does not conduct economic analysis for the major investment projects.
11.2 Investment project selection
D
Notes:
There are no standardized criteria for project selection
11.3 Investment project costing
D
Notes:
There is no total cost of projects indicated in budget documents.
11.4 Investment project monitoring
D
Notes:
There are no standard procedures and rules for project implementation and monitoring.
12. Public asset management
D+
Notes:
12.1 Financial asset monitoring
C
Notes:
The financial assets available include cash and cash equivalent in the bank, petty cash. and outstanding imprests. There are no up-to-date records.
12.2 Nonfinancial asset monitoring
D
Notes:
Land record is not clear due to controversy of ownership of certain parcels of land.
12.3 Transparency of asset disposal
D
Notes:
There was no evidence that the county prepares any reports on asset disposal.
Notes:
13.1 Recording and reporting of debt and guarantees
D
Notes:
Debt is not recoded and not reported in the financial statement.
13.2 Approval of debt and guarantees
NA
Notes:
Borrowing is to be approved by the national government.
13.3 Debt management strategy
D
Notes:
The debt management strategy draft does not include risk indicator such as foreign currency risks.
IV. Policy-based fiscal strategy and budgeting
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
14. Macroeconomic and fiscal forecasting
D+
Notes:
14.1 Macroeconomic forecasts
C
Notes:
The county government uses the national government forecasts of key macro indicators for the budget year and the 2 following years
Notes:
The county prepares the expenditure and revenue forecasts as indicated in the CFSPs and budgets but does not provide assumptions.
14.3 Macrofiscal sensitivity analysis
D
Notes:
The county does not carry out any sensitivity analysis in relation to own source revenue.
Notes:
15.1 Fiscal impact of policy proposals
D
Notes:
The county does not present fiscal impacts of different policy proposals.
15.2 Fiscal strategy adoption
A
Notes:
The County Assembly adopted the CFSP for 2015/16 with quantitative fiscal goals that are time based and are available on the county website.
15.3 Reporting on fiscal outcomes
C
Notes:
The CBROP does not provide specific action plan to address the deviations but generic recommendations.
16. Medium-term perspective in expenditure budgeting
D+
Notes:
16.1 Medium-term expenditure estimates
C
Notes:
The budget estimates have the budget year and 2 subsequent fiscal years allocated by economic and functional classification.
16.2 Medium-term expenditure ceilings
D
Notes:
MTEF expenditure ceilings are not submitted together with the budget circular. The ceilings are firmed up at the CFSP level.
16.3 Alignment of strategic plans and medium-term budgets
D
Notes:
The county does not analyze the overall budget of the last medium-term budget and the first year of the current medium-term budget at the aggregate level.
16.4 Consistency of budgets with previous year’s estimates
D
Notes:
The county does not analyze the overall budget of the last medium-term budget and the first year of the current medium-term budget at the aggregate level.
17. Budget preparation process
D+
Notes:
Notes:
There is no copy of the budget calendar.
17.2 Guidance on budget preparation
D
Notes:
There are no ceilings in the budget circulars.
17.3 Budget submission to the legislature
C
Notes:
Evidence of submission date has not been provided for FY2013/14.
18. Legislative scrutiny of budgets
D+
Notes:
18.1 Scope of budget scrutiny
A
Notes:
The County Assembly scrutinizes the budget to check its consistence with the CIDP, ADP, and CFSP, which include budgetary priorities and medium-term revenue and expenditure estimates and forecasts.
18.2 Legislative procedures for budget scrutiny
C
Notes:
The County Assembly committees are guided by the standing committee rules for budget scrutiny that are adhered to. There is no record of public participation
18.3 Timing of budget approval
D
Notes:
The budget was approved on time in only one of the fiscal years assessed.
18.4 Rules for budget adjustment by the executive
C
Notes:
Clear rules exist as per the PFM Act, 2012, and they allow administrative reallocation and expansion of expenditures
V. Predictability and control in budget execution
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
19. Revenue administration
D
Notes:
19.1 Rights and obligations for revenue measures
D
Notes:
The county has not put in place a redress system to deal with complaints, compliments, and appeal.
19.2 Revenue risk management
D
Notes:
No systematic approach for assessing and prioritizing compliance risks
19.3 Revenue audit and investigation
D
Notes:
No independent body to carry out revenue audits and fraud investigations
19.4 Revenue arrears monitoring
D
Notes:
The rate of arrears over 12 months to the total arrears is 82%.
20. Accounting for revenue
D+
Notes:
20.1 Information on revenue collections
A
Notes:
Information on revenue collection is obtained on a monthly basis from entities collecting all county revenue.
20.2 Transfer of revenue collections
A
Notes:
Revenue collected from various sources is banked on a daily basis and reconciliations between collections and banking are carried out at the end of the month.
20.3 Revenue accounts reconciliation
D
Notes:
The evidence provided did not meet the conditions for revenue account reconciliation in terms of assessments, collections, arrears, and transfers.
21. Predictability of in-year resource allocation
B
Notes:
21.1 Consolidation of cash balances
C
Notes:
The county consolidates most of its cash balances on a monthly basis through bank reconciliation statements.
21.2 Cash forecasting and monitoring
C
Notes:
Cash flow projections are not updated on the basis of actual cash inflows and outflows.
21.3 Information on commitment ceilings
A
Notes:
Budgetary units plan and commit expenditure for at least 6 months in advance based on the budgeted appropriations.
21.4 Significance of in-year budget adjustments
B
Notes:
During FY2015/16, the county government made only 1 Supplementary Budget.
22. Expenditure arrears
C+
Notes:
22.1 Stock of expenditure arrears
B
Notes:
The percentage of arrears to total expenditure is less than 6% for 2 financial years.
22.2 Expenditure arrears monitoring
C
Notes:
Expenditure arrears monitoring C The reports on expenditure arrears are not prepared on a quarterly basis to facilitate effective monitoring of the arrears and do not cover age analysis.
Notes:
23.1 Integration of payroll and personnel records
B
Notes:
The county government uses the IPPD management system similar to the system used by the national government. It integrates personnel database and payroll.
23.2 Management of payroll changes
A
Notes:
Changes to personnel records and payroll are updated on a monthly basis and in time for the following month’s payments.
23.3 Internal control of payroll
A
Notes:
Payroll changes are authorized by the head of human resource acting on approvals from the Public Service Board.
Notes:
During the last 3 completed financial years, payroll audit was carried out only once
Notes:
24.1 Procurement monitoring
B
Notes:
Comprehensive data is maintained on what has been procured, value, and procurement method for most procurement methods.
24.2 Procurement methods
D*
Notes:
Over 80% of procurement has allegedly been done competitively. No evidence has been provided to support this information.
24.3 Public access to procurement information
D*
Notes:
Only 3 of six elements were met by the county representing, but the materiality could not be ascertained.
24.4 Procurement complaints management
A
Notes:
The procurement complaint system meets all criteria.
25. Internal controls on nonsalary expenditure
B
Notes:
25.1 Segregation of duties
A
Notes:
There is segregation of duties along the expenditure as evidenced by signed payment vouchers and right to the IFMIS and Internet banking.
25.2 Effectiveness of expenditure commitment controls
A
Notes:
The county government has a cash flow projection prepared for the whole year guided by requisitions.
25.3 Compliance with payment rules and procedures
D*
Notes:
No data was provided to verify how many payments are compliant with regular payment procedures.
Notes:
26.1 Coverage of internal audit
D*
Notes:
No evidence was provided to justify the percentage of audited county entities.
26.2 Nature of audits and standards applied
C
Notes:
IPPF is applied, but there is no formalized quality assurance.
26.3 Implementation of internal audits and reporting
D*
Notes:
It has not been evidenced how much of the Annual Audit Plan has been implemented over the last 3 FYs.
26.4 Response to internal audits
D
Notes:
For FY2013/14, there were no responses to internal audit reports.
VI. Accounting and reporting
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
27. Financial data integrity
B
Notes:
27.1 Bank account reconciliation
B
Notes:
The active bank accounts of the county are reconciled to the cash books once a month.
Notes:
The county does not have any suspense accounts.
Notes:
The accounts are cleared more than 2 months after the year-end.
27.4 Financial data integrity processes
B
Notes:
The county uses the IFMIS and Internet banking to record and process budget data.
28. In-year budget reports
D
Notes:
28.1 Coverage and comparability of reports
C
Notes:
Quarterly Budget Implementation Status Reports show departmental budget implementation analysis comparison between the approved budget estimates and actual expenditures in the County Assembly and County Executive services for the main administrative headings.
28.2 Timing of in-year budget reports
D*
Notes:
Quarterly Budget Implementation Status Reports are submitted to the required institutions, but the submission dates have not been provided.
28.3 Accuracy of in-year budget reports
C
Notes:
There is no budget execution analysis on a halfyearly basis.
29. Annual financial reports
D+
Notes:
29.1 Completeness of annual financial reports
C
Notes:
The county applies IPSAS cash showing disclosure of revenue, expenditure, and cash, but no assets and liabilities in the AFS.
29.2 Submission of reports for external audit
C
Notes:
The AFS were submitted in time for FY2013/14 and FY2014/15 but more than 6 months after the deadline for FY2015/16.
29.3 Accounting standards
D
Notes:
Variations between international and national standards are not discussed and gaps are not explained in the reports of the OAG.
VII. External scrutiny and audit
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
Notes:
30.1 Audit coverage and standards
B
Notes:
The audit reports show that all county budgetary units have been audited with the exception of the public corporations.
30.2 Submission of audit reports to the legislature
D
Notes:
The audit reports for FY2013/14, FY2014/15, and FY2015/16 were submitted to the legislature with significant delay.
30.3 External audit follow-up
D
Notes:
The delay in response to audit issues has been brought about by delays in audit completion.
30.4 Supreme Audit Institution independence
A
Notes:
The external audits of the county are executed by the OAG, which is an independent constitutional body with its own systems and procedures and is hence independent of the county.
31. Legislative scrutiny of audit reports
D
Notes:
31.1 Timing of audit report scrutiny
D*
Notes:
No evidence has been provided to support that practice.
31.2 Hearings on audit findings
D*
Notes:
No evidence has been provided to support that practice.
31.3 Recommendations on audit by the legislature
D*
Notes:
No evidence has been provided on recommendations issued by the legislature to the Executive.
31.4 Transparency of legislative scrutiny of audit reports
D*
Notes:
No evidence has been provided that the public is aware that the hearing sessions are open.
NO PILLAR
Scores by Dimension
Overall Indicator Score
HLG-1 Predictability of transfers from higher level of Government
D
Notes:
HLG-1.1 Annual deviation of actual total HLG transfers from the original total estimated amount provided by HLG to the SN entity for inclusion in the latter’s budget
D
Notes:
The transfers have been at least 90% in 2 of the assessed FYs.
HLG-1.2 Annual variance between actual and estimated transfers of earmarked grants
D
Notes:
The difference between original budget and actual was more than 10% in 2 of the 3 years.
HLG-1.3 In-year timeliness of transfers from HLG (compliance with timetables for in-year distribution of disbursements agreed within of month of the start of the SN fiscal year)
D*
Notes:
Actual dates of transfer have not been provided
