National Survey of NGOs Report

7/28/2019 National Survey of NGOs Report

1/37


2/37

2 National Survey o NGOs Report | 2009 National Survey o NGOs Report | 2009 1

National Survey of NGOs Report

2009

A publication o the NGOs Co-ordination Board


3/37


REPORT ON THE NATIONAL VALIDATION SURVEY OF NGOs

FOREWORD

One o the Boards mandate is to review the register o NGOs on a regular basis todetermine consistency with the reports submitted by them. Te Board conducted na-tionwide survey o NGOs in 2007 and 2008. Te data rom the survey would enablethe Board to advise the Government urther on NGOs activities and their role and

contribution to development in Kenya.

Te survey revealed that charitable activities are deeply embedded in communitiesand respond to some common concerns that cannot be adequately addressed by indi-

vidual amilies or Government. On the other hand, most countries have evolved romcentrally planned economies to market-oriented economies requiring undamental

modications o all stages o development policies, implementation, and administra-tion. In this changing environment, there has been a tremendous growth in the num-

ber o NGOs in the country, some o them established to respond to this new reality.Tereore, development strategies in the NGO sector must take into consideration thepolitical and economic realities that exist today.

While the Government development blue print Vision 2030 targets high quality lieor the citizens, it is apparent that it can no longer suciently und or respond tothe demands o all its citizens. Tereore, the Sector plays a complementary role inproviding services and essential acilities to deserving or underserved regions thereby

contributing to realization o the social and ec onomic pillars o Vision 2030. AlthoughNGOs are strategic in their approaches to societal needs, this has not been withoutchallenges as they continue to ace institutional, nancial and programme sustain-ability problems. Compliance with regulatory and statutory requirements is also low

and most NGOs do not hold annual general meetings and elections according to theirconstitutions. Te survey ndings have provided useul inormation and insights thatthe Board has utilised in enabling legal and regulatory ramework or NGOs with aview to ensuring eciency and eectiveness in the sector.

Amb. Peter O. Ole Nkuraiyia, CBSExecutive Director

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Former Chairman: Wyclie Mutsune, OGW, HSC

National Co-ordinator/Former Executive Director:David Isoe

Technical Co-ordinator: Henry Otieno Ochido

Regional Co-ordinators: Rahma Jillo, Douglas Odhiambo Owino, B enjaminKarume, Bernard Bwoma, Tomas Ombasa

Communications Co-ordinators: Nixon S. Nyadiero and Richard Chesos

Logistics and Administration:Andrew Ogombe andDavid Njane

Data Entries: Jemimah Muraya, Josephine Wanjala, Yusu N. Abdi, Elizabeth Kamau

and Irine Angwenyi

Data Analysis: Douglas Odhiambo Owino, Jemimah Muraya, Zilpah Kwamboka

Secretarial Co-ordinator: Winnie Odera

Registry Clerk: Charles Mugo Ichagichu

ICT Support: Yusu N. Abdi

Data Management Co-ordinator:Kibwana Zamani

Editing: Richard Chesos

Technical Advisor (Data interpretation and suciency; and report writing):Douglas Odhiambo Owino

Invaluable Contribution: All Supervisors, Enumerators and Management and Stao the NGOs Co-ordination Board

Funding: Te survey was ully unded by the Government o Kenya

Design and Layout:Sanabora Design House Ltd


4/37


3.1.4 NGOs With Internet Access .................................................................................................................30

3.1.5 NGOs With Fixed Telephone Lines........................................................................................................32

3.1.6 NGOs That Displayed Registration Certifcates .....................................................................................33

3.2 Distribution O NGOs..............................................................................................................................34

3.2.1 Provinces ............................................................................................................................................34

3.2.2 Distribution O NGOs In Kenya (In Terms O Scope O Operation) .........................................................36

3.2.3 NGOs Strategic Approach Advocacy, Service Provision And Capacity Building ...................................37

3.2.4 Sector ................................................................................................................................................39

3.2.5 NGOs Engaged In Microfnance ...........................................................................................................40

3.2.6 NGOs Running Children Homes...........................................................................................................42

3.3 Finances................................................................................................................................................45

3.3.1 Sources ..............................................................................................................................................45

3.3.2 Donor Countries .................................................................................................................................47

3.3.3 Expenditure ........................................................................................................................................48

3.3.4 Comparison O Survey Inormation Against Inormation Provided By NGOs In Their Returns..................50

3.3.5 Assets ................................................................................................................................................51

3.4 Personnel ..............................................................................................................................................52

3.4.1 Paid And Volunteer Sta .....................................................................................................................52

3.4.2 Nationality O Sta (Local And Foreign Sta) ......................................................................................55

3.5 Policy And Legal Issues ..........................................................................................................................573.5.1 Compliance With Regulatory Requirements .........................................................................................57

3.5.1.1 Functions And Existence O The Board .............................................................................................57

3.5.1.2 Awareness On Annual Returns And Audited Accounts .......................................................................58

3.5.2 Understanding O The Regulatory Framework For NGOs I n Kenya .........................................................60

3.5.2.1 Awareness On NGOs Co-Ordination Act ............................................................................................60

3.5.2.2 Understanding On Roles O The NGOs Co-Ordination Board And NGOs Council ................................61

3.5.2.3 Adequacy O The Act ........................................................................................................................63

Table O Contents

Glossary O Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................12

Preace ..............................................................................................................................................12

Defnitions .........................................................................................................................................14

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................16

Chapter One .......................................................................................................................................18

1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................18

1. 1 About The Non-Governmental Organizations Co-Ordination Board ..........................................................18

1.2 Background To The National Validation Survey O NGOs ..........................................................................19

1.3 Organization O The Survey .....................................................................................................................20

1.4 Objectives O The Survey ........................................................................................................................21

1.5 Rationale O The Survey .........................................................................................................................21

1.6 Expected Results ...................................................................................................................................21

1.7 Policy Implications .................................................................................................................................22

Chapter Two .......................................................................................................................................23

2.0 Methodology .........................................................................................................................................23

2.1 Study Area And Population Size..............................................................................................................23

2.2 Methods O Data Collection ...................................................................................................................23

2.3 Methods O Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................24

2.4 Limitations O The Study ........................................................................................................................242.5 Assumptions O The Study ......................................................................................................................24

Chapter Three.....................................................................................................................................25

3.0 The Survey Findings ...............................................................................................................................25

3.1 Basic Inormation On NGOs ...................................................................................................................25

3.1.1 Number And Scope O NGOs Interviewed ............................................................................................25

3.1.2 Status O Ofce ..................................................................................................................................27

3.1.3 NGOs With Physical Address ...............................................................................................................29


5/37


4.0.5 Filing O Complaints ...........................................................................................................................80

4.0.6 Letter O Confrmation O Registration .................................................................................................80

4.0.7 Tax Exemption Recommendation .........................................................................................................81

4.0.8 Work Permit Recommendation ............................................................................................................81

4.0.9 What Could Be Done To Improve Services At The Board? .....................................................................82

Chapter 4 ...........................................................................................................................................83

A Summary O Discussions With The Key Inormants.....................................................................................83

Chapter 5 ...........................................................................................................................................84

5.0 Conclusions And Recommendations ......................................................................................................84

5.1 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................................84

5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................85

5.2.1 Boards Mandate ................................................................................................................................85

5.2.2 Proportionate And Risk Based Approach .............................................................................................86

5.2.3 Legal And Regulatory Framework (Review O The Act) ..........................................................................86

5.2.4 NGO Sustainability And Relations With The Government ......................................................................86

5.2.5 Compliance And Decentralisation O Boards Services ........................................................................87

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................87

3.5.2.4 Awareness On Sessional Paper No. 1 O 2006 .................................................................................65

3.5.2.5 Awareness On Code O Conduct And NGOs Regulations O 1992 .....................................................66

3.6 Governance ...........................................................................................................................................67

3.7 Project Implementation ..........................................................................................................................68

3.7.1 Projects Implemented As At 31St December, 2006 .............................................................................68

3.7.2 Projects Implemented In Terms O Scope ............................................................................................69

3.7.3: Top Three Projects In Terms O Population Reached ............................................................................70

3.7.4 Rating O Project Perormance By NGOs ..............................................................................................71

3.7.5 What Contributed To Successes In Projects Implemented? ..................................................................72

3.7.6 Challenges Faced In Project Implementation .......................................................................................73

3.8 Participation In Local Development Initiatives.........................................................................................73

3.9 Collaborators .........................................................................................................................................75

3.9.1 Nature O Collaboration ......................................................................................................................76

4.0 Rating O Board Services By NGOs ........................................................................................................76

4.0.1 Recommendation Letters For Opening Bank Accounts .........................................................................78

4.0.2 Where NGOs Banked Their Money (Top Ten Banks) ..............................................................................78

4.0.3 Filing Documents For Registration .......................................................................................................79

4.0.4 File Search .........................................................................................................................................79


6/37


Figure 3.2.4B: A Pie Chart On NGOs Distribution In Terms O Sectors O Operation .......................................39

Figure 3.2.5A: A Pie Chart On The Number O NGOs Engaged In Microfnance ..............................................40

Figure 3.2.5B: Showing The Percentage O Deposit-Taking Microfnance NGOs ..............................................41

Figure 3.2.6B: A Pie Chart Showing Childrens Home Operating With Or W ithout Approval .............................42

Figure 3.2.6C: Showing The Distribution O Childrens Homes In Each Province In Percentages .....................43

Figure 3.2.6D: Distribution O Childrens Homes By Scope ...........................................................................43

Figure 3.2.6E: Distribution O Childrens Homes In The Country ....................................................................44

Table 3.3.1B: Showing NGOs Sources O Funds In 2005/6 By Percentages .................................................45

Figure 3.3.1C: Donor Countries ....................................................................................................................46

Figure 3.3.1D: A Pie Chart Showing Donor Countries ....................................................................................47

Figure 3.3.3B: A Pie Chart On Total Expenditure By NGOs By Scope..............................................................48

Figure 3.3.3C: A Bar Graph Showing NGOs Expenditure By Scope................................................................48

Figure 3.3.3D: A Bar Graph Showing How NGOs Spent Their Incomes ...........................................................49

Figure 3.3.4A A Line Graph Showing Deviation On NGOs Financial Reporting ...............................................50

Figure 3.3.5: A Pie Chart On Assets Owned By NGOs ....................................................................................51

Figure 3.4.1B: S howing Gender O Paid And Unpaid Sta In Percentages .....................................................52

Figure 3.4.1C: A Pie Chart Showing The Distribution O Paid And Unpaid Sta ..............................................52

Figure 3.4.1D: Distribution O Paid And Unpaid Sta In Terms O Scope .......................................................53

Figure 3.4.1E: Distribution O S ta In Terms O Scope ..................................................................................53

Figure 3.4.1F: Distribution O Ngo Employees By Gender ..............................................................................54Figure 3.4.2(I): Number O Local And Foreign S ta Employed By NGOs ........................................................54

Figure 3.4.2(Ii): Percentage O Kenyans And Non-Kenyans Employed

By International And National NGOs .............................................................................................................55

Table 3.4.3A: New Work Permits ...................................................................................................................55

Figure 3.4.3B: Work Permit Renewals ...........................................................................................................56

Figure 3.5.1.1A: Awareness On Functions And Existence O The Board..........................................................56

Figure 3.5.1.1B: Awareness On Functions And Existence O The Board By National And International NGOs ..57

List O Tables

Table3.1.1: Number And Scope O NGOs Interviewed ...................................................................................27

Table 3.1.2A: Status O Ofce ......................................................................................................................28

Table 3.2.6 (A): Showing The Number O Childrens Homes In Each Province ................................................43

Table 3.3.1A: Showing NGOs Sources O Funds In 2005/6..........................................................................45

Table 3.3.3A: NGOs Expenditure ..................................................................................................................48

Table 3.3.4A: Provides Data On NGOs Expenditure From The National Survey And Form 14..........................51

Table 3.4.1A: Provides A Breakdown On Paid And Volunteer Sta In Terms O Scope And Gender ..................52

List O Figures

Figure 3.1.2B: Pie Chart On The Distribution O NGOs Regional, Main And Branch Ofces ...........................27

Figure 3.1.2C: Pie Charts On The Distribution O NGOs Regional, Main And Branch Ofces By Scope ...........28

Figure 3.1.3A: Pie Chart On NGOs With Or Without Physical Addresses .........................................................29

Figure 3.1.3B: Pie Charts On Physical Address By Scope ..............................................................................29

Figure 3.1.4A: A Pie Chart On NGOs With Or Without Internet Access ...........................................................30

Figure 3.1.4B: Percentage O NGOs With Or Without Internet Access By Scope .............................................30

Figure 3.1.4C: Showing Where NGOs Accessed Internet ...............................................................................31

Figure 3.1.4D: Showing National And International NGOs Accessed Internet .................................................31

Figure 3.1.5A: NGOs With Fixed Telephone Lines By Percentages ..................................................................32

Figure 3.1.5B: Pie Charts Showing NGOs With Fixed Telephone Lines By Scope ............................................32

Figure 3.1.6A: NGOs That Displayed Registration Certifcates By Percentages ...............................................33

Figure 3.1.6B: NGOs That Displayed Registration Certifcates By Scope ........................................................33

Figure 3.2.1: Distribution O NGOs In Various Provinces By Percentages .......................................................34

Figure 3.2.3: Distribution O NGO Ofces In Kenya In Terms O Scope O Operation ......................................35

Figure 3.2.3B: NGOs Distribution In Terms O Strategic Approach By Province ...............................................37

Figure 3.2.3C: NGOs Distribution In Terms O Strategic Approach By Scope ..................................................37

Figure 3.2.4A: A Bar Graph Showing NGOs Distribution In Terms O Sectors O Operation .............................38


7/37


Figure 3.9.1: Nature O Collaboration ...........................................................................................................75

Figure 4.0: Rating O Board Ser vices ............................................................................................................76

Figure 4.01: Bank Letter ..............................................................................................................................77

Figure 4.0.2: Most Preerred Banks By NGOs ...............................................................................................77

Figure 4.0.4: File Search ..............................................................................................................................78

Figure 4.0.5: Filing O Complaints ................................................................................................................79

Figure 4.0.6: Letter O Confrmation O Registration......................................................................................79

Glossary O AbbreviationsAAC-Area Advisory Council

AU- Arican Union

CACCs-Constituency Aids Co-ordinating Committees

CBOs-Community Based Organizations

CDF- Constituency Development Fund

CSOs-Civil Society Organizations

DACC- District Aids Co-ordinating Committee

DC- District Commissioner

DDOs- District Development Ofcers

DO- District Ofcer

KES- Kenya Shillings

LASDAP- Local Authority Service Delivery Action Plan

LDI-Local Development Initiative

NGOs Non Governmental Organizations

RC- Regional Co-ordinator

SPSS- Statistical Package or Social Scientists

TC- Technical Co-ordinator

UN- United Nations

Figure 3.5.1.2A: Awareness On Submission O Annual Returns .....................................................................58

Figure 3.5.1.2B: Awareness By National And International NGOs On SubmissionO Annual Returns And Audited Accounts ......................................................................................................58

Figure 3.5.1.2C: Number O NGOs Due To Submit Returns And Those Who Actually Submitted And Due ........59

Audited Accounts In 2005/6........................................................................................................................59

Figure 3.5.1.2D: A Pie Chart On Submitted And Due Audited Accounts In 2005/6 .......................................59

Figure 3.5.3.1A: NGOs Awareness On NGOs Co-Ordination Act ....................................................................60

Figure 3.5.3.1B: Awareness O NGOs Co-Ordination Act By National And International NGOs ........................60

Figure 3.5.3.2A: NGOs Understanding O The Role O NGOs Co-Ordination Board And NGOs Council ...........61

Figure 3.5.3.2B: NGOs Understanding Of The Role Of NGOs Co-Ordination Board And NGOs Council By Scope 61

Figure 3.5.3.3A: Adequacy O The Act...........................................................................................................62

Figure 3.5.3.3B: Percentage O National And International NGOs That Considered The Act Adequate.............62

Figure 3.5.3.4A: NGOs Awareness On Sessional Paper No. 1 O 2006 .........................................................64

Figure 3.5.3.4: Awareness By National And International NGOs O Sessional Paper No. 1 O 2006 ..............64

Figure 3.5.3.4C: How NGOs Learnt About The Sessional Paper No. 1 O 2006 .............................................65

Figure 3.5.3.5A: NGOs Awareness On Code O Conduct And NGOs Regulations O 1992 .............................66

Figure 3.5.3.5B: Awareness On Code O Conduct And NGOs Regulations O 1992 By National And InternationalNGOs ...........................................................................................................................................................66

Figure 3.6: The Percentage O NGOs That Held Annual General Meeting In 2005/6.......................................67

Figure 3.7.1: The Number O Projects Implemented By NGOs As At 31St December, 2006 ...........................68

Figure 3.7.2: Percentage O National And International NGOs That Implemented Projects As At 31St December,2006 ...........................................................................................................................................................69

Figure 3.7.3: A Pie Chart Top Three Projects Implemented In Terms O Population Reached ...........................70

Figure 3.7.5: Factors That Contributed To Success In Projects .......................................................................72

Figure 3.7.6: Challenges Faced In Project.....................................................................................................72

Figure 3.8(i): NGOs Participation In Local Development Initiatives ...............................................................73

Figure 3.8(ii): A Pie Chart Showing NGOs Participation In Various Local Development Initiatives ...................74

Figure 3.9 A Pie Chart On NGOs Collaborations With Other Organizations Or Agencies ..................................74


8/37


necessary to help it exercise adequate oversight on the increasingly complex andsophisticated operations o the NGO sector in the country. Inadequate sta andequipment have also had a bearing on ser vice delivery to the NGO sector.

Te act that the NGOs C o-ordination Board only has presence in Nairobi hasurther eroded its ability to monitor NGOs to ensure they operate within their statedobjectives and contribute eectively to national development. Te requirement thatNGO ocials have to travel to Nairobi to access services has been a nancial burden

particularly on the smaller organizations. It is due to the oregoing actors that theGovernment in 2007 unded the Board to conduct a national survey to validate dataon NGOs in the country. Te study sought to collect inormation which would im-prove public condence and orm the basis or improved regulation and enablement

o the NGO sector in Kenya. Te study was conducted in three phases with the lastphase carried out in October, 2008.

Defnitions

1. Charitable Organizations

NGOs Co-ordination Act 1990 denes a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)as a private voluntary grouping o individuals or associations not operated or protor other commercial purposes but which have organized themselves nationally orinternationally or the benet o the public at large and promotion o social welare,

development, charity or research in the areas inclusive o, but not restricted to health,agriculture, education, industry and supply o amenities and services.

2. Sectors

NGOs carry out various activities/projects towards the ulllment o their objectives.Related activities are usually grouped based on t heir thematic relationships reerredto as sectors. While a number o organizations carry out integrated programmes (i.e.combine a number o dierent activities under one project i.e. HIV/AIDS, Micro-nance, Agriculture etc) they would normally have a core ocus or instance mitiga-

tion o the impact o HIV/AIDS which would then make such a project all in theHIV/AIDS sector.

3. Area Advisory Council

Under the Childrens Act o 2001 and its attendant Regulations o 2006, all ChildrensHomes must be inspected and approved by the Area Advisory Council (AAC). TeAACs are multi-sectoral teams composed o representatives o Government and CivilSociety Organizations (CSOs) and are to be ound at the District, Division and Loca-

tion.

4. Financial Year

All NGOs are required to have a nancial year, usually a 12 month period. Organiza-

tions usually close their books o accounts aer the end o their nancial year. NGOsare required to submit an annual report usually reerred to as Annual Returns to theNGOs Co-ordination Board by the May 31st ollowing the end o their nancial year.Tis is done on a statutory document commonly known as Form 14. It is mandatory

Preace

Te last decade has witnessed -substantial growth in the number o organizations

registered under the NGOs Co-ordination Act o 1990. Te sector recorded sig-nicant growth between 2001 and 2007 which could b e attributed to the impact oglobalization and the opening up o democratic space in Kenya. Since 2001, the sec-tor has been growing at the rate o 400 organizations per year. By August 2009, theBoard had cumulatively registered 6,075 organizations.

Tese organizations are spread all over the country and vary rom small organiza-tions operating locally, to international ones with regional programmes. Tey rangerom organizations run by small teams o volunteers to mega organizations with

hundreds o ully paid sta o diverse proessions and sophisticated systems and pro-cesses. Tey refect diversity in their activities rom welare, to environment, human

rights, gender, agriculture and education among others. Further, they employ variousstrategies ranging rom policy and advocacy to research and training, consciousness-

raising to inormation and communication. NGOs in Kenya encompass organiza-tions with modest budgets o a ew thousand shillings to those managing over abillion Kenya shillings per year.

Te positive impact o increased NGO activity cannot be gainsaid and indeed thesector is increasingly becoming a major player in the provision o basic services inmany parts o the country. Nevertheless, the expansion also brings with it high riskso potential abuse both or the public who interact with these organizations on a day

to day basis as well as overall national security and economic stability. Activities orogue NGOs pose a direct threat to public saety and can also impact negatively onthe economy inter alia through acts o raud, money laundering and nancing oterrorism.

In 2003, it was estimated that the sector was contributing KES 80 billion annuallyto the economy. Nevertheless, it has been dicult to get accurate data on exactlyhow much NGOs are contributing to the economy due to low compliance in submis-sion o annual returns to the Board as well as ling o inaccurate data. Te orego-

ing expansion in the NGO sector has, however, not been matched by a concomitantgrowth in the capacity o the NGOs C o-ordination Board, the state regulatory body,to eectively regulate the sector.

Te Board was established in response to the phenomenal growth in the number oorganizations involved in the areas o welare and development and the need to bringthem under one legal ramework. Tis it was elt would enable eective regulationand concurrently acilitate better understanding on their contribution to national

development.

Te budgetary allocation to the Board through the reasury has, however, only beensucient to enable it provide registration services and minimal post-registration

services. Te key unctions o monitoring, evaluating and researching NGO activitiesin order to competently advise the Government on the sec tor has thereore not beenwell addressed. Concurrently, due to insucient unding, the NGOs Co-ordinationBoard has been unable to recruit e nough technical sta and acquire the equipment


9/37


8. Technical Capacity

Reers to the level o skills, knowledge and experience available to an NGO to enablethem competently implement a project in their chosen area o intervention.

9. Networking

Reers to an NGOs capacity to identiy other organizations which can contribute tothe attainment o its objectives, communicate eectively with them and enter into amutually benecial relationship.

10. Community

We use community to reer to the beneciaries o a programme implemented byan NGO as well as the pe ople resident in the area o where a project is being imple-

mented.

11. AdvocacyAdvocacy NGOs primarily promote policies and/or ac tions addressing specic

concerns, points o view, or interests. In the context o development, they work toinfuence the policies and practices o governments and development institutions.

12. Service provision

In service provision, NGOs work towards improving quality o lie by ensuring ac-cess to basic ser vices like Education, Shelter, Water, Health, Food e.t.c.

13. Capacit y building

Capacity Building reers to actions that improve NGOs eectiveness or enhance abil-ity to work towards its mission. Capacity building eorts can include a broad rangeo approaches, e.g. nancial support, providing training and supporting collaborationwith other NGOs.

or NGOs with an annual incomes o KES 1 million and more to accompany Form14 with audited accounts.

5. Top Ofcials o an NGO

All NGOs in Kenya are required to have at least three Directors (who comprise theBoard o the Organization), one o whom must be a Kenyan. Te Directors have re-sponsibility or overseeing the management o the NGO. From the Directors, a teamo ocials are usually elected to whom the Directors give responsibility o exercis-

ing oversight on the management o an organization on a day to day basis since theBoard o Directors meet aer a long time, say aer every three months.

6. Regulatory Environment

NGOs operate by set rules prescribed in the NGOs Co-ordination Act 1990 and itsattendant NGO Regulations o 1992. Te rules provide or the conduct o NGOs

and at the same time seek to acilitate their activities. Te rules themselves and theirapplication are reerred to as the regulatory environment Regulatory environment

thereore reers to the manner in which NGOs are regulated and enabled to carry outtheir unctions.

7. Governance

Reers to the manner in which the ocials and sta o NGOs exercise authority inthe management o the aairs and resources o the organization. NGOs are expectedto maintain clear separation o powers between its Board o Directors (with themanagement providing policy guidance while the stacarry out implementation o

activities as agreed on by the B oard). NGOs are also expected to demonstrate thevalues of probity, self-regulation, justice, service, co-operation, prudence and respectasprescribed in the Code o Conduct


10/37


Another notable nding was that 88 per cent o the organisations inter-viewed had not conducted elections as required by their constitutions inthe year preceding the interview, which indicates poor governance among

a signicant majority o the NGOs. Te survey urther points to an inordi-nately high number o volunteer sta in the sector which was not consistentwith the total amount spent on personnel costs. It would appear that a largenumber o sta who where actually salaried where alsely reported as vol-

unteer sta.

While most NGOs were cooperative in the exercise, a small number proveduncooperative and were particularly hesitant to provide nancial inorma-

tion. Tis was rather strange or organisations which were registered to pro-vide public benet and which are part o a value driven sec tor. It wouldappear then that a number o NGOs had diculties in meeting the trans-parency and accountability test.

All in all, the survey results point to a diverse sector with small organisa-tions run by volunteers operating at community level and extremely largeorganisations with activities not only in Kenya but in the region as well,

with massive budgets and proessional sta. Tis diversity in terms o activi-ties, size and reach necessitates a review o the Boards regulatory approachand makes a strong case or a risk based and proportionate approach inregulation. At the same time, it clearly demonstrates that the NGO sector

in Kenya has evolved considerably since the enactment o the NGOs Co-ordination Act.

Te expansion and growth o the sector brings with it tremendous opportu-nities or harnessing their potential to stimulate economic growth and im-

prove social welare in Kenya, but at the same time, it brings with it myriadchallenges particularly considering the vulnerability o the sector to abuse.Tere is thereore an urgent need to review the legislative and regulatoryramework to ensure a proessional approach to regulation that is able to

balance the need to enable the sector to play its important role in nationaldevelopment while ensuring that NGOs are not abused to the detriment othe public interest.

Executive Summary

Te National Validation Survey o NGOs was carried out in three phases

between May 2006 and October2008. Te country was zoned into eleven(11) administrative regions based on the provincial boundaries and theninto districts as constituted as at December 2006.

Te overarching goal o this study was to generate inormation which wouldassist in enhancing regulation o NGOs in order to increase their eective-

ness and improve public trust and condence in them. Te survey was car-ried out in ullment o the Boards mandate as stipulated under section

7(e) o the NGOs Co-ordination Act o 1990 which requires it to conduct aregular review o the register to determine its consistency with the reportssubmitted by NGOs.

Te survey was particularly necessary because while the Board collects dataon NGOs in the country annually through the inormation contained inannual returns, this method o data collection had not been successul dueto low compliance. Tere was, thereore, need to update and validate data

on all NGOs since the available inormation was inadequate. Tis lack oadequate inormation had constrained the Boards capacity to quantiy therole played by NGOs in national development, and identiy opportunitiesor improved enablement o the sector.

Te survey conrmed the diversity o NGOs in terms o their activities, sizeand access to resources. Further, it established that NGOs were present evenin the most ar fung o places in Kenya providing basic services to poorcommunities in the country. Te survey established that the 1,334 NGOs

interviewed received KES 68 billion in 2005/6 meant or a wide range opublic benet interventions.

Te Survey urther revealed that only 18 per cent o the organisations reg-

istered with the Board at the time o the survey could be traced based onthe inormation in the Boards Register. It must be noted, however, that theBoard did not solely relay on the Register but conducted its on surveys atdistrict level which enabled it to identiy organisations even where the data

provided in the register was inaccurate. Further, three per cent o the or-ganisations, which could be traced, did not have oces as required by law.


11/37


Provide policy guidelines or NGOs or harmonizing their activities with the National Develop-ment Plan so that NGOs avoid activities which contradict State development programmes

Receive, discuss and approve the regular reports o the NGO Council and to provide strategies or

ecient planning and coordination o activities or NGOs in Kenya Develop and publish a Code o Conduct or the regulation o NGOs and their activities in Kenya Prescribe rules and procedures or the audit o accounts o NGOs

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE NATIONAL VALIDATION SURVEY OF NGOS

Section 7 o the Act provides the Board with a mandate to maintain a register o national and interna-tional NGOs operating in Kenya, with their precise sectors, aliations and location o their activities.Te Board is also expected to conduct a regular review o the register to veriy the accuracy o reportssubmitted by NGOs with a view to advising the Government on their activities. While the Board had

over the years been collecting data on NGOs particularly through the inormation contained in annualreturns, this was not very successul due to l ow compliance. Te inormation available to the Board was

thereore to a large extent outdated and needed to be urgently updated.

Te lack o adequate inormation meant that the Board was unable to quantiy the important roleplayed by NGOs in national de velopment, and identiy opportunities or improved enablement o thesector when in act NGOs are diverse in terms o thematic emphasis, nancial capacity and expertise.

Additionally, the Board continued to apply a uniorm approach to all NGOs. It is in the oregoing con-text that the Board carried out a nationwide survey to validate existing data on the sector and establishopportunities or improved enablement and regulation.

It was anticipated that the inormation collected through the survey would be useul or the Board toupdate its database and improve service provision to the NGO sec tor. Secondly, the inormation wouldbe used to advise the Government on the contribution o the NGO sector to the national economy andon the nature o legislative and policy support that the sec tor might require. Tirdly, the inormation

would be important or documenting and quantiying eectiveness o NGOs to donors and the generalpublic thus building public condence in them.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE SURVEY

Te National Validation Survey o NGOs was carried out in three phases between May 2006 and

October 2008. Te country was zoned into ele ven (11) administrative regions based on the provincialboundaries and then into districts as constituted as at December 2006. Te process involved:

i. Sensitizing the public and NGOs on the exercise to ensure its smooth implementation by Con-

ducting eleven (11) regional sensitization workshops; visits to District Commissioners (DCs)in 71 districts; running advertisements in the print and electronic media and communicatingdirectly with NGOs through letters and e-mails.

ii. Conducting desk research to establish existing data on registered NGOs, specically to identiynumber o NGOs registered, areas o operation, main objectives, ocials and contact address.

iii. Recruiting, training and deployment o coordinators, supervisors and enumerators. Tis also

involved reconnaissance visits to the districts to conduct logistical planning.

iv. Carrying out eld survey to validate existing data on NGOs and ll existing inormation gaps.All registered NGOs were visited at their project sites by enumerators on behal o the Board to

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1. 1 ABOUT THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS CO-ORDINATION BOARD

Te Non-Governmental Organizations Co-ordination Board (hereinaer reerred to as the Board)

is a State Corporation established by an Act o Parliament, the Non-Governmental OrganizationsCo-ordination Act No. 19 o 1990 (hereinaer reerred to as the Act). Te Boards broad mandate isto register, regulate, coordinate, and acilitate all NGOs operating in Kenya. Currently, the Board isunder the oce o the Vice President, Ministry o State or National Heritage and Culture. Te Boardwas ormed as a result o the recognition or the need or a leg al and administrative ramework to guide

NGO operations in Kenya.

Prior to the establishment o the Board, NGOs were registered under die rent legal regimes. Tis maderegulation o their operations dicult. Te Act envisaged the establishment o a single regulator o all

charitable organizations operating in Kenya. However, this has not been possible since NGOs continueto be registered under various laws.

Specically, the Board is mandated to:

Register, coordinate and acilitate the work o national and international NGOs operating in Kenya Maintain a register o national and international NGOs operating in Kenya, with their precise sec-

tors, aliations and location o their activities

Receive, analyze and evaluate the annual reports o NGOs Advise the Government on the activities o NGOs and their role in development within Kenya Conduct a regular review o the Register and to determine its consistency with the reports submit-

ted by NGOs and the NGO Council.

Chapter One

1


12/37


to validate data on all NGOs registered with the Board and collect additional inormation on awarenesso the Bo ards mandate and regulatory issues in the sector.

1.6 EXPECTED RESULTS

Te exercise anticipated the ollowing key outputs:

Inormation would be generated to enable the Board implement a proportionate approach in itsenablement and regulation o NGOs.

Te Board could develop a ramework or measuring and demonstrating the contribution o theNGO sector to the national economy and the overall de velopment o the country.

Te Board would generate data to guide improved enablement and regulation o the NGO sector.

Improved public condence and goodwill towards the NGO sector.

1.7 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Te study ndings will help the Board to:

Implement a proportionate approach in its enablement and regulation o NGOs. Develop a ramework or measuring and demonstrating the contribution o the NGO sec tor to the

national economy and the overall development o the country. Improve enablement and regulation o the NGO sector.

Inorm the draing o Code o conduct. Determine public benet or tax benet status. Determine a case or bringing all organizations that are charitable in nature under one regulatory

body.

collect inormation ranging rom basic data on the chal lenges aced by NGOs and eedback onservices currently provided by the Board. Key inormants were also visited and i nterviewed.

v. Data entry and analysis.

vi. Report writing

For the purposes o the survey, Nyanza Province was divided into two administrative areas: Nyanza

south and Nyanza central. Ri Valley Province was divided into north, south and central while EasternProvince was also divided into upper and lower Eastern. Nairobi Province was zoned into Kasarani,Embakasi, Langata and Westlands divisions.However, Central, Western and Coast provinces were notsub-divided.

Each supervisor was assigned a district, w hile enumerators were allocated proportionately based on the

number o NGOs. Guides were also identied to help the supervisors map the distribution o NGOsprior to and during the survey. Te selection o guides was based on their k nowledge o the district as

well as with the physical l ocations o NGOs in the district. All guides were residents o these districts.

Te technical co-ordinator and regional co-ordinators conducted reconnaissance beore the actual sur-vey. Tis involved meeting the DCs, District Development Ocers (DDOs) and District Ocers (DOs)

to sensitize them on the intended survey as well as inorming them o the Boards mandate. Tey alsoarranged or accommodation or supervisors and enumerators.

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY

Te overarching goal o this study was to enhance regulation o NGOs in order to increase their eec-tiveness and improve public trust and condence in them. Tus, this survey sought to validate existingdata on NGOs operating in the country. Specically, this survey sought to:

Establish basic inormation on NGOs Validate NGOs income and expenditure in 2005/6 Veriy the source(s) o NGOs unds and collaborators or the period 2005/6 Establish NGOs assets as reported in their last inventory

Establish the number o sta both paid and unpaid and their nationality

Establish the numbers o work permit applications recommended by the Board between 2004 and2005

Establish how oen NGOs held elections

Establish awareness o Boards mandate and existence

Determine the levels o satisaction with services provided by the Board Explore the successes in projects implemented by NGOs Explore the challenges aced by NGOs in implementing projects

Establish the level o participation in loc al development initiatives and committees

1.5 RATIONALE OF THE SURVEY

Te Board collects data on NGOs in the country annually through the inormation contained in annualreturns. However, this has not been quite successul due to low compliance. Tere was thereore need to

update data on NGOs since the available inormation was inadequate. Tis lack o adequate inormationhas constrained the Boards capacity to quantiy the role played by NGOs in national development andidentiy opportunities or improved enablement o the sector. Te national survey was thereore meant


13/37


Development Ocers to establish their perception o the se ctors regulatory ramework and knowledgeo NGO activities at the grassroots.

2.3 METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS

Data were entered on MS Access while analysis and graphicals were done in both Statistical Package orSocial Scientists (SPSS) and MS Excel.

2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Te survey was carried out at die rent periods in May 2007, September, 2007 and October, 2008.Tereore, it is possible that the perception o the survey may have changed thereby infuencing thekind o inormation that was disclosed by the respondents.

Te NGOs were visited in their oces, while those without oces were intervie wed in convenientlocations. Tis made it dicult to countercheck inormation provided by some NGOs.

Some questions were not answered by the respondents. Tereore, it is possible that some NGOocials interviewed were not conversant with the Boards mandate and services. Tis led to collec-

tion o incomplete inormation on certain NGOs. Because o the election violence that ollowed the 2007 elections, some NGOs which had already

been interviewed moved to areas that had not been covered while others relocated to regionswhich had been covered in the rst two phases o the sur vey. Out o all the NGOs interviewed,

only 96 were selected or validation. However, the sample size may not be considered to be statisti-cally representative o the total population.

Despite the levels o NGOs awareness about the national survey, some still thought that it was anaudit, hence were reluctant to participate in the survey, while others provided inadequate inorma-

tion.

2.5 ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY

Te ollowing assumptions underpinned this study:

All NGOs Registered had physical addresses All NGOs Registered were operating at their physical addresses indicated in the Boards Register All NGOs would were to provide responsible ocers to respond to all the questions

Tat the validation analysis drawn rom 96 NGOs who had responded to b oth the questionnaire in

the national survey and through NGOs sel-reporting using Form 14 was airly representative.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 STUDY AREA AND POPULATION SIZE

A pilot study was conducted in Bungoma District to test the tool or data collection in December, 2006.Tis was ollowed by the actual survey in eight provinces in three phases as ol lows:

Te rst phase in Nairobi, Nyanza, and Western (except Mt. Elgon District) provinces was carried

out rom May 21-29, 2007. However, the exercise was extended to May 28, 2007 in Nyanza prov-ince and to May 29, 2007 in Nairobi province due to high concentration o NGOs in these regions.

Te second phase in Central, Eastern and Coast provinces was conducted between September 3-8,2007.

Te third phase in Ri Valley and North Eastern provinces was done between October 13-17,2008. Mt Elgon District was also covered in the third phase due to insecurity in the region in 2007.

All 5,929 NGOs registered with the Board as at various dates when the surve y was conducted weretargeted in the study.

2.2 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

Registered NGOs were visited at their oces by enumerators on behal o the Board to collect inorma-tion ranging rom basic data on the NGOs, challenges aced and obtain eedback on servi ces provided

by the Board. Ocials o NGOs without oces were i nterviewed at places convenient or them. A pilotstudy was carried out in Bungoma District between October 26 and November 5, 2006. Te question-naires contained both open and close-ended questions and were interviewer administered. Key inor-mant interviews were also conducted with members o the provincial administration and the District

Chapter Two

2


14/37


that were interviewed. Tis implies that only22 per cent o NGOs registered with the B oardcould be traced, 78 per cent could not be traced

and did not participate in this survey. It canbe inerred that these organisations had eitherceased operations without inorming the Board(as required by law), had led wrong inorma-tion on their areas o operation and address or

were inactive (See gure 3.1.1a).A total o2,029 NGO oces were visited invarious parts o the country. Tey were eitherregional, main or branch oces. A regional

oce reers to an International NGO basedin Kenya which coordinates activities in other

Arican countries, main oce is the head oceo an NGO operating in and headquartered

in Kenya and a branch is any oce which iscoordinated by a main oce to implement theorganizations programmes.

Table3.1.1: Number and Scope o NGOs interviewed

Scope o ope rat io n N umbe r

National 1,283

International 367

Did not indicate 379

Total 2,029

Some 63 per cent o NGOs interviewed werenational in scope (1,283) compared with 19per cent international NGOs (367). Some 19per cent o those interviewed were unsure on

their scope o operation as indicated in gure3.1.1d. It is possible that the respondents couldhave been newly employed sta and were notconversant with the NGO scope o operation.

Tis could be due to inadequate induction onew sta by NGOs on their registration status.On the other hand, this could al so imply aworrying lack o awareness by NGOs on basic

issues regarding their registration status. Teoregoing concerns are urther exacerbated bythe act that in some instances, respondentsin dierent branches o the same organization

provided inconsistent inormation.

3.1.2 STATUS OF OFFICE

Respondents were requested to state the status

3.0 THE SURVEY FINDINGS

A total o 3,000 questionnaires were administered to various

organisations. However, only 2,029 questionnaires werecomplete and valid or the ollowing reasons:-

Some were Community Based Organizations (CBOs).

Some completed questionnaires were also spoilt and

were thereore invalid or analysis. Some NGOs terminated their interviews prematurely.

3.1 BASIC INFORMATION ON NGOs

Te purpose o the surve y was to validate existing data onNGOs registered with the Board and are operational. Tere-ore, NGOs visited were requested to provide their Names;Postal and Physical addresses; elephone, Cell phone, Fax

and E-mail details. Tey were also asked to provide inor-mation regarding their websites, internet and telephoneaccess details, status and location o their Main or RegionalOces in Kenya.

3.1.1 NUMBER AND SCOPE OF NGOs INTERVIEWED

According to the Boards Register at the time o the survey,there were 5,929 registered NGOs compared with 1,334

TOTAL

Didnot indicate physicaladdress

Numbers of NGOs registered Numbers of NGOs Interviewed

NorthEastern

Western

Coast

Central

Rift Valley

Eastern

Nyanza

Nairobi

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

5929

2029

1215

129

53

166

123

140

159

175

163

1231

233

164

258

271

332

708

2438

0

NGOs not

found

78%

NGOs found &

interviewed

22%

Figure 3.1.1a: Number o NGOs interviewed

by percentages

Figure 3.1.1b: Breakdown o NGOs by province comparing

number o registered NGOs and those actually ound

Main ofce60%

Branch ofce31%

Regional ofce6%

No physicaladdress

3%

Figure 3.1.2b: pie chart on the distribution

o NGOs Regional, Main and Branch ofces

National

22%

Did not

indicate

19%

International

18%

Figure 3.1.1d: Scope o NGOs interviewed

by percentages

Chapter Three

3


15/37


o their oce. Te oces visited were either Regional- im-plying the oce coordinated activities within more thanone country; branch, meaning the oce was the subsidiary

with a main oce located in Kenya; or main oce. Out o5,929 organisations in the Boards register at the time o thesurvey, only1,334 NGO were ound. Te survey establishedthat there were 120 active regional oces and 1,214 mainoces. Te oregoing organizations had 622 branches.

Based on the oregoing gures, 60 per cent o the NGOoces visited were main oces, six per ce nt were regionaloces and 31 per cent were branch oces as illustratedin gure 3.1.2b. It is also important to note that three per

cent did not have physical addresses, although all NGOs arerequired to have a physical address.

Table 3.1.2a: status o ofce

Status o ofce Number

Main ofce 1,214

Regional Ofce 120

Branch ofce 622

No physical address 73

Total 2,029

Majority o the national NGOs visited were main oces(84 per cent), while 16 per cent were branch oces. Tisimplies that only a ew national NGOs had oces spreadall over country. Tis could be due to inadequate nancial

capacity. Nonetheless, it should be noted that a number oorganisations enhance their outreach by collaborating withother NGOs and institutions with similar objectives operat-ing in other regions (See gure 3.1.2c).

As illustrated in gure 3.1.2c, most international NGOsoperating in the country (64 per cent) were headquarteredin Kenya. Some 24 per cent were regional oces and 40per cent were main oces, while 36 per cent were branch

oces. It is important to note that main oces o someinternational NGOs are located in other countries but theyhave regional oces in Kenya to coordinate activities otheir branch oces in Kenya and in other countries within

region. On the other hand, some international NGOs mainoces are based in the country.

3.1.3 NGOs WITH PHYSICAL ADDRESS

Most o the NGOs (97 per cent) interviewed had physicaladdresses. Only three per cent did not have physical ad-dresses and were thereore interviewed at places convenientto them. Tese ndings are consistent with the percentage

o NGOs that did not indicate their oce status (See gure3.1.3a).

It is also evident that more national NGOs (three per cent)did not have physical addresses compared with internationalNGOs (one per cent) as indicated in gure 3.1.3b.

3.1.4 NGOs WITH INTERNET ACCESS

NGOs were also asked to indicate i they had access to theinternet and where they accessed it rom. Te questionsought to establish the viability o e-mail as a reliable andcost-eective medium o communication with NGOs as well

as NGOs access to i normation technology. Most NGOs (76per cent) had access to the internet as compared with 24 p er

cent that did not have as illustrated in gure 3.1.4a.

Internet access was more or less similar across the boardwith international NGOs only having a slight edge overnational ones. Some 88 per cent o international NGOs hadaccess to the internet acilities compared to 78 per cent o

national NGOs as indicated in gure 3.1.4b. Tis impliesthat scope o operations is not a signicant actor in infu-encing access to internet acilities.

Data gathered also showed that 40 per cent o the NGOshad access to internet in their oces whi le 35 per cent usedcyber cas. Another 25 per cent did not indicate where theyaccess internet as illustrated in gure 3.1.4c.

As expected, most o International NGOs had access tointernet in their oces (76 per cent), while 21 per cent usedcyber ca and three per cent did not indicate where they ac-cessed the internet. On the other hand, a signicant number

o national NGOs (51 per cent) depended on internet caesor services with 43 per cent accessing the same rom theiroces. Some six per ce nt o national NGOs did not indicatewhere they accessed internet, (See gure 3.1.4d).

3.1.5 NGOs WITH FIXED TELEPHONE LINES

According to data gathered, 56 per cent o NGOs had xedtelephone lines in their oces compared with 44 per cent

that did not have as shown in gure 3.1.5a.

Most international NGOs (72 per cent) had xed telephonelines installed in their oces compared to National NGOs

(57 per cent) as illustrated in gure 3.1.5b.

3.1.6 NGOs THAT DISPLAYED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES

It is a requirement o the terms and conditions attached

INTERNATIONAL

Main ofce40%

Branch36%

Regional24%

NGOs withoutphysical address

1%

NGOs with physicaladdress

99%

INTERNATIONAL

Main ofce

84%

Branch ofce

16%

NATIONAL


97%

NGOs withoutphysical address 3%

NATIONAL


97%

NGOs withoutphysical address

3%

NGOs with Internet

access

76%

NGOs without

Internet access

24%

Figure 3.1.2c: pie charts on the distribution

o NGOs Regional, Main and Branch ofces

by scopeFigure 3.1.3b: pie charts on physical address

by scope

Figure 3.1.3a: pie chart on NGOs with or

without physical addresses

Figure 3.1.4a: a pie chart on NGOs with or

without internet access


16/37


Ri Valley is the largest province in Kenya and hasthe highest population in the country hence higherdemand or NGO services.

Many NGOs may have shied to Ri Valley aerpost-election violence to promote peace building andconfict resolution and carry out relie activities.

Te province has a high concentration o urban centres.

Te larger urkana area (mostly Lokichoggio) have a

high concentration o NGOs which use its strategiclocation to provide services to people S outhern Sudan.

3.2.3 NGOs STRATEGIC APPROACH ADVOCACY, SERVICE

PROVISION AND CAPACITY BUILDING

Te survey sought to categorise NGOs based on the stra-

tegic approach to their work. Te study established thatthe strategic approaches used by NGOs in addressing their

objectives could be categorized into three broad areas: ad-vocacy, service provision and capacity building. A numbero NGOs employed more than one o these strategies. Tesurvey ndings showed that most NGOs are engaged in

service provision (53 per cent) ollowed by capacity build-ing (38 per cent) and advocacy (nine per cent) as illustratedin gure 3.2.3a.

A breakdown o strategies e mployed by NGOs by provinceshowed that Ri Valley Province most NGOs engagedin advocacy ((24 per cent) compared with service provi-sion (22 per cent) and capacity building (21 per cent). Tis

could possibly be due to a relatively high number o NGOsengaged in peace building and confict resoultion due thehigh levels o insecurity in the province. It is noteworthythat Nairobi(21 per cent) and Nyanza (16 per cent) also hada slightly higher number o NGOs involved in advocacy

than in service provision or capacity building. However,this was not the case with Eastern, Coast, Central, Westernand North Eastern provinces since slightly more NGOs inthese regions were engaged in service provision and capacity

building as comapred to advocacy as shown in gure 3.2.3b:

Survey ndings also showed that more national NGOs (54per cent) were involved in capacity building compared with

International NGOs (51 per cent). In service provision,there was no signicant dierence in terms o scope, whilemajority o international NGOs (12 per cent) were engagedin advocacy compared with national ones (eight per cent).

to the certicate o registration that NGOs should visiblydisplay the certicate at the oce. Interviewers soughtto establish i the NGOs interviewed had displayed their

certicates in their oces. It was observed that 40 per cento the NGOs displayed their certicates, while 60 per centdid not. Tis implies that NGOs were either ignorant o therequirement or had chosen to ignore it (Seegure 3.1.6a).

However, the study ndings showed that most nationalNGOs (53 per cent) displayed their certicates comparedwith international NGOs (46 per cent) as shown in gure

3.1.6b.

3.2 DISTRIBUTION OF NGOs

3.2.1 ProvincesA total o2,029 NGOs were interviewed in three phases o

the survey on NGOs as ollows: Nairobi (708) Nyanza (332),Eastern (258), Central (163), Coast (159), Ri Valley (233)Western (123), and North Eastern (53). Te highest con-centration o NGOs was in Nairobi Province (35 per cent),

while the lowest was in North Eastern Province (three percent) as illustrated in gure 3.2.1.

Te oregoing disparaties could be ascribed to the ollow-

ing:

Tere is a tendency or newly registered NGOs to setup oces in Nairobi even though they intend to oper-

ate in other regions. NGOs tend to establish oces in areas with inrastruc-

ture which could explain the relatively low presence oNGOs in North Eastern Province.

3.2.2 DISTRIBUTION OF NGOs IN KENYA (IN TERMS OF SCOPE

OF OPERATION)

From gure 3.2.3, it can be observed that Ri Valley Prov-

ince had the highest concentration o national NGOs (21per cent) ollowed by Nairobi (18 per cent) and Nyanza (15per cent) provinces respectively. However, the trend wasdierent with international NGOs since Nairobi province

had the highest percentage (22 per cent), oll owed by RiValley (21 per cent) and Eastern (14 per cent). North East-ern Province had the least concentration o international(six per cent) and national NGOs (our per cent).

Te relatively high number o NGOs in Ri Valley Provincecould possibly be attributed to a number o actors::

INTERNATIONAL

With Internet

access

88%

Without Internet

access

12%

INTERNATIONAL

Did not indicate3%

Ofce76%

Cyber cafe21%

NATIONAL

Without Internet

access

22%

With Internet

78%

NATIONAL

Did not indicate6%

Ofce43%

Cyber cafe51%

Ofce40%

Did not indicate25%

Cyber cafe35%

With xedtelephone lines

56%

Without xedtelephone lines

44%

Figure 3.1.4b: percentage o NGOs with or

without internet access by scope

Figure 3.1.4d: showing National and

International NGOs accessed internet

Figure 3.1.4c: showing where NGOs

accessed internet

Figure 3.1.5a: NGOs with fxed telephone

lines by percentages


17/37


lished as illustrated in gure 3.2.6b.

Table 3.2.6 (a): showing the number o Childrens Homes in each province

Province Approved Not

Approved

Total

Central 23 2 25

Coast 30 1 31

Eastern 25 0 25

Nairobi 109 4 113

Nyanza 40 2 42

Western 6 1 7

Rit Valley 29 31 60

North Eastern 17 10 27

Total 279 51 330

It is important to note that Ri Valley Province (61 percent) had the highest concentration o illegally establishedchildrens homes, wh ile in Eastern Province, all childrens

homes were approved by the AAC.

Tere was no signicant dierence between the percentageo International (eight per cent) and national (10 per cent)

NGOs operating childrens homes (See gure 3.2.6d).

It can be observed rom the gure above that NairobiProvince (34 per cent) had the highest concentration o

childrens homes, ollowed by Ri Valley (18 per ce nt) andNyanza (13 per cent) provinces respectively. Western Prov-ince (two per cent) province had the least concentration ochildrens homes.

3.3 FINANCES

3.3.1 SOURCES

A total oKES68,825,055,222.00was received by NGOsas donations to und various projects in 2005/6. Teseincluded traditional sources such as donor organizationsand Government agencies, while non- traditional sources

were in the orm o contributions by NGO ocials, mem-bers and community contributions. However, some NGOsdid not disclose unding sources (See table 3.3.1a or moredetails).

3.2.4 SECTOR

Among the NGOs that were interviewed, HIV/Aids sectorhad the highest percentage o NGOs (12 per cent), ollowedby education (11 per cent), percentages while energy, sports,reugee, housing, old age and inormal sec tors had the leastpercentage. It is important to note that many NGOs operate

in more than one sector. It is instructive to note that onlytwo per cent o NGOs where involved in the reproductivehealth and population sector a worrying trend consideringcurrent concerns about the increasing ertility rates in the

country (See gure 3.2.4b or more details).

3.2.5 NGOs ENGAGED IN MICROFINANCETis survey also sought to determine the number o NGOs

that took deposits rom members o the public or theirbeneciaries. According to the Micronance Act, 2006, alldeposit-taking micronance institutions are required toobtain a license rom the Ce ntral Bank o Kenya. Tis law

was enacted to improve the regulation o the ast expandingmicronance sector. At least our per cent o NGOs oper-ated in micronance sector. Out o this 84 per cent werenational NGOs while 16 per cent were International NGOs

as shown in gure 3.2.5a.

As illustrated in gure 3.2.5b, 29 per cent oNGOs in mi-cronance sector indicated that they were taking deposits

rom the public. It ollows then that most NGOs in themicronance sector are non-deposit taking, as such do notneed to conorm to the stringent requirements o the Micro-nance Act, 2007.

Among theNGOs that took deposits rom the public, 89 percent were national NGOs, while 11per cent were interna-

tional NGOs (See gure 3.2.5c).

3.2.6 NGOs RUNNING CHILDREN HOMES

Under the Childrens Act o 2001 and its attendant regula-tions o 2006, all childrens homes must be inspected andapproved by the Area Advisory Council (AAC). Te survey

sought to establish the number o NGOs running childrenshomes and whether these homes were approved by theAAC as required by law. According to the survey ndings,there were 330 childrens homes in the country run by

NGOs. Most o the childrens homes were approved (279)by the AAC, and 51 were not approved. Tis implies that 85per cent o the Childrens homes were operating legally asrequired by the law, while 15 per cent were il legally estab-

INTERNATIONAL


72%


28%

INTERNATIONAL

Did not displaycerticates

54%

Displayedcerticates

46%

NATIONAL


57%


43%

NATIONAL


47%

Displayedcerticates

53%


60%

Displayedcerticates

40%

Central 8%

Eastern 13% Nyanza 16%

Coast 8%

Rift Valley 11%

Western 6%

North Eastern 3%

Nairobi35%

Figure 3.1.5b: pie charts showing NGOs with

fxed telephone lines by scope

Figure 3.1.6b: NGOs that Displayed

registration certifcates by scope

Figure 3.1.6a: NGOs that displayed

registration certifcates by percentages

Figure 3.2.1: distribution o NGOs in various

provinces by percentages


18/37


3.3.3 EXPENDITURE

According to data collected, NGOs spent KES 16,130,192,509.00 on projects, while the y used KES

3,326,606,185.00on administration and KES 4,415,309,351.00on personnel. Others costs consumedKES 2,140,187,659.00. In total NGOs that were interviewed spent KES 26,012,295,704.00in 2005/6 asindicated in table 3.3.3a.Table 3.3.3a: NGOs expenditure

National International Did not speciy scope Total

P ro je ct 8 ,444 ,636 ,425 .00 6 ,639 ,797 ,303 .00 1 ,045 ,758 ,781 .00 16,130,192,509.00

Administration 1,277,810,386. 00 1,877,451,077. 00 171,344,722 3,326,606,185.0 0

P er so nn el 1 ,9 81 ,4 89 ,0 50 .0 0 2 ,1 80 ,0 66 ,9 34 .0 0 2 53 ,7 53 ,3 67 4 ,4 15 ,3 09 ,3 51 .0 0

O th er c os ts 7 75 ,8 53 ,9 75 .0 0 1 ,2 43 ,1 84 ,0 57 .0 0 1 21 ,1 49 ,6 27 2 ,1 40 ,1 87 ,6 59 .0 0

TOTAL 12,479,789,836.00 11,940,499,371.00 1,592,006,497.00 26,012,295,704.00

Table 3.3.1.a: showing NGOs sources o unds in 2005/6

ORGANIZATION TYPE AMOUNT

Public Foundation /Trusts /private

oundation

36,031,651,169.00

International Governmental Aid

Agencies /Embassies

6,809,746,309.00

International NGO 5,069,797,368.00

Individual and corporate Dona-

tions

2,817,400,694.00

UN/ AU 1,723,421,954.00

Religious Organizations 1,443,615,227.00

Income Generating Activi ties 777,087,425.00

Membership subscriptions 185,287,567.00

National NGO 183,926,011.00

Kenya Government Agency 181,286,114.00

Community 118,486,193.00

Directors contributions 57,397,334.00

Devolved Funds 54,087,768.00

Unspecifed sources 13,371,864,089.00

TOTAL 68,825,055,222.00

A greater percentage o donations were rom Public andPrivate Foundations and rusts (52 per cent), International

Governmental Aid Agencies/Embassies (10 per cent) andInternational NGOs (8 per cent).

Further data analysis showed that International NGOs re-

ceived most o the unds (69%) donated to various organisa-tions compared with National NGOs (31%) as i llustrated ingure 3.3.1c.

3.3.2 DONOR COUNTRIES

It is evident that most donations to NGOs were rom Ger-many (58 per cent); Kenya (in country donations) (12%);United States (nine per cent); Netherlands (eight per cent)

and United Kingdom (seven per cent) respectively (Seegure 3.3.1c).

INTERNATIONAL

Nairobi22%

Central 7%

Rift Valley 21%

Nyanza 13%

Western 8%

Coast 9%

Eastern 14%

North Eastern 6%

NATIONAL

Nairobi18%

Central 12%

Rift Valley 21%

Nyanza 15%

Western 8%

Coast 8%

Eastern 14%

North Eastern 4%

Service Provision53%

Advocacy

9%

Capacity38%

Figure 3.2.3: Distribution o NGO ofces in

Kenya in terms o scope o operation

Figure 3.2.3a: a pie chart showing NGOs

distribution in terms o strategic approach

24%

22%21% 21%

16%

18%

12%

16%15%

16%

13% 13%

9%10%

9%8%

9%10%

7%8% 8%

3%

6% 6%

R if t V al le y N ai ro bi E a st er n N ya nz a C oa st C en t ra l W es te rn N o rt h E a st er n

Service Provision CapacityBuildingAdvocacy

0

5

10

15

20

25

8%

12%

38% 37%

54%

51%

InternationalNational

S erv i ceP r ov i si o n C apac it yBu il d in g Advocacy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

10891059

901

748

634

573544

518

364331325

247 241 240 234

196185 178 177

122 120

74 73 70 63

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

HIV/AIDS

Education

Health

Children

Agriculture

Environment&Conservation

Water&Sanitation

Youth

Micro-F

inance

HumanRights

Advocacy&LegalAid

Relief

Information

Governance

Others

PeaceBuilding

Population&ReproductiveHealth

Culture

Disability

Sports

InformalSector

Housing&HumanSettlement

OldAgeCare

Refugees

Energy

Figure 3.2.3c: NGOs distribution in terms o strategicapproach by scope

Figure 3.2.3b: NGOs distribution in terms o strategicapproach by province

Figure 3.2.4a: a bar graphshowing NGOs distribution

in terms o sectors o

operation


19/37


Te survey ndings also showed that the total ex-penditure by national NGOs was slightly higherthan international NGOs in 2005/6 as shown in

gure 3.3.3b.

On the other hand, expenditure by nationalNGOs on projects (68 per cent) was highercompared with international NGOs (56 per

cent). While international NGOs spent moreon personnel (18 per cent) and administration(16 per cent) compared with the amount spentby national NGOs on the same as illustrated in

gure 3.3.3c.Tis could be due to the act thatinternational NGOs employed more expatriates

who were paid higher salaries compared with thelocal sta.

I we were to use the percentage o money spenton direct project implementation against thatspent on personnel and administration costs

as an indicator or eciency, then it might beconcluded that national NGOs are more ecientthan international NGOs, since national NGOson average spent 68 per cent o their income

on projects as opposed to international NGOs,which spent 56 per cent. Part o the reason orthis is that international NGOs tend to providehigher salaries and provide more benets or sta

and concurrently employ more expatriate sta.Generally, NGOs seem to spend insignicantamount o money on administration (13 percent) and personnel (17 per cent). Other run-ning costs consumed eight per cent o the NGOs

expenditures (See gure 3.3.3d or more details).

3.3.4 COMPARISON OF SURVEY INFORMATION

AGAINST INFORMATION PROVIDED BY NGOS IN

THEIR RETURNS

One o the objectives o the survey was to validatesel-reported data received by the Board romNGOs mainly through their annual returns. Data

rom 96 NGOs who had responded to both thequestionnaire in the national survey and throughthe sel-administered Form 14 were compared orthe period 2006/6. Data in comparable variables

in both tools were analyzed comparatively tocorroborate inormation given by the NGOs asillustrated in table 3.3.4a and gure 3.3.4b. Dataanalysed showed thatNGOs under-reported the

amount spent on projects, personnel and on other running costs on Form 14. However, data collectedon administrative costs indicated that it was over-reported on Form 14 compared with the nationalsurvey. Overall, there was a Standard Deviation o7.23433 regarding nancial inormation provided by

these organizations during the national survey rom Form 14.

Table 3.3.4a: provides data on NGOs expenditure rom the National Survey and Form 14

Expenditure Item National Survey Form 14 Deviation

Projects 33,080,079.00 25,825,155.00 7,254,924.00

Administration 5,775,103.00 6,250,169.00 -475,066.00

Personnel 9,908,826.00 8,013,550.00 1,895,276.00

Other Costs 1,390,164.00 1,165,526.00 224,638.00

Total Expenditure 50,154,172.00 41,254,400.00 8,899,772.00

DEVSQ 7.23433

3.3.5 ASSETS

Data gathered on assets owned by NGOs as per their last inventory in 2005/6 showed that 54 per centwere urniture and equipment; computers accounted or 20 per cent; Motor Vehicles, 13per cent; L and,six per cent; buildings (six per cent. Stocks, which included medical and agricultural stocks accounted

or only one per cent as illustrated in the gure below. It would appear then that most NGO assetswhere held in movable assets with only 12 per cent o them owning either buildings or land. Further,only one per cent was held in stocks thereby raising issues on their sustainability.

HIV/AIDS

Education

Health

Children

Agriculture

Environment & Conservation

Water & Sanitation

Youth

Micro-Finance

Human Rights

Advocacy& Legal Aid

Relief

Information

Governance

Others

Peace Building

Population & ReproductiveHealth

Culture

Disability

Sports

Informal Sector

Housing & Human Settlement

Old AgeCare

Refugees

Energy

12%

11%

10%

8%

7%

6%6%

6%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%2%

1% 1%1%

1%

1%1%

Figure 3.2.5a: a pie chart on the number o

NGOs engaged in Microfnance

Figure 3.2.4b: a pie chart on NGOs distribution in

terms o sectors o operation

National NGOs

89%

International NGOs

11%

Approved85%

Not approved15%

Figure 3.2.5c: percentage o deposit-taking

National and International NGOs

Figure 3.2.6b: a pie chart showing Childrens

Home operating with or without approval

National NGOs

84%

International

NGOs

16%

Figure 3.2.5b: showing the percentage o

deposit-taking Microfnance NGOs

Do not takedeposits

71%

Take deposits29%


20/37


Among the paid sta, majority were men(56 per cent) compared with women (44 percent)., However, most women (80 per cent)

worked as unpaid sta or volunteered theirservices to charity work compared with men(20 per cent).

According to the data collected, most o NGO

employees were both working as unpaid staor volunteers and only 14 per cent were paidsta (See gure 3.4.1c).

Distribution o staf across scope: Data gath-ered also showed that international NGOs (79

per cent) engaged more paid sta comparedwith National NGOs (eight per cent). Tis

could be due to the act international NGOshave better access to unding and can aordto employ more sta either on long term ortemporary basis (See gure 3.4.1d).

Gender and scope: Further data analysis alsoshowed that more men (55 per cent) workwith international NGOs compared with

women (45 per cent), while majority o Na-tional NGOs employees were women (78 percent) and only 22 per cent were men as shownin gure 3.4.1e.

Regarding gender parity, most NGO sta werewomen (75 per cent) compared with men (25per cent). Nonetheless, as has been noted mosto the emale sta were volunteers.

3.4.2 NATIONALITY OF STAFF

(LOCAL AND FOREIGN STAFF)Most o the NGOs interviewed employed

more Kenyans (103,684) compared withoreign nationals (944) as detailed in the gurebelow.It can also be observed that 91% ointernational NGO sta were Kenyans com-

pared with nine per cent oreign nationalsasillustrated ingure 3.4.2(ii).

3.4.3 EXPATRIATES AND WORK PERMITS

NGOs seeking to engage international sta arerequired to apply or letters o recommenda-tion to the Ministry o State or Immigrationrom the Board or the purposes o obtaining

3.4 PERSONNEL

3.4.1 PAID AND VOLUNTEER STAFF

Data gathered on 1,334 NGOs visited showed that 104,628 sta was engaged by them as ollows: paidsta(14,217) volunteers (90,411) as shown in table 3.4.1a.

Table 3.4.1a: provides a breakdown on paid and volunteer sta in terms o scope and gender

Category

Scope Grand Total

Gender International National

Paid F 2,792 3,499 6,291

M 3,866 4,060 7,926

Pai