Non-Governmental Organizations
Co-ordination Board
N Sekoh Nyadiero
Corporate Affairs Manager
Birchwood Hotel & Conference center
Johannesburg, South Africa– March , 2013
2ND HIV CAPACITY BUILDING PARTNERS SUMMIT,
19TH – 21ST MARCH 2013,
BIRCHWOOD HOTEL & CONFERENCE CENTER,
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA
Introduction

NGOs in Kenya encompass organizations with modest budgets
of a few thousand shillings to those managing over a billion
Kenya shillings per year.

The positive impact of increased NGO activity cannot be
gainsaid and indeed the sector is increasingly becoming a
major player in the provision of basic services in many parts of
the country. Nevertheless, the expansion also brings with it high
risks of potential abuse both for the public who interact with
these organizations on a day to day basis as well as for overall
national security and economic stability.
Cont….

Activities of rogue NGOs pose a direct threat to public safety
and can also impact negatively on the economy inter alia
through acts of fraud, money laundering and financing of
terrorism.

It is estimated that the sector is contributing over 80 Billion
annually to the economy. Nevertheless, it has been difficult to
get accurate data on exactly how much NGOs are contributing
to the economy due to low compliance in submission of annual
returns to the Board as well as filing of inaccurate data.
Growth of the NGO Sector in Kenya

Since the enactment of the NGOs Act (Cap 19) of 1990 and the
operationalization of the NGOs Co-ordination Board in 1992,
the NGO sector has grown significantly.

Since 2001 there has been a significant growth in the number
of organizations registering under the NGOs Co-ordination Act
and by December 2012, the Board had registered over of 8,500
organizations.
Cont….

During the financial year 2010/2011 NGOs spent about KES 80
billion on projects in various parts of the country. The biggest
beneficiaries were Relief, HIV/Aids, Health, Education and
Agricultural sectors.

NGOs also provide employment to over 200,000 people in the
country. Clearly, this demonstrates the important role NGOs
play in the country’s development.
Trends on application for registration
REGISTRATIONS
1200
1000
959
800
600
786
614
677
605
400
200
0
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
REGISTRATIONS
Amount of Funds Spent in Various Projects

NGOs spent a total of KES 53,301,977,708.29on various
projects compared toKES 51,877,281,716.72in 2010-2011. It is
important to note that NGOs do not spend the total amount
donated to them in a financial year since some programmes run
for more than a year.

KES 41,315,408,312.24 was spent in implementing projects in
Kenya whereas KES 11,986,569,396.05 was spent in projects
in other countries.Highest amount of funds was spent on Health
(17 per cent), HIV/Aids (15 per cent), Children (9 per cent) and
Education (7 per cent) respectively as indicated in figure 3.2.1.
Source of funding as per annual returns

During the financial year 2011-2012 NGOs received a total
KES 79.98 billion from local and international sources
compared with KES 70.23 billion in 2010 -2011 which
represented 12.2 percent increase in funding. Donations were
secured from both public and private organizations.

The leading source was from NGOs’ parent organizations (29
per cent) Foreign government agencies (21 per cent)and United
Nations agencies (13 per cent) as illustrated in figures 3.0.1
and 3.0.2.
Billions
Amount of funds donated to NGOs between
2002/2003-2011/2013
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
-
85.42 84.96
62.50
45.37
36.84
23.69
0.00 0.00 0.22
79.98
70.23
Distribution of funding sources for NGOs
in financial year 2011-2013
Research/Academic
Institution Director's
0%
Contribution
0%
Agency of Kenya
Government
1% Embassy/High
Commission
1%
Corporate
donors
2%
Returns from
investment
0%
not specified
9%
Individual donors
2%
Membership
Subscription
2%
Religious
NGOs Self generated
Institution
income
3%
2%
Foundation/Trust
4%
Non Governmental
Organization
12%
Headquarter of
this NGO
29%
United
Nations
Agency
13%
Foreign
Government
Agency
21%
Distribution of donor funding per continent


Most of the funding in year 2011/12 were from Europe (34 per
cent), followed by North America (33 per cent) and Africa (24
per cent) respectively. It is also notable that donor funds from
the South America (0%) continent was minimal compared to
other continents.
Further analysis indicated that 87 per cent of the organizations
that received funds were international organizations. This
particular trend could be attributed to the fact that international
NGOs have developed extensive networks as opposed to the
local/National organizations since their mother organizations
are based in major donor countries, especially in the European
continent. See figures 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 for more details.
Amount of donation received per continent
Continent
International
National
Not specified
Grand Total
Europe
23,771,208,178
3,176,978,486
474,996,974
27,423,183,638
North
America
23,219,942,573
3,312,644,495
66,900,625
26,607,957,692
Africa
13,232,804,502
5,730,975,814
425,946,247
19,391,226,963
Asia
1,683,033,555
344,094,415
120,547,180
2,147,675,150
Cont…
Continent
International
National
Not specified
Grand Total
Australia
486,273,432
224,815,749
7,541,065
718,630,246
South
America
106,000
0
0
106,000
Not
indicated
3,011,540,541
519,696,356
164,007,607
3,695,244,504
Total
65,404,908,781 13,309,205,314
1,269,910,098
79,984,024,193
Staff training and Development

Data collected during the financial year 2011/2012 showed that
out of 23,250 Kenyans employed, 23,022 were trained in
various areas compared to 690 foreign nationals who were also
trained by their respective employers.

This implies that 97 per cent of the Kenyans benefited from
training as opposed to 3 per cent of foreign staff. It is also
important to note that most of the training were conducted inhouse (65 per cent) by various organisations as illustrated in
figure 3.4.2.
Collaborations

Information on type and nature of collaborations by various
organisations were also tracked and analysed. Data analysis
showed that NGOs collaborated and networked with other
stakeholders with a view to sharing and maximising on scarce
resources, ensuring synergies and sharing lessons learnt.
Types of Collaborations

Based on the annual reports submitted by NGOs, 24per cent of
collaborations were among NGOs followed by CBOs (16 per
cent), Government agencies (14per cent) and donor agencies
(13 per cent) respectively.

Further analysis also indicated 9 per cent of NGOs partnered
with health institutions, and another 8 per cent collaborated with
academic institutions and Faith Based Organisations. It is also
important to note that 7 per cent partnered with Research
institutions.
Nature of collaboration

Most collaborations involved exchange of information (50 per
cent) between NGOs and other organisations. 25 per cent of
NGOs provided technical support to partners, 13per cent
received technical support from partners,6 per cent provided
funds to their partners and 3 per cent received funding from
their partners.

On the other hand, 2 per cent provided equipment to their
partners and one per cent received equipment support from
their partners
Source of funding as per statistics
provided by NACC aid report 2011
Source
US $ Millions
US Government
510
United Nations System
9
Global Fund to Fight Aids, TB & Malaria
32.5
UK Government
5
Clinton Foundation
11.7
Government of Germany
4.5
Government of Japan
2.6
Government of Kenya
34
World Bank Credit (Total War on Aids)
20
TOTAL
629.3
Cont….

Bilateral donor support for HIV programmes nearly doubled in
2006–2007 and 2008–2009, rising from Ksh 20.26 billion to Ksh
39.96 billion (NACC, 2010). The U.S. government’s PEPFAR
programme is the single largest HIV initiative in Kenya. In
addition to serving as a cornerstone of Kenya’s efforts to bring
antiretroviral treatment to scale, PEPFAR also supports HIV
prevention programming, blood safety interventions, assistance
for children orphaned or made vulnerable by the epidemic, and
capacity-building interventions.
Cont…

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria –
established in 2001 following the Special Session of the UN
General Assembly on HIV/AIDS – has served as a critical
source of resources for the HIV response in Kenya. To date,
Kenya has been approved for 10 grants, including five HIVspecific grants,
Cont…

In 2008, the Total War against HIV and AIDS (TOWA) was
launched with US$ 80 million four-year loan from the World
Bank. Numerous other donors and development partners aid in
Kenya’s response to HIV. For example, the U.K. Department for
International Development finances HIV prevention
programming, including community mobilization efforts, and the
Governments of Germany and Japan also contribute to the HIV
response. The Clinton Foundation has supported paediatric
HIV treatment programmes, while the U.K., the U.S., UN
partners and other international players provide HIV-related
technical support and capacity-building assistance.
Funding allocation

Kenya’s strategic HIV plan provides that treatment and care will
account for 57.9% of HIV spending in 2009–2013 Other
allocations include 19.5% for prevention, 13.8% for programme
management, 8.4% for programmes focusing on orphans and
vulnerable children, 0.2% for human resources, and 0.1% for
activities related to ensuring an enabling environment
Sustainability

While funding trends for HIV efforts in recent years have been
encouraging, the outlook for future HIV financing is uncertain.
Unless new resources for AIDS are mobilized, the gap between
available funds and actual needs will grow, imperiling the
sustainability of recent gains.

While the contributions of the international community have
enabled Kenya to undertake initiatives that are saving lives and
improving the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of
people, the heavy reliance on external support inevitably raises
concerns about the long-term sustainability of the country’s HIV
response
Cont…

In particular, the fact that programmes are largely underwritten
by external actors renders the country’s HIV response
potentially vulnerable to the changing priorities of high-income
countries.

Already, a modest shift in donor priorities from disease-specific
programmes to broader sectoral support for health systems is
resulting in funding shortfalls for HIV treatment programmes,
forcing some clinical sites in East Africa to cap access to
antiretroviral treatment or to place treatment-eligible patients on
waiting lists (McNeil, 2010).
Cont…..

In 2009, for the first time in a decade, international funding for
HIV programmes in low- and middle-income countries did not
increase over the previous year (Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation, UNAIDS, 2010).

Global financial conditions are already having an effect on
Kenya’s HIV response. The Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative has
announced plans to discontinue support for paediatric treatment
and for second-line antiretrovirals in 2010. PEPFAR – which,
along with the Global Fund, has been the primary funder for
HIV treatment scale-up – has capped the number of
antiretroviral patients it will support over the next two years at
190,000. The international NGO MSF is in the process of
phasing out its treatment programmes, transferring its facilities
and patients to the public sector.
Government of Kenya initiatives on self
reliance to support HIV

Given the uncertain global economic climate, the Government
of Kenya has taken steps to ensure that sufficient finances are
available to support HIV programmes. They include:i. A resource mobilization strategy that will prioritize new
domestic financing to complement external support (NACC,
2010).
ii. Decentralization of antiretroviral treatment programmes could
help close the country’s HIV funding gap.
Cont….

iii. Creation of an HIV trust Fund. Possible funding sources
for a trust fund might include GOK, private corporations,
international development partners and private philanthropists,
supplemented by remittances from Kenyans living overseas
and possible incremental levies on utilization of mobile phone
technologies.
END