study of lga fiscal inequities
DESCRIPTION
Study of LGA Fiscal Inequities. Presentation of Draft Report Workshop 25 March 2014 . Overview of presentation . Objective of Assignment Approach and Methodology Key Findings and Conclusions Patterns of inter LGA disparities (inequities and inequalities) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Study of LGA Fiscal Inequities
Presentation of Draft Report Workshop 25 March 2014
1
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
Overview of presentation
1. Objective of Assignment 2. Approach and Methodology 3. Key Findings and Conclusions
a) Patterns of inter LGA disparities (inequities and inequalities)b) Intra LGA disparities (within LGAs),c) Drivers of inequityd) The impact on service delivery,
4. Recommendations a) Local Strategies for staff attraction, retention and motivation,b) Greater attention to HTRS LGAs in central staff allocation,c) Improve transparency, LG OC funding and explore alternative
approaches
2
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
1. Objective of Assignment
The analytical objective of the assignment is to analyze progress, achievements and challenges of the current strategies for addressing inequalities of recurrent grant allocations across LGAs.
The ultimate aim of the assignment is to provide guidance on how the declared Government policy of more equitable LGA staff and fund allocations (for the purpose of achieving more equitable service delivery), can be supported through the LGA grant system (both recurrent and development grant systems) and other relevant measures.
3
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
2. Overall Approach
Documentary review, Analysis of patterns of resource allocation across LGAs
– Fiscal (and selected HR) data last 5 years.– General trends + sector analyses,
Fieldwork in 11 LGAs– Focus group discussions with LGA management teams, – Data on LGA internal resource allocation and service delivery in
all wards/facilities– Interviews and site visits to 117 facilities in 36 wards– Questionnaire survey data from 625 public servants .
Exploration of possible strategies – Consultations with national and LG officials and DPs– Review of experiences of previous strategies
4
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
2.1 Team
Per Tidemand, DEGE Consult Team Leader
Nazar Sola, DEGE Consult LG HRM Specialist
Alloyce Maziku, DEGE Consult LG PFM Specialist
Tim Williamson, ODI Intergovernmental Transfer Systems
Cathal Long, ODI PFM / Fiscal Analysis
Julia Tobias, ODI Service Delivery / Governance Analysis
Helen Tilley, ODI Management / QA
Kevin Watkins, ODI Senior Technical Review
Coffey/Overseas Development Institute has with Dege Consult been contracted by DfID to undertake the assignment. The team reports to an inter-ministerial task force composed by: PMO-RALG, MOF, PO-PSM, invited sectors and DP representations.
5
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
2.2 Overall work schedule
October 2013 – launch of study, draft IR November Discussion of Inception Report 23 January Field work preparation (testing, letters, travel booking
etc) – up to 7th February, Fieldwork in selected LGAs: 10 - 28 February Draft Final report: 20 March Presentation of report to Government: 25 - 26 March Final report: 7 April (for ODI final QA) – submission 14
April to Coffey 18 /22 April to Client/DFID
6
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3. Key Findings
1. Definition of key concepts,2. General patterns of Financing services in LGAs3. Patterns of inter LGA disparities (inequities and
inequalities)4. Intra LGA disparities (within LGAs),5. What are the drivers of inequity?6. What is the impact on service delivery?7. What has been done to improve the situation?
7
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.1 Definition of key Concepts
Definitions: Inequity = “fairness” – need based formula is a proxy, Inequality = variation in distribution (per capita), Disparity an overarching term to cover both of the above. “disadvantaged LGA” – relative underfunded/- under
staffed compared to average per capita or formula HRTS = Hard to Reach and Stay (LGA)
8
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.2 LGA Finances – the importance of recurrent “block grants”
9
National
Regions
LGAs
Subv & B
askets
Subve-ntions
Localfacilities,providers
OC
– General Purpose
PE - Sector
Recurrent Block Grants
PE – General Purp
OC
- Sector
Transfers financing recurrent expenditures CapitalDevelopment
Grants
Own Source
Revenue
LGA
OSR
OC – General Purpose
Citizens
LGDG & Sector Development Grants
OC Facility User Fees
Capitation Grant
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.2 Fiscal transfers are mainly for PE
10
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/140
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Personnel EmolumentsOther ChargesDevelopment Expenditure
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
OC is decreasing in real terms(per capita allocations in 2013/14 prices – analysis of sector recurrent)
11
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.2 Inequalities in Sector Block Transfers
12
Overall Sector Block Transfers 2013/14 Budget (Per Capita, TzShs)
Rural CouncilsArusha MC
Babati TCBukoba MC
Dodoma MCHandeni TC
Ilala MCIlemela MC
Iringa MCKahama TC
Kasulu TCKibaha TC
Kigoma/Ujiji MCKinondoni MC
Korogwe TCLindi MC
Mafinga TCMakambako TC
Masasi TCMbeya CC
Morogoro MCMoshi MC
Mpanda TCMtwara MC
Musoma MCNjombe TC
Shinyanga MCSingida MCSongea MC
Sumbawanga MCTabora MCTanga CC
Tanzania Shillings, Temeke MC20013/14 Prices Tunduma TC
0 Rungwe DC - 210,088 Kahama TC - 93426,261 Kibaha DC - 126,002 Kasulu TC - 1,00552,522 Mwanga DC - 119,722 Handeni TC - 1,10078,783 National 52,186 Musoma DC - 114,162 Mlele DC - 1,376
105,044 Urban LGAs 54,651 Korogwe TC - 108,370 Tunduma TC - 4,042131,305 Rural LGAs 51,427 Kisarawe DC - 105,812 Kalambo DC - 4,068157,566 Bariadi TC - 105,583 Butiama DC - 4,753183,827 Pangani DC - 100,457 Momba DC - 19,872210,088 Makete DC - 99,819 Ilemela MC - 26,389236,348 Mafia DC - 95,718 Urambo DC - 29,027
Urban Councils
26,867
Key
Units
Mainland Total (bn) Top 10 LGAs Bottom 10 LGAs2,345
Average Per Capita
Standard Deviation
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.2 Inequalities in recurrent transfers over time(deviation from mean per capita)
13
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.2 Patterns of Inequality and Inequity have across LGAs remained fairly constant
Patterns of Inequalities across major sectors tend to reinforce each other,
PE drives inequities – because of its size Analyses of Inequity (index of fit to allocation formula)
shows that:– Health and Education sectors are in relative terms most aligned
with formula – but because of their total size they drive the patterns of total inequity,
– The best fit to formula is found for health sector basket,– Over the last five years there have been no major improvements
in terms of greater alignment with formula based allocations
14
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.3 Inequities Within LGAs – PTR Primary Education
15
1634
65
14 2543
11
58
434
1030
5719
69
298
1150
224
19
87
780
934
5115
69
212
3256
93
11
56
107
pupi
l-to-
teac
her r
atio
Min Mean Max
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.3 Inequities Within LGAs – PTR Primary Education
16
Kibaha Korogwe Iramba Mafia Sumbawanga Kigoma Uvinza Bukoba Nzega Ushetu Msalala0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1614
11 10
19
11
19
9
15
32
1134
25
58
30
69
50
87
34
69
56 56
65 43 434 57 298 224 780 51 212 93 107
min mean max
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.3 Inequities within LGAs – Other sectors and general observations
Secondary PTR also display significant variation within all LGAs – but not as substantive as for primary. However ranging from 42-149 in Uvinza and 7-34 in Bukoba,
Health sector staff in dispensaries ranges 1-10 in most districts, OPD per staff variation is enormous e,g, 225-2640 in Kigoma,
Agriculture extension staff distribution more difficult to compare but e.g ranging from average of 0.1 to 0.7 per village in Sumbawanga – outreach limited as rarely with transport,
Generally: Most variation within the LGAs that generally can be classified as HRTS.
17
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.4 Drivers of Inequities
PE allocations (in particular education and health) is the key determining factor for overall patterns of fiscal inequities
Some workers will not and do not report to work if posted to certain LGAs;
Staff resist postings to remote areas within LGAs, even if they report to work in a given LGA – especially challenge for health sector
It is difficult to retain staff in remote areas even if they do report.
18
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.4 Primary Education Staff Allocations
2010 2011 2012 2013
PTR national average
51 47 46 43
LGA PTR min 26 24 26 25
LGA PTR max 105 74 61 76
LGA PTR st. deviation
11.9 9.1 7.7 8.5
LGA PTR above 50 68 50 31 37
19
MoE started specific targeting of most needy LGAs in 2009,Improvements in equity – except for last year – as LGAs split (indicate LGA internal inequities)Improvements eased because of overall Norm almost achieved
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk 20
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.5 Inequities lead to inefficiencies!
21
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
3.5 Significant potential for more effective use of staff
World Bank TZ Economic Update 2012 concludes that geographical re-allocations could lead to TZS 240 billion in efficiency savings
In health sector SDI data: 18% of staff conduct more than 50% of out patient consultations in dispensaries
Fieldwork: – many secondary teachers teach only 1-2 hours a day,– Many health facilities with very low OPD/health worker,– Management focus on (unaffordable) “staffing norms” rather
than most effective use of existing resources,– Some local strategies (e.g. Kigoma) have achieved results in
favour of improved staff allocations
22
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
4. Main Conclusions & Recommendations
Main Conclusions Two Main Strategies:
– Support local strategies for staff retention and motivation,– Central (re) allocation of staff to most needy areas,
Complimentary Actions Draft Action Plan
23
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
4.1 Main Conclusions
The inequalities and inequities in resource allocations across LGAs are without any doubt:
– Very substantive,– have persisted over many years – Mainly driven by PE allocations and HRM practices
In addition, there are very significant inequities in resource allocations within LGAs – the problems are most significant in HTRS LGAs,
The inequities are unfair and lead to substantive inefficiencies in service delivery
Some solutions have proved effective:– Targeting of staff allocations by the central government,– Local schemes for staff attraction, retention and motivation,– Local HRM practices
24
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
4.2 Main Recommendations
1. Support local strategies for staff retention, motivation and service deliverya) TA for development and M&E of plans,b) Funding of the plans through a special budget allocation of approx 4 bn
TZS per LGA c) Target initially 30 most needy LGAs,
2. Central (Re) Allocation of staff to most needy LGAs1. Allocate additional new staff strictly according to relative needs: (rather than
only sector norms) LGAs that are above average staffed should not receive additional staff,
2. Consider reallocation of staff away from LGAs that are staffed significantly above average,
3. Establish a transparent system for monitoring of staff allocations, retention, and transfers
25
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
Recommended Guidance for “Local Strategies”(Conditional for funding)
A situational analysis: – Relative use and effectiveness of staff/facilities/units to deliver services– The key factors that define specific areas within the LGA as HTRS
Proposed incentive structure for retention and motivation of staff in HTRS:– Targeted support for staff housing with indication of maintenance plans– Transport, Training scheme targeting staff in HTRS– Fiscal incentives for “settling in”, Fiscal incentives for staff attendance in HTRS
HRM Plans,– Plans for staff transfers– Plans for staff supervision and support
Contracting out of services– Use of contract staff (teachers etc.)– Outsourcing services
Monitoring the impact of the scheme through:– Staff attendance and Staff work load– Service delivery overall in the LGA, by facility and in local HTRS– Benchmarking unit costs
26
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
Complimentary Recommendations
Increased and more equitable allocation of OC, Improved Transparency of LGA resource allocations and
use, Improved HRM and Performance Management Strengthen Demand Side of Accountability, Explore further use of market based approaches
27
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
Draft Action Plan
Indicative outline page 59 Proposed institutional arrangements:
– A steering committee – composed of MOF, PO-PSM, PMO-RALG, MoE, MoHSW, MAFS, ALAT and selected LGA representatives,
– In the event of some DPs being willing to finance the activities, they should also be included in the steering committee
– The steering committee is chaired by PS PMO-RALG– A secretariat is established with senior representatives from the
above institutions and possibly supported by TA
28
Odi.org.uk| dege.dk
End of Presentation
29