Education is an important tool of empowering people for prosperity [1] and for making women and men productive in the labor market and in the households. Education is a profitable private investment yet many students cannot afford to finance it out of their own family resources [2]. Governments therefore need to provide funds to support a broad-based equitable expansion of secondary education with incentives for private provision and subsidies to disadvantaged students to ensure equality of opportunity and eventually eradicate poverty [3]. Education is human capital, which is essential for one to be socially productive in the society [4]. A person with education benefits not only himself but also the society. The provision of education to a population is found to increase the economic growth of a nation. Allocation of resources to deserving students was enable them to access education. This can be conducted well using equity and efficiency principles. Equity demands that resources can fairly be distributed if more is provided for those regions that are disadvantaged in terms of low allocation or no resource allocation to disadvantaged members of the society such as orphans and the poor who live in extreme poverty.

In the United Kingdom (UK), all students may apply for a discretionary management from their school, college, academy or other provider. It is intended for students who are in most need of financial support and the eligibility criteria need to reflect this. For example, in Astley Cooper School, Hertfordshire Secondary School two levels of eligibility are applied, that is, “medium priority” which includes any student who is in receipt of Free School Meals and “low priority” which includes students whose household is in receipt of means tested benefits. In addition, any student, regardless of their personal or family circumstances can apply for a financial aid. A student managing a medium priority management is not precluded from also applying for a low priority management where extra support is required. The school operates a 16-19 management fund committee, which is made up of key stakeholders. It sits as and when required throughout the academic year and approves all managements. For low priority managements, it discusses every individual case based on the documentary evidence available and all the personal circumstances of the student and decides on an appropriate amount. The management is paid in kind such as provision of necessary course equipment, travel tickets and free meals. This helps to ensure the management meets students’ needs. Communicating details about the management is the responsibility of individual providers or groups of providers since the information is posted on their websites. 

The government of Kenya recognizes the fact that education is the main pillar in the overall development process of the country [5]. Consequently, it has developed an education policy that is geared towards education for all. It is aimed at eliminating disparity in all levels of education by 2015, a step that is in conformity with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) [6]. However, in most developing countries, the disadvantaged members of the society such as orphans and the poor are not enabled to access education. This is more specifically pronounced in marginalized communities as well as low-income households. 

In these countries, few disadvantaged members of the society such as orphans and the poor enrol in schools and the few who enrol low performance early due to socio cultural and economic factors, which include poverty. Consequently, these orphans and the poor lack their basic right of meaningful education. The lagging behind in education of vulnerable learners in these communities leads to diminished life chances in various areas such as employment, health and participation in political processes that affect their lives. This is consistent with the observation that restricted opportunity is one of the most powerful mechanisms for transmitting poverty across generations among the marginalized [7].

In 2003, the government of Kenya introduced Constituency Development Fund (CDF) management with an aim of assisting the poor and the vulnerable groups in the community to meet their basic needs such as health and education. The government of Kenya has put in place several interventions to provide schooling opportunities for the poor and vulnerable. It is not confirmed whether the poor and the vulnerable groups are aware of these interventions. Among these interventions, include free primary education, subsidized secondary education, education management and Constituency Development Fund (CDF) management. The CDF management as one of the interventions aimed at achieving four objectives: increasing access to secondary schools, ensuring performance of students in secondary schools, promoting transition and completion rates and reducing disparities and inequalities in the provision of secondary education. The management scheme targets to assist orphans, children from arid and semi-arid lands, children in difficult circumstances and other vulnerable groups, children from poor households especially those without income and generally the girl child [8]. The learners of Kipkomo sub-county are eligible to this fund. This study therefore seeks to establish how the CDF has assisted the learners in the provision of education in Kipkomo sub-county.

Statement of the Problem 

Various constituencies through the CDF operate a management fund for secondary schools as part of Social Dimension of Development program initiative targeting poor and vulnerable students. The scheme is intended to enhance performance and completion rates and ensure high quality secondary school education for all eligible Kenyans with special attention to the poor and vulnerable groups [9]. Issues such as corruption, political patronage, nepotism and tribalism have plagued the CDF management process to schools. Worse still is the little regard for defined management eligibility criteria. There is inadequate information to facilitate re-orientation of the CDF to make it a needs-based initiative. For example, students from high socio-economic backgrounds received more management support than their counterparts from the humble backgrounds because of political pressure exerted on the CDF committee [9]. Thus, equity in the allocation of the CDF to schools and students has not been achieved fully. Every citizen should have inalienable right to social services, which include education irrespective of their socio-economic, gender and political background. Despite disbursement of funds by the government to needy students, such students have had to transfer from public boarding to public day secondary schools, which are cheaper. Students’ absenteeism due to lack of school fees has also been experienced. It is on such background that the researcher seeks to establish the influence of CDF management on students’ academic performance in public secondary schools in Kipkomo sub-county, Kenya.

In UK, Education management scheme, which is initiated by the government through Ministry of Education, states categorically that for a student to qualify for management the gross monthly household income should be below $4000. Set rules are put in place to ensure that this is adhered to. The scheme ensures that the beneficiaries are retained in school. Any student who discontinues does so under his/her own was [10]. Still in UK, there is what is called 16-19 Management fund. The fund guidance for 2012/2013 re-emphasizes the importance of ensuring available funds are targeted at those students experiencing the greatest financial disadvantages, that the amounts allocated are sufficient to enable those students to participate in education and that the availability of funding is effectively communicated to prospective and actual students both before and when they enrol.

Different fund management providers have set out to achieve this. For example, in Bradford academy eligibility to the funds is based on the household income being below 16,100 pounds or the students’ parents being in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance income support or an equivalent benefit. According to Opon in China and Philippines management eligibility was pegged on official poverty line. However, the eligibility ceiling is an income level above the official poverty line, which gave eligibility to many students who was not drawn from the ranks of the very poor. In Thailand, eligibility based on family income fails to take into account a number of factors such as the number of other dependents in a given household. In Rwanda the chances of being in school are higher among children with both parents alive than among those who have lost at least one parent.

According to findings of World Bank [11], children who had lost their mothers even if they had not lost their fathers was most at risk of not attending school. Social-economic disparities widen substantially at post primary level. The government set up the Rwanda Genocide Fund (RGF), which targets this level of Education. The orphaned children are the beneficiaries of such funds and funding continues for as long as such students are present in the system. Orphans are relatively represented in secondary Education. According to Counsel Protestant du Rwanda (CPR) which is an umbrella organization of schools run by various churches, their data on participation of children in secondary level revealed that participation in secondary education of orphans rose to 41% owing to the fact that these children have been specifically targeted for assistance under Rwanda Genocide Fund (RGF).

Oyugi [12] in a study of Public Expenditure Tracking of Management schemes in Kenya observes that the major objective of the CDF scheme is to enable children from poor families’ access education. According to him, there is no consistency in supporting children from poor families. Such students are not guaranteed continuous funding to completion of high school education. Student who needs funding have to apply and reapply for funding. When they re-apply, they are re-evaluated along with other applicants. A substantial percentage of continuing students qualify for subsequent funding but this is based on re-application. Transition and completion rates in secondary schools remained below 50% essentially due to worsening poverty and increasing costs of education [13].

According to Wachiye and Nasongo in a study on access to Secondary School Education through the constituency development fund in Kanduyi constituency, in an effort to enhance transition from the primary schools to secondary schools, the government of Kenya introduced the fund management scheme for secondary schools during 1993/1994 financial year. The management targeted the vulnerable groups namely the orphans, girls, children from slums and the poor in high potential areas and in arid and semi-arid lands. However, the study found that the method of fund allocation was highly faulted for inordinate bureaucracy and for perpetuating unfairness by giving funds to the undeserving students and to those that was well connected. Recipients from high socio-economic backgrounds received more financial support than their counterparts from the humble backgrounds. This anomaly was attributed to the flawed criteria of selecting the beneficiaries and therefore the transition rates remained low in the area.

In a study carried out by IPAR [14] on education financing in Kenya, results indicated that the Ministry of Education had not given adequate guidelines to schools on how to identify needy students. The general guidelines from the Ministry simply instructed the schools to allocate the money to the poor, bright and well-disciplined students, failing to give specific guidelines regarding the amounts of funding to be allocated per student, in order to have meaningful impact. Without clear guidelines, schools used various criteria and methods to allocate the funds. As a result, most head teachers abused the facility by fixing the finances to their kin, some from less deserving backgrounds. In other cases, the DEOs and politicians are said to have put undue pressure on head teachers to consider their relatives, thereby denying needy students access to the facility. 

Njeru and Orodho [15] investigated the impact of the CDF scheme in four districts namely: Kiambu, Kisumu, Bungoma and Garissa. The study results showed that the needy students in the study districts had varying amounts of outstanding fees, indicative of the fund allocation being insufficient to cushion their education needs. The study also showed that while the CDF scheme was meant to cushion the poor and vulnerable against the vagaries of falling economic indicators, it appeared not to have made any overwhelming impact on students’ access to secondary education and had achieved little in maintaining increased performance and participation rates in secondary school education. Kiragu says that the kitty introduced by the government in secondary schools did not necessarily benefit the most deserving students because of reasons such as nepotism, corruption and poor selection criteria.

Prior to 2003, disbursement of funds to schools was centralized at the Ministry of Education (MOE) Headquarters at Jogoo House. During this period, head teachers and school managers disbursed the funds to needy students. However, a number of complaints arose as follows: Firstly, it was noted that undeserving students are benefiting from the management fund. The managers and the head teachers allocated funds to those students from rich families and hence denying the funds to the deserving students. 

Secondly, because of improper communication to parents or guardians and the beneficiaries, very few beneficiaries are reached. Thirdly, due to the rampant corruption in the management of the funds, ghost students and children of well-connected individuals being allocated money. Fourthly, it was also observed that too small amounts were being allocated. As a result, the funds do not adequately assist needy student because it is insufficient. Fifthly, it was observed that there was lack of clear criteria for management allocation. Because of the absence of well-defined criteria, there was no transparency and accountability by MOE and schools. Finally, it was observed that the management funds were not disbursed in a timely manner and a result, the funds affected the school operations leading to needy students being sent away from school. It was in response to these challenges and other challenges that MOE devolved these to the constituencies in 2003. The rationale for this devolvement was to improve education service delivery and accountability as well as expanding the number of beneficiaries. The new approach facilitates participation of the relevant stakeholders at the grassroots, thus improving governance and accountability. This is also in line with the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) of 2002, which stresses that programs and projects should support national development and reduces poverty. 

The Ministry of Education circular of 22^nd April, 2005 addressed to all District Education Officer, REF.NO.G9/1/V11/101, set in motion revised guidelines for the disbursements of Secondary School management through constituencies. This policy was implemented from 2003/2004 financial year and communicated to stakeholders vide circular Ref. No. G9/1/ (61) dated 22/9/2003 through all District Education Officers. In 2003, the Government of Kenya decided that, in line with the government policy on decentralization and empowerment of communities, from the 2003/2004 financial year, the Secondary Schools funds would be administered at the constituency and district levels.

Since then, all Secondary education management funds were sent to the constituencies where they were disbursed through the constituency development fund committee in the understanding that communities are better placed to identify the poor among them. The objectives of the fund schemes included increasing access to Secondary Schools, enhancing transition and completion rates in Secondary Schools, and reducing disparities and inequalities in the provision of Secondary School education [16]. The kitty intended to assist the following group of students: orphans, children from poor households (especially those with no incomes), children from ASAL areas and urban slums, the girl child and children in difficult circumstances, those with special needs and girls rescued from difficult circumstances including early marriages and pregnancies (MOE Circular Ref. No. G9/1/V11/101 dated 22^nd April 2005). The fund allocation to each constituency is calculated based on the number of students from the constituency enrolled in Secondary Schools in Kenya, the natural Secondary School enrolment, the district poverty index and the national poverty index. The formula used to allocate management to the constituencies is:

This formula promotes equity by allocating more funds to constituencies with higher poverty level, hence aims at facilitating access and performance of children from marginalized areas including ASAL and urban slums.

At the Jomtien world conference of Education for All (EFA) in 1990, most developing countries reaffirmed their commitment to providing to their school age children, universal access to the first cycle of education. Following this declaration enrolment expansion at the primary school level throughout the developing world increased. Unfortunately, the Jomtien conference paid little attention to the consequences of enrolment expansion at the primary school level in relation to the resources needed for secondary schools. However, it was clear then that in many developing countries, secondary school participation rates could not grow rapidly without changes in the structure and the nature of funding [17].

The prime purpose of the management scheme at this time was to cushion households from the rising impacts of poverty, unstable economy and the devastating effects of the HIV/AIDS pandemic [18]. Under this program, funds were administered from the ministry of education headquarters. The ministry of education would then send money to the various district headquarters for disbursement. The respective District Education Boards (DEB) then made allocations and disbursed the funds to the various schools, based on the level of financial need prevailing in the student body.

This method of financial allocation was severally faulted for inordinate bureaucracy and for perpetuating unfairness by giving funds to the undeserving students and to those that was well connected. A study carried out by Odebero [19], on fund allocation in Busia district revealed that, the funds allocation in busy district was not equitable. According to this study, beneficiaries from high socio-economic backgrounds received more support than their counterparts from the humble backgrounds. Complaints raised against the foregoing style of fund management allocation, prompted the government of Kenya to introduce the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) in 2003.

The constituency development fund was established by the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) government of Kenya, through an act of parliament. The CDF strategy was in line with the government’s policy on devolution, decentralization of power and empowerment of local communities [20]. Under this new scheme, the central government makes an annual budgetary allocation to each constituency (parliamentary jurisdiction).

Allocations to the constituencies vary depending on the following; annual provisions by the ministry of education, the number of students enrolled in secondary schools, total national secondary school enrolments and poverty indices. Consequently, the funds are channelled to schools through the constituencies. The CDF mandates members of the community, through a committee of officials to select recipients of the fund. The rationale for this arrangement is that, members of the community know best and those in their midst who deserve financial support.

The fund is administered under the guidelines of the ministry of education. These guidelines specify the application procedures, evaluation criteria and allocation ceilings. In addition, the ministry has provided further guidelines as to the minimum amounts to be management to applicants from the various categories of secondary schools. The recommended amounts are; day secondary schools – KES.5, 000, boarding secondary schools- KES.10, 000 and national schools – KES.15, 000. Contrary to the high expectations about the constituency management fund, complaints abound about its effectiveness. 

Onyango and Njue [21] observed that, the fund is not serving its purpose. They posit that, since the fund is under the direct control of members of parliament, it has been transformed into a political instrument, thus compromising its effectiveness in the following number of ways; One, the parliamentarians give it to friends and political supporters who are not necessarily needy. Two, the parliamentarians split the fund into tiny amounts to reach as many people as possible. A study carried out by Kippra [22] on the accountability and performance of the constituency development fund revealed that, only 15.7% of the respondents rated its accountability as good. Majority of the respondents expressed high levels of distrust in the fund managers. 

According to Mwangi [23], giving out money through the constituency is fraught with pitfalls. To him, students who deserve never get the money because of political interference. He further observes that, the process of sending money from the central government to the constituencies then to schools takes long. By the time, students get the money, many would have been sent away from school. He concludes by asserting that the constituency is not the best avenue for disbursing the funds to students. The issues raised in the foregoing background prompted the need for an empirical study into the implementation of the constituency development fund in Kenya.

The Government through the Ministry of Education has given strict instructions to be followed by DEO’s on the management of government development through MOE circular Ref. No. G9/1 (61) dated 22/9/2003. Girls are to benefit by getting a special reservation of 5 percent of the amounts allocated to the CBC. This is for sustaining more girls in schools to help bridge education gender disparities. The functions of the Constituency Development Committee are to issue and receive management applications using the established criteria; to verify and ensure all management cheque and dispatched to the schools in a timely manner, to prepare and submit reports on the CDF scheme to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education. The minimum amounts recommended for applicants’ various categories of Secondary Schools should be reasonable to increase access completion and performance as follows: Day Secondary Schools Kes.5, 000, Boarding Secondary Schools Kes.10, 000, National Schools kes.15, 000. Management Committees post cheque directly to the respective Secondary Schools. Beneficiary (Parents and guardians) should not handle the cheque. The committees are authorized to utilize up to Kes. 25, 000 in each tranche for administrative postage, travelling expense but not for sitting allowance.

Oyugi [12] carried out a survey on Public Expenditure Tracking of Secondary Education Management Fund in Nairobi Province. The objectives of the survey were to: - assess the level of demand and efficiency for the Secondary Education bursary fund in Nairobi Province; find out if there were leakages in Secondary education kitty in Nairobi Province; and make appropriate recommendations so as to strengthen the fund utilization. The survey revealed that the management scheme was experiencing a number of challenges, notably: inadequate funds disbursed from the Ministry of Education; poor use of allocation guidelines and inconsistent support to needy students. Further, the findings indicated that there was poor keeping of records resulting in huge variations between funds allocated to constituencies and those disbursed to beneficiaries. The survey recommended the allocation of more funds to constituencies and financing of a few beneficiaries adequately to completion; disbursement of funds to constituencies in only one phase; revision of the guidelines to address the application procedures; and submission of comprehensive financial reports. 

Price Waterhouse Coopers did another study on Secondary School management. The study was carried throughout the country. Its objective was to appraise the Secondary School Development Scheme with a view to developing recommendations on how it could be improved. The study found that due to poor targeting, monitoring and accountability, it was difficult to ensure that only students who were genuinely needy benefitted from the program. It also found that many stakeholders had negative perceptions about the operations of the initiative. This study is meant to establish if the findings of studies of Secondary School management by Oyugi [12], Price Waterhouse Coopers, Muthoni and Njeru and Orodho [15] apply to Kipkomo sub county.

The study adopted descriptive survey research design in identifying the sample size of 368 participants. According to Anastas, descriptive research design helps to provide answers to the questions of who, what, when, where that are associated with a particular research problem. The design was therefore appropriate for this study since it described behaviours and attributes that are observed and measured, rather than tested with an experiment.  Questionnaire and interview schedules were employed in data collection. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse data and presented in form of frequency distribution tables. The study might benefit the stakeholders in schools by educating them on the criteria followed in allocating funds and encourage them to apply for the same.

There is strong positive linear relationship (r =.775) between CDF bursaries and students’ academic performance in public secondary school. In addition, the relationship was significant (p= .000; α = .01). Therefore, the hypothesis that “there is no statistically significant difference between CDF bursaries and students’ academic performance in public secondary schools in Kipkomo sub-county Kenya”, was rejected. For this reason, the alternative hypothesis that “there is statistically significant difference between CDF bursaries and students’ academic performance in public secondary schools in Kipkomo sub-county Kenya” was accepted. This implies that CDF bursaries enhance students’ academic performance in public secondary schools (see Table 1,2).

Table 1: Class Teachers Response on the Extent of CDF Bursary Provision

Table 2: Relationship between CDF Bursaries and Students’ Academic Performance in Public Secondary Schools

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

There is strong positive linear relationship (r =.864) between provision of learning resources and students’ academic performance in public secondary schools. In addition, the relationship was significant (p= .000; α = .01). Therefore, the hypothesis that “there is no statistically significant difference between provision of learning resources by CDF and students’ academic performance in public secondary schools”, was rejected. This shows that there is a statistically significant linear relationship between provision of learning resources by CDF and students’ academic performance in public secondary schools (see Table 3-5). 

Table 3: Sources of Funding of Physical Facilities in Public Secondary Schools

Table 4: Sources of Funding of Physical Facilities in Public Boarding Schools

NB: N>5 because of the multiple responses from the head teachers

Table 5: Relationship between Provision of Learning Resources by CDF and Students’ Academic Performance in Public Secondary Schools

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Although all the respondents agree that students receive bursaries, students who benefit from these bursaries are few. Besides this, the researcher also found out that majority of the poor and bright students do not receive bursaries from CDF. A majority of the respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed that the CDF bursaries cater for the needy students in our school. They also observed that the bursary given by the CDF committee is not enough for the needy students’ fees. The study thus established that there is statistically significant difference between CDF bursaries and students’ academic performance in public secondary schools in Kipkomo sub-county Kenya. The study also showed that the CDF funds were inadequate, thereby making it necessary to seek funds elsewhere in order to provide learning resources by CDF. The study established that there is a statistically significant linear relationship between provision of learning resources by CDF and students’ academic performance in public secondary schools. This implies that provision of learning resources by CDF enhances students’ academic performance in public secondary schools.

Recommendations

The government should allocate enough funds in time and resources to schools to ensure that the facilities constructed are enough, completed, and adequately equipped for example science and computer laboratories as well as libraries. The government should also increase funds allocated to CDF bursary so that the deserving students can fully pay their school fees thus increasing the performance and completion rates. The study established that head teachers are not fully involved in identifying the poor but bright learners thus very few deserving students benefit from the CDF fund bursary. As such, the researcher recommends that head teachers and teachers be involved largely in identifying the deserving students. Head teachers should involve the community around them to aid in school development programs and projects to supplement CDF education funding. As it is now, other sources of funding are still low. The schools should also initiate income-generating projects to subsidize CDF education funding.

1. Obare, M.M. The role of government management fund in enhancing the participation of girls in secondary education in Nyamira District, Kenya. Unpublished thesis, Kenyatta University, 2004.

2. Psacharopoulos, G. and M. Woodhall. Education for Development: An Analysis of Investment Choices. Washington, D.C.: Oxford University Press, 1985.

3. Veerspoor, A. At the crossroads: Choices for secondary education and training in sub-Sahara Africa. www.iiep.unesco.org, accessed 14 Jan. 2009.

4. Schultz, T.W. Education growth in social forces influencing America education. Edited by N.B. Henry, Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

5. Republic of Kenya. Sessional paper no. 1. Mt. Kenya University, Government Printer, 2005.

6. UNESCO. Gender and education for all: The leap to equality. Paris: UNESCO, 2000.

7. Flora, F. Effectiveness of government management fund program in enhancing girl-child access to secondary education in Kajiado District. Unpublished thesis, Kenyatta University, 2008.

8. Republic of Kenya. Trans-Nzoia district development plan, 2002–2008. Nairobi, Government Printer, 2002.

9. Sitati, M. “Effectiveness of constituency management funds in enhancing performance of students in secondary schools in Bungoma South Sub-County.” Journal of Student Financial Aid, vol. 21, no. 5, 2015, pp. 12–22.

10. Ministry of Education. Edusave Merit Management. Singapore: Ministry of Education, 2012, http://www.moe. gov.sg/iniative/edusave/funds-grants-managements/.

11. World Bank. Secondary education in Africa: At the crossroads—Choices for secondary education and training in sub-Sahara Africa. African Region Human Development Department, World Bank, 2007.

12. Oyugi, L.N. Public expenditure tracking of secondary education management scheme in Kenya. Mt. Kenya University: IPAR, 2010.

13. Republic of Kenya. Report of the National Conference on Education and Training. Mt. Kenya University, Government Printers, 2003.

14. IPAR. Education Financing in Kenya: Secondary school scheme implementation and challenges. IPAR Policy Brief, vol. 9, no. 3, 2003.

15. Njeru, F.H.N. and J.A. Orodho. Education Financing in Kenya: Secondary management scheme, implementation and challenges. Mt. Kenya University: Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (KIPPRA), 2003.

16. Republic of Kenya. Education for the 21st century: Position paper. Mt. Kenya University, Ministry of Education, 1999.

17. Lewin, K. and F. Caillods. Financing Secondary Education in Developing Countries: Strategies for Sustainable Growth. Paris: IIEP, 2001.

18. Nduva, V. “The constituency management fund.” The Link Magazine, vol. 004, Mt. Kenya University, 2004, pp. 16–17.

19. Odebero, S.O. Management as a method of financing secondary school education in Busia District, Kenya. Unpublished M.Ed. thesis, Maseno University, 2002.

20. Kimenyi, S.M. Efficiency and efficacy of Kenya’s Constituency Development Fund: Theory and evidence. Connecticut: University of Connecticut, 2005.

21. Onyango, D. and J. Njue. “Rising protests over constituency fund.” The East African Standard, Mt. Kenya University, 19 Sept. 2004.

22. KIPPRA. Accountability and Performance of Constituency Funds. Mt. Kenya University: Kenya Institute of Public Policy Research Analysis, 2005.

23. Mwangi, W. “Resolve row over management.” Daily Nation, Mt. Kenya University, 7 Oct. 2006.