Kericho County�Bureti Sub-County�AWP journey

Michael Ngigi

SCMOH Bureti SC

History

• Collaborated with JICA-SAMACH for the past 2 years on AWP
• For the past two years, 3 level III HFs and 34 level 2 HFs in Bureti SC have been developing and monitoring AWPs using the SAMACH tools
• Reasons:
• Ease of monitoring (AWP has a Monitoring Feature)
• Budgets guided by actual data
• More specific planning of activities guided by needs
• Supervision of activities by SC program area experts easier

​

Examples

• Before using the AWP tool, the AWP of HFs were wish-lists but now it is more specific, for example:
• Drug budgets were grossly overestimated due to lack of data
• Now county Drawing rights limits obtained from county pharmacist and incorporated in AWP
• Before using the AWP tool, the SCHMT just kept the hard copies of each HF’s AWP and never looked at it but now quarterly monitoring ensures all activities per facility are followed up on
• SCHMT can use facility plans to plan activities e.g. Litein and Kalaacha dispensary planned for FP outreaches which were supported at SC level by involving a local partner
• Facility activities become targets for departmental heads in RMNCH and immunization

Case of Kalaacha Dispensary

Before HFs were given ceilings, the AWP was grossly estimated

Using AWP Tool and having ceilings – the AWP is accurate

Monitoring function –Kiptewit disp, Cheborge HC

Three color “Traffic light” system to easily track progress at a glance

Implementation summary

Facilities state any challenges they encountered

Continuation

• Before using the AWP tool, no quarterly monitoring of implementation was done and therefore, the SCHMT relied on quarterly support supervisions to find out what was happening in HFs
• There was a challenge for facilities to generate quarterly implementation plans from the physical AWPs, now the planning incorporates quarterly monitoring and evaluation using the online tool
• Decisions can now be made based on AWP plans e.g. AWP was used as a tool to lobby for support for KEPI fridges for new facilities

Way forward

• Despite challenges such as:
• Linking program areas to program output at facility level
• Difficulty in predicting funding source stability e.g. EduAfya, User fees reimbursement hence challenges in achieving activities planned using these funds
• I recommend the managers to be conversant with the tool and cascade it to HFs because there are benefits such as
• Ease of monitoring all activities at subcounty and facility level
• Activities are also broken down by program area, and each program head can monitor activities under them
• Integrates AWP and APR in the same tool hence both can be monitored at the same time

Thank you