KENYA BRIBERY INDEX 2019 KENYA BRIBERY INDEX 2019 Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of July 2020. Transparency International Kenya does not accept responsibility for the consequences of the use of the report’s contents for other purposes or in other contexts. © 2020 Transparency International Kenya. All rights reserved. Kenya Bribery Index 2019 II BACKGROUND Transparency International Kenya (TI-Kenya) was founded in 1999 in Kenya as a not-for-profit organization with the aim of developing a transparent and corruption-free society through good governance and social justice initiatives. TI-Kenya is one of the autonomous chapters of the global Transparency International movement that is bound by a common vision of a corruption- free world. TI-Kenya envisions a corruption-free Kenya The organisation has 20 years of extensive experience in governance work at the national and county levels. These include direct engagement with the government, the private sector, individuals and groups. TI-Kenya uses advocacy as its signature approach; this is complemented by other approaches such as partnerships’ development, research, capacity building and civic engagement. III Kenya Bribery Index 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Kenya Bribery Index Report was successfully conducted through the support of various players. TI-Kenya acknowledges the role played by the staff members who were actively involved in the production of this report particularly; Fidialice Muthike, Harriet Wachira, Mercy Chepkemoi, Issabelah Mutuku and Eric Masinde. We wish to thank all the respondents that participated in the survey from the sampled counties and our team of research assistants and supervisors that traversed the field interviewing the respondents. We also with to thank our partners for their contribution towards the validation of this report. Kenya Bribery Index 2019 IV TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND II ACKNOWLEDGEMENT III ACRONYMS VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IX Citizens’ Experience with Bribery IX Aggregate Index IX Reasons for paying bribes IX Reporting of bribery incidents X Corruption perception X Anti-corruption performance of various government agencies X Anti-corruption performance of non-state actors X Suggestions on ways to stop corruption XI BACKGROUND 1 INTRODUCTION 3 SURVEY OBJECTIVES 5 METHODOLOGY 6 SCOPE OF THE BRIBERY INDEX 6 Indicator 1: Likelihood of encountering bribery 6 Indicator 2: Prevalence of bribery 6 Indicator 3: Average size of bribe 6 Indicator 4: Share of ‘national’ bribe 7 Indicator 5: Perceived impact of bribery 7 Sampling 7 Data collection 7 Data analysis and presentation 7 Demographic Characteristics 9 V Kenya Bribery Index 2019 FINDINGS 10 Most Sought after Services 10 Citizens’ Experience with Bribery 10 Bribe Payment Patterns 11 Bribery Payment by Gender and Age 11 Bribery Payment and Employment Status 12 Aggregate Index 13 Indicator 1: Likelihood of Encountering Bribery 13 Indicator 2: Prevalence of Bribery 14 Indicator 3: Average Size of Bribe 15 Indicator 4: Share of ‘National’ Bribe 15 Indicator 5: Perceived Impact of Bribery 16 Reasons Given for Paying Bribes 17 Reporting of Bribery Incidents 18 CORRUPTION PERCEPTION 19 Perceived Change in Corruption 19 Projected Change in the Level of Corruption in Kenya 19 Government’s Commitment to the Fight Against Corruption 20 Anti-Corruption Performance of Various Government Agencies 20 Anti-Corruption Performance of Various Non-State Actors 21 Individual Role in the Fight Against Corruption 22 Citizens’ Anti-Corruption Proposals 22 CONCLUSION 23 RECOMMENDATIONS 25 Kenya Bribery Index 2019 VI LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Demographic Characteristics 9 Figure 2: Citizens’ experience with bribery in 2017 and 2019 10 Figure 3: Bribe payment patterns in 2017 and 2019 11 Figure 4: Bribery payment by gender and age in 2017 and 2019 12 Figure 5: Bribery payment and employment status in 2019 12 Table 7: National share of bribe in 2017 and 2019 16 Figure 6: Reasons given for paying bribes in 2017 and 2019 17 Figure 7: Reasons for not reporting bribery in 2017 & 2019 18 Figure 8: Perceived change in corruption in 2017 and 2019 19 Figure 9: Projected change in the level of corruption in 2017 and 2019 20 Figure 10: Anti-corruption performance of various government agencies in 2019 21 Figure 11: Anti-corruption performance of various non-state actors in 2019 22 VII Kenya Bribery Index 2019 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sample Characteristics 8 Table 2: Most sought after services 10 Table 3: Aggregate index in 2017 and 2019 13 Table 4: Likelihood of encountering bribery in Kenya in 2017 and 2019 14 Table 5: Bribery prevalence in Kenya in 2017 and 2019 14 Table 6: Average size of bribe in Kenya in 2017 and 2019 15 Table 8: Perceived impact of bribe in 2017 and 2019 17 Table 9: Reporting of bribery incidents in 2017 and 2019 18 Table 10: Reasons for perceived government commitment in in the fight against corruption -2019 20 Table 11: Individual role in the fight against corruption in 2019 22 Table 12: Citizens’ proposals on ways to stop corruption in 2019 23 Kenya Bribery Index 2019 VIII ACRONYMS EACC – Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission ECDE – Early Childhood Development and Education KRA – Kenya Revenue Authority NTSA – National Transport and Safety Authority OAG – Office of the Auditor General ODPP – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions VAT – Value Added Tax IX Kenya Bribery Index 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study drew 2,422 participants from 16 counties distributed across all regions in Kenya. Data collection was done in November 2019. The survey considered representation across all groups based on their age, income and gender. Citizens’ Experience with Bribery The study established that Education, Huduma Centres and Civil Registration Services were the most sought services. Majority (77%) of the respondents indicated that they accessed services without encountering bribery incidents compared to 63% in 2017. This was a 14 percentage points increase in proportion of citizens who accessed services without encountering bribery in 2017. Out of the participants who encountered bribery incidents, majority (63%) paid bribes representing Eight points decrease in the proportion of citizens who paid bribes in 2017. Males comprised a larger proportion of those who paid bribes while seeking services in 2019. However, the proportion of females who paid bribes increased by 11 percentage points compared to the 2017 level. Majority (52%) of those who paid bribes while seeking services were citizens aged above 35 years. Citizens that were self-employed comprised the largest (45%) proportion of those who indicated that they paid bribes while seeking services. Aggregate Index Judiciary was ranked as the most bribery prone institution at 69% above the Police which topped the list in 2017. Although the Police was the second most bribery prone institution at 64%, it was equally the most improved with a reduction of 19.3 percentage points compared to the 2017 level. Tax Services was the least improved (0.5 points) while Business Licensing remained the same at 20.5% compared to 2017. Reasons for paying bribes For those who paid bribes to access services, the highest proportion (35%) did so to hasten the process, 34% said it was the only way to access the service while 18% paid to avoid problems with the authorities. Kenya Bribery Index 2019 X Reporting of bribery incidents Majority (87%) of participants who encountered bribery incidents while seeking services did not report it compared to 2017 where 94% stated that they reported. There was a seven points increase in the proportion of respondents who said that they reported corruption in 2019, compared to 2017. On why they failed to report the bribery incidents, 26% stated that they felt no action would be taken, 20% indicated they were beneficiaries with an equal proportion fearing intimidation while 19% indicated that reporting the incident did not occur to them. Corruption perception Sixty-six percent of the respondents felt corruption had increased in the past one year while 55% opined that corruption would increase in the next one year. Twenty-eight percent of participants felt that the government is committed to fighting corruption. On why they felt the government is committed, the highest proportion (44%) of the participants cited the intensified arrests of perpetrators and prosecution efforts. Anti-corruption performance of various government agencies When asked to rate the performance of various agencies in the fight against corruption, the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) and the President were still rated as average by respondents, although there was a slight improvement in the scores compared to 2017. The Judiciary’s rating in the fight against corruption improved from poor to average. Anti-corruption performance of non-state actors The media’s performance in the fight against corruption was rated as good, a rating also given in 2017. The rating of the religious institutions decreased from good to average while the rating of the performance of the civil society organisations remained average as in 2017. The citizens rated their own performance in the fight against corruption as poor compared to 2017 when they rated their performance as average. Suggestions on ways to stop corruption When asked to give proposals to stop corruption, 44% of the participants were in favour of XI Kenya Bribery Index 2019 prosecuting and jailing those involved in corruption. Twenty percent proposed the removal of corrupt individuals from office while 13% stated that members of the public should be sensitized on the effects of corruption. Recommendations 1. The Office of the Attorney General should prioritize the completion, gazettement and adoption of the Bribery Regulations and Guidelines to ensure full implementation of the Bribery Act 2016. This would allow for immediate implementation of key provisions such as setting up of mechanisms to prevent bribery at private and public institutions 2.