Tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children · Tracking and monitoring public...

Tracking and monitoring public expenditure on childrenPiloting a 13-step innovative approach harnessing the World Bank’s BOOST database in Solomon IslandsAlex Jones and Nicoletta Feruglio

© UNICEF July 2016

Photos on front cover, page 13 and page 56: UNICEF Pacific/2006/PirozziPhoto on page 11: UNICEF Pacific/2014/Alcock

The statements in this publication are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or the views of UNICEF.

Alex Jones and Nicoletta Feruglio

Tracking and Monitoring Public Expenditure on ChildrenPiloting a 13-step innovative approach harnessing the World Bank’s BOOST database in Solomon Islands

4 – Tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands

Table of Contents

List of tables and figures –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 6List of abbreviations –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 7Acknowledgements –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8Executive Summary –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 9

1 Introduction ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––12

2 Why is tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children useful in Solomon Islands? ––––––––14 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (the legal case) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––14 Political momentum in Solomon Islands (the policy case) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––14 Economic and social returns of investing in children (the economic case) –––––––––––––––––––––––15

3 Key elements of the public financial management system in Solomon Islands ––––––––––––––––––16 Planning and budget formulation ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––16 Execution, accounting and reporting through the CoA –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 17 Field 1 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 17 Ledger code –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 17 Ministry code –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––18 Field 2 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––18 Field 3 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––18 National Development Strategy objectives––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––19 Field 4 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––19

4 The 13-step approach to track and monitor public expenditure on children ––––––––––––––––––––––20Step 1: Define ‘child’ –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––20Step 2: Understand the territorial administration and responsibilities for services benefiting children across levels of government ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––20Step 3: Understand the country economy and public expenditure trends ––––––––––––––––––––––20Step 4: Identify ministries, departments and agencies for first inclusion, progressively expanding analysis ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––21Step 5: Identify specific services within selected MDAs ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––21Step 6: Use actual rather than budgeted expenditure data ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––22Step 7: Include ‘on budget’ development partner expenditures and analyse separately if possible ––22Step 8: Map services onto the Chart of Accounts ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––22Step 9: Apportion lines of expenditure benefiting both adults and children ––––––––––––––––––––22Step 10: Analyse expenditure on service delivery separate from policy, administration and regulation ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––23

Step 11: Analyse recurrent expenditure separate from capital expenditure –––––––––––––––––––––23Step 12: Track and monitor public expenditure on children over time –––––––––––––––––––––––––––23Step 13: Identify tracer child expenditure indicators to enable international comparison –––––––––––23

5 Quantifying public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands through the 13-step approach ––––––24 5.1 Country economy and public expenditure trends –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––24 Macro-economy––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––24 Government revenue –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––24 Government expenditure ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––27 5.2 Which MDAs to include? ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––29 5.3 Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––31 A snapshot of the sector’s status –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––31 Unpacking expenditure through the MoEHRD ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––33 Education services benefiting children ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––35 Child utilisation of education services –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––35 5.4 The Ministry of Health and Medical Services –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––36 A snapshot of the sector’s status –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––36 Unpacking expenditure through the MoHMS –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––37 Health services benefiting children –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––39 Child utilisation of health services ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––39 5.5 Results: quantifying public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands ––––––––––––––––––––43 MoEHRD –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––43 MoHMS ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––48 Aggregated public expenditure on children –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––51 Tracers: child expenditure indicators; a comparison between Fiji and Solomon Islands –––––––53

6 Conclusion, limitations and policy implications ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––55

7 References ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––58

Table of Contents – 5


List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Return on investment in human capital as age increases ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 15Figure 2: GDP and GGE, 1980-2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 25Figure 3: GGE per capita against GGE as a percentage of GDP in selected PICs, 2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––– 26Figure 4: Relative composition of government revenue in 2013 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 27Figure 5: Relative composition of government expenditure by ministry, 2014 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 28Figure 6: Relative composition of government expenditure by Ledger, 2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 28Figure 7: Relative composition of government expenditure by NAC, 2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 28Figure 8: MoEHRD actual expenditure 2006-2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 33Figure 9: MoEHRD actual expenditure by economic classification and year ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 34Figure 10: MoEHRD actual expenditure by division and year –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 34Figure 11: Age of children enrolled in child education in 2015 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 35Figure 12: MoHMS actual expenditure 2006-2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 38Figure 13: Total MoHMS actual expenditure by NAC classification and year ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 38Figure 14: MoHMS actual expenditure 2013, by division –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 39Figure 15: Public expenditure on children - 2006-2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 53

Table 1: CoA basic structure –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 17Table 2: CoA – ledger codes –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 18Table 3: CoA – intended use of NDS objective codes –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 19Table 4: CoA – NAC (digit 1) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 19Table 5: Select macroeconomic indicators 2006-2014 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 25Table 6: Government revenue 2013-2015 (SB$ millions) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 26Table 7: GGE by Ministry, SB$ millions, 2006-2014 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 27Table 8: GGE by Ledger, SB$ millions, 2006-2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 28Table 9: GGE by NAC, SB$ millions, 2006-2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 29Table 10: Which Ministries to include in analysis? –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 30Table 11: Levels of school –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 31Table 12: Number of schools and pupils in 2015 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 31Table 13: School enrolment rates (%) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 32Table 14: Education services benefiting children in Fiji ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 35Table 15: Typical health sector services benefiting children–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 40Table 16: Outpatient visits and population by age range and facility type in 2014 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 41Table 17: Admissions and population by age range and facility type –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 41Table 18: Average cost of visits to provincial health services –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 42Table 19: Expenditure by the national medical stores in 2013 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 42Table 20: NMS expenditure on children in 2013 (%) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 43Table 21: Recurrent policy and administration in education 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 44Table 22: ECE recurrent service delivery 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 45Table 23: Primary school recurrent service delivery 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 45Table 24: Secondary school recurrent service delivery 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 46Table 25: TVET recurrent service delivery 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 47Table 26: Education policy and administration budget support 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) –––––––––––––––––––––––– 47Table 27: Education service delivery budget support 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 48Table 28: Education development expenditure 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 48Table 29: Policy and administration recurrent expenditure in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) –––––––––––––––––––– 48Table 30: Service delivery recurrent expenditure in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 49Table 31: Policy and administration budget support in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) ––––––––––––––––––––––––– 50Table 32: Service delivery budget support in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 51Table 33: Development expenditure in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 52Table 34: Public expenditure on children - 2006-2014 (SB$ millions) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 52Table 35: Solomon Islands tracer indicators (US$) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 54Table 36: Fiji tracer indicators (US$) ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 54

List of Abbreviations

AHCs Area Health Clinics

ARI Acute respiratory infections

CoA Chart of Accounts

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

ECE Early childhood education

FMIS Financial Management Information System

GGE General government expenditure

GGEE General government expenditure on education

GGEH General government expenditure on health

GDP Gross domestic product

IMF International Monetary Fund

MYOB Mind Your Own Business

MDA Ministries, departments and agencies

MoEHRD Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development

MoF&T Ministry of Finance and Treasury

MoHMS Ministry of Health and Medical Services

MoWYCFA Ministry of Women, Youth, Children and Family Affairs

NAACC National Action Advisory Committee for Children

NAC Natural Accounting Codes

NACC National Advisory Committee on Children

NAPs Nurse Aide Posts

NMS National Medical Stores

NRH National Referral Hospital

OPM Oxford Policy Management

PIC Pacific Island Countries

PFM Public Financial Management

RHCs Rural Health Clinics

SUN Scaling Up Nutrition

SIEMIS Solomon Islands Education Management Information System

SIG Solomon Islands Government

SDGs Sustainable development goals

TVET Technical and vocational education and training

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

List of Abbreviations – 7


Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office (EAPRO) in collaboratin with UNICEF Pacific Island Countries and with technical assistance from Oxford Policy Management (OPM).

Preparation of the report was led by a core team consisting of Alex Jones (Consultant, OPM), Nicoletta Feruglio (Social Policy Specialist, UNICEF EAPRO), Sinta Satriana (Consultant, UNICEF Pacific Island Coun-tries) and Tomas Lievens (Principal Consultant, OPM). The team exhibited an impressive level of commit-ment and creativity in the concept phase and in the development and finalization of the report.

The report benefited from extensive inputs and the many suggestions received by the colleagues of the Ministries of, Education, Finance, Health, Development Planning and Aid Coordination, Women, Youths, Children and Family Affairs and Solomon Water. The team is grateful as well for inputs from the IMF Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Centre, the World Bank, UNDP Regional Pacific Center and Save the Chil-dren.

A high level of appreciation is also due to UNICEF Pacific Island Countries and UNICEF Solomon Field Of-fice for their guidance and support, without which this report would have not been possible.

Executive summary

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Addis Ababa Conference on Financing for Development (2015) open a new chapter in development finance and

sustainable growth.

Post Addis Ababa, the debate on development fi-nance has focused in large part on the generation of necessary additional resources to support the SDGs. Improving domestic financial resources has been identified as the main pathway, yet it is only one policy option. Sound public financial man-agement (PFM), including tracking and monitoring expenditures at all levels and dimensions of the SDGs, will also be important to achieve these de-velopment goals.

Investments in children are key to sustainable growth. The economic and social returns of invest-ing in children are well documented. For instance, research published in The Lancet1 suggests that even a relatively small investment of US$5 per per-son in maternal and child health care would avert the preventable deaths of 147 million children and 5 million women and 32 million stillbirths in 74 countries by 2035. Other studies suggest that increasing pre-school attendance – one form of early childhood development – would yield returns of anywhere between US$6 and US$33 per dol-lar invested,2 depending on the economic context

and the number of children covered. These long-term benefits provide strong arguments for priori-tising investments in children within the financing frameworks and sustainable development strate-gies outlined by the Addis Ababa agreement.

Governments and development partners need to increase their focus on and commit more resourc-es to methodologically comparable and sophisti-cated fiscal systems for tracking and monitoring expenditure on children. Some stakeholders (in-cluding UNICEF) have already begun to do so.

The monitoring of child expenditure has thus far been undertaken using different approaches. Some Latin American countries, for example Ec-uador and Peru, have institutionalised tracking and monitoring of public expenditure on children, in-cluding a tracer of child expenditure, in the gov-ernment chart of accounts (CoA). Thirty of the 56 member countries of the Scaling Up Nutrition Ini-tiative (SUN) have been tracking and monitoring nutrition expenditure.3

This report is part of a growing body of literature on the tracking and monitoring of public expen-diture on children. It has three objectives: 1) In conjunction with a parallel report focusing on Fiji (UNICEF, 2016), to propose an innovative step-by-step approach to tracking and monitoring expendi-

1 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2962231-X/abstract2 http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus/nobel-laureates-guide-smarter-global-targets-2030-03 http://scalingupnutrition.org/

Executive summary – 9


ture on children; 2) to apply this approach to Solo-mon Islands; and 3) to compare public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands to that in Fiji.

The report methodology is based on a synthesis of the available data and information from existing studies, building on approaches and budget struc-tures that have been applied in other countries to single out the services benefiting children. This research maps out PFM structures and some of the main services benefiting children in Solomon Islands using available budget/expenditure data. Key informant interviews in Solomon Islands were also critical to this analysis.

The step-by-step approach is designed to be prac-tical, affordable and quick to implement. The steps involve routine data analysis on an annual basis without the need for primary data collection. The systematic use of this approach aims to encour-age quality and consistency in the monitoring and tracking of child expenditure and, in turn, improve the overall usefulness of the growing body of work in this field.

The step-by-step approach incorporates three new elements: 1) tracking of children’s services and related expenditures in accordance with the country’s CoA; 2) starting analysis initially with the ministries that account for the largest share of government expenditure; and 3) using the World Bank’s Open Budgets Portal BOOST database ini-tiative to access public expenditure data.

There are several advantages to performing anal-ysis in line with the CoA. The first is that data are already routinely collected by finance ministries on public expenditure, according to the CoA. The data are already there – it is just a matter of un-derstanding how the CoA is structured and how public services benefiting children are captured in it. The second advantage is that results can be ex-pressed according to government financial man-agement structures, meaning that finance min-istries are more likely to be able to engage with the analysis. Where policy recommendations are made, it will also be clear how and where to ad-dress them.

Those conducting the analysis should focus first on the most expensive sectors (accounting for the

highest share of government expenditure) that are providing services for children, and leave the smaller sectors for subsequent analysis in later years. This is a pragmatic recommendation, with the basic assumption that improved government decisions (informed by analysis of public expendi-ture) have greater impacts in cases where expen-diture is large. The tracking and monitoring of child expenditure is still in its infancy (both internation-ally and at country-specific level); it is important to start somewhere, and larger ministries, depart-ments and agencies (MDAs) or sectors are likely to have more developed financial management systems, making analysis of public expenditure more feasible.

The BOOST database of public expenditure data was made available by the Solomon Islands Min-istry of Finance and Treasury (MoF&T) and it has been invaluable to this analysis. The database included expenditure data from 2006 through mid-2015, which could be disaggregated by any component of the CoA. This enabled a better un-derstanding of how the CoA is used in practice (some codes may be in the CoA manual but not actually used), and the presentation of expendi-ture aggregated in a variety of different ways.

This research is a second pilot, illustrating how the Open Budgets Portal can be used to track and monitor expenditure on children on a routine ba-sis. The application of the methodology permitted quantification of public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands as well as an assessment of its robustness and limitations in doing so. Specifical-ly, the process of aligning line ministry policies and services with the CoA revealed that financial structures are not always geared to classifying, recording and reporting on service delivery ben-efiting children. As found in Fiji, Solomon Islands’ CoA was better suited to monitoring education services for children than health services.

The key message for policy makers is that the Government appears to be increasing the amount it spends on children’s services each year. In cur-rent prices, government expenditure on children in Solomon Islands is estimated to have grown from SB$174 million to SB$759 million between 2006 and 2014. Expressed in 2010 prices, this is a real growth from SB$914 to SB$2,113 per child.

The majority of this growth came from increasing expenditure on primary and secondary education (for which annual expenditure grew by SB$180 million and SB$125 million, respectively). In 2014 the Solomon Islands Government (SIG) spent SB$880 per child on primary school and SB$520 on secondary school. Annual expenditure on chil-dren’s services in health is also estimated to have increased by over SB$100 million – although this may be an overestimate, and needs further re-search to clarify. Expenditure on early childhood education (ECE) and technical and vocational edu-cation and training (TVET) is also increasing.

Overall, when expressed in US dollars to enable international comparison, it is estimated that Sol-omon Islands public expenditure on children grew from US$100 to US$360 per child between 2006 and 2014. This is benchmarked against equiva-lent analysis from Fiji, which is estimated to have increased public expenditure on children from US$405 to US$480 per child between 2010 and 2014.

Solomon Islands spends much less per child on

primary and secondary education than Fiji (exclud-ing 2014 data, which need verifying in Fiji). It also spends more on primary education than second-ary education, in contrast to Fiji, which spends more on secondary than primary. This may be the result of Fiji’s high secondary school enrolment rates. Enrolment rates in Solomon Islands’ sec-ondary schools are very low, particularly at senior secondary level.

At this stage it is hard to evaluate public expen-diture on children in Solomon Islands, other than to quantify it. This is still an emerging field, and within the Pacific, numbers can only be bench-marked between Solomon Islands and Fiji. The three key next steps are to: 1) extend analysis to cover public expenditure on access to water; 2) through the Ministry of Women, Youth, Chil-dren and Family Affairs, to repeat this analysis in Solomon Islands and other countries in future years (to build a body of data for comparison); and 3) to complement expenditure analysis with an analysis of the impacts of government service provision to children for a sense of whether the money is being well spent.

Executive summary – 11


The Sustainable Development Goals and Addis Ababa Conference on Financing for Development open a new chapter in devel-opment finance and sustainable growth.

Investments in children are a natural priority for development finance and sustainable growth strategies. Some governments and UNICEF-led ini-tiatives are already tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children.

It is in this context that the UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office, in collaboration with UNICEF Pacific Island Countries (PICs) and govern-ment partners and with technical assistance from Oxford Policy Management (OPM), undertook this study. The objective of the research is threefold: 1) in collaboration with a parallel analysis in Fiji (UNICEF, 2016), to pilot an innovative step-by-step approach to track and monitor expenditure on chil-dren; 2) to quantify public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands by applying the recommended fiscal monitoring methodology; and 3) to attempt to compare results from Solomon Islands with those from Fiji estimated through similar research.

This study has built on existing government and UNICEF initiatives that have contributed to an im-proved understanding of the tracking and mon-itoring of expenditure on children: government tracking and monitoring expenditure on children conducted in Bangladesh, Ecuador, India and Peru; UNICEF’s Financial Benchmark for Child Protec-tion; and the SUN initiative on nutrition. In-country data collection and key informant interviews were

essential to this analysis to help interpret, appor-tion and analyse official budget data, and to provide additional data. Solomon Islands’ MoF&T provided access to the World Bank Open Budgets Portal BOOST database of public expenditure, including data from financial management information sys-tems stored in Excel pivot table format from 2006 to mid-2015. The BOOST database proved to be invaluable throughout this process.

The key innovative feature of the methodology was to align the tracking of public expenditure on children with Solomon Islands’ CoA. This worked well for education, but was more complicated for health.

This study concludes that the Government appears to be increasing the amount it spends on children’s services each year. In current prices, government expenditure on children is estimated to have grown from SB$174 million to SB$759 million between 2006 and 2014. Expressed in 2010 prices, this is a real growth from SB$914 to SB$2,113 per child.

The majority of this growth came from increasing expenditure on primary and secondary education (for which annual expenditure grew by SB$180 mil-lion and SB$125 million, respectively). In 2014 the Solomon Islands Government spent SB$880 per child on primary school and SB$520 on secondary school (per child in the population, not per child en-rolled in school). Annual expenditure on children’s health services is also estimated to have increased by over SB$100 million – although this may be an overestimate and needs to be clarified through

Introduction1

further research. Expenditure on ECE and TVET is also increasing.

The report is structured as follows:

Section 2 details the reasons underpinning the im-portance and usefulness of tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands, such as the legal and regulatory framework, the Government’s commitment to children and youth, and the country’s young but aging population.

Section 3 describes the PFM system in Solomon Islands. A good understanding of this system is es-sential for the successful tracking and monitoring of public expenditure on children.

Section 4 presents the 13-step methodology for estimating public expenditure on children. These steps are designed to be practical, quick and af-fordable to implement. They specify the scope of

relevant evidence, key indicators that should be tracked, and the type of data necessary for the analysis. The aim is to have these principles guide estimation processes in individual countries so that even where data collection methodologies vary for circumstantial reasons, analysis is com-parable. They are also intended to improve the quality of analysis. Ultimately, it is hoped that if future analysis is conducted on the basis of these 13 steps, it will increase the quality, comparability and usefulness of the overall body of research in this field.

Section 5 details the application of the 13-step ap-proach to Solomon Islands, serving as a second pilot and an example for other countries on how to implement this process.

Section 6 presents conclusions and policy implica-tions of the analysis, and the advantages and lim-itations of the proposed 13-step methodology.

Introduction – 13


This section explains why tracking and moni-toring public expenditure on children in Sol-omon Islands is useful and important. The main reasons include the Government’s

commitment to children and youth, and the coun-try’s young but aging population and the impact of this on the economy.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (the legal case)

In 1995 Solomon Islands ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). However, according to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Periodic Review of the CRC, the Government is yet to ratify the optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and on the involvement on children in armed conflict (MoWYCFA, 2014).4 The CRC incorporates the complete range of international human rights for children – includ-ing civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and aspects of humanitarian law. In each of these areas, the CRC lays out principles and provisions that Solomon Islands, as a signatory, has agreed to implement.

Firm commitments for child-focused investments exist under the CRC. Article 4 mandates that signatories “un-dertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures” in implementing the CRC, and that “States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources” (UNGA). Monitoring the implementation of these commitments involves an understanding of how much the govern-ment is spending on interventions to benefit children.

Political momentum in Solomon Islands (the policy case)

In 1992 the National Advisory Committee on Chil-dren (NACC) was established to inform the Cab-

inet on issues relating to children. Following this and the ratification of the CRC, the promotion and protection of children’s rights has worked its way into the political landscape. In 2000 the first Na-tional Youth Policy was developed. In 2002 Solo-mon Islands put its signature to the United Nations General Assembly outcome document ‘A World Fit For Children’. In 2003 research into the needs and priorities of Solomon Islands’ youth was published, identifying a lack of community participation, aim-lessness, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, teen-age pregnancy, illiteracy and a paucity of youth activities as major concerns (IYA, 2003). This led to a review of the National Youth Policy in 2007 and the publication of an updated Youth Policy for 2010-2015 (MoWYCA, 2010). The updated policy empha-sises improved and equitable access to education, participation in leadership and decision making, access to health care, peace building and sustain-able development. Also in 2007, the Government began the process of developing its first National Children’s Policy, which was published in 2010 with the core goals of promoting the protection, devel-opment, survival and participation of children in society, as well as improved planning of public ser-vice delivery to children (MoWYCA, 2010). Children were defined as people under the age of 18, and youth any person between the ages of 14 and 29.

The Government also developed a policy on Gender Equality and Women’s Development 2010-2012, a National Policy on Eliminating Violence Against Women and a National Development Strategy 2011-2020, with the objective of providing support to vulnerable populations (into which the policies for the protection of children and youth fall).

However, the policies for children and youth lack adequate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms,

Why is tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children useful in Solomon Islands?2

4 This is contradicted by the Child Rights International Network, which states that the Solomon Islands Government signed up to both of these protocols in 2009: https://www.crin.org/en/library/publications/solomon-islands-child-rights-references-universal-periodic-review

so it is not clear to what extent they have been implemented and what their impact has been. Moreover, up to the time of writing this report, there was no legislation specifically targeting child protection. Children have instead been protected through broader legislation relating to crime, mar-riage, labour, juvenile offending, etc. The develop-ment of a Child and Family Welfare Bill has been endorsed by the Cabinet, but the final document is yet to be approved (MoWYCFA, 2014).

Since 2009 the Government has implemented a Fee Free Basic Education programme, where schools are provided with per pupil grants designed to reduce the need to charge families (although schools are still allowed to ask them for top-ups). Since 2005 the Government has implemented a Community High School initiative, building schools in more rural locations closer to communities.5

Economic and social returns of investing in children (the economic case)

Solomon Islands’ population was estimated at 572,000 in 2014.6 Just over 14 per cent of the popu-lation was estimated to be under 5 years of age and a further 36 per cent aged 5-19. In total, just over half of the population was under 20. In line with demo-graphic trends observed elsewhere in the world, Sol-omon Islands’ fertility rate declined from 5.46 to 4.03 children per woman between 1993 and 2013, with life expectancy increasing from 58 to 68 years of age.7

The National Children’s Policy identifies the large pro-portion of the total population that are children as a key reason for prioritising their needs. But there is also a second dynamic that is important to consid-er for the benefit of Solomon Islands as a whole. In-creasing life expectancy, coupled with the decreasing fertility rate, suggests that the population is aging. This implies that each generation of Solomon Islands’ workforce will be smaller than the preceding one – but nevertheless expected to generate continued economic growth in order to maintain or improve liv-ing standards as well as care for the expanding num-bers of senior citizens. Thus the productivity of the workforce, both today and into the future, is critical.

There is significant research suggesting that the productivity, growth and prosperity of a country depend heavily on the survival, health, education and protection of its children and youth. It is ar-gued that investment in early childhood develop-ment is comparatively cheap and effective as a means of nurturing girls and boys to become well functioning adults (compared to attempts to com-pensate for poor childhood environments later in life). In other words, investment in human capital has a decreasing return as the beneficiary ages (this idea is represented in Figure 1).

In the context of Solomon Islands, it is important to track public expenditure on children both for the benefit of children and the benefits society can gain through its investment in children.

Why is tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children useful in Solomon Islands? – 15

Figure 1: Return on investment in human capital as age increases

Source: (Heckman and Masterov)

Rat

e o

f re

turn

to

inve

stm

ent

in h

um

an c

apit

al

Age

Pre school care

SchoolingJob training

5 https://www.crin.org/en/library/publications/solomon-islands-child-rights-references-universal-periodic-review 6 Source: http://populationpyramid.net/solomon-islands/2014/.7 Source: http://data.worldbank.org/country/fiji


This section outlines the main features of the PFM system in Solomon Islands. A good understanding of this system is a precondition for successful tracking and

monitoring of public expenditure on children.

Planning and budget formulation

The legal framework for PFM was established by the Public Financial Management Act of October 2013. The Government is finalizing a PFM road map defining the plan for full-fledged implementa-tion of the rules and procedures set out in the Act. The planning and budgeting process combines a long/medium-term process and a short-term (an-nual) process.

The long/medium-term planning process is man-aged by the Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination. It involves the elaboration of a long-term development framework and a cy-cle of five/ten-year plans organized to deliver on commitments in the long-term plan. The Govern-ment is currently developing the new National Development Strategy Framework 2016-2035 in a broad consultative manner and the first draft was expected to be finalised by December 2015. The line ministries will then develop a three-year sec-tor development plan complemented by an annual corporate plan.

The budget process is the responsibility of the MoF&T. The Budget Office develops a budget strategy and accordingly issues a budget circular specifying the Government’s strategic expenditure

priorities, the expenditure ceilings for formulation of the budget as well as the guidelines and specific instructions to be followed by each ministry and department responsible for submitting a budget. The capital expenditure limit is calculated by de-ducting wages and recurrent non wages from the total envelope. Besides the strict sense CAPEX, the development budget contains the operation and maintenance of capital projects (especially for the first years of the project lifecycle) and one-off activities (for example advocacy for the Family Protection Bill). This point is particularly relevant for the proposed methodology and capital as chil-dren’s capital expenditure indicators are calculated.

Upon receiving the budget circular with expendi-ture targets from the MoF&T, ministries develop budget bids (budget proposals) for operational and capital expenditures with support and oversight from the MoF&T’s Budget Office.

The budget is formulated in accordance with a bud-get classification system by administrative unit and by type of spending - the economic classification. However, a basic classification of this kind does not provide clear information about the purpose of expenditure. The optimum system of classification is thus by programme. Programmes are defined in different ways in different countries but the basic objective is to establish a mutually exclusive set of categories for the classification of spending within each institution, for which separate and precise ob-jectives can be defined, in addition to the specific outputs to be produced within the programme so as to achieve those objectives. In the absence of programmes, it is exceedingly difficult to ensure

Key elements of the public financial management system in Solomon Islands3

that resources are effectively directed to the stra-tegic objectives specified in the National Develop-ment and Sectorial Plans. However, the mission team did not see any proposals for the definition of a programme structure. Nonetheless, it is antic-ipated that the proposed methodology for tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children will have to be modified to adjust to new budget classi-fications if and when programme-based budgeting is introduced.

The payroll bids are assessed by the Ministry of Public Service, the ‘recurrent other bids’ by the MoF&T and the development bids by the Minis-try of Development Planning and Aid Coordination. Budgetary proposals for each ministry are consoli-dated by the Budget Office (within the MoF&T) and consistency with the fiscal forecast is checked. The consolidated draft budget is then submitted to the Cabinet, which takes it to Parliament. The Parlia-mentary Accounts Committee makes budget rec-ommendations to Parliament, which finally enacts the budget through the Appropriations Bill.

Execution, accounting and reporting through the CoA

Following approval of the recommended budget, warrants are issued to enable ministries to commit financial resources.

A financial management information system (FMIS) is in use at central level called AX. Howev-er, full interactive access to AX is not extended to line ministries (other than the MoEHRD). Line min-istries are able to ‘view only’ the online system. In order to make expenditures, divisions within ministries prepare payment vouchers, which must be signed by the respective permanent secretar-ies and then submitted to the MoF&T for payment

disbursement directly from the consolidated fund to the service provider. The only exception to this is the MoEHRD, which, as a pilot, is able to inter-act with the AX accounting system remotely, and approve payments directly.

Some other ministries, in response to being limit-ed to ‘view only’ access to the system, resort to keeping their own records of expenditure using excel.

The FMIS budget and expenditure classifications are aligned with the CoA. Each expenditure is as-signed a 15-digit code with four fields. These four segments are designed to categorise expenditures according to the type of good being purchased, the programme and activity associated with the expen-diture and the associated National Development Strategy objective, the cost centre responsible for the expenditure, the ministry responsible for the expenditure and, finally, the ledger the money is accounted against. All of this is defined in Solomon Islands’ chart of accounts manual (SIG, 2012).

Field 1

Ledger code

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

There are four different ledgers in Solomon Is-lands – recurrent, budget support, development and special funds. These are sometimes referred to as ‘heads’. Recurrent expenditures are on items or services that are ‘used up’ in the process of providing services. In the context of government, common examples include wages and salaries, drugs and medical consumables and school text books. Budget support is money provided to SIG

Table 1: CoA basic structure

Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4

XXXLedger/ Ministry

NumbersCost centre Coding Codes (NAC)

Key elements of the public financial management system in Solomon Islands – 17


by donors. It is split into two categories – general and tied budget support. General budget support is treated in the same way as general government revenue, and allocated between ministries at the discretion of the MoF&T. Tied budget support is given to SIG with certain rules guiding how it should be spent. Both forms of budget support fol-low the normal budget and accounting processes. However, donors can increase amounts during the year of utilisation, and any unused funds are rolled over into the next year rather than returned to their source. Budget support is generally intended for consumption, and cannot be spent on salaries. The development ledger is used to record capi-tal expenditures. The majority of these are donor funds, but they do include some SIG money too. The Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Co-ordination is in charge of how this money is spent. The special fund holds money that is not part of the consolidated fund, and a special fund warrant must be issued by the Minister of Finance to au-thorise the responsible permanent secretary to make a payment from here. Table 2 identifies the ledger code associated with each head.

Table 2: CoA – ledger codes

Ledger code Description

2 Recurrent ledger

3 Budget support ledger

4 Development ledger

5 Special fund ledger

Source: (SIG, 2012)

Ministry code

For all expenditure codes, the 2nd and 3rd charac-ters identify the ministry responsible for the expen-diture. For example, ‘72’ refers to the MoEHRD.


Together, the ledger code and the ministry code make up field 1 of the CoA. This means that field one tells you the ministry responsible for spending the money and the head from which the money was sourced. For example, ‘372’ refers to expen-diture through the MoEHRD, sourced from budget support.

Field 2

Field two consists of four digits, and is used to iden-tify cost centres, or divisions within each ministry. A recent review of field two codes identified that codes existed outside the divisional units of minis-tries, and in some cases constituted duplicates with the programme and activity codes of field 3. The MoEHRD, for example, has 43 sub-heads, and the Ministry of Health and Medical Services (MoHMS) has 47. It is reported that both have multiple sub-heads relating to one another, which do not follow the divisional divides within the ministries. The MoEHRD finance team has expressed the view that its field two codes need restructuring, as they do not reflect the actual structure of four or five di-visions (SIG, 2012). Moreover, a recent costing ex-ercise within the MoHMS states that there were in fact only 34 divisions (rather than the 47 suggested by the codes) (Monash University, 2015).


As each ministry has its own set up of divisions, codes are commonly associated with specific min-istries. For example, field 2 code 0194 refers to ear-ly childhood development. This is a division within the MoEHRD. No expenditure will be found pass-ing through this division from the MoHMS.

Together, as found later in section 5.5, fields 1 and 2 are the most useful for estimating public expen-diture on children.

Field 3

It was intended that results-based management be used to assess the performance of divisions or programmes against their achievement of planned outputs relative to their expenditure against bud-gets. This would link planning to budgeting, and make managers accountable for both. The first dig-it of field 3 should identify the National Develop-ment Strategy objective, and the following three identify the activity, programme or project code. However, field 3 was not used by either the MoEH-RD or the MoMHS for recurrent expenditures, and all expenditures were assigned 0000. It is used for budget support expenditure, but it was not clear

Table 3: CoA – intended use of NDS objective codes

Source: (SIG, 2012)

NDS objective code

Description

1 Alleviate poverty and improve the lives of Solomon Islanders in a peaceful and stable society

2 To support the vulnerable

3 Ensure that all Solomon Islanders have access to quality health care and combat malaria, HIV, non-communica-ble and other diseases

4 Ensure that all Solomon Islanders can access quality education and that the nation’s manpower needs are sustainably met

5 Increase economic growth and equitably distribute employment and income benefits

6 Develop physical infrastructure and utilities to ensure all Solomon Islanders have access to essential services and markets

7 Effectively respond to climate change and manage the environment and risks of natural disasters

8 Improve governance and order at national, provincial and community levels and strengthen links at all levels

9 Administration/other

how it was functioning, and so could not be used in this analysis.

National Development Strategy objectives


Field 4

This is a classification by item of expenditure in which items are grouped in categories reflecting the economic or administrative purpose of expen-diture. The codes are referred to in Solomon Is-lands as the Natural Accounting Codes (NAC). They are unique throughout all government expendi-tures, but different ministries commonly make use of different codes because of the different nature of their expenditures.


Particularly important is the first (and sometimes the second) digit of field 4. Analysis of public ex-penditure commonly disaggregates according to it. It can be used to identify the type of good being purchased according to the categories outlined in Table 4. Note that it is also used to classify reve-nues – so any code string where the first digit of field 4 is ‘0’ is actually an income rather than an expenditure. Also note that this digit could in theo-ry be used to identify capital and recurrent expen-diture (although some expenditures with ledger

code 4 do not also have NAC code 5, suggesting some inconsistencies in accounting practices).

The complete list of all possible economic classifi-cations available is very long, but can be found in the Chart of Accounts manual. Economic classifi-cations important for children’s public services are identified in section 5.5.

Queries can be run on the FMIS to identify public ex-penditure on anything that can be identified through these codes. This means that any ledger, ministry, cost centre/division or natural accounting classifica-tion can be identified on their own or within any of the other categories. For example, it is possible to extract expenditure on salaries, wages and related costs (a NAC) within the MoEHRD (a ministry).

Table 4: CoA – NAC (digit 1)

NAC (digit 1 & 2) Description

0 Revenue

1 Salaries, wages and related costs

2 Supplies and consumables

3 Utilities

4 Grants

5 Capital expenditure

56 Development expenses provision

59 Loans and interest

7 Projects

8 Financial assets

9 Liabilities

Key elements of the public financial management system in Solomon Islands – 19


This section describes a step-by-step methodological approach to track and monitor government public expenditure on children. The objective of this approach

is to ensure quality and consistency in analysis, and in turn improve the overall usefulness of the tracking and monitoring of expenditures on children to government decision-makers.

To enable comparisons across countries, the in-tent is to standardise the methodology to the maximum extent possible. However, the steps are neither prescriptive nor meant to inhibit innovation. Given variation in budget structures and children’s services, governments should add steps, or where suggested ones appear inappropriate, seek alter-natives. Wherever methods deviate from the out-lined step approach, it is recommended that the reasons be laid out.

Step 1: Define ‘child’

According to the CRC, a child is defined as a person “below the age of 18 years”. In some countries the legal age of majority is attained earlier, for example in Myanmar and Viet Nam (16 years) or later as in South Korea and Singapore (21 years). To identify the public expenditures benefiting children in a par-ticular country, it is vital to use the context-specific definition of a child.

While the decision regarding the definition of a child to be adopted for analysis should be agreed on a case-by-case basis, use of the CRC’s defini-

tion (0-17 years) will maximise simplicity and in-crease international comparability.

Step 2: Understand the territorial administration and responsibilities for services benefiting children across levels of government

In order to ensure fairness and comprehensive-ness in tracking and monitoring expenditure on children, it is important to understand the country governance structure and allocation of services targeting children across levels of government.

Where provision of services for children is cen-tralised or sub-national governments are responsi-ble for marginal services, only central government public expenditure on children should be consid-ered. However, where sub-national governments carry substantial responsibilities and funding for children’s services, data on local level expenditure need to be analysed. It is anticipated that in some countries (Indonesia, for example), sub-nation-al-level accounting codes may be different from the central government‘s CoA.

Step 3: Understand the country economy and public expenditure trends

Public expenditure on children is largely deter-mined by the economy and overall levels of public expenditure in any given country. If a country has

The 13-step approach to track and monitor public expenditure on children4

a small government or economy, there will be less money for the government to spend on children. If an economy or public expenditure is growing, there is a stronger argument for increasing public expenditure on children.

Particular indicators worthy of analysis are general government expenditure (GGE) as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), and per capita ex-penditures as well as revenues. Furthermore, it is important to understand government spending by sector and/or ministry, by economic classification and eventually by function in order to identify gov-ernment sector priority spending.

Step 4: Identify ministries, departments and agencies for first inclusion, progressively expanding analysis

For practical purposes it is recommended that spe-cific MDAs providing services benefiting children are identified for inclusion in a progressive man-ner. Countries beginning the process are recom-mended to start by focusing analysis on the MDAs with the largest expenditure, on MDAs only, and only on expenditures that can be feasibly tracked using data already routinely reported for services that clearly benefit children. Three criteria should be used to identify the MDAs for initial inclusion:

• ServicesprovidedwithintheMDAarebenefit-ing children

• Morethan1percentofGGEisspentthroughthe MDA

• Expenditurecanbeanalysed ina frameworkconsistent with the CoA

It is anticipated that the first two ministries to meet these criteria (and thus where countries should generally start tracking and monitoring public ex-penditure on children) will be education and health.

It is acknowledged that one reason for analysing public expenditure on children may be to highlight areas where there is inadequate spending on a particular service. Excluding services from analy-sis because there is insignificant expenditure un-dermines this objective. Some small MDAs may spend a considerable share of their budget on chil-

dren, but overall be insignificant when compared to larger MDAs, which in turn only spend small amounts on children. The benefit of these criteria, however, is to discourage countries from spending substantial amounts of time and resources analys-ing 1 per cent of government expenditure at the expense of gaining a proper understanding of 10 per cent. Policy improvements for spending 10 per cent more productively are likely to have a greater impact than policy improvements for spending 1 per cent more productively. Moreover, larger MDAs are more likely to have good data on expenditure and service utilisation. Analysis therefore should start with the larger MDAs, and be expanded to progressively include smaller ones in the future.

Step 5: Identify specific services within selected MDAs

Services benefiting children in particular should be identified.

To identify these services it is crucial to analyse both the intended beneficiaries of public services and ac-tual utilisation of these service by age. For example, mental health services benefit adults and children. To classify this service as targeting children, inpa-tient and outpatient data of mental health care fa-cilities should be analysed. Mental health services will then be included if children appear as utilizers.

As a starting point for identifying services bene-fiting children, a useful approach is to consult the CRC’s periodic reports. This should then be backed up with consultations among stakeholders in the selected ministries and with partners who have particular expertise on child-related issues in the country.

MDAs carry out expenditures on direct service delivery (such as financing schools) as well as on support services (such as financing monitoring systems and policy and legal framework develop-ment). Both types of services benefiting children should be analysed.

Furthermore, when considering an expenditure associated with a service benefiting children, the total cost of this service (including overhead costs) should be taken into consideration.

The 13-step approach to track and monitor public expenditure on children – 21


Step 6: Use actual rather than budgeted expenditure data

Budgeted expenditure often differs from actual spending. During budget execution, virement may be used to redirect spending from its budgeted purpose and revenue collected may be more or less than initially planned.

The purpose of tracking and monitoring public ex-penditure on children is to understand the actual value of the services available to children. This de-mands analysis of actual expenditure rather than budgeted expenditure.

The years for which data will be analysed should be decided on a case-by-case basis, driven by the most recent year for which actual expenditure data are available.

Step 7: Include ‘on budget’ development partner expenditures and analyse separately if possible

Development partners’ expenditures should be in-cluded if their contribution is ‘on budget’, that is, input into the government’s financial management system.

From a child’s perspective, it does not matter if the funding source for public services is government revenue or a development partner, so the value of the expenditure should be included. However, funding from development partners may decrease sustainability of the service. It is therefore recom-mended that, where possible, expenditures on children financed by domestic revenue are report-ed separately from expenditures financed by de-velopment partners.

Step 8: Map services onto the Chart of Accounts

An understanding of the public services benefiting children should be complemented by an under-standing of the MDAs’ CoA. The extent to which services can be aligned with classifications will be

unique to each country. As far as is reasonable, only services that can be identified using the CoA should be included in analysis. This is to align the process of monitoring public expenditure on chil-dren with existing government PFM practices.

If services can be directly mapped onto the CoA then the necessary data will already be collect-ed by ministries of finance. In countries using an FMIS, this means that data collection can be a sim-ple data query repeated on an annual basis rath-er than an expensive and intensive survey- based process.8 This also ensures that the resulting anal-ysis and policy recommendations are aligned with existing government budget, planning and expen-diture structures.

Step 9: Apportion lines of expenditure benefiting both adults and children

Some services and associated categories of expen-diture benefit both adults and children. Expenditure on curative health services is an example. The cura-tive health services’ budget line items should then be apportioned based on an estimated proportion of the expenditure spent providing the service to children. For instance, if 40 per cent of outpatient health visits were by children, it may be reasonable to apportion 40 per cent of the total cost of out-patient care to children. In cases where more de-tailed costings have been done, it would be prefer-able to apportion expenditures based on the actual services that are commonly provided to adults and children and their relative costs. However, it is ac-knowledged that this information is rarely available.

It may be advisable to invest in evidence-based al-location keys. This could involve undertaking a one-off costing analysis to inform how much of the to-tal cost of outpatient care is spent on children, for example, and re-using it in following years. These keys should be updated after three-five years or following a significant policy change. Each coun-try may need its own allocation keys depending on the construct of their CoA. Allocation keys will commonly be needed for large expenditure items in health sectors, such as wages and salaries or medicines and medical consumables.

8 In countries where FMIS is neither in use nor covers all budget institutions, the alternative is to look at year-end financial reporting.

Step 10: Analyse expenditure on service delivery separate from policy, administration and regulation

Government activities that benefit children include the development of policy, administration and reg-ulation as well as the actual delivery of goods and services. Expenditure on service delivery refers to the cost of providing the service to the user – for instance the health facility and school costs. Ex-penditure on policy, administration and regulation refers to the cost of designing policies and strate-gies and administering and regulating them.

Unless services are actually provided, children do not benefit from expenditure design, administra-tion or regulation. For this reason it is important to report expenditure on service delivery separate from the other associated costs.

All recurrent costs incurred by service delivery units (schools, hospitals, health centres, etc.) should be in-cluded as recurrent service delivery costs (including ad-ministration at the unit). All other recurrent costs should be considered policy, administration or regulation.

Step 11: Analyse recurrent expenditure separate from capital expenditure

Recurrent expenditures are expenses incurred to ac-quire goods or services which do not result in the cre-ation or acquisition of fixed assets. Key examples are wages and salaries, medicines and medical consum-ables or stationary. Capital expenditures are funds used to develop an institution’s asset stock. These can be intellectual, human or physical resources. Key examples are buildings, medical equipment, vehicles, trained staff or research. Capital expenditure creates a stock, which is added to cumulatively through fur-ther investment, and reduced cumulatively through depreciation. Recurrent expenditure is purely a flow. It is important to analyse and report recurrent and capital expenditure benefiting children separately.

Step 12: Track and monitor public expenditure on children over time

Expenditure on children should be calculated on a routine basis – preferably annually. Understanding how child expenditures change over time is a key

component of information for decision-making pur-poses. The proposed methodology (through align-ment with the CoA) is designed to facilitate annual tracking and monitoring. The intention is to make the only necessary data collection either a data query submitted to the administrators of the FMIS on an annual basis, or a search of the relevant CoA in the year-end financial reporting.

Step 13: Identify tracer child expenditure indicators to enable international comparison

Tracer child expenditure indicators should be tracked to enable cross-country analysis that ex-tends beyond understanding the size of resources to include also their composition.

These indicators are applicable to governments in general, so international comparison should be val-id. The initial recommended list of tracer indicators for public expenditure on children is:

• Publicexpenditureonvaccinesperchild• Publicexpenditureonessentialmedicinesfor

the integrated management of childhood ill-nesses (IMCI) per child

• Publicexpenditureonprimaryeducationperchild• Public expenditure on secondary education

per child• Public expenditure on teacher salaries as a

percentage of total public expenditure on edu-cation

Key initial recommended tracer indicators are lim-ited to education and health, as these are the two sectors anticipated to be the largest spenders on services benefiting children.

The methodology collects expenditure in nominal terms in the national currency. The particular com-parisons being made will determine the appro-priate currency that numbers should be convert-ed into for comparison. Global comparisons may demand that figures be expressed in US dollars. However, regional comparisons may demand dif-ferently. For instance, it may be more appropriate for Pacific Island Countries (PICs) to compare costs with each other using Australian or New Zealand dollars, particularly as many inputs will be procured using these currencies in this region.

The 13-step approach to track and monitor public expenditure on children – 23


This section quantifies public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands adopting the recommended step-by-step approach.

In Solomon Islands, in addition to devolved local administration (municipal and rural), the central government runs a deconcentrated administrative service responsible for most of social policy and services. Considering the limited scope of decen-tralisation, the tracking and monitoring of expendi-ture on children has been done using central gov-ernment public expenditure data only.

Solomon Islands legally defines a child as a person 0-18 years old.

5.1 Country economy and public expenditure trends

Macro-economy

Solomon Islands is a low-income small island state, and suffers from many of the problems common to other countries with one or both of these character-istics. The 2016 International Monetary Fund (IMF) Article IV consultation highlighted its vulnerability to external shocks (particularly regarding terms of trade, natural disasters and climate change), poor infrastructure, high dependency on aid, history of social unrest and general weak capacity as signifi-cant constraints for the country. Eighty per cent of the population lives in rural areas, dispersed over the country’s many islands, and the economy has

traditionally been driven by logging and agriculture. However, the forestry sector is expected to de-cline, and tourism and fishery sectors are hoped to take its place over the medium to long-term future (IMF, 2016).

Between 1980 and 2014 Solomon Islands had two periods of sustained real growth, split by a signif-icant fall between 1998 ad 2002. This coincided with the ethnic violence that took place between 1999 and 2003 (Figure 2). However, by 2014 GDP was still very low, at just over US$2,000 per cap-ita in current prices (Table 5). The gross national income per capita in 2014 (converted into 2011 pur-chasing power parity dollars) was $1,540, which placed Solomon Islands 172 out of 188 countries with comparable data.9

GGE fell in real terms between 2008 and 2010, but started to pick up again in 2011. Even adjusted for inflation, GGE was still lower in 2014 than in 2007. Measured in terms of expenditure per capita, SIG is the second smallest government in the Pacific (only Vanuatu spends less). However, as a propor-tion of GDP, SIG is twice as big as Vanuatu, and also bigger than Fiji and Tonga (Figure 3).

Government revenue

In 2013 SIG raised the majority of its revenue through inland revenue (54 per cent) (see Figure 4), particularly from goods (22 per cent) and per-sonal taxes (13 per cent). The next most significant sources of income were an export duty (also 13

9 http://hdr.undp.org/en/data

Quantifying public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands through the 13-step approach5

per cent), and budget support (12 per cent). This was broadly anticipated to stay the same into 2014 and 2015, except the amount of revenue raised

from budget support was anticipated to grow sig-nificantly, accounting for approximately a quarter of total government revenue (Table 6).10

Figure 2: GDP and GGE, 1980-2014

Table 5: Select macroeconomic indicators 2006-2014

Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2015

Indicator Source 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GGE (SB$, billions)Solomon Islands BOOST

2.47 2.96 3.31 2.34 1.89 2.30 2.85 3.04 3.17

GDP (SB$, billions) IMF 3.59 3.95 4.71 4.82 5.42 6.77 7.54 7.74 8.54

Population (millions) IMF 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.58

Inflation (end of peri-od consumer prices) IMF 9.93 10.92 18.14 1.73 0.78 9.38 5.11 2.47 4.19

SB$/USD www.oan-da.com 6.99 6.97 6.97 7.21 7.40 7.01 6.76 7.17 7.31

GDP/capita (SB$) 7,453

8,026

9,351

9,350

10,297

12,591

13,709

13,769

14,857

GDP/capita (US$) 1,066

1,152

1,342

1,297

1,391

1,796

2,028

1,920

2,032

GGE/GDP 69% 75% 70% 49% 35% 34% 38% 39% 37%

GGE growth (current prices) 20% 12% -29% -19% 22% 24% 7% 4%

GGE/capita (SB$) 5136 6013 6562 4553 3589 4268 5182 5405 5518

GGE/capita (US$) 735 863 941 631 485 609 767 754 755

GGE (SB$, millions, 2010 constant prices) 3.32 3.58 3.39 2.36 1.89 2.08 2.45 2.55 2.55

GGE real growth (2010 prices) 8% -5% -30% -20% 10% 18% 4% 0%

Source: IMF WEO database and WB BOOST database, provided by Fiji’s Ministry of Finance

10 Actual revenue figures for these years could not be sourced to check these estimates.

Quantifying public expenditure on children in Fiji through the 13-step approach – 25

Report Title

5 Quantifying public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands through the 13-step approach

This section quantifies public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands adopting the recommended step-by-step approach.

In Solomon Islands, in addition to devolved local administration (municipal and rural), the central government runs a deconcentrated administrative service responsible for most of social policy and services. Considering the limited scope of decentralisation, the tracking and monitoring of expenditure on children has been done using central government public expenditure data only.

Solomon Islands legally defines a child as a person 0-18 years old.

5.1 Country economy and public expenditure trends

Macro-economy Solomon Islands is a low-income small island state, and suffers from many of the problems common to other countries with one or both of these characteristics. The 2016 International Monetary Fund (IMF) Article IV consultation highlighted its vulnerability to external shocks (particularly regarding terms of trade, natural disasters and climate change), poor infrastructure, high dependency on aid, history of social unrest and general weak capacity as significant constraints for the country. Eighty per cent of the population lives in rural areas, disbursed over the country’s many islands, and the economy has traditionally been driven by logging and agriculture. However, the forestry sector is expected to decline, and tourism and fishery sectors are hoped to take its place over the medium to long-term future (IMF, 2016).

Between 1980 and 2014 Solomon Islands had two periods of sustained real growth, split by a significant fall between 1998 ad 2002. This coincided with the ethnic violence that took place between 1999 and 2003 (Figure 2). However, by 2014 GDP was still very low, at just over US$2,000 per capita in current prices (Table 5). The gross national income per capita in 2014 (converted into 2011 purchasing power parity dollars) was $1,540, which placed Solomon Islands 172 out of 188 countries with comparable data.9

Figure 2: GDP and GGE, 1980-2014

Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2015


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4

4.5 5

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

GGE/GDP

GDP (SBD

, constant, billions)

GDP, constant prices GGE/GDP


Figure 3: GGE per capita against GGE as a percentage of GDP in selected PICs, 2014

Source: Authors’ calculations from International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2015

Table 6: Government revenue 2013-2015 (SB$ millions)

2013 Actuals

%

2014 Revised budget

estimate

%2015

budget estimate

%

Other revenue Fees, charges and other 139.6 4% 87.9 2% 92.1 2%

License Revenue 158.3 5% 160.4 4% 178.5 5%

Total 297.9 9% 248.3 7% 270.6 7%

Inland revenue Company Tax 288.1 9% 288.1 8% 259.9 7%

Goods Tax 685.3 22% 660 18% 667.2 18%

License Revenue 9.3 0% 11.9 0% 15.7 0%

Personal Tax 411.1 13% 400 11% 420.3 11%

Sales Tax 55.7 2% 82.8 2% 92.7 2%

Stamp Duty 10.8 0% 11 0% 15 0%

Withholding Tax 236.9 7% 219 6% 235.8 6%

Total 1697.2 54% 1672.8 46% 1706.6 46%

Customs revenue Excise Duty 137.6 4% 161.9 4% 174.2 5%

Export Duty 425.3 13% 401.8 11% 466.3 13%

Fees, charges and other 4.1 0% 4.4 0% 5 0%

Import Duty 229.2 7% 221.7 6% 227.4 6%

Total 796.2 25% 789.8 22% 872.9 24%

Budget support Budgets support f. Recurrent Budget 300.8 9% 637.5 18% 758.5 20%

Budget support f. Development Budget 80 3% 249.4 7% 104.9 3%

Total 380.8 12% 886.9 25% 863.4 23%

Total revenue 3172.1 3597.8 3713.5

Source: (SIG, 2015)

Samoa

Solomon Islands

Tonga

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Kiribati

Tuvalu

PalauVanuatu Fiji

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

GG

E as

a %

of G

DP

GGE per capita (US$)

Table 7: GGE by Ministry, SB$ millions, 2006-2014Ministry 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development 246 406 445 473 418 579 633 849 850

Ministry of Health and Medical Services 172 179 306 293 211 352 396 415 442

National Debt Servicing 138 170 291 260 256 123 156 98 239

Ministry of Police and National Security 1,019 1,017 1,013 179 125 130 190 165 225

Ministry of Rural Development - 1 37 77 68 138 164 164 189

Ministry of Infrastructure Development 194 275 260 176 75 89 106 146 160

Ministry of Finance and Treasury 137 125 125 194 106 79 106 203 149

Ministry of Provincial Government and Institution-al Strengthening 93 90 71 68 81 90 136 109 133

Ministry of Home Affairs 8 57 41 47 26 23 27 50 104

Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 91 51 56 65 79 120 86 94 86

National Parliament 23 29 37 40 45 46 54 65 76

Ministry of Communication & Aviation - 22 40 33 48 94 89 128 61

Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development 53 50 34 48 40 52 81 65 58

Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology 0 2 13 13 13 24 42 37 46

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and External Trade 37 26 26 34 73 49 42 46 42

Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Employment 1 19 31 22 30 44 41 35 38

Ministry of Mines, Energy & Rural Electrification 42 38 19 24 27 45 41 42 33

Ministry of Culture and Tourism 3 8 12 8 21 42 209 47 31

Ministry of Public Service 10 28 37 37 18 29 39 50 29

Ministry of Forestry & Research 46 33 64 35 34 38 52 51 29

Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey 8 17 21 21 18 17 33 19 28

Ministry of Law and Justice - 9 20 14 16 20 23 27 27

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources 5 30 36 31 10 16 22 23 22

National Judiciary 87 124 108 33 12 15 23 22 22

Other ministries (accounting for <1% of GGE) 58 151 163 120 36 44 61 88 55

Total GGE 2,471 2,958 3,307 2,345 1,888 2,296 2,850 3,038 3,173

Report Title

Type of revenue Sub type of revenue

2013 Actuals

%

2014 Revised budget estimate

%

2015 budget estimate

%

Total 796.2 25% 789.8 22% 872.9 24% Budget support

Budgets support f. Recurrent Budget 300.8 9% 637.5 18% 758.5 20%

Budget support f. Development Budget 80 3% 249.4 7% 104.9 3%

Total 380.8 12% 886.9 25% 863.4 23% Total revenue 3172.1 3597.8 3713.5

Source: (SIG, 2015)

Figure 4: Relative composition of government revenue in 2013

Source: (SIG, 2015)

Government expenditure

The Ministry of Police and National Security was by far the most expensive ministry between 2006 and 2008; however, in 2009 it contracted significantly. Since then the MoEHRD and the MoHMS have accounted for the largest share of expenditures. Servicing Solomon Islands’ debt cost as much as its police force in 2014, and was more expensive than infrastructure development.

Table 7: GGE by Ministry, SB$ millions, 2006-2014

Ministry 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development

246

406

445

473

418

579

633

849

850

Ministry of Health and Medical Services

172

179

306

293

211

352

396

415

442

National Debt Servicing 138

170

291

260

256

123

156

98

239

Ministry of Police and National Security

1,019

1,017

1,013

179

125

130

190

165

225

Ministry of Rural Development

-

1

37

77

68

138

164

164

189

Ministry of Infrastructure Development

194

275

260

176

75

89

106

146

160

Ministry of Finance and

Other revenue 9%

Inland revenue 54%

Customs revenue 25%

Budget support 12%

Figure 4: Relative composition of government revenue in 2013

Source: (SIG, 2015)

Government expenditure

The Ministry of Police and National Security was by far the most expensive ministry between 2006 and 2008; however, in 2009 it contracted signifi-cantly. Since then the MoEHRD and the MoHMS have accounted for the largest share of expen-ditures. Servicing Solomon Islands’ debt cost as much as its police force in 2014, and was more expensive than infrastructure development.

The relative size of each ministry in 2014 is illus-trated in Figure 5. The Government is prioritising education and health, which is good for public

Source: Authors’ calculations from WB BOOST database, provided by Solomon Islands’ Ministry of Finance & Treasury



Report Title

Figure 7: Relative composition of government expenditure by NAC, 2014


5.2 Which MDAs to include?

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Periodic Reports of the CRC were used to generate an initial list of areas of SIG activity which specifically impacted on the welfare of children. Four sectors stood out – education, health, access to clean water and women, youth, children and family affairs.

Education has an important impact on the welfare of children throughout the entirety of their lives. Part of the justification for tracking public expenditure on children is based on a human capital model, where investments in the cognitive and non-cognitive abilities of children improve their ability to function successfully in society as adults. Education is central to this process. So is health care. Around the world infant and child mortality rates are falling, but not as fast as was hoped. Millions of children still die each year from preventable diseases (UNICEF, 2015). Health sectors are responsible for addressing this. Water and sanitation related diseases are one of the leading causes of infant and child morbidity and mortality. The most serious problem is diarrhoea. A child in a developing country typically has four or five bouts of diarrhoea per year. While the majority of these bouts will not kill the child, they are mentally and physically stunting and will weaken the child against other opportunistic infections – particularly acute respiratory infections (ARI). Diarrhoea in combination with ARI is the cause of over two thirds of global child deaths.11 Documents like the CRC illustrate how multiple sectors need to be brought together to ensure adequate protection of children. Ministries with the mandate to address ‘children’s affairs’ carry out this function.

The CRC periodic reports also highlight poor birth registration and legal protection as key issues of relevance in Solomon Islands. However, weak legal protection is arguably not best monitored through expenditure analysis. While undoubtedly an important issue, it may be better monitored in terms of whether or not it is in place, and the extent to which it meets international standards. Birth registration in Solomon Islands is a complicated issue. While the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is largely implemented through the health sector, and there is no clear monitoring framework established for identifying expenditure on it, so it could not be adequately addressed here.

11 http://www.unicef.org/wash/index_healthandeducation.html

5.1. Compensabon of

Employees 26%

5.2. Use of Goods and Services

56%

5.3. Debt & Interests

3%

5.4. Grants & Subsidies 14%

5.5. Social Benefits 1%

Report Title

Figure 5: Relative composition of government expenditure by ministry, 2014


Between 2006 and 2008 development expenditure was larger than recurrent expenditure, and budget support was relatively small. From 2009 recurrent expenditure overtook development expenditure, and in 2014 accounted for 73 per cent of total expenditure (Table 8 and Figure 6). Budget support also grew significantly over this period, accounting for 9 per cent of total expenditure in 2014. As mentioned in section 3, much of the development budget was funded by external development partners. It is conceivable that the revenue projections outlined above (25 per cent of total government revenue in 2014 raised from budget support) were broadly accurate. However, the split between budget support to the recurrent budget and budget support to the development budget needs to be checked.

Table 8: GGE by Ledger, SB$ millions, 2006-2014

Ledger 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Recurrent 775

1,039

1,361

1,421

1,547

1,684

1,962

2,060

2,322

Budget Support

-

32

110

101

98

176

229

275

281

Development 1,696

1,887

1,836

823

243

436

658

702

570

Total GGE 2,471

2,958

3,307

2,345

1,888

2,296

2,850

3,038

3,173


Ministry of Educabon and

Human Resources 27%

Ministry of Health and Medical Services

14%

Nabonal Debt Servicing

8%

Ministry of Police and Nabonal Security

7%

Ministry of Rural Development

6%

Ministry of Infrastructure Development

5%

Ministry of Agriculture and

Livestock Development

2%

Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Employment

1%

Ministry of Public Service 1%

Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey

1%

Ministry of Law and Jusbce 1%

Nabonal Judiciary 1%

Other ministries (accounbng for <1%

of GGE) 2%

Report Title

Figure 6: Relative composition of government expenditure by Ledger, 2014


When categorised into NACs, the Government spends most of its money on the use of goods and services. This has consistently been followed by compensation of employees. Together these two categories accounted for 82 per cent of expenditure in 2014 (Figure 7). Between 2006 and 2009 this was followed by debt and interest payments, but since then grants and subsidies have grown and debt and interest payments have shrunk. It is not clear how this is consistent with national debt servicing accounting for the third highest expenditure at the ministry level. Budget support as an NAC appears to be no longer used (instead it is categorised using the ledger already discussed). A large proportion of expenditure was not properly coded by NAC up to and including 2012 (and can only be read against ‘(blank)’). However, this appears to have been mostly addressed in 2013 and 2014 (Table 9).

Table 9: GGE by NAC, SB$ millions, 2006-2014

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 5.1. Compensation of Employees 252 357 436 477 568 626 704 766 819

5.2. Use of Goods and Services 277 374 479 596 696 816 999 1702 1771

5.3. Debt & Interests 144 162 296 191 112 147 183 21 77 5.4. Grants & Subsidies 98 139 143 152 162 263 299 514 453

5.5. Social Benefits 4 6 7 4 10 8 7 19 40 5.6. Budget Support 0 32 110 101 43 0 0 0 0 (blank) 1696 1887 1836 823 298 436 658 16 13 Total GGE 2471 2958 3307 2345 1888 2296 2850 3038 3173


Recurrent 73%

Budget Support 9%

Development 18%

Figure 5: Relative composition of government expenditure by ministry, 2014

Figure 6: Relative composition of government expenditure by Ledger, 2014

Figure 7: Relative composition of government expenditure by NAC, 2014




expenditure on children as both provide services with significant potential for improving the welfare of children.

Between 2006 and 2008 development expenditure was larger than recurrent expenditure, and budget support was relatively small. From 2009 recurrent expenditure overtook development expenditure, and in 2014 accounted for 73 per cent of total ex-penditure (Table 8 and Figure 6). Budget support also grew significantly over this period, accounting for 9 per cent of total expenditure in 2014. As men-tioned in section 3, much of the development bud-get was funded by external development partners. It is conceivable that the revenue projections outlined above (25 per cent of total government revenue in 2014 raised from budget support) were broadly ac-curate. However, the split between budget support to the recurrent budget and budget support to the development budget needs to be checked.

When categorised into NACs, the Government spends most of its money on the use of goods and

services. This has consistently been followed by compensation of employees. Together these two categories accounted for 82 per cent of expenditure in 2014 (Figure 7). Between 2006 and 2009 this was followed by debt and interest payments, but since


Table 8: GGE by Ledger, SB$ millions, 2006-2014Ledger 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Recurrent 775 1,039 1,361 1,421 1,547 1,684 1,962 2,060 2,322

Budget Support - 32 110 101 98 176 229 275 281

Development 1,696 1,887 1,836 823 243 436 658 702 570

Total GGE 2,471 2,958 3,307 2,345 1,888 2,296 2,850 3,038 3,173



Table 9: GGE by NAC, SB$ millions, 2006-2014Ledger 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

5.1. Compensation of Employees 252 357 436 477 568 626 704 766 819

5.2. Use of Goods and Services 277 374 479 596 696 816 999 1702 1771

5.3. Debt & Interests 144 162 296 191 112 147 183 21 77

5.4. Grants & Subsidies 98 139 143 152 162 263 299 514 453

5.5. Social Benefits 4 6 7 4 10 8 7 19 40

5.6. Budget Support 0 32 110 101 43 0 0 0 0

(blank) 1696 1887 1836 823 298 436 658 16 13

Total GGE 2471 2958 3307 2345 1888 2296 2850 3038 3173

then grants and subsidies have grown and debt and interest payments have shrunk. It is not clear how this is consistent with national debt servicing accounting for the third highest expenditure at the ministry level. Budget support as an NAC appears to be no longer used (instead it is categorised using the ledger already discussed). A large proportion of expenditure was not properly coded by NAC up to and including 2012 (and can only be read against ‘(blank)’). However, this appears to have been most-ly addressed in 2013 and 2014 (Table 9).

5.2 Which MDAs to include?

The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Periodic Reports of the CRC were used to generate an initial list of areas of SIG activity which specifically impacted on the welfare of children. Four sectors stood out – education, health, access to clean water and women, youth, children and family affairs.

Education has an important impact on the welfare of children throughout the entirety of their lives. Part of the justification for tracking public expenditure on children is based on a human capital model, where investments in the cognitive and non-cognitive abili-ties of children improve their ability to function suc-cessfully in society as adults. Education is central to this process. So is health care. Around the world infant and child mortality rates are falling, but not as fast as was hoped. Millions of children still die each year from preventable diseases (UNICEF, 2015). Health sectors are responsible for addressing this. Water and sanitation related diseases are one of the leading causes of infant and child morbidity and

mortality. The most serious problem is diarrhoea. A child in a developing country typically has four or five bouts of diarrhoea per year. While the majority of these bouts will not kill the child, they are mental-ly and physically stunting and will weaken the child against other opportunistic infections – particularly acute respiratory infections (ARI). Diarrhoea in com-bination with ARI is the cause of over two thirds of global child deaths.11 Documents like the CRC illustrate how multiple sectors need to be brought together to ensure adequate protection of children. Ministries with the mandate to address ‘children’s affairs’ carry out this function.

The CRC periodic reports also highlight poor birth registration and legal protection as key issues of relevance in Solomon Islands. However, weak legal protection is arguably not best monitored through expenditure analysis. While undoubted-ly an important issue, it may be better monitored in terms of whether or not it is in place, and the extent to which it meets international standards. Birth registration in Solomon Islands is a compli-cated issue. While the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, it is largely implemented through the health sector, and there is no clear monitoring framework established for identifying expenditure on it, so it could not be adequately addressed here.

It is recommended that tracking and monitoring of public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands begins with expenditure through the MoEHRD and MoHMS. These are the two largest public sectors, and both have clear and direct impacts on the wel-fare of children. While access to clean water heav-ily impacts on the welfare of children, the sector

11 http://www.unicef.org/wash/index_healthandeducation.html


Table 10: Which Ministries to include in analysis?

is too fragmented for the sort of routine expendi-ture tracking we are recommending, and the com-plexity may make the overall task impossible. Ex-penditure through the Ministry of Women, Youth, Children and Family Affairs is considered too small,

and too focused on policy and coordination to mer-it the increased complexity adding it to the tracking framework would bring at this stage. Both of these areas, however, should be added to the framework as soon as is possible.

Ministry % of GGE in 2014 CoAServices benefiting

childrenInclude?

MoEHRD 27% YES YES YES

MoEHRD is responsible for the provision of education from early childhood care right through to university graduation. As already highlighted, this ministry has received more funding than any other ministry each year since 2009, and in 2014 accounted for close to 30% of GGE. Expenditure through the MoEHRD is significantly large, has a clear and direct impact on the well-being of children and is accounted for according to the CoA. For these three reasons it is recommended for tracking and monitoring.

MoHMS 14% YES YES YES

MoHMS is responsible for the provision of health care in Solomon Islands, and has jurisdiction over child health through the provi-sion of maternal care, newborn care, child care, immunisations, etc. The ministry receives substantial government funding (14% of total government expenditure in 2014), and has been the second largest ministry by expenditure since 2009. Like education, it is significantly large, has a clear and direct impact on the well-being of children, and is accounted for according to the CoA. It is recommended for tracking.

Access to water ? NO YES NOT AT THIS STAGE

While access to clean water is undoubtedly of huge importance to the welfare of children, public expenditure on this access in Solomon Islands is not organised in such a way that it can be tracked routinely through the CoA. Provision of water is very frag-mented, with many different providers catering to many different users. Solomon Water is a state-owned-for-profit enterprise (so does not account for its expenditure through the FMIS), responsible for providing water throughout Honiara and three other small areas. Its main government partners are the MoF&T and the Ministry of Mining, Energy and Rural Electrification, which has a Water Resources Management Division and is involved in boring for water.

The Provincial Governments are responsible for water supply in the provincial capitals, and coordinate this in collaboration with the Ministry of Infrastructure Development (which provides the funds for capital expenditure) and the Ministry of Provincial Govern-ment and Institutional Strengthening (which provides assistance developing the legal and regulatory frameworks for rural water supply services).

Rural water supply is managed and owned by the communities, which coordinate this with assistance from a number of govern-ment and non-government institutions, including the Rural Development Project within the Ministry of Development, Planning and Aid Coordination and the Rural WASH programme within the Environmental Health Division of the MoHMS. In addition, the Ministry of Rural Development is responsible for the allocation and disbursement of Constituency Funds. These grants to MPs are for use in their constituencies, and, while broken down expenditures are not accounted for in FMIS, a portion is intended for developing WASH services.

Finally, the MoEHRD and the MoHMS are responsible for the provision of WASH services in schools and health facilities.

The expenditures are flowing through a large number of avenues and often not clearly reported on in the FMIS. Donor agencies are funding significant projects in partnership with the Government, but some of these funds are not flowing through government systems. A core objective of this methodology is to be simple and feasibly conducted on a regular basis using data that are already routinely collected. While it may be possible to track public expenditure on access to safe water through a one-off study or survey, it cannot be adequately described by the CoA. At this stage it was considered that attempting to track it would add more complexity than value to the process. However, as with the analysis in Fiji, it is considered very important, and a priority for future analysis.

MoWYCFA 0.37% YES YES NOT AT THIS STAGE

The Ministry of Women, Youth, Children and Family Affairs (MoWYCFA) has a main role in coordination, policy and strategy develop-ment. It also finances some projects including the Youth Councils, small grants for some youth projects and contributions to the Youth at Work Scheme. With respect to children specifically, the Ministry has taken the lead role in developing and tabling in Parliament the Child and Family Welfare Act (currently with Parliament), administering the Child Welfare Grant (a small grant communities can apply for to invest in services benefiting children) and, most significantly, being the secretariat for the National Action Advisory Committee for Children (NAACC). This is the mechanism for oversight and implementation of the CRC, and includes representation from a signifi-cant number of other line ministries. It is primarily a coordination tool, to enable relevant ministries to come together on child welfare issues when necessary.

While these issues are highly relevant for the welfare of children, expenditure through this ministry is less than 1% of total government expenditure. It provides a role in coordination and policy oversight rather than service delivery. It is considered more important to accu-rately understand the larger lines of expenditure on children first (through health and education, for instance). When in future monitoring and tracking are functioning well, analysts may wish to extend the scope to expenditure through the MoWYCFA. However, at this stage the expenditure is small, to the extent that including it would not justify the increase in overall complexity that it would bring.

5.3 Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development

Meeting all three of the recommended criteria (see section 5.2), the MoEHRD was selected for immediate inclusion in the tracking and monitoring of public expenditure on children.

To identify which of its services benefit children and map these to the CoA, it was vital to under-stand the following key areas: organisation of the education sector; status and challenges faced by the sector based on enrolment rates and gender disparities, etc.; allocations to schools; and public education spending. This section covers all these areas.

A snapshot of the sector’s status

The education sector consists of ECE, Primary, Secondary (junior and senior), TVET (generally at-tended by youth who drop out of school after Grade 6, predominantly aged 15-30) and Tertiary schools. Primary school takes the child from Grades 1-6,

junior secondary from Grades 7-9 and senior sec-ondary from 10-13. Primary and secondary schools target children aged 3-19 (Table 11).

In 2015 there were 1,261 schools in Solomon Is-lands.12 The most common were primary schools, followed by ECE and secondary schools. Howev-er, ECE centres were generally smaller, and more than twice as many pupils were enrolled in sec-ondary school than ECE. Sixty three per cent of people enrolled in one of these five categories of education were in primary school (Table 12).

The ministry’s Performance Assessment Report 2006-2013 provides a comprehensive assess-ment of the state of education in Solomon Islands (MoEHRD, 2013). The Report found that both net and gross enrolment in ECE fell over the period (Table 13). There was a reported lack of physical capacity to accommodate all children eligible for the service. Moreover, only a small number of ECE centres were found to have water and sanitation facilities even though this was considered the most important service for this age group. Overall,

12 The year for which there were available data


Table 11: Levels of school

Table 12: Number of schools and pupils in 2015

Level of school Target age Form

Early childhood education 3-5

Primary school 6-12 1-6

Junior secondary school 13-15 7-9

Senior secondary school 16-19 10-13

TVET 15-30

School type Level of education Total schools Enrolled students % of students

Kindergarten ECE 456 24,898 12%

Primary School Primary education 514 127,624 63%

Community High School Secondary education 224

49,223 24%National Secondary School Secondary education 9

Provincial Secondary School Secondary education 16

TVET/RTC Technical and voca-tional training 42 17,316 9%

Grand Total 1261 201,745 100%

Source: Authors’ notes and (MoEHRD, 2013)

Source: SIEMIS data provided by the MoEHRD. No information was provided on the age of students enrolled in TVET.


it was felt that there was insufficient government financial support for ECE between 2006 and 2013.

A basic education policy for primary education was adopted in 2009, but by 2013 it had still not been comprehensively implemented. One of the policy’s features was to phase out prep school, but by 2013 nearly 90 per cent of primary schools still offered the service and nearly 20 per cent of students en-rolled in primary school were prep students. Litera-cy and numeracy test results in years 4 and 6 were also consistently low. Net enrolment rates grew slightly, as did gross enrolment rates for girls, but not for boys (Table 13). As with ECE, the proportion of primary schools with clean safe water was very low (40 per cent in 2013) (MoEHRD, 2013).

There was not enough space in either junior or secondary schools to accommodate all primary school children, so some quantity of dropouts was structurally demanded. Net and gross enrolment rates were significantly lower at junior secondary than primary school, and lower again at senior sec-ondary school (Table 13). What’s more, gross enrol-ment rates at junior secondary level were almost double net enrolment rates, suggesting that nearly half of all students in junior secondary school were older than the target age.

For ECE the ratio of enrolled girls to boys fell over the period (from 0.97 to 0.94). However, for each of the other three levels, the ratio of enrolled girls to boys increased (to between 0.8 and 0.99 in 2013).

The mean years of schooling in 2014 was 5.04, according to the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index, which

ranked Solomon Islands 149th out of 188 countries with comparable data.13

Schools are generally privately owned, but teach-ers’ salaries are paid by the Government, and schools receive government grants to assist with their operational costs (intended to decrease their need to charge fees, although they are still allowed to if needed). For each school, the grant amount is a per pupil allocation multiplied by the number of students, adjusted for remoteness, rural/urban and boarding/non-boarding classification. Schools in remote areas receive a supplementary grant of SB$2,500 per year per school, which is to assist with staff transport. The per pupil grant must be used according to a set of expenditure guidelines, and is intended to function for the ‘life of the stu-dent’ (so not to top up teachers’ salaries).

In order to receive the grants schools must be reg-istered, have a proper establishment of teachers, a bank account and provide a survey report (to be entered into the Solomon Islands Education Man-agement Information System [SIEMIS]).

The grants are disbursed in January and August. By the 15th of June and December schools must send reports of their spending to the education authorities. They are also required to submit a rev-enue and expenditure statement, their financial position, their bank statement, their bank reconcili-ation and their general ledger. In total schools have up to three bank accounts – one to receive the school grants (from the MoF&T), a second account to receive unofficially collected school fees and funds raised independently by the school (through bazars etc.) and a third account in cases where the


Source: (MoEHRD, 2013)

Table 13: School enrolment rates (%)Ledger 2006 2013

NER (girls)

NER (boys)

GER (girls)

GER (boys)

NER (girls)

NER (boys)

GER (girls)

GER (boys)

ECE 32.3 30.6 46.4 44.5 30.9 30.5 43.7 43.8

Primary 85 88 108.5 114 88.5 89.2 111.6 113.9

Junior secondary 27.2 31.1 47.9 62.5 39.1 37.1 67.7 69

Senior secondary 16.6 22.8 17 23.4 24.4 26.1 28 32

Figure 8: MoEHRD actual expenditure 2006-2014


schools also receive direct assistance from a do-nor. Like the Provincial Health Services (discussed below), schools account for expenditures using Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) accounting soft-ware, which is not aligned with the CoA.

In addition to school grants, the Government pays the salaries of teachers and, where need-ed, for infrastructure developments. In 2015 the Government introduced a one-off school grant of SB$20,000 per school, intended for minor repairs including toilets and sanitation. The effectiveness of this is now being evaluated.

In addition to the private and faith-based schools that receive per pupil grants from the Government, there are two government-owned schools whose expenditures are accounted for through FMIS, and which are themselves classified as divisions – the King George the VI School and the Waimapuru Na-tional Secondary School.

In total there are 30 education authorities. Nine of these cover the provinces, one is for Honiara City and the remaining 20 are for the faith-based and private education schools.

Unpacking expenditure through the MoEHRD

In 2014 general government expenditure on edu-cation (GGEE) was close to SB$850 million – 27

Report Title

As a share of GGE, GGEE grew from 10 per cent to 27 per cent, nearly tripling its relative footprint since 2006. Against GDP, GGEH also grew, but much slower (from 7 per cent to 10 per cent).

Solomon Islands’ inflation was at times very high (18 per cent in 2008) and at other times very low (0.8 per cent in 2010). Adjusting expenditure to 2010 price levels highlights an initial purchasing power of expenditure peak in 2007, followed by a fall until 2010, a second period of growth until 2013, followed by a second fall to 2014 (Figure 8). Expressed in 2010 prices, GGEE grew to SB$999 per capita in 2007, fell to SB$795 in 2010, increased to SB$1,271 in 2013, and fell to SB$1,194 in 2014.

The fall in expenditure around 2010 (both nominal and real) was driven by a significant decrease in development expenditure. Over the complete period, development expenditure fell from 25 per cent to 5 per cent of GGEE. Budget support for education gradually grew over the period, from 0 per cent to 13 per cent of GGEE. Real growth from 2011 onwards came mainly in recurrent expenditure (Figure 8).

This expenditure can also be categorised into NAC classifications (Figure 9). These identify the type of good being purchased. Compensation of employees has accounted for the largest share of expenditure, followed by the use of goods and services, which sharply increased in 2013. Grants and subsidies is consistently the third largest NAC item of expenditure. Together, these three categories made up over 99 per cent of public expenditure on education in 2014.

A third revealing way of categorising GGEE is classification by division. Divisions are the units and programmes within the ministry (Figure 10). By far the largest three divisions were primary education (28 per cent of total in 2014), the National Training Unit (23 per cent) and secondary education (19 per cent). The two biggest areas for budget support were primary education and planning. As seen at the government-wide level, it appears that in 2009 the Government stopped categorising budget support using a division code, instead relying on the ledger to identify it from SIG sourced expenditure. Budget support was then accounted for in the division through which it went after 2009. The fourth major division was ‘provincial offices and national divisions’. This category was constructed by the authors for ease of presentation, and includes offices and units such as the planning unit, the schools inspectorate unit and the curriculum development unit. It also includes divisions for primary and secondary education that went out of use around 2008 (coinciding with the growth in expenditure through the primary and secondary service divisions that have been identified).

Figure 8: MoEHRD actual expenditure 2006-2014


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GGEE as % of G

GE and GDP

SB$ millions

GGEE recurrent GGEE budget support GGEE development

GGEE (2010 prices) GGEE/GGE GGEE/GDP

per cent of GGE, 10 per cent of GDP and nearly SB$1,500 per capita.

As a share of GGE, GGEE grew from 10 per cent to 27 per cent, nearly tripling its relative footprint since 2006. Against GDP, GGEH also grew, but much slower (from 7 per cent to 10 per cent).

Solomon Islands’ inflation was at times very high (18 per cent in 2008) and at other times very low (0.8 per cent in 2010). Adjusting expenditure to 2010 price levels highlights an initial purchasing power of expenditure peak in 2007, followed by a fall until 2010, a second period of growth until 2013, followed by a second fall to 2014 (Figure 8). Expressed in 2010 prices, GGEE grew to SB$999 per capita in 2007, fell to SB$795 in 2010, increased to SB$1,271 in 2013, and fell to SB$1,194 in 2014.

The fall in expenditure around 2010 (both nominal and real) was driven by a significant decrease in development expenditure. Over the complete peri-od, development expenditure fell from 25 per cent to 5 per cent of GGEE. Budget support for edu-cation gradually grew over the period, from 0 per cent to 13 per cent of GGEE. Real growth from 2011 onwards came mainly in recurrent expendi-ture (Figure 8).

This expenditure can also be categorised into NAC classifications (Figure 9). These identify the type of good being purchased. Compensation of employ-



ees has accounted for the largest share of expen-diture, followed by the use of goods and services, which sharply increased in 2013. Grants and sub-sidies is consistently the third largest NAC item of expenditure. Together, these three categories made up over 99 per cent of public expenditure on education in 2014.

A third revealing way of categorising GGEE is clas-sification by division. Divisions are the units and programmes within the ministry (Figure 10). By far the largest three divisions were primary education (28 per cent of total in 2014), the National Training

Unit (23 per cent) and secondary education (19 per cent). The two biggest areas for budget support were primary education and planning. As seen at the government-wide level, it appears that in 2009 the Government stopped categorising budget sup-port using a division code, instead relying on the ledger to identify it from SIG sourced expenditure. Budget support was then accounted for in the di-vision through which it went after 2009. The fourth major division was ‘provincial offices and national divisions’. This category was constructed by the au-thors for ease of presentation, and includes offices and units such as the planning unit, the schools

Figure 9: MoEHRD actual expenditure by economic classification and year

Figure 10: MoEHRD actual expenditure by division and year



Report Title





Education services benefiting children

Not all expenditure through the MoEHRD is necessarily spent on services which benefit children. The analysis of Solomon Islands’ education system and public spending on education identified the five services listed in Table 14 as services provided by the ministry benefiting children.

Table 14: Education services benefiting children in Fiji

Services provided by the MoEHA in Fiji for the benefit of children Early Childhood Education Primary Education Junior Secondary Education Senior Secondary Education

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SB$ millions

5.1. Compensabon of Employees 5.2. Use of Goods and Services 5.4. Grants & Subsidies

5.5. Social Benefits 5.6. Budget Support (blank)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SB$

Educabon Service Division -‐ Primary Nabonal Training Unit Educabon Service Division -‐ Secondary

Provincial offices and nabonal units Headquarters & Admin Early Childhood Educabon

Technical and Vocabonal Training Teacher Training and Development King George VI School

Waimapuru Nabonal Secondary School (blank) NZ (Bilateral)

Report Title






Not all expenditure through the MoEHRD is necessarily spent on services which benefit children. The analysis of Solomon Islands’ education system and public spending on education identified the five services listed in Table 14 as services provided by the ministry benefiting children.

Table 14: Education services benefiting children in Fiji

Services provided by the MoEHA in Fiji for the benefit of children Early Childhood Education Primary Education Junior Secondary Education Senior Secondary Education

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SB$ millions



0

200

400

600

800

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SB$

Educabon Service Division -‐ Primary Nabonal Training Unit Educabon Service Division -‐ Secondary

Provincial offices and nabonal units Headquarters & Admin Early Childhood Educabon

Technical and Vocabonal Training Teacher Training and Development King George VI School

Waimapuru Nabonal Secondary School (blank) NZ (Bilateral)

Figure 11: Age of children enrolled in child education in 2015

Table 14: Education services benefiting children in FijiServices provided by the MoEHA in Fiji for the benefit of children

Early Childhood Education

Primary Education

Junior Secondary Education

Senior Secondary Education

Technical and Vocational Education and Training

inspectorate unit and the curriculum development unit. It also includes divisions for primary and sec-ondary education that went out of use around 2008 (coinciding with the growth in expenditure through the primary and secondary service divisions that have been identified).


Not all expenditure through the MoEHRD is neces-sarily spent on services which benefit children. The analysis of Solomon Islands’ education system and public spending on education identified the five services listed in Table 14 as services provided by the ministry benefiting children.

Child utilisation of education services

Based on data from the SIEMIS, in 2015 over 60 per cent of school children were in primary school



Report Title

Services provided by the MoEHA in Fiji for the benefit of children Technical and Vocational Education and Training

Child utilisation of education services

Based on data from the SIEMIS, in 2015 over 60 per cent of school children were in primary school – 12 per cent in ECE, 16 per cent in junior secondary school and 9 per cent in senior secondary school. For each category there is overlap in the age of pupils with the categories either side. For example, there are some 6 year olds in ECE, and some in primary school. There are some 13 year olds in primary school, and some in junior secondary school (Figure 11).

Important for this report, while all ECE and primary school children were younger than 18 years old, 1.5 per cent of junior secondary school students and 38 per cent of senior secondary school students were older than 18 (this represented 13 per cent of all secondary school students). While each of these services targeted and benefited children, some adults were also benefiting. In particular, a significant proportion of expenditure on senior secondary schools was benefiting adults rather than children.

Figure 11: Age of children enrolled in child education in 2015


A second area of MoEHRD expenditure benefiting adults is the National Training Unit. As highlighted in a number of complementary reports, a similar concern has been raised about the large portion of MoEHRD funds going towards tertiary education scholarships for adults studying abroad (IMF, 2013). This is not public expenditure on children, and should be excluded from this analysis.

Scholarships for tertiary education abroad are accounted for within the National Training Unit. Fifty eight per cent of expenditure through this unit is on overseas training, and a further 28 per cent on other training (of adults). The remainder is divided between office rent, the MP Scholarships Award grant and subscriptions/memberships of overseas bodies.

In general, it is recommended that the National Training Unit should not be included in analysis of expenditure on children, and only 87 per cent of expenditure on secondary education. This rule for secondary education should be regularly updated based on the proportion of enrolled students

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Num

ber of pupils

Thousands

Age

Early Childhood Primary Junior Secondary Senior Secondary

– 12 per cent in ECE, 16 per cent in junior sec-ondary school and 9 per cent in senior secondary school. For each category there is overlap in the age of pupils with the categories either side. For example, there are some 6 year olds in ECE, and some in primary school. There are some 13 year olds in primary school, and some in junior second-ary school (Figure 11).

Important for this report, while all ECE and primary school children were younger than 18 years old, 1.5 per cent of junior secondary school students and 38 per cent of senior secondary school students were older than 18 (this represented 13 per cent of all secondary school students). While each of these services targeted and benefited children, some adults were also benefiting. In particular, a signifi-cant proportion of expenditure on senior secondary schools was benefiting adults rather than children.

A second area of MoEHRD expenditure benefiting adults is the National Training Unit. As highlighted in a number of complementary reports, a similar concern has been raised about the large portion of MoEHRD funds going towards tertiary educa-tion scholarships for adults studying abroad (IMF, 2013). This is not public expenditure on children, and should be excluded from this analysis.

Scholarships for tertiary education abroad are ac-counted for within the National Training Unit. Fifty


eight per cent of expenditure through this unit is on overseas training, and a further 28 per cent on other training (of adults). The remainder is divided between office rent, the MP Scholarships Award grant and subscriptions/memberships of overseas bodies.

In general, it is recommended that the National Training Unit should not be included in analysis of expenditure on children, and only 87 per cent of expenditure on secondary education. This rule for secondary education should be regularly updated based on the proportion of enrolled students older than 18. As this decreases over time, the propor-tion of expenditure on secondary schools includ-ed in this analysis should increase. No data were available on the age of TVET students in Solomon Islands, so data from Fiji collected on parallel re-search were used. It is assumed that 27 per cent of TVET enrolees were younger than 18. Further research is needed for an accurate estimation in Solomon Islands specifically.

5.4 The Ministry of Health and Medical Services

The second ministry considered eligible for track-ing and monitoring of expenditure on children was the MoHMS. In 2014 the ministry spent 14 per cent of GGE and provided services benefiting children and these expenditures could be analysed within the framework of the CoA.

In order to quantify public health expenditure on children, it was important to identify the MoHMS services benefiting children and map them onto the CoA. This required an examination of three key areas that are covered in this section: organisation of the health system; status and challenges faced by the sector on the basis of child and infant mor-tality rates; and public health spending.

A snapshot of the sector’s status

According to the 2010-2015 National Health Plan, the MoHMS is structured around five areas (MoHMS, 2011).

14 http://hdr.undp.org/en/data15 There are an additional three small facilities in Rennell and Bellona

• Healthimprovement:includesvariousnationalpublic health programmes with links to provin-cial health services.

• Public health: includes a number of prioritypublic health programmes, generally imple-mented vertically (independent of the wider health sector) and funded by external develop-ment partners.

• Healthservices: includescurativehealthser-vices, including a variety of provincial health facilities and the National Referral Hospital (NRH).

• Healthpolicyandplanning:managesthede-velopment of national and provincial health policies and plans, as well as sector monitor-ing and evaluation.

• Administrationandmanagementservices:co-ordinates human resources planning, develop-ment and management, as well as budgeting, accounting and auditing.

This strategic plan estimates that infant mortality fell from 66 to 30 per 1,000 live births between 1995 and 2010. The ministry target is 18 per 1,000 live births by 2025. The under 5 mortality rate is estimated to have fallen from 73 to 36 per 1,000 live births, and the target is 21 by 2025 (MoHMS, 2011). UNICEF’s estimates of infant and child mor-tality in the 1990s are somewhat lower (32 and 39 respectively in 1990), but similar for the more recent estimates (25 and 30 respectively in 2013) (UNICEF). In 2014 life expectancy at birth was 67.9 years, ranking Solomon Islands 133rd out of 188 countries with comparable data.14

In 2015 there were an estimated 34415 health fa-cilities in Solomon Islands. This included the NRH, seven provincial hospitals, four church hospitals, 31 Area Health Clinics (AHCs), 111 Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) and 190 Nurse Aide Posts (NAPs) (Monash University, 2015).

The main services provided by the MoHMS through these facilities to support the welfare of children were extended programmes of immunisation (EPI), antenatal care (ANC), delivery and post-natal care (PNC), nutrition monitoring programmes and general outpatient and inpatient services.

The MoHMS spends its money through divisions. Each of the eight provinces as well as Rennell and Bellona and Honiara City Council are stand alone divisions with the responsibility for managing ser-vice delivery in their local hospitals, AHCs, RHCs, and NAPs (meaning that health service delivery is decentralised). The NRH is another separate divi-sion. There are also a number of administrative di-visions (such as headquarters and administration) and national programmes (such as the National Laboratory Programme).

In general, the expenditure process is as follows:

• Thedivisionraisesapaymentrequisitionandsends it to the Accounts Office within the min-istry

• TheAccountsOfficeputsaCoAcodeonthepayment requisition

• ThepaymentrequisitionissenttothePerma-nent Secretary for approval

• Followingapproval,thepaymentrequisitionisreturned to the Accounts Office, where a pur-chasing officer raises a payment voucher

• Either the Chief Accountant or the FinancialController approves the payment voucher

• The payment voucher is sent to the MoF&Tfrom where the payment is made directly to the service provider.

The three key exceptions to this are compensa-tion of employees, the Provincial Health Services’ grants and the four faith-based hospitals’ expendi-ture grants.

Provincial health services have their own bank ac-counts, into which they receive health grants di-rectly from the MoF&T. These should be used to fund operational costs of service provision and ac-tivities at the four levels of facility below the NRH. These expenditures are reported using MYOB ac-counting software, and reports are done on an ac-tivity basis. However, the classification codes are not aligned with the CoA, and so the two systems cannot be merged.

Staff working for the MoHMS can be split into two categories – permanent public servants and direct wage employees. Compensation of permanent pub-lic servants is managed by the Ministry of Public Service (but paid for directly from the MoF&T and accounted for within the MoHMS). There are approx-

imately 2,000 permanent public servants assigned to the MoHMS. Direct wage employees, on the other hand, are hired and paid directly by the Pro-vincial Health Services, using the health grants that are accounted for using MYOB. There is no record of this at central level, but informal guesses place the number of direct wage employees at around 1,000.

Payroll of permanent public servants and the cost of drugs, medical consumables and medical goods purchased is made directly from the MoF&T, but may be topped up from other budgets (including the health grants) if needed.

All divisions also have sub-divisions, however these are not reflected in the CoA. In-house, the minis-try’s Accounts Office is trying to use the codes on the payment requisitions to identify sub-divisions and activities so that it will be possible to track an-nual operational plans through the FMIS. However, while the MoF&T is aware of this, it is not yet offi-cially reflected in the CoA.

Unpacking expenditure through the MoHMS

In 2014 the general government expenditure on health (GGEH) was close to SB$442million – 14 per cent of GGE, 5 per cent of GDP and SB$772 per capita.

As a share of GGE, GGEH has steadily grown, dou-bling its relative footprint since 2006. Against GDP, GGEH has been more stable, oscillating around 5 per cent. Together, these observations reflect the shrinking size of SIG relative to the wider economy.

Adjusting expenditure to 2010 price levels high-lights a purchasing power of expenditure peak in 2008 (as with GGE), followed by a fall until 2010 and a second period of real growth. Expressed in 2010 prices, GGEH grew from SB$481 per capita in 2006 to SB$642 in 2008. It then fell to SB$402 in 2010, before rising back to SB$620 in 2014 (Figure 12).

The drop between 2009 and 2010 was largely the result of a decrease in budget support and devel-opment expenditure (Figure 12). While budget sup-port returned in 2011, and by 2014 accounted for 34 per cent of total GGEH (more than at any point over the period under discussion), there was still very little development expenditure (which had fall-en to less than 1 per cent by 2014).



Report Title

Unpacking expenditure through the MoHMS

In 2014 the general government expenditure on health (GGEH) was close to SB$442million – 14 per cent of GGE, 5 per cent of GDP and SB$772 per capita.

As a share of GGE, GGEH has steadily grown, doubling its relative footprint since 2006. Against GDP, GGEH has been more stable, oscillating around 5 per cent. Together, these observations reflect the shrinking size of SIG relative to the wider economy.

Adjusting expenditure to 2010 price levels highlights a purchasing power of expenditure peak in 2008 (as with GGE), followed by a fall until 2010 and a second period of real growth. Expressed in 2010 prices, GGEH grew from SB$481 per capita in 2006 to SB$642 in 2008. It then fell to SB$402 in 2010, before rising back to SB$620 in 2014 (Figure 12).

The drop between 2009 and 2010 was largely the result of a decrease in budget support and development expenditure (Figure 12). While budget support returned in 2011, and by 2014 accounted for 34 per cent of total GGEH (more than at any point over the period under discussion), there was still very little development expenditure (which had fallen to less than 1 per cent by 2014).

Figure 12: MoHMS actual expenditure 2006-2014


This expenditure can also be categorised into NACs (Figure 13). This highlights that from 2006 to 2010 expenditure was largely unclassified, recorded merely as budget support (poor accounting practice), or compensation of employees. Following this, however, as with the MoEHRD, use of goods and services sharply increased. When budget support re-entered the sector in 2011 (as seen in Figure 12), 80 per cent was accounted for as ‘goods and services’. Over the next two years a growing share of budget support was accounted for as ‘grants and subsidies’. This reflects what was already highlighted when unpacking public expenditure on education, and suggests a shift in accounting practices either side of the 2010 fall in budget support.

A third revealing way of categorising GGEH is classification by divisions, which are the units and programmes within the ministry (Figure 14). By far the largest individual unit in 2014 was the National Referral Hospital, which absorbed 16 per cent of the ministry’s expenditure. For the purposes of this report, however, provincial service delivery has been grouped together. When

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

GGEH

as % of G

GE and GDP

SB$ millions

GGEH recurrent GGEH development GGEH development

GGEH (2010 prices) GGEH/GGE GGEH/GDP

Report Title

aggregated, total expenditure on grants to the provinces for running the provincial health services accounted for 42 per cent of GGEH.

Budget support (included in these numbers) was largely distributed among the provincial health services, with a significant amount going to Makira Ulawa Province. It is also funding a selection of programmes, including the National Reproductive and Child Health Programme. This will be outlined in more detail below.

Figure 13: Total MoHMS actual expenditure by NAC classification and year


Figure 14: MoHMS actual expenditure 2013, by division


Health services benefiting children

The health sector provides a huge range of services, many of which do not benefit children. In order to estimate public expenditure on children, it is necessary to separate these two categories of health expenditure.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SB$ millions



0

100

200

300

400

500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SB$ millions

Provincial service delivery Nabonal Referral Hospital

Headquarters & Admin Nabonal Divisions, Units and Programmes

Nabonal Medical Stores Division Nabonal Nursing Administrabon

(blank) AUS (Bilateral)

Figure 12: MoHMS actual expenditure 2006-2014

Figure 13: Total MoHMS actual expenditure by NAC classification and year



This expenditure can also be categorised into NACs (Figure 13). This highlights that from 2006 to 2010 expenditure was largely unclassified, re-corded merely as budget support (poor account-ing practice), or compensation of employees. Fol-lowing this, however, as with the MoEHRD, use of goods and services sharply increased. When budget support re-entered the sector in 2011 (as

seen in Figure 12), 80 per cent was accounted for as ‘goods and services’. Over the next two years a growing share of budget support was account-ed for as ‘grants and subsidies’. This reflects what was already highlighted when unpacking public expenditure on education, and suggests a shift in accounting practices either side of the 2010 fall in budget support.

18 These are packages of more specific services deemed to be cost effective according to the most recent evidence. A useful and more detailed, list of these services can be found in annexes 2, 3 and 4 of (Every Woman, Every Child).


Report Title

Figure 15: Public expenditure on children - 2006-2014

Source: Authors’ calculations

Tracers: child expenditure indicators; a comparison between Fiji and Solomon Islands

It is important to analyse disaggregated expenditure in a manner that is comparable across countries. A variety of indicators have been selected in health and education to enable this. For indicators to be comparable they must be relevant to all education/health sectors, and they must reflect the size of the country they are referring to. Indicators are expressed either as a proportion of another broader indicator, or, where it is an absolute number, per child.

Parallel research has been done in Fiji to calculate the same set of indicators. Expenditures are presented in US dollars to enable international comparison.

Recurrent expenditure on primary school service delivery per child was significantly higher in Fiji than Solomon Islands between 2010 and 2013. However, available data suggest that this fell dramatically in Fiji in 2014, driven by a decrease in expenditure on wages and salaries. These data need to be verified. Similarly, expenditure on secondary education per child was much higher in Fiji than Solomon Islands. Salaries as a proportion of total expenditure were between 80 per cent and 90 per cent in Solomon Islands at primary school level, and 70 per cent and 80 per cent at secondary school level. In Fiji compensation of employees consistently absorbed between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of expenditure on service delivery. On the other hand, policy and administration in Solomon Islands absorbed between 18 per cent and 34 per cent of total recurrent expenditure on education, whereas it only absorbed between 6 per cent and 11 per cent in Fiji.

Estimated expenditure on public health services for children suggest that Solomon Islands now spends more per child than Fiji. This may be due to the estimation technique. No utilisation data could be taken from the NRH, so utilisation rates from provincial health services were used to split all expenditures, with 44 per cent attributed to children. This is likely to overestimate expenditure on children because, relative to adults, children are more likely to visit outpatient facilities in the community rather than inpatient wards in hospitals. In Fiji outpatient utilisation rates were collected from provincial facilities (and used to proxy total expenditure at sub divisional hospitals – 33 per cent), and inpatient discharges were collected from the urban hospitals (and used to proxy total expenditure in urban hospitals – 21 per cent). If a lower percentage of Solomon Islands expenditure should be apportioned to children, or a higher percentage of Fijian expenditure, then it

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SB$ millions

Total service delivery Total policy and administrabon

GGE on children/GGE GGE on children/GDP

Figure 14: MoHMS actual expenditure 2013, by division


A third revealing way of categorising GGEH is clas-sification by divisions, which are the units and pro-grammes within the ministry (Figure 14). By far the largest individual unit in 2014 was the National Re-ferral Hospital, which absorbed 16 per cent of the ministry’s expenditure. For the purposes of this report, however, provincial service delivery has been grouped together. When aggregated, total expenditure on grants to the provinces for running the provincial health services accounted for 42 per cent of GGEH.

Budget support (included in these numbers) was largely distributed among the provincial health ser-vices, with a significant amount going to Makira Ulawa Province. It is also funding a selection of programmes, including the National Reproductive and Child Health Programme. This will be outlined in more detail below.

Health services benefiting children

The health sector provides a huge range of ser-vices, many of which do not benefit children. In order to estimate public expenditure on children, it is necessary to separate these two categories of health expenditure.

The Every Woman, Every Child campaign recently published its Global Strategy for Women’s, Chil-dren’s and Adolescent’s Health (Every Woman, Every Child). As shown in Table 15, the strategy includes a list of typical health services provided for women, children and adolescents. They serve, in combination with analysis of Solomon Islands’ health system and public spending, as a useful starting point for identifying services provided by the MoHMS that specifically benefit children.

Child utilisation of health services

How can this information be used to identify gen-eral government expenditure on child health?

The challenge with this is that the CoA is not structured in such a way as to delineate children in health. The only child-specific expenditure unit identified is the National Reproductive and Child Health Division. However, it mainly plays a policy and coordination role within the ministry, and ac-counted for only 0.4 per cent of GGEH in 2014. The division is linked with staff in the provinces who assist with the coordination and rollout of child health programmes and service delivery to chil-dren as outlined above, but the services are actual-


ly provided by staff accounted for in other divisions (mainly the provinces or the NRH), using drugs and medical supplies also accounted for elsewhere (also mainly the provinces or the NRH).

An alternative strategy is to apportion expendi-ture on service delivery according to the expected costs of the services used by adults and children. Expenditure on service delivery is estimated as the sum of expenditure through the provinces and the NRH.17

Table 16 and Table 17 show outpatient visits and admissions (inpatient) to provincial health facili-ties, disaggregated by age group and facility type for 2014 (this does not include the NRH). The data are from the Solomon Islands health management information system (HMIS), which includes infor-mation submitted by provincial health facilities on a monthly basis. Utilisation is then compared to the

age group’s representation in the total population.

For outpatient care, children between 0 and 4 en-joyed a disproportionately large share of use – ac-counting for 27 per cent of the visits, but only 14 per cent of the population. This is roughly the case at each level of facility. On the other hand, children aged between 5 and 14 enjoyed a disproportion-ately small share of use – accounting for only 18 per cent of visits when they made up 26 per cent of the population. Together, children aged 14 and under accounted for 40 per cent of the population, and 45 per cent of outpatient visits, skewed to-wards those aged 4 and under (Table 16).

Admissions was a slightly different story. Children under 4 accounted for 24 per cent of admissions (10 per cent more than their proportionate share), but children between 5 and 14 accounted for only 8 per cent of admissions. On the other hand, those

16 These are packages of more specific services deemed to be cost-effective according to the most recent evidence. A useful and more detailed list of these services can be found in annexes 2, 3 and 4 of (Every Woman, Every Child).

17 An improvement on this for future analysis would be to divide the national divisions between service delivery and policy and administration. In this analysis they are all considered policy and administration.

Table 15: Typical health sector services benefiting children

Life stage Service packages16

Pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal care

Antenatal care

Childbirth care

Safe abortion and post-abortion care

Prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV

Management of maternal and newborn complications

Postnatal care for mother and baby

Extra care for small and sick babies

Child health and development

Breastfeeding awareness programmes

Infant and young child feeding

Responsive caregiving and stimulation

Immunisation

Prevention and management of childhood illnesses and malnutrition

Treatment and rehabilitation of congenital abnormalities and disabilities

Adolescent health and development

Health education

Supportive parenting education

Nutrition

Immunisation

Psychological support

Prevention of injuries, violence, harmful practices and substance abuse

Sexual and reproductive health information and services

Management of communicable and non-communicable diseases

Source: (Every Woman, Every Child)


aged 15 and older made up 60 per cent of the pop-ulation and accounted for 69 per cent of admis-sions at provincial health facilities (Table 17).

Children aged 15 and younger were overusers of outpatient care and underusers of inpatient care at the provincial health facilities. Overall, aggregating outpatient visits and inpatient admissions at pro-vincial health services, 44 per cent of visits were by children.

A recent health facility costing study estimated the average costs of a variety of visits to health facilities in Solomon Islands. It estimates that the average cost of a child welfare visit is actually very similar to the overall average at the lowest three levels of health facility. At provincial hospitals a child welfare visit is estimated to cost about two-thirds that of the overall average (Table 18). It will not be possible to obtain an exact estimate of the relative cost of children’s care to adult’s care with this information. But it does suggest that for 90 per cent of outpatient visits in the provinces (visits in NAPs, RHCs and AHCs), the average cost of a child’s outpatient visit and the overall average cost of an outpatient visit was very similar.

At this stage it is recommended that overall ex-penditure on health service delivery is apportioned to children based on the proportion of visits to fa-cilities by children – 44 per cent. This is a crude estimate, and further research needs to be done in particular to identify the different expected costs of admissions based on age. The costing work that has already been done reveals that inpatient costs vary drastically in Solomon Islands depending on the service being provided (at a provincial hospital, for example, average costs ranged from SB$2,949 for a delivery to SB$25,132 for treatment of tuber-culosis). There is currently no information to inform an estimate of average cost of inpatient care by age, or average cost of any visit at all at the NRH (where no utilisation data could be collected). This is made more problematic by the fact that admis-sions and visits to the NRH are the most expensive types of visit – so we are currently uncertain about a significant proportion of expenditure on service delivery.

It is also possible to further examine expenditure on drugs and medical consumables. The pharma-cy order line report for 2013 was provided by the National Medical Stores (NMS). This is an excel

Source: Authors’ calculations from HMIS data provided by the MoHMS

Source: Authors’ calculations from HMIS data provided by the MoHMS

Table 16: Outpatient visits and population by age range and facility type in 2014

Table 17: Admissions and population by age range and facility type

Age range

NAP% of total visits

RHC% of total visits

AHC% of total visits

Prov Hosp

% of total visits

Total prov. visits

% of total visits

% of pop.

0 to 4 65,787 7% 102,356 11% 67,994 7% 21,857 2% 257,994 27% 14%

5 to 14 43,389 5% 65,512 7% 42,130 4% 16,959 2% 167,990 18% 26%

15 to 49 105,868 11% 153,912 16% 98,781 10% 40,689 4% 399,250 42% 50%

50+ 34,458 4% 48,849 5% 29,191 3% 13,900 1% 126,398 13% 11%

Total 249,502 26% 370,629 39% 238,096 25% 93,405 10% 951,632 100%

Age range

NAP% of total visits

RHC% of total visits

AHC% of total visits

Prov Hosp

% of total visits

Total prov.

Admis-sions

% of total visits

% of pop.

0 to 4 880 3% 1,546 6% 1,862 7% 1,945 7% 6,233 24% 14%

5 to 14 347 1% 542 2% 423 2% 736 3% 2,048 8% 26%

15 to 49 1,738 7% 4,336 16% 3,936 15% 4,939 19% 14,949 57% 50%

50 + 256 1% 638 2% 899 3% 1,266 5% 3,059 12% 11%

Total 3,221 12% 7,062 27% 7,120 27% 8,886 34% 26,289 100%


Table 18: Average cost of visits to provincial health services

Source: (Monash University, 2015)

Outpatient visits Inpatient visits

Facility type%

child welfareChild

welfare visitGeneral

outpatient visit%

deliveriesAverage

cost of DeliveryGeneral

inpatient visit

NRH NA - 459 0.21 2,250 5,772

Hosp 11 64 91 0.29 2,949 4,045

AHC 11 60 60 0.14 1,340 2,489

RHC 11 46 46 0.36 1,439 2,160

NAP 10 44 43 0.42 1,277 2,753

Table 19: Expenditure by the national medical stores in 2013

Source: Pharma order line from the National Medical Stores

Medicine and dosage suitable for

children

Medicine suitable, dosage different

Non-phar-macologi-cal, can be used for children

General supplies specifi-cally for children

General supplies

Not on WHO

EMLc4 list; likely for adults

only

Not catego-

rised

Grand Total

Freight - surface - - - - 360 - - 360

Hospital equip-ment-Guadalcanal - - - - 43,728 - - 43,728

Hospital equip-ment-nrh - - - - 192,705 939,288 - 1,131,993

Hospital equip-ment-western - - - - 19,204 - - 19,204

Ict support - - - - 156,989 - - 156,989

Medical gases 2,089,446 - - - 360 - - 2,089,806

Medical imaging supplies - - - - 524,276 - - 524,276

Medical laboratory supplies - - - - 2,274,386 16,800 99,717 2,390,904

Ncd-diabetes supplies - - - - 129,722 199,461 - 329,183

Nms non-pharma-ceuticals - - - - 153,083 - - 153,083

Nms operating supplies - - 107,122 13,507 453,636 6,419 2,400 583,084

Nms pharmaceu-ticals 12,583,720 1,873,191 3,897,363 8,385 1,535,971 2,115,001 - 22,013,631

Nrh operating the-atre specialities - - 277,263 - 64,903 46,868 - 389,034

Nrh pharmacy manufacturing 40,353 17,989 - - 16,952 42,095 - 117,389

Nrh specialist medicines 278,811 133,827 - - - 478,641 - 891,278

Nrh-biomedical maintenance supplies

- - - - 5,160 - 27,619 32,779

Pharmacy division - - - 2,692 99,167 - 2,460 104,319

Physio rehab supplies - - 97,305 33,671 104,130 13,468 - 248,574

Public health labo-ratory supplies - - 35,581 - 392,033 12,557 - 440,171

Grand total 14,992,329 2,025,007 4,414,633 58,255 6,166,765 3,870,598 132,196 31,659,784


spread sheet documenting items ordered by the medical stores, including the date of order, date received, pack size, quantity ordered, unit cost, to-tal cost in currency of transaction and total cost in SB dollars. Items are also grouped by a broad level description, for example medical gasses, pharma-cy division, NMS pharmacy, etc. The authors then categorised each item into one of seven catego-ries according to their compatibility with the WHO essential medicines list for children 2013 (WHO, 2013). The summed expenditures on these catego-ries are shown in Table 19.

In total, 47 per cent of expenditure on drugs and medical consumables in 2013 was on medicines and medical consumables that were suitable for children (and in a suitable dosage). Six per cent was spent on appropriate drugs and consumables, but in inappropriate dosages, 14 per cent was spent on non-pharmacological items that can be used with children, 19 per cent on general sup-plies, and the remaining 12 per cent on items that were not listed in the essential medicines list for children, and are presumed to be inappropriate for children. Looking specifically at pharmaceuticals for the national medical stores (for distribution around the provincial medical stores, and used in provincial health services), the proportion spent on suitable medicines in appropriate dosages for chil-dren increases to 57 per cent. This is compared to the National Referral Hospital pharmacy manufac-turing, and the National Referral Hospital specialist medicines, where the proportion of expenditure on medical commodities suitable for children de-creases, at the expense of those considered not suitable (Table 20).

However, it is not clear how this expenditure is re-flected in the CoA. The total expenditure (SB$32 million) is far larger than government expenditure through the National Medical Stores division, but far less than government plus budget support through the division (documented between Table 29 and Table 33). More research is needed to clar-ify this. For this reason these data are not used to apportion National Medical Store expenditure in other years, as was done in the corresponding work for Fiji. Instead 2013 is considered in isola-tion.

5.5 Results: quantifying public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands

This section combines an understanding of the CoA with public services benefiting children pro-vided by the selected ministries. Public expendi-ture on children is quantified, first by item of ex-penditure, then aggregated to estimate total public expenditure on children.

MoEHRD

Recurrent expenditure on policy and administra-tion in education rose between 2006 and 2009 to over SB$110 million, then fell sharply (by more than 50 per cent) to less than SB$50 million in 2011. Since then it has increased. By 2014 the largest unit division providing policy and admin-istration was headquarters and administration, followed by teaching services, provincial support and the planning unit. There was also a provincial

Table 20: NMS expenditure on children in 2013 (%)

Total expenditureNMS

pharmaceuticalsNRH pharmacy manufacturing

NRH specialist medicines

Medicine and dosage suitable for children 47% 57% 34% 31%

Medicine suitable, dosage different 6% 9% 15% 15%

Non-pharmacological, can be used for children 14% 18% 0% 0%

General supplies specifically for children 0% 0% 0% 0%

General supplies 19% 7% 14% 0%

Not on WHO emlc4 list; likely for adults only 12% 10% 36% 54%

Not categorised 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%Source: Authors’ analysis from the pharma order line, from the National Medical Stores


office with small expenditure in each of the prov-inces. The historical expenditure of the three di-visions is unclear. The education service divisions for the community and the provinces, as well as the community high schools division, all saw sig-

Table 21: Recurrent policy and administration in education 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


CoA field Description 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1 2

272 0378 Education Service Division - Community 7.51 9.46 8.86 37.49 24.57 0.35 0.11 0.06 0.00

272 0377 Education Service Division - Provincial 2.58 2.80 2.58 6.75 9.32 0.04 - - -

272 0005 Accounts - - 0.24 0.28 0.73 0.61 1.01 0.78 1.55

272 0486 Central Province - - 0.07 0.12 0.19 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.16

272 0489 Choiseul Province - - 0.04 0.15 0.21 0.34 0.36 0.29 0.28

272 0365 Community High Schools 17.59 20.37 21.26 5.94 - - - - -

272 0360 Curriculum Development Unit 0.70 1.24 1.47 1.26 1.76 2.38 1.45 1.54 6.72

272 0422 Debt Management Unit - - - - - - - - -

272 0195 Education Resources Unit - - - 0.81 1.14 3.08 1.26 1.95 1.88

272 0487 Guadalcanal Province - - 0.09 0.23 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.37 0.40

272 0001 Headquarters & Admin 11.69 26.22 39.61 35.50 16.98 12.95 14.91 16.60 16.04

272 0050 Internal Audit Unit - - - - - - - 0.16 0.15

272 0485 Isabel Province - - 0.06 0.15 0.20 0.31 0.22 0.28 0.31

272 0483 Makira Ulawa Province - - 0.07 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.26

272 0482 Malaita Province - - 0.09 0.32 0.51 0.64 0.63 0.59 0.69

272 0307 MEHR Honiara City Council - - 0.05 0.20 0.24 0.32 0.35 0.27 0.31

272 0196 National Education Board - - - 0.02 0.23 0.43 0.48 0.33 0.26

272 0371 National Exam Service - 1.83 1.37 2.80 2.73 2.40 2.03 2.30 1.95

272 0361 National Library 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.71 0.63 0.66 0.66 1.01 0.55

272 0368 Planning Unit 0.15 0.42 0.88 1.39 2.72 4.70 4.98 5.88 5.53

272 0372 Provincial Support 0.31 4.19 7.02 5.69 3.63 7.19 4.72 7.67 8.03

272 0490 Rennel & Bellona - - 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.18

272 0373 Schools Inspectorate 0.57 0.65 0.96 0.54 0.36 0.51 0.85 0.46 1.48

272 0362 Secondary School Services - - 0.06 0.18 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.23

272 0190 Teacher Training and Development - - 4.12 1.56 2.36 1.34 1.27 0.92 0.72

272 0379 Teaching Service - - 0.16 7.14 5.15 6.07 10.36 9.62 9.96

272 0193 Technical and Vocational Training (HQ) - - - 0.13 0.41 0.35 0.28 0.23 0.25

272 0488 Temotu Province - - 0.04 0.14 0.16 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.26

272 0484 Western Province 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.34 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43

Total recurrent policy and administration 41.33 67.42 89.50 110.11 75.53 46.44 47.70

52.77 58.56

nificant expenditure in the past, but appear to be no longer used. An internal audit unit only started having expenditure accounted against it in 2013, and payments through the provincial offices only started in 2008 (Table 21).


Table 22: ECE recurrent service delivery 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)

Table 23: Primary school recurrent service delivery 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)




1 2 4

272 0194 XXXX Early Childhood Education - - 0.03 1.04 3.25 9.26 11.34 19.98 24.10

272 0194 1XXX 5.1. Compensation of Employees - - 0.02 0.14 2.34 8.26 10.57 19.35 23.25

272 0194 2/3XXX 5.2. Use of Goods and Services - - 0.00 - 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00

272 0194 4XXX 5.4. Grants & Subsidies - - - 0.90 0.89 0.92 0.75 0.62 0.84


1 2 4

272 0375 XXXX Education Service Division - Primary

16.41

19.54

25.82

65.42

141.64

170.44

184.28

189.28

210.82

272 0375 1XXX 5.1. Compensation of Employees

0.00

2.95

8.56

45.58

116.94

135.57

153.31

168.72

188.42

272 0375 2/3XXX 5.2. Use of Goods and Services

16.41

0.00

0.00

-

-

-

-

0.43

0.20

272 0375 4XXX 5.4. Grants & Subsidies

-

16.60

17.26

19.84

24.71

34.86

30.98

20.13

22.20

272 0376 XXXX King George VI School

3.11

4.84

3.61

4.00

4.84

6.26

5.50

7.22

6.45

272 0366 XXXX Primary Education 54.46

76.48

84.14

67.41

11.19

0.25

0.25

0.24

0.23

Total recurrent primary education

90.38

120.41

139.38

202.25

299.32

347.39

374.31

386.01

428.31

Expenditure on ECE service delivery was ac-counted for through the early childhood educa-tion division. The first expenditure was in 2008 (SB$30,000), increasing to over SB$24 million in 2014. Over 95 per cent of spending was on em-ployee compensation. Grants to ECE centres ac-tually fell overall (Table 22).

Expenditure on primary education service delivery was accounted for through a number of differ-ent divisions, the main one in recent years being the ‘Education Service Division – Primary’. This is where expenditure on education provided in non-government-owned schools is accounted for. Similar to ECE, 89 per cent of expenditure was for teachers’ salaries and 10 per cent grants to schools. However, between 2006 and 2009 there

was also a Primary Education Division that over-saw significant expenditure. As the latter became less used, the former grew significantly, suggest-ing that the ‘Education Service Division – Primary’ absorbed the ‘Primary Education Division’s’ expen-diture. In addition to this the government-owned King George VI School was a division in its own right. Overall, recurrent expenditure on provision of primary education more than quadrupled, from SB$90 million to SB$430 million between 2006 and 2014 (Table 23).

As with primary school services, recurrent expen-diture on secondary school service delivery was accounted for through a number of different di-visions. In recent years the most significant was the Education Service Division – Secondary. By



2014, 75 per cent of recurrent expenditure was for teachers’ salaries and 25 per cent for grants. Until 2009 there were also divisions for National Secondary Education and Provincial Secondary Education, however neither of these have been used since. The government-owned Waimapuru National Secondary School is a division in its own right. Total expenditure on secondary education is estimated to have jumped from SB$20 million to SB$180 million between 2006 and 2014. Howev-er, as discussed, based on 2015 enrolment data it is estimated that 13 per cent of secondary school students were older than 18. For this reason only 87 per cent of this expenditure is counted as ex-penditure on children (Table 24).

Overall expenditure on TVET remains comparative-ly small, having grown from SB$1 million to SB$19 million between 2006 and 2013 and falling slight-ly in 2014. Grants to TVET centres were first paid in 2013, and accounted for nearly 25 per cent of total expenditure. However, they fell significantly in 2014. Data could not be gathered on the age

of students enrolled in TVET courses, so it is not clear how much of total expenditure to consider expenditure on children – especially as we know it targets people aged 15-30. Parallel research in Fiji found that 27 per cent of TVET enrolees were under 18. Assuming similar proportions until more data are available, 27 per cent of TVET expenditure is included (Table 25).

Between 2007 and 2013 budget support to policy and administration in education hovered around SB$30 million a year, doubling to SB$62 million in 2014. Until 2010 it was accounted for as NZ (bilat-eral). Since 2010 the particular division receiving the budget support has been identified. The most support went to the Planning Unit (which consis-tently received almost half) and the division for Teacher Training and Development (Table 26).

Budget support to service delivery grew from SB$28 million to SB$45 million between 2011 and 2014. Prior to this it is possible that budget support was contributing to service delivery, but as it was

Table 24: Secondary school recurrent service delivery 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1 2 4

272 0376 XXXXEducation Service Division – Secondary

1.98 2.48 2.41 15.34 57.80 104.78 128.45 150.84 168.11

272 0376 1XXX 5.1. Compensation of Employees 0.00 0.15 0.76 12.62 41.43 82.95 96.44 107.95 124.64

272 0376 2/3XXX 5.2. Use of Goods and Services - 0.06 0.10 0.07 - - - - -

272 0376 4XXX 5.4. Grants & Subsidies 1.98 2.28 1.55 2.65 16.38 21.83 32.01 42.89 43.47

272 0368 XXXXWaimapuru National Secondary School

1.84 2.37 2.68 2.79 3.48 4.62 4.99 5.00 4.92

272 0363 XXXX National Secondary Education 4.01 4.47 4.21 1.18 - - - - -

272 0354 XXXXProvincial Secondary Education

10.03 11.53 12.01 3.38 - - - - -

Total recurrent secondary education

17.85 20.85 21.32 22.69 61.28 109.41 133.44 155.84 173.03

Adjusted for overage students in secondary school (87%)

15.53 18.14 18.55 19.74 53.32 95.19 116.09 135.58 150.54


all accounted for against NZ (bilateral), it cannot be unpacked. Since accounting practices have al-lowed for disaggregation (from 2011) the majority of budget support has shifted between policy and administration and service delivery. More budget support went on service delivery in 2011 and 2013,

Table 26: Education policy and administration budget support 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1 2 4

372 0360 XXXX Curriculum Development Unit - - - - - 2.42 1.89 4.99 0.32

372 0195 XXXX Education Resources Unit - - - - - 3.53 4.88 1.49 4.65

372 0001 XXXX Headquarters & Admin - - - - - 0.01 0.09 0.40 0.57

372 0371 XXXX National Exam Service - - - - - - 0.33 1.53 2.92

372 0369 XXXX Planning Unit - - - - - 15.33 15.26 14.13 28.21

372 0372 XXXX Provincial Support - - - - - - - 2.58 2.89

372 0373 XXXX Schools Inspectorate - - - - - 0.37 1.56 0.69 6.27

372 0191 XXXX Teacher Training and Development - - - - - 2.83 5.27 9.58 14.80

372 0379 XXXX Teaching Service - - - - - - - - -

372 0374 XXXX Technical and Vocational Training - - - - - - 1.72 1.69 1.36

372 NZ (Bilateral) - 32.47 30.23 40.90 38.33 - - - -

Total policy and administration from budget support

- 32.47 30.23 40.90 38.33 24.49 31.02 37.09 61.98



Table 25: TVET recurrent service delivery 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1 2 4

272 0374 XXXX Technical and Vocational Training 1.00 1.83 2.03 3.58 9.22 11.51 13.33 19.27 15.70

272 0374 1XXX 5.1. Compensation of Employees 0.02 0.03 0.41 2.60 7.05 9.36 11.10 14.79 13.65

272 0374 2/3XXX 5.2. Use of Goods and Services 0.98 1.80 1.62 0.98 2.18 2.15 2.23 0.01 0.13

272 0374 4XXX 5.4. Grants & Subsidies - - - - - - - 4.47 1.92

Adjusted for proportion of students < 18 (27%, from Fijian data)

0.27 0.49 0.55 0.97 2.49 3.11 3.60 5.20 4.24

and more went on policy and administration in 2012 and 2014 (Table 27).

Development expenditure by the MoEHRD peak-ed between 2007 and 2008, and was lowest in 2010. It has generally not been allocated to divi-


sions, so it is not clear what the expenditure was for (Table 28).

MoHMS

The CoA used by SIG is not well suited for iden-tifying public expenditure on child health. While child health services are provided, on the whole they cannot be identified. The one instance where they can is the National Reproductive and Child Health Programme. This is a division that gener-ally engages in policy design rather than service delivery. It designs and monitors programmes


Table 27: Education service delivery budget support 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1 2 4

372 0194 XXXX Early Childhood Education - - - - - 0.02 0.07 3.42 9.56

372 0375 XXXX Education Service Division - Primary - - - - - 28.16 27.19 37.59 35.54

372 0376 XXXXEducation Service Division - Secondary

- - - - - - - 8.30 -

Total service delivery from budget support

- - - - - 28.18 27.27 49.31 45.10


Table 28: Education development expenditure 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1

472 Development expenditure 62.22 125.12 111.89 88.43 10.64 30.43 30.73 85.70 38.67

that are ultimately implemented by health work-ers (accounted for through their service delivery location) using medical consumables (accounted for through the National Medical Stores division). Expenditure on this division grew from SB$0.66 million to SB$2.1 million between 2006 and 2010. It then fell by over 25 per cent until 2013, before growing slightly in 2014. Overall recurrent expen-diture on policy and administration steadily grew from SB$27 million to SB$86 million between 2006 and 2014. Based on estimates outlined above, 44 per cent of this is apportioned to ex-penditure on children18 (Table 29).

Table 29: Policy and administration recurrent expenditure in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1 2

276 0381 National Reproductive and Child Health 0.66 0.62 1.09 1.59 2.07 1.60 1.65 1.48 1.70

276 0001 Headquarters & Admin 14.27 22.33 35.26 34.74 39.91 45.40 50.40 56.51 58.12

276 0424 Internal Audit Unit - - - - - 0.06 0.17 - 0.03

276 0396 National Environmental Health 1.46 1.92 2.85 2.69 2.64 2.57 2.22 2.41 2.33

276 0395 National Health Promotion 2.59 0.99 1.42 1.23 1.60 1.23 1.28 1.24 0.95

276 0397 National Health Training & Research 2.17 2.41 3.23 1.46 0.89 0.86 0.63 0.55 0.54

18 100 per cent of expenditure on the Reproductive and Child Health division plus 44 per cent of expenditure on the other divisions – reflecting the crude estimate that 44 per cent of health facility use is by children.



Health services were provided through a number of national divisions, the NRH and the provincial health services. Responsibility for most service de-livery in the provinces is devolved. Total recurrent expenditure on service delivery grew from SB$69 million to SB$205 million between 2006 and 2014. The provinces with the largest expenditure in 2014 were Guadalcanal, Malaita and Western. The NRH, however, was the most expensive division, absorb-ing over 31 per cent of recurrent expenditure on


276 0383 National HIV/STI Division 0.39 0.44 0.34 0.78 0.97 1.02 1.04 0.86 0.82

276 0502 National Mental Health 0.46 0.56 0.59 1.58 4.00 4.51 4.77 4.27 4.93

276 0380 National Non-Communicable Diseases 0.14 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.51 0.44 0.71 0.60 0.61

276 0501 National Nursing Administration 2.25 3.42 2.63 6.69 10.22 11.53 12.60 12.08 11.23

276 0394 National Pharmacy Division 1.60 2.16 2.76 1.97 0.95 0.66 1.04 0.97 0.96

276 0384 National TB/Leprosy Division 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.27 0.25 0.52 0.46 0.51

276 0385 National VB Disease Control 0.17 0.23 0.23 2.20 1.99 1.95 1.94 1.98 1.89

276 0382 Nursing Council Board 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.51 0.39 0.60 0.44 0.65

276 0500 Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation 0.79 0.80 0.86 0.65 0.74 0.69 0.62 0.53 0.55

276 0503 Probationary Nurses 0.00 - - - - - - - -

276 0398 Social Welfare Development 0.37 0.66 1.07 0.74 0.75 0.79 0.66 0.75 0.57

Total policy and administration 27.46 36.89 52.61 56.80 68.01 73.94 80.85 85.12 86.39

Adjustment for child utilisation (44%) 12.45 16.58 23.76 25.88 31.08 33.43 36.50 38.28 38.96

health service delivery. The National Laboratory Programme, National Medical Imaging Services and the National Public Health Laboratory all pro-vided support to service delivery, but were com-paratively small line items. The National Medical Stores Division has grown dramatically, from zero to SB$20 million over the period. According to util-isation estimates outlined in section 5.4, 44 per cent of service delivery costs are apportioned to children (Table 30).

Table 30: Service delivery recurrent expenditure in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1 2

276 0486 Central Province 2.39 2.92 3.45 3.60 4.49 5.48 5.69 5.77 6.31

276 0489 Choiseul Province 2.75 3.20 3.68 3.95 5.03 6.02 6.31 6.48 7.11

276 0399 Eye Division 0.41 0.28 0.21 -0.11 0.49 0.62 0.56 0.79 0.76

276 0487 Guadalcanal Province 4.63 5.76 6.48 7.19 8.62 10.56 11.35 11.76 14.15

276 0307 Honiara City Council 3.05 4.01 5.11 5.40 6.32 7.54 7.13 7.94 10.04

276 0485 Isabel Province 3.06 3.72 4.91 4.80 5.39 6.55 7.22 6.90 7.82

276 0483 Makira Ulawa Province 3.71 4.36 5.74 5.12 6.80 8.07 8.49 8.75 9.80

276 0482 Malaita Province 11.28 13.09 16.25 16.19 17.70 21.69 23.31 23.90 25.97

276 0391 National Dental Program 1.01 0.59 1.08 2.71 3.69 3.66 3.06 3.34 4.01

276 0393 National Laboratory Program 0.83 0.47 0.52 0.42 0.61 0.66 0.53 0.43 0.56

276 0392 National Medical Imaging Services 0.38 0.33 0.53 1.63 1.59 1.76 2.23 2.23 2.70

276 0389 National Medical Stores Division 0.28 0.18 0.19 2.97 4.46 6.52 16.77 10.94 19.60


Table 31: Policy and administration budget support in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1 2

376 0381 National Reproductive and Child Health - - - - - 1.47 5.98 4.20 4.08

376 0001 Headquarters & Admin - - - - - 40.02 12.47 18.34 9.52

376 0424 Internal Audit Unit - - - - - 1.69 - - -

376 0396 National Environmental Health - - - - - 12.40 19.17 6.14 11.71

376 0395 National Health Promotion - - - - - 2.83 2.49 2.33 1.65

376 0383 National HIV/STI Division - - - - - 3.09 0.70 0.68 0.66

376 0502 National Mental Health - - - - - 0.13 1.13 0.67 1.09

376 0380 National Non-Communicable Diseases - - - - - 0.24 1.94 1.79 0.95

376 0501 National Nursing Administration - - - - - 0.10 1.13 4.05 2.46

376 0394 National Pharmacy Division - - - - - 0.30 0.95 2.28 1.95

376 0384 National TB/Leprosy Division - - - - - 0.42 1.21 0.45 0.21

376 0385 National VB Disease Control - - - - - 3.48 5.09 8.10 5.71

376 0382 Nursing Council Board - - - - - 0.03 0.09 0.30 0.23

376 0500 Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation - - - - - 0.22 0.59 0.83 1.08

376 0398 Social Welfare Development - - - - - 0.25 1.32 0.64 0.83

Total policy and administration - - - - - 66.67 54.25 50.81 42.13

Adjustment for child utilisation (44%) - - - - - 30.16 27.21 24.71 20.82



276 0499 National Public Health Laboratory - - - - - - 0.09 0.15 0.06

276 0390 National Referral Hospital 24.13 33.80 51.17 47.42 46.22 57.88 55.28 59.14 64.84

276 0490 Rennel & Bellona 0.65 1.02 0.94 1.09 1.36 1.75 1.93 2.05 2.00

276 0488 Temotu Province 3.11 3.79 4.13 4.17 5.07 6.40 6.63 6.96 7.92

276 0484 Western Province 7.70 9.34 10.58 11.77 12.76 17.95 19.52 19.68 21.62

Total health service delivery 69.37 86.88 114.99 118.34 130.59 163.12 176.09 177.23 205.29



Budget support for policy and administration has been accounted for by division since 2011. Overall support fell from SB$67 million to SB$42 million between 2011 and 2014. The divisions receiving the most support were National En-vironmental Health, Headquarters and Admin, and National Vector Borne (VB) Disease Control.

Support of the National Reproductive and Child Health Programme grew from SB$1.5 million to SB$4 million overall, but peaked in 2012 at nearly SB$6 million. This is added to 44 per cent of the remaining budget support for policy and administration to apportion child expenditure (Table 31).


Table 32: Service delivery budget support in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1 2

AUS (Bilateral) - - 80.00 60.00 5.09 - - - -

376 0486 Central Province - - - - - 0.05 2.82 3.05 3.84

376 0489 Choiseul Province - - - - - 0.34 2.11 4.48 4.18

376 0399 Eye Division - - - - - 0.00 0.34 0.44 3.09

376 0487 Guadalcanal Province - - - - - 0.08 4.48 7.05 12.44

376 0307 Honiara City Council - - - - - - 1.79 2.91 3.58

376 0485 Isabel Province - - - - - 0.07 2.30 3.58 4.49

376 0483 Makira Ulawa Province - - - - - 0.06 2.98 3.97 5.87

376 0482 Malaita Province - - - - - 2.51 9.22 12.95 19.57

376 0391 National Dental Program - - - - - 0.20 0.55 0.43 0.21

376 0393 National Laboratory Program - - - - - - 0.61 0.77 0.47

376 0392 National Medical Imaging Services - - - - - 0.21 0.58 1.40 0.77

376 0389 National Medical Stores Division - - - - - 36.12 29.09 35.21 22.97

376 0499 National Public Health Laboratory - - - - - - - 0.16 0.41

376 0390 National Referal Hospital - - - - - 0.90 5.41 2.40 5.20

376 0490 Rennel & Bellona - - - - - 0.06 0.50 0.52 0.98

376 0488 Temotu Province - - - - - - 1.63 2.93 3.89

376 0484 Western Province - - - - - 0.18 5.81 7.71 14.41

Total health service delivery - - 80.00 60.00 5.09 40.76 70.19 89.97 106.37



Total budget support for service delivery grew from SB$40 million to SB$106 million between 2011 and 2014. Prior to this there was a line assigned to AUS (bilateral), but with no allocation to any division. This is similar to what was seen in the MoEHRD with NZ (bilateral). It highlights how two major do-nors in the region (Australia and New Zealand) split up the two sectors in which they provided support, and also how accounting practices changed at the beginning of 2011. As with SIG recurrent expendi-ture, Guadalcanal, Malaita and Western provinces received the greatest budget support among the provinces. The National Medical Stores Division re-ceived the most budget support overall, albeit de-creasing. The NRH received a relatively small share of budget support. As with other health expendi-tures, 44 per cent has been apportioned to public expenditure on children (Table 32).

Development expenditure in health has fallen dra-matically – from SB$74 million to SB$1 million. As with the MoEHRD, this expenditure was generally not assigned to divisions thus it is hard to com-ment on what it was for (Table 33).

Aggregated public expenditure on children

When aggregated, total recurrent expenditure on public health and education services benefitting children (including policy and administration and service delivery costs) increased from SB$174 mil-lion to SB$759 million between 2006 and 2014. Policy and administration accounted for between 25 per cent to 40 per cent, decreasing in recent years. Expenditure through the MoHMS account-ed for between 20 per cent to 30 per cent. GGE on children per child grew from SB$700 to SB$2,633.


Table 33: Development expenditure in health 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)

Table 34: Public expenditure on children - 2006-2014 (SB$ millions)


1 2

476 0001 Headquarters & Admin - - - - - - - 6.77 -

476 0000/1 (blank) 74.25 54.96 57.35 56.83 7.70 7.76 14.54 4.90 1.44

Capital expenditure on health 74.25 54.96 57.35 56.83 7.70 7.76 14.54 11.68 1.44

Ministry Area of expenditure 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

MoHMS

Service delivery 31 38 86 78 60 90 108 118 137

Policy and administration 12 17 24 26 31 64 64 63 60

Capital 74 55 57 57 8 8 15 12 1

MoEHRD

Policy and administration 41 100 120 151 114 71 79 90 121

Service delivery - ECE 0 0 0 1 3 9 11 23 34

Service delivery - Primary 74 101 114 137 158 205 217 234 253

Service delivery - Secondary 16 18 19 20 53 95 116 144 151

Service delivery - TVET 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 4

Capital 62 125 112 88 11 30 31 86 39

Total

Total service delivery 120 158 218 237 276 402 457 524 579

Total policy and administration 54 116 143 177 145 135 142 153 180

GGE on children 174 274 362 414 421 537 599 677 759

GGE on children/GGE 7% 9% 11% 18% 22% 23% 21% 22% 24%

GGE on children/GDP 5% 7% 8% 9% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9%

GGE on children/child19 700 1,082 1,400 1,573 1,568 1,957 2,148 2,385 2,633

GGE on children/child (2010 prices) 941 1,311 1,435 1,585 1,568 1,773 1,847 2,001 2,115

Real annual growth 39% 10% 10% -1% 13% 4% 8% 6%

GGE on children/child (US$) 100 155 201 218 212 279 318 333 360


When adjusted for inflation (expressed in 2010 pric-es), the increase was from SB$941 to SB$2,115. As a proportion of GGE, GGE on children grew from 7 per cent to 24 per cent. This reflects a shift from security-based public services following the civil unrest at the beginning of the millennium towards welfare-based public services in recent years. As a proportion of GDP, GGE on children increased from 5 per cent to 9 per cent. Real growth (adjust-ed for inflation) in public expenditure on children was highest between 2006 and 2007, falling to -1 per cent in 2010, otherwise growing at between 4 per cent and 13 per cent annually. For international comparison, GGE on children grew from US$100

to US$360 over the period (Table 34 and Figure 15).Based on these calculations, since 2011 (when budget support began to be accounted for by divi-sion) budget support has increased as a proportion of total expenditure on health service delivery from 20 per cent to 35 per cent, and on education ser-vice delivery from 9 per cent to 10 per cent. On the other hand, it decreased as a proportion of health policy and administration from 47 per cent to 35 per cent, but increased as a proportion of educa-tion policy and administration from 35 per cent to 51 per cent. Budget support provides a significant proportion of total funds to policy and administra-tion in both health and education, as well as health


19 While this is defined as anyone under 18 throughout, data could only be sourced for the number of people under 20.


service delivery. This is a concern for sustainability. If, as is suggested by these figures, education ser-vice delivery is largely funded by government, that is a positive sign.


It is important to analyse disaggregated expenditure in a manner that is comparable across countries. A variety of indicators have been selected in health and education to enable this. For indicators to be comparable they must be relevant to all education/health sectors, and they must reflect the size of the country they are referring to. Indicators are ex-pressed either as a proportion of another broader in-dicator, or, where it is an absolute number, per child.

Parallel research has been done in Fiji to calculate the same set of indicators. Expenditures are pre-sented in US dollars to enable international com-parison.

Recurrent expenditure on primary school service delivery per child was significantly higher in Fiji than Solomon Islands between 2010 and 2013. However, available data suggest that this fell dramatically in Fiji in 2014, driven by a decrease in expenditure on wages and salaries. These data need to be verified.

Similarly, expenditure on secondary education per child was much higher in Fiji than Solomon Islands. Salaries as a proportion of total expenditure were between 80 per cent and 90 per cent in Solomon Islands at primary school level, and 70 per cent and 80 per cent at secondary school level. In Fiji compensation of employees consistently absorbed between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of expendi-ture on service delivery. On the other hand, policy and administration in Solomon Islands absorbed be-tween 18 per cent and 34 per cent of total recurrent expenditure on education, whereas it only absorbed between 6 per cent and 11 per cent in Fiji.

Estimated expenditure on public health services for children suggest that Solomon Islands now spends more per child than Fiji. This may be due to the estimation technique. No utilisation data could be taken from the NRH, so utilisation rates from provincial health services were used to split all expenditures, with 44 per cent attributed to chil-dren. This is likely to overestimate expenditure on children because, relative to adults, children are more likely to visit outpatient facilities in the com-munity rather than inpatient wards in hospitals. In Fiji outpatient utilisation rates were collected from provincial facilities (and used to proxy total expen-diture at sub divisional hospitals – 33 per cent), and inpatient discharges were collected from the urban hospitals (and used to proxy total expenditure in ur-

Report Title




It is important to analyse disaggregated expenditure in a manner that is comparable across countries. A variety of indicators have been selected in health and education to enable this. For indicators to be comparable they must be relevant to all education/health sectors, and they must reflect the size of the country they are referring to. Indicators are expressed either as a proportion of another broader indicator, or, where it is an absolute number, per child.

Parallel research has been done in Fiji to calculate the same set of indicators. Expenditures are presented in US dollars to enable international comparison.

Recurrent expenditure on primary school service delivery per child was significantly higher in Fiji than Solomon Islands between 2010 and 2013. However, available data suggest that this fell dramatically in Fiji in 2014, driven by a decrease in expenditure on wages and salaries. These data need to be verified. Similarly, expenditure on secondary education per child was much higher in Fiji than Solomon Islands. Salaries as a proportion of total expenditure were between 80 per cent and 90 per cent in Solomon Islands at primary school level, and 70 per cent and 80 per cent at secondary school level. In Fiji compensation of employees consistently absorbed between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of expenditure on service delivery. On the other hand, policy and administration in Solomon Islands absorbed between 18 per cent and 34 per cent of total recurrent expenditure on education, whereas it only absorbed between 6 per cent and 11 per cent in Fiji.

Estimated expenditure on public health services for children suggest that Solomon Islands now spends more per child than Fiji. This may be due to the estimation technique. No utilisation data could be taken from the NRH, so utilisation rates from provincial health services were used to split all expenditures, with 44 per cent attributed to children. This is likely to overestimate expenditure on children because, relative to adults, children are more likely to visit outpatient facilities in the community rather than inpatient wards in hospitals. In Fiji outpatient utilisation rates were collected from provincial facilities (and used to proxy total expenditure at sub divisional hospitals – 33 per cent), and inpatient discharges were collected from the urban hospitals (and used to proxy total expenditure in urban hospitals – 21 per cent). If a lower percentage of Solomon Islands expenditure should be apportioned to children, or a higher percentage of Fijian expenditure, then it

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

SB$ millions

Total service delivery Total policy and administrabon

GGE on children/GGE GGE on children/GDP




Table 35: Solomon Islands tracer indicators (US$)

Table 36: Fiji tracer indicators (US$)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Education

Recurrent expenditure on primary school per child < 20 43 57 63 72 79 107 115 115 120

Recurrent expenditure on secondary school per child < 20 9 10 10 10 27 49 62 71 71

Salaries as a proportion of total recurrent (primary) 0% 15% 33% 70% 83% 80% 83% 89% 89%

Salaries as a proportion of total recurrent (secondary) 0% 6% 32% 82% 72% 79% 75% 72% 74%

Recurrent policy and administration as a proportion of total recurrent expenditure

32% 46% 47% 49% 34% 18% 18% 18% 21%

Health

Expenditure on IMCI drugs per child < 20 6.18

Expenditure on vaccines per child < 20 0

Total recurrent expenditure on child health service delivery per child < 20

18 22 48 41 30 47 57 58 65

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Education

Recurrent expenditure on primary school per child < 19 164 183 194 197 109

Recurrent expenditure on secondary school per child < 19 170 185 200 194 250

Salaries as a proportion of total recurrent (primary) 92% 91% 90% 89% 39%

Salaries as a proportion of total recurrent (secondary) 85% 86% 87% 87% 77%

Recurrent policy as a proportion of total recurrent 6% 9% 9% 9% 11%

Health

Expenditure on IMCI drugs per child < 19 1.61 1.37 1.51 1.93 1.89

Expenditure on vaccines per child < 19 0.69 1.20 1.95 3.02 4.82

Total recurrent expenditure on child health service delivery per child < 19 42 44 47 48 60


Source: (UNICEF, 2016)

ban hospitals – 21 per cent). If a lower percentage of Solomon Islands expenditure should be appor-tioned to children, or a higher percentage of Fijian expenditure, then it may not appear that Solomon Islands invests more in child health than Fiji. More research is needed here.

The same story applies to expenditure on drugs and medical consumables for children. It is esti-mated that in 2013 SIG spent over US$6 per per-son younger than 20 on these inputs.20 However,

this includes all commodities that are suitable for children, not necessarily all commodities procured specifically for children (as is the case in the Fi-jian estimate). This means that Solomon Islands’ estimate, again, is likely to be an overestimate of expenditure on children. Vaccines, however, pres-ent a different story. While Fiji has dramatically increased its expenditure on vaccines per child, in 2013 Solomon Islands does not appear to have spent anything on them. It is possible that they are still procured and provided by donors.

20 Demographic data did not allow for an estimate of the population younger than 18.

Conclusion and policy implications – 55

The key message for policy-makers is that the Government appears to be increasing the amount it spends on children’s ser-vices each year. In current prices, govern-

ment expenditure on children is estimated to have grown from SB$174 million to SB$759 million be-tween 2006 and 2014. Expressed in 2010 prices, this is a real growth from SB$914 to SB$2,113 per child.

Most of this growth has come from increasing expenditure on primary and secondary education (for which annual expenditure grew by SB$180 million and SB$125 million, respectively). In 2014 SIG spent SB$880 per child on primary school and SB$520 on secondary school. Annual expenditure on children’s services in health also increased by over SB$100 million. However, there is a concern that the methodology used overestimates this ex-penditure by exaggerating expenditure on hospi-tal inpatient and outpatient care for children. This concern is highlighted by the suggestion that Sol-omon Islands spends slightly more on child health services than Fiji – a surprising finding. Further research is needed to clarify these estimates. Ex-penditure on ECE and TVET is also increasing, but is still comparatively very small.

Overall, when expressed in US dollars to enable international comparison, it is estimated that Solomon Islands public expenditure on children grew from US$100 to US$360 per child between 2006 and 2014. This is benchmarked against equivalent analysis from Fiji, which is estimated to have increased public expenditure on children from US$405 to US$480 per child between 2010 and 2014.

Solomon Islands spends much less per child on primary and secondary education than Fiji (exclud-ing 2014 data, which need verifying). It also spends more on primary education than secondary edu-cation, in contrast to Fiji, which spends more on secondary than primary. This may be the result of Fiji’s high secondary school enrolment rates. Enrol-ment rates in Solomon Islands secondary schools are very low, particularly at senior secondary level.

A major concern that this report highlights is the difficulty of estimating how much is being spent on access to water. Water provision is a very com-plicated system, with many organisations paying different entities to provide different services to different groups or people. Clean water may be the most important resource for children, and the Government is encouraged to clarify the structures under which water is distributed. Under the status quo, advocacy, multi-sector planning, budgeting, accounting and monitoring with regard to expen-diture and water supply is made much harder and less accurate through unnecessarily complicated structures. Fiji’s structure for spending public mon-ey on water supply, while not ideal for tracking through an FMIS, is nonetheless much simpler, and something SIG may want to look at.

The Ministry of Women, Youth, Children and Family Affairs provides key policy and legislation develop-ment and oversight functions. However, because it accounts for such a small portion of government expenditure (0.37 per cent in 2014), it was not in-cluded in this analysis. Now that public expendi-ture on children in health and education has been mapped, expanding the analysis to include this third ministry is recommended.

Conclusion and policy implications6


This study has made advances in two main areas. It has made methodological progress in the drive to understand how public expenditure on children can be analysed, and it has made progress in the estimation and analysis of public expenditure on children in Solomon Islands specifically.

The process of preparing this report may have been as useful as the results themselves. It involved a mapping of service delivery onto the CoA, which was the major innovation of the study. It links ser-vices provided to children with the MoF&T, and is crucial for enabling a proper understanding of how budgets impact on child welfare. Moreover, an understanding of this relationship assists negoti-ations between service providers and the MoF&T, which is better able to engage with policy recom-mendations that are in line with its framework for spending money – the CoA. Importantly, repeating this analysis is now a simple task of querying the codes identified in the FMIS on an annual basis or identifying them in the year-end financial reports.

The study is also an illustration of a practical use of a World Bank Open Budgets Portal BOOST da-tabase. All expenditure data were taken from the

Excel pivot table (the BOOST database). This was found to be a practical, simple and cheap way of analysing public expenditure. As well as identifying public expenditure on children, the initiative may prove useful for other expenditure tracking inter-ests.

However, the study has a number of important lim-itations that need to be well understood. The first, and potentially most serious, is its focus on service delivery by large ministries that provide some ser-vices to children, using a methodology that captures most but not all expenditure. This is not entirely in line with the approach of the CRC, which also em-phasises legislation for the protection of the rights of children. The assumption that policy improve-ments for spending 10 per cent of expenditure bet-ter are likely to have a greater impact than policy improvements for spending 1 per cent of expendi-ture better is crude, and not necessarily true in all cases. Legislation is cheap when compared to the delivery of health care and education, and arguably has significant impacts on the welfare of children. This methodology shifts attention away from items like legislation, towards service delivery. Arguably, however, expenditure is not a particularly useful

Conclusion and policy implications – 57

measure for legislation, which may be better ana-lysed by questioning whether it is in place or not, and what it covers. Expenditure on service delivery has a greater impact on the quantity and quality of services on offer. Thus, it is not that service deliv-ery is more important than legislation, but that it is more important to understand how much is being spent on it in comparison to legislation.

A second major limitation is the way expenditure on children’s health is estimated. Children and adults use health services in different ways. The report has attempted to capture this by apportion-ing health expenditures according to inpatient and outpatient utilisation rates. However, this is im-perfect for at least two reasons. First, as well as the quantity of visits varying between adults and children, the types of services received may vary too. If adults commonly receive more expensive treatments, then weighting expenditure accord-ing to the quantity of visits will overestimate the amount spent on health services for children. Sec-ond, expenditure data in Solomon Islands are not disaggregated into inpatient and outpatient care. Instead they are disaggregated into the National Referral Hospital and provincial health services. Inpatient and outpatient care take place at both, have different utilisation patterns, and cost differ-ent amounts per visit. This is not captured in this study’s estimates, which assume costs every-where are distributed according to utilisation at the provincial level. Overall, the CoA was better suited for tracking expenditure on children in education than in health – due to the different structures of the two sectors.

A third limitation, which is more of a caution than a limitation, is that this report is merely an attempt to quantify expenditure. It cannot, in itself, inform comment on whether the results are good or

bad. Expenditure analysis needs to be matched with analysis of outputs and outcomes to assess whether money is being spent well, or how money should be spent in the future. This analysis is nec-essary but insufficient for analysing issues such as the technical and allocative efficiency of public ex-penditure more generally.

Finally, the attempt to cut and paste public ser-vices into a new category of ‘public services for children’ creates a policy engagement challenge. In practice, policy-makers work in education or health or social protection etc., not in ‘public services for children’. Trying to speak a little to each of these groups risks not really speaking to any of them. This leaves the MoF&T. While the ministry is an important audience for an analysis like this, its use of the analysis requires that it already conceptualis-es ‘children’ as a unit to structure policy decisions around. This is not necessarily the case.

The three key next steps are to expand analysis to cover access to water and expenditure through the MoWYCFA, to track and monitor expenditure on children in Solomon Islands and other coun-tries over a number of years (to build a body of data for comparison), and to complement expen-diture analysis with an analysis of the impacts of government service provision to children, for a sense of whether the money is being well spent. The methodology is designed so that it is easy to repeat after it has been applied once it has been done. Now that the methodology has been applied in Fiji and Solomon Islands, repeating it should be a simpler task. What is important, however, is to complement expenditure analysis with an analysis of the quality of services children are benefiting from. Understanding how much has been spent is useless without an understanding of how well that money has been spent.


Every Woman, Every Child, The global strategy for women’s, children’s and adolescents health (2016-2030), 2015.

Heckman, J., & Masterov, D., The productivity ar-gument for investing in young children, 2007

International Monetary Fund, Article IV Consulta-tion, 2013.

International Monetary Fund, Solomon Islands Ar-ticle IV Constultation, 2016.

IYA, Youth in Solomon Islands, 2003.

MoEHRD, Solomon Islands MEHRD Performance Assessment Report, 2013.

MoHMS, National Health Strategic Plan 2011-2015 (2011).

Monash University, Solomon Islands Health Facili-ties Costing Study, 2015

MoWYCA, Solomon Islands National Children’s Policy, 2010.

MoWYCA, Solomon Islands National Youth Policy 2010-2015, (2010).

MoWYCFA, Solomon Islands combined second, third and fourth periodic report on the CRC, 2014.

Oxford Policy Management,Tracking public expen-diture on children in Fiji, 2016.

Republic of Fiji, 2016 Budget Address, 2015

Solomon Islands Government, SIG Chart of Ac-counts Manual, 2012.

Solomon Islands Governent, Draft recurrent esti-mates - budget paper: volume 2, 2015.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, second to fourth periodic reports of States Parties due in 2010: Fiji, 2011.

United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the rights of the child, 1990.

United Nations Children’s Fund, Levels and trends in child mortality Report 2015, UNICEF, 2015.

United Nations Children’s Fund, State of the World’s Children, UNICEF, 2015.

World Health Organization, Model list of essential medicines for children - 4th list, WHO, 2013.

World Health Organization, Model list of essential medicines for children, WHO, 2015.

References7

UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office (EAPRO)19 Phra Atit RoadChanasongkram, Phra NakornBangkok 10200, ThailandE-mail: [email protected]: www.unicef.org/eaproTel: +662 356 9499 Fax: +662 280 3563

Tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children · Tracking and monitoring public...

Documents

Transcript of Tracking and monitoring public expenditure on children · Tracking and monitoring public...