Risk Management Framework
Population Services Kenya (PS Kenya) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) FCDO established a comprehensive Risk Management Framework for the DESIP program, designed to proactively identify, assess, mitigate, and monitor risks. The framework follows a systematic four-step approach: Risk Identification, Risk Assessment, Risk Mitigation, and Risk Monitoring. This systematic approach addresses potential threats to the program’s success and long-term sustainability, ensuring continuous evaluation of emerging risks and adjustments to mitigation strategies to maintain acceptable risk levels.
Risk Identification
During the proposal phase, a comprehensive Risk Matrix was developed to highlight key risks from the program’s initiation through to its completion. The Risk Identification process involved thorough self-assessments conducted by program teams, ensuring all potential risks were recognized and categorized. Identified risks included stock-outs of essential commodities, insufficient funding from the Ministry of Health (MoH), political instability, and external threats such as climate change and disease outbreaks. Other challenges included unfavourable exchange rates and cultural barriers. Emerging risks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, budgetary cuts, political changes, and adverse weather conditions, were closely monitored, with quarterly reviews to assess both existing and new risks. PS Kenya also worked closely with downstream partners, integrating them into the risk management process for a unified approach.
Risk Assessment
Following risk identification, the next step involved assessing the probability and potential impact of each risk. Risks were categorized into four severity levels; Severe, High, Moderate, and Low using the RAG (Red, Amber, Green) Risk Rating System for clear visualization as outlined in Figure 1. This assessment allowed the program to prioritize risks, addressing those requiring immediate attention while continuing to monitor others on an ongoing basis.
| Rating Matrix | Impact/Consequences | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insignificant -1 | Minor -2 | Modern -3 | Major -4 | Severe -5 | ||
| Likelyhood/Probability | A-almost certain | High | High | Severe | Severe | Severe |
| B-Likely | Moderate | High | High | Severe | Severe | |
| C-Possible | Low | Moderate | High | Severe | Severe | |
| D-Unlikely | Low | Low | Moderate | High | Severe | |
| E-Rare | Low | Low | Moderate | High | High | |
Risk Mitigation
Risk Mitigation strategies were then implemented to reduce the potential impact of identified risks. Tailored strategies were developed for each type of risk, and these strategies were continuously updated to ensure flexibility and responsiveness as the program evolved. Key mitigation strategies included:
- Delivery Risks: To address challenges in achieving project goals within budget and timelines, PS Kenya allocated additional resources, improved communication strategies, and developed contingency plans. These efforts ensured that the program remained on track, even when faced with unforeseen obstacles.
- External Context Risks: PS Kenya built comprehensive contingency plans and engaged stakeholders to manage risks arising from political instability, economic changes, and natural disasters. These strategies allowed the program to adapt to external factors while maintaining its objectives.
- Operational Risks: These risks were mitigated by upgrading technology, investing in staff training, and improving infrastructure to support the program’s activities. This ensured that the operational capabilities of the program were robust and able to handle implementation complexities.
- Fiduciary Risks: PS Kenya reinforced financial controls and fraud detection mechanisms to minimize the risk of misuse of funds and ensure compliance with financial regulations. Regular audits and compliance checks maintained the integrity of financial management. This included continuous awareness of the available whistle-blower channels to PS Kenya, Consortium Staff as well as other stakeholders in the counties.
- Reputational Risks: To safeguard the program’s credibility, PS Kenya established crisis management protocols, ensuring transparent engagement with the public and stakeholders and responding to ethical or reputational concerns as they arose.
- Safeguarding Risks: The DESIP Program, led by PS Kenya, implemented a safeguarding strategy across 17 counties in Kenya to prevent Sexual Exploitation, Abuse, and Harassment (SEAH) and ensure the safety and dignity of all stakeholders. Aligned with the UK Safeguarding Strategy, it addressed key power dynamics and was based on six core principles.
Risk Monitoring
Risk monitoring was a continuous and proactive process, overseen by program management and key stakeholders. It included regular desktop and field visits by FCDO, ongoing risk-based reviews by PS Kenya’s internal audit team, and annual audits by external auditors. Quarterly reviews updated the risk register, tracking changes in risk trends (e.g., stable, increasing, or decreasing). These updates, along with a summary narrative of the evolving risk profile, were shared with FCDO every quarter.
This approach ensured timely responses to new risks, prioritized critical threats, and managed less urgent ones appropriately. The DESIP Risk Management Framework thus played a crucial role in maintaining the program’s focus on its objectives, overcoming challenges, and adapting to changing conditions.
Overall, the DESIP Risk Management Framework has been instrumental in addressing potential risks proactively, ensuring the program remained on course to achieve its objectives despite challenges and uncertainties.
