Thousands of civil servants will soon see changes in their hardship allowances as the government moves to implement a long-stalled review of regions previously classified as hardship zones. The move is part of a broader effort to cut costs and align benefits with current regional realities.
Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi, speaking before the National Assembly, confirmed that the government expects to save Ksh6 billion annually once the new policy takes effect.
“I wish to inform the House that implementing the Inter-Agency Technical Committee report will reduce the financial burden of hardship allowances from Ksh25 billion to Ksh19 billion per year, resulting in a Ksh6 billion annual saving,” he said.
The report, which was completed back in 2019, has been gathering dust for years. It reassessed how hardship areas are defined and set out new guidelines for distributing allowances to public servants across different sectors.
Review Finds Some Regions No Longer Qualify
According to Mudavadi, the updated review showed that many areas once considered hardship zones have undergone significant transformation. The Inter-Agency Committee found that the devolution of governance in 2013 triggered notable improvements in infrastructure and public services in various regions.
“The review showed that some regions initially listed as hardship zones have changed due to the devolution of government in 2013,” Mudavadi noted.
Many of these areas now enjoy better access to clean water, healthcare, schools, and roads—factors that disqualify them from the hardship category under the revised criteria.
The Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) will now take over to set new rates based on the committee’s findings. The revised list of hardship areas has also been forwarded to the Chief of Staff and Head of Public Service for gazettement.
However, the report also flagged inconsistencies in how hardship allowances are applied. Some government workers in designated zones still miss out on the stipend due to unclear and unaligned classification standards.
Mudavadi pointed out that different institutions use different benchmarks to define hardship areas. “It is noted that the units of analysis for designated hardship areas are not harmonised. The civil service, for instance, uses the former district boundaries while the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) uses educational zones for categorisation,” he explained.
Currently, the civil service and related agencies recognize 16 hardship zones, while the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) lists 44, and the Judiciary 21. This mismatch has caused confusion and disparities, with workers in the same region receiving unequal benefits depending on their employer.
