Kenya

Go Back

Results in this brief are from an analysis of the 2019 Kenya Census. Information on methodology is in the main text of the report and in the method briefs. Additional results are available in Results Table on the DDI website (add link).

Share of Adults with Functional Difficulties

In Kenya, the share of adults aged 15 and older with any functional difficulty stands at 12.7%. As shown in Table 1, it varies from a low of 3.8% in Wajir to a high of 30.6% in Siaya. In all regions, seeing is the most common type of functional difficulty; self-care and communication are the least common.

Table 1: Kenya: Share of Adults with Functional difficulties at the regional level (%)

Region Any Seeing Hearing Mobility Cognition Self-Care Communication
Baringo 10.2 5.5 2.8 4.4 2.3 1.3 0.9
Bomet 7.9 4.0 1.7 3.3 1.5 0.8 0.6
Bungoma 15.4 9.3 3.4 5.5 3.2 1.0 1.1
Busia 17.3 9.9 4.1 7.0 4.3 1.3 1.3
Elgeyo-Marakwet 8.8 4.8 2.2 3.6 1.7 0.9 0.7
Embu 18.3 11.0 3.6 7.0 6.0 1.6 1.1
Garissa 3.9 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.0
Homabay 22.9 14.0 5.5 9.8 6.1 2.3 1.6
Isiolo 6.8 3.9 1.6 2.3 1.2 0.8 0.7
Kajiado 7.4 4.7 1.1 1.9 1.0 0.5 0.5
Kakamega 18.3 10.7 4.0 7.7 4.8 1.5 1.4
Kericho 8.3 4.5 1.6 3.3 1.5 0.8 0.6
Kiambu 10.8 6.7 1.5 3.7 2.1 0.8 0.6
Kilifi 11.0 6.3 2.1 4.0 2.1 0.8 0.8
Kirinyaga 14.4 8.1 2.3 6.2 4.0 1.4 0.8
Kisii 17.9 10.8 3.6 7.8 5.9 2.0 1.3
Kisumu 19.5 12.6 4.2 7.8 4.1 1.7 1.3
Kitui 14.2 8.0 3.1 6.3 3.0 1.4 1.3
Kwale 11.5 6.5 2.2 4.2 2.1 0.8 0.8
Laikipia 10.5 6.0 1.8 4.1 2.2 0.9 0.7
Lamu 11.9 6.8 1.9 4.1 2.7 0.9 1.0
Machakos 13.6 8.2 2.7 5.6 2.9 1.2 0.9
Makueni 18.0 10.7 3.9 8.0 4.9 1.7 1.3
Mandera 5.5 1.9 1.9 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.4
Marsabit 5.1 2.8 1.6 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.6
Meru 17.3 10.3 4.3 6.2 5.3 1.7 1.1
Migori 16.7 9.6 3.7 6.4 3.8 1.6 1.3
Mombasa 9.9 6.8 1.3 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.6
Murang’a 17.0 9.2 2.9 8.4 4.4 1.7 1.0
Nairobi City 8.2 5.7 0.9 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.4
Nakuru 10.5 6.3 1.6 3.8 2.1 0.8 0.6
Nandi 11.4 6.5 2.3 4.9 2.4 0.9 0.8
Narok 6.7 3.4 1.4 2.5 1.1 0.6 0.6
Nyamira 19.0 11.7 3.9 8.8 5.7 2.0 1.3
Nyandarua 13.4 7.6 2.2 5.6 3.7 1.2 0.8
Nyeri 14.5 8.1 2.3 6.6 3.8 1.4 0.9
Samburu 7.6 4.2 2.7 2.6 1.5 1.1 0.7
Siaya 23.8 14.9 5.7 9.9 5.9 2.1 1.6
Taita-Taveta 16.0 10.0 2.8 6.3 4.0 1.5 1.1
Tana River 9.9 5.4 2.3 3.5 1.9 1.1 0.8
Tharaka-Nithi 18.9 11.7 4.4 6.9 6.0 1.9 1.2
Trans Nzoia 13.3 8.1 2.4 4.7 2.9 0.9 1.0
Turkana 6.5 3.6 2.1 2.5 1.5 1.1 1.0
Uasin Gishu 9.6 5.9 1.6 3.2 1.6 0.7 0.6
Vihiga 23.2 13.4 5.4 11.9 7.3 2.1 1.6
Wajir 3.8 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.0 0.9 0.9
West Pokot 6.3 3.0 1.9 2.4 1.1 0.8 0.6
National 12.7 7.6 2.5 4.9 2.9 1.1 0.9

Notes: ‘Any’ is the share of adults with any level of difficulty (some difficulty, a lot of difficulty or unable to do in one or more functional domains. For instance, ‘Seeing’ is the share of adults with difficulty in seeing of any level. Shares for the six domains do not add up to the share of any difficulty as some individuals may have functional difficulties in more than one domain. Source: Own calculations based on the 2019 Kenya Census.

Multidimensional Poverty

Multidimensional poverty captures an individual’s experience of multiple deprivations (e.g. low educational attainment, having inadequate living conditions). In Kenya, the shares of persons with at least a lot of functional difficulty and some difficulty who are multidimensionally poor stands at 43.1% and 36.9%, respectively. This is higher than that of persons with no difficulty at 35.3%.

Thus, there is a disability gap in multidimensional poverty between persons with at least a lot of difficulty and no difficulty (7.8 percentage points) and between persons with some difficulty and no difficulty (1.6 percentage points). In other words, persons in Kenya with functional difficulties more frequently experience multiple deprivations than persons without difficulty. As illustrated in Figure 1/Table 2, multidimensional poverty is common across regions among adults with functional difficulties. Multidimensional poverty is least common among persons with functional difficulties in Kiambu and most common Turkana.

Figure 1: Kenya: Multidimensional poverty headcount among adults with no, some and at least a lot of difficulty (%)

Figure1a: Adults with no difficulty

Figure 1a maps the share of adults with any difficulty at the regional level in Kenya

Figure 1b: Adults with some difficulty

Figure 1b maps the share of adults with some difficulty at the regional level in Kenya

Figure 1c: Adults with at least a lot of difficulty

Figure 1c maps the share of adults with at least a lot of difficulty at the regional level in Kenya

Legend of Figure 1 This is the legend for different categories of the multidimensional poverty headcount from a low of 20 to 29.9% to a high of 90% and above.

Source: Own calculations based on Kenya census  data (2019). The notes of Table 1 apply.

Table 2(Supporting figure 1): Kenya: Multidimensional Poverty headcount among adults with no, some, and at least a lot of difficulty (%)

Region No difficulty Some difficulty At least a lot of difficulty
Baringo 48.5 52.0 58.3
Bomet 43.1 46.5 53.1
Bungoma 34.5 34.6 39.0
Busia 36.9 39.0 43.2
Elgeyo-Marakwet 44.0 49.3 54.1
Embu 30.1 35.1 42.5
Garissa 64.9 65.1 69.1
Homabay 38.9 41.0 46.4
Isiolo 48.7 45.8 50.2
Kajiado 25.7 25.6 36.3
Kakamega 37.0 38.2 42.9
Kericho 39.5 42.5 47.2
Kiambu 17.4 20.6 29.0
Kilifi 39.2 41.2 47.3
Kirinyaga 27.9 32.2 40.9
Kisii 39.7 41.7 47.5
Kisumu 30.2 33.3 39.6
Kitui 43.6 48.0 52.3
Kwale 45.9 45.0 50.2
Laikipia 34.3 35.3 42.2
Lamu 36.3 39.7 48.5
Machakos 28.8 32.7 40.0
Makueni 36.8 39.3 45.3
Mandera 62.4 63.2 64.1
Marsabit 55.8 56.3 60.5
Meru 35.4 38.0 43.5
Migori 43.4 45.7 52.3
Mombasa 25.2 27.9 35.9
Murang’a 28.8 33.4 40.2
Nairobi City 22.2 24.0 31.1
Nakuru 27.2 29.7 36.0
Nandi 42.9 46.6 51.9
Narok 50.6 50.4 55.0
Nyamira 39.1 40.9 46.8
Nyandarua 26.3 30.1 37.6
Nyeri 22.7 27.0 34.1
Samburu 57.8 58.4 63.8
Siaya 37.6 40.1 44.9
Taita-Taveta 28.5 33.4 42.0
Tana River 51.6 51.5 54.1
Tharaka-Nithi 37.5 39.5 47.7
Trans Nzoia 35.6 37.8 42.1
Turkana 67.6 65.2 72.8
Uasin Gishu 29.7 32.2 38.2
Vihiga 36.5 38.5 42.1
Wajir 62.7 61.9 67.3
West Pokot 59.5 60.6 65.1
National 35.3 36.9 43.1