Mid-Term Evaluation of the Kenya Country Programme Document 2014 - 2018

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2014-2018, Kenya
Evaluation Type:
Country Programme Evaluation
Planned End Date:
05/2017
Completion Date:
07/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
70,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document CPD Mid-term evaluation.docx tor English 89.77 KB Posted 274
Download document Kenya CPD MID Term Evaluation Final Report.pdf report English 1841.24 KB Posted 387
Title Mid-Term Evaluation of the Kenya Country Programme Document 2014 - 2018
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2014-2018, Kenya
Evaluation Type: Country Programme Evaluation
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2017
Planned End Date: 05/2017
Management Response: Yes
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
Evaluation Budget(US $): 70,000
Source of Funding: TRAC
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Busi Ncube Team Leader ncubebusi16@gmail.com
Dr. Nicholas Letting Team Member nletting@gmail.com KENYA
Connie Ngondi Team Member nhconnie@gmail.com KENYA
Dr. Nicodemus Nyandiko Team Member nomoyo2005@yahoo.com KENYA
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: KENYA
Comments:

We are requesting to postpone this evaluation to May 2017 given its high level importance, to enable the CO ensure greater focus and ability to manage the process well as this was not possible during the last quarter of 2016.  Thank you.

Lessons
1.

Lesson 1: Working at three levels (National, County and Community) proved useful in ensuring programme ownership by beneficiaries and more effective vertical coordination. This approach should be continued with increased presence at Community level.

Lesson 2: Better planning is crucial to effective programme delivery and helps reduce implementation delays.

Lesson 3: Setting standard operating procedures enhances implementation efficiency and consistency in achievement of planned results and policy implementation, additionally it will reduce likelihood of varying results enhance development gains and harmonise efforts.

Lesson 4: Civil society organisations are important partners and through partnerships and closer engagement with CSOs the programme can facilitate increased accountability of duty bearers.

Lesson 5: Adopting a collaborative approach and information sharing, learning and support among programme IPs is an enabler to coherent and effective programme delivery.

Lesson 6: Failure to clearly articulate procedures and criteria for targeting of vulnerable groups (Particularly PWDs, youth and the poorest of the poor) and communities negatively impacts on programme performance in this regard and progress towards results


Findings
1.

1. Strategic Positioning and Relevance:

The CPD is drawn from the UNDAF 2014-2018, but also draws heavily from the UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017. In addition, it is also aligned to the national priorities, as outlined in the Kenya Vision 2030 and its five-year Second Medium-Term Plan (MTP II) 2013-2017, since in fact the UNDAF 2014-2018 draws its four SRAs from the three pillars (economic, political and social) of these national development blue prints.

 

Certain national contextual realities have changed over the period under review, which can be attributed to the development interventions jointly designed and implemented by the Government of Kenya (national and county levels), UNDP and other development partners including donors and UN Agencies. Some of these include: The establishment and operationalisation of structures and institutions at national and county levels to support the implementation of devolution and the formulation and enactment of relevant laws, regulations and policies to support the devolved structures. In addition, the support of UNDP through its Country Programme and in collaboration with other development partners is helping to build capacities of key national and county institutions for effective service delivery. The programme design and related outputs therefore need to be reviewed to render them more relevant to the needs and priorities of these changing realities going forward. For instance, regarding policy and legislative framework support, focus should now move to strengthening implementation of existing laws and policies and further enhancing the institutional capacity built at both national and county levels for effective and efficient service delivery.

2. Programme design and results framework:

The country programme is an integral part of the UNDAF, and as such its four strategic programme priority areas are selected from UNDAF outcomes and the national development priorities as well. Under each of the four UNDAF SRAs, UNDP is contributing to one outcome, and the attendant results chain under the selected outcome is cascaded to the CPD.

3. Effectiveness:

The evaluation assessed the extent to which the programme has attained planned results and the contributions made to the achievement of CPD outcomes. Based on the assessment of the four outcome areas, programme performance on this criterion has been rated 4/5 based on the evaluation rating scale used. Programme interventions at the National, County and Community levels and the achievements made in each of the outcome areas have contributed to overall CPD effectiveness. Further, the strategic choice of working at the three levels (National, County and Community) has contributed to successful implementation.

4. Efficiency:

The evaluation observed that resources were utilised as intended resulting in achievement of planned outputs. The total programme budget from 2014 to 2016 stood at $ 84,769,128 and expenditure was $78,907,322 giving a delivery rate of over 90% in the years under review.  While delivery is not the only indicator of good use of resources it does show that the programme was able to expend money on activities as planned. The evaluation found that several bills, policies, strategic plans, regulations, technology and knowledge products have been produced during the period as result of efficient use of resources. The team noted that the programmatic efficiency is good and is supporting the four outcome areas. The evaluation probed M & E systems to examine the efficiency and observed good systems in place for planning, monitoring and reporting. The Team noted that UNDP has a global web-based compliance system which looks at different parameters of compliance and monitoring in support of efficiency. Despite this, the evaluation found instances of delays in donor reporting and end of project closures. The evaluation noted that the UNDP M&E system is not integrated with IP M& E system thus impeding good reporting of programme results.

5. Sustainability:

The evaluation found that at the policy level, the programme has contributed to sustainability of results through support to the creation of a conducive policy and legal environment such as the enactment and/or revision of all schedule 5 Constitutional laws within the five-year transitional period of the Constitution; the finalisation and launch of the Kenya National Action Plan (NAP) on UNSCR 1325 on women, peace and security in March 2016  which has been rolled to counties; and the launch of the National Strategy on CVE among other policy support. Additionally, the evaluation noted that sustainability was integrated in the programme strategy of capacity building to ensure results out-live the programme exit. Implementing partners were found to have the requisite technical and human capacity to continue delivering results as evidenced by how NDMA and NDOC are spearheading the DRR agenda and how they articulated the interventions they are rolling out at the National and County level. Staff at the National Steering Committee that leads the implementation of peace building activities were found to be equally competent and particularly well versed in early warning issues, challenges and opportunities.

6. Monitoring and Management:

The evaluation found that the CPD result framework is largely coherent. CPD coherence was analysed at three levels: (i) assessment of coherence of outcome indicators and targets, (ii) coherence of the output indicators to outcome indicators and (iii) coherence of the outcome targets with outcome indicators.  Indicators were analysed to assess the extent to which they were specific, measureable, realistic and time bound (SMART).  Further, the programme contributes to some UNDAF outcomes that are not part of the current CPD. The evaluation Team found that some CPD output indicators had no baselines, or had inappropriate or over-ambitious targets to monitor progress e.g. output 1.1 under outcome 1. Some of the CPD outcomes are too wordy hence may risk misinterpretation. Whereas the country programme has utilised proxy indicators to measure and facilitate reporting and assessments, this is an anomaly in the results accountability chain that may make UNDP’s claim to certain results tenuous in a sector with many development actors.

7. Gender, capacity building and human rights based approach in programming:

The evaluation found that each outcome area included a component of capacity building at the institutional and individual levels across National, County and Community level interventions. For instance, the programme supported the gender-sensitive Disaster Risk Management Bill and strengthened the capacity of the parliamentary caucus on DRR and Kenya Women Parliamentary Association (KEWOPA). This facilitated the furthering of the DRR policy and legislation agenda and thus, the DRM Bill has been drafted and now awaits reading and enactment. The programme has contributed to advancement of gender mainstreaming and gender equity in a number of ways: In partnership with UN Women, it supported gender mainstreaming and women empowerment at county level, 68 women entrepreneurs were trained and are now positioned to benefit from the 30% Access Government Procurement Opportunities (AGPO) reserved for women, youth and persons with disabilities. The evaluation found this intervention to have made a significant contribution in facilitating women access to meaningful livelihood opportunities and noted the opportunity for scaling up and increase participation of young women.


Recommendations
1

UNDP in the next CPD cycle should define criteria for identification and selection of the most vulnerable groups and counties to work in. This can be done by developing a list of criteria that is to be followed with very specific indicators and parameters for identification of beneficiaries. 

2

There is need for continued support to strengthen the relevant institutions in fulfilling their mandates and in implementing policies, plans and legislation. Programme initiatives should be replicated in other areas where they have performed well in some areas.  Evaluators recommend to UNDP to ensure continuity with previous interventions during project design.

3

The evaluation further recommends that UNDP and its partners find ways of harmonising their M & E systems to support efficiency and learning. The programme should continue supporting financial management and accountability of partners’ capacities to accelerate disbursements and accounting for resources.

4

The good performance of NIM, notwithstanding, the evaluation recommends expanding the partnerships with county governments and CSOs to increase the likelihood of sustainability of results at all levels. Focus being on County level support to ensure devolution gains are sustained.

5

The evaluation recommends that UNDP takes immediate steps to review programme outputs, and indicators to ensure the support for implementation of SDGs is mainstreamed in its programme and that these are aligned to the MTP III priorities and targets.

6

UNDP should identify two or three counties where an integrated area development approach can be piloted in the remaining life of the current CPD and use experiences and lessons learnt for further roll out in the next CPD cycle. Further, the programme should consider working in fewer counties for community level interventions. This will allow for scale and more visible impact.

7

To unlock its potential further in the next CPD cycle, the evaluation recommends that UNDP and its partners should further demonstrate innovation and a holistic approach in programming by exploiting synergies and complementarities. Thus, they will achieve more and enhanced impact of their interventions. Additionally, UNDP should consider adopting a programmatic approach by reducing the number of projects to one or two robust programmes per unit. The approach taken by the Deepening Foundations for Peace building and community security in Kenya 2014-2018 programme can be adopted as appropriate.

8

The evaluation recommends that UNDP and the UNV Programme further cement their partnership and explore opportunities for deploying young graduates and students on attachment to support County Governments and Community level activities, as well as how to work with the National Volunteer Service programme.

9

The UNDP and its partners should invest in baseline and end line surveys to provide a clear measure of the impact of this programme. There is need to commission these in readiness for the completion of the current CPD cycle and planning for the next. This will ensure that the programme is informed by evidence and solid data particularly with regards to levels of vulnerability that factor in environmental fragility elements and enablers for enhancing quality of life; both of which are central to sustainable development and human security.

1. Recommendation:

UNDP in the next CPD cycle should define criteria for identification and selection of the most vulnerable groups and counties to work in. This can be done by developing a list of criteria that is to be followed with very specific indicators and parameters for identification of beneficiaries. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/26]

UNDP is already engaging with counties that are considered to have most vulnerable groups, i.e., the Frontier Counties that have been historically marginalized and have some of the lowest human development indicators and high poverty levels. In the next CPD cycle, UNDP will use the existing Marginalization Policy in identifying and working with most vulnerable groups in specific target areas based on the SDG rallying call to Leave No One Behind (LNOB).

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1. Review the current target groups based on the LNOB criteria taking account the constitutional provisions
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/24]
Head of Programmes (HOP) & SPAU 2018/02 Completed Development of the New UNDAF and CPD (2018-2022) was informed by LNOB analysis involving all stakeholders. See final CPD History
1.2 Develop the criteria for selecting counties and a list of target groups based on the next Country Programme’s Theory of Change
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/24]
HOP/Programme Team Leaders & SPAU 2018/02 Completed The new CPD will be implemented through Area Based Approaches forcusing on the most marginalised communities. See illustration of the 'how' in the attached ToC for the CPD. The elaboration continues as we roll out the CPD. History
2. Recommendation:

There is need for continued support to strengthen the relevant institutions in fulfilling their mandates and in implementing policies, plans and legislation. Programme initiatives should be replicated in other areas where they have performed well in some areas.  Evaluators recommend to UNDP to ensure continuity with previous interventions during project design.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/26]

UNDP will continue supporting key national institutions in the new programme, while leveraging on the previous interventions to ensure sustainability and scaling up as appropriate. However, UNDP will also be open to engage at sub-national level to ensure that policy level engagement can be translated to local interventions that have direct impact on people’s live while ensuring community participation. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1. Scale up successful interventions at national and sub-national levels.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/24]
HOP& Prog. Team Leaders 2018/07 Completed The New CPD focuses on scaling up existing projects at both levels of government. See programme strategy in the new CPD History
2.2. Develop innovative interventions at sub-national levels.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/24]
HOP & Prog. Team Leaders 2018/07 Completed The pipelines under new CPD focuses on building innovative strategies and interventions. See CO pipeline in the CO Profile. History
3. Recommendation:

The evaluation further recommends that UNDP and its partners find ways of harmonising their M & E systems to support efficiency and learning. The programme should continue supporting financial management and accountability of partners’ capacities to accelerate disbursements and accounting for resources.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/26]

UNDP will work to strengthen the internal, national and sub-national M&E systems through human and institutional capacity development support to ensure improved quality programme delivery, managing for results and effective financial reporting.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Support to the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics and the Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate and Council of Governors to ensure constant data collection, analysis and dissemination that is linked to the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
SPAU & HOP 2018/07 Completed CO through the Climate Change and Devolution Projects works closely with KNBS and Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate and Council of Governors on M&E capacity building. History
3.2 Support the full functioning of the Electronic Project Management Information System (E-ProMIS) to enable continuous reporting by partners.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
SPAU & HOP 2018/07 Completed The CO through support to CPD supported training of counterparts on the E-PROMIS. History
3.3 Strengthen M&E capacities within UNDP and Implementing Partners/ Responsible Partners for improved programme delivery and results reporting.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP, Team Leaders & Programme Analysts 2018/07 Completed The CO through its projects has supported M&E training to IPs. History
4. Recommendation:

The good performance of NIM, notwithstanding, the evaluation recommends expanding the partnerships with county governments and CSOs to increase the likelihood of sustainability of results at all levels. Focus being on County level support to ensure devolution gains are sustained.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/26]

UNDP is already working with 29 counties under the current CPD and will continue with such county level engagement in the next Programme. UNDP will develop partnerships with the private sector and foundations in the counties they will be supporting.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1. Review and establish minimum standards of the current county level engagement, with various stakeholders, taking into consideration thematic and geographic focus including availability of resources.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP & Programme Team Leaders 2018/07 Completed The CO has developed a Policy Brief on Area Based Programming that will inform engagement with counties. History
4.2. Create partnerships with private sector and foundations
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP & Programme Team Leaders 2018/07 Completed The CO has established SDG Philanthropy platform History
5. Recommendation:

The evaluation recommends that UNDP takes immediate steps to review programme outputs, and indicators to ensure the support for implementation of SDGs is mainstreamed in its programme and that these are aligned to the MTP III priorities and targets.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/26]

The Country Office is supporting the development of the MTP III, which will mainstream the SDGs, their targets and domesticated indicators. The MTP III will inform the CIDPs and the next UNDAF and subsequently the CPD.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1. Continued participation and support to the MTP III Sector Working Groups
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP & Prog. Team Leaders 2017/12 Completed The CO gave support to the development of the MTP III Concept Note including the incorporation of the SDGs in the MTP III. History
5.2. Support the mainstreaming of SDGs in the MTP III and next generation CIDPs.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
SPAU & HOP 2017/12 Completed The CO supported the development and finalization of the MTP III and CIDPs History
5.3. Ensure that the next CPD is aligned to the MTP III and the UNDAF including the results framework.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP, SPAU& Team Leaders 2017/12 Completed The current CPD is aligned to the MTP III and the UNDAF. See CPD 2018-22. History
6. Recommendation:

UNDP should identify two or three counties where an integrated area development approach can be piloted in the remaining life of the current CPD and use experiences and lessons learnt for further roll out in the next CPD cycle. Further, the programme should consider working in fewer counties for community level interventions. This will allow for scale and more visible impact.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/26]

UNDP is supporting UNCT Area Based Programmes  (Marsabit Cross Border and Turakana County) from which we can draw lessons including utilizing SS/TrC for any future interventions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1. Develop lessons learnt from the Area Based Programmes to inform similar interventions in the next CPD.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP, Team Leaders & Programme Analysts 2018/07 Completed CO has developed Policy Brief on Area Based Programming that will inform the roll-out of the current CPD (2018-2022. History
6.2. Define a strategy for regional economic blocks, to facilitate piloting and testing UNDP integrated delivery and document lessons for scaling and deepening in the subsequent CPD
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP, Team Leaders 2018/01 Completed The Devolution Project has supported the CO develop a draft bill on the Regional Economic Blocs. The CO continues to work with the Frontier County Development Council and also considering engagement with the Lake Basin Regional Economic Blocs. History
7. Recommendation:

To unlock its potential further in the next CPD cycle, the evaluation recommends that UNDP and its partners should further demonstrate innovation and a holistic approach in programming by exploiting synergies and complementarities. Thus, they will achieve more and enhanced impact of their interventions. Additionally, UNDP should consider adopting a programmatic approach by reducing the number of projects to one or two robust programmes per unit. The approach taken by the Deepening Foundations for Peace building and community security in Kenya 2014-2018 programme can be adopted as appropriate.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/26]

The next CPD will take an integrated thematic approach in its interventions. Current projects will be built into new interventions based on this approach.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1. Develop strategic papers along the next CPD thematic areas to guide programme interventions.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP, SPAU, Programme Team Leaders 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated The CO is developing papers on the roll-out of the CPD in line with the CPD. History
8. Recommendation:

The evaluation recommends that UNDP and the UNV Programme further cement their partnership and explore opportunities for deploying young graduates and students on attachment to support County Governments and Community level activities, as well as how to work with the National Volunteer Service programme.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/26]

UNDP will continue working closely with the UNV programme.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
8.1. Develop strategies of deploying UNVs to support UNDP projects.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP, UNV Unit & Programme Team Leaders 2018/07 Completed The CO continues to work with the UNV Programme in the Programme implementation. Currently there are several UNVs supporting the UNDP field projects. History
9. Recommendation:

The UNDP and its partners should invest in baseline and end line surveys to provide a clear measure of the impact of this programme. There is need to commission these in readiness for the completion of the current CPD cycle and planning for the next. This will ensure that the programme is informed by evidence and solid data particularly with regards to levels of vulnerability that factor in environmental fragility elements and enablers for enhancing quality of life; both of which are central to sustainable development and human security.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/07/26]

UNDP will undertake final evaluation of the current CPD and outcome evaluations to develop baseline data for the next CPD.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
9.1. Commission outcome and project level evaluations to develop baselines that will inform future programming
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP, Programme Team Leaders, Prog. Analysts 2018/12 Overdue-Initiated CO has commissioned several project and plans to undertake remaining outcome evaluations as it rolls out the current CPD History
9.2. Undertake poverty and social impact assessments of key projects based in the field.
[Added: 2017/07/26] [Last Updated: 2018/08/27]
HOP, Programme Team Leaders and SPAU 2018/07 No Longer Applicable [Justification: This was not undertaken as planned under the current CPD due resources constraints. The CO hopes to initiate project surveys in the current CPD. ]
History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org