Abstract Information: Kenya National Monitoring and Evaluation Policy 2022 has undergone a series of metamorphosis from the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) in 2000, the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS) in 2003, the National Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES), the National Monitoring and Evaluation Policy in 2012, and finally the Kenya National Monitoring and Evaluation Policy in 2022. This poster presentation seeks to tell the national evaluation policy (NEP) chronological and metamorphic story leading to the current M&E institutionalization status in Kenya. The general objective is to contribute to the national evaluation policy body of knowledge and nurture the discourse on continued evaluation institutionalization in Africa. Methodologically, this presentation will use grey literature and document analyses with authors' literature interpretations and reviews. The literature on NEPs in Africa will provide helpful insights into Kenya's NEP contextualization and comparisons. The document analysis will help build the story of how NEP happens and the dynamics of policy promulgation, analyses, and repeals. The presentation will highlight the different policy instrument features and draw comparisons with the current policy. The poster will emphasize the 2012 and 2022 policies and how they relate to emerging evaluation themes and knowledge. For relevance to the existing evaluation policy knowledge, this paper will consider Kinarsky and Christie’s Revised Evaluation Policy Taxonomies to highlight the policy relevance.
Relevance Statement: Evaluation policy is “any written document that details an organization’s rules and principles for evaluation practice, regardless of whether policy implementation is encouraged or enforced” Kinarsky and Christie (2022, p. 177). This paper concurs with Christie and Lemire (2019, p. 506), who argue that "for an evaluation policy to be a policy, it needs to be formal, explicit, and written"; suitable for government policy instruments such as national evaluation policies (NEPs). The policies outline the government's intentions to implement evaluation guidelines and influence practice and national evaluation capacity, particularly in public agencies. The National Treasury and Planning lists, among other justifications, weak policy and legal framework for M&E optimization in Kenya, non-compliant public agencies and weak evaluative thinking, uncoordinated national M&E reporting and data collection structures, and inadequate evaluation capacity and low utilization, as justifications for the policy. Additionally, Kenya launched its NEP during heightened national evaluation policy interests in sub-Saharan Africa, including varying policy promulgation and implementation statuses in South Africa, Benin, Uganda, Zambia, Tanzania, and Ghana. Further, continental national evaluation systems (NESs) institutionalization efforts encompass M&E coordination agencies, the legislatures, civil society organizations and voluntary organizations of professional evaluators (VOPEs), and a conducive environment for policy promulgation and implementation. Justifiably, research on evaluation policy is still in the formative stage and receives less attention among evaluators and researchers (Hart & Mark, 2022; Trochim, 2009). Mark and Hart (2022, p. 116) add that "the relative inattention to evaluation policy is unfortunate and perhaps surprising," yet evaluation influences government program designs and decisions. Strong evaluation systems lead to better governance, accountability, evidence-based decision-making, transparency and accountability, and stakeholder empowerment (Chirau et al., 2022; Dlakavu et al., 2021). Some African governments like South Africa, Uganda, Benin, Senegal, Kenya, and Ghana have institutionalized evaluation systems, while others such as Tanzania, Madagascar, Lesotho, Zambia, and Namibia follow (Chirau et al., 2022; Porter & Goldman, 2013). Despite the growing interest, NEP systematization and institutionalization rates in Africa are “progressing relatively slowly” (Chirau et al., 2021, p. 1). Additionally, challenges like inadequate technical capacity, inadequate funding, limited evaluation utilization, inadequate capacity to make follow-ups, over reliance on monitoring, and inadequate evaluative thinking still bedevil evaluation practice (Chirau et al., 2022). The intended outcome is a broadened perspective on national evaluation policy processes and their evolution. Telling this story contributes to a doctoral dissertation on national evaluation policy processes and dynamics. A better understanding of government workings helps institutionalize evaluation in the government and better evaluation capacity building and utilization. Overall, conference feedback and lessons learned will help improve the study design and clarify the essence of institutionalized national evaluation systems.
