1.3 Evaluation limitations

The evaluation relied on information collected from different sources and then triangulated:

• A review of UNDP strategic and programme documents, project documents and monitoring reports, decentralized and external evaluations,3 research papers and other available country-related publications. The main documents consulted by the evaluation team are listed in Annex 4, available online.

An internal audit was conducted during the final stages of the ICPE, and the evaluation team had the opportunity to view its findings. • An analysis of the programme portfolio and the development of theories of change by programme area, to map the projects implemented against the goals set in the CPD. The evaluation covered all projects implemented during the CPD period (this list is presented in Annex 5 online). • Online and telephone interviews with 91 stakeholders, including UNDP staff, government representatives, United Nations country team representatives, development partners, civil society organizations (CSOs) and academia. The interviews were used to collect data and assess stakeholder perceptions of the scope and effectiveness of programme interventions, determine factors affecting performance, and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the UNDP programme. A full list of interviewees is available in Annex 3 online.

The draft ICPE report was quality-assured by two external reviewers and the IEO internal peer review, then submitted to the country office and the Regional Bureau for Africa for identification of factual errors and comments, and then shared with the Government and other national partners.

With the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the ICPE team had to conduct the evaluation remotely, adapting its methodology to rely more on an expanded desk review of available material and conducting online and telephone consultations, complemented by email exchanges with stakeholders. To further mitigate these challenges, the evaluation team broadened the scope and depth of its secondary data review by including external reviews, assessments and evaluations and country progress reports, to cross-reference the data and validate findings. However, this was a challenge as a full catalogue of background documentation, including monitoring data, was not available for all projects and programmes, nor was this supplied to the team in a timely manner. The quality of these reports was also an issue, as reflected as a finding of this report. The evaluation engaged a consultant based in Kenya with the aim of incorporating extensive direct observations of UNDP work in the country, but this was not possible due to local restrictions. Despite this, the consultant’s knowledge of the country context mitigated the restrictions on travel.

3 Sixteen decentralized evaluations were conducted in the period under consideration.