On localising evidence; designing and using impact evaluations to advance the localization agenda requires the UN and its partners to shift power toward local actors, both in defining evaluation priorities and in generating the evidence itself. From my experience supporting MEL across county governments, local CSOs, and community structures, localization succeeds when evaluations are not externally imposed but co-created with those closest to the problem. This begins with jointly defining evaluation questions that reflect community priorities and county development realities, rather than donor-driven assumptions. It also involves investing in the capacities of county departments, local researchers, and grassroots organizations to participate meaningfully in evaluation design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
A particularly important opportunity is the intentional integration of citizen-generated data (CGD), that I have mentioned in a previous post, and locally collected datasets into evaluation frameworks. Many local CSOs like mine, community networks, and think tanks already generate rich and credible data on governance, resilience, gender dynamics, and PCVE indicators. When validated and aligned with national standards, these data sources can complement official statistics, strengthen SDG reporting, and ensure that evaluation findings reflect lived realities. This approach not only accelerates evidence availability but also embodies the principle of “nothing about us without us.”
Localizing evidence also means ensuring that findings are communicated back to communities in accessible formats and used in county-level decision forums such as CIDP reviews, sector working groups, and community dialogues. Furthermore, evaluations should include iterative sense-making sessions with local actors so they can directly shape programme adaptation. Ultimately, localization is not just about generating evidence locally—it is about shifting ownership, elevating local expertise, and ensuring that impact evaluations meaningfully inform policies and programmes at the levels where change is most felt.
RE: Global Impact Evaluation Forum 2025: Forging evidence partnerships for effective action
Kenya
Dennis Ngumi Wangombe
MEL Specialist
CHRIPS
Publicado el 08/12/2025
On localising evidence; designing and using impact evaluations to advance the localization agenda requires the UN and its partners to shift power toward local actors, both in defining evaluation priorities and in generating the evidence itself. From my experience supporting MEL across county governments, local CSOs, and community structures, localization succeeds when evaluations are not externally imposed but co-created with those closest to the problem. This begins with jointly defining evaluation questions that reflect community priorities and county development realities, rather than donor-driven assumptions. It also involves investing in the capacities of county departments, local researchers, and grassroots organizations to participate meaningfully in evaluation design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
A particularly important opportunity is the intentional integration of citizen-generated data (CGD), that I have mentioned in a previous post, and locally collected datasets into evaluation frameworks. Many local CSOs like mine, community networks, and think tanks already generate rich and credible data on governance, resilience, gender dynamics, and PCVE indicators. When validated and aligned with national standards, these data sources can complement official statistics, strengthen SDG reporting, and ensure that evaluation findings reflect lived realities. This approach not only accelerates evidence availability but also embodies the principle of “nothing about us without us.”
Localizing evidence also means ensuring that findings are communicated back to communities in accessible formats and used in county-level decision forums such as CIDP reviews, sector working groups, and community dialogues. Furthermore, evaluations should include iterative sense-making sessions with local actors so they can directly shape programme adaptation. Ultimately, localization is not just about generating evidence locally—it is about shifting ownership, elevating local expertise, and ensuring that impact evaluations meaningfully inform policies and programmes at the levels where change is most felt.