In my experience working in monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) across health and development programmes, funding constraints rarely eliminate the need for evidence. Instead, they often change how organisations generate and use it.
One of the most noticeable effects is the growing emphasis on accountability over learning. When resources are limited, organizations understandably prioritize donor reporting and compliance requirements. While these functions are important, learning activities such as reflection sessions, outcome assessments and evaluations are often postponed or scaled back. As a result, organizations may become better at reporting results than at understanding why those results were achieved and how performance can be improved.
Beyond learning, funding constraints can also affect accountability. When resources for evaluation and reflection are reduced, organizations may have fewer opportunities to systematically assess whether programmes are meeting the needs and priorities of the communities they aim to serve.
Funding constraints can also reduce the scope of evaluation. In many cases, organizations rely more heavily on routine monitoring data and conduct fewer in-depth studies. While this may provide sufficient information for reporting purposes, it can limit deeper insights into effectiveness, sustainability and unintended outcomes.
At the same time, financial pressure can create an opportunity to rethink evaluation practice. Rather than collecting more data, organizations are often compelled to make better use of existing information. This can encourage more focused evaluations, stronger integration of learning into routine management processes and greater attention to evidence that directly informs decisions.
In my view, the greatest risk is not conducting fewer evaluations. It is losing the space for reflection and learning that enables organizations to adapt. In resource-constrained environments, evidence becomes more valuable, not less, because decisions about priorities, investments and programme design carry even greater consequences.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Kenya
JACKLINE MUSUYA
Monitoring and Evaluation Lead
Hewatele Limited
Posted on 13/10/2026
In my experience working in monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) across health and development programmes, funding constraints rarely eliminate the need for evidence. Instead, they often change how organisations generate and use it.
One of the most noticeable effects is the growing emphasis on accountability over learning. When resources are limited, organizations understandably prioritize donor reporting and compliance requirements. While these functions are important, learning activities such as reflection sessions, outcome assessments and evaluations are often postponed or scaled back. As a result, organizations may become better at reporting results than at understanding why those results were achieved and how performance can be improved.
Beyond learning, funding constraints can also affect accountability. When resources for evaluation and reflection are reduced, organizations may have fewer opportunities to systematically assess whether programmes are meeting the needs and priorities of the communities they aim to serve.
Funding constraints can also reduce the scope of evaluation. In many cases, organizations rely more heavily on routine monitoring data and conduct fewer in-depth studies. While this may provide sufficient information for reporting purposes, it can limit deeper insights into effectiveness, sustainability and unintended outcomes.
At the same time, financial pressure can create an opportunity to rethink evaluation practice. Rather than collecting more data, organizations are often compelled to make better use of existing information. This can encourage more focused evaluations, stronger integration of learning into routine management processes and greater attention to evidence that directly informs decisions.
In my view, the greatest risk is not conducting fewer evaluations. It is losing the space for reflection and learning that enables organizations to adapt. In resource-constrained environments, evidence becomes more valuable, not less, because decisions about priorities, investments and programme design carry even greater consequences.