Week 1 summary and introduction to Week 2: Adaptations and practical solutions
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to our joint EvalforEarth and ALNAP discussion on Evaluation under pressure: Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints.
As we conclude Week 1, several key messages have emerged from the discussion.
First, funding constraints are affecting not only the scope and frequency of evaluations but also institutional capacities, opportunities for learning and accountability to affected communities. As Janet Awopole Yepakeh Tiah observed, “Less data does not mean fewer problems. It means problems we cannot see, and progress we cannot prove.”
Second, several contributors emphasised the need to rethink evaluation approaches rather than simply reduce activities. Wilbert Marimira, Jean Eudes Nguessan Beugre and Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje shared perspectives on prioritising essential evidence, strengthening local capacities and maintaining community participation.
Third, Anoop Sharma and Ayuk James Ebot highlighted opportunities to use existing evidence and responsible AI applications to improve efficiency, while safeguarding evaluation quality and credibility. As Ayuk put it, “doing more with less” must mean doing things differently, not doing the same things poorly.
Jackline Musuya raised concerns about the growing emphasis on compliance at the expense of learning, while Ian Goldman drew attention to the need to rethink the broader evaluation ecosystem. Mae Albiento reminded us of the importance of keeping local actors and affected communities at the centre of evaluation.
The emerging message is clear: reducing evaluation costs should not mean compromising evidence quality, independence, learning or accountability.
Week 2: Adaptations and practical solutions
We now turn from identifying the challenges to examining what organisations and evaluators are doing in response.
Our guiding question for Week 2 is: How have you or your organisation adapted evaluation and learning practices to respond to funding and resource constraints?
We particularly welcome practical examples of approaches that have worked, lessons from those that have not, and reflections on how organisations are balancing cost, quality, independence and accountability.
Thanks to Mae Albiento, Jackline Musuya, Janet Awopole Yepakeh Tiah, Wilbert Marimira, Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje, Jean Eudes Nguessan Beugre, Anoop Sharma, Ayuk James Ebot and Ian Goldman for sharing their experiences and perspectives.
I encourage colleagues to build on these contributions, engage directly with one another and bring in experiences from other institutional and country contexts.
The discussion remains open until 10 November 2026. We welcome your contributions.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Zimbabwe
Chamisa Innocent
EvalforEarth CoP Facilitator/Coordinator
EvalforEarth CoP
Posted on 19/10/2026
Week 1 summary and introduction to Week 2: Adaptations and practical solutions
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to our joint EvalforEarth and ALNAP discussion on Evaluation under pressure: Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints.
As we conclude Week 1, several key messages have emerged from the discussion.
First, funding constraints are affecting not only the scope and frequency of evaluations but also institutional capacities, opportunities for learning and accountability to affected communities. As Janet Awopole Yepakeh Tiah observed, “Less data does not mean fewer problems. It means problems we cannot see, and progress we cannot prove.”
Second, several contributors emphasised the need to rethink evaluation approaches rather than simply reduce activities. Wilbert Marimira, Jean Eudes Nguessan Beugre and Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje shared perspectives on prioritising essential evidence, strengthening local capacities and maintaining community participation.
Third, Anoop Sharma and Ayuk James Ebot highlighted opportunities to use existing evidence and responsible AI applications to improve efficiency, while safeguarding evaluation quality and credibility. As Ayuk put it, “doing more with less” must mean doing things differently, not doing the same things poorly.
Jackline Musuya raised concerns about the growing emphasis on compliance at the expense of learning, while Ian Goldman drew attention to the need to rethink the broader evaluation ecosystem. Mae Albiento reminded us of the importance of keeping local actors and affected communities at the centre of evaluation.
The emerging message is clear: reducing evaluation costs should not mean compromising evidence quality, independence, learning or accountability.
Week 2: Adaptations and practical solutions
We now turn from identifying the challenges to examining what organisations and evaluators are doing in response.
Our guiding question for Week 2 is: How have you or your organisation adapted evaluation and learning practices to respond to funding and resource constraints?
We particularly welcome practical examples of approaches that have worked, lessons from those that have not, and reflections on how organisations are balancing cost, quality, independence and accountability.
Thanks to Mae Albiento, Jackline Musuya, Janet Awopole Yepakeh Tiah, Wilbert Marimira, Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje, Jean Eudes Nguessan Beugre, Anoop Sharma, Ayuk James Ebot and Ian Goldman for sharing their experiences and perspectives.
I encourage colleagues to build on these contributions, engage directly with one another and bring in experiences from other institutional and country contexts.
The discussion remains open until 10 November 2026. We welcome your contributions.