Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL) and Reporting Expert
Posted on 21/10/2026
I have two opinions to share regarding the adaptation of evaluation and learning practices in light of the current financial uncertainty. Thanks to the members for their views on the Week 1 topic.
First, promoting peer evaluation within the organization’s network. Over the years, I have learned that development and humanitarian organizations often hire experienced full-time M&E staff. However, they spend additional money on expensively contracted external evaluators. Sometimes these are even global consultants because the contracting organization wants independent and trusted feedback. But this comes at a high cost, even as high as $100,000 USD. Moreover, if the feedback uptake mechanism and culture are weak, the evaluation findings, lessons, and recommendations will not be used to their fullest extent. I think that evaluation practice, in its true sense, requires more than just investing money in evaluation expertise. I have advocated for the organization to develop a network of evaluators comprising key internal M&E staff, researchers, and other M&E staff, and have suggested establishing an ad hoc, standby evaluation team. Relevant people who can always team up when needed to conduct an evaluation. To avoid potential biases and conflicts of interest, the organization conducting the evaluation would invest more in strengthening its evaluation process management, facilitation, and quality assurance. It would leverage its internal M&E expertise rather than fully contracting evaluators. Although this adaptation is still far-fetched, for me, the peer approach in evaluation will not only reduce the substantial costs of externally contracted evaluations but also enhance peer learning within the network while maintaining accountability.
Second, mixing short- and long-term, cost-effective evaluation recommendations. I always ensure that the evaluations I lead generate actionable feedback, with at least more than 50% of the evaluation recommendations feasible for immediate, cost-effective management response. This is different from when all the recommendations (which usually require more time) call for large amounts of money to accomplish. No wonder: from personal experience, not many organizations put as much effort into the Management Response Plan after an evaluation as they do into the evaluation itself. Integrating short- and long-term, cost-effective evaluation recommendations will give the organization room to spend smaller amounts, first on cost-effective actions.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Uganda
Eriasafu Lubowa
Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL) and Reporting Expert
Posted on 21/10/2026
I have two opinions to share regarding the adaptation of evaluation and learning practices in light of the current financial uncertainty. Thanks to the members for their views on the Week 1 topic.
First, promoting peer evaluation within the organization’s network. Over the years, I have learned that development and humanitarian organizations often hire experienced full-time M&E staff. However, they spend additional money on expensively contracted external evaluators. Sometimes these are even global consultants because the contracting organization wants independent and trusted feedback. But this comes at a high cost, even as high as $100,000 USD. Moreover, if the feedback uptake mechanism and culture are weak, the evaluation findings, lessons, and recommendations will not be used to their fullest extent. I think that evaluation practice, in its true sense, requires more than just investing money in evaluation expertise. I have advocated for the organization to develop a network of evaluators comprising key internal M&E staff, researchers, and other M&E staff, and have suggested establishing an ad hoc, standby evaluation team. Relevant people who can always team up when needed to conduct an evaluation. To avoid potential biases and conflicts of interest, the organization conducting the evaluation would invest more in strengthening its evaluation process management, facilitation, and quality assurance. It would leverage its internal M&E expertise rather than fully contracting evaluators. Although this adaptation is still far-fetched, for me, the peer approach in evaluation will not only reduce the substantial costs of externally contracted evaluations but also enhance peer learning within the network while maintaining accountability.
Second, mixing short- and long-term, cost-effective evaluation recommendations. I always ensure that the evaluations I lead generate actionable feedback, with at least more than 50% of the evaluation recommendations feasible for immediate, cost-effective management response. This is different from when all the recommendations (which usually require more time) call for large amounts of money to accomplish. No wonder: from personal experience, not many organizations put as much effort into the Management Response Plan after an evaluation as they do into the evaluation itself. Integrating short- and long-term, cost-effective evaluation recommendations will give the organization room to spend smaller amounts, first on cost-effective actions.