Week 2 summary and introduction to Week 3: What are the risks of excluding evaluative evidence from strategic and operational decision-making, particularly in resource-constrained environments?
Overall, Week 2 contributions show that organisations are finding ways to adapt to the funding constraints: being more selective about what they evaluate, asking more focused evaluation questions, making better use of existing data, using digital tools and remote data collection, drawing on local expertise and knowledge, embedding evaluation in programme management, and finding practical ways to make findings more accessible and actionable.
Here, we highlight three key messages:
It’s not about doing less evaluation, but being smarter and strategic about what we evaluate. As Diene Ndiaye, Stephanie Jill Hodge and Rhode Early Charles highlighted, limited budgets make it even more important to focus on the questions that matter, make better use of existing data and avoid duplication. The goal is to do less where necessary, without losing the evidence needed to make good decisions.
Local knowledge and collaboration are part of the solution. Eriasafu Lubowa, Wilbert Marimira and Ayuk James Ebot shared how peer reviews, local expertise and community-led approaches can make evaluation more affordable while keeping it grounded in people’s realities. These approaches can also build local capacity and ensure that community perspectives are not lost when resources are stretched.
Evidence only matters if we actually use it. Leandre Kouotou Ngoucheme, Eriasafu Lubowa and Diene Ndiaye highlighted the value of digital monitoring, practical recommendations and targeted dissemination of findings. When budgets are tight, evaluation needs to do more than produce reports; it needs to help organisations adapt, make better decisions and learn from both successes and failures.
But doing evaluation with fewer resources shouldn't mean losing sight of what makes it valuable. Even with fewer resources, organisations need evidence they can trust, learning that leads to action, and approaches that take seriously the knowledge and experiences of local actors and affected communities.
The discussion therefore raises an important question for organisations and donors alike: when evaluation budgets shrink, how can we protect the core functions of evaluation—credible evidence, accountability to affected people, independent scrutiny and organisational learning—while changing the way we deliver them?
And so, for our Week 3 discussion, we focus our attention on the risks of limited evidence use.
Our guiding question for this week is:
What are the risks of excluding evaluative evidence from strategic and operational decision-making, particularly in resource-constrained environments?
I encourage everyone to build on the contributions from Weeks 1 & 2 and continue to engage directly with one another. We look forward to reading your insights and experiences. The discussion will be open until 10 November 2026.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Philippines
Mae Albiento
Research Officer
ALNAP
Posted on 26/10/2026
Week 2 summary and introduction to Week 3: What are the risks of excluding evaluative evidence from strategic and operational decision-making, particularly in resource-constrained environments?
Many thanks to all who contributed on our second week of the discussion: Wilbert Marimira, MUKUNZI Olivier, Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje, Eriasafu Lubowa, Abdoul Aziz Bonkoungou, Ayuk James Ebot, Diene Ndiaye, Stephanie Jill Hodge, LEANDRE KOUOTOU NGOUCHEME, Rhode Early Charles, and Atta B. Jacob KOBENAN (PhD).
Overall, Week 2 contributions show that organisations are finding ways to adapt to the funding constraints: being more selective about what they evaluate, asking more focused evaluation questions, making better use of existing data, using digital tools and remote data collection, drawing on local expertise and knowledge, embedding evaluation in programme management, and finding practical ways to make findings more accessible and actionable.
Here, we highlight three key messages:
But doing evaluation with fewer resources shouldn't mean losing sight of what makes it valuable. Even with fewer resources, organisations need evidence they can trust, learning that leads to action, and approaches that take seriously the knowledge and experiences of local actors and affected communities.
The discussion therefore raises an important question for organisations and donors alike: when evaluation budgets shrink, how can we protect the core functions of evaluation—credible evidence, accountability to affected people, independent scrutiny and organisational learning—while changing the way we deliver them?
And so, for our Week 3 discussion, we focus our attention on the risks of limited evidence use.
Our guiding question for this week is:
What are the risks of excluding evaluative evidence from strategic and operational decision-making, particularly in resource-constrained environments?
I encourage everyone to build on the contributions from Weeks 1 & 2 and continue to engage directly with one another. We look forward to reading your insights and experiences. The discussion will be open until 10 November 2026.