Monitoring, Evaluation and Gender Consultant/Trainer
Posted on 27/10/2026
Thank you to EvalforEarth and ALNAP. This is a timely and very relevant discussion.
The shrinking of finances is affecting organization including humanitarian, development and Civil societies hence the fundamental questions about the sustainability of evaluation systems, particularly in low and middle-income countries.
From my experience working across health systems, climate change, gender equality, education, humanitarian programs and institutional capacity strengthening in Africa, I believe the challenge is not simply how to conduct evaluations with fewer resources, but how to sustain the value, credibility and use of evaluation when resources are shrinking.
A few highlights come to mind.
Evaluation aspects should not always be the first casualty of funding cuts.
Depending on different leadership, where resources are perceived to have declined, evaluation, and learning activities are often the first to be reduced or completely eliminated. Yet these are the moments when organizations need credible evidence to determine the interventions that could affect life, those that deliver results, areas where resources are being wasted, areas that need interventions to be adapted and areas that can wait for a Phase in process and programmes to be sustained.
Funding constraints should not compromise ethics, quality and independence
In resource-constrained environments, there may be pressure to reduce sample sizes, shorten data collection periods, rely on virtual data collection or limit engagement and FPIC with communities. This could improve efficiency, but will weaken the credibility and inclusiveness of evaluation findings. And especially on vulnerable populations, marginalized communities and hard-to-reach areas, where meaningful participation requires additional time and resources.
Local evaluators and organizations should not be overlooked
Declining evaluation budgets usually leads to the transfer of financial and operational risks to national evaluators, local consultancy firms and community-based organizations. They may be expected to deliver complex evaluations within compressed timelines and reduced budgets, while still meeting international quality standards. This raises the questions of fairness, equitable partnerships and localization.
Demonstrate that evaluation is an investment in better decisions, not merely a compliance requirement
As our forefathers said, never waste a crisis; seize it as an opportunity. The funding pressures could be used to strengthen the connection between evaluation evidence and strategic decision-making. Evaluators need to communicate not only on what is achieved, but also how the findings influence resource allocation, adaptation, institutional learning and accountability to affected populations.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Kenya
Eddah Kanini (Board member: IDEAS, AGDEN & MEPAK. Former Board member AfrEA 2021-2026
Monitoring, Evaluation and Gender Consultant/Trainer
Posted on 27/10/2026
Thank you to EvalforEarth and ALNAP. This is a timely and very relevant discussion.
The shrinking of finances is affecting organization including humanitarian, development and Civil societies hence the fundamental questions about the sustainability of evaluation systems, particularly in low and middle-income countries.
From my experience working across health systems, climate change, gender equality, education, humanitarian programs and institutional capacity strengthening in Africa, I believe the challenge is not simply how to conduct evaluations with fewer resources, but how to sustain the value, credibility and use of evaluation when resources are shrinking.
A few highlights come to mind.
Evaluation aspects should not always be the first casualty of funding cuts.
Depending on different leadership, where resources are perceived to have declined, evaluation, and learning activities are often the first to be reduced or completely eliminated. Yet these are the moments when organizations need credible evidence to determine the interventions that could affect life, those that deliver results, areas where resources are being wasted, areas that need interventions to be adapted and areas that can wait for a Phase in process and programmes to be sustained.
Funding constraints should not compromise ethics, quality and independence
In resource-constrained environments, there may be pressure to reduce sample sizes, shorten data collection periods, rely on virtual data collection or limit engagement and FPIC with communities. This could improve efficiency, but will weaken the credibility and inclusiveness of evaluation findings. And especially on vulnerable populations, marginalized communities and hard-to-reach areas, where meaningful participation requires additional time and resources.
Local evaluators and organizations should not be overlooked
Declining evaluation budgets usually leads to the transfer of financial and operational risks to national evaluators, local consultancy firms and community-based organizations. They may be expected to deliver complex evaluations within compressed timelines and reduced budgets, while still meeting international quality standards. This raises the questions of fairness, equitable partnerships and localization.
Demonstrate that evaluation is an investment in better decisions, not merely a compliance requirement
As our forefathers said, never waste a crisis; seize it as an opportunity. The funding pressures could be used to strengthen the connection between evaluation evidence and strategic decision-making. Evaluators need to communicate not only on what is achieved, but also how the findings influence resource allocation, adaptation, institutional learning and accountability to affected populations.