Beyond Doing More with Less: Rethinking the Institutional Foundations of Evaluation under Resource Constraints
The current discussion rightly highlights the consequences of shrinking development and humanitarian budgets for evaluation, accountability and organisational learning. Contributions so far have offered valuable practical suggestions, including prioritising essential evidence, making better use of existing data, strengthening local evaluation capacities, adopting participatory approaches and using digital technologies responsibly.
I would like to extend this discussion by raising a more fundamental question: Are we facing merely a resource problem in evaluation, or does the current funding crisis expose deeper institutional weaknesses in how evaluation is positioned and used within development organisations?
My observation, particularly from development practice and evaluation in South Asian contexts, is that evaluation is still too frequently treated as a project-level requirement rather than an integral institutional function. It is often designed around donor reporting cycles, contractual obligations and predetermined performance indicators. Consequently, when funding becomes uncertain, evaluation budgets are among the first to be reduced. This is not simply because resources are scarce; it also reflects the institutional position that evaluation occupies in organisational priorities and decision-making.
There are three interconnected issues worth considering.
1. From project accountability to institutional accountability
Much of our evaluation practice remains project-centred, even though development outcomes depend on broader institutional relationships, governance arrangements and political and economic conditions. A project may achieve its targets while failing to strengthen the institutions, capacities and relationships necessary to sustain those achievements. Under funding constraints, we therefore need to move beyond asking whether individual projects have delivered their planned outputs. We should also ask whether interventions have strengthened institutional capabilities, improved coordination, addressed power imbalances and contributed to sustainable systems. This shift would help decision-makers distinguish between immediate programme performance and longer-term institutional development.
2. Evidence use is fundamentally a governance issue
Generating credible evidence does not automatically ensure that it will influence decisions. Evidence use depends on who has the authority to act on findings, whether organisational incentives encourage critical reflection, and whether institutions have mechanisms for translating lessons into changes in policies, resource allocation and implementation practices. In some situations, organisations possess substantial evaluation reports and monitoring information but have limited incentives to acknowledge uncomfortable findings or change established practices. Under funding pressure, this tendency can become stronger, as organisations become more concerned with demonstrating compliance and protecting institutional interests. We therefore need to strengthen not only the technical capacity to generate evidence but also the institutional arrangements that make evidence influential. Evaluation should inform decisions at the levels where resources, priorities and institutional practices are determined.
3. Protecting learning and accountability requires rethinking power relationships
An important concern is that accountability often remains predominantly upward-facing, towards donors and funding agencies, rather than equally responsive to national institutions, local organisations and communities. This imbalance becomes particularly consequential when resources decline. Local partners and affected communities may continue to provide information and participate in data collection, while having limited influence over evaluation questions, interpretation of findings and subsequent decisions.
A credible evaluation system must therefore pay attention to the distribution of decision-making authority, responsibilities and benefits among partners. Community participation should not be reduced to consultation or data provision; it should include meaningful opportunities to influence decisions and hold implementing institutions accountable.
Where do we go from here?
I would suggest five practical priorities:
Protect evaluation as an institutional function, rather than treating it as a discretionary project expenditure. Its essential functions should be integrated into organisational planning, budgeting and management systems.
Prioritise strategic evidence rather than maximise data collection. Before commissioning new surveys or evaluations, organisations should systematically review existing evidence, identify critical knowledge gaps and focus new investments on questions that could change important decisions.
Invest in locally embedded evaluation capacities. Universities, national evaluation associations, local research institutions and civil society organisations can play a much stronger role in generating, interpreting and using evidence. Joint evaluations and shared analytical resources can reduce costs while strengthening national ownership.
Institutionalise feedback and learning mechanisms. Regular, relatively low-cost reflection and review processes can help organisations identify implementation problems, examine unintended consequences and adapt interventions without waiting for expensive end-of-project evaluations.
Strengthen the independence and accountability of evaluation. Financial efficiency should never become an excuse for compromising methodological credibility, transparency or the ability to report uncomfortable findings. Accountability must extend beyond funders to the people and institutions affected by development interventions.
Ultimately, I believe the present funding crisis offers an opportunity to rethink the foundations of evaluation itself. We should not simply try to preserve existing evaluation arrangements with fewer resources. We should use this moment to build evaluation systems that are more institutionally embedded, locally owned, politically informed and capable of supporting adaptation.
The real challenge is not simply how to do more evaluation with less money. It is how to ensure that the evidence we generate has the institutional authority, incentives and opportunities necessary to influence decisions and improve development outcomes.
If we succeed in making this transition, evaluation will become less of a reporting obligation and more of an essential part of development governance, institutional accountability and collective learning.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Nepal
Gana Pati Ojha
Community of Evaluators
Posted on 04/11/2026
Beyond Doing More with Less: Rethinking the Institutional Foundations of Evaluation under Resource Constraints
The current discussion rightly highlights the consequences of shrinking development and humanitarian budgets for evaluation, accountability and organisational learning. Contributions so far have offered valuable practical suggestions, including prioritising essential evidence, making better use of existing data, strengthening local evaluation capacities, adopting participatory approaches and using digital technologies responsibly.
I would like to extend this discussion by raising a more fundamental question: Are we facing merely a resource problem in evaluation, or does the current funding crisis expose deeper institutional weaknesses in how evaluation is positioned and used within development organisations?
My observation, particularly from development practice and evaluation in South Asian contexts, is that evaluation is still too frequently treated as a project-level requirement rather than an integral institutional function. It is often designed around donor reporting cycles, contractual obligations and predetermined performance indicators. Consequently, when funding becomes uncertain, evaluation budgets are among the first to be reduced. This is not simply because resources are scarce; it also reflects the institutional position that evaluation occupies in organisational priorities and decision-making.
There are three interconnected issues worth considering.
1. From project accountability to institutional accountability
Much of our evaluation practice remains project-centred, even though development outcomes depend on broader institutional relationships, governance arrangements and political and economic conditions. A project may achieve its targets while failing to strengthen the institutions, capacities and relationships necessary to sustain those achievements. Under funding constraints, we therefore need to move beyond asking whether individual projects have delivered their planned outputs. We should also ask whether interventions have strengthened institutional capabilities, improved coordination, addressed power imbalances and contributed to sustainable systems. This shift would help decision-makers distinguish between immediate programme performance and longer-term institutional development.
2. Evidence use is fundamentally a governance issue
Generating credible evidence does not automatically ensure that it will influence decisions. Evidence use depends on who has the authority to act on findings, whether organisational incentives encourage critical reflection, and whether institutions have mechanisms for translating lessons into changes in policies, resource allocation and implementation practices. In some situations, organisations possess substantial evaluation reports and monitoring information but have limited incentives to acknowledge uncomfortable findings or change established practices. Under funding pressure, this tendency can become stronger, as organisations become more concerned with demonstrating compliance and protecting institutional interests. We therefore need to strengthen not only the technical capacity to generate evidence but also the institutional arrangements that make evidence influential. Evaluation should inform decisions at the levels where resources, priorities and institutional practices are determined.
3. Protecting learning and accountability requires rethinking power relationships
An important concern is that accountability often remains predominantly upward-facing, towards donors and funding agencies, rather than equally responsive to national institutions, local organisations and communities. This imbalance becomes particularly consequential when resources decline. Local partners and affected communities may continue to provide information and participate in data collection, while having limited influence over evaluation questions, interpretation of findings and subsequent decisions.
A credible evaluation system must therefore pay attention to the distribution of decision-making authority, responsibilities and benefits among partners. Community participation should not be reduced to consultation or data provision; it should include meaningful opportunities to influence decisions and hold implementing institutions accountable.
Where do we go from here?
I would suggest five practical priorities:
Ultimately, I believe the present funding crisis offers an opportunity to rethink the foundations of evaluation itself. We should not simply try to preserve existing evaluation arrangements with fewer resources. We should use this moment to build evaluation systems that are more institutionally embedded, locally owned, politically informed and capable of supporting adaptation.
The real challenge is not simply how to do more evaluation with less money. It is how to ensure that the evidence we generate has the institutional authority, incentives and opportunities necessary to influence decisions and improve development outcomes.
If we succeed in making this transition, evaluation will become less of a reporting obligation and more of an essential part of development governance, institutional accountability and collective learning.