RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)

What Needs to Change to Sustain Credible, Independent and Useful Evaluation in Increasingly Resource-Constrained Environments

- By Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje, FAHOA
CEO and Programmes Director, Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA)

Funding for development and health is tightening, and evaluation is usually among the first things to be cut. If we want evaluation to remain credible, independent and useful, we cannot simply do the same with less. We need to change how evaluation is funded, structured, owned and used. From my work in M&E, climate-health systems strengthening, humanitarian engagements and civil society, I see seven changes.

1. PROTECT EVALUATION AS A CORE FUNCTION, NOT AN OPTIONAL EXTRA.
Evaluation should have a ring-fenced share of programme, policy and institutional budgets, set at the design stage. A protected budget line is what keeps evaluation from being the first casualty of a funding squeeze. Donors and governments should treat it as an investment that prevents waste, because a small spend on evidence usually saves far more than it costs.

2. SAFEGUARD INDEPENDENCE THROUGH STRUCTURE, NOT GOODWILL.
Credibility depends on evaluators being free to report what they find. This means:

1. Evaluation functions that report to governing bodies or senior leadership and not to the programme managers being assessed.
2. Funding arrangements that do not allow the commissioner of a programme to control the findings.
3. Clear terms of reference, transparent management responses, and public disclosure of reports and of how recommendations are followed up.

Austerity increases the pressure to produce flattering results, so these protections matter more now.

3. MAKE EVALUATION RIGHT-SIZED, TIMELY AND DECISION-FOCUSED.
Evaluation is also dropped when it is slow, costly and too academic to be used. Evaluators and commissioners should:

1. Start from the decisions that need to be made and the questions decision-makers actually ask.
2. Use lean, mixed-method designs and rapid learning cycles built into routine monitoring.
3. Share findings in forms and at times that match decision calendars.

An evaluation that arrives after the decision has been made is, in practice, wasted.

4. SHIFT LEADERSHIP AND OWNERSHIP TO LOCAL AND NATIONAL ACTORS.
Local, national and civil society evaluators are closer to context and cheaper to sustain. Evaluation systems should be built around:

1. National evaluation capacity, including institutions, voluntary organisations for professional evaluation, and civil society.
2. Evidence generated by communities, including Indigenous knowledge, valued alongside formal data. Community Advisory Boards, such as the one I chair for the VERDI Mpox study, show how accountability to participants builds both legitimacy and data quality.
3. Local ownership of methods and findings and not only participation in tools designed elsewhere.

5. POOL RESOURCES AND COLLABORATE.
No single agency can fund every evaluation. Joint and shared evaluations, common evidence repositories and evidence maps prevent duplication. Commissioners should check what is already known before commissioning anything new. Partnerships across UN agencies, governments, CSOs and academia can share costs and spread skills.

6. USE TECHNOLOGY, INCLUDING AI, TO LOWER COSTS WHILE PROTECTING QUALITY.
AI can reduce the burden of desk reviews, evidence synthesis, translation, analysis of large portfolios and communication products. To keep credibility, we need:

1. Human verification of AI outputs against primary sources, using transparent and replicable methods.
2. Disclosure of when and how AI was used.
3. Safeguards for privacy and data sovereignty, and attention to bias and under-represented languages.
4. Savings reinvested in field engagement and interpretation and not simply banked as cuts.

7. INVEST IN AN EVALUATION CULTURE AND IN THE USE OF FINDINGS.
Evaluation is useful only if people act on it. This calls for:

1. Leaders who ask for evidence and reward learning, including from failure.
2. Management responses and follow-up systems that track whether recommendations were implemented.
3. Evaluation and data-use skills for programme managers and policymakers, as well as for evaluators.
4. Professional standards, ethics and, where appropriate, accreditation, so that quality does not erode as budgets shrink.

THE UNDERLYING SHIFT

Many of these changes come down to one: moving from evaluation as a compliance exercise done to programmes to evaluation as a shared learning system owned by those who deliver and those who are served. That system is cheaper to sustain, harder to dismiss and more likely to be used. It is also consistent with my guiding principle that tools and systems alike must serve equity, justice and sustainable development. 

AHOA is ready to contribute through its network of more than 3,000 organisations across 113 countries, its community engagement experience and its M&E expertise.

Dr. Uzodinma Akujekwe Adirieje, FAHOA

CEO and Programmes Director, Afrihealth Optonet Association (AHOA)

2026 EvalforEarth Champion | President, African Refugees Council (ARC)

Abuja, Nigeria | afrepton@gmail.com | ceo@afrihealthcsos.org | www.afrihealthcsos.org

+234 80 347 25 905