In resource-constrained environments, excluding evaluative evidence from strategic and operational decisions creates more than an information gap. It increases the risk that already limited resources will be directed towards interventions that are ineffective, poorly targeted or unresponsive to changing needs.
One major risk is the continuation of activities based on assumptions rather than demonstrated results. Without evidence on implementation challenges, unintended outcomes and community experiences, organisations may continue investing in approaches that appear successful in activity reports but produce limited meaningful change.
A second risk is that the needs of less visible groups may be overlooked. Routine administrative data often capture what is easiest to count, while evaluations can reveal differences in access, participation and outcomes across locations and population groups. When evaluative evidence is excluded, decisions may favour well-documented needs while marginalising communities whose experiences are poorly represented in existing information systems.
Limited evidence use also weakens organisational learning. Teams may repeat implementation problems, lose valuable lessons when programmes close and struggle to explain why particular results were achieved. Under financial pressure, such mistakes become more costly because organisations have less capacity to absorb ineffective spending.
Finally, excluding evaluation findings can weaken accountability. Communities may provide feedback without seeing how their contributions influence programme decisions, while management responses and follow-up actions remain undocumented.
The solution is not necessarily to conduct more evaluations. It is to protect the use of essential evidence by integrating evaluation findings into planning meetings, resource-allocation decisions, risk reviews and management-response processes. When resources are scarce, evidence should become more influential, not less.
RE: Evaluation under pressure : Strengthening evidence use, accountability and learning amidst funding constraints (Joint EvalforEarth-ALNAP discussion)
Kenya
JACKLINE MUSUYA
Monitoring and Evaluation Lead
Hewatele Limited
Posté le 27/10/2026
In resource-constrained environments, excluding evaluative evidence from strategic and operational decisions creates more than an information gap. It increases the risk that already limited resources will be directed towards interventions that are ineffective, poorly targeted or unresponsive to changing needs.
One major risk is the continuation of activities based on assumptions rather than demonstrated results. Without evidence on implementation challenges, unintended outcomes and community experiences, organisations may continue investing in approaches that appear successful in activity reports but produce limited meaningful change.
A second risk is that the needs of less visible groups may be overlooked. Routine administrative data often capture what is easiest to count, while evaluations can reveal differences in access, participation and outcomes across locations and population groups. When evaluative evidence is excluded, decisions may favour well-documented needs while marginalising communities whose experiences are poorly represented in existing information systems.
Limited evidence use also weakens organisational learning. Teams may repeat implementation problems, lose valuable lessons when programmes close and struggle to explain why particular results were achieved. Under financial pressure, such mistakes become more costly because organisations have less capacity to absorb ineffective spending.
Finally, excluding evaluation findings can weaken accountability. Communities may provide feedback without seeing how their contributions influence programme decisions, while management responses and follow-up actions remain undocumented.
The solution is not necessarily to conduct more evaluations. It is to protect the use of essential evidence by integrating evaluation findings into planning meetings, resource-allocation decisions, risk reviews and management-response processes. When resources are scarce, evidence should become more influential, not less.