Three key risks are emerging from the contributions:
Poor programmes and wasted resources: Without evidence, organizations may continue ineffective or poorly targeted programmes, overlook operational realities, and miss opportunities to adapt. As Jackline Musuya warns, organizations may keep investing in approaches that “appear successful in activity reports but produce limited meaningful change.”
Exclusion and weakened accountability: Marginalized communities may be overlooked, beneficiary feedback may not influence decisions, and reduced participation can undermine ethics, quality, independence, and trust. Richard Tinsley points out that while evaluation should be “ultimate voice of the beneficiaries,” they often have limited opportunity to input on the performance of the programmes.
Lost learning and repeated mistakes: Weak documentation and evidence use can also cause organizations to lose institutional knowledge, repeat implementation failures, and make increasingly costly mistakes. As Juliana Adjem Anchang cautions, excluding evidence risks “repeating ineffective approaches” and “missing opportunities for program adaptation and improvement.”
I also want to highlight what Eddah Kanini said about how funding cuts put local evaluators and organizations at risk: “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.”
With this, we now continue to our Week 4 of the discussion where we focus on looking ahead. Our final question is:
What needs to change to sustain credible, independent, and useful evaluation in increasingly resource-constrained environments?
I invite everyone to share your insights and experiences. Your practical examples, challenges and proposed solutions can help identify collective priorities and inspire action across the evaluation community.
Everyone is also still welcome to continue sharing your thoughts on our three earlier discussion questions. We look forward to reading your insights and experiences. The discussion will be open until 10 November 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?
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.
Thanks for sharing your reflection, Jean. You are right! With limited resources, organisations need to be even more strategic and thoughtful about what they evaluate and what information is most needed to make better decisions. And I guess the bigger challenge here is making sure that, even if we are trying to do more with less, we don't lose sight of the people and communities the programmes are meant to serve. As you said, their knowledge and perspectives should shape what we evaluate and also the decisions we make after.
I am curious to know how organisations have continued to center local actors, especially people and communities affected by crisis, in their evaluations in these challenging times. Please share your experiences, challenges and lessons.
I am Mae Albiento, a researcher at ALNAP, the global network for advancing humanitarian learning. We are delighted to collaborate with EvalforEarth for this timely and important discussion. I am looking forward to co-facilitating this conversation and to learning with and from all of you.
Over the next few weeks, we will be exploring the impacts of funding constraints on evaluation, learning and accountability, and what these changes mean for our work as evaluators. We know many of you are navigating difficult choices so this is a valuable opportunity to exchange experiences and learn from one another. This space is intended to be open, informal and collaborative and so we encourage you to share your reflections, examples from your context, questions or uncertainties.
To get us started for the first week, we invite you to reflect on our first discussion question:
How have funding or resource constraints affected evaluation, learning and accountability processes in your organisation or context? What has changed in practice, particularly regarding evaluation scope, methods, staffing, frequency, evidence use or engagement with local and national actors?
Please feel free to share a concrete example, experience or reflection from your own work. If possible, please also briefly introduce yourself and indicate your sector or area of work, as this will help us better understand the range of perspectives represented in the discussion.
Thank you for you joining us. We’re looking forward to a thoughtful and rich exchange of ideas and perspectives!
Philippines
Mae Albiento
Research Officer
ALNAP
Posted on 03/11/2026
Many thanks to Richard Tinsley, QueenMakarie Constance Jerome, Juliana Adjem Anchang, Eddah Kanini, and JACKLINE MUSUYA for sharing such thoughtful contributions for our Week 3 discussion on the risks of limited evidence use.
Three key risks are emerging from the contributions:
I also want to highlight what Eddah Kanini said about how funding cuts put local evaluators and organizations at risk: “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.”
With this, we now continue to our Week 4 of the discussion where we focus on looking ahead. Our final question is:
What needs to change to sustain credible, independent, and useful evaluation in increasingly resource-constrained environments?
I invite everyone to share your insights and experiences. Your practical examples, challenges and proposed solutions can help identify collective priorities and inspire action across the evaluation community.
Everyone is also still welcome to continue sharing your thoughts on our three earlier discussion questions. We look forward to reading your insights and experiences. The discussion will be open until 10 November 2026.
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.
Philippines
Mae Albiento
Research Officer
ALNAP
Posted on 14/10/2026
Thanks for sharing your reflection, Jean. You are right! With limited resources, organisations need to be even more strategic and thoughtful about what they evaluate and what information is most needed to make better decisions. And I guess the bigger challenge here is making sure that, even if we are trying to do more with less, we don't lose sight of the people and communities the programmes are meant to serve. As you said, their knowledge and perspectives should shape what we evaluate and also the decisions we make after.
I am curious to know how organisations have continued to center local actors, especially people and communities affected by crisis, in their evaluations in these challenging times. Please share your experiences, challenges and lessons.
Philippines
Mae Albiento
Research Officer
ALNAP
Posted on 09/10/2026
Hello everyone,
I am Mae Albiento, a researcher at ALNAP, the global network for advancing humanitarian learning. We are delighted to collaborate with EvalforEarth for this timely and important discussion. I am looking forward to co-facilitating this conversation and to learning with and from all of you.
Over the next few weeks, we will be exploring the impacts of funding constraints on evaluation, learning and accountability, and what these changes mean for our work as evaluators. We know many of you are navigating difficult choices so this is a valuable opportunity to exchange experiences and learn from one another. This space is intended to be open, informal and collaborative and so we encourage you to share your reflections, examples from your context, questions or uncertainties.
To get us started for the first week, we invite you to reflect on our first discussion question:
How have funding or resource constraints affected evaluation, learning and accountability processes in your organisation or context? What has changed in practice, particularly regarding evaluation scope, methods, staffing, frequency, evidence use or engagement with local and national actors?
Please feel free to share a concrete example, experience or reflection from your own work. If possible, please also briefly introduce yourself and indicate your sector or area of work, as this will help us better understand the range of perspectives represented in the discussion.
Thank you for you joining us. We’re looking forward to a thoughtful and rich exchange of ideas and perspectives!