Evaluation and learning in grant management focus on understanding what is working, what is not, and how programmes can continuously improve. Rather than treating evaluation as a purely reporting exercise, it becomes a collaborative process that supports reflection,…
Conventional evaluation and learning approaches are increasingly criticised by funders and civil society organisations for being extractive, compliance-driven, and disconnected from community realities. These methods often prioritise funder-defined metrics over meaningful engagement, reinforcing power imbalances and overlooking diverse perspectives. More equitable approaches aim to shift this dynamic by sharing power, valuing lived experience and the impact on people’s experience and contexts, and transforming evaluation into a collaborative tool for learning and improvement.
Equitable evaluation begins by asking critical questions: What does success look like—and who defines it? Traditional frameworks often impose funder priorities, leaving little space for communities to articulate what matters most. Additionally, the burden of data collection and reporting frequently falls on grantees, straining already limited resources. Interpretation of findings is typically centralised, serving institutional needs rather than fostering shared learning. Implementing equitable approaches requires time, resources, and cultural change. Without clarity and skilled facilitation, participation risks becoming tokenistic, and entrenched power dynamics may persist.
Several models illustrate a wider shift to more equitable and intentional evaluation and learning models. For example, Trust-based evaluation focuses on three pillars: learning for accountability (funders reflecting on their own practices), learning for decision-making (listening to grantee expertise), and learning for long-term impact (assessing systemic change over decades rather than short grant cycles). Other alternative is Participatory evaluation, which actively involves stakeholders in designing, collecting, and interpreting data, using methods such as storytelling, needs analysis, and self-assessment. This approach builds capacity, strengthens social cohesion between all the participants of the process, and ensures findings are relevant and actionable. Another example is the Most Significant Change (MSC) method. It complements these models by collecting and analysing personal accounts of change to identify what stakeholders value most, fostering dialogue and clarifying priorities.
Equitable evaluation offers numerous advantages: locally relevant questions, improved accuracy, enhanced programme performance, empowerment, leadership development, and sustained organisational learning. It also promotes cross-sector collaboration because it invites funders and civil society organisations to work together and agree on what they are both looking for. This brings accountability from all participants, enabling systemic impact. However, challenges remain. Data generated through these approaches can be subjective and difficult to generalise, and poorly managed facilitation risks undermining trust or imposing external values
Adopting more equitable evaluation approaches requires a fundamental shift from control to collaboration. While demanding greater time, resources, and cultural adaptation, these methods create evaluations that are ethical, practical, and transformative. By honouring diverse perspectives and prioritising shared learning, equitable evaluation becomes a catalyst for trust, empowerment, and long-term change.
Decide whether participants will include grantees, beneficiaries, or both. Including both can be complex but rewarding. Begin with what’s realistic and expand over time. Shift from an “evaluation” mindset to a “learning” mindset to emphasize mutual benefit and feedback.
Be explicit about why you’re collecting data and how you plan to use it. Remember that data can support multiple interpretations shaped by the interpreter’s perspective. Be intentional about who is going to be part of the sense making part of the process.
Tailor tools, language, and pace to the community’s needs. Understand the priorities of those being funded and definitions of success before introducing metrics. Flexibility is key.
Experiment with new approaches and learn from mistakes. Treat errors as opportunities to improve collaborative processes.
Methods and practices are shaped by social norms. Stay critical and open to alternative approaches that better serve participants and the programmes they are involved in.
Budget for equitable evaluation processes from the start. Include capacity-building for individuals and groups through training, coaching, and peer learning.
Academic credentials are important, but lived experience is equally valuable. An inclusive evaluation mindset prioritizes diverse forms of knowledge and ensures beneficiaries are active contributors, not passive subjects.
Traditional evaluation frameworks often reflect funders’ priorities rather than community needs, reinforcing power imbalances. In addition, funders are increasingly turning the evaluation lens on themselves, seeking feedback from grantees and communities to improve practice. This shift involves moving beyond compliance-driven frameworks toward collaborative learning.
Actively involve groups experiencing systemic inequalities throughout the process. Strive for balanced participation and representation of all voices and share back the results with the wider community involved.
In 2023, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) launched the Community Impact Fund (CIF) to rethink how national organizations support grassroots change.
