Evaluation and Learning Full Report

Conventional approaches to evaluation and learning are increasingly critiqued as extractive, harmful, and disconnected from the realities of communities. These methods often prioritize funder-driven metrics and reporting requirements over meaningful engagement, reducing evaluation to a compliance exercise rather than a tool for shared learning. More equitable approaches offer an alternative—one that invites funders to rethink why they evaluate and how they relate to the communities they serve. By opening space for collaboration, these approaches shift power from external evaluators to those most impacted by the work, creating opportunities for accountability and co-creation. 

Traditional evaluation and learning frameworks often rely on linear models of change, assuming simple cause-and-effect relationships that fail to capture complexity. Tools like log frames and rigid indicators dominate, reinforcing Western, colonised traditions of knowledge and overlooking diverse ways of understanding progress. This oversimplification risks misrepresenting what is truly happening on the ground and can perpetuate inequities in how success is defined. More equitable approaches challenge these assumptions by embracing adaptive, context-sensitive methods that honour multiple perspectives and lived experiences. 

For grantmakers, evaluation has long been seen as a neutral activity—a way to measure impact and adjust strategies. Yet evaluation and learning systems are not objective; they reflect the biases and worldviews of those who design them. This raises critical questions: Is evaluation serving communities or only answering funders’ questions? Does it add unnecessary burden without providing resources or benefits to grantees? Reimagining evaluation and learning means creating processes that are as useful for communities as they are for foundations—approaches that build trust, share power, and turn evaluation into a tool for learning and transformation rather than control. 

When we talk about more equitable approaches to evaluation and learning, the first question to ask is: What does success look like—and who gets to define it? Too often, success is framed by funders’ priorities, leaving little room for grantees or communities to articulate what truly matters to them. Reimagining evaluation means going beyond rigid indicators and inviting those closest to the work to define both tangible and intangible milestones. Their vision of progress may differ from ours—and that difference is where learning begins. 

Next, consider who is carrying the weight of evaluation. Gathering data and reporting can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially for organizations already stretched thin. Are we respecting partners’ time and effort? Could we collect information through conversations or existing reports rather than adding new burdens? And if written reports are required, can we take on the labor of converting dialogue into documentation? These questions help ensure that evaluation strengthens relationships instead of straining them. 

Finally, ask yourself: Who has the power to make meaning—and why are we collecting this information in the first place? Too often, data interpretation happens behind closed doors, serving only institutional needs. What if grantees were part of analyzing trends and shaping insights? Could findings be useful to them, not just to us? And most importantly, is evaluation being used for learning and improvement—or for judgment? When the purpose is clear and collaborative, evaluation becomes a tool for honesty, trust, and shared growth rather than compliance. 

Implementing equitable evaluation and learning is not without its challenges. One of the most pressing issues is time and commitment. Building processes that genuinely share power and invite meaningful participation takes longer than traditional, top-down approaches. Funders and grantees alike must invest time in dialogue, co-design, and reflection—something that can feel daunting in a sector driven by deadlines and quick results. Without this commitment, participation risks becoming tokenistic rather than transformative. 

Resources are another critical barrier. Equitable evaluation requires funding for facilitation, translation, accessibility, and compensation for participants’ time. Yet many evaluation budgets remain minimal, assuming grantees will absorb the extra labour. This imbalance reinforces existing inequities: larger organisations with more capacity can comply, while smaller, grassroots groups struggle. Add to this the challenge of conflicting approaches and unclear purposes—when participation is introduced without clarity or alignment with evaluation design, it can create confusion and frustration rather than collaboration. 

Finally, there are deeper structural and cultural hurdles. Many evaluations still focus participation on a single stage, such as data collection, while decisions about interpretation and meaning-making remain centralised. Without skilled facilitation and cultural understanding, these processes risk replicating the very power dynamics they aim to dismantle. Traditional frameworks often prioritise short-term metrics funders want to see—numbers of beneficiaries served—over more complex, qualitative changes like trust, confidence, or empowerment. This narrow lens not only misses what matters most to communities but perpetuates a cycle where grantees report what funders expect, rather than what is real. 

Trust-based evaluation 

Trust-based foundations are rethinking evaluation through three interconnected pillars. Learning for accountability shifts the focus from scrutinising grantees to reflecting on funders’ own practices. It asks whether funders are living their values and showing up authentically, recognising that accountability starts with those who hold power. This approach moves beyond compliance and embraces vulnerability, creating space for honest assessment of relationships and behaviours. 

Learning for decision-making and learning for long-term impact build on this foundation. By listening to grantee partners as experts, funders can make more informed decisions that respond to real needs rather than pre-set expectations. This collaborative learning fosters adaptability and responsiveness, as seen when funders address emerging challenges like burnout among grassroots leaders. Finally, long-term impact requires looking beyond short grant cycles to assess change across ecosystems over years or decades. It means co-creating flexible indicators with communities and prioritising cumulative progress over narrow metrics. Together, these pillars demand cultural change within foundations—shifting from control to trust and from short-term outputs to shared, systemic outcomes. 

Participatory evaluation 

Participatory evaluation is an approach that actively involves stakeholders—such as programme participants, community members, and partners—at different stages of the evaluation process. This can include designing the evaluation, collecting and analysing data, and reporting findings. The level of involvement varies depending on the context and purpose, but the core principle is shared ownership of learning. By understanding stakeholders’ intentions for the evaluation, practitioners can select appropriate tools and methods that align with local priorities and values. Common techniques include storytelling, needs analysis (such as problem trees and theory of change exercises), and self-assessment, all of which help ensure the process is meaningful and useful for those closest to the work. 

While participatory evaluation is often more discursive than traditional approaches, its strength lies in relevance and sustainability. When communities help define questions and methods, the findings are more likely to inform real-world practice rather than remain unused. Moreover, the process itself is developmental: it builds capacity, fosters empowerment, and equips participants with tools they can continue to use beyond the evaluation. This collaborative approach not only improves programme performance but also strengthens social cohesion and leadership within communities, creating a foundation for long-term learning and change. 

Most Significant Change 

The Most Significant Change (MSC) approach focuses on collecting and analysing personal accounts of change to identify which changes are most significant—and why. It is not simply about gathering stories but about creating structured processes for learning from them. MSC helps uncover what different groups and individuals value by comparing experiences and discussing priorities. The method involves deciding what types of stories to collect, gathering them, and then collaboratively selecting the most significant examples. These discussions provide insight into both intended and unintended impacts and clarify the values that underpin decisions. 

MSC is particularly useful for understanding how and when change occurs, making it a valuable tool for developing programme theory and informing strategy. While it cannot replace comprehensive impact evaluation, it complements other methods by highlighting qualitative dimensions of change that numbers alone cannot capture. MSC can be applied in ongoing monitoring or evaluation cycles, typically quarterly, but adapted to context. Beyond reporting, its strength lies in fostering dialogue among stakeholders, building shared understanding, and ensuring that evaluation reflects what matters most to those involved.

A more equitable approach to evaluation, co-designed with community participants, is naturally more relevant to real-world practice. Because those closest to the work define the questions, methods, and measures, the findings are far more likely to be used in decision-making and programme improvement. This reduces the risk of producing reports that are disconnected from reality and ensures that learning drives meaningful change. 

The process itself is developmental. It encourages communities and organisations to think critically about strategy and outcomes, equipping participants with practical skills and fostering empowerment. This shared journey strengthens social cohesion as individuals articulate their roles within a team committed to creating social impact. Equitable evaluation is pragmatic: the data collected, the way it is gathered, and the story it tells are grounded in lived experience, making them more accurate and actionable. 

Key Advantages 

• Identify locally relevant evaluation questions 

• Improve accuracy and relevance of reports 

• Establish and explain causality 

• Enhance programme performance 

• Empower participants and build capacity 

• Develop leaders and strengthen teams 

• Sustain organisational learning and growth 

• Foster cross-sector and cross-community collaboration for systems change 

In addition, cross-sector collaboration is particularly valuable for organisations seeking to understand shared impact and larger systems-change work. Foundations can play a critical role by supporting coordination and acting as conveners—creating spaces for organisations to connect, share, and learn together. 

On the other hand, more equitable evaluation often relies on small, unsystematic, and largely subjective data, making it difficult to draw broad conclusions about what worked and how to scale change. Additionally, if facilitation is not carefully managed, there is a risk of overlooking local context. Practitioners may unintentionally introduce methods or approaches that conflict with the values and norms of certain communities, undermining trust and relevance. 

Moving towards more equitable approaches to monitoring, evaluation, and learning requires a fundamental shift in mindset and practice. At its core, this work asks us to reconsider who defines success, who carries the burden of evaluation, and who has the power to interpret and use findings. When communities and grantees are invited to shape questions, methods, and meaning-making, evaluation becomes more than a compliance exercise—it becomes a tool for shared learning, trust-building, and systemic change. This shift is not only ethical but practical: insights generated through collaborative processes are more relevant, actionable, and likely to drive real improvement. 

However, embracing equity in evaluation is not without challenges. It demands time, resources, and cultural change within organisations and funding institutions. Without clarity of purpose and skilled facilitation, efforts risk becoming tokenistic or replicating existing power imbalances. Yet the benefits outweigh the difficulties. Equitable evaluation strengthens programmes, empowers participants, and fosters collaboration across sectors and communities. Ultimately, it transforms evaluation from a mechanism of oversight into a catalyst for collective impact—one that honours diverse perspectives and builds a foundation for long-term learning and growth.