Can we build a trust-based and equitable approach to monitoring, evaluating and learning?

There’s growing interest in trust-based and equitable approaches to funding – removing barriers to make funding more accessible, shifting power dynamics, and putting funded organisations in the driving seat. But there’s still a lot of debate about what these ideals really mean in practice, in particular when it comes to how funders should approach their monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL).

Our research into how to make these principles a reality was sparked by Covid-19, when external events catalysed a jump forward in funding practice. The pandemic had a profound impact on the world and changed funding practices too. Trends which had been slowly developing for years accelerated fast: with funders making grant decisions more quickly, encouraging more honest and open conversations with their grantees, and stripping back application and reporting requirements. The pandemic prompted funders to radically change their practices to maximise the impact of their funding for people in crisis.   

A great example of this was London Funders’ award-winning London Community Response, a 67-strong funder collaboration which used a centralised application process to disburse some £57.5m to charities and community groups.

Should we be measuring at all?

But when the pandemic subsided, many we spoke to worried that the return to ‘normal’ life would mean a slipping back to old ways in funding too.

A key challenge we heard was how to square MEL needs with the principles of trust and equity. What does ‘trust-based’ and equitable measurement look like in practice? We know that measurement processes are often frustrating for charities, feeling disproportionate, untransparent and as though data disappears into a black hole.

One fundraiser we spoke to said: ‘I don’t know if [funders] read reports to be honest. They probably read the first couple of paragraphs and then lose interest and onto the next one… Why are we wasting our time doing these massive reports that get skimmed over?’

And another expressed frustration at how one-way evaluation often feels: ‘We’re never asked to evaluate the funder…we’re being asked by one of our principal funders how to support artists with disabilities, we do a lot of that…but they have incredibly inaccessible hoops you have to jump through…having a two-way evaluation process would be amazing.’

This all prompts the question, is measurement even useful anymore? Should we just be stripping requirements right back to allow charities to focus on delivering their work? If we ‘trust’ our grantees, shouldn’t we be abandoning MEL altogether?

But we see meaningful evidence as an important tool in creating the change we want to see as funders. It allows us to reflect on and learn from what we’ve done. It can help highlight how and where change happens. And it can bring different voices, which might otherwise go unheard, to the fore.

Evidence therefore holds power: it has the ability to shape or determine where resources are allocated, which organisations grow and thrive, and who stands to benefit. This means equity must be at the heart of how and why funders collect data.

Taking an equitable and trusting approach

But what does a trust-based and equitable approach to MEL look like? In our report on monitoring, evaluation and learning with trust and equity, we outline six core principles for MEL practice which we think all funders should consider:

• We argue for the importance of being intentional as the foundation for a trusting and equitable approach. Having a clear sense of what you are trying to achieve through your giving, what you want to learn through your MEL, and what evidence you need to assess your effectiveness will help focus scarce resources. It can enable greater transparency and can focus the mind of both funder and grant-holder on what’s really important. 
• We encourage funders to think about MEL more broadly than just assessing the impact of your grants – there is a much wider range evidence that can meaningfully inform your work and build accountability. We argue that funders should also ‘turn the lens’ to assess their own practice, as well as looking outwards to consider the wider landscape and their role within it. This could combine looking at how equitably your grants are being allocated, along with building a map of the systems which you are trying to shift to better understand your role.
• Proportionality is important too – adapting your MEL to fit the grant or grant-holder, rather than a one-size-fits-all. In some cases, this may mean collecting less data, in other instances more. Proportionality is about more than the size of the grant, it’s also about the kinds of organisations you are supporting, and what you’ll do with the evidence – something charities stress is critical in shaping their experiences of reporting.
• Similarly, fitting your approaches and methods to your evidence and learning needs can help make sure the information you collect is truly meaningful. This might mean questioning default approaches, like a written report, and adopting more flexible or relational ways of sharing information, like a check-in call.
• None of this is meaningful without space to make the most of the evidence you collect, both for you and for others. What information is useful for you, to help you understand what you are learning, and reflect on what you might do differently in future? What might be useful for your grantees? What about the wider sector? Funders should ensure they have the time and skills to bring together and reflect on the learning they collect, and to share externally so that others can benefit.
• And an important point for equity is to reflect on whose views should be considered in your MEL, which may mean bringing in other voices. Who gets a say in your MEL approach and whose voices do you listen to? What scope is there for co-design with funded organisations or others? This will take time and resources, so it is important to make sure participation is meaningful and that participants are compensated for their time and expertise.

Monitoring, evaluation and learning is shifting – we see a move away from proving impact, to learning and adapting; from accountability being focused exclusively on grant-holders, to building funder’s accountability towards the organisations and communities they support. Yet we believe evidence will remain vital in shaping how funders work but how that evidence is gathered, what it focuses on and who is involved in making sense of it will change.