Localisation in the monitoring and evaluation field: the role of small and local firms

Localisation AID

Localization can allow aid recipients to define their priorities (normative justification), provide a more efficient way to tackle development challenges (instrumental justification), and help to address power imbalances in the international development space (emancipatory justification) (Vij in OECD, 2023).

Moreover, Van Brabant and Patel from GMI (2018) identified three rationales behind localisation: 

(1) The financial argument: localisation is cost-effective, since funding local and national actors and crisis-affected people is cheaper and reduces transaction costs.

(2) The principle argument: localisation shows that local and national actors are relevant and valuable contributors, and, therefore, they should be on equal terms with donors or INGOs.

(3) The strategic argument: localisation is a way to enhance the capacities of the beneficiaries of aid or international assistance so they can eventually handle crises by themselves.

Localising MEL practices

Advancing and supporting locally-led MEL practices is a crucial aspect of the localisation agenda. Reflections around this issue highlight the value of local knowledge and practice, the recognition of the existing evidence, and the role of local stakeholders in the programme’s cycle and in deciding what and how evaluations take place and who benefits from its findings. The latter relates to the ownership of the evaluations’ findings, as localising MEL practices entails local evaluators owning the knowledge produced and funds going directly to local evaluation firms and local practitioners in the Global South, which is vital to this (Itad, n.d.).

The “On Equity in Contracting with Small and Solo Local Evaluation Firms: An Open Letter to Funders”, ipd (2023), a 40-page report, developed by the Institute for Peace & Development and BLE Solutions, points out the value of working with small and local evaluation firms that are intensely involved and have an in-depth understanding of the communities in the contexts where funders work. Working with such firms would push forward the localisation agenda and lead to more useful, accurate and empowering evaluation processes for participants.

This is crucial in today’s world, where recipients are increasingly pressured to prove that their interventions are effective and align with donor expectations. As a result of this pressure, external and international evaluators are called upon to lead evaluations, as a way to guarantee independence, rigour and unbiased findings (Levine and Griñó, 2015), but often moving away from participatory methods and local understanding.

Still, there is a strong impulse in the evaluation field towards ensuring people’s voices, especially those most directly affected, are heard and included in evaluation decision-making processes. Small and local evaluation firms are well-positioned to promote and conduct democratic, participatory and empowering evaluations.

The above-mentioned open letter points to the six strengths of local evaluation forms that funders should consider:

(1) Locally rooted with a deep understanding of cultural context: Local evaluators’ close relationships with communities allow them to deeply understand the cultural context and social dynamics that structure intra- and intergroup relationships. As a result, local evaluators can develop relevant, meaningful and engaging evaluation questions, design context-appropriate data collection approaches, allow participants to become co-owners of the evaluation process, frame culturally sensitive questions and interpret the data within its cultural context and history and share findings in accessible, understandable, and practical ways.

(2) Highly networked: Local evaluation firms can easily access qualified and local teams. They are part of smaller and larger communities of learning and practice within their environments and can effectively partner with them when the assignment requires.

(3) Quick and easy access to local evaluators: Local evaluation firms have experience working with local evaluators from different backgrounds, including those from marginalised groups. These evaluators can be rapidly called upon and gain the evaluation participants’ trust, leading to a successful data collection process.

(4) Relevant experience: Their teams usually comprise senior evaluators with considerable experience in humanitarian and development work. As a result, they have more significant insights into the evaluation work, asking more pertinent questions and probing for answers beyond the initial responses that participants and communities provide.

(5) Innovative: Local evaluation firms are more flexible regarding testing and using new approaches to answering specific questions in specific contexts. In addition, their knowledge of the context informs what innovations are culturally appropriate and relevant.

(6) Responsive: Small local evaluation firms can be agile and responsive to client needs due to their few decision-making hierarchies and procedures to carry out assignments, as they can rapidly access their resources through their networks and connections.

However, critical challenges prevent small and local evaluation firms from leading work in their particular contexts. Challenges relate to the size of these firms, lack of visibility and time constraints. The open letter highlights the limited funding streams and overhead funds to support the firms’ operations. Donors’ requirements, such as elaborate record-keeping and accountability systems, also challenge small firms. Likewise, their lack of visibility makes it difficult to attract the attention of funders or recruiters of large evaluation funding agencies. Small evaluation firms must prioritise assignments and clarify budget caps and selection criteria before investing time and resources in each project. They have limited time and resources to participate in lengthy contract negotiation processes. Lastly, they suffer from the negative effects resulting from the lack of upfront payments and/or delayed payments, as they usually do not have the resources to undertake an assignment by agreed timelines while waiting for the release of funds.
Small and local evaluation firms are critical in promoting decolonial and locally-led MEL practices. As a social enterprise and feminist research incubator, Includovate is committed to this. It incubates and contracts researchers and evaluators from the Global South to better localise our work and lead empowering evaluation processes.