SocialQual research - More than a hoop to jump through: Moving beyond performative evaluation

In January 2024 we commissioned SocialQual, working with our funded partners, to understand how and where we could develop our monitoring, evaluation and learning processes and outcomes to maximise its use both for delivery organisations and for broader sharing and influencing purposes.

What follows is a SocialQual’s blog outlining the process and recommendations. We are hugely grateful to Emma and our Frontline Fund and Mental Health and Homelessness Programme Partners, for their time and engagement in this invaluable piece of work which has helped us to critically reflect on, and inform, our grant making practices and offer. Our commitment is to now translate the recommendations into practical actions by:

• refining our monitoring, evaluation and learning approach 
• developing our offer of support to delivery organisations to embed relevant and meaningful learning to evolve, share and bring about the change we all want to see.

A blog post by Emma Roberts, SocialQual, March 2025 

Rethinking MEL 

Working in charity evaluation for almost 20 years, I’ve certainly noticed the dynamic of grantees doing evaluation for a funder. Maybe you’ve noticed it to? Reporting feels like a hoop to jump through rather than something genuinely useful?  

It was so refreshing to be asked to do a piece of work that unpacked this dynamic. St Martin-in-the-Fields Charity (SMITFC) wanted to learn about how their own Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) processes were experienced on the ground by grantees. 

I must admit. I was worried that this assignment would become an evaluation-of-evaluation. And I was worried that grantees would find it dull to talk about evaluation.   

But I needn’t have worried.   

I was overwhelmed by how much grantees wanted to talk about this stuff. I was expecting a list of complaints about paperwork. There was a bit of that! But there was more. Over the past nine months I’ve had deep, thoughtful conversations about what good MEL could look like. And I think that speaks volumes. It shows how much grantees care about evaluation.  

Throughout this work with SMITFC, I interviewed six Frontline Funded organisations and facilitated several workshops, all with the goal of understanding what worked, what didn’t and what could change to make MEL processes more meaningful.  

Together, the organisations developed recommendations for funders – and SMITFC specifically – to ensure that MEL is more than a hoop to jump through. 

Recommendations for SMITFC 

Frontline Fund grantees and a small number of Mental Health Fund grantees were taken through a process of interviews and workshops to get underneath the skin of their evaluation experiences, what serves them as organisations and what serves (or doesn’t!) the people who use their services. They came up with six recommendations for SMITFC – and most would be applicable to other funders too.   

1. Funders should recognise the resources required for listening to and learning from lived experience narratives 
2. Funders should encourage grantees to maintain a clear boundary between communication/PR and evaluation/learning  
3. Funders should encourage embedded evaluation and learning  
4. Funders should support grantees to align MEL activities with grantees’ existing cycles and priorities 
5. Where appropriate, leverage funder influence and networks to amplify grantee advocacy  
6. An invitation and encouragement for SMITFC to map out their strengths towards a ‘Funder Plus’ model 

Centring people who use services in the MEL process 

A value that was consistent throughout this research was Frontline Funded organisations' desire to centre the people who use their services in the MEL process. What started as a conversation about storytelling evolved into a nuanced conversation about how to avoid transactional or retraumatising experiences for people to repeat their story.  

Why ‘story’ doesn’t always work in evaluation 

In fact, the term ‘story’ became problematic as it assumes a beginning, a middle and an end – the end being when a person has had their needs met and is thriving. While this might be helpful for comms and fundraising campaigns, it can lack authenticity or depth for the purposes of evaluation. A traditional case study or story approach doesn’t allow space for learning about when things haven't gone well, when a service has got it wrong or the complexity of people’s lives.  

From case study to lived experience narratives  

The Frontline Fund grantees suggested a move away from terminology of ‘story’ or ‘case study’ towards a ‘lived experience narrative’ which positions service users as experts, able to share their experiences in appropriate ways and without trying to mould a positive ‘story’ with a happy ending. This framing is more likely to allow learning points to surface. 

Safeguarding and support  

Frontline Fund grantees are also committed to making the process – for both comms and evaluation purposes – as safe as possible for the people who use their services. They recognise that publishing someone’s experiences could have downstream impacts on their family and friends who could also be affected. A need emerged for grant-funded organisations to have support to think through the safeguarding implications and their duty of care in inviting participants to share their lived experience narratives. They believe that SMITFC, as a funder, have a good track record of doing this in their Christmas Appeal and value their expertise and guidance. 

Comms vs learning  

While collecting and sharing lived experience narratives can serve both fundraising and evaluation purposes, funded organisations have sometimes experienced a blurring of these two aims. There is often a performative dynamic in the funder–grantee relationship, where grantees feel pressure to present polished success stories that demonstrate impact and effectiveness. While this may be necessary for fundraising, it can contradict the ethos of meaningful evaluation. Frontline Fund grantees expressed a desire for funders to create space and provide resources for capturing narratives that are not designed for external promotion, but instead support honest reflection, learning, and service improvement.  

Evaluation: what’s broken and what’s possible 

MEL often becomes a burden for grantees because it is disconnected from service delivery and teams don’t see the value. Grantees describe how they tailor case studies (narratives about people who use their services) to match funder priorities rather than reflecting the messy, powerful truths. It doesn’t have to be this way.  

What’s broken vs what is possible 

One grantee described an outcome spreadsheet provided by SMITFC as “a conversation.” That might sound small but it’s rare. In my work as an external evaluator, I’ve seen how evaluation that feels like a demand (rather than a dialogue) can minimise trust.  

IVAR’s principle of funders giving feedback 

One thing that surprised me in this work was how positively grantees responded to questions from the funder. I’d expected some frustration when funders ask for clarity following a quarterly report. Another thing to do, another layer of reporting! But grantees welcomed it. What mattered was the tone and intent of the questions. When they felt the funder was genuinely listening, not just collecting data, it shifted the dynamic. It echoed IVAR’s principle that funders should be clear about the kind of relationship they want—and follow through by engaging with the work. A short conversation or bit of feedback went a long way in building trust. 

The findings from this project reinforce much of what IVAR has articulated about grant reporting in their principles for grant making. Particularly the need for proportionate, purposeful MEL that respects the time and capacity of grantees. What came through clearly was that grantees aren’t pushing back against evaluation itself they’re asking for space to do it in ways that feel meaningful and manageable.