The Weight We Carry: Reframing Evaluation as a Tool for Equity

Apr 1

Evaluation has long been seen as a cornerstone of learning in philanthropy. It helps funders make sense of their strategies, understand impact, and reflect on where to go next. But for many nonprofits—especially those led by people of color—evaluation doesn’t always feel like learning. It feels like labor. Sometimes, it feels like a barrier.

That’s not because evaluation isn’t valuable. We’re evaluators and believe deeply in its potential. We also understand, though, that when evaluation is narrowly defined, overly rigid, or disconnected from the realities of the work, it stops being useful. Worse, it can reinforce the very power dynamics that equity-focused funders are trying to disrupt.

At the same time, evaluation isn’t the only way funders learn. Learning also happens in conversation, in reflection, in relationships. It happens when foundations turn the mirror on themselves, not just the microscope on their grantees.

These ideas and the tensions behind them are what led me and five co-authors to write The Weight of Power, a piece published in the latest edition of The Foundation Review. We set out to examine how evaluation practices in philanthropy often fall short of their promise—and what it would take to do things differently.

Here’s what we learned—and what it could mean for funders who want to practice learning and accountability in a way that truly supports equity.

Want to read the full piece?

The Weight of Power: Reframing Evaluation in Philanthropy to Amplify the Voices of Communities of Color

Read the article

Accountability Has Been One-Sided

When foundations say “accountability,” they usually mean holding nonprofits accountable for results. But that accountability rarely runs both ways.

In our interviews, nonprofit leaders told us they want to use evaluation to reflect on their work, make strategic decisions, and share stories of change. But the metrics they’re asked to report on rarely capture that complexity. Meanwhile, most funders don’t share evaluation findings with grantees—or examine their own contributions to the outcomes they claim to support.

If evaluation is going to be a tool for equity, funders need to turn the lens inward. That means asking tough questions: Are our evaluation practices reinforcing inequity? Are we measuring what matters to the communities we fund? Are we willing to be held accountable too?

Evaluation Reflects—and Reinforces—Power

It’s easy to forget, but evaluation isn’t neutral. From who defines success, to how data are collected, to whose stories are deemed credible—evaluation is saturated with power.

Historically, foundations have designed evaluation systems to serve their own learning needs, not those of their grant partners. Our research, based on surveys and interviews with over 400 grant partners and funders, showed that most nonprofits see evaluation as something they have to do to get funding, not as a tool for their own growth.

Many organizations led by people of color experience evaluation as something that’s done to them, not with them. Often operating with fewer resources and less infrastructure, they're expected to produce data that proves their impact without the funding, staff, or time to do so. In short: foundations are asking for outcomes without investing in what makes them possible.

It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way

In the article, we offer four strategies that can help funders lighten the weight evaluation puts on grantees—and share it more fairly:

Match evaluation expectations to the timeline and maturity of the work. Stop expecting multi-year systems change to show up in 12-month outputs.
Let grant partners define success. Trust that they know what matters in their communities, and that their goals might not fit neatly into your logic model.
Fund the infrastructure you expect. If you want good data, invest in the staff, systems, and support to make it possible.
Evaluate yourselves too. Learning isn’t just for grantees. Foundations should be reflecting on their own role, decisions, and impact.

None of these shifts are particularly new. But they’re not yet the norm. Making them standard practice requires a willingness to let go of control—and to lean into trust.

What We’re Building at ELEVATE

At ELEVATE, this work is personal. Our learning community is made up of funders who want to do place-based evaluation differently—who are asking hard questions about what it means to learn with the communities they support, not just about them.

We believe learning an devaluation should be: