Making the Case for Partnering with Small and Solo Proximate Evaluation Firms
Lessons from the Strengthening Evaluation Contracting Partnerships Initiative's
Third Webinar
In this article, we capture highlights from SECPI's third webinar in which our presenters and participants discussed why funders and other evaluation commissioners tend to work with familiar, larger evaluation firms; the conditions under which they may prioritize working with small and solo proximate or community-based evaluation firms; and what it will take to convince funders and other evaluation commissioners to try out new partnerships with small and solo community-based evaluation firms.
May 2025
When seeking evaluation and learning partners, how can we make the case for partnering with small and solo proximate (geographically, demographically, and/or thematically proximate) evaluation firms? Many funders and other evaluation commissioners recognize the unique value that small and solo proximate evaluation firms offer. Partnering with evaluators with firsthand knowledge of the contexts and communities with which funders work can give funders access to deep and nuanced understanding of the factors that affect the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of their investments. Yet, evaluation commissioners also often perceive greater risks when considering these partnerships. This blog highlights the key takeaways from the Strengthening Evaluation Contracting Partnerships Initiative's (SECPI's) May 2025 webinar, during which two colleagues with significant experience in the field along with participants representing foundations, non-profit organizations, evaluation firms, academia, and field builders from around the globe discussed this challenge and how best to address it.
Funders and other evaluation commissioners tend to work with familiar, larger evaluation firms.
• Because evaluations can be high-stake endeavors, there is little room for missteps. Through them, program staff learn about the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of their investments. In some cases, their organizational leadership and board use evaluation findings to influence their funding decisions. With stakes this high, program staff want assurance that their evaluation and learning partner will represent their work well.
• Trust-based relationships are key for successful evaluation partnerships. Given evaluation's high stakes, program staff prefer to work with "known quantities"–evaluators with whom they or peer organizations are already familiar.
• Funders may want to work with evaluators with a track record of producing strategy or portfolio-level evaluations. In making this choice, they may forget that all evaluators at some point learned how to conduct these types of evaluations, and that by investing in evaluator capacity, they are broadening the pool of evaluators with whom they can work and perhaps also bringing in additional capacities.
• Evaluation timelines might come with urgency. By sole sourcing with known evaluators, they can also save themselves the time and effort associated with open bids. Larger firms may be more likely to have capacity to take on new work more quickly. And familiar partners will require less work up front to get them up to speed.
• Funders may be concerned about the management capacity of smaller evaluation firms. They may wonder if smaller firms are capable of managing the funds, logistics, and number of activities associated with larger evaluations.
Under certain conditions, funders and other evaluation commissioners may prioritize a smaller firm's context knowledge over a larger firm's familiarity.
• Funders and other evaluation commissioners can be more willing to work with small and solo proximate evaluation firms when evaluating a place-based or otherwise smaller initiative. In those cases, the perceived value of contextual knowledge and community familiarity may outweigh the perceived risk of working with a smaller and potentially previously unknown partner. One colleague described the benefit of working with a local evaluator as follows:
"The solo local evaluator we hired brought a huge amount of local knowledge about the grantees—their history and relationships with our community and with each other, and understanding of the local context. As a result, she was able to establish credibility with all the stakeholders very quickly, her interviews were able to get to a deeper level with less time required from the leaders she was interviewing, she picked up more subtle nuance in the conversations, and she was able to draw out powerful insights. On balance, the choice to hire a solo local practitioner saved us money and time, honored the efforts and input of our grantees, who we've been in deep relationship with for years, and resulted in greater insights about the work."
• Evaluation commissioners may choose proximate partners over more familiar, larger evaluation firms when evaluations are taking place in sensitive contexts. For example, when evaluating human rights, peacebuilding, democracy, governance, or advocacy initiatives, an evaluator's familiarity with communities and context may be critical to ensuring that they approach data collection in a safe and appropriate way and that they gain the trust of interviewees.
A number of approaches can help convince funders and other evaluation commissioners to try out new partnerships with small and solo proximate evaluation firms.
• Trust-based relationships between internal evaluation and program teams can lay the groundwork for trying new practices. This requires, within an organization, establishing evaluation as a tool that supports program teams' efforts, with space to make mistakes and learn from them.
• Sharing positive examples can encourage uptake. Program teams listen to their colleagues and are more willing try new things that leadership values. Therefore, when partnerships with small and solo proximate evaluation firms go well, it is important to help tell that story internally and externally as examples for others and, internally, to gain leadership's recognition.
• Creating opportunities for evaluation commissioners and small and solo proximate evaluation firms to get to know each other outside of an evaluation context can increase commissioners' confidence working with these firms, as well as the firms' familiarity with the commissioners' organizational needs. Some evaluation commissioners who are seeking evaluation partners offer webinars during which evaluation firms can learn about their organization and evaluation needs, as well as introduce themselves to the commissioner. Expanding the Bench offers such opportunities through virtual coffee breaks designed for this purpose with funders and evaluation firms participating in their program. SECPI will increasingly offer opportunities for relationship building through our webinars.
• Starting with smaller, lower-stake evaluations can reduce concerns about risk. In this way, program teams can foster relationships with small and solo proximate evaluation teams and help them gain familiarity with how their organization works, so that these evaluation teams can be better positioned to take on larger evaluations in the future.
• Recognizing relationships with external evaluators as partnerships, rather than as service providing contractual relationships can help shift the focus of an evaluation from the products to be produced to the learning that can happen along the way. This can open up thinking about the perspectives that evaluators bring and the insights that they offer. In some cases, evaluation commissioners may even use a grant, instead of a contract, to emphasize the partnership being created.
• Discussing and weighing the benefits of different kinds of trust can make program teams more open to partnering with small and solo proximate evaluation firms. When evaluation firms are already trusted by an evaluation commissioning organization, that organization may be more comfortable partnering with them. On the other hand, when evaluation firms are already trusted by the communities that an evaluation commissioning organization is supporting, they may be able to gather more accurate and nuanced information faster. While a small number of evaluation firms may have built both kinds of trust, most will have one or the other, when they begin an evaluation engagement, and program teams will need to choose which will provide them with the insights they need to ensure the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of their investments.
Additional Resources
For more on what we have learned about promoting true partnerships between evaluation commissioners and small and solo proximate evaluation firms, please check out the following resources:
• Our original open letter to funders, which we published in October 2023 (open letter and executive brief) and a blog that followed,
• Our first two webinars, which we held in May 2024 and July 2024, and
• An article that was published in The Foundation Review in May 2025 that builds on our open letter and incorporates our learning from our first two webinars.