S05_ Evaluating Philanthropy in Context: Relational Dynamics, Accountability, and Institutional Environments
S05_ Evaluating Philanthropy in Context: Relational Dynamics, Accountability, and Institutional Environments
S04_ Evaluating democracy, governance, and recovery support when the stakes are high: methods, accountability and learning in complex, fragile, politicized and conflict-affected contexts
Claire LeBlanc, Dima Issa, Kai Brand-Jacobsen, Lydeke Schakel, Olga Mrinska, Raphaëlle Bisiaux, Rebekah Usatin
Rationale and Objectives
Democracy and governance are under growing pressure worldwide. Polarisation of societies, declining public trust, protracted conflicts, widening economic gaps, climate crisis, and geopolitical instability increasingly shape how democratic and economic governance institutions function in practice. In this context, we propose a coherent set of sessions that explore how democracy support and governance interventions are being evaluated in complex, fragile, politicized, as well as conflict-affected and violence contexts.
Key issues explored:
• How can evaluation contribute meaningfully to building vibrant democracies and well-functioning economic systems in contexts of polarisation, shrinking civic space, climate crisis, conflict, and war?
• What practical strategies allow evaluators to responsibly navigate the inherently political nature of democracy support work, while ensuring findings translate into meaningful decisions rather than remaining unused?
• What are the opportunities and risks of using perception data and innovative methods to evaluate democratic governance, citizen trust, and accountability?
• How can evaluations better connect development needs, public accountability, and democratic legitimacy in fragile and climate-affected regions?
The strand is expected to contribute to:
• Evaluation theory, by strengthening interdisciplinary connections and advancing conceptual thinking on democracy and institutions-building as a dynamic, systemic, and contested process;
• Evaluation practice, by sharing concrete methods, tools, and lessons from real-world evaluations conducted in various contexts, including conflict-affected, fragile and violence contexts;
• Impact of evaluative evidence on policy dialogue, design and delivery of donor policies and strategies, as well as building local capabilities and democratic processes on the ground.
Key issues explored:
• How can evaluation contribute meaningfully to building vibrant democracies and well-functioning economic systems in contexts of polarisation, shrinking civic space, climate crisis, conflict, and war?
• What practical strategies allow evaluators to responsibly navigate the inherently political nature of democracy support work, while ensuring findings translate into meaningful decisions rather than remaining unused?
• What are the opportunities and risks of using perception data and innovative methods to evaluate democratic governance, citizen trust, and accountability?
• How can evaluations better connect development needs, public accountability, and democratic legitimacy in fragile and climate-affected regions?
The strand is expected to contribute to:
• Evaluation theory, by strengthening interdisciplinary connections and advancing conceptual thinking on democracy and institutions-building as a dynamic, systemic, and contested process;
• Evaluation practice, by sharing concrete methods, tools, and lessons from real-world evaluations conducted in various contexts, including conflict-affected, fragile and violence contexts;
• Impact of evaluative evidence on policy dialogue, design and delivery of donor policies and strategies, as well as building local capabilities and democratic processes on the ground.
Strand Overview
Session 1. Approaches to evaluating democracy support:
Lead facilitators: Cecilia and Lydeke / Rebekah
From attribution to contribution: Evaluating democracy support in complex and backsliding contexts
Cecilia Ljungman
Drawing on a central evaluation of Sida’s work across multiple countries, this session explores how democracy support can be evaluated in contexts of political complexity and democratic backsliding, where linear results frameworks are insufficient.
Lydeke / Rebekah
“Cutting through the Noise: Methods That Work”
Showcase evaluation approaches and designs (e.g. systems thinking and the use of AI) suitable for complex, politically dynamic democracy support contexts.
As international democracy assistance has expanded, so too has the demand for evaluation. While methodological innovation has brought advances, it has also created a tendency to privilege novelty over established, well-tested approaches. This theme examines the resulting tension between “new” and “tried-and-true” evaluation methods. It asks which methods work, for what purposes, and under what conditions, and explores how to make informed methodological choices rather than defaulting to innovation for its own sake.
Session 2. Data, accountability and democracy:
Lead facilitators: Greg, Marie and Dima
• Perception data, democracy, and public trust
Grégory Chauzal and Marie Bonnet
Drawing on a field-based initiative, this session examines how perception data can complement conventional evidence to better understand democracy, accountability, and public trust in fragile and conflict-affected contexts.
• Development needs and accountability in the Lake Chad region
Dima Issa and Grégory Chauzal
Drawing on longitudinal perception studies across Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria, this session examines how service delivery, development needs, and accountability intersect in the fragile Lake Chad region, where access to basic services strongly shapes citizens’ trust and democratic expectations.
Session 3. Evaluating democracy, governance and recovery support in conflict and fragility contexts
Lead facilitators: Raphaëlle and Kai
• Evaluating democracy support in an ongoing war – Methods and ethics of evaluation in Ukraine
Stephen Webber, Raphaëlle Bisiaux and Viktoria Hildenwall
Drawing on a real-time, theory-based evaluation of donor support to Ukraine, this session explores how democracy support can be evaluated during an ongoing war.
• Learning from system-level approaches to evaluating conflict and fragility (DG INTPA EC, OECD DAC, NORAD)
A shared methodology for evidence synthesis on the humanitarian, development, and peace nexus to enable comparing and consolidating findings, identifying what works and what does not, and generating actionable insights for policy and programming.
How to cope with sensitive information, maintaining integrity in programming, duty of care in the context of budget cuts.
Session 4. Evaluation for strategic impact: turning evidence into better policy, strategy, programming for crisis response:
Lead facilitators: Olga
Learning from past experiences to design better future crisis response programmes (NORAD, ADE, EBRD). Discussion of recent evaluations and synthesis products on effectiveness and efficiency of relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts in countries affected by conflict and fragility. It will discuss pathways for integrating lessons into formulating the most effective approaches to evaluating crisis response packages by bilateral and multilateral institutions, including joint and coordinated actions.
Session 5. Climate action and democracy:
Lead facilitators: John and Dui / Luciana
Beyond bricks and mortar: Addressing the climate gap in evaluating post-war recovery
Olivia Lasica and John Skelton
This session highlights the “climate gap” in post-war recovery evaluations, where reconstruction often focuses on infrastructure while overlooking climate risks and resilience.
Climate action, democratic governance, and evaluation
Dui Jasinghe, Luciana Mascarenhas and Rebecca Johnson
Drawing on evaluation and learning work with the Climate Ambition Support Alliance, this session explores how climate programmes intersect with democratic governance, and how evaluation can better capture effects on participation, accountability, and voice.
Session 6. Navigating the political nature of democracy support evaluation and fostering its strategic use:
Lead facilitators: Lydeke / Rebekah
“Political Dimensions of Democracy Support Evaluation”
Explore how political dynamics—including donor priorities, host-government sensitivities, and stakeholder power relations—shape evaluation practice and use. All evaluation is political, and evaluation of democracy support programming is especially so. Political forces shape funding decisions, what is evaluated, and how results are utilized. This theme explores practical and conceptual strategies for navigating this reality responsibly and effectively.
“Strategic Use of Evaluation in Democracy Support”
Highlight how evaluations inform strategic, programming, and fundraising decisions. Evaluation is most valuable when it informs decision-making, yet translation of evaluation evidence into action is often suboptimal. This theme explores approaches for fostering strategic use and communication of evaluation findings.
Lead facilitators: Cecilia and Lydeke / Rebekah
From attribution to contribution: Evaluating democracy support in complex and backsliding contexts
Cecilia Ljungman
Drawing on a central evaluation of Sida’s work across multiple countries, this session explores how democracy support can be evaluated in contexts of political complexity and democratic backsliding, where linear results frameworks are insufficient.
Lydeke / Rebekah
“Cutting through the Noise: Methods That Work”
Showcase evaluation approaches and designs (e.g. systems thinking and the use of AI) suitable for complex, politically dynamic democracy support contexts.
As international democracy assistance has expanded, so too has the demand for evaluation. While methodological innovation has brought advances, it has also created a tendency to privilege novelty over established, well-tested approaches. This theme examines the resulting tension between “new” and “tried-and-true” evaluation methods. It asks which methods work, for what purposes, and under what conditions, and explores how to make informed methodological choices rather than defaulting to innovation for its own sake.
Session 2. Data, accountability and democracy:
Lead facilitators: Greg, Marie and Dima
• Perception data, democracy, and public trust
Grégory Chauzal and Marie Bonnet
Drawing on a field-based initiative, this session examines how perception data can complement conventional evidence to better understand democracy, accountability, and public trust in fragile and conflict-affected contexts.
• Development needs and accountability in the Lake Chad region
Dima Issa and Grégory Chauzal
Drawing on longitudinal perception studies across Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria, this session examines how service delivery, development needs, and accountability intersect in the fragile Lake Chad region, where access to basic services strongly shapes citizens’ trust and democratic expectations.
Session 3. Evaluating democracy, governance and recovery support in conflict and fragility contexts
Lead facilitators: Raphaëlle and Kai
• Evaluating democracy support in an ongoing war – Methods and ethics of evaluation in Ukraine
Stephen Webber, Raphaëlle Bisiaux and Viktoria Hildenwall
Drawing on a real-time, theory-based evaluation of donor support to Ukraine, this session explores how democracy support can be evaluated during an ongoing war.
• Learning from system-level approaches to evaluating conflict and fragility (DG INTPA EC, OECD DAC, NORAD)
A shared methodology for evidence synthesis on the humanitarian, development, and peace nexus to enable comparing and consolidating findings, identifying what works and what does not, and generating actionable insights for policy and programming.
How to cope with sensitive information, maintaining integrity in programming, duty of care in the context of budget cuts.
Session 4. Evaluation for strategic impact: turning evidence into better policy, strategy, programming for crisis response:
Lead facilitators: Olga
Learning from past experiences to design better future crisis response programmes (NORAD, ADE, EBRD). Discussion of recent evaluations and synthesis products on effectiveness and efficiency of relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts in countries affected by conflict and fragility. It will discuss pathways for integrating lessons into formulating the most effective approaches to evaluating crisis response packages by bilateral and multilateral institutions, including joint and coordinated actions.
Session 5. Climate action and democracy:
Lead facilitators: John and Dui / Luciana
Beyond bricks and mortar: Addressing the climate gap in evaluating post-war recovery
Olivia Lasica and John Skelton
This session highlights the “climate gap” in post-war recovery evaluations, where reconstruction often focuses on infrastructure while overlooking climate risks and resilience.
Climate action, democratic governance, and evaluation
Dui Jasinghe, Luciana Mascarenhas and Rebecca Johnson
Drawing on evaluation and learning work with the Climate Ambition Support Alliance, this session explores how climate programmes intersect with democratic governance, and how evaluation can better capture effects on participation, accountability, and voice.
Session 6. Navigating the political nature of democracy support evaluation and fostering its strategic use:
Lead facilitators: Lydeke / Rebekah
“Political Dimensions of Democracy Support Evaluation”
Explore how political dynamics—including donor priorities, host-government sensitivities, and stakeholder power relations—shape evaluation practice and use. All evaluation is political, and evaluation of democracy support programming is especially so. Political forces shape funding decisions, what is evaluated, and how results are utilized. This theme explores practical and conceptual strategies for navigating this reality responsibly and effectively.
“Strategic Use of Evaluation in Democracy Support”
Highlight how evaluations inform strategic, programming, and fundraising decisions. Evaluation is most valuable when it informs decision-making, yet translation of evaluation evidence into action is often suboptimal. This theme explores approaches for fostering strategic use and communication of evaluation findings.
