Over the past year, I’ve had more conversations than I can count about “what’s happening” in federal funding, public health, and science. There is uncertainty. There is increased scrutiny. There is political volatility. There is a noticeable tightening around what gets funded, how it gets framed, and how outcomes must be reported.
For community-based organizations, this creates a predictable response: protect core services, cut what feels discretionary, and reduce evaluation to solely what is strictly required. On the surface, that response makes sense. But there is a difference between being strategic in a difficult moment and quietly normalizing minimal practice.
The instinct to shrink
The reality is that, in this current climate, many organizations will choose to implement evaluation practices using a DIY minimum approach, at least in the short term. Following this approach, someone internally who “knows the data” must absorb the minimum required responsibilities, whether it be reporting, maintaining required systems, summarizing outputs, or staying grant-compliant. While this is understandable and, at times, necessary, it is not without its drawbacks.
The unspoken risk of choosing the minimum
In our recent strategic planning conversations, one insight surfaced repeatedly. The cost of delayed investment in organizational evaluation capacity is almost always higher over time than the cost of implementing ongoing evaluation practices, whether that cost is felt via reduced grant funding, stalled business development, or staff turnover.
Doing the bare minimum, or even doing nothing, creates immediate risk ranging from loss of funding eligibility to compliance gaps or reduced competitiveness. Remaining at “compliance only” evaluation for too long creates something slower. What begins as a temporary adjustment can slowly reshape culture in many ways:
- Normalization of “just enough.”
- Staff burnout from unmanaged reporting demands.
- Confusion around showcasing impact over activities.
- Loss of learning loops and strategic integration.
- Gradual erosion of program quality.
Minimum practice preserves compliance. It does not necessarily preserve impact. Over time, organizations can begin mistaking going through the motions for insight and reporting for learning. Reporting without reflection contributes to low morale, minimal engagement, and team burnout and while you maintain your current funding it makes it harder to listen, learn, grow and expand.
When evaluation becomes synonymous with compliance, we lose its most powerful function: helping organizations adapt, improve, and stay accountable to both communities and funders.
This is not alarmism. It is a long-term strategy.
Anyone who has worked in public health and science long enough knows that funding climates shift, federal priorities evolve, and political environments cycle. What concerns me is the risk of organizations allowing uncertainty to reshape standards.
Evaluation should not become the first thing we hollow out when funding tightens. Nor should it become merely a risk-management function. Evaluation is a part of the infrastructure that is core to how organizations:
- Protect mission integrity.
- Demonstrate their return on investment.
- Avoid continuing ineffective programs.
- Make informed tradeoffs during constrained periods.
- Maintain trust with both communities and funders.
In moments of uncertainty, the value of data-driven decision making and learning increases exponentially, making evaluation key to operational success.
Three Leadership Moves for This Moment
If you are leading an organization right now, here is what I would encourage for your evaluation work:
- Treat “the minimum” as a transitional, not a permanent, state. If you must reduce, do so intentionally, with manageable systems in place and a timeline and a plan to rebuild.
- Protect learning time, not just reporting time. If one person is handling evaluation internally, ensure part of their role includes leading reflection, interpretation, and strategy rather than just data entry and quarterly reports.
- Focus on a few meaningful measures. In constrained moments, organizations do not need dozens of indicators. A small set of shared measures and clear definitions can help ensure evaluation supports learning rather than simply producing reports.
Even modest changes can preserve a culture of inquiry. The goal is not to achieve perfect evaluation systems during uncertain times; it is to protect the habit of learning. Organizations that continue to ask questions, examine results, and adjust course will be far better prepared when the funding climate stabilizes again.
