Within the VCSE sector, evaluation work is often underfunded and siloed. It can even pose challenges for professionals in those organisations who can afford specialists due to:
data quality,
complexity of measurement,
nuances of voice,
and strategic prioritisation.
Our local partners consistently raised evaluation as an area we could and should focus on supporting them with.
Establishing a Community of Practice
As such, we set up a Community of Practice (COP) for Evaluation in the community sector. From our beginning in February 2025, we have 4 regular attendees from 4 different organisations. Each of these individuals have slightly different roles and evaluation capacity. Whilst this is hosted by an HDRC Research Officer, it is stable and in-demand enough to carry on in their absence. Whilst there is consistency across sessions, the group decided to keep it open to what issues are emerging for different people. This means we have covered everything including:
Evaluating in complexity
Juggling multiple roles
Evaluating for funders vs evaluating for learning
Theories of change
Logic models
Creating validity
How to measure without it becoming tick-box
Outcomes and benefits
Outcomes so far include:
applications for NIHR development awards
inputting and adapting evaluation frameworks
shared resources and feedback on theory of change
connections to academic partners
cross-organisation collaboration outside of the CoP
Furthermore, participants have reported several personal benefits:
Mutual support
‘Less alone and more confident in my work’
‘Before joining the CoP, I felt disconnected locally and wasn’t sure how to connect with others doing similar a role in Cornwall.’
Advice and input on practical issues
Considerable learning through the less structured format. Members feel less ‘constrained’ than in formal CoPs they attend
Key learnings
A few key learnings about evaluation in the sector include:
The importance of relationship-first. This has created the kind of openness which allows people to be more vulnerable and open up their work to others for useful feedback. It also creates a space of genuine support.
The gap between evaluation fantasies and realities. For example what is asked for by people running projects versus what is actually possible to deliver. This links to a distinction between ‘talk’ and ‘action’. Frameworks and principles for projects can be really useful. But matching them to the messier realities of the work is rarely straightforward.
Resource myths. It is very easy to think evaluation will take less time and resources than it does.
Looking forward, the group wants to grow and experiment with new structures. This can include spotlight sessions or more structured work sharing. As such, we will be using our networks to further promote the group.