Things Are Changing. We’ve Been Listening.
/By Clare Nolan and Anna Saltzman
We are in a period of profound change and challenge. The political landscape has shifted sharply. Equity work is being politicized. Nonprofits are facing mounting threats. And within philanthropy, questions are emerging about the role and value of learning and evaluation. The ground under this work feels less steady, and the stakes feel higher.
This spring, we paused to listen more closely. We commissioned a landscape scan to better understand what’s changing in the field of philanthropic learning and evaluation, and what that might mean for how we show up. We asked:
What are funders and field leaders, such as consultants and intermediary organizations, grappling with?
How are political and technological pressures shaping the work?
What do people need now from their learning partners?
We’ve been connecting with funders and evaluators who know this terrain well, from long-time clients and collaborators to new leaders whose voices are shaping the trajectory of learning in philanthropy. These interviews were a core part of our scan, but not the only source. We’ve also been listening to our clients, through recent conversations we facilitated with learning community participants (Left Coast and the Systems Change CoP), at the Grantmakers for Effective Organizations conference, and in dialogues with leaders of other evaluation firms. Across these diverse touchpoints, we started to hear a pattern regarding current priorities, tensions, and hopes.
This post shares what we’re hearing, what we think it means, and how we hope to support others navigating this moment. We hope it offers a grounded reflection drawn from the field—one that is useful, honest, and timely.
What We’re Hearing in This Moment
1. Learning must move faster—with less drag.
Funders are feeling the pressure to respond quickly to fast-changing contexts. They want their learning partners to do the same. That means less time-consuming data collection, more rapid synthesis, and more actionable insights. Traditional evaluation cycles—six months of planning, six more for analysis—just aren’t cutting it anymore.
“The best kind of learning and evaluation is when you’re applying it as you go... How can organizations be better structured so that they’re not... hiring an outside agency, evaluating for six months, then popping up and being like, ‘okay, now this is what we’re going to do’ when the world is burning around us that whole time?”
This urgency doesn’t mean abandoning thoughtfulness. It means being more strategic, nimble, and disciplined in what we ask, how we learn, and how quickly we put insights to use.
2. Equity commitments remain strong, but language is shifting.
Almost every funder we connected with reaffirmed their commitment to equity. But many described being more cautious with public framing, especially in politically-charged environments. Some are adjusting language, while others are quietly sustaining equity work without drawing too much attention to it.
“We want to keep the commitment [but] the language that we use needs to be different for fear of regulators or [the] federal government...”
“[Evaluation] with a very strong equity focus is more important now than ever, even though there's such a huge backlash against it.”
These shifts raise real questions. How do we uphold equity commitments when the external climate becomes hostile to them? What does it mean to stay in the work without softening it to the point of dilution?
3. Learning partners need to be relational, not just technical.
Funders want partners who are rigorous and human—people who understand the emotional and relational dimensions of strategy and change. The technical side of evaluation is necessary but not sufficient.
“We have found so much evaluation, especially now and especially with complex social change, is relational... humans understanding other humans.”
“[This work requires learning partners to have a] deep background in building relationships and understanding trade-offs and [philanthropic] decision making.”
Funders spoke to the importance of skills such as emotional intelligence, cultural fluency, and the ability to facilitate trust-based dialogue, in addition to technical and content-area knowledge. They want partners who can help clients navigate complexity without over-simplifying, and make space for discomfort without retreating. Some also spoke to the need for relationship-centered practices that engage community voice more authentically, not just as a data source, but as co-shapers of meaning.
4. Disinvestment is real, and the role of learning is vulnerable.
Several funders and field leaders noted that learning and evaluation teams are being downsized, absorbed, or cut altogether. While some framed this as a cost-saving move, others expressed concern about what gets lost when evaluation becomes a side job rather than a core function.
“[Absorbing learning and evaluation funding into program budgets] is not a bad thing because it helps program [staff] to feel a sense of ownership. But... it cuts off access to executives and trustees to build their learning and patience around this kind of work.”
“Thirty percent of the organizations we fund might not exist two years from now…We’ve had to be far more nimble. We’ve had to frankly put a few things on the back burner in order to devote our time internally to being able to both document, support, and lead conversations based on what we’re learning around our work in immigrant communities."
At the same time, many foundation staff are overwhelmed between grappling with traditional processes that feel too slow and boards requesting more quantifiable outcomes. This makes it harder to sustain learning both internally and externally, especially for grantees who often rely on evaluation to provide reflective space and adaptive support in times of crisis. There’s growing concern about the long-term erosion of infrastructure for learning and equity if these shifts continue unchecked.
5. AI is sparking both excitement and unease.
Most funders and field leaders we’ve spoken with noted seeing potential in AI—for faster synthesis, better knowledge sharing, and quicker learning cycles. However, they also noted concerns about bias, data privacy, lack of training and useful guidance, and potential to shortcut group meaning-making.
“AI will only get you to about 65%. The rest is really about human interpretation, intuition, and sense about what’s most relevant.”
“If I upload all of this to ChatGPT, where is all that information going? Who has access to this and who could be harmed?”
The promise of AI is real, but so are the ethical and practical risks. The challenge is to stay curious about AI’s potential while remaining clear-eyed about its limitations, and move forward with thoughtful experimentation that pairs AI efficiency with human sensemaking and community accountability.
What It Means: Learning Still Matters. But It Has to Look Different.
The message was clear. People still need learning, but it can’t look the way it used to. There isn’t time for long cycles, 60-slide decks, or reports that only capture the past. Learning has to be:
Faster. Responsive to rapidly changing conditions.
Lighter. Low-burden for grantees, programs, and internal teams.
Strategic. Focused on sensemaking, decision support, and adaptation.
Community-centered. Built on trust, relationships, and authentic engagement.
Equity-grounded. Upholding equity values while also engaging across difference.
Funders and field leaders spoke not just of technical needs but of emotional and strategic ones: the desire for learning that helps people feel less alone in uncertainty, that opens up difficult conversations, and that supports meaningful decision-making. In some cases, it might mean reimagining the entire arc of a learning engagement, from how it’s framed to how insights are shared and used.
As the field moves through uncertainty, we see several throughlines. Funders can continue to resource learning but less as a compliance function and more as a tool for strategy and adaptation. Evaluation firms can align their approaches with the pace and pressure of today’s conditions—streamlining timelines, co-creating insights, and sharing learnings in more flexible ways. And across the board, there’s an opportunity—and a responsibility—to speak up for the continued relevance of learning and reflection, not as a luxury but as a condition for effective action.
If we don’t adapt our approach to learning, we run the risk of having learning become peripheral — or worse, obsolete. But if we do adapt, learning could become more essential than ever.
What’s Next: Our Work and Role
While this piece focuses on broader field trends, we’ve also been reflecting on where Engage R+D fits within the evolving ecosystem of learning and evaluation. In our conversations, leaders named the value they see in how we show up—both relationally and methodologically. They appreciated our equity-centered approach, our ability to hold complexity, and our willingness to adapt. And they encouraged us to strengthen our field-building role.
We’re taking that to heart. That doesn’t mean becoming louder for the sake of visibility. It means:
Sharing what we’re learning more consistently, even when it’s unfinished.
Holding space for candid dialogue with clients, partners, and peers.
Continuing to evolve our methods so they stay useful in real-world conditions.
Doubling down on equity, trust, and relationships as core tenets of our practice.
We’re also exploring new ways to collaborate across firms, funders, and intermediaries. No single organization can meet this moment alone. The challenges are too complex, the conditions too dynamic, and the stakes too high. We hope this blog contributes to ongoing discussions. We’re not the only ones navigating these questions and would love to hear what you’re seeing as we chart this course together.
