Short Abstract

Now in its third year, the WEIF evaluation has evolved from a traditional model to an adaptive, participatory approach. This includes a contribution analysis co-led by delivery partners, using ripple effect mapping and rubrics to explore impact and meaning in a complex partnership context.

Description

The Water Environment Investment Fund (WEIF) is a long-term funding programme delivered through a partnership model to support improvements in water environments. Now in its third year, the evaluation of WEIF has evolved through a deliberately adaptive approach, designed to reflect the complexity of delivery and the dynamic nature of collaborative working.

The evaluation began with the development of a theory of change and a set of evaluation questions. From the outset, the approach was intentionally exploratory. In Year 1, light-touch methods were used to surface early insights and understand the landscape before committing to more in-depth or resource-intensive evaluation activity. Interviews with internal coordinators and external delivery partners revealed two key themes: first, a lack of baseline data and the long timescales required for environmental outcomes to emerge; and second, that WEIF had begun to take on meanings and significance for delivery partners that extended beyond its original design.

These findings informed the direction of Year 2, which focused on addressing the data challenge. This included initiating a longitudinal study and piloting new outcome-focused monitoring approaches with delivery partners. These efforts aimed to build a stronger evidence base for environmental change while remaining grounded in the realities of delivery.

In Year 3, the evaluation has returned to the question of meaning and contribution. A participatory contribution analysis is now underway, with four delivery partner organisations contracted as research collaborators. These partners are leading ripple effect mapping workshops with wider groups of delivery organisations to co-produce impact statements. These statements are then tested through a structured process involving evidence gathering, the use of rubrics to assess strength of contribution, and a “contribution court” to critically examine claims.

This approach has allowed the evaluation to remain relevant and useful in a complex, evolving context. It has also helped to surface insights that would have been missed through more traditional methods—particularly around how the programme is shaping relationships, capacity, and ways of working across the sector.

The session will reflect on the benefits and challenges of embedding evaluation in dynamic delivery environments, including the tension between accountability and learning, and the practicalities of working with incomplete or emergent evidence. It will also explore the implications of involving delivery partners as research collaborators, including the ethical and relational dimensions of power, trust, and ownership of evidence.

By sharing this case study, the session aims to contribute to wider conversations about how evaluation can adapt to complexity, support meaningful learning, and influence decision-making in real time.