Short Abstract

Learn how formative evaluation shaped Fleming Fund design, adaptation and policy influence amid global uncertainty. Gain practical lessons on embedding evaluation for impact, balancing timeliness with rigour, and strategies for influencing policy—ideal for evaluators seeking actionable insights.

Description

Introduction

This panel will share lessons from using formative evaluation to strengthen Fleming Fund programme outcomes and influence policy at global, regional, and national levels.

Context

The Fleming Fund was established in 2017 to strengthen Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) surveillance as a key pillar in global efforts to tackle AMR. Through a portfolio of country-, regional- and global grants, the Fund has generated country-level analyses on AMR and shared with decision makers to influence national and global policy and regulation.

Itad has been the Fund’s independent evaluation partner since 2017, delivering a range of evaluation products from the start up of the Fund. These have informed substantial programme change (including securing a second phase of support for the Fund, with an evolving focus based on experience in phase 1); and policy and regulation change at national and global level, including at the UN High Level Meeting on AMR in September 2024.

The Fund has been implemented throughout a period of significant uncertainty. The programme has adapted to respond to the challenges of COVID-19, Brexit, changes of UK government, multiple short-term spending reviews and associated replanning exercises. Uncertainty looks set to influence the design and implementation of ODA programmes for the foreseeable future, particularly in the context of recent and ongoing US and UK cuts to ODA. The Fund’s incorporation of evaluation from the design stage and its use of evaluation outputs for timely support to key decisions offers valuable lessons to any evaluators or decision makers seeking effective, sustainable ODA programmes.

Objectives

The panel will show how DHSC and Itad structured and used evaluation to guide programme design, adaptation and decision-making in a complex, multi-stakeholder context.

Plan for panel

Two speakers will present for 10 minutes each:

• Milena von und zer Muhlen (DHSC) will provide an overview of how DHSC structured the evaluation to maximise value and relevance, including on how evaluative thinking was used to inform programme design and maximise effectiveness. For example, incorporating evidence on best practice in policy influencing and agenda setting.

• Jon Cooper (Itad) will outline how the evaluation adapted its approach to respond to DHSC changing needs and uncertainty whilst maintaining methodologically robust evaluative insights.

Both will discuss challenges and strategies for maximising effectiveness.

• DHSC adapted evaluation timeframes and deliverables to ensure timely, relevant insights.

• A supportive culture for learning and evidence use is critical.

• Rigid portfolio and contract systems hinder adaptation.

• Multiple tailored mechanisms are needed to engage decision-makers; findings must be simple yet substantive and striking the balance is not easy.

• Policy influence and sustainability require time, strategic action, and political awareness—evidence alone is insufficient.

• Sustainability must be embedded from the outset, not left to later stages.

Q&A facilitated by Tim Shorten, with potential questions such as:

1. Which evaluation design features more / less influential for DHSC decisions?

2. How did the Fund engage national decision-makers, and and to what extent were evaluation findings necessary/sufficient?

3. How to balance timeliness vs robustness, pragmatism vs perfection?