What makes an evaluation ask reasonable?

In some communities, conversations about cancer take place at kitchen tables. In others, they happen between shifts, in passing conversations shaped by the rhythm of working life. They begin slowly, through repeated contact before trust is built.

For people affected by cancer, support often begins before a referral, a form or a formal conversation. It begins with trust: feeling safe enough to ask a question, share a worry, or say what help is needed. 

That creates a challenge for impact evaluation. If trust is what makes support possible, how do you understand the difference a programme is making without asking too much, too soon, or in ways that disrupt the relationships being built? 

Macmillan Cancer Support’s Cancer Champions programme works with community organisations to train volunteers to raise awareness of cancer symptoms and improve access to support. NPC has evaluated the programme since it started in 2023, learning how local context shapes the way people engage, what they are ready to share, and when they are ready to share it. 

At the same time, monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) requests to understand the impact the programme was having often looked similar across different contexts: during programme set-up , when gathering recorded participant stories, and when identifying interviewees. Each of these asks seems reasonable. But how they land in practice depends on timing, relationships and local context.  

This raised a shared question for NPC and Macmillan: 

What does a ‘reasonable’ MEL ask actually look, feel, and sound like for grantees?

Over time, the answer evolved. What felt proportionate at the outset did not always reflect how programmes were developing on the ground. As NPC, Macmillan and delivery partners learned what worked for different communities, the evaluation approach shifted in its timing, methods and expectations. 

Five lessons on reasonable MEL asks

The examples below show how that learning has unfolded since 2023 and how it has reshaped our understanding of MEL asks for community programmes.

1. Trust shapes when the time is right to ask for data 

In communities where people may have experienced stigma, trauma and/or barriers to support, trust takes time. 

Working with LGBTQIA+ communities in Northern Ireland, The Rainbow Project Cancer Champions found that evaluation activity needed to be grounded in where people were. In response, relationship-building took priority over evaluation activity. 

As those relationships strengthened, people shared more openly, using evaluation tools that felt right for them, and, with it, insight became deeper and more meaningful. 

The lesson we’re taking away: what is fair to ask depends on when people are ready to share. 

From Macmillan’s perspective, this highlighted a familiar challenge: balancing early accountability with giving programmes the space to begin. Starting lighter and building expectations over time helped to reflect how programmes develop in practice.  

2. Language shapes who feels able to take part

Across several communities, the language used to describe evaluation influenced participation. 

In the Zebra Collective’s work with diverse and often underserved communities in Plymouth, terms such as ‘interview’ or ‘Most significant change’ story could feel formal or abstract. Some participants questioned whether their experiences were ‘significant enough’ to share.  

Reframing these as ‘conversations’ about ‘important changes’ created a more accessible and inclusive way to engage, broadening participation. 

The lesson we’re taking away: a fair MEL ask uses language that feels accessible and relevant to the people and communities involved.

3. People’s circumstances shape how insight is gathered  

In communities where people are experiencing vulnerability, trauma or serious illness, how evaluation is carried out matters as much as what is being asked. 

In rural Fenland, Cambridgeshire ACRE shared that early use of structured evaluation tools felt formal. The approach adapted over time, moved towards more informal, consent-led conversations, shaped by participants’ circumstances and pace. 

This created a safer space for people to share their experiences and allowed insights to emerge more naturally. 

The lesson we’re taking away: MEL asks need to reflect people’s capacity, readiness, and pace, not just methodological preference.

4. Community context shapes what evidence is possible  

Different communities engaged with the programme in different ways. 

In North Shields, the Fishermen’s Mission’s C-Aware project works with a fishing community, and engagement often took place through informal and quayside engagement. Over time, approaches to gathering insight adapted to reflect this, drawing more on everyday conversations and community-led outreach.  

This enabled the evaluation to capture insights grounded in how the community actually engages with support. 

The lesson we’re taking away: consistency across programmes needs to sit alongside flexibility so evidence reflects how different communities engage with support. 

For Macmillan, this surfaced an ongoing consideration: how to balance comparable insight across a programme with flexibility in delivery. A small set of shared measures, alongside locally adapted approaches, helped maintain both relevance and programme-level learning.  

5. MEL asks need to develop over time  

Across our five evaluation programme partners, each site brought different insights into how evaluation approaches could be shaped for different contexts and delivery stages. 

One of the clearest insights was that the evaluation approach could not be fixed at the outset. 

Instead, it evolved through ongoing engagement with programme staff. Workshops, check-ins and shared quarterly sense-making created opportunities to revisit what was being asked, when, and how it was being experienced by the communities they worked with and alongside. 

In practice, this meant reprioritising some activities, adapting others, and focusing effort where it would be most valuable at each stage of delivery. 

On the English south coast, Hastings Voluntary Action (HVA) aligned evaluation with moments that were already part of programme delivery. Rather than creating additional asks, the evaluation drew on existing opportunities for community members to share their experiences. As the programme developed, the approach was adapted again, reflecting the way activity was increasingly spread across the community and led by local people. 

Over the three years, evaluation became increasingly shaped by the community programmes, rather than experienced as separate from delivery. 

The lesson we’re taking away: a MEL ask should not be fixed once; it needs to stay responsive and develop over time. 

Evaluation is a design choice 

Across these communities, the same pattern emerged. 

When the evaluation aligned with how work was happening on the ground, in homes, cafes, and supermarkets, people were more able to take part, and the insights generated were more meaningful. 

MEL requirements are not just technical decisions. They are design choices.

For Macmillan, this reinforced that MEL requirements are not just technical decisions. They are design choices that shape both the experience of programmes and the learning that comes from them.  

Our understanding will continue to evolve, but this work suggests that MEL asks within communities work best when they: 

• reflect how trust is built 
• respond to different contexts
• evolve alongside delivery 

When this happens, evaluation becomes part of how programmes learn and improve, not something that sits separately from the work itself. It helps organisations understand not only whether change is happening, but how support can be refined so that people affected by cancer receive help in ways that reflect their lives, relationships and communities.