Scaling is often treated as a straightforward ambition: test an intervention in one place, then replicate it in others. In complex systems, and particularly in place-based settings where challenges are systemically entrenched in local history, relationships and power, this logic breaks down. What works is frequently inseparable from where and with whom it works. Scaling across places is not replication. It is a fundamentally different process, and evaluators need tools adequate to that complexity. This workshop equips evaluators, program designers and commissioners to challenge lock-step and linear models of scaling and apply a complexity-informed, place-sensitive approach in their own practice. Despite the proliferation of place-based initiatives across Australia and the Asia Pacific, most evaluators lack a coherent framework for assessing scalability or monitoring fidelity in contextually sensitive ways. Three connected arguments run through the session. First, scalability is a question before it is a plan: interventions need to be tested for readiness and direction before any scaling begins. Second, scaling in complex systems requires holding the tension between fidelity and adaptation, not resolving it prematurely. Third, scaling across places demands attention to what is systemically entrenched in each context: the relationships, trust and power dynamics that cannot be lifted and shifted. These arguments are anchored in three practical tools: a reworked scalability assessment; the Scaling in Place Framework, a new conceptual tool mapping fidelity, adaptation, mechanism and context; and the Scaling Canvas and Fidelity Checker for planning and monitoring. The session is structured around a short conceptual input, a worked case example, and a facilitated small group activity in which participants apply the tools to a program or context from their own practice. Structured reflection closes the session. It is targeted at intermediate-level evaluators, program designers and commissioners working in place-based, health, community or government settings.
Principal Consultant | Co-Founder, First Person Consulting
I'm Matt, Co-Founder of First Person Consulting. I work at the intersection of systems thinking, evaluation and design — helping people make sense of messy, complex problems with a healthy dose of humour and humility. I also co-host the It Depends Podcast, where the honest answer... Read More →
Thursday September 17, 2026 10:30am - 11:30am ACST Rooms 3+4Stokes Hill Rd, Darwin City NT, Australia
Author: Elisabeta Torava Evaluation practice in Indigenous communities across the Pacific and Australia often rely on Western tools that overlook relational obligations, kinship structures, and place based ethics. This session introduces a practical, culturally grounded evaluation approach based on vanua ontology, a relational worldview that positions land, people, and relationships as inseparable. Drawing from my doctoral research with iTaukei communities in Fiji, the session demonstrates how evaluators can design and implement evaluations that honour Indigenous values, strengthen relational accountability, and generate findings that communities recognise as meaningful. The objective is to demonstrate how evaluators can redesign Western tools and methods to honour Indigenous relational ethics, strengthen cultural integrity, and generate findings that communities recognise and relate with. This work is important because many evaluation tools used across the Pacific and Australia continue to erase relational systems, producing invisibility, misinterpretation, and unintended harm. The core argument is that evaluation practice must shift from individualistic, decontextualised measures to relational, place‑based approaches grounded in Indigenous worldviews. Three key messages will be shared: - Western evaluation tools often embed assumptions that conflict with Indigenous relational logics. - Vanua‑aligned principles offer a culturally coherent foundation for ethical, rigorous evaluation. - Practical redesign is possible when evaluators centre relationships, place, and collective wellbeing. Designed as a skill‑building session, the presentation uses hands‑on activities rather than lecture. Participants will analyse a standard Western evaluation tool, identify where invisibility occurs, and collaboratively redesign selected questions using vanua‑based principles. A case vignette and mapping template will guide this process. Interactivity is promoted through small‑group work, collective mapping, movement‑based clustering, and facilitated dialogue. Participants will leave with a practical mini‑framework and concrete tools they can apply immediately in their own evaluation practice.
Learning objective: Participants will be able to construct core and alternative hypotheses from a theory of change, design evidence tests to distinguish between them and make defensible causal claims.
Contribution analysis is now widely used in Australian evaluation practice, but many evaluators stop short of the next step: systematically testing whether something other than the program explains the observed outcomes. Process tracing does exactly this. It raises the rigour of causal claims not by collecting more data, but by being more deliberate about what the data needs to show — and what it would need to show if the alternative explanation were true instead.
This workshop uses a real evaluation of the Embrace Multicultural Mental Health Project as a case study. The Embrace evaluation combined contribution analysis and process tracing with a mixed-method design including a quasi-experimental quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. It produced a result that many evaluations encounter but few handle well: the quantitative analysis found the program had no detectable effect on key outcomes, yet qualitative evidence suggested it was working. Process tracing provided the analytical framework to distinguish between three plausible explanations — the program failed, the effects take time to materialise, or competing programs are producing the same outcomes.
Participants work through three structured exercises: translating a theory of change into core and alternative hypotheses; designing evidence tests that can distinguish between them; and applying evaluator judgement to weight mixed evidence and reach a defensible conclusion. Each exercise uses the Embrace case, with reflection prompts connecting the method to participants' own evaluations.
The workshop is aimed at intermediate to advanced evaluators working on complex programs.
This Skill Building session introduces three practical, culturally grounded evaluation tools developed through Churches of Christ Vanuatu’s (CCCV) mental wellbeing work: the Faith + Data Model, the Youth Risk‑Mapping Tool and Trauma‑Informed Storian Circles. These tools emerged from a multi‑year program involving a 1,110‑household Urban Study, youth behavioural data, earthquake trauma responses and community‑driven interventions. The session addresses a core challenge in evaluation: how to design methods that are rigorous, culturally resonant and effective in low‑resource, cross‑cultural settings. The objective of the presentation is to equip evaluators with adaptable tools that integrate community evidence, kastom practices and faith‑based strengths to strengthen mental wellbeing systems. This topic is important because evaluators increasingly work in culturally diverse contexts where Western evaluation methods alone are insufficient for capturing lived experience, trauma, and relational dynamics. The presentation advances three key messages: 1.Evaluation must integrate cultural and spiritual knowledge with data to produce meaningful insights. 2.Youth wellbeing requires rapid, context‑specific assessment tools that identify patterns of risk and guide targeted interventions. 3.Trauma‑aware, culturally grounded qualitative methods can generate rich data while supporting community healing and resilience. Each tool is introduced through a short demonstration using real CCCV examples, followed by a structured group activity where participants apply the tool to a scenario. This design ensures that participants not only understand the concepts but also practice using them in a supportive environment. The session will be interactive through small‑group exercises, reflective discussions and scenario‑based problem‑solving. Participants will map youth risks, design a Storian Circle prompt and apply the Faith + Data Model to a community case study. These activities encourage peer learning, cultural reflection and practical skill development. By the end of the session, participants will leave with three adaptable tools they can apply immediately in their own evaluation contexts.
Authors: Patricia Rogers, Footprint Evaluation Initiative, Emil Laurberg Morgensen, University of Southern Denmark Theories of change are now commonly used to design initiatives, including projects, programs and policies, and to shape monitoring and evaluation. But 40 years after first being showcased at an AES conference, these are often developed and used in ways that don’t fit what is needed, especially to support adaptation across different settings and in changing contexts. This session will present common mistakes, what they are, why they matter, and examples of better strategies. Participants will engage with exercises to identify issues, try out strategies and explore possible applications in their own work and in shaping organisational requirements and procedures.
Founder of BetterEvaluation and former Professor of Public Sector Evaluation at RMIT University. Now working as consultant and advisor. My work has focused on supporting appropriate choice and use of evaluation methods and approaches to suit purposes and context. I am currently working... Read More →
