aes26 International Evaluation Conference

Authors: Jess Moniodis (North Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Service), Mona Roberts (North Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Service)
This session will examine how NAAFLS is embedding Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Governance principles into program evaluation. Our evaluation applies Indigenous-led qualitative methodologies that are explicitly aligned with nationally recognised victim-survivor principles. These methods prioritise safety, choice, voice, control, dignity, healing, and accountability across stages of the evaluation.

Guided by a two-worlds approach, and place-based victim-survivor led solutions, we recognise that well-intentioned initiatives can sometimes unintentionally create negative impacts rather than support community-defined outcomes.

NAAFLS aims to address this by co-creating an evaluation approach that places First Nations perspectives on safety and wellbeing at the forefront, while aligning with nationally recognised victim-survivor and organisational principles. We will explore how evaluation has helped restore ethics and integrity in a complex setting to support collective learning across stakeholders and shift power back to our communities. Our approach prioritises women’s voices, lived experience, cultural knowledge, and the inclusion of diverse perspectives to ensure evaluation is grounded in the lived realities of those most affected.

Informed by a two-worlds approach and Our Ways – Strong Ways – Our Voices: National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Plan to End Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 2026–2036, this work centres victim-survivors, Elders, community members, service providers, and experienced professionals in defining success, shaping accountability, and guiding learning and improvement. This presentation will demonstrate NAAFLS practical application of a two-way lens - sharing our approach and reflections in translating Indigenous Data Sovereignty from principle into practice. It will also discuss lessons learned in embedding best-practice principles, supporting place-based understanding, and strengthening sustainable, community-led pathways for support.

Participants will be encouraged to reflect on their own practice, share their experiences and challenges, and discuss practical ways to embed Indigenous Data Sovereignty into evaluation practices.

Authors: Catherine Wade (Parenting Research Centre), Matt Healy (First Person Consulting), Fiona May (Parenting Research Centre)
Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a systems methodology that maps and measures the relationships between actors in a system - revealing how information flows, where influence sits, and where collaboration can be strengthened. While widely used in research and policy contexts internationally, SNA remains underutilised in Australian evaluation practice, particularly in the social services sector where understanding partnership networks is critical to achieving outcomes.

This paper presents SNA as both a practical evaluation tool and a method for surfacing the relational dynamics that traditional approaches often miss. Drawing on applied examples from recent social services projects, we demonstrate how SNA can be used to assess whether programs are building the collaborative networks they intend to, identify structural gaps in service systems, and track network change over time. One example used to showcase the method will be a project exploring the social networks that mothers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds rely on when making decisions about infant sleep practices.

The project aims to map these networks, identify the types of information shared, and examine how they influence mothers’ engagement with safe-sleep education.

Three key messages will be explored in the paper: how SNA complements existing evaluation methods rather than replacing them; what it takes to design and implement SNA in complex service environments; and how findings can be communicated to diverse stakeholders in ways that are actionable and meaningful.

The presentation combines a conceptual introduction with worked examples, and will include structured discussion inviting participants to consider how SNA might apply to their own evaluation contexts.

Author: Charlie Tulloch (Policy Performance)

This session at the start of the conference orients new, emerging and non-evaluators to the types of topics and content they will encounter over the coming days. It provides a foundational overview of evidence-related fields (e.g. evidence, monitoring, evaluation, learning), debunks key concepts/language, offers insights into what evaluators do day-to-day, discusses values/valuing, ethical considerations, competencies and key steps usually considered when completing high quality evaluation projects.The session strengthens defines the boundaries and intersections of evaluation and other disciplines to understand this field of endeavour, the pathways in and the opportunities it offers.

The session’s main aims are to share and discuss:

• How evidence is used in different policy and organisational landscapes

• The roles and types of projects led by evaluators

• Techniques frequently used by evaluators•Ways that evaluators think (logic, data, outputs, outcomes, impact)

• Why and when evaluations happen (or do not)

• Practical tips for evaluation commissioners and working with evaluators

• Capability building (skills and knowledge) to promote use of evaluation in-house

• A seven-stage approach to planning and conducting an evaluation project

• Essential skills of evaluators, including logic modelling, defining key/interview questions, forming value judgments, and selecting effective evaluation approaches/methods.The session will provide attendees with an opportunity to ask questions anonymously, so they feel very comfortable as the conference commences.

Questions will be addressed during the session, creating an open, interactive discussion.The session will also provide an overview of the conference structure, learning opportunities and flow, to provide a guide to attendees about how to gain the most value from their time.

Author: Su-Ann Drew (Grosvenor)
​​​​Many organisations value evaluation in principle but struggle to sustain it in practice, particularly when time is limited, priorities shift, or politically sensitive issues arise. Under pressure, evaluation is often treated as an optional task rather than a way of thinking embedded in everyday work. This short paper examines what allows evaluative thinking to persist under these conditions, especially where leadership support is intermittent, symbolic or short lived.

Authors: Jen Lorains (Children's Ground), Veronica Doolan (Children's Ground), Pauline Grant (Children's Ground), Jackie Treeves (Children's Ground)

For too long our people have been the subjects not the leaders of evaluation and research: “Our people have been researched to death. It’s time we researched ourselves back to life” (William Tilmouth, Senior Arrernte man).
Children’s Ground (CG) is disrupting the status quo in research and evaluation. From daily data collection and designing evaluation tools, to analysing evaluation data through community and culturally centred evaluation frameworks relevant to each place.

Using practice evidence and collaborative reflection about how First Nations communities are leading service/program evaluation for their families and place, the workshop learning objective is that participants will increase their understanding of culturally grounded evaluation and gain practical strategies and skills that can be applied to their evaluation context.

The workshop will consist of two parts, including CG sharing practice evidence, followed by collaborative group/table strategy development.

Firstly, CG’s evaluation principles will be outlined, with First Nations leaders sharing experiences in action. Participants will reflect on 2-3 principles, documenting their effective and challenging experiences of working in line with the principes, then sharing with the larger group. CG’s First Nations leaders will respond, building on the knowledge being generated by the participants.

Secondly, CG’s First Nations leaders will share experiences of developing community and culturally centred evaluation frameworks, including a visual walk through of 2-3 frameworks developed by First Nations communities across three culturally and geographically diverse regions. Comparative examples of evaluation data analysis between CG’s cultural and western evaluation frameworks will also be shared, including methodological implications.

Participants will collaboratively document ideas for supporting First Nations people/communities to develop community and culturally centred evaluation frameworks in their context, then sharing with the larger group.

We believe learning how to embed culturally grounded evaluation from First Nations community’s real-world experience is an important contribution to holistic learning, complements theoretical learning.

Authors: Lorraine Heywood, Treasury, Suzanne Butler, Treasury, Jessica Smart, AIFS
This panel discussion and Q&A will provide a lively and thought-provoking discussion about the differences between traditional program evaluation and place-based evaluation, with panel members sharing their experience and examples from different organisational perspectives across the field. 

Author: Jess Dart, Clear Horizon
This paper introduces the Collective Noticing Method (CNM) and explores its relevance for measurement, evaluation and learning (MEL). Developed by the author, CNM offers evaluators and changemakers a collaborative way to notice, learn from, and respond to subtle and emerging changes. It is a rigorous yet flexible method with a strong focus on learning and collective sensemaking, well suited to the “messy middle” of systems change and place-based work. It also has potential for community and grassroots work, program portfolios, and research impact tracking.

Collective noticing as a practice has a long history, evident in approaches such as Outcome Harvesting, Most Significant Change (MSC), citizen science, ripple effect monitoring, and context monitoring. More recently, this practice has been enabled and accelerated by emerging digital platforms and AI. Building on these foundations, CNM intentionally harnesses the eyes and ears of those implementing and experiencing an initiative to bring shared attention to what is changing.CNM is inherently participatory, inviting many people to observe, document, and interpret change collectively. It values lived experience as a central source of insight, embraces uncertainty, and supports adaptive action grounded in what is actually emerging. As a decolonising and grounded approach to MEL, CNM shares power by broadening who defines what matters and what counts as evidence. It centres learning-oriented measurement and collective sensemaking, bringing forward subtle signals, relational shifts, and everyday insights that conventional approaches often overlook.

CMN involves impact logging and tracking against agreed ways of working and learnings, whereas Outcome Harvesting focuses on outcomes and tends to be done as a one-off study. It differs from MSC in that CNM uses shorter, multi-perspective logs across diverse categories and evidence types.This session introduces CNM and invites participants to critically explore its benefits, limitations, and the contexts in which it is most—and least—useful.

Author: Jo van Twest Farmer (Rooftop Social)

Independence is often posited as a primary means of ensuring evaluation is rigorous, trustworthy and fair. Independence is Norm 4 of the United Nation’s Evaluation Group Norms and Standards for Evaluation (2016), which states it is “necessary for credibility”. Built into this standard are two concepts – behavioural independence (evaluating without undue influence) and organisational independence (structures that support independent practice). For many in the evaluation landscape, the best means of ensuring independence has been for ‘independent evaluators’ to conduct ‘independent evaluations’.
Discussions around what constitutes independence have long been a feature of evaluation literature, but arguably there have never been so many pressures on maintaining independence in evaluation. There is growing interest in evaluation approaches where the relationships between program delivery and evaluation is less clear-cut, such as developmental, participatory and lived experience-led evaluations. As evaluation capability grows, evaluation functions are more widespread across teams and embedded in business-as-usual learning practice, rather than contracted out. Less positively, changing fiscal conditions place more pressure on organisations to undertake evaluation with less capacity for external expertise and support. The need to demonstrate impact to access funding in tightening funding environments means evaluations are higher stakes than ever, and there are often vested interests in demonstrating programs are effective.
This short paper will discuss what independence means in 2026, arguing that evaluation has moved beyond ‘organisational independence’ and must instead focus on how to support ‘behavioural independence’. Contemporary evaluation practice requires understandings of independence grounded in ethics and integrity. This approach directly challenges traditional role boundaries in evaluation, such as external versus internal or participant versus evaluator. In responding to the challenges of maintaining independence in 2026 and beyond, the presentation will suggest criteria to support evaluators to guide the ethics of their own practice, and a framework for upholding independent practice.

Author: Salli Cohen (The Policy Room)
This presentation explores the uncomfortable space where policy and evaluation structurally reinforce harm. Its objective is to challenge assumptions of neutrality and examine how evaluative frameworks can either illuminate or obscure inequity.
The core argument is threefold: (1) evaluation and policy are never neutral and must interrogate power; (2) systems alignment and cultural authority determine whether outcomes are real or performative; and (3) accountability must ask “for whom” evaluation and policy work; and who bears the cost.
The session blends applied case insight with structured reflection and peer dialogue to provoke critical engagement and practical recalibration.

Authors: Kristian Paolo Torres, BRAC Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative, Tania Dora Warokka, BRAC Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative, Arnaldo Pellini, BRAC Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative
Programmes aiming to influence governance systems and policy reforms—particularly those using experimental approaches—require MEL functions that are able to move across design, strategy, context analysis, and sensemaking.

Traditional M&E often prioritizes linear accountability, struggling to measure influence on policies and behaviors (as noted by the ODI RAPID programme, 2006–2020).

This presentation shares the experience of the BRAC Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative, which partners with governments across six countries to scale the ‘Graduation’ approach through national social development systems (e.g. social protection, livelihood, labour and employment, etc.). Because UPGI’s success is measured by policy influence and system change rather than direct delivery, the MEL function must act as a strategic bridge rather than a neutral observer.

Drawing on our experience in Indonesia and the Philippines, we share how MEL supports country teams as adaptive units navigating two primary challenges: calibrating the interplay between political commitment, administrative feasibility, and technical quality; and designing for scale from the outset to ensure government ownership rather than isolated pilot results.

We argue that a team learning culture—rather than a "neutral" M&E function—is the essential infrastructure for this work. By establishing specific habits to capture field experience and inform strategic decisions, MEL acts as the "many-hatted" bridge required to navigate these dynamic systemic boundaries and prevent programmes from remaining stagnant.

We will share three core insights from our MEL experience:

1. How the evaluator’s role shifts to an active learning partner, framing field evidence to navigate political and administrative boundaries.
2. How practical tools—such as Capacity and Commitment Rubrics and Diaries—support teams in documenting for learning rather than reporting for compliance.
3. Real-world examples where structured reflection informed specific shifts in government engagement strategies.

The session will also engage the audience in a "Reflection Micro-Workshop" where participants will share insights from their own work and experiences.

Authors: Nic Vogelpoel (Day Four Projects), Malika Reese (Lived Experience Advisor), Sandra Collins (Lived Experience Advisor)
What happens when evaluation is not just informed by lived experience, but led by it?

This presentation offers a rare, practice-based account of a lived experience-led evaluation undertaken with the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse, where victim survivors worked as co-evaluators across all stages of the process. Established to centre victim survivors in awareness-raising, help-seeking, advocacy and best-practice responses, the Centre provided a powerful context to rethink how evaluation knowledge is produced, and by whom.

The session argues that lived experience-led evaluation is not an ethical “add-on”, but a fundamental shift in values, power and epistemology. Drawing on the evaluation findings, presenters will explore three core propositions.

First, nothing about us without us: moving from evaluation on people to evaluation led by people with lived experience reshapes evaluation questions, evidence, outcomes and definitions of rigour. Second, epistemic justice: lived experience leadership challenges entrenched assumptions about who gets to ask questions, whose knowledge counts, and how institutions respond to new forms of evidence. Third, beyond advice to synthesis: lived experience cannot simply “advise” evaluation, it must be integrated as a distinct way of knowing that transforms the whole evaluation.

Co-presented by lived experience evaluators and Day Four Projects evaluators, the session will combine reflective storytelling, concrete practice examples and facilitated dialogue. Participants will be invited to critically examine their own evaluative assumptions, engage in small-group reflection, and explore practical strategies for making space for multiple knowledge systems while maintaining evaluative integrity and meeting institutional requirements.This session will be particularly valuable for evaluators, commissioners, researchers and practitioners seeking more just, credible and impactful approaches to lived-experience evaluation in complex and sensitive contexts.

Author: Dana Cross (Grosvenor)

Effective evaluation increasingly depends on strong partnerships across communities, commissioners, service providers and evaluators. Yet partnering is often guided by goodwill rather than shared principles, leaving teams vulnerable to power imbalances, ethical drift and unspoken assumptions. This skill building session focuses on principles-based partnering, defined as the deliberate use of a small, shared set of agreed principles to guide roles, behaviours and decision making within evaluation partnerships.

The objective of the session is to build participants’ capability to use partnering principles intentionally and appropriately in real world evaluation contexts, particularly where values, authority and accountabilities differ. Drawing on applied evaluation practice, the session introduces principles based partnering not as a universal solution, but as a supporting mechanism that must be applied judiciously and adapted to context and place.

Participants will develop three core skills:
1.Identifying when partnering principles are likely to be helpful and when they are unlikely to add value or may even create risk.
2.Understanding and applying practical processes for establishing partnering principles, including who should be involved, how principles can be co-created, and how they can be revisited over time.
3. Using principles to navigate tension, power dynamics and ethical dilemmas as they arise during the evaluation lifecycle.

The session is designed as an interactive workshop. Participants will work in small groups to explore short evaluation scenarios, test whether principles-based partnering is appropriate, and practice establishing and applying principles in context. This will be followed by whole group discussion to surface lessons and challenges.
Participants will leave with a clear, adaptable approach for deciding when and how to establish and use partnering principles. The session is suited to foundational and intermediate evaluators seeking hands on skills grounded in real world practice.

Who really benefits from a program and how? Using personae to enrich logic models.
Author: Fiona Scott-Melton, Allen + Clarke
Not everyone experiences a program the same way. Yet logic models tend to obscure differences between population groups experiences, needs and aspirations. Incorporating personae helps address this limitation. By representing distinct population groups within a logic model, personae make visible the different routes through which people experience a program and what they gain from it. Drawing on a real life logic model developed for housing disabled people, the session will show how incorporating personae strengthens evaluation design, enriches social return on investment calculations and produces more compelling findings for stakeholders.

Help! The post-it notes have fallen off our logic model and been mixed up!
Author: Robert Grimshaw, ATO
Can you help us piece the logic model back together? This online interactive group activity is one tool used by a large public sector agency to familiarise people with key logic modelling concepts and thinking. This session will provide a practical demonstration of the activity and how it’s being used by workshop participants to apply their learning in a simple and fun way. Participant feedback has confirmed the value of this tool for engaging with and building the capability of a diverse audience who have limited evaluation capability and experience.

Method vs methodology – what’s the difference, and why it matters 
Author: Martina Donkers, Martina Donkers
We’ve got to stop using the words ‘method’ and ‘methodology’ interchangeably. ‘Methodology’ isn’t a slightly-fancier way of saying ‘method’ – it’s actually what conceptually underpins your method choices, and it’s an important thing to reckon with if you want to do evaluation that speaks to your stakeholders, is culturally responsive, is ethical and proportionate, and is ultimately useful. This quick-fire Ignite session will be a rapid deep-dive into practical ways to think about methodology in evaluation, apply it to traditional practice and emerging approaches, and leverage that thinking to do better evaluative work.

Exploring arts-based methods for project evaluation
Authors: Katie Ronson, Creative Australia, Kirstin Clements, Partner Impact & Evaluation
In this presentation evaluation practitioners from Creative Australia and Arts Centre Melbourne share how arts-based evaluation methods can unlock insights about participant experience in contexts where traditional methods struggle.

Evaluating ConnectUp: preferences for a social connectivity app among people with disability and carers
Authors: Feby Savira, Deakin University, Dom Kwasnicka, Deakin University, Lucio Naccarella, Deakin University

A national DCE (n=1,031) was conducted with people with disability, carers, and individuals identifying as both. Participants completed choice tasks comparing hypothetical versions of ConnectUp that varied across cost, communication modes, group structures, anonymity, support features, and information sources. Preferences were analysed using a conditional logit model, with latent class analysis used to identify user segments. Attitudinal questions explored additional features not captured within the DCE.

Three key findings emerge. First, participants were cost sensitive, preferring low- or no-cost options. Second, privacy and control were critical: users preferred small, private group settings and avoided features that compromised anonymity. Third, preferences were heterogeneous. Three segments were identified, including a highly price-sensitive group, a majority group prioritising anonymity and community-generated content, and a smaller segment (18%) more tolerant of cost but still favouring private group structures.

Attitudinal findings highlight additional design considerations. Flexible access features such as membership suspension (73%) and free trial options (77%) were widely valued. Around half of participants prioritised staff training in inclusivity (50%) and access in a preferred language (51%), while over half (54%) preferred human support over automated options.

This presentation demonstrates how combining DCE and attitudinal data can strengthen evaluation of digital services by capturing trade-offs and broader user expectations, and how segmentation can inform more inclusive design decisions. Participants will engage in scenario-based discussion to translate findings into practice.

Thou shall not: The 10 Commandments for Surveys 
Author: Louise Parker, Alinea International
The 10 Commandments for Surveys:
1) Thou shall not ask too many questions - survey fatigue is real and so is wasting people's time. Figure out what you absolutely must know from respondents and craft your questions around that.
2) Thou shall not ask double-barreled questions e.g. 'Did you find the workshop fun and informative?'
3) Thou shall not change the appearance order of repeating yes/no or Likert scale responses - if 'strongly agree' appears on the far right the first time, keep it that way throughout the whole survey.
...plus 7 more fabulous tips!

Author: Liz Wren (Gilibanga)

Overview: For too long, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander practitioners have navigated a ‘middle space’—a complex intersection where Cultural obligations to Community and Country often collide with the rigid, competitive structures of Western bureaucracy. This session, presented by Gilibanga, synthesises critical insights from the Gilibanga Blak Think Tank based on the original work of the First Nations UMEL Peer Learning Circles, a national initiative conducted between 2025 and 2026 as part of a collaboration between Kowa and the Social Enterprise Development Initiative (SEDI).
The Collective Mandate: Moving beyond deficit-based ‘capacity building,’ this session articulates a Collective Mandate for the evaluation sector. We challenge the industry to shift from a model of individual scarcity to one of communal abundance. Drawing on the "U" in UMEL—Understanding—we prioritise early investment in relationships, local context, and Community aspirations as the foundational bedrock of all evaluative work.
Key Themes for Discussion: Participants will engage with four transformative thematic areas identified by the First Nations evaluation community:
• Structural Reformation: Moving from competitive procurement models that force "Mob to compete" toward collaborative contracting and ecosystem thinking.
• Dual Accountability: Acknowledging the emotional and professional labour required to hold ‘Two-Worlds’ practice, balancing contractual obligations with Cultural integrity.
• Broadening the Definition of "Evaluator": Validating place-based, relational, and lived expertise that exists outside traditional Western academic credentials.
• Material Decolonisation: Shifting from symbolic language to the practical transformation of contracts, reporting templates, and the active upholding of Indigenous Data Sovereignty.

Authors: Andrew Boyle
Development programs often focus on whether interventions achieve intended outcomes, yet comparatively little attention is given to how the problems those interventions seek to address are defined. The way a problem is represented shapes which interventions are considered possible, influencing theories of change, program design, and the evaluation questions that follow.

Author: Jack Rutherford, ARTD
Have you ever felt that the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework you developed or had to implement was potentially too complicated?

This presentation introduces Key Monitoring Questions (KMQs); a novel approach that builds on the well‑established logic of Results‑Based Accountability (RBA) to simplify M&E frameworks while strengthening their usefulness for decision‑making and reflection.

M&E Frameworks often become unintentionally complex. In the pursuit of rigour and comprehensiveness, evaluators and program designers can generate long lists of indicators, data sources and measurement requirements. While well‑intentioned, these expansive frameworks can overwhelm those responsible for implementation, leading to delays in data collection and reporting or abandoned learning processes.

Instead of attempting to measure every activity, output or incremental outcome, KMQs concentrate attention on purposeful questions drawn from RBA that the monitoring system must answer. This shift helps teams focus on what matters most by clarifying the purpose of monitoring and identifying the minimum information required to support meaningful learning.

The presentation will introduce four KMQs adapted from RBA and demonstrate how they streamline data collection and support evaluation and reflection:

1.How much was done? 
2.How well was it done? 
3.Who was affected? 
4.How has the context changed?

The presentation will share three key messages:

1.Complex frameworks can undermine learning by overwhelming users with excessive data expectations.
2.KMQs provide a structured, disciplined way to sharpen focus and streamline indicator selection.
3.Using KMQs supports more sustainable monitoring practice, enabling teams to engage more deeply with the data that matters.

Before the session, you will be asked to reflect on your experiences developing or implementing M&E Frameworks, recognising the shared issues that KMQs address.

This session is targeted at foundational and intermediate evaluators, and commissioners and program staff who suspect their frameworks could be simpler and more effective.

Authors: Jessi Gidgup-Lovett (Rooftop Social), Duncan Rintoul (Rooftop Social)

First Nations peoples of Australia have evaluated outcomes, impacts and responsibilities since time immemorial through Indigenous systems of lore, knowledge and accountability to Country, kin and future generations. The Cultural Wisdom and Story Gathering Artefact (CWISGA) responds to this context by reframing monitoring and evaluation as practices of accountability, care, truth telling and improvement rather than extraction and surveillance. The objective of this presentation is to introduce CWISGA and show why culturally responsive evaluation that begins with relationships and engagement is essential for better outcomes across the sector.

CWISGA provides an accessible framework that operationalises culturally responsive evaluation through clear principles aligned with the four Rs of reconciliation, respect, reciprocity and responsibility, and with the interconnected wisdoms of Knowing, Doing and Being.

Three key messages guide the work: embed cultural governance from the outset rather than as an afterthought, uphold Indigenous Data Sovereignty and governance, and interpret outcomes through holistic wellbeing and relational accountability.

The session will open with a concise framing of the developmental context in a national organisation that supports equity focused curriculum in schools, followed by a guided walk through the CWISGA principles and a brief case example. Interactivity will be promoted through a short yarning prompt and small group reflection on local application of CWISGA, followed by commitments to action to support translation into practice.

Author: Stefano Verrelli (The Salvation Army)
How do you build a national outcomes framework without flattening local realities, sidelining frontline practice wisdom, or reducing lived experience to an input rather than a shaping influence?

This presentation shares insights from an outcomes and impact evaluation of one of Australia’s largest homelessness service providers, spanning more than 100 programs, 700 practitioners, and around 40,000 clients annually. The evaluation aimed to develop and pilot a nationally relevant outcomes measurement framework before broader rollout, one that could work across diverse service models, jurisdictions, funding contexts, and client groups.

The challenge was not only technical, but ethical. A standardised framework risked privileging some perspectives over others, adding burden to already stretched services, and embedding measures that did not reflect frontline service realities or add value to people accessing support.

This presentation argues that, in large-scale evaluation, a staged and deliberate collaborative process across design, piloting, and refinement is a core ethical strategy. Using this case example, it shows how this approach made space for perspectives not always given meaningful influence in shaping outcomes evaluation at this scale, including frontline practitioners, practice leads, and people with lived and living experience. In doing so, it helped ensure that decisions about what outcomes mattered, how they were measured, and how the framework would work in practice were shaped by frontline realities and lived experience alongside competing system priorities.

The presentation offers a practical lesson for evaluators working across multiple sites and systems: ethical evaluation in practice depends on how frameworks are collaboratively developed, tested, and refined before implementation. The session will conclude with brief guided reflection questions to help attendees consider implications for their own evaluation practice.

Authors: Ian Falk (Mission Australia), Paul Royce (Mission Australia)

Evaluation can often be treated as a technical process, shaped by existing evaluative ‘types’, such as formative, summative, realist evaluation among others, and often focused on program performance and measurable outcomes. In complex, place-based contexts such as youth homelessness in Australia’s Northern Territory (NT), however, evaluation needs to be much more than this – it becomes a contested and adaptive practice shaped by existing evidence, culture, geography and structural constraint.
This paper presents emerging results from a layered multisite, multimethod evaluative scoping study examining the accommodation needs of young people aged 8–24 who are at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness, where First Nations young people comprise around 90% of those impacted. The place-based, First Nations-led consultation process functioned as a responsive, continually adjusted evaluative design. Rather than applying a single evaluation lens, the project adopted a layered evaluation model integrating the evidence base, relational consultation, iterative and adaptive methodological design, program case study analysis, and system-level mapping. Methods included multi-media narrative engagement in remote communities, semi-structured interviews with urban stakeholders, and for both urban and regional/remote sites, iterative reflection on emerging methodologies and insights.
This approach revealed that accommodation pathways are shaped less by individual behaviour than by structural misalignment between Western housing systems and young people’s lived realities, including kinship, mobility and connection to Country. In addition, the project established evidence-based criteria for ‘successful’ programs and services, which informed the program and service mapping process. In terms of the evaluation methodology, the paper found that layered and iterative place-based evaluation provides a more practical, useful and credible framework for understanding youth homelessness in complex, diverse and remote settings, enabling evaluation to move beyond judgement toward explanation, learning and culturally grounded, co-designed place-based system design.

Author: Doyen Radcliffe, Bajja Yungayimanha Collaboration
Indigenous-led systems change often begins with shifts in cultural authority, relationships, trust and institutional behaviour—long before formal outcomes or policy reform become visible. Yet many evaluation approaches continue to prioritise measurable outputs and short-term results, overlooking the relational, cultural and ethical foundations that drive meaningful change. This creates a gap between what First Nations communities experience as impact and what institutions recognise as evidence.

This presentation introduces the Danjoo Koorliny Five-Dimensional Indigenous Influence Model, developed through the Aboriginal-led impact evaluation of the Danjoo Koorliny movement in Western Australia. The model offers a practical and culturally grounded way to measure systems change by identifying and assessing influence across cultural, relational, behavioural, structural and transformational domains. Central to this work is a decolonising evaluation process that repositions cultural authority, Country and relational accountability as the foundation of ethical and rigorous evaluation. For First Nations evaluation, this means privileging Elder governance, community decision-making, Indigenous Data Sovereignty and culturally grounded methods such as yarning, storywork and outcome harvesting. For evaluation more broadly, it expands how evidence, value and impact are understood in complex systems and supports earlier identification of meaningful change.

The session will highlight three key messages. First, influence is the primary mechanism and measurable pathway of Indigenous-led systems change. Second, decolonising evaluation strengthens methodological rigour by integrating Indigenous and Western approaches rather than positioning them in opposition. Third, valuing place, relationships and cultural integrity improves the relevance, integrity and usefulness of evaluation for communities, policymakers and funders.

The presentation will combine short input, reflective discussion and interactive activities. Participants will explore practical tools, apply the framework to their own contexts, and reflect on how measuring influence can strengthen systems thinking and evaluation practice across diverse sectors.

Authors: Martina Donkers, Julie Elliott

Professional isolation is an experience that, ironically, many evaluators share. As evaluators, we often find ourselves in a team of one – the only evaluator in the room, the only evaluator at the organisation, one bringing an evaluative lens to the problem. This can be hard. It can feel like people are turning to us for more answers than we have, or expecting something unrealistic. Sometimes we find ourselves feeling isolated due to our culture, our methodological approach or our disciplinary background.
There are structural ways isolation shows up – evaluators who work remotely in regional areas, evaluators who are self-employed, evaluators who balance their role with kids and family responsibilities. These experiences can leave us feeling like an outsider, with no one to test ideas, no one to help when the going gets rough, and no one to help grow our capabilities.
This panel session will explore AES members’ experiences of professional isolation, and what has worked (and not worked!) to help them combat it. We’ll present anonymised experiences from AES members about professional isolation to show attendees they aren’t alone.
We’ll then hear from 3 panellists at different stages of their professional journey, and what they’ve done to address professional isolation they’ve felt as evaluators. Finally, we’ll open the floor to questions – how can we feel more connected in our work? – and explore a range of ways that we can combat professional isolation in our field. This panel is presented by the AES Peer Group Mentoring Program Working Group, and considers how the program helps strengthen connection to peers. It also extends thinking beyond AES initiatives, and considers other ways that evaluators can combat professional isolation in a disconnected world. If you’ve ever felt lonely as an evaluator, this session is for you.

Why you should leave evaluation (and come back!)
Author: Delyth Lloyd, Australian Centre for Evaluation
After 15 years as an AES member, I stepped away from evaluation for a one-year hiatus. What began as a brief stint in an implementation role quickly transitioned into a fast and furious year using every evaluation skill I had to offer. I negotiated in hard spaces, navigated power dynamics, held space for diversity and ethical complexities. Busy people asked for more rubrics and used them in practice! This presentation distils insights from my transition out of, and back into, the sector. It reflects on the evaluation competencies we hold, and highlights how deeply they are valued by others.

The Evaluation Pub Test: Simple Questions for Public Value 
Author: Amanda Taylor-Short, ARTD
Publicly funded evaluations carry an implicit responsibility to contribute to public good. In practice, evaluations are often viewed as mechanisms for accountability in government decision‑making. This can reinforce a focus on compliance, program‑specific detail, and predefined questions, limiting broader reflection about the contribution of a program and leaving simple but important questions unexplored. This creates a missed opportunity to connect evaluation work with the people and decisions it exists to inform. This presentation explores the Evaluation Pub Test: examining evaluator responsibility to support public value, the benefits of answering simple questions, and considerations for deciding which questions are worth answering.

From scientist to evaluator: Lessons beyond numbers 
Author: Heather Bryan, First Person Consulting
This Ignite traces one evaluator’s unlikely journey from a postgraduate ecologist in Latin America to an honours student modelling climate impacts, and later a data analyst at the Australian Bureau of Statistics - before arriving at the unexpected doorstep of evaluation. Along the way came a new appreciation for the value of qualitative evidence. This talk shares three lessons motivated by moving beyond numbers: outliers are insights rather than errors, stories explain what numbers can’t, and subjectivity, when acknowledged rather than ignored, can strengthen evaluation. Together, these lessons invite a broader view of evidence, where individual stories bring meaning.

Bridging Sectors Through Evaluation: Lessons from a University–Community, Community of Practice
Author: Hannah Morgan, UTS
In 2025, the University of Technology Sydney partnered with Inner Sydney Voice (ISV) to co-design an Evaluation Community of Practice, connecting university evaluators and community practitioners. We reflect on lessons learned from the collaboration, including the value of shared ownership and relational trust in cross-sector work. Community practitioners strengthened their confidence and capability, while UTS deepened its understanding of how to adapt evaluation capacity building to meet the needs of the community sector context. The experience illustrated the mutual benefits of collaboration and the potential of Communities of Practice to advance evaluation through reciprocal learning.

Seeing through their eyes: Photo-Elicitation in Evaluation
Author: Estelle Gaillard, CSIRO
Images can ignite conversation, evoke emotions, elicit reflection and spark new ways of thinking. Photo-elicitation uses photographs in interviews to prompt participants to share insights into their lived experiences that might not surface through standard questions. This Ignite presentation will introduce the method, show practical examples of its use in evaluation and outline the photo-elicitation process. Attendees will leave reflecting on whether — and how — photo-elicitation could fit into their own evaluation toolkit.

Making Space for Boba and Beats: Valuing Grassroots Reality with an Evaluation MVP
Author: Anabelle (pin-chu) Chen, Taiwan Pride
For a volunteer-run grassroots NFP, traditional evaluation often occupies the very space intended for community action. When resources are scarce, every hour spent on data collection undermines the operational realities of the place where we operate. As the President and Evaluator of Taiwan Pride Sydney, I faced this tension at the 2026 Sydney Mardi Gras. How do you measure the cultural impact of a 'Lanterns of Ecstatica, Taiwan Lighting up Asia' float when the generator dies, the music cuts out, and you are forced to march giant illuminated bubble tea cups in total silence?
This Ignite presentation proposes a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for evaluation. By shifting the focus to macro-validation and systemic consequences, I will demonstrate how grassroots organisations can engineer a structurally sound evidentiary argument that survives real-world disaster. Using aggressive dimensionality reduction and cognitive anchoring, we can design evaluation MVPs that extract maximum validated learning with minimum administrative friction. Let's spill the tea on how to make space for rigorous evaluation when absolutely nothing goes to plan.

Authors: Alexander Gyles (La Trobe University), Allan Mua Illingworth (Muaakia Consulting), Glenda Napaljarri Wayne (La Trobe University), Mildred Napaljarri Spencer (La Trobe University), Raelene Jigili (Central Land Council), Marilyn Vilsoni (Solve Pacific)

“How might we most appropriately track and describe change about impact and wellbeing in Indigenous Australian and Fijian communities?”

Led by Indigenous community researchers and MEL practitioners, the session draws on two grounded case examples: the YWPP (Warlpiri Education and Training Trust, Tanami NT) approach to tracking learning and wellbeing, and community-centred MEL work supported by the Itaukei Trust Affairs Board (TTFB).

The session will be highly interactive: participants will break into small, facilitated groups with community and TTFB representatives to interrogate practice, and the table will close with a plenary synthesis that surfaces cross-case lessons, tensions, and practical next steps for culturally respectful MEL.

Authors: Ali Rasoli (STARTTS), Samantha Cherian (STARTTS)
Community development programs in refugee settlement contexts are often evaluated using frameworks designed for clinical or mainstream service environments. These approaches can struggle to capture the trauma-related, relational, collective and culturally embedded forms of change that occur in refugee communities.

In response to this gap, the NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS), together with more than 130 refugee community leaders, has co-designed a Social Capital Evaluation Framework for community development programs working with refugee and migrant communities in Australia. The framework adapts established social capital theory to the realities of settlement work, enabling evaluation of changes in bonding, bridging and linking social capital, while also introducing the concept of social capital enablers.

This presentation introduces the STARTTS Social Capital Framework and demonstrates how it functions as a culturally responsive and trauma-informed evaluation approach for refugee community development initiatives. Drawing on multiple program evaluations conducted across New South Wales, the session will show how the framework captures outcomes often overlooked by conventional evaluation models, including strengthened community networks, emerging leadership, increased access to institutions, and collective wellbeing.

The presentation will outline the conceptual foundations of the framework, describe the evaluation tools and indicators developed by STARTTS, and present practical examples from community programs. Participants will be invited to reflect on how social capital concepts can be applied within their own evaluation contexts through guided discussion during the session.

The session will offer practical insights for evaluators and practitioners working in settlement and community development contexts, demonstrating how social capital can be operationalised as both a conceptual framework and a practical evaluation tool for evaluating refugee community programs.

Authors: Samantha Abbato
Learning objective: Participants will be able to identify and practise managing the eight major enemies of evaluative thinking in evaluation contexts.

Why this skill matters: Even experienced evaluators fall prey to thinking traps. Individual biases (including emotional reasoning, fast thinking, confirmation bias and overconfidence) undermine rigour. Group biases such as in-group favouritism and cascading effects distort collective judgement. Noise, both between evaluators and within a single evaluator at different times, creates inconsistency in decisions and recommendations. Together, these eight enemies threaten the quality of evaluations at every stage: from scoping and data synthesis to communicating findings.

This session equips participants with practical strategies to recognise and manage these threats for clearer, more defensible evaluative thinking.

How the skill will be taught: Using the Thinking-Bee Obstacles board game, participants work in small groups through evaluation-based scenarios that activate each of the eight thinking enemies. The game provides ego-safe, attention-directing play. Participants think through bee personas rather than as themselves, making it easier to surface and examine real thinking traps. A brief facilitator-led debrief anchors the game experience to participants’ own evaluation practice.

How participants will engage: Participants will play the Thinking-Bee Obstacles game in small groups of four to six, applying the eight enemies of thinking to realistic evaluation decisions.

The session closes with a structured reflection linking game insights to participants’ own work contexts.

Authors: Samantha Togni, S2 Consulting, Robyn Napurrurla Lawson, Central Land Council, Verona Nungarrayi Jurrah, Central Land Council, David Japanangka McCormack, Central Land Council, Belinda Napaljarri Wayne, Central Land Council
For decades Indigenous peoples have led, and advocated for, evaluation that centres Indigenous ways of knowing and being and that promotes cultural safety to better support the realisation of Indigenous peoples’ aspirations through decolonising evaluation.

As a relationship-based participatory approach that is suited to supporting social innovation in complex, dynamic contexts, developmental evaluation is emerging as a useful approach in these settings. The focus on relationships underscores recognition that it is in relationship that change and development happen.

Over seven years developmental evaluation has supported the facilitation of two-way learning between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to develop an innovative Indigenous-led initiative to strengthen the governance of two Indigenous corporations in remote Australia. Operating at the interface of different knowledge systems, laws and values, this co-design process involved Indigenous directors, land council staff and corporate governance trainers.

Guided by the principles of culturally responsive evaluation in Indigenous contexts, developmental evaluation enabled the prioritisation of relationships, and the centring of Indigenous voices, knowledge and culture to effectively enact two-way learning within this complex intercultural context. In conversation with the evaluator, Indigenous directors will share how they engaged in and influenced the developmental evaluation to enact two-way learning and how it became integral to the initiative’s co-design and delivery.

Featuring long-term and newly elected directors, panellists will explore their experiences of how, through the centring of their values and knowledge, the evaluation learnings:

1) transformed the program to align with Indigenous ways of learning;
2) contributed to the initiative’s effectiveness and accelerated newly elected directors’ learning; and
3) strengthened relationships and cultural safety that underpinned two-way learning.

Panellists will provide valuable lessons from culturally responsive developmental evaluation in practice, demonstrating factors that contributed to this approach effectively centring Indigenous people’s values and perspectives to strengthen relationships and decolonize evaluation to support Indigenous aspirations. 

Authors: Simon Alaba, ARTD Consultants, Rachel Aston, ARTD, Brad Astbury, University of Melbourne
Primary prevention programs targeting boys and young men at risk of using violence operate in a space where the evidence base is still developing, and knowing what works, for whom, and in what circumstances, is far from settled.

This presentation draws on 3 years of developmental evaluation of a primary prevention pilot to share three interconnected findings at the intersection of evaluation practice and implementation science.

First, we present evidence that participant and program alignment is among the most influential contextual factors shaping outcomes – a finding with direct implications for how programs like this should be targeted and resourced.

Second, we discuss how a significant program design shift, from targeting harmful gender norms directly to exploring participants' own values as an entry point, improved engagement and created the conditions for more meaningful reflection on masculinity and behaviour.

Third, we explore the adaptation dilemma: when evaluation signals resistance from participants, how should program designers respond?

Drawing on findings across multiple pilot phases, we discuss the tension between adapting to improve engagement and holding firm on program fidelity when discomfort is itself part of the change process. We close by examining what these findings mean for how evaluators interpret and communicate success in primary prevention settings, where uniform outcomes are neither expected nor realistic, and where the most meaningful impacts may be concentrated among a subset of participants.

Attendees will leave with practical insights applicable to developmental evaluation, pilot program design, and the evaluation of complex social programs more broadly. The session will close with audience discussion that invites participants to reflect on how these findings apply to their own evaluation contexts.

Author: Matt Healey (First Person Consulting)

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.

Authors: Melanie Williams (ARDS Aboriginal Corporation), Gawura Waṉambi (ARDS Aboriginal Corporation, Sylvia Ŋulpinditj (ARDS Aboriginal Corporation), Wuṯpurrŋu Wununŋmurra (ARDS Aboriginal Corporation)

Yolŋu people are the Indigenous people from Northeast Arnhem Land. Yolŋu have their own strong ways of watching carefully, seeing small signs, and knowing when something in wäŋa (land/country, including people) is changing. From these signs, Yolŋu understand what is happening and what they should do – this is the heart of evaluation. We will take the audience on a journey to see the world, and the work of trying to make sense of it, through Yolŋu eyes.

From the start, ARDS has followed the guidance of Yolŋu ŋaḻapaḻ (elders). They have given us the values and framework we work with. This ARDS-ku buyu’ (methodology) is rooted in Yolŋu rom (law) and has been followed for a long time. At ARDS this is our foundation for all our work, including how we think about evaluation.

There are many wataŋu mala (owners and decision-makers) we must think about. Everyone’s räl (hard work and effort) is needed to make the project strong. When we show respect, integrity and trust, we can come to a shared agreement together. This is the Yolŋu way.

Yolŋu metaphors help us appreciate how Yolŋu people have been understanding and valuing growth for many generations. These stories, together with ARDS-ku buyu', are the foundation of our shared evaluation work. We will use the metaphor of the ḻipaḻipa (canoe) to explain our evaluation framework. It has been used in many of our projects.

In this presentation, we will share one example from a child protection project in remote Northeast Arnhem Land. It shows how our approach works in practice.

We want to show you the strength, beauty and depth of Yolŋu ways of understanding, making sense of change, and taking steps forward—and how we do this side-by-side with our non-Yolŋu family and partners.

Authors: Elisabeth Jackson (Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University), Thushara Dibley Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University, Shane D'Angelo Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University)

This roundtable explores MEL as a practice that can challenge existing power structures and strengthen community voices. It aims to promote sharing and learning between evaluators in domestic and international contexts and build new connections between evaluators who share similar approaches and principles.

Across diverse approaches such as culturally responsive and Indigenous evaluation, realist approaches, and place-based methods, practitioners are asking: whose worldview shapes what counts as evidence? While the language used in different sectors varies, there are strong common threads: centring marginalised voices, working collaboratively, reflecting on our own assumptions, and valuing local knowledge.

This session is designed for intermediate to advanced evaluators who are thinking critically about power, partnership, and the politics of evidence. Participants will explore what is common across approaches in domestic and international contexts and how these are creating space for different worldviews and supporting forms of evidence that are meaningful to communities.

After a short framing and brief examples, participants will move into structured small-group discussions to surface shared tensions and practical insights. Prompts will include: What is one way your current evaluation practice may reinforce existing power dynamics? Where have you seen MEL genuinely shift decision-making power? What institutional constraints limit these approaches? Groups will then report back in a facilitated plenary. Participants will be invited to identify one insight they will take back into their own practice and one structural barrier the evaluation field needs to address collectively. Key insights will be shared more broadly through a blog developed after the conference.

The roundtable aligns with the aes26 sub-themes Traditional and New Ways and Ethics and Integrity, inviting participants to reflect on their real-world experience of applying participatory and culturally grounded approaches in different contexts and exploring how these can help disrupt existing power relations.

Author: Claire Treadgold, Starlight Children's Foundation, Erika Fortunati, Starlight Children's Foundation
Transparency and accountability are paramount for not-for-profit organisations, with public social impact reporting increasingly becoming an expected practice. While guidance on creating Social Impact Reports is growing in the field, there is still a paucity of clear and accessible resources for not-for-profit organisations looking to create Social Impact Reports, especially those producing one for the first time.

This short paper presentation will share our experience at Starlight Children’s Foundation, an Australian not-for-profit dedicated to brightening the lives of seriously ill children, young people, and their families, in developing and publishing our first Social Impact Report this year. The presentation will cover our experience creating the report, including the decisions and challenges we encountered during the process.

We will discuss how we approached selecting which data to include and leave out, how we navigated balancing different priorities, e.g. the tension between including “pure” research and evaluation data while also presenting data in a marketable and engaging way for external audiences, and how to create a cohesive story of impact that fits within the constraints of one short report.

The objective of this presentation is to share our experience with other evaluators and knowledge sharers to provide realistic, practical insights for other organisations beginning their own Social Impact Report journey. This presentation is suited to foundational and intermediate audiences who are curious about impact reporting or are preparing to undertake it for the first time.  

Authors: Alan Woodward, Alan Woodward Consulting, Leanne Kelly, Alfred Deakin Institute, Deakin University
Evaluations of community-based and place-based programs regularly require methods capable of examining context, relationships, and emergent outcomes. While case studies are a long-standing qualitative research approach, they are often under-utilized or misunderstood within evaluation practice. Drawing on the evaluation of Australian Red Cross’ Community Resilience Teams as an applied example, the presentation demonstrates how case study design enabled exploration of contextual dynamics, stakeholder perspectives, and underlying mechanisms that would not have been visible through survey or indicator-driven approaches alone. Participants will be offered practical guidance on when case studies are suitable and considerations for conducting case study activities.

Authors: Stephanie Carter (Healthconsult), Megan Anderson (Healthconsult), Felicity Miles (Healthconsult)

Evaluation findings do not exist in a vacuum. Evaluators increasingly operate in environments where public and media narratives form alongside, and sometimes ahead of, emerging evidence. In some cases, this scrutiny is heightened even when programs are demonstrating early signs of effectiveness.
This roundtable explores ethical, practical, and relational challenges evaluators face when evaluation findings are still emerging yet are already subject to public scrutiny, interpretation or debate.
This session will draw on real-world examples where early media attention was significant but subsided following the public release of independent evaluation findings, highlighting the role of timing, transparency and credibility in shaping public discourse.
Evaluators operate within complex social, cultural and political “places,” where narratives influence how evidence is understood and trusted. These dynamics are particularly relevant in place-based contexts, where community expectations and local perspectives shape interpretation and use of findings.
Participants will consider questions such as:
• What is the evaluator’s role when media scrutiny oversimplifies findings?
• How do we uphold principles of integrity and independence when public narratives are misaligned with evidence that is still being assessed?
• What strategies help evaluators support clients and communities when media attention becomes a risk?
• How can we strengthen transparent communication without breaching confidentiality or compromising methodological rigour?
The session will be highly interactive, and use structured facilitated reflection to encourage participants to share experiences, unpack dilemmas, and co-develop strategies.
This roundtable will generate practical principles and strategies through:
• Provocation scenarios based on real evaluation–media tensions to spark discussion.
• Small‑group discussion rounds where participants unpack dilemmas, share experiences, and co‑develop strategies.
• Collective synthesis where groups contribute key principles, strategies, and questions to a shared summary.

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.

Authors: Anna Rasalingam (Attorney-General’s Department), Daniel Maher (Attorney-General’s Department)
This presentation will demonstrate an example of an internal government evaluation team working with First Nations communities in both traditional and new ways.
It will cover the experience of a First Nations-led evaluation team evaluating a Federal Government program, actively overlaying culturally appropriate evaluation methods as they come up against historic government policies and commissioning practices. It will highlight these systemic barriers, our efforts to navigate these barriers to ensure First Nations voices are not only included but central.
From our experiences at the last AES conference, there was a re-occurring theme from fellow evaluators on working with First Nations communities with integrity. This presentation will provide an example of working with and centring First Nations voices.
Utilising the theme of “Walking in Two Worlds”, the presentation will explore dichotomies of traditional and new ways of evaluation within the public sector. Key points will include:

• Historical colonial barriers of commissioning, designing and implementing evaluations impacting First Nations peoples.
• Challenges of designing culturally responsive evaluations within this colonial paradigm.
• Centring First Nations voices, lived experiences, wisdom and perspectives.

The Big Room format would provide flexibility to facilitate culturally appropriate engagement and discussion, including impactful multi-media presentation and in-person discussions.
The presentation will include multiple perspectives of ACCOs engaged in the evaluation as well as the evaluation team.
The presentation will engage participants through inviting shared experiences tackling these barriers and challenges in their work.

Author: Joanne Cummings, Anglicare Sydney
Community food programs are commonly assessed through output-focused lenses, emphasising quantities of food or financial relief provided. This paper draws on a mixed methods evaluation of Anglicare Sydney’s Community Pantry program to argue for an expanded evaluative frame that recognises community pantries as third spaces—informal, non-commercial places beyond home and work where social connection, belonging and trust are built.

The evaluation combined customer and volunteer surveys (n=709), interviews and observations across 10 locations in NSW. While affordable food remained a critical entry point, findings show that many significant outcomes emerged through the Pantry’s role as a third space: a predictable, welcoming environment where people could linger, converse, build relationships and experience dignity without stigma. Customers reported reduced isolation, new friendships and feelings of belonging, while volunteers experienced increased wellbeing, purpose and community connection. These relational conditions also enabled “soft pathways” into further support services that were not easily captured through standard referral metrics alone.

The study offers several practical insights for evaluators. First, place-based programs require outcome frameworks that extend beyond material provision to include dignity, trust, connection and shifting social norms. Second, place itself should be treated as data: physical layouts, hospitality practices and local context shaped experiences and outcomes, making systematic observation an essential method. Third, mixed methods designs were vital for understanding not only what changed, but how third space dynamics generated change over time. Finally, incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives revealed benefits for communities and volunteers, which may be invisible in customer-based evaluations.

The presentation will walk through the mixed methods approach, share visual examples illustrating how place-based conditions shaped outcomes, and distil three key insights about the relational impact of community pantries. It will conclude with a guided reflection inviting participants to consider how they currently assess belonging, dignity and connection in their own work.

Authors: Danielle Thornton, The Social Research Centre, Stephen Cuttriss, The Social Research Centre
The concept of value is at the heart of evaluation, yet conventional approaches to assessing value tend to focus on effectiveness, utility or efficiency as defined by commissioning agencies and governments. Realist approaches can help push back against the insistence that programs meet narrowly conceived outcome metrics or return on investment but may still fail to capture the range of social benefits generated. The invisibility of these forms of value to policymakers and economists can lead to perverse outcomes: to the recommissioning of ‘effective’ programs of little obvious benefit to participants or the broader community, and the defunding of initiatives that may meet community needs but not policy agendas.

This disconnection, between the types of programs communities want and need, and the programs that get commissioned, feeds into cynicism and distrust of the political class and government as a whole, and left unchecked, risks weakening the social contract on which democratic governance rests.

In this context the concept of public value, that is the social value generated by governments when they act in the public interest, offers an alternative framework grounded in democratic values. Whether as a practical means of accounting for value where impact cannot be quantified, or as a form of evaluative practice which centres the lived experience of citizens, public value asks that we assess programs not only on the terms set by governments, but also the extent to which they contribute to our collective wellbeing.

Drawing on lessons from an evaluation of a program designed to promote respectful sexual relationships among young people, this paper explores the applicability of public value as a framework for accounting for a wider range of social impacts and a method for making an assessment not of ‘value for money’, but the benefits generated for and on behalf of the public.

Authors: Skye Gooch, Djirra, Rebecca Steunenberg, Djirra, Lesly Zambrano, Djirra ,Taylor Rawson, Djirra
Djirra is proposing short paper presentation about our experience of designing a self-determined program and Monitoring and Evaluation Framework using an Aboriginal-led participatory approach for our specialist Alcohol and Other Drugs service. We aim to demonstrate the value of Aboriginal-led participatory program design approaches.

In our short paper, we will cover the three following core learnings:

•The power of relationships
At Djirra, our Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Officers are embedded in each program area, and our Program Development Lead is also an internal role. The roles' positioning fosters strong, trusting relationships with the teams. This relational approach allows for the design of a rich and empowered program design, for Aboriginal people, by Aboriginal people.
•Walking at the pace of trust
We had the opportunity to take our time with this process, allowing the space for trusting and dynamic dialogue to be fostered. We saw many benefits to this approach, such as the Program Development staff guiding the team while still being led by their expertise, allowing everyone to be able to deeply consider their practice and the evolution of the project, and time to centre rich data and narratives, making the vision and impact about more than just numbers.
•The design journey becomes an outcome in itself
In doing the program design in this approach, the overall process achieved outcomes in being completed itself. By the end of the project, we saw mutual benefits for everyone. Our Program Development staff grew deeper knowledge of the team’s deep and complex context, and the team itself grew their skills and knowledge of systems work.

We aim to deliver this in a slide show format, focusing on engaging visuals and simplicity. We will be opening the presentation up to the audience at the end for a yarn with the presenters.

Author: Adrian Field, Dovetail Consulting
Value for Investment (VfI) is an emerging evaluation system that is gaining increasing traction internationally. The system is intentionally mixed methods, interdisciplinary and collaborative.
It is this collaborative positioning of VfI that this presentation is focused. In VfI framing, value draws from multiple perspectives of what makes a programme, intervention or policy valuable. Therefore, understanding and capturing value requires a fundamentally collaborative mindset, one that reaches beyond existing data sources and reporting, to explore from many different perspectives what it is that fundamentally matters about the intervention that is the evaluation’s focus.

This presentation draws on learning and approaches in exploring value through participatory design techniques. It will draw on approaches developed and refined across a range of VfI evaluations, in the health, mental health, justice, urban development, transport and creative sectors.
The session will describe a range of facilitative techniques adopted to draw on different stakeholders perspectives on value, and the strengths that they offer for building robust, relevant and actionable evaluations.

Using a VfI lens allied with participatory design techniques, the presentation will explore how value can be brought to life across key evaluation questions, theories of change and value propositions, evaluative rubrics, and collaborative sense-making.

Session participants will gain a clear sense of the possibilities and potential for applying participatory approaches in VfI, and the strengths these offer for evaluation practice.

Author: Kizzy Gandy, Jacaranda Partners

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.

Cultural identity as a shield: Measuring the social value of Culture and Kinship
Authors: Louise Green, Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Lily Edwards
This presentation shares learnings from research by VACCHO and Victorian Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), exploring how strengthening Identity and Cultural connectedness and practice, drives positive long-term health and wellbeing outcomes.

Building on a 2022 evaluation of the Culture and Kinship Model, the research is driven and sustained by Aboriginal leadership and Cultural governance and uses a SROI methodology to understand drivers of change and inform future recommendations.

Supported by Kowa Collaboration, Aboriginal-led evaluation consultancy, the approach is grounded in culturally responsive stakeholder engagement — including Impact and Value Yarning — to enable participatory interpretation and translation of knowledge and evidence.

Presence builds trust: How place-based engagement transformed participation in NSW First Nations Digital Inclusion evaluation
Authors: Megan Brewer, Nous Group, Rodney Williams, Nous Group, Taliah King, Nous Group
Evaluating programs with First Nations communities requires time, presence, and trust. An evaluation of First Nations Digital Inclusion meant learning and adapting, shifting to a snowballing, place‑based approach – spending extended time in community and working with trusted navigators through a three-way partnership model. Participation increased substantially. Being physically present in remote and regional communities enabled rapport‑building, referrals, and engagement with people unlikely to participate through conventional methods. Higher participation led directly to stronger survey response numbers, deeper qualitative insights, and more credible evaluation findings. We show why investing time in-place, relationships, and partnership is central to evaluation quality.

Brokering and interpreting evaluation: An iTaukei experience
Author: Marilyn Vilisoni, Solve Pacific Consultancy
This presentation follows an iTaukei (Fijian) evaluator’s transition from a donor‑driven MEL role to independent consultancy, where evaluation becomes an act of brokering between donor logic and Indigenous priorities grounded in the preservation and revitalisation of iTaukei (Fijian) culture and traditions. It highlights three insights: (i) the evaluator’s role as a cultural broker navigating the space between external accountability and Indigenous values; (ii) the importance of cultural humility, emotional intelligence, and comfort with ambiguity in this intermediary work; and (iii) the centrality of trust in shaping MEL systems that honour both accountability requirements and the lived realities of Pacific communities.

Ethics for Evaluation
Author: Trina O'Donnell, Bellberry
Why do we have ethics reviews, who makes up the HREC, and when is a HREC review required? What are common issues that arise in the review of evaluations from the HREC perspective?

How can these be addressed to make the ethics application process smoother? The session will focus on the ethics review in contexts such as community-based evaluation, and policy or program evaluation, and we will explore issues that arise from the ethics review from Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) for evaluation.

Practical insights from HREC reviews will exemplify common issues from a HREC perspective. Examples of common HREC comments will introduce issues including study design, consent, community engagement,  respecting Indigenous perspectives and local knowledge, managing language and cultural differences, and responding ethically to the growing use of artificial intelligence and data technologies in evaluation.

Shifting the power: evaluation enabled, embedded and used in local contexts
Authors: Jessie Meaney-Davis Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Satib Nisha Khan Khan, Birth Fiji, Mary Raori, Australian Volunteers Program (Fiji)
Evaluations in international development – particularly organisational capacity assessments - are often experienced by organisations in Asia and the Pacific as a compliance requirement: externally driven, time-bound, and disconnected from daily decision-making. This paper presents insights from an alternative model in which 14 organisations in Fiji, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam – including organisations with no prior research experience - led their own participatory research on organisational capacity strengthening over three years, supported by the Australian Volunteers Program and the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney.

A representative from BIRTH Fiji, one of the participating organisations, shares three interrelated shifts in power that emerged through this approach. First, the model created space for organisational learning and reflection in a context that was previously dominated by delivery pressures and compliance-driven MEL. By embedding evaluative inquiry into organisational routines, evaluation shifted from a reporting requirement to a practice that supports sense-making, adaptation, and strategic thinking.

Second, by leading the evaluation themselves, with structured support rather than external control, staff developed confidence, skills and ownership of both the process and findings. Evaluation did not only assess organisational capacity strengthening, but it also actively contributed to it. The role of external actors shifted from conducting evaluation to enabling and scaffolding locally led inquiry.

Third, the process fostered peer learning across 14 organisations, creating a horizontal network of exchange and mutual support. This redistributed knowledge and influence away from donor-centric models towards collaboration grounded in shared regional experience.

These findings suggest that shifting the power in evaluation requires more than participatory methods, it requires repositioning evaluation as an embedded organisational practice, led locally and sustained over time. The paper offers practical implications for evaluators and commissioners seeking to move beyond evaluation as a product towards approaches that are owned, used, and valued in local contexts. 

Authors: Dana Cross, Piacarmel Andrews, Lyn Alderman

Across sectors, evaluators are increasingly seeking to move beyond assessing programs to shaping strategy, informing investment, strengthening accountability and supporting learning. Recent initiatives such as the Strengthening Evaluation in the Australian Government – Action Plan 2026–2030, with its emphasis on evaluation leadership, culture and use (and a call for Chief Evaluation Officers), reflect a broader trend: evaluation is being positioned as a core contributor to governance and decision making rather than a purely technical or advisory function.

This shift raises a provocative and timely question for the evaluation community: is there room in the C-suite for evaluators?

The presenters will explore whether closer proximity to executive power is necessary to strengthen evaluation’s influence and what might be gained or lost in the process. Rather than assuming that seniority automatically delivers impact, the discussion will examine different models of leadership, authority and positioning for evaluation across diverse organisational contexts.

Presenters will explore tensions such as:

• Whether executive level access enhances evaluation use or risks compromising independence and credibility.
• How evaluation leadership can be exercised without formal C suite roles.
• What “good” evaluation leadership looks like in different sectors, cultures and places

Drawing on lived experience from across settings, the panel will reflect on how evaluation currently shows up, or fails to show up, in senior decision making forums, and what alternatives exist for strengthening its influence. Audience pulse questions will be used to give live insights to broader experiences and views, with time for questions at the end of the session inviting participants to share perspectives from their own contexts and challenge assumptions about status, power and professional identity in evaluation.

Authors: Stephanie Quail (ARTD), Sophie Henness (ARTD)

Non-government organisations (NGOs) and small organisations often face a range of barriers, such as limited funding and staffing, to collecting, analysing, and utilising client and program data to support continuous improvement and decision making. For these organisations, taking an empowerment evaluation approach, which enables them to assess and improve their own programs while building capacity and ownership, has the potential to provide sustainable and ongoing value. Empowerment evaluation strengthens organisational capacity and equips organisations with tools to collect, analyse, and interpret data for ongoing program improvement.

This presentation explores low-cost and high-impact opportunities for embedding monitoring, as demonstrated by our recent work with Bonnie’s Support Service to develop internal capability to administer and analyse a new client satisfaction survey. We will highlight common challenges for small NGOs, and our approaches for setting up monitoring on a shoestring, including:

• How data is collected, including an overview of free or low-cost survey platforms, and their advantages and disadvantages
• How data is analysed, including how the free, open-source software R can be used to set up reproducible analysis that once established can be re-used without needing internal quantitative expertise
• How reports and other outputs are created, including how polished reports incorporating text, figures and tables can be generated using R.

Audience members will leave this presentation with an understanding of common challenges to setting up and analysing client satisfaction survey data, the advantages and disadvantages of available open-source platforms, and practical approaches for setting up reproducible analysis and reports. Attendees will receive a free online toolkit we have developed which organisations can use to guide the development of their own low-cost monitoring and reproducible reporting.

Authors: Sarah Jane Springer (Springer Health Consultants), Catherine Boekel (Whereto Research)
Evaluation involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has historically positioned First Nations engagement as a consultation activity occurring after evaluation priorities, frameworks and methods have already been determined. Even approaches framed as co-design can unintentionally reproduce existing power structures in knowledge generation and limit the capacity of evaluation to reflect First Nations governance, priorities and ways of knowing.

This paper introduces the Culturally Governed Evaluation Framework, an emerging methodological approach that embeds First Nations authority within the governance structures that determine evaluation purpose, design, interpretation and accountability. In this approach, engagement is not positioned as advisory input, but as a governance function within the evaluation system itself.

The framework is grounded in three interconnected principles:

• First Nations authority, embedding leadership within governance structures that shape priorities and definitions of success;
• Relational accountability, ensuring evaluation is grounded in trust, reciprocity and sustained engagement; and
• Shared interpretation, enabling findings to be interpreted through First Nations knowledge systems with shared authority in meaning-making.

By foregrounding governance and relational accountability, this approach contributes to national discussions on ethics, power and methodological legitimacy. It aligns with reform agendas including the National Agreement on Closing the Gap and has direct implications for how evaluation is commissioned, governed and interpreted across government, research and community settings.

The presentation will invite critical reflection on how culturally governed approaches can reshape evaluation practice and strengthen both the legitimacy and effectiveness of evaluation outcomes.

Author: Dimitria Gavalyugova, NSW Department of Education
Evaluators face a core dilemma: decision-makers typically expect a definitive measure of program impact, yet the designs capable of delivering one are rarely feasible for large-scale government programs. Quasi-experimental methods and administrative data are often the only tools available to quantify long-term outcomes, but the assumptions needed to establish causal impact cannot always be met – or tested – with available data. This mismatch has driven evaluations into a sub-optimal equilibrium where uncertainty is understated, even though addressing it could lead to better-informed decisions. This presentation explores how to reconcile the need for reporting actionable findings with what the evidence can support.

The session draws on systematic analysis of the 22 combined outcome and economic evaluations published in the NSW Treasury library. By mapping the confidence of causal language attributing outcomes to programs across report sections, the analysis identifies a persistent "within-document gap." In many cases, findings are treated as causal in executive summaries and recommendations, even when underlying methodologies note that they should be interpreted with caution. Scoring each estimation strategy against a risk-of-bias framework reveals observable misalignment between evaluations’ methodological constraints and the confidence of causal claims.

When causality is uncertain, the program effect that gets monetised in economic evaluations contains the true impact plus some degree of bias. Existing guidance addresses uncertainty around monetary parameters and discount rates, but not around estimated program impacts. In the absence of such guidance, the evidence shows that potentially biased estimates routinely enter cost-benefit analyses as true effects. Using an anonymised real-world example, the presentation demonstrates how even small levels of bias can alter benefit-cost ratios and funding recommendations.

The session invites participants to collectively explore practical solutions across four areas: leveraging available methods and data to strengthen evidence, turning limitations into guidance for future evaluation design, communicating uncertainty effectively, and modelling uncertain impacts within economic analyses.

Author: Carina Calzoni, AES Rob Sale, nous

The AES has been exploring its vision of “quality evaluation that makes a difference” through a strategic project - engaging members and examining evaluation theory and practice. This work has surfaced a central challenge: while the phrase is compelling, its meaning is complex, contested, and shaped by context.

This roundtable begins from that complexity—but does not seek to resolve it. Instead, it focuses on what comes next.
We will briefly share insights from the journey so far, including the multiple dimensions of “evaluation”, “quality”, and “making a difference”. These span tensions between evaluation as process, product, and profession; competing perspectives on quality (e.g. standards, utility, impact, values); and diverse understandings of use and influence across contexts and stakeholders.

The primary purpose of the session is to co-design how this conversation continues across the AES community. Participants will engage in facilitated small-group discussions to explore key questions: What does quality evaluation mean in your context? Who defines it? What does “making a difference” look like—and for whom? How should these conversations evolve as contexts, practice, and membership change?

Participants will then work together to identify practical ways to sustain and deepen engagement, such as ongoing communities of practice, publications, podcasts, or future conference formats. The session will capture and share these ideas to inform AES’s ongoing work.

Designed for intermediate to advanced evaluators, this roundtable creates space for collective reflection and future-oriented dialogue. By centring plurality and participation, it supports the AES vision by keeping the conversation alive—recognising that what constitutes “quality evaluation that makes a difference” must continue to evolve with the field.

Author: Michael Taiki, Lokol Solutions

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.

Author: Lucie Moore, Commonwealth Treasury
Across governments, there is growing recognition of the need to make space for high quality evidence and embed evaluation into policy design and decision‑making. This presentation examines what two national governments, the UK and Australia, are doing to improve the quality, quantity and use of evaluation across the public sector, drawing on my personal experience working within both the UK Government’s Evaluation Task Force (ETF) and the Australian Government’s Australian Centre for Evaluation (ACE).

In the UK, the ETF is a joint Cabinet Office–HM Treasury unit established to ensure that evidence and evaluation sit “at the heart of spending decisions”. It works to improve how government programmes are evaluated, providing advice on designing and delivering evaluations and challenging departments to be transparent by including evaluations on the publicly accessible, Evaluation Registry website. The ETF also leads cross‑government capability building, including the Evaluation Academy, which has trained hundreds of evaluation experts who have in turn trained thousands of public servants on evaluation. These initiatives aim to expand both the volume and quality of evaluation activity and strengthen its use in decision‑making.

In Australia, ACE was established to “put evaluation evidence at the heart of policy design and decision‑making,” with a mandate to improve the volume, quality and use of evaluation evidence across government. ACE supports the Commonwealth Evaluation Policy, strengthens evaluation capability, delivers evaluations, and improves evaluation planning in the budget process. Together, these reforms seek to build an evaluative culture across the Australian Public Service.

The objective of this presentation is to share these cross‑government efforts with the wider evaluation community, highlighting traditions and new ways, boundaries and bridges, and the roots and routes shaping reform, and to provide space for attendees to ask questions and explore implications.

Author: Gerard Atkinson, Iris Ethics
Evaluation is typically applied to discrete policies and programs, yet organisations themselves require systematic assessment of whether they achieve their goals and align with their values. This presentation examines how evaluation practice can be adapted to assess an entire company, drawing on a case study from Iris Ethics where we designed and implemented an integrated company-level evaluation plan.

The objective is to demonstrate how evaluative thinking can bridge the fragmented approaches currently dominating corporate contexts. Here strategy evaluation focuses on financial/operational objectives, ESG operates as carved-out compliance, and program evaluation remains siloed. This matters because organisations exist within interconnected systems: programs, profitability, and stakeholder value cannot genuinely be disentangled, yet corporate evaluation practice rarely addresses them holistically.

The presentation makes three core arguments. First, whole-of-company evaluation requires integrated thinking across traditionally separate domains: financial performance, operational delivery, social impact, and stakeholder value, grounded in evaluation's systematic logic whilst incorporating corporate strategy, ESG frameworks, market research methodologies, and economic value-for-investment thinking. Second, evaluability must be embedded from the start: mission and vision statements developed with explicit monitoring and evaluation capability, avoiding vague aspirations that cannot be assessed. Third, evaluation must be integrated into operational platforms rather than existing as separate reporting exercises, making assessment continuous rather than episodic.

The presentation follows a case study structure using a start-up example: establishing why whole-of-company evaluation matters, presenting the step-by-step framework (including whole-of-company logic models), demonstrating how evaluation integrates with strategy, governance, financial management, and competitive positioning, and identifying transferable lessons. Building on methodologies developed for NFP and government sectors but adapted to incorporate profitability and commercial risk, it demonstrates evaluation's applicability beyond traditional boundaries.

It will comprise a structured Q&A and discussion on barriers to integrated company evaluation, and invites participants to identify how the profession can engage with this frontier of practice.

Authors: Nicholas Hill Place Australia, Eve Millar, Place Australia
The use of place-based initiatives (PBIs) to address complex and entrenched disadvantage is expanding across Australia. These initiatives typically go beyond the delivery of single programs and involve cross-sector partnerships that place communities at the centre of efforts to address local problems. While a growing number of initiatives are demonstrating impact, the diversity of approaches, frameworks, and indicators used contributes to a fragmented evidence base. Inconsistencies in how impact is conceptualised and reported limit opportunities for shared learning and present a barrier to the growth and sustainability of the place-based ecosystem.

PLACE Australia is working collaboratively with stakeholders across the ecosystem—including government, philanthropy, not-for-profits, and community organisations—to develop a shared impact framework with a set of flexible indicators that more consistently demonstrate the impact of PBIs, support ongoing learning, and strengthen the sector. As the framework moves from development to implementation, a number of practical challenges arise. These include how shared indicators can be applied flexibly across diverse initiatives, how to balance consistency with local adaptation, how frameworks can support learning rather than compliance, and how Indigenous knowledge and community voice can be embedded in practice.

This roundtable brings together evaluators and practitioners to explore these challenges and identify practical pathways for implementation. Through facilitated discussion, participants will share their practice insights on implementation opportunities, risk and design considerations. The discussion will inform the next phase of testing and implementation of the shared impact framework.

Participants will be invited to reflect on the following questions:

1.How can shared indicators be consistently applied across diverse place-based initiatives while remaining meaningful to local contexts?

2.How can shared impact approaches support learning and improvement without becoming compliance-driven reporting requirements?

3.What risks and opportunities should be considered when implementing shared impact approaches across the place-based ecosystem?

4.What is needed to support the implementation and uptake of the shared impact framework across the sector?

Authors: Nathan Towney, University of Newcastle, Matt Lumb, University of Newcastle, Monica McKenzie, University of Newcastle, Rhyall Gordon, University of Newcastle, James Ballangarry, University of Newcastle
This panel explores how evaluation in higher education can actively make space for diverse perspectives while valuing place—the cultural, relational, and institutional contexts in which programs unfold. Drawing on work within the University of Newcastle’s Engagement and Equity Division, the session examines how ethical evaluation can be enacted in practice when working across complex social justice initiatives.

We argue that dominant, compliance-oriented and metrics-driven approaches often fail to recognise place-based realities, marginalise diverse knowledges, and obscure power relations. In response, the panel foregrounds evaluation as a relational and ethically situated practice that must engage with questions of voice, inclusion, and accountability. This involves not only methodological choices, but also deliberate strategies to create space for stakeholders—particularly those historically excluded—to shape how problems, success, and evidence are defined.

Panel contributions highlight three interconnected practices. First, Indigenous-led and culturally responsive approaches demonstrate how evaluation can shift from extractive processes to reciprocal, place-based relationships grounded in trust and responsibility to community. Second, critical and post-structural perspectives support evaluators to interrogate how “problems” are constructed, making visible whose values and assumptions are prioritised. Third, collaborative design processes offer practical ways to navigate competing priorities, recognise power dynamics, and uphold ethical commitments across diverse contexts.

Through examples spanning NSW school policy evaluation, university program evaluation, and cross-sector collaborations, the panel reflects on what ethical evaluation looks like in practice—particularly how evaluators can create inclusive spaces, acknowledge limitations and failures, and contribute to more just and contextually credible evaluation approaches.

Authors: Lucy Walker, Nation Partners, Justine Smith, Nation Partners
Participatory evaluation is widely regarded as best practice for producing useful, ethical, and contextually grounded insights, particularly in community-based programs. Yet in practice, participatory approaches sometimes unfold in ways that are more complex, unpredictable, and sometimes unsuccessful than anticipated.

This presentation explores what happens when participatory evaluation does not go to plan, and what we can learn from these experiences. The objective of this session is to have a frank conversation about when participation doesn’t go as planned and to inspire more realistic, context-sensitive approaches to designing and implementing participatory evaluation.

The presenters (two) will draw on their experiences and examples to propose three key messages.

- Participation can’t always be assumed or expected- it is shaped by interests, relationships, perceived value and capacity with competing priorities.
- Misalignment between stakeholders (e.g. partners, community members, project funders, and evaluators) can present central challenges.
- When things don’t go according to plan it presents an opportunity for valuable insight and reflection and shouldn’t be avoided.

Through exploring cases where stakeholders are disengaged, where expectations diverge and methods don’t go to plan, we will surface the barriers and enablers to applying participatory methods in practice.

The presenters will share their experiences and insights with embedded survey via QR code to capture attendees reflections along the way. We will also explore methods and strategies to better understand stakeholder context, identify and plan for risks, and adapt approaches in the midst of delivery.

Author: Annabel Prescott (Traction for Young People), Samantha Garbutt (Traction for Young People)
Youth program evaluation faces a critical ethical question: Who is evaluation data for?

Drawing on Feedback Informed Treatment principles and youth empowerment frameworks, this presentation argues that when young people engage with their own data to understand and celebrate their growth, evaluation becomes a tool for agency rather than extraction.

Using TRACTION, a Queensland youth mentoring organisation, as a case study, we examine how internationally validated screening tools serve young people first and organisational learning second. Young people complete visual assessments at program entry, engage with their progress through facilitated conversations during the program, and review before-and-after results at completion. They keep their own copies and use their data in conversations with family, teachers, and others. This process makes visible the work young people have done, enabling them to name and claim their own progress.

The presentation explores three critical tensions:

1. How do we design evaluation that acknowledges young people as active participants in their own change process, not passive subjects of measurement?
2. What shifts when we position self-awareness and celebration as primary evaluation outcomes, with strategic metrics as secondary?
3. How do we ensure data collection practices honour young people's agency rather than extracting information purely for organisational purposes?

We present real examples of facilitated data conversations, visual assessment tools, and moments when young people recognise their own growth through evidence. When evaluation is grounded in participant empowerment, where people understand, acknowledge, and celebrate their own growth, it creates a foundation for ethical strategic data use.

This approach transfers to evaluation with any structurally marginalised population: First Nations communities, people experiencing disadvantage, or those marginalised by traditional service systems. Attendees will leave with critical questions for examining whether their own evaluation practices serve participant agency or organisational needs first

Author: Liesl Harrold, Australian Taxation Office
Problematisation is a deliberate process of dismantling a problem to understand the different ways of thinking that lead to the classification of phenomena as a problem.  It goes beyond the construction of problem statements to focus on the effort required to understand historical and theoretical assumptions underpinning its framing.  Problematisation is a way to test assumptions, generate new ideas, and make new connections to theoretical understandings. In evaluation, it has the potential to provide rigour to practices associated with judging through structuring evaluative thinking.

Using a skill building format, this paper will help participants understand the role of problems in evaluation. The format will follow an explain-model-apply in a group teaching format including practical application of selected trans-disciplinary theories and approaches. It will include a brief overview of:

•Problem logics and how they can be constructed
•Problem representation and the genealogy of problems
•Key theories that can support evaluators to think differently e.g. social identity and psychological safety theoretical frameworks.

Problematisation provides a systematic approach that offers evaluators support to think differently, rather than using existing knowledge to validate existing thoughts. Evaluators’ worldviews and skills influence their competence which may manifest in generalisations of the problem.

Problem-solving is a role in evaluation, as it supports the purpose of interventions in directing social change. They are primarily considered in the needs analysis phase of an evaluation to anchor program logics. However, this foundation has implications for intervention design, defining outcomes and establishing criteria of merit. Monitoring frameworks, particularly when using sentinel indicators, are also influenced by problem framing and assumptions.
Indigenous and transformative approaches, where the rectification of historical power imbalances is essential, would find this particularly relevant. Problematisation can prepare participants for truth-telling, a step in reconciling intergenerational trauma and stopping systemic violence (Payne & Norman, 2025).

Authors: Su-Ann Drew, Grosvenor, Jo van Twest Farmer, Rooftop Social, Eleanor Williams, ACE, Emma Williams, Martina Donkers
Ethical pressures arise due to a range of conflicting incentives that for those who commission and deliver evaluations. Evaluators may try to maintain methodological rigour while meeting tight timeframes or limited budgets. Commissioners may need defensible evidence while navigating organisational expectations, political sensitivities or shifting priorities. These pressures are real and often lead to ethical tensions for all involved, without an agreed or shared language for discussion. This session creates space for attendees to discuss challenges openly, safely and constructively, helps participants recognise and make sense of pressures shaping commissioning decisions, and builds participants’ confidence in responding in ways that support both quality and working relationships.

Building on previous AES presentations on 'everyday ethics', we give participants tools to apply in real-world commissioning contexts by introducing a simple organising framework, the Evaluation Pressure System, which helps participants identify the mix of pressures influencing a situation and why tensions arise. The framework is a guide to support reflection and conversation rather than a technical model.

Using the framework, we will explore fictional but realistic scenarios that illustrate common pressure points in commissioning and evaluation delivery. Participants will be invited, through anonymous polling, to indicate the extent to which each scenario reflects situations they have encountered. Through in-room conversations, attendees will use the framework to examine what helps maintain integrity and constructive working relationships when pressures collide. The intention is not to analyse cases in depth, but to build a clearer shared understanding of tensions that arise and how they can be handled well.

To support ongoing application, attendees will receive a Trade‑off Log to clarify constraints and integrity risks, and practical communication strategies for raising concerns early and negotiating expectations. These will help participants recognise tensions earlier, discuss them more openly and navigate them in ways that support quality and collaboration.

Culturally Grounded Evaluation: Innovative Methods from the Champions4Change Workshop 
Sunet Jordaan, Heart Foundation, Jacinta Hegarty, Heart Foundation
The Champions4Change program is a First Nations–led initiative supporting people with lived experience of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) to lead culturally safe education and advocacy about ARF and RHD their community. In 2025, the Heart Foundation delivered a Champions4Change workshop designed to strengthen knowledge, confidence and leadership skills among Champions. Evaluating this workshop required methods that were not only effective but culturally grounded and inclusive for participants with diverse languages, cultures and lived experiences.

This presentation shares the innovative evaluation approach used to assess knowledge gained, confidence built and participants’ workshop experience. Instead of conventional surveys, evaluators used Yarning circles, storytelling, and visual self-assessment tools. It created a culturally safe environment where Champions could express themselves in ways aligned with community ways of knowing, being and doing. First Nations facilitators who have built relationships with the champions presented the workshop. Champions placed themselves along a visual “road journey” to represent shifts in confidence. They described their understanding of ARF/RHD before and after training through yarning conversations and reflected on the workshop through group storytelling discussions. This approach produced richer and more meaningful insights than traditional surveys alone.

Three key messages will be highlighted:
1.Culturally grounded methods generate deeper, more authentic evaluation insights than commonly used evaluation tools amongst First Nations Peoples.
2.Visual and narrative approaches improve accessibility.
3.Evaluation can make space for lived experience leadership and self determination.

The session will include demonstrations of the visual scaling tools used in the evaluation, along with examples of themes, quotes and insights generated through the evaluation. This will show how culturally grounded methods can strengthen the quality and depth of evaluation findings. This presentation is aimed at foundational and intermediate evaluators interested in practical, culturally responsive techniques that support inclusive evaluation practice.
Agile Evaluation Approaches to Combatting Antisemitism in Australia
Author: Linda Gyorki, Allen and Clarke, Milo McKay, Allen and Clarke
his presentation makes the case for agile evaluation by demonstrating what methodological responsiveness looks like in practice through a real-world evaluation of place-based initiatives aimed at combating antisemitism and strengthening social cohesion.

Agile evaluation is increasingly essential. As global political developments, rising social polarisation, and the rapid spread of misinformation reshape local community dynamics, evaluators working in complex and sensitive environments can no longer rely on fixed designs. This presentation shows how evaluation can adapt without sacrificing rigour or credibility when the ground keeps shifting.

Three key lessons from this evaluation illustrate what agile practice looks like in action. First, polarisation affects who participates and how. Political and social tensions shape stakeholders' willingness and capacity to engage, making trust-building and relationship maintenance core evaluation competencies. Second, iterative data collection is essential. Multiple cycles of data gathering and reflection allow evaluators to surface emerging issues, adjust methods, and stay relevant as community dynamics evolve. Third, responsiveness itself builds credibility. When evaluation processes visibly adapt to local events and stakeholder realities, findings become more useful and the evaluation earns greater trust from the communities it serves.

Aligning with the conference theme "Making space, valuing place," the presentation examines how local evaluation practice must remain grounded in community experience even as it responds to broader global forces.
The session will be delivered as a concise 15-minute presentation with slides, sharing practical insights and methodological lessons for evaluators working in politically dynamic environments. Participants will be invited to reflect briefly on agility challenges in their own contexts, with the session closing on guided discussion prompts around navigating sensitivity, responding to external events, and maintaining rigour through adaptation.
Co-design and evaluation as bridges: An adaptive approach to delivering technology for coral reef conservation
Authors: Emily Maher, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Britta Schaffelke, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Ashton Gainsford, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Yashika Nand, Australian Institute of Marine Science, L.V. Nguyen, Institute of Oceanography, Glenda Cadigal, Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, D. Metali, Department of Fisheries Brunei Darussalam, Manuel Gonzalez Rivero, Australian Institute of Marine Science
Delivering multilateral science and technology-based conservation projects require working across disciplinary, sectoral, cultural and institutional boundaries. This involves engagement and partnership with multiple and diverse stakeholders, navigating unfamiliar governance structures and adapting to local conventions; complexities that are evident in coral reef monitoring and management in Southeast Asia. Here, efforts are also constrained by limited resources, capacity and capability and are often delivered in isolation, reducing their overall impact in supporting conservation efforts.

We present the adaptive project management and evaluation approaches used by the Australian Instit

Authors: Anne Stephens, Ethos of Engagement, Jill Thomas
This presentation explores the design of a systemic Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system for counter-trafficking in persons (CTIP) in the ASEAN region. Developed in 2023, the system supports the adoption and implementation of three victim-centred and gender-sensitive guides for counter trafficking in persons, in use across ASEAN member states. The presentation focuses on how systemic, participatory approaches to evaluation design can enhance uptake of evaluation and the role of a well-designed framework to support the capacity of individuals to monitor and evaluate their work.  

The objective of this presentation is to present the process used to develop a simple to use M&E system within a complex setting; show the public facing guidance documents and tools used to support novice and highly skilled evaluators to use the system; and describe our challenges and learnings.

This presentation offers a timely and practice-grounded contribution to the evaluation field by demonstrating how evaluators can design for relevance, capacity development and impact in complex, real-world settings. It provides actionable insights for practitioners seeking to strengthen the value and use of evaluation in increasingly uncertain and contested environments.

Authors Fergus Bailey, ARTD, Jade Maloney, ARTD
Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031 emphasises the importance of inclusive practices across all sectors, including evaluation. We all have a role to play in achieving the vision of an inclusive Australian society that ensures people with disability can fulfil their potential, as equal members of the community.

At the 2025 AES conference, Melinda Nicholls, Amanda Charles, and Jane Spring AM introduced a practical guide to facilitate meaningful inclusion of people with disability in evaluation, embedding lived experience and promoting equitable participation.

ARTD Consultants is conducting the mid-term evaluation of Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031, using the guide and their own lived experience evaluation framework for a lived experience centred approach. This a significant test of the guide in action.

In this panel, DHDA staff, Jade Maloney (CEO, ARTD Consultants), Fergus Bailey (Senior Consultant, ARTD Consultants), and lived experience representatives will discuss how the perspectives of people with lived experience were centred throughout the evaluation - in key evaluation team roles (including ARTD staff and a lived experience team), governance roles (e.g. Steering Committee), and consultation with people with disability across Australia.

They will provide perspectives as commissioners, evaluators, and people with lived experience on how the guide was operationalised for this process and the benefits to the evaluation.

They will share practical advice for how evaluators can effectively engage people with disability in leading and contributing to evaluations, which are applicable to engaging people with lived experience more broadly in evaluation governance, design and delivery roles, including tailored approaches for diverse communities.

After a presentation and discussion, Jade Maloney will facilitate questions as an experienced AES presenter and moderator, prompting around barriers, enablers, risk management, how challenges accommodated, and other considerations for this approach. Following the session the team will share learnings for the future with broader AES members.

Authors: Lucy Spanswick, Wungening Aboriginal Corporation, Shenae Parremore, Wungening Aboriginal Corporation
 Evaluations of community programs often privilege measurable outputs while overlooking the relational and cultural work that enables meaningful change. This presentation shares insights from the evaluation of an Aboriginal-led alcohol and other drug healing program that sought to make visible the work that is frequently unseen within Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations. It explores how an Aboriginal led evaluation shines a light on Aboriginal ways of working as a response to systemic barriers facing communities. It also considers how evaluation can better recognise and value this work.

Drawing on insights from Elders, staff, participants and leadership, the evaluation adopted an Aboriginal-led, strengths-based approach. A co-research group provided cultural and relational leadership, ensuring accountability to community and shaping both the design and interpretation of the evaluation. Culturally responsive methods centred participant voices and experiences of healing, connection and change.

The presentation focuses on three key insights. First, it demonstrates how Aboriginal-led evaluation approaches can make visible the relational and often unseen work that underpins meaningful outcomes, including trust, connection and safety. Second, it highlights the value of centring lived experience and community voice in both design and interpretation, showing how methods such as yarning and co-research can strengthen the depth and integrity of evaluation findings. Third, it positions evaluation as an active part of the change process, not just a tool for measurement, showing how relational approaches can contribute to healing, learning and continuous improvement in complex service contexts.

Through practical examples and short project videos, participants will be invited to reflect on what may be invisible in their own evaluation practice. The session offers insights relevant across sectors, encouraging evaluators to rethink how impact is measured and how evaluation can contribute to self-determination and community wellbeing.

Authors: Bethany Hanson, Tafe NSW, Emily Gates, Boston University, Martina Donkers
Strap in for a provocative, contentious, and fun session. We’re putting a spin on the classic debate where two teams will go head-to-head to argue the topic: “Evaluation’s pluralism strengthens its external influence.”

On the affirmative side, a spirited case for why pluralism is evaluation’s superpower. Surely leaning into our intersections with disciplines like policy, research and economics expands our reach, relevance, and impact. Embracing pluralism helps evaluators speak multiple “languages,” build trust with diverse stakeholders, and positions evaluation as a boundary‑spanning connector capable of influencing decisions in complex systems. Think: more collaboration, more innovation, and more doors opening because evaluators can flex and adapt.

The negative team will challenge! Doesn’t boundless pluralism stretch evaluation too far, making our unique identity fuzzy and our professional standards harder to uphold? Aren’t we risking dilution of expertise and inconsistencies in practice? Won’t trying to be “everything to everyone” only confuse commissioners and undermine the credibility we’ve spent decades building? Without firmer boundaries, evaluation risks becoming a methodological buffet with no clear value proposition at all.

And then there’s you- our third speaker. A debate without rebuttal is like an evaluation report without findings—unthinkable! So, you’ll choose a side and with a team of fellow audience-members and debaters, craft a knockout final argument for our third speakers.

Will it be chaotic? Quite possibly. Could things get messy? Almost definitely. Will you have FOMO if you miss it? Without a doubt.

Featuring thought leaders Amy Gullickson, Martina Donkers, Matt Healey, George Argyrous, Kate McKegg and AES Fellow, Rick Cummings, this session promises to be the highlight of the conference. Who will be victorious? Let the 2026 (Mostly-Serious) Crowd-Sourced Debate begin!

Authors: Paula Shaw, ARTD, Syl Johns, ARTD
This session, targeted at intermediate evaluators, explores the ethics of evaluation in the corrections context and the importance of including prisoners’ voices.

Incarcerated people are (almost by definition) excluded from public discourse. Our criminal justice system offers imprisonment; a deprivation of liberty, which includes severe restrictions on a person’s ability to communicate with the outside world, as its most common consequence for committing a crime.

Since the mid-20th century, when prisons were re-imagined as places of rehabilitation over places of punishment, criminogenic programs that aim to address the underlying causes of crime have been part of prisons’ remit. Prisoners themselves are arguably the key stakeholders in these kinds of programs, and yet, their voices are often absent in evaluation and other research and program development activities.

Prisons, as a context for program delivery and evaluation, are highly regulated and complex environments. Across Australia, prisons are chronically overcrowded and hold populations with very high levels of complex needs, disadvantage and trauma. First Nations Australians are also overrepresented.

Over the last five years, the presenters, (ARTD Associate Uncle Syl Johns, and Senior Manager, Paula Shaw) have worked on several evaluations of criminogenic programs, and between them, have interviewed well over 100 prisoners across Qld, and in SA, NSW, Victoria, WA and the NT. This session will be delivered as brief presentations and facilitated group discussions on each of the topics below:

•The ethics of inclusion of prisoners in evaluation projects – why it matters, what are the power dynamics at play, what are the risks for prisoners, and what do they get out of it?
•The formal ethics processes involved – what are the key considerations?
•Learnings from our work about practical approaches to engaging prisoners in evaluation interviews. – What has worked well? What hasn’t – and why?

Author: Annabel Prescott, Traction For Young People
Youth program evaluation faces a critical ethical question: Who is evaluation data for?

Drawing on Feedback Informed Treatment principles and youth empowerment frameworks, this presentation argues that when young people engage with their own data to understand and celebrate their growth, evaluation becomes a tool for agency rather than extraction.

Using TRACTION, a Queensland youth mentoring organisation, as a case study, we examine how internationally validated screening tools serve young people first and organisational learning second. Young people complete visual assessments at program entry, engage with their progress through facilitated conversations during the program, and review before-and-after results at completion. They keep their own copies and use their data in conversations with family, teachers, and others. This process makes visible the work young people have done, enabling them to name and claim their own progress.

The presentation explores three critical tensions:

1. How do we design evaluation that acknowledges young people as active participants in their own change process, not passive subjects of measurement?
2. What shifts when we position self-awareness and celebration as primary evaluation outcomes, with strategic metrics as secondary?
3. How do we ensure data collection practices honour young people's agency rather than extracting information purely for organisational purposes?

We present real examples of facilitated data conversations, visual assessment tools, and moments when young people recognise their own growth through evidence. When evaluation is grounded in participant empowerment, where people understand, acknowledge, and celebrate their own growth, it creates a foundation for ethical strategic data use.

This approach transfers to evaluation with any structurally marginalised population: First Nations communities, people experiencing disadvantage, or those marginalised by traditional service systems. Attendees will leave with critical questions for examining whether their own evaluation practices serve participant agency or organisational needs first.