aes26 International Evaluation Conference

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.

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: 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: 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.

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: 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.

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.

Author: Victoria Thanasos, Menzies School of Health Research
Introducing new tools into complex health service environments is rarely straightforward, particularly where they intersect with diverse ways of knowing, being, and valuing. This short paper shares insights from piloting the What Matters 2 Adults (WM2A) tool with dialysis patients in the Top End of the Northern Territory, focusing on how feasibility, appropriateness, and potential risks are assessed in practice.

Drawing on a formative evaluation approach, the project combined yarning circles, interviews, and reflective sessions with renal patients and stakeholders. Rapid qualitative analysis, informed by implementation science, was used to identify key barriers, enablers, and contextual factors shaping the tool’s potential use.

Three key insights emerged. First, feasibility is not just about logistics, but about meaning – how questions are understood and experienced. Second, appropriateness is not fixed but negotiated in place, requiring ongoing adaptation to language, delivery, and context. Third, introducing new tools carries risks – including burden, misinterpretation, and unintended consequences – that must be actively surfaced and managed.

Rather than presenting final outcomes, this paper focuses on the decisions, tensions, and trade-offs that shaped the pilot, including the deliberate decoupling of tool administration from routine service delivery to minimise burden on patients and staff while enabling deeper exploration. Participants will be invited to reflect on how they assess feasibility, appropriateness, and risk in their own contexts.

Overall, this paper positions evaluation as critical to assessing not just whether a tool works, but whether it fits – offering practical insights for context-sensitive, responsible approaches in complex, culturally diverse settings.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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)
Organisational capacity assessments in international development are often experienced by organisations in Asia and the Pacific as externally driven compliance exercises, disconnected from everyday decision-making. This paper presents an alternative model in which 14 organisations in Fiji, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam — including some with no prior research experience — led participatory research on organisational capacity strengthening over three years, supported by the Australian Volunteers Program and the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney.

Drawing on reflections from BIRTH Fiji, the paper identifies three interrelated shifts in power. First, embedding evaluative inquiry into organisational routines created space for learning and reflection in contexts dominated by delivery pressures and compliance-focused monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL). Evaluation became a tool for adaptation and strategic thinking rather than reporting alone. Second, organisations developed confidence, skills, and ownership by leading the evaluation process themselves, with external actors acting as facilitators rather than controllers. Evaluation therefore contributed directly to organisational capacity strengthening. Third, the process fostered peer learning across the 14 organisations, creating horizontal networks of exchange and redistributing knowledge and influence away from donor-centric models. The paper argues that meaningful power shifts in evaluation require locally led, embedded, and sustained evaluative practice.

Brokering and interpreting evaluation: An iTaukei experience
Authors: 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.

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.

Author: Cally Jennings, Commission On Excellence And Innovation In Health
Change in complex systems rarely fails because of a lack of ideas. It fails because people do not share a common understanding of what needs to change, or why. This presentation describes a pragmatic, participatory process used to develop shared priorities for improving cancer clinical trial start‑up across South Australia.

In 2025, the South Australian Comprehensive Cancer Network, working with the Commission on Excellence and Innovation in Health, led a statewide review of ethics and governance processes for cancer clinical trials across public, private, and regional providers. The aim was to develop a shared understanding of how the system operates in practice and to identify agreed priorities for improvement.

A mixed qualitative approach, which included structured interviews, sponsor surveys, comparative system mapping and facilitated workshops, was used. These methods were selected to identify variation across sites, highlight common bottlenecks, and draw on interstate and international examples to explore what good could look like. The findings were synthesised into a concise set of system‑level insights and tested through collaborative workshops to identify a small number of priorities that formed the foundation of a broader reform program.

The presentation will share three lessons:
1.How participatory process methods can build shared understanding and readiness for change.
2.How participatory approaches can promote ownership but also reveal the limits of readiness for change.
3.Why even well designed, collaborative processes must demonstrate early wins to build and maintain trust.

Designed for a foundational to intermediate audience, the session will invite participants to reflect on balancing rigour with pragmatism, including exploring how early evidence and shared insight can move complex systems from talking about change to taking the first steps.

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.

Authors: John Stoney, DSS, Kim Grey, AES President, Ruth Nicholls, Australian Centre for Evaluation, Samantha Mayes, Systems, Planning and Analysis Australia
The idea of keeping going in the face of obstacles is a recurring cultural theme: Nelson Mandela asked us not to judge him by his successes, but by how often he fell down and got back up again. Wise evaluator Eleanor Chelimsky told us that evaluators need to understand our context to win allies and collaborate.

The panel aims to support practitioners to identify, understand and navigate challenges from ethical, good practice and self-care perspectives.

The panel draws on many sources - our favourite proverbs and inspiring leaders - as well as psychology, philosophy and the evaluation literature.

The beneficial effects of identity and belonging will be unpacked, along with how each of us can nurture these powerful drivers of self-care through engaging with evaluation as a profession. This draws on social identity theory and the evidence for the ‘social cure’, which suggests that social groups and a sense of community may be as beneficial as regular exercise - promoting adjustment, coping and well-being.

What do evaluators think supports their resilience? Research into evaluator resilience identifies features of individual and institutional dimensions that support adaptability, including soft skills, relationships, communication skills, flexibility, and professional confidence to refer to codes of ethics, plus organisational mechanisms for discussing rigour and integrity with stakeholders, managers or commissioners, normalising ethical practice.

We’ll also explore the contexts in which we often practice - the barriers, set-backs or cycles, in the dynamic world that evaluation is part of, including the drivers of expansion and contraction in evaluation activity, variation across levels of change (global, national, organisational or people driven), and the dynamic interacting forces that drive cycles to flow at varying or contradictory pace. This can have implications for us as practitioners, requiring adaptability, resilience and self-care, but can also affect the evaluation discipline and profession.

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.

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.

Authors: Emma Weaver, Menzies, Shiree Mack, Menzies, Caroline Miller, Menzies, Louise Maple-Brown, Menzies
The Merne Mwerre Artweye Areye-ke (MMAA) diabetes prevention program was developed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged 6-11 years and their caregivers in Central Australia in response to community concerns about the increasingly high rate of youth obesity and type 2 diabetes in the region. The program is being delivered and evaluated in partnership between Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, the Aboriginal community-controlled health service, and Menzies School of Health Research across ten communities. While grounded in community leadership and co-facilitation by Aboriginal staff, the program is being delivered through a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to facilitate evaluation of clinical effectiveness.

This creates an ethical tension; RCTs privilege pre-specified outcomes, standardisation, and methodological control, whereas community-led initiatives require relational accountability, flexibility, and responsiveness to local priorities. The evaluation therefore confronts questions of power - whose knowledge counts, who defines success, and how competing accountabilities are balanced.

To navigate these tensions, the evaluation framework integrates adaptive qualitative inquiry alongside quantitative measures. Iterative feedback loops, reflective field notes, and ongoing dialogue with local leaders have supported transparency and ethical responsiveness. Program adaptations have included prioritising relationship-building, embedding local language and strengths-based framing, providing practical supports for participation, and reframing outcomes to reflect change valued by families and communities. The evaluation has also shifted from conventional semi-structured interviews to culturally grounded yarning approaches, recognising Indigenous ways of knowing as critical forms of evidence.

This presentation, delivered as a dialogue between an Aboriginal facilitator and a non-Indigenous evaluator, will critically reflect on trade-offs, missed assumptions, and lessons learned. It will explore how evaluators can uphold methodological rigour while prioritising differing voices, acknowledging power, and remaining accountable to community-defined values. Transferable strategies will be shared for ethically navigating complex, culturally grounded evaluations.

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: 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

Culturally Grounded Evaluation: Innovative Methods from the Champions4Change Workshop
Author: Sunet Jordaan
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 deliver culturally safe education and advocacy in their communities. In 2025, the Heart Foundation delivered a workshop to strengthen Champions’ knowledge, confidence and leadership skills using culturally grounded and accessible evaluation methods.
This presentation shares the evaluation approach used to assess knowledge gained, confidence built and participants’ experiences. Instead of surveys, evaluators used Yarning circles, storytelling and visual self-assessment tools to create a culturally safe environment aligned with community ways of knowing, being and doing. First Nations facilitators with established relationships with Champions led the activities.
Champions used a visual “road journey” to represent changes in confidence and reflected on their understanding of ARF and RHD through yarning conversations and storytelling discussions. The session highlights how culturally grounded, visual and narrative methods can improve accessibility, participation and lived experience leadership while generating richer insights than traditional surveys.

Agile Evaluation Approaches to Combatting Antisemitism in Australia
Authors: Linda Gyorki, Milo McKay
This presentation explores agile evaluation through a real-world evaluation of place-based initiatives aimed at combating antisemitism and strengthening social cohesion. As global political developments, social polarisation and misinformation reshape communities, evaluators working in sensitive environments can no longer rely on fixed designs. This presentation demonstrates how evaluation can adapt without sacrificing rigour or credibility. Three key lessons highlight agile evaluation in practice. First, polarisation affects participation and engagement, making trust-building and relationship management essential evaluation skills. Second, iterative data collection enables evaluators to identify emerging issues, adjust methods and remain responsive to changing community dynamics. Third, responsiveness itself builds credibility. When evaluation processes visibly adapt to local events and stakeholder realities, findings become more useful and trusted by communities.
Aligning with the conference theme, “Making space, valuing place,” the presentation examines how evaluation can remain grounded in community experience while responding to broader global forces. The session will share practical lessons for evaluators navigating sensitivity, external events and methodological adaptation.

Co-design and evaluation as bridges: An adaptive approach to delivering technology for coral reef conservation
Author: Emily Maher
Delivering multilateral conservation projects requires working across disciplinary, cultural and institutional boundaries. In Southeast Asia, coral reef monitoring and management are further challenged by limited resources, capacity and coordination. This presentation shares the adaptive project management and evaluation approaches used by the Australian Institute of Marine Science to support coral reef monitoring through knowledge, technology and expertise exchange. A deliberate “year zero” planning phase aligned expectations, identified local needs and strengthened collaboration. Guided by co-design and adaptive management principles, evaluative processes structured dialogue between scientists, policymakers, managers and practitioners while integrating diverse priorities and cultural considerations. Evaluation functioned as connective infrastructure rather than simply monitoring progress. Regular reflection on partner feedback and evolving implementation needs supported timely adaptation and negotiation of trade-offs. This collaborative approach fostered strong local ownership and sustained government support, contributing to outcomes including a national coral reef monitoring plan in Brunei Darussalam and agreed monitoring standards in the Philippines and Vietnam. The presentation reflects on roadblocks, unexpected outcomes and lessons for complex projects operating across policy, technology, science and implementation.

Effects of community water fluoridation on child dental caries in remote Northern Territory, Australia
Author: Ramakrishna Chondur
Community water fluoridation (CWF) is a cost-effective intervention for reducing dental caries at a population level. This Northern Territory (NT) study used a difference-in-difference (DiD) analysis to examine dental caries outcomes among children exposed to CWF across 50 remote NT communities. Methods: Oral health data from the NT Department of Health (2008–2020) included 24,546 children aged 1–17 years. Drinking water fluoride data from the Power and Water Corporation were linked to the oral health dataset. The DiD analysis compared a treatment group with two control groups to assess the impact of CWF on dental caries outcomes using the decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft/DMFT) index. Results: Dental caries significantly decreased among children in the treatment group following implementation of CWF, with greater reductions than both control groups over the same period.
Conclusion: CWF produced population-level reductions in dental caries among children in remote NT communities, supporting longstanding NT Department of Health policy and demonstrating improved oral health outcomes.

Enshittification: A new category for your next MEL framework?
Author: Duncan Rintoul
The term enshittification (or enpoopification for delicate ears) describes how digital services often begin as useful tools but degrade in quality and usability over time. This decline is commonly linked to increasing prioritisation of profit, resulting in cluttered interfaces, manipulated content, more advertising, rising costs and poorer user experience.
Coined by Canadian writer Cory Doctorow, the term was named “word of the year” by the American Dialect Society in 2023 and Australia’s Macquarie Dictionary in 2024. Drawing on Doctorow’s 2025 book Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What To Do About It, this Ignite presentation argues that enshittification deserves a place in risk matrices and MEL frameworks across multiple sectors. The presentation also argues for the value of longitudinal process evaluation, not only longitudinal outcome evaluation, to better understand how systems and user experiences deteriorate over time.

From Admin to Evidence: Transforming Data Quality Through Culture and Capability
Author: Cath Cooper
This Ignite presentation will offer practical insights into how redefining purpose, building capability, and embedding supportive systems can transform data from a burden into a meaningful asset for evaluation.
Key points: 1.Cultural Shift: we reframed “admin tasks” as “Evidence of Impact”, shifting the narrative to honour the value of data as a foundation for learning and accountability 2.System Redesign: A collaboratively built CMS, supported by guides, workshops and induction, strengthened capability and consistency. 3.Sustained Improvement: Monthly monitoring, mentoring and rapid feedback loops led to significantly improved data accuracy and reduced correction time, enabling reliable reporting and decision making.

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.

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.

Authors: Natasha Freeman, Menzies School of Health Research, Edwina Murphy, Menzies School of Health Research
This presentation explores the importance of respecting context and culture when working with First Nations participants and colleagues, rethinking conventional data collection methods and outcome indicators to elicit important learnings.

We will share the experiences of our culturally and professionally diverse team delivering and evaluating Doing It Together, a peer-support and peer-education program for First Nations youth living with type 2 diabetes. The project required a thoughtful and responsive approach to ensure that local First Nations voices were prioritised and processes culturally grounded.

Strengthening capacity across the team through genuine two-way learning was central, recognising that concepts such as “research” and “evaluation” required ongoing discussion to collectively explore their meaning and purpose. This was particularly relevant for team members new to professional roles and, sometimes, in first time employment. Creating this space enabled all team members, particularly youth peer facilitators, to feel comfortable with the project’s intent and direction. It prompted important shifts in data collection and defining impact, more meaningfully reflecting First Nations ways of knowing, being and valuing.

Strategies included supported reflection, discussion and two-way learning, building on established relationships, and adopting a Developmental Evaluation approach to support intentional reflection on processes and outcomes, enabling timely adaptation. We were open to what constitutes meaningful data and valued context-specific insights.

We practised data collection as a skill throughout—learning to elicit and honour stories and lived experience, administer surveys with purpose, and reflect critically on what “impact” and “success” could look like. Data analysis was similarly approached with care, prioritising First Nations youth voices, particularly where differing world views shaped interpretation.

The presentation will be co-facilitated by the Evaluation Officer and an Aboriginal Peer Facilitator. Modelling the project’s relational approach, we will showcase activities used for connecting project participants, inviting audience movement and interaction. We welcome questions throughout.