Monitoring and evaluation

Download

This topic explores what culturally informed or culturally appropriate approaches to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) might look like. It provides many examples from First Nations groups in Australia and internationally. The topic highlights the importance of cultural principles, values and storytelling in M&E practices. It also explores community-led and participatory approaches to monitoring and evaluation.

While reading this topic, think about the following questions and how they relate to your organisation, community or nation:

Are there ways you already monitor and evaluate?
- What does this look like?
How are cultural values, stories, or community knowledge included in these processes?
Who is involved in decision-making and evaluation activities?
What might a more culturally appropriate approach to monitoring and evaluation look like for your group?

Make M&E culturally informed

What makes monitoring and evaluation culturally informed and relevant? According to the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Protection Peak Limited (QATSICPP), culturally grounded evaluations are:

“Guided by our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems – our ways of doing, being, knowing, learning and growing
Led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and honour and strengthen the customs and practices deemed appropriate by Elders, Traditional Owners and leaders of the community in which they are undertaken
Healing and affirming while also generating ideas for renewal”.¹

Building on this, culturally informed approaches to monitoring and evaluation place Indigenous cultures, traditions, relationships and lived experiences at the centre. These approaches recognise that meaningful evaluation must reflect the values and ways of knowing of the people it relates to. Culturally informed monitoring and evaluation can take many forms across different contexts.

Common features often include:

designed with and by the people it concerns.
led and implemented by those with lived experience and cultural authority, rather than only externals.
based on cultural knowledge systems, which may be combined with non-Indigenous frameworks.
centres locally defined values, priorities and ways of understanding success.
treats culture as foundational, shaping all stages of evaluation (including design, methods used, interpretation and reporting).
recognises the authority of communities and groups over knowledge and decision-making (including what is evaluated, how evaluation is conducted, how findings are interpreted and used).
acknowledges diversity within and across groups.
recognises cultural identity as a source of strength.
uses methods that reflect culturally meaningful ways of expression, such as storytelling, visual methods, dialogue or other participatory approaches.
creates safe spaces for sharing, ensuring participants feel supported and heard.
are based on reciprocity rather than extraction.
promotes equitable relationships.
promotes shared ownership of both the process and outcomes.

Culturally informed monitoring and evaluation can be applied in practice in many ways. Below, we look at how culturally informed monitoring can be operationalised across some key areas:

Governance and decision making

If there are any oversight structures (like reference groups or advisory groups), membership should be majority representative of the relevant communities.
Indigenous groups should have clear authority and decision-making roles across the evaluation, including approval of:
- evaluation design and methods.
- data collection tools.
- interpretation of findings.
- final outputs and reporting.

An example of culturally informed monitoring and evaluation is the Stronger Communities for Children (SCfC) program, where local community boards play a central role in setting priorities, guiding implementation and assessing outcomes.⁵

The program is supported by Ninti One, a not-for-profit organisation working alongside service providers and communities to design evaluation approaches that balance local priorities with funder requirements.⁶

Community governance is central to this approach. Local advisory groups (SCfC Boards) work with their communities to identify needs, set priorities and guide program design and delivery. These groups are supported by Ninti One through training and capacity-building to use data and evaluation findings in decision-making.⁷

In one example, a local board developed a community plan outlining its goals and priorities, and used this to design an impact assessment framework covering short, medium and long-term outcomes. The board identified locally relevant indicators of change and were taught how to use a mix of methods, including surveys, interviews, community observations and existing data, to assess progress. This enabled the community to determine whether programs were achieving intended outcomes and to inform future improvements.⁸

Evaluation design and methods

Should be flexible in pace, timing and means of engagement to reflect participants’ needs and contexts.
Prioritise participatory and culturally appropriate methodologies tailored to the group or people involved. This might include:
- storytelling or yarning.
- visual and creative methods, such as drawing, art, photos or other non-written ways of expressing ideas.
- ongoing engagement over time, like checking in with people more than once, and allowing relationships to develop gradually.

Ethical practice

Make sure ethical processes reflect people’s cultural context and lived experiences (rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach).
Use trauma-informed approaches throughout the evaluation, meaning the process is designed to be safe and respectful for participants. This includes:
- putting people’s dignity and wellbeing first.
- being aware of and reducing any risk of harm or distress.
- supporting people to take part in ways that feel safe and empowering.

Participation and inclusion

Remove barriers to participation and ensure inclusive, accessible engagement processes.
Design evaluations to capture diverse perspectives, including:
- different age groups (like children and young people).
- families and carers.
- community or cultural leaders.
- service providers and practitioners.

Child Family Community Australia highlights that community consultation and participation are critical across all stages of evaluation. This engagement should be from the outset of the evaluation. Community members and local researchers, like program staff, participants and other stakeholders, bring important contextual knowledge and are well placed to identify factors that may support or hinder the evaluation. Their involvement helps ensure that evaluation approaches are relevant and culturally appropriate.²

QATSICPP’s Evaluation Framework recognises that the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people are central to evaluation design in this sector. One of their key standards states: “We hear and respond to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People”.³

This standard is operationalised in several ways:

Evaluations include a Children and Young People’s Engagement Plan with flexible, creative participation methods.
Children and young people receive age-appropriate information and consent materials.
Research protocols include trauma-informed safety and support plans, with flexibility for participation and follow-up support.
Evaluators working with children and young people hold appropriate Working with Children checks.
Data collection methods are age-appropriate and enable children and young people to share their experiences and suggest improvements.
Engagement plans include incentives or resourcing to support participation.
Findings are shared directly with children and young people in accessible ways, including discussion of next steps.⁴

Indigenous Data Governance and Sovereignty
Indigenous peoples retain ownership, control and authority over their data. They determine:

what data is collected, for whom it is collected and who it benefits.
how it is interpreted.
how it is shared.

Strengths-based approach
Adopt a strengths-based lens and move beyond deficit-focused narratives by:

highlighting aspects like resilience, capability, growth and positive outcomes.
contextualising quantitative data.
incorporating both qualitative and quantitative evidence to reflect lived realities.

Wiyi Yani U Thangani’s Change Agenda sets out a framework for understanding and measuring change grounded in the voices and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and girls.³ In regard to data, their Change Agenda notes that:

Quantitative data contributes to understanding change, but does not drive or control the process.
Greater emphasis is placed on voices, lived experiences, stories, songs and other forms of knowledge, including those passed down through generations.
Qualitative approaches involve engaging through conversations, time in community and on Country, as well as diverse sources such as reports, audio, and social media.
Combining qualitative and quantitative data provides a more holistic and meaningful account of change.⁴

Use of findings and accountability
Ensure findings are:

transparent and accessible to participants and stakeholders.
communicated in culturally appropriate and meaningful formats (not limited to formal reports).

Link evaluation to action and accountability, including:

clear, actionable recommendations.
implementation and monitoring plans.
ongoing review and accountability mechanisms.

Indigenous M&E principles

Many Indigenous M&E approaches include a set of principles that help guide what is measured, and how data is collected, analysed and shared. The principles that guide Indigenous M&E are linked to the cultural beliefs and values important to the group. As with other aspects of Indigenous monitoring and evaluation, these principles will vary depending on the group and the sector they operate in. The examples below illustrate how different groups have defined and applied their own evaluative principles.

The QATSICPP Evaluation Framework includes a set of principles and evaluation standards that are tailored to their work with children and young people.³ The key evaluation principles that underpin their framework are:

cultural authority
self-determination and decision-making authority
cultural identity
truth-telling
two-way learning
a focus on continuous learning
a holistic approach.⁴

These principles are supported by a set of evaluation standards that translate them into practice. For more detail on this, see their full framework.

A large-scale approach to Indigenous monitoring and evaluation is the Indigenous Evaluation Strategy developed by the Productivity Commission. The Strategy was commissioned by the Australian Government to improve how policies and programs affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are evaluated, recognising that stronger evaluation practices can lead to better outcomes.⁵ It is intended for use across all government agencies and applies to both Indigenous-specific and mainstream programs. The Strategy sets out a whole-of-government framework that places Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at the centre of evaluation.⁶

A set of guiding principles underpins the Strategy, outlining what good practice looks like for government agencies. These principles are designed to be flexible and allow agencies to adapt their evaluation approaches to suit different programs and community contexts.⁷ The overarching principle is to centre Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, perspectives, priorities and knowledges. This is supported by secondary principles that emphasise evaluations being credible, useful, ethical and transparent.⁸

The Making Tracks Together: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework’s evaluative principles are grounded in the values, cultural authority and lived experiences of First Nations peoples identified through a co-design process. These principles underpin all aspects of the framework:

partnerships and trusting relationships
including and respecting diverse voices, values, and knowledge
sharing power
community engagement and participation in decision-making
cultural safety
everyone’s business (social justice and human rights approach)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities’ control, leadership, and self-determination
decolonising knowledge and practice
evidence-based
strengths-based narratives
equitable and sensitive to context
transformative (continuous quality improvement and learning)
person-centred
integrated and connected
commitment and accountability.³

The evaluation questions laid out in the framework use these principles as guiding prompts to think more deeply about important issues such as:

Who has power in the evaluation (who decides, who benefits)
Whose voices are heard or missing
The context people are living and working in
Who is accountable for decisions and outcomes
Whether the process is culturally safe and respectful.⁴

The American Indian Higher Education Consortium’s Indigenous Evaluation Framework is guided by a set of principles, including drawing on Indigenous values and cultural expressions, being flexible to change depending on local contexts, taking ownership and ensuring evaluation respects and serves goals for self-determination and sovereignty.² The full outline of AIHEC’s principles is outlined in their Evaluation Framework.

Cultural values in M&E

A common feature across many Indigenous evaluation frameworks is that they are guided by values. Like principles, these values will differ from group to group. Some of the values that guide Indigenous evaluation approaches might be linked to the deep cultural features that many Indigenous groups share. It is likely they will be quite specific to your group and the people it serves.

In 2018, the Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI) developed an Indigenous Evaluation Framework grounded in four key cultural values:

“Community is created wherever Native people are
Resilient and strength-based
Decolonizing data
Centering of the community.”¹

Building on these values, Indigenous practitioners working with survivors of violence emphasised that evaluation should contribute to restoring Indigenous systems of care and protection for women and girls. This led to the identification of three additional intentions to guide evaluation practices:

Committing to working from a place of cultural values and community protections in evaluation work.
Sharing safe, healing and effective evaluation approaches that Indigenous practitioners are creating within their own communities for the benefit of their communities.
Engaging in reciprocity. In exchange for the gift of information and stories shared, it is the responsibility of the gatherer, the observer and the listener to care for them and to use them for the benefit of the relatives that gifted them.²

The AIHEC Indigenous Evaluation Framework places evaluation within Indigenous ways of knowing. AIHEC have identified four core values that shape how evaluation is approached in Indigenous communities.⁴ By centring these values and ways of knowing, the framework enables the adaptation and use of non-Indigenous evaluation methods in ways that are culturally appropriate and relevant. Focus groups conducted as part of the Indigenous Evaluation Framework identified several core values that are widely shared across many tribal cultures. These were:

Being People of a Place
Recognizing our Gifts
Centrality of Community and Family
Tribal Sovereignty.⁵

AIHEC ask the important question: “Is there a set of core beliefs or common values that can serve as a foundation for framing a tribal approach to evaluation?”⁶

Developing values for M&E

Evaluation is not just a technical exercise carried out by groups. It needs to be informed by the things that matter to communities. By explicitly identifying these values, evaluators and communities can design approaches that are culturally relevant. The AIHEC table, shown below, is a clear example of how beliefs about knowledge and cultural values can shape evaluation practice in communities:³

The table below adapts the AIHEC framework to better reflect values commonly used in the Australian context.⁴ It is an example only, as values will differ across communities, organisations and sectors.

Value	How is this reflected in evaluation?
Connection to Country	Recognise the importance of Country, place, local contexts and history. Design evaluations that are place-based and grounded in local knowledge and experience. Acknowledge that what works in one community may not be transferable to others. Hold engagement activities on Country where possible. Involve Traditional Owners/Elders in setting context and guiding approach. Build time into evaluation for things like following local protocols, permissions, relationship-building and understanding place. Reflect place-specific outcomes (e.g. connection to land, cultural practices) in indicators.
Indigenous Data Sovereignty	Report findings in ways that are meaningful and accessible to communities, not just funders or externals. Develop data governance agreements at the outset. Ensure communities can access, use and retain control over their data beyond the evaluation. Store data in ways that align with community preferences and protocols. Seek permission before sharing or publishing findings externally.
Youth voice	Co-design parts of the evaluation with young people from the outset. Use youth-friendly formats (e.g. workshops, digital tools, creative activities). Provide safe spaces and support for young people during engagement. Offer feedback sessions specifically for young people, showing how their input was used.
Traditional ways of knowing	Include approaches like yarning, storytelling and observation as formal data collection methods. Allow participants to share knowledge in non-written formats (e.g. art, audio, video). Incorporate local definitions of success and wellbeing into evaluation frameworks. Recognise and credit cultural knowledge holders appropriately.
Community and relationships	Engage communities in planning, design and implementation of evaluation. Use participatory approaches that involve community members and stakeholders. Recognise that outcomes relate not only to individuals, but to community wellbeing and collective strength. Use local facilitators or community researchers to lead engagement. Maintain ongoing communication and transparency. Schedule engagement at times and locations that work for the community. Ensure those involved in or subject to the evaluation also benefit from its outcomes, rather than the process becoming extractive.
Strengths-based	Focus on strengths, resilience, and growth, rather than deficits. Recognise outcomes across social, cultural, emotional and spiritual wellbeing. Understand people within their broader family, community and cultural context. Include indicators that capture strengths and resilience. Balance reporting of challenges with positive outcomes and community assets. Use mixed methods to capture both numbers and lived experience.
Self-determination	Involve communities in selecting evaluators. Require community sign-off on key deliverables (design, findings, reports). Ensure evaluation budgets include resourcing for community participation. Build in mechanisms for shared decision-making throughout the process.
Capacity building	Provide training or mentoring in evaluation skills for community members. Employ or partner with local people in evaluation roles. Share tools, templates and learnings for future use by the community. Ensure evaluation leaves a lasting benefit beyond the report.

Storytelling as part of M&E

Many Indigenous monitoring and evaluation approaches see storytelling as a key part of M&E work. These approaches highlight the importance of capturing and sharing stories as a way of understanding change. This reflects a broader shift towards recognising lived experiences as forms of evidence. In NSW, for instance, consultation for a First Nations evaluation framework identified a need for evaluation practice to better incorporate qualitative feedback, including the stories and experiences of First Nations peoples, and to place greater emphasis on community data and storytelling in building the evidence base.⁵

For the U.S-based Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), sharing evaluation stories is a core element of their framework.³ In many evaluation approaches, a strong focus on outputs, such as the number of clients served or activities delivered, can mask the deeper stories behind the work. In Indigenous contexts, these stories are a critical part of understanding impact. There are four areas of their framework which help develop evaluation stories:

Walking with Relatives
Planting and Nurturing Seeds of Strength
Healing—Extending Space for Grief and Healing
Adapting in Community

For each area, UIHI presents a set of question prompts to help document the stories.⁴

Measure outcomes and successes

In their Building the Sacred framework, the Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI) notes how in many non-Indigenous evaluation contexts, measures and indicators are often framed using deficit-based language that does not align with Indigenous worldviews.⁶ For example, terms such as ‘needs assessments’ tend to focus primarily on gaps or problems, without recognising the broader context of strengths, knowledge, relationships and cultural practices that shape wellbeing.⁷ This narrow framing can overlook the depth and complexity of Indigenous perspectives. Culturally relevant measures and indicators, by contrast, are developed in partnership with communities and reflect locally defined ways of understanding success or change. They create space for Indigenous people to tell their own stories, using methods and forms of evidence that are meaningful to them. This may include qualitative approaches such as storytelling, observation and community-defined indicators of change, alongside quantitative data. Below, we share an example of how Indigenous-defined indicators can be incorporated into established evaluation systems:

The Australian Government uses the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) system as a framework for tracking and assessing natural resource management programs.⁵ MERI provides a structured approach to understanding what is happening, what it means and how programs can be improved over time. It is also an important part of the management plans developed by Traditional Owners for Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) managers.⁶

At its core, MERI involves four key components:

Monitoring: collecting data to track what is happening and identify trends over time.
Evaluation: analysing this data to assess effectiveness and inform evidence-based judgements.
Reporting: communicating findings to stakeholders.
Improvement: using insights to adapt and strengthen programs.

The MERI framework offers practical guidance for implementation. For example, in monitoring, it requires program managers to identify appropriate indicators, define how they will be measured and determine how results will be reported.⁷ This provides a clear structure for planning and assessing progress. An example is below:⁸

At the same time, the application of MERI in Indigenous contexts often involves adapting the framework to align with local cultural values and ways of working.

Data collection methods

Effective evaluation in Indigenous contexts often requires an approach that combines conventional data collection with storytelling and creative methods. This ensures that evaluations capture both measurable outcomes and the narratives that define community experiences. The Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI) uses a combination of gathering methods and storytelling methods (also known as “data collection” and “dissemination” methods) to gather their evaluation stories.⁸ These include:

observation
informal check-ins
dreams
assumptions
one-on-one conversations
talking circles
art, music, dance, and poetry
culturally attuned surveys
program documentation and culturally attuned indicators
population databases and addressing racial misclassification, data gaps, and funding inequity.⁹

What is notable about the above points is that they combine qualitative and quantitative methods.

Qualitative and quantitative data collection

The following table provides a basic example of how to organise and track data across different domains (these might be strategic priorities or areas of focus identified by your group), combining qualitative and quantitative indicators. It can help evaluators and communities plan and document evaluation data.

Note: The example uses a fictional organisation supporting Indigenous women artists to illustrate how this approach can be applied in practice.

Domain	Indicator	Type	Measurement methods	Data collector
Wellbeing	Reported sense of personal empowerment	Qualitative (narratives or testimonials)	Interviews/talking circles/artist statements	Community members or evaluators
Economic	Sales of artworks	Quantitative	Sales records	Program staff

In the above example:
Domains are broad areas of focus, such as cultural connection, economic outcomes, health, etc.
Indicators are specific outcomes or measures that reflect success in each domain.
Data type records the type of data collected and, if relevant, its format.
Measurement methods note how each indicator will be measured (interviews, storytelling, surveys, program records, observation, art, etc.).
Data collectors are those who gather and record the data. This may include community members, program staff, or external evaluators.

Data dissemination methods

An important part of any evaluation is deciding how findings and outcomes will be shared (disseminated) with the community and other stakeholders. Data dissemination should be culturally relevant and accessible. Some key considerations include:

Audience: Who needs to see the findings? This may include community members, Elders, program staff, funders or partner organisations.

Format: Use culturally appropriate formats such as storytelling, talking circles, visual maps, art, music, or written reports (depending on community preferences).

Language and accessibility: Present findings in the community’s language, if appropriate. Consider age, visual and other accessibility needs.

Participation: Where possible, involve the community in interpreting and sharing the findings to ensure they reflect local perspectives and values.

Ethical considerations: Ensure confidentiality, respect for sensitive knowledge and that culturally significant information is shared only with permission.

Follow-up: Use dissemination to support decision-making, inform program improvements and reinforce community ownership of the evaluation process.

Community participatory approaches

The Guidebook for Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation of Jointly Managed Parks in the NT (the Guidebook) define participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME) as “an inclusive and collaborative monitoring (checking) and evaluation (learning to improve) process where all key stakeholders are actively engaged in all phases of the assessment from development of a monitoring and evaluation framework through to all phases of its implementation”.¹⁰ The Guidebook outlines four phases to PME:
Phase 1 is when the partners agree on processes, agree on the indicators and prepare to carry out the assessment.
Phase 2 involves collection of data (interviews and documents).
Phase 3 is when all information and data are jointly analysed, indicators are given values, and the first draft evaluation report is produced.
Phase 4 is when results of the assessment are shared with all partners and other stakeholders, allowing them to provide feedback and recommendations. It is also when results are validated.¹¹

Each phase has its own set of steps that can be followed through. View the Guidebook for more information on how to approach PME.

In 2024, an evaluation project explored the impacts of Mongolia’s land conservation policies on the traditions and daily lives of the Tsaatan Indigenous community in Mongolia.⁵ The research applied a participatory and culturally responsive evaluation framework by the Toolkit on Indigenous Evaluations for the Asia-Pacific Region.

The participatory evaluation approach was foundational to the project. A capacity-building workshop was conducted with sixteen Tsaatan representatives from the East and West Taiga tribes ⁶ The workshop introduced participatory evaluation methods and strengthened participants’ skills to engage in policy discussions effectively. Data collection was also collaborative. Focus group discussions, key informant interviews and individual interviews were conducted with guidance and input from community representatives.⁷ This ensured that questions, methods, and interpretations reflected Tsaatan priorities and cultural knowledge. Findings were also discussed and validated with participants, so the Tsaatan could contribute directly to interpretation and policy recommendations.⁸

Other useful approaches

QATSICPP take a practical, relationship-based approach to evaluation.³ Some of their key considerations that may be useful for Toolkit users include:

taking time to engage with the right people, at the right time, through open and informal conversations.
being flexible with timeframes and ensuring there is a clear purpose and consent before starting.
working in a spirit of reciprocity and two-way learning, where there is both giving and receiving.
practising deep listening, including allowing silence and space for people to reflect and share in their own way.
recognising the importance of past experiences and future impacts, and how these shape current outcomes.
seeking broad, collective input from across the community, including different generations and roles.
allowing people time to engage in ways that suit them, including returning to conversations over time.
being guided by community leaders and Elders, and maintaining open communication throughout.
being willing to adapt and learn, including revisiting approaches if needed.
valuing different ways of sharing knowledge, including stories, art, music, and other creative forms.⁴

The Making Tracks Together: Queensland’s Statewide First Nations Health Equity Strategies Monitoring and Evaluation Framework is a strong example that brings together many of the above considerations, including participatory approaches and diverse “ways of knowing” for assessing impact.⁶ It combines four complementary evaluation approaches.⁷ While the framework is detailed, a summary of the four approaches is provided below:

Evaluative principles
A set of principles that reflect the values, cultural authority and experiences of Indigenous peoples consulted throughout the co-design phase. These principles have been explored in more detail in the resource: Making Tracks Together: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework’s evaluative principles.⁸

Empowerment evaluation
Focuses on building community capacity and shared ownership of evaluation.⁹ There are
two streams:

Practical stream

improve programs.
identify what works.
support decision-making.

Transformative stream

challenge existing power structures.
support institutional change.
build evaluation capacity within communities.

Three ways of knowing
The evaluation integrates three evidence sources:

1. Quantitative and system data. Measures:

health outcomes.
service access.
workforce data.
patient experience.

2. Narrative evidence. Often collected using yarning and participatory methods. Stories and qualitative insights from:

communities.
service providers.
policy stakeholders.

3. Economic assessment. Assesses:

cost-effectiveness.
social return on investment.
broader societal benefits.

Participatory Action Research (PAR)
PAR is a community-driven, empowerment-focused approach.¹⁰

It engages multiple perspectives:

independent First Nations evaluators.
HHS staff at all levels.
Queensland Health staff.
prescribed stakeholders identified by legislation.
health consumers, including diverse community members with intersecting vulnerabilities.

Benefits:

builds community ownership.
generates local knowledge.
supports system improvement.
strengthens Indigenous leadership in evaluation.

May 19 2026

resource

Culturally informed monitoring and evaluation in the SCfC program

An example of culturally informed monitoring and evaluation is the Stronger Communities for...

Example ,

May 22 2026

resource

Defining monitoring and evaluation for your group

This tool is designed for groups who are beginning to think about monitoring and evaluation, o...

File ,

May 20 2026

resource

Making Tracks Together: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework’s evaluative principles

The Making Tracks Together: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework’s evaluative principles are...

Example ,

May 11 2026

resource

Monitoring and evaluation key distinctions

Aspect Monitoring Evaluation Timing Happens regularly while the work is underway Happ...

Diagram ,

May 21 2026

resource

AIHEC values-based approach to Indigenous evaluation

The AIHEC Indigenous Evaluation Framework places evaluation within Indigenous ways of knowing...

Example ,

May 22 2026

resource

Asian Pacific evaluation ethical protocols

The Toolkit on Indigenous Evaluations for the Asia Pacific Region provides a set of ethica...

Example ,

May 19 2026

resource

AIHEC’s evaluation approach

The American Indian Higher Education Consortium’s Indigenous Evaluation Framework (AIHEC...

Example ,

May 21 2026

resource

Participatory evaluation with Tsaatan

In 2024, an evaluation project explored the impacts of Mongolia’s land conservation policies...

Example ,

May 19 2026

resource

QATSICPP Evaluation Framework

The QATSICPP Evaluation Framework includes a set of principles and evaluation standards that a...

Example ,

May 19 2026

resource

The Indigenous Suicide Prevention Evaluation Framework

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Project’s (ATSISPEP) was active...

Example ,

May 20 2026

resource

The Productivity Commission’s Indigenous Evaluation Strategy principles

A large-scale approach to Indigenous monitoring and evaluation is the Indigenous Evaluation St...

Example ,

Jun 29 2026

resource

The Urban Indian Health Institute’s evaluation values

In 2018, the Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI) developed an Indigenous Evaluation Framework...

Example ,

May 22 2026

resource

Tsaatan recommendations for evaluators

The Elevating Tsaatan Voices evaluation report presents a list of recommendations for evaluato...

Example ,

Approaches to Indigenous M&E

Make M&E culturally informed

Indigenous M&E principles

Cultural values in M&E

Developing values for M&E

Storytelling as part of M&E

Measure outcomes and successes

Data collection methods

Qualitative and quantitative data collection

Data dissemination methods

Community participatory approaches

Other useful approaches