.png)
Reading list
This topic introduces Indigenous monitoring and evaluation (M&E). It outlines key distinctions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous approaches to M&E and explores different types of evaluation. It also provides examples of how groups can adapt M&E terminology to suit their own contexts.
While reading this topic, think about the following questions and how they relate to your organisation, community or nation:
Monitoring and evaluation are two distinct but closely related processes that help groups track their work and assess the difference it makes. They are processes many organisations and community groups will be familiar with. Monitoring and evaluation help groups understand what they are doing, whether their activities are making a difference and how they can improve over time. Monitoring and evaluation are often shortened to M&E. You may have also heard terms like MEL (monitoring, evaluation and learning) or MEAL (monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning). Different groups may define or use these terms in different ways, and your group may already have its own understanding of them. For simplicity, this Toolkit uses the term monitoring and evaluation (M&E). However, AIGI recognises that terminology and approaches to monitoring and evaluation can vary widely.
Indigenous communities have long engaged in reflection and review to understand how decisions and actions affect community wellbeing and to guide improvement. In this sense, Indigenous monitoring and evaluation builds on enduring cultural practices of learning and reflection, accountability and collective decision-making.1D. Eakins, A. Gaffney, C. Marum, T. Wangmo, M. Parker, and M. Magarati, Indigenous Evaluation Toolkit for Tribal Public Health Programs: An Actionable Guide for Organizations Serving American Indian/Alaska Native Communities through Opioid Prevention Programming, February 2023, 16-17, [link] Forms of ongoing observation and reflection can be seen in the way Indigenous groups across Australia have used cultural burning practices. Communities learned over time what worked well, what needed to change and how burning practices could be adapted to care for Country and sustain resources for future generations. Similar forms of evaluation are evident in community decision-making, where Elders and community members share stories and experiences to reflect on past decisions and guide future actions. Or, watching changes in rivers, soil, vegetation and wildlife, and adapting management practices in response. Indigenous approaches to assessing organisations, programs, services or other activities are often grounded in these long-standing Indigenous knowledge systems, in addition to community values and other locally defined priorities.2Eakins, A. Gaffney, C. Marum, T. Wangmo, M. Parker, and M. Magarati, Indigenous Evaluation Toolkit for Tribal Public Health Programs: An Actionable Guide for Organizations Serving American Indian/Alaska Native Communities through Opioid Prevention Programming, February 2023, 16-17, [link]. There is no single definition or model for Indigenous monitoring and evaluation. Approaches vary across different communities, cultures and contexts.3Bowman Performance Consulting and Wilder Research, Indigenous Evaluation 101 Guidebook, prepared as Part of Minnesota’s Preschool Development Grant, 2022. Despite this diversity, many share common features, including a strong focus on:
In this Toolkit, we use Indigenous M&E to refer to monitoring and evaluation approaches designed by and for Indigenous people. These approaches involve Indigenous communities exercising control over how monitoring and evaluation are planned and carried out, and making informed decisions about what information is collected, how it’s interpreted and how it’s used. Evaluation is an important part of strong and effective Indigenous governance. It supports organisations, communities and nations in reflecting on their practices, strengthening decision-making and ensuring accountability to their values, priorities and people. Indigenous groups can strengthen governance through ongoing evaluation that informs reflection, ongoing learning, adaptation and accountability. At the same time, effective governance is a key enabler of meaningful evaluation. Clear governance and decision-making processes create the conditions for evaluation to be impactful. Evaluation is most effective when it is grounded in strong governance systems that uphold Indigenous authority and community control over knowledge and decision-making.
When we talk about monitoring, we’re referring to the regular and ongoing collection of information to understand how an activity, program or service is being implemented and to ensure accountability for what has been delivered. Monitoring involves routinely tracking key activities and outcomes (or indicators) to see whether things are progressing as planned. Monitoring is useful because it:
In simple terms, monitoring means regularly collecting and reviewing information to ensure activities are on track.5A. Izurieta, N. Stacey, J. Karam, with contributions by M. Moyses, R. Ledgar, M. Burslem, D. Scopel, P.A. Donohoe, P.J. Donohoe and B. Panton, Guidebook for Supporting Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Jointly Managed Parks in the Northern Territory (Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, 2011). It focuses on what is happening during implementation, rather than assessing the overall results or impact. Monitoring data forms an important foundation for later evaluation and learning by generating consistent, reliable information over time. Monitoring plays a key role in ensuring accountability to all those connected to a program or activity, including boards, funders, partners and the communities involved. It provides a transparent and ongoing record of what is being done. Accountability is not one-directional. It often involves meeting formal reporting requirements (such as those set by boards and funders) while also being answerable to communities in ways that are meaningful and appropriate. This includes reporting on ethical aspects of the work and ensuring compliance with agreed protocols and standards.6 B. Gibb, S. Babyack, D. Stephens, K. Kelleher, D.Hoger, C. Vale and G. Peersman, Putting Ethical Principles into Practice: A Protocol to Support Ethical Evaluation Practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Settings (Melbourne: BetterEvaluation, 2019), Working Document, Version 1, August 2019. In practice, this means:
Closely linked to monitoring is evaluation. Evaluation means collecting and analysing information on a program, service, activity or whole organisation. Evaluation is often defined as a systematic process.10Productivity Commission, Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, 2020; Productivity Commission, Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, Background Paper, Canberra, 2020; First Nations Development Institute, Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Indigenous Evaluation: Improving Philanthropic Practice (Longmont, CO: First Nations Development Institute, 2023). This is because it is a structured and methodical way of assessing how well an activity is working and whether it’s meeting its intended goals. Evaluation involves making informed judgments about the merit, effectiveness and impact of an activity. This might include what difference was made, for whom and under what conditions. Evaluation helps to understand not only what happened, but why it happened, what factors influenced the results and what could be done differently.11Productivity Commission, Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, 2020; Productivity Commission, Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, Background Paper, 2020, Canberra. Indigenous evaluation is closely linked to self-governance because it supports communities to define what success looks like, decide what information should be gathered and interpret findings in ways that reflect their own priorities. This helps ensure that evaluation processes and findings are relevant and useful for community decision-making. Rather than relying solely on standardised or ‘one-size-fits-all’ methods often developed by external or non-Indigenous institutions, Indigenous evaluation is shaped by the knowledge and priorities of Indigenous peoples. Communities play a central role in helping determine what success looks like, what should be measured, how information is gathered and how findings are interpreted and used. These approaches recognise the cultural, social and historical context of each community and aim to evaluate in a way that is meaningful and useful for Indigenous peoples. Evaluation is important because it:
While evaluation may use monitoring and performance review data as evidence, it is not the same thing as monitoring.12 Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Indigenous Advancement Strategy Evaluation Framework, 2018. Monitoring tracks what is happening and whether activities are on track. Evaluation takes a bigger-picture view. It looks beyond whether goals were met to explore why things happened the way they did, who benefited, how change occurred and whether the overall approach was useful and appropriate.13 Fation Luli, “What is the Difference Between Monitoring and Evaluation?,” EvalCommunity, 2020, [link]. The table below highlights some of the key distinctions between the two:
| Aspect | Monitoring | Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | Happens regularly while the work is underway. | Happens at certain points, such as partway through the work or after it has finished. |
| Purpose | Keeps track of what is happening and whether activities are going as planned, ensuring accountability to communities during implementation. | Steps back to look at the bigger picture. What changed, what worked well and what could be done differently? |
| Depth | Focuses on keeping track of activities and day-to-day progress. | Looks more broadly at the changes that have happened and the reasons behind them. |
| Who does it? | Usually done by the people involved in the work, like project staff, community workers or team members. | Can involve people outside the project to bring an independent view, but should also include the people and communities involved in the work. |
| Methods | Regular data collection, such as notes, attendance lists, feedback from community meetings or regular check-ins. | Can include yarning, discussions on Country, storytelling and reflecting on your monitoring information. |
| Key questions asked | What are we doing? Are things happening as planned? Are we making progress, and are we meeting our commitments? | What changed because of this work? Why did those changes happen? Who benefited and how? What have we learned, and how well did the work achieve its intended outcomes? |
| Use of findings | Helps teams make small adjustments along the way to keep the work on track and ensure ongoing accountability for commitments made. | Helps people reflect, learn from the experience and guide future work or decisions. |
| Who’s it for? | Primarily for communities, participants and delivery teams (the people doing the work) to maintain transparency and accountability. | Often for a wider group, including community members, partners and funders, to share learning and outcomes. |
| Focus of data | Looks mainly at what activities took place and what was delivered. | Looks more at what changed for people or communities and why those changes happened. |
There are different types of evaluation. Below, we explore some of the main types of evaluation used by Indigenous groups. It is important to note that in practice these evaluation types are often combined, even though evaluations usually have a primary focus. These categories are also drawn from mainstream evaluation language and frameworks, and may not always reflect the ways Indigenous communities describe or organise evaluation types.
Formative evaluation
Formative evaluation is used in the early stages of a program or initiative, or while it is still being implemented. It focuses on the design and delivery of the program, including how activities are being implemented and the factors that influence how well they are working in practice.14 Ada Pecos Melton and Rita Martinez, American Indian Development Associates, LLC, “Considerations for Evaluating Tribal or Native-Focused Victim Service Programs”, The National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, Inc. (NIWRC), October 2024, [link]. The purpose is to identify strengths, challenges and areas for adjustment so the program can be improved as it develops. For example, a community needs assessment conducted before or in the early stages of an Indigenous youth mentorship and employment program is a form of formative evaluation.15Emily Singerhouse, “What are the different types of evaluation?”, Strategic Prevention Solutions, September 2023, [link]. It might explore whether the program design reflects local priorities, whether the proposed activities are culturally appropriate and if there are barriers to participation that need to be addressed before or during implementation. It could lead to adjustments such as changing session times, adapting cultural content or strengthening partnerships with local employers.
Process evaluation
Process evaluation looks at what is happening during the implementation of a program or activity.16 American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Joan LaFrance and Richard Nichols, Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time: Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Alexandria, VA, 2009, 63. It focuses on things like how the program is delivered, who is being reached and what services are provided. This type of evaluation helps answer questions like:
For example, in an Indigenous youth organisation running a mentorship and employment program, process evaluation might explore how many young people are participating, whether they represent different communities, how often mentorship sessions take place and what types of teachings or job placements are offered.
Summative evaluation
Summative evaluation takes place at the end of a program, project or defined phase. Summative evaluation focuses on drawing together evidence from across the program to make an overall assessment of performance, including whether objectives were met and what outcomes were achieved. Because it takes place when a program is ending or has already finished, it is usually not used to make changes to the current work.17Nigel Simister and Vera Scholz, INTRAC, ”Types of evaluation”, 2017, [link]. Instead, it provides an overall reflection on what the program has delivered and the difference it has made for communities and other stakeholders. Summative evaluations can also support shared learning by identifying lessons that can inform the design and delivery of future programs. Summative evaluation can include both outcome and impact evaluations. Outcome and impact evaluations are concerned with understanding what change has occurred as the result of a program (its results or effects).18 American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Joan LaFrance and Richard Nichols, Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time: Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Alexandria, VA, 2009, 63.
Outcome evaluation
In Australia, Indigenous communities have noted that outcome evaluation is an evolving area of practice, with some variation in how it is understood and applied.19NSW Treasury, Shaping evaluation of policies and programs impacting First Nations people – Consultation listening series (First Nations Economic Wellbeing Branch, 2022), 19. While it is widely recognised within the evaluation field, there is ongoing discussion about what strong outcomes evaluation looks like in practice, particularly in Indigenous contexts. There is a growing emphasis on building strong partnerships from the outset, including Indigenous governance or advisory structures, and on strengthening how qualitative evidence is understood, valued and used within outcome evaluation.20NSW Treasury, Shaping evaluation of policies and programs impacting First Nations people – Consultation listening series (First Nations Economic Wellbeing Branch, 2022), 19. Generally, the key purpose of outcome evaluation is to understand the full range of changes that resulted from a program, and, where possible, how the program’s activities and processes contributed to those changes.21 American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Joan LaFrance and Richard Nichols, Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time: Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Alexandria, VA, 2009, 63.
Impact evaluation
Impact evaluation does not have any single, standardised definition, and it is understood differently across the evaluation field.22 Vera Scholz and Nigel Simister, with contribution from Anne Garbutt and Dan James, INTRAC, “Impact Evaluation”, 2017, [link]. Sometimes, impact evaluation is used to describe any evaluation that examines change, including both short- and medium-term outcomes as well as longer-term impacts. In other contexts, it is defined more narrowly as evaluation that relies on structured and often statistical methods.23 Vera Scholz and Nigel Simister, with contribution from Anne Garbutt and Dan James, INTRAC, “Impact Evaluation”, 2017, [link]. How impact evaluation is understood also depends on how “impact” itself is defined.24 Vera Scholz and Nigel Simister, with contribution from Anne Garbutt and Dan James, INTRAC, “Impact Evaluation”, 2017, [link]. Some approaches focus on long-term changes in the lives of intended participants or beneficiaries. Others take a broader view, also including changes in systems, policies, institutions or organisational capacity. Despite this variation, there is general agreement that impact evaluation:
In an Indigenous youth organisation running a mentorship and employment program, outcome evaluation might look at whether young people gained new skills, completed training or secured employment after participating in the program. Impact evaluation might explore longer-term changes such as whether youth employment rates in the community have improved, whether there are broader shifts in community wellbeing or whether pathways into sustained education and employment have strengthened over time.
For many Indigenous groups, involvement in research and evaluation has historically been extractive. Research has often been conducted on Indigenous communities rather than with (or by) them. Knowledge collected from participants has been interpreted and used primarily by external researchers or institutions. In such examples, Indigenous peoples are frequently treated as subjects or sources of information, while decisions about research questions, methods and interpretation remain outside community control. This can mean Indigenous perspectives or values are overlooked or judged against non-Indigenous research standards.26 Carla Kirkpatrick and Gladys Rowe, Na-gah mo Waabishkizi Ojijaak Bimise Keetwaatino: Singing White Crane Flying North, Gathering a Bundle for Indigenous Evaluation (Winnipeg: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Manitoba, 2018). Evaluation has often followed similar patterns. Non-Indigenous evaluation approaches tend to prioritise the information needs of governments or funding agencies, focusing on predetermined indicators and outcomes that may not reflect how communities themselves understand success. Like other forms of evaluation, Indigenous evaluation involves collecting information about services, programs, activities or whole organisations. However, it often differs in what information is gathered, how this information is gathered and how it’s interpreted and used.
| Indigenous evaluation approaches | Non-Indigenous evaluation approaches |
|---|---|
| Led by or conducted in partnership with Indigenous communities. | Often led by external evaluators, institutions or funders. |
| Community priorities help define the purpose, questions and outcomes of the evaluation. | Evaluation questions and indicators are often predetermined by funders/organisations. |
| Emphasis on relationships, trust and ongoing engagement with community members. | May focus more on technical methods and formal reporting requirements. |
| Centring Indigenous knowledge, cultural values, paying attention to local context. | Typically centring non-Indigenous research traditions and methodological frameworks. |
| Values reciprocity. Knowledge sharing should benefit the community and contribute to collective wellbeing. | Knowledge may be extracted from communities primarily to inform policy, funding, academic outcomes and so on. |
| Recognises multiple ways of knowing and understand evidence (for example, stories, lived experience, cultural knowledge). | Often prioritises standardised forms of evidence such as quantitative indicators or measurable outcomes. |
| Emphasises community ownership and control of findings. | Data ownership and interpretation are often controlled by external organisations. |
| Primarily for communities, participants and delivery teams (the people doing the work) to maintain transparency and accountability. | Often for a wider group, including community members, partners and funders, to share learning and outcomes. |
| Evaluation is seen as a process of reflection, learning and strengthening community decision-making. | Evaluation is often focused on accountability, performance measurement and program effectiveness. |
| Flexible timelines that respect community processes, relationships and cultural protocols. | Fixed timelines linked to funding cycles or organisational reporting requirements. |
| Often connected to decolonising approaches and Indigenous self-determination. | Generally reflects established institutional or government evaluation frameworks. |
It is important to note that these distinctions are general tendencies rather than strict categories. Indigenous approaches to monitoring and evaluation can differ significantly from non-Indigenous approaches, but this doesn’t mean that they are incompatible. Non-Indigenous evaluators can learn a great deal from Indigenous approaches, and many Indigenous groups have found success in incorporating Indigenous methodologies alongside non-Indigenous approaches. Many evaluations combine elements of both approaches, and practices continue to evolve as organisations and communities work together to develop more culturally responsive and community-led evaluation methods.
Many Indigenous groups note that there is often no direct translation for terms like ‘monitoring’ and ‘evaluation’ in Indigenous languages.27Carla Kirkpatrick and Gladys Rowe, Na-gah mo Waabishkizi Ojijaak Bimise Keetwaatino: Singing White Crane Flying North, Gathering a Bundle for Indigenous Evaluation (Winnipeg: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Manitoba, 2018). This does not mean these practices do not exist. Rather, Indigenous groups have their own ways of understanding and carrying out processes of monitoring and evaluating. These approaches are based on knowledge systems and cultural practices that have been in place for generations.
This tool is designed for groups who are beginning to think about monitoring and evaluation, or who want to revisit how evaluation is understood within their work. It can be done with staff, board members and community representatives, and may also involve external partners or evaluators who support your group’s M&E work. By discussing evaluation together, groups can move from assumed meanings toward a shared understanding of what evaluation is for and how it should be approached.
(357KB)
Some Indigenous groups prefer to use terms such as MEL, M&E or MEAL when talking about monitoring and evaluation. For other groups, these terms may have little meaning or may not reflect how they prefer to describe their own processes. There is no right or wrong approach. The language your group chooses to use will depend on its own cultural, historical and organisational context. Deciding what language to use is itself part of self-governance. Groups can choose terms that feel meaningful, culturally appropriate and useful for the way they work. Below are some examples of how other Indigenous groups have tailored evaluations to better reflect their community’s understanding:
The Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Protection Peak (QATSICPP) developed their own evaluation framework to better reflect the priorities, knowledge systems and values of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The aim is to ensure that evaluation processes support communities, strengthen culture and reflect what success looks like from an Indigenous perspective.2 Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Protection Peak Limited, Evaluation Framework, 2024, [link], 3.
Within this framework, culturally grounded evaluation is understood as evaluation that:
By developing their own framework, QATSICPP demonstrate how Indigenous organisations might shape evaluation in ways that align with their cultural and community priorities and long-term goals. Rather than simply measuring outcomes, evaluation becomes a process that strengthens culture, supports community leadership and helps guide future action.
The Notah Begay III (NB3) Foundation is a First Nations-led not-for-profit whose work supports the health outcomes of Native American children. They have developed a Keeping Track Toolkit to show their own work and learnings in Indigenous evaluation. Following the Healthy Native Communities Partnership, the NB3 Foundation uses the term ‘keeping track’ interchangeably with ‘evaluation’ in their Toolkit. This is because keeping track better reflects “Native and Indigenous value systems and language connections”.2Notah Begay III Foundation, Keeping Track: A Toolkit for Indigenous Youth Program Evaluation, 2021, [link]; Healthy Native Communities Partnership, Guide to Community Wellness Planning, Moving From Planning to Action, 2012, Healthy Native Communities Fellowship, Healthy Native Communities Partnership, Inc. Shiprock, New Mexico.
The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) represents thirty-seven tribally controlled colleges and universities across the United States.6“About AIHEC,” American Indian Higher Education Consortium, accessed March 2026, [link]. The AIHEC developed an Indigenous Evaluation Framework to guide research and evaluation in a way that honours Indigenous knowledge systems. Central to the AIHEC Framework is the idea that evaluation should be defined and practised from an Indigenous perspective.7 American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Joan LaFrance and Richard Nichols, Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time: Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Alexandria, VA, 2009. This gives communities ownership and means that any evaluation supports Indigenous goals and worldviews, rather than non-Indigenous priorities.
The AIHEC recognise that concepts like evaluation and knowledge creation can have different meanings in Indigenous contexts. They encourage communities to make sense of these concepts in culturally grounded ways, such as metaphor. Dr Eric Jolly, a member of the consortium’s advisory committee, shared his grandmother’s story about basket making, which the AIHEC adopted as a metaphor for Indigenous evaluation.8American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Joan LaFrance and Richard Nichols, Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time: Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Alexandria, VA, 2009, 11-13. Among the Cherokee, weaving a basket is a journey of learning about life and spirit. It begins by interweaving two pairs of thin vines into a square, which symbolises the four directions and the elements of Creation. As more vines are woven, interwoven triangles emerge, representing the interconnectedness of the Creator, humanity, the earth and animals. Concentric circles form next, illustrating a deeper awareness of the unity of all things. Finally, the inner and outer walls of the basket create tension and give it strength and integrity. This is a reminder that the process of evaluation, like basket making, is both relational and purposeful. Both build resilience and meaning through careful, interconnected practice. Through this metaphor, the framework offers a way of understanding evaluation from an Indigenous perspective.9American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Joan LaFrance and Richard Nichols, Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time: Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Alexandria, VA, 2009, 11-13.
The AIHEC recognise that, in many Indigenous communities, knowledge is valued for its practical benefit. People often ask how new knowledge will help individuals, families or the wider community.10American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Joan LaFrance and Richard Nichols, Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time: Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Alexandria, VA, 2009, 14. For this reason, ideas about evaluation and knowledge creation are often expressed through culturally meaningful images or stories. Metaphors, such as basket weaving, can help ground these ideas in familiar cultural practices and values, and provide a way of imagining how evaluation can support the wellbeing and future of Indigenous communities.
Metaphor has long been, and continues to be, a powerful way for Indigenous communities to interpret and reframe evaluation in their own terms. Additional examples of these evaluation metaphors are explored throughout this topic.
Cultural metaphors can be a helpful way for some groups to explain or think about evaluation, but they are not necessary for meaningful or effective evaluation. Some communities may find them useful, while others may prefer different ways of describing or guiding their evaluation processes.
A key part of monitoring and evaluation is identifying and measuring indicators of success. These indicators, sometimes referred to as metrics, help groups understand what has happened in a program or initiative, what worked well and what could be improved. Being able to track outcomes, report on them transparently and reflect on progress is an important part of both learning and accountability. Clear accountability means being explicit about who is responsible for achieving outcomes, how progress will be measured and how results will be communicated back to the community (and other stakeholders). This includes ensuring that findings are shared in accessible ways and that groups are answerable for both successes and areas requiring improvement. Accountability is strengthened when groups not only measure success, but when they also act on findings and remain responsive to their community. However, as with the concepts of monitoring and evaluation themselves, Indigenous communities may define success in different ways. The types of metrics used, and the methods for measuring them, should therefore be determined by (or in partnership with) Indigenous groups. Performance measurement is one way organisations track and assess their work. It involves the use of specific indicators and evaluation methods to monitor different aspects of an organisation’s activities and outcomes. These indicators help determine whether programs and services are achieving their intended results and whether the organisation is operating in a responsible and sustainable way. Through performance measurement, organisations can examine several key areas, including the:
Other terminology that you might encounter in your M&E work:
Reflection: the process of thinking about and discussing what is happening and why.
Learning: learning is what comes from reflection and experience. In M&E, it usually refers to the insights gained through evaluation activities.
Measuring: measuring is the process of collecting and tracking information to understand progress or change. In M&E, this can include both quantitative data (e.g., numbers, counts) and qualitative data (e.g., stories, experiences).
Outcomes: outcomes are the changes or results that happen because of a program or activity. These changes can be positive or negative.
A Theory of Change (ToC) explains how and why a program or organisation is expected to create positive change or the desired impact. Rather than simply listing goals, it shows the step-by-step connections between what a program (or organisation) does and the results it aims to achieve over time. A ToC is an important tool for evaluation because it helps groups and funders clearly understand how a program works and what it aims to achieve. It outlines:
A ToC also supports conversations about program goals, design and expected outcomes. It acts as both a planning tool and a way to track progress. It helps to assess whether the program is achieving its intended results. You can think of a ToC as a plan for getting from point A to point B. It helps you be clear about the change you want and what needs to happen along the way to make that change real. Developing a ToC is valuable because it:
The following example illustrates how a youth support organisation might work through this process step by step.
1. Start with your long-term change (your end goal) Ask: What does success look like in the long run? Make it specific and concrete (i.e., not just “improve lives”). An example might be: ‘Young people in our community are able to access stable jobs and build independent, secure lives’, or ‘Indigenous young people are strong in their cultural identity, connected to community and Country, and able to access education, meaningful employment and leadership opportunities’.
2. Identify what must be true for that to happen (preconditions) Ask: What needs to be in place for this vision to become reality? These are the big building blocks, or everything that must happen first. Example: For this to happen, the following conditions need to exist:
3. Break those into smaller steps (pathways of change) Ask: What short-term or intermediate changes will lead to those conditions? These are more practical and closer to your actual work. Example: To achieve these conditions, the following changes need to happen:
4. Define how you’ll know it’s working (indicators) Ask: What would we see if this is successful? Make these observable or measurable. Example: We will know progress is being made when:
5. Decide what you will actually do (activities and role) Ask: What can we realistically do, and what do others need to do? This is where your group’s role becomes clear. Example: To contribute to this change, we will:
We will also work with others who can:
Community First Development’s Right Way Evaluation centre what they call a Story of Change.1Community First Development, Right Way Evaluation: Telling our own stories of change, 2025, 5. They note that many organisations rely on logic models or theories of change, which are grounded in non-Indigenous approaches to measuring impact and effectiveness.2Community First Development, Right Way Evaluation: Telling our own stories of change, 2025, 5. Stories of Change intentionally move in a different direction. Inspired by the idea of an ecosystem, the Story of Change model is designed as a living, interconnected system.
Community First Development have their own Story of Change. At its centre is self-determination, which forms the core. Surrounding this are the “organisms”, representing the outcomes they aim to support. Enabling the system to thrive are the key elements (Community First Development’s people, ways of working and governance structures) which sustain the whole.3 Community First Development, “Creation of a new Story of Change,” July 2019, [link].
