.png)
Reading list
This topic explores when and why groups might choose to engage external support like an independent evaluator or evaluation organisation. It introduces a tool to help groups consider whether external support is needed and how to work together effectively. This topic also includes guidance for non-Indigenous evaluators working with Indigenous organisations, communities and nations.
While reading this topic, think about the following questions and how they relate to your organisation, community or nation:
When we talk about external monitoring and evaluation support, we’re referring to evaluators, researchers or other specialists who are not part of the community or group being evaluated. These individuals can provide technical expertise, additional resources and an outside perspective.
External support can be valuable, particularly for groups who are new to evaluation, working on large or complex projects or facing capacity constraints. In many cases, external evaluators may also help address potential conflicts of interest or meet funder requirements. Many Indigenous groups choose to seek external support when carrying out M&E.
Historically, evaluation in Indigenous contexts has often been shaped by funder requirements, which tend to prioritise non-Indigenous approaches.1 American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Joan LaFrance and Richard Nichols, Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time: Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Alexandria, VA, 2009, 40. While some aspects of these approaches are certainly compatible with Indigenous ways of knowing, the goal of Indigenous M&E is to centre community-defined values and ways of knowing.2 American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Joan LaFrance and Richard Nichols, Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time: Indigenous Evaluation Framework, Alexandria, VA, 2009, 40. External support should therefore be responsive and adaptable to these priorities.
It is important that evaluation remains community driven. Indigenous values, knowledge systems and priorities should guide all aspects of the evaluation. External support should complement, not replace, community ownership and decision-making.
Groups choose to engage external M&E support for a range of reasons, including:
One key reason groups decide to seek external support or partner with independent evaluators is to do with resourcing. Evaluation can be time-intensive and requires careful planning, particularly when it comes to analysing and sharing findings.3The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Project (ATSISPEP), Indigenous Suicide Prevention Activity Evaluation Framework, 6, accessed March 2026, [link]. An important part of the process is identifying key themes, insights and lessons, and communicating these clearly (often through an evaluation report or other culturally appropriate formats).4The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Project (ATSISPEP), Indigenous Suicide Prevention Activity Evaluation Framework, 11, accessed March 2026, [link].
Groups should consider:
In many cases, an independent evaluation may be preferred to help ensure transparency and reduce potential conflicts of interest.5The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Project (ATSISPEP), Indigenous Suicide Prevention Activity Evaluation Framework, 11, accessed March 2026, [link]. However, this should always be balanced with the need to maintain community leadership and ownership throughout the process.
Before engaging external support or partnering with an independent organisation, it is important to reflect on your group’s needs. Key considerations include:
You can search for Indigenous monitoring and evaluation businesses using the Supply Nation register.
This tool is designed to support groups document how they want to work with external
evaluators. It can be used in workshops, meetings or other planning sessions.
(384KB)
“A starting point is to realise that measurement and evaluation is not something that has to be carried out by defined experts, who are often not connected to our lived realities…through the very process of making decisions daily, we are measuring, evaluating and learning. Through a seamless combination of forethought, judgement, and assessment of previous experiences (which is our data), we juggle multiple considerations— like taking our kids to school, managing projects, supporting Elders to go to the shops, working out conditions for fishing, caring for family members who are struggling, and putting dinner on the table. We are constantly assessing how to manage our time, what needs to be done when, and how we can meet the needs of multiple people with different demands, within environmental constraints”
-Wiyi Yani U Thangani, Change Agenda for First Nations Gender Justice 6Wiyi Yani U Thangani, Change Agenda for First Nations Gender Justice (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024), 60, [link].
The Australian Evaluation Society (AES) has developed a First Nations Cultural Safety Framework to support and strengthen the evaluation capacity of Indigenous evaluators in Australia.7S. Gollan and K. Stacey, Australian Evaluation Society First Nations Cultural Safety Framework (Melbourne: Australian Evaluation Society, 2021). They also focus on building culturally safe evaluation methods. The Framework outlines key principles and offers practical guidance across all stages of the evaluation process. It emphasises the shared responsibility of evaluators, commissioners and program stakeholders to ensure that evaluation processes do not cause harm and instead support self-determination, respect cultural knowledge and build trust with First Nations communities.8S. Gollan and K. Stacey, Australian Evaluation Society First Nations Cultural Safety Framework (Melbourne: Australian Evaluation Society, 2021).
For non-Indigenous evaluators and organisations, it also offers guidance on how to engage respectfully with Indigenous communities and avoid practices that may cause harm during evaluation.9S. Gollan and K. Stacey, Australian Evaluation Society First Nations Cultural Safety Framework (Melbourne: Australian Evaluation Society, 2021).
The AES also offer workshops to assist those involved in evaluation to apply the Framework.
This section is primarily intended as a guide for external evaluators working with Indigenous groups. It will also be useful for Indigenous groups to understand what they should expect from outside support.
When conducting an evaluation with an Indigenous group as an external or independent evaluator, strong community partnership and engagement are essential. Without meaningful involvement from the community, the evaluation is unlikely to be appropriate or relevant. Indigenous communities are best placed to guide the evaluation by advising on cultural protocols, priorities and parameters that should shape the process.
External evaluators working with Indigenous groups should prioritise building and sustaining strong relationships by engaging early and consistently throughout the evaluation process. It takes time to build trust and understand community protocols. Time should be dedicated to learning the historical, political and social contexts that shape community experiences. Evaluators should remain flexible and adaptive, allowing approaches, methods and timelines to evolve in response to community feedback.
Establishing effective partnerships requires identifying legitimate, community-supported leadership and governance structures.10 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Project (ATSISPEP), Indigenous Suicide Prevention Activity Evaluation Framework, 5, accessed March 2026, [link]. This can be complex and should be approached with care and an understanding of local context. In many cases, Indigenous communities prefer engagement through their own community-controlled organisations. For example, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services or relevant peak bodies can serve as important points of connection and engagement.11 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Project (ATSISPEP), Indigenous Suicide Prevention Activity Evaluation Framework, 5, accessed March 2026, [link]. However, approaches to partnership and engagement will vary across communities and should always be tailored to the local context.12 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Suicide Prevention Project (ATSISPEP), Indigenous Suicide Prevention Activity Evaluation Framework, 5, accessed March 2026, [link].
The Australian Government’s Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, developed by the Productivity Commission, provides a whole-of-government framework to improve how policies and programs affecting Indigenous peoples are evaluated.13Productivity Commission, Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, 2020.
While the Strategy is intended to guide Australian Government agencies in selecting, planning, commissioning, conducting and using evaluations, its application is much broader in practice. It affects everyone involved in the evaluation of policies and programs impacting Indigenous communities.14Productivity Commission, Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, 2020. This includes individuals and communities who participate in evaluations, external evaluators who are commissioned to undertake the work, service providers involved in delivery and data collection, peak bodies and community representatives who may partner in or lead evaluations and decision-makers such as ministers and program administrators who use evaluation findings.15Productivity Commission, Indigenous Evaluation Strategy, 2020.
External evaluators can play an important role in strengthening the credibility of evaluations, particularly where independence is needed. However, they must also demonstrate cultural competence and the ability to work in genuine partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Referring to the Strategy’s guiding principles can help ensure that evaluations are credible and centred on the perspectives and priorities of Indigenous peoples, while also strengthening accountability and learning.
The AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (the AIATSIS Code) sets out a framework to ensure research involving Indigenous peoples is conducted ethically and in genuine partnership with communities.2Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (Canberra: AIATSIS, 2020), [link]. For external evaluators, the AIATSIS Code can provide clear expectations for ethical engagement, and help evaluators understand how to build respectful relationships, obtain informed consent and recognise community authority over knowledge and data.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) has a list of resources to support non-Indigenous evaluators working with Indigenous families and young people. View the resource sheet here.2Deborah Osborne and Kat Goldsworthy, “Resources to support evaluation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their communities,” AIFS, December 2025, [link].
Many groups in Australia and internationally have developed protocols and recommendations for evaluators working in Indigenous contexts. These recommendations are often based on first-hand experience and informed by on-the-ground engagement with Indigenous communities.
BetterEvaluation is an international collaboration dedicated to improving the practice and theory of evaluation. One of BetterEvaluation’s projects focuses on working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make evaluation work more relevant for communities.5BetterEvaluation Indigenous Advisory Group, BetterEvaluation Steering Committee, and 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, Working Document, Version 1 (Melbourne: BetterEvaluation, August 2019).
BetterEvalaution has developed a protocol to ensure that monitoring and evaluation activities involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are conducted ethically. Its primary aim is to support M&E practices that uphold the rights of these communities and operate for their benefit.6BetterEvaluation Indigenous Advisory Group, BetterEvaluation Steering Committee, and 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, Working Document, Version 1 (Melbourne: BetterEvaluation, August 2019).
The protocol outlines a set of ethical principles organised into six key themes. Each principle defines the expected knowledge, attitudes and behaviours for evaluators during the design, implementation, reporting and use of evaluations in Indigenous contexts. The protocol also addresses common barriers to ethical practice, identified by both evaluators and communities.7BetterEvaluation Indigenous Advisory Group, BetterEvaluation Steering Committee, and 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, Working Document, Version 1 (Melbourne: BetterEvaluation, August 2019).
Below are the key themes and a summary of the principles under each theme:
Prioritise self-determination, community agency and self-governance
Communicate transparently, build trust and obtain individual and community consent
Strengths-based recognition of cultures, acknowledging communities and individuals
Share benefits and apply two-way learning
Formalise accountability processes on ethical practice
Facilitate control and data sovereignty
The BetterEvalaution guide provides a number of practical examples for how to put these into principles into practice.8BetterEvaluation Indigenous Advisory Group, BetterEvaluation Steering Committee, and 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, Working Document, Version 1 (Melbourne: BetterEvaluation, August 2019).
The Elevating Tsaatan Voices evaluation report presents a list of recommendations for evaluators working with Indigenous people in Mongolia.3Oyuntulkhuur Jukov, Gereltsetseg Adiya, Itgemjit Gankhuyag and Azjargal Amarsanaa, Elevating Tsaatan Voices: Sowing the Seeds of Evaluation in Mongolia: Evaluation Report (APEA, EvalIndigenous, MEA and EvalPartners: 2025), 30-31. The recommendations are all relevant for the Australian context:
View the full report for further information on these recommendations.
The Toolkit on Indigenous Evaluations for the Asia Pacific Region provides a set of ethical protocols for evaluators engaging with Indigenous communities. While some of the protocols were initially tailored for the African context, they remain relevant across Indigenous settings.2 A. Ponge, African Ethical Protocol for Evaluations, EvalIndigenous, 26 January 2021; R. L. De Mel, D. M. Albiento, P. Chitrakar, M. Liyanagamage, H. Samarasinghe, A. E. Lareza, K. Baingan, D. Chamathkara, A. J. Tindaan, C. J. Omas, and Z. Segundo, Toolkit on Indigenous Evaluations for Asia Pacific Region (Asia Pacific Evaluation Association & EvalIndigenous, December 2023).
Below is a summary of each protocol laid out in the Asian Pacific Toolkit:
Credibility of accountability mechanisms
Establish credible accountability processes that are appropriate to the local context, taking into account social, cultural, and gender dynamics that may influence participation, reporting, and decision-making.
Meaningful consultation and participation
Ensure Indigenous communities are actively involved in all stages of the evaluation, including design, data collection, analysis, and sharing findings (especially including marginalised groups).
Curb misappropriation of Indigenous Knowledge
Protect against the misappropriation or misuse of Indigenous knowledge, ensuring it is only used with permission from the community.
Respect for diversity
Acknowledge diversity within communities (e.g., culture, gender, age, ability).
Promote respect to rights
Uphold Indigenous rights throughout the evaluation.
Enhance individual sense of agency
Strengthen individuals’ and communities’ confidence and ability to influence decisions, take ownership of issues and contribute to solutions.
Respect for Indigenous Knowledge
Recognise and value Indigenous knowledge systems, cultural practices and local contexts, and involve community knowledge holders appropriately.
Respect for confidentiality
Respect confidentiality, protect sensitive or sacred information, and ensure the evaluation does not harm participants or communities.
Prior Informed Consent
Obtain clear, informed consent through appropriate community leadership, using accessible language and allowing time for decision-making.
Inclusivity
Ensure all members of the community, including marginalised or vulnerable groups, are included in the evaluation process.
Trust
Build and maintain respectful, transparent relationships, recognising different perspectives and fostering mutual understanding.
Reciprocity, mutual benefit, equitable sharing
Ensure evaluations provide value to communities, including sharing findings, building capacity, and supporting local priorities.
Community-led evaluations
Support community-led evaluation processes, ensuring Indigenous people guide decisions and maintain ownership of knowledge and data.
Positive working relationships
Use evaluation as a way to strengthen collaboration, respect, and trust between communities, funders, and other stakeholders.
See the full Toolkit for more information on the protocols.
Across the evaluation space, it is common to see external teams share their methods and findings to inform broader evaluation frameworks. It is important that this is done with attention to ethical principles and community ownership.
BetterEvaluation have developed a Code of Conduct to guide their team in maintaining high standards when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to share examples of evaluation practice. This includes sharing and promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander evaluation methods, facilitating feedback on evaluations conducted in their communities, and making existing materials accessible online and in other formats.4BetterEvaluation Indigenous Advisory Group, BetterEvaluation Steering Committee, and B. Gibb, S. Babyack, D. Stephens, K. Kelleher, C. Vale, D. Hoger, and G. Peersman, Good Evaluation Practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Settings: Code of Conduct for the BetterEvaluation Team, Version 1, Working Document (Melbourne: BetterEvaluation, June 2019).
The Code of Conduct sets out ten principles and protocols to ensure community members understand the purpose of the project, how their examples may be shared on the BetterEvaluation website and how they can retain control over this sharing both now and in the future.5BetterEvaluation Indigenous Advisory Group, BetterEvaluation Steering Committee, and B. Gibb, S. Babyack, D. Stephens, K. Kelleher, C. Vale, D. Hoger, and G. Peersman, Good Evaluation Practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Settings: Code of Conduct for the BetterEvaluation Team, Version 1, Working Document (Melbourne: BetterEvaluation, June 2019).
While designed for the BetterEvaluation core team and project working group, the code also provides a useful example for government agencies, NGOs or other organisations interested in principles-based work. It shows how ethical engagement and respect for community control can be put into practice. By following the code, BetterEvaluation self-regulates its interactions and dissemination practices, and encourages others to adapt it to guide their own projects and engagement processes.6BetterEvaluation Indigenous Advisory Group, BetterEvaluation Steering Committee, and B. Gibb, S. Babyack, D. Stephens, K. Kelleher, C. Vale, D. Hoger, and G. Peersman, Good Evaluation Practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Settings: Code of Conduct for the BetterEvaluation Team, Version 1, Working Document (Melbourne: BetterEvaluation, June 2019).
View the full Code of Conduct here.
