Each year, we spend billions of dollars on Indigenous programs and services. These investments will help improve the quality of life for Indigenous communities across Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Despite such significant investments, the Productivity Commission has highlighted a concerning gap in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of these initiatives, calling for “more and better” evaluations. This need for improved evaluation practices is crucial to ensure that funds are utilized effectively and that the programs genuinely meet the needs of Indigenous communities.
As part of this, an original scoping review documented 39 documents across peer reviewed literature and gray literature. This review paints a picture of the reality of evaluation of Indigenous programs. These results show that evaluation practices have stark differences in practices and that not all evaluation approaches lead to positive, equitable outcomes for communities.
Approaches to Evaluating Indigenous Programs
Evaluations of Indigenous programs can be commissioned through five basic models. These range from the Indigenous-led model to the delegative model to the co-design model to the top-down approach to a couple of others. Of these, the Indigenous-led model is the most exemplary of a good practice. Unlike the traditional evaluation approach, these evaluations are commissioned by and for an Indigenous community-controlled organization. This helps to make sure that the evaluation is truly focused on what matters to the community.
The delegative model has life as well, permitting Indigenous people to engage in the evaluation process at different levels. This builds a sense of ownership and accountability within the community. The co-design model prioritizes building relationships and trust with the evaluator and Indigenous service providers. This partnership informs the evaluation design, leading to outcomes that have more relevance and cultural safety.
“Indigenous programs cost billions—but we know surprisingly little about what works.” – Productivity Commission
In this situation, a non-Indigenous individual or organization hires the evaluator without intentionally consulting, engaging, or partnering with Indigenous communities. This leads to one-size-fits-all evaluations that ignore the unique needs of underserved communities. In turn, these types of evaluations get rendered useless in answering critical questions.
Importance of Engaging Indigenous Communities
Including Indigenous people from the beginning of the evaluation process is essential. This approach fosters trust and ensures evaluations are culturally safe. Evaluations without Indigenous voices may unintentionally center the wrong questions, lessening their effectiveness. This failure to engage can additionally erode trust between service providers and commissioners, making it even harder to build the partnerships needed in the future.
When you build Indigenous values into the very beginning of an evaluation process, you are respecting Indigenous peoples’ rights, cultures, and traditions. This technique ensures a broader, deeper, and more purposeful approach. It creates a climate in which strong, valuable critiques are welcomed. These assessments allow decision-makers to access important and substantive information to the benefit of Indigenous communities.
High quality evaluations need to balance the requirements of service providers with those of the commissioners of services, and deliver clear, impactful decisional information to Indigenous communities. When evaluations honor cultural nuances and include on-the-ground knowledge, they are more likely to be impactful and successful.
The Call for Change from Indigenous Leaders
Indigenous leaders have been rising up and making their voices heard about how essential it is to have opportunities to shape decision-making processes that govern evaluations. They argue that their engagement is necessary for crafting evaluations that serve their needs and priorities. By having a say in how evaluations are designed and implemented, Indigenous communities can ensure that the outcomes are relevant and beneficial.
With billions pouring into Indigenous programs each year, it is essential that these evaluation gaps are closed. Indigenous leaders have long been in favor of the Productivity Commission’s recommendation for tougher evaluations. They want accountability and transparency in how these funds are allocated and spent.