ABSTRACT Evaluation is a foundational element of democratic governance and U.S. government global leadership, yet its role is increasingly contested as institutions experience political centralization, weakened capacity, and shifting global influence. This article argues that evaluation must continue being understood as democratic and transparent infrastructure whose erosion may further reshape OECD‐focused accountability, public value, and collective decision‐making and standard setting. Framed by the normative guidance of OECD and USAID transparency frameworks, and drawing on the 2023 USAID/RFS Global Leadership Evaluation alongside analyses of philanthropic expansion, the article fast‐forward to the 2025 USAID closure. Using examples from Kenya and Zimbabwe, it highlights how bilateral shifts are redefining partnership models with implications for evaluation practices. It concludes with lessons for U.S. evaluators navigating a world where public evidence systems are fragile, private actors shape epistemic authority, and democratic accountability requires rebuilding independent evaluative capacity.
ABSTRACT This article develops the concept of “sentiment evaluation,” drawing on a mid‐term evaluation by the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) of its program supporting Somali diaspora activism in Somaliland. Conducted in 2014, the evaluation revealed that “sentiment,” the emotional, identity‐based attachment linking diaspora actors to their homeland, constitutes a central motivational force shaping project outcomes. At that time, DRC struggled to operationalize sentiment as an evaluative criterion because sentiment evaluation had not yet been theorized as an approach contributing to improved effectiveness and sustainability of diaspora development projects. In this article the authors wish to begin the work of theorizing sentiment evaluation, starting with a reflection on the organizational learning that followed the 2014 mid‐term evaluation, and delving into ways in which a systematic integration of sentiment into evaluation practice would enable more nuanced support strategies and enhance the transformative potential of diaspora‐driven development. The authors conclude by offering an initial theoretical articulation of sentiment evaluation, providing a foundational framework for subsequent experimentation in development programming.
ABSTRACT The evaluation field faces a political tsunami threatening the foundations of evidence‐based practice and democratic transparency. This article argues that Research on Evaluation (ROE) must adopt a proactive, three‐pronged strategy: Document, Learn & Reflect, and Advocate. ROE should systematically document the destruction of data infrastructure and learn from adaptive practitioner strategies and innovative methodologies to build resilience. Finally, ROE must advocate for its necessity by demonstrating the “cost of ignorance” and building interdisciplinary alliances to re‐legitimize evaluation as an essential public good.
ABSTRACT This article reviews the main elements of the Designing Evaluation and Communication for Impact (DECI) project approach to enhancing the learning function of evaluation. A capacity development project that provided mentoring in utilization‐focused evaluation and research communication, the DECI project incorporated a dual role as service provider and researcher. The service aimed at capacity development in evaluation design and communication planning; the research focused on the capacity development process and its outcomes. In this article, much of the emphasis is placed on how the mentoring led to organizational learning. Research outputs included case studies, from which three primers were produced. This unique combination of training with team reflection represents a form of action research. Progress markers were identified with partners to assess project outcomes, along with a summary of factors explaining both the achievements and disappointments of the project. Key lessons include establishing organizational and evaluator readiness before mentoring begins, ensuring partners have the commitment, resources, and culture required to support learning‐oriented evaluations.
ABSTRACT This case narrative details the Vancouver Foundation's (VF) journey from ad‐hoc reporting to a core internal learning and evaluation function. Catalyzed by the pandemic and motivated by the increasing need, VF established the Engagement Department to house evaluation independently. Drawing on an analysis of organizational artifacts and the author's perspective as an internal evaluation practitioner, the study explores how the intentional adoption of Utilization‐Focused, Principles‐Focused, and Participatory evaluation is driving the shift. These approaches are deployed to generate strategic insights, build internal capacity, and rigorously test the organization's commitment to equitable values. Early successes, including the Evaluation Manifesto and Learning Days, demonstrate an apparent effort to transition VF from the matchmaker stage to the community leadership model, with evaluation serving as the essential structural mechanism for mutual learning and accountability.
ABSTRACT This chapter examines recent disruptions in the U.S. evaluation market through the combined lens of the Evaluation Marketplace Framework and the Black Swan/Gray Rhino typology. We argue that the Trump Administration's abrupt reduction in federal evaluation commissioning constitutes a Black Swan shock, whereas the long‐anticipated technological transformation driven by artificial intelligence represents a Gray Rhino. Considered collectively, these forces are reshaping the context, composition, and dynamics of the evaluation marketplace. Looking ahead, we outline three plausible trajectories—optimistic, pessimistic, and realistic—that signal divergent futures for the evaluation market. We further posit the emergence of digital and AI literacy as a central competitive differentiator within the evaluation industry.
ABSTRACT This article examines tensions between the accountability and learning functions of evaluation through a case study of an evaluation capacity building (ECB) initiative undertaken in an Australian primary health care setting. We describe the ECB approach and strategies and identify enablers and barriers influencing their implementation and sustainability. The analysis shows that longstanding compliance and metric‐driven governance at the national level restricts opportunities for locally meaningful, learning‐oriented evaluation. The paper concludes by highlighting key themes that shaped the learning potential of evaluation in the case study. The insights presented may assist evaluators and ECB practitioners working in similarly complex and dynamic policy environments where accountability narratives dominate.
ABSTRACT In this article, we set out a conceptual overview of what we call learning in the evaluation ecosystem to depict the interplay between external influences, organizational and community factors, and learning levers (e.g. capacity building, systems thinking). We include both organizational and community development considerations in our framework as each provides a distinct vantage point from which to explore learning in the evaluation ecosystem. We explore the promise and possibility of learning from and through evaluation and the enormous challenges that must be navigated to fully realize the benefit of evaluation learning. We then consider a range of evaluation learning levers with strong potential to navigate challenges and conclude with implications for practice and research.
ABSTRACT This article documents EvalParticipativa's 6‐year effort to democratize evaluation across Latin America through participatory approaches rooted in the region's traditions of Popular Education, Participatory Action Research, and Sistematización de Experiencias . As a community of practice connecting academics, civil society, and government technicians across 30 countries, EvalParticipativa has developed an integrated strategy combining theoretical frameworks, practical tools, audiovisual materials, and systematic training to foster meaningful learning from and through evaluation. Training 900+ professionals and integrating participatory methodologies into regional graduate programs, the initiative has developed a model where evaluation simultaneously generates learning through participation (process use) and from findings (instrumental use), cultivating evaluative thinking and democratic agency among diverse stakeholders. Four case studies illustrate how participatory processes shift power dynamics, amplify marginalized voices, and generate learning at cognitive, political, and relational levels. While facing barriers of institutional resistance, facilitator shortages, and budget constraints, EvalParticipativa has transformed these obstacles into drivers of innovation, establishing a model for making evaluation an instrument of social justice and democratic governance in the Global South.
ABSTRACT Conversations about democracy are everywhere in evaluation currently, prompted by a turbulent global political moment and a renewed reckoning with what evaluation owes to democratic life and vice versa. This closing article takes stock of the special issue's contributions, tracing three ideas threaded across them: models of democracy and what they mean for evaluation, the long‐running tension between incrementalism and ideology, and the implications of the current political environment for evaluation's present and future. Reading the contributions alongside Chelimsky's earlier astute observations, we identify what is confirmed, extended, complicated, and superseded in the long arc of evaluation and democracy scholarship. Building on this synthesis, and inspired by Stake's question of how far an evaluator dare go, we propose that democratic health—the conditions and structures that sustain collective decision‐making for the common good—ought to be adopted as a core evaluative criterion.
ABSTRACT Evaluation (and evaluators) evolve and adapt their practices in response to societal changes. In recent years, substantial budget cuts and an increased recognition of post‐truth tactics undermining the credibility of scientific evidence have brought to the fore the limitations of a traditional rational‐objectivist program evaluation. Within the evaluation field, conversations are shifting toward evaluating complexity and systems change. Using key concepts within systems thinking—understanding interrelationships , acknowledging perspectives , and reflecting on boundaries —as an organizing framework, I examine how systems thinking and systems approaches can create opportunities for organizational actors to approach policy enactment anew by explicitly embracing a deeply reflective, co‐constructed, and adaptive, iterative learning process. I illustrate how adopting this mindset and approach to evaluation can open opportunities for organizational actors to co‐create new social possibilities through their policy development and enactment processes.
ABSTRACT Evaluation is increasingly conducted within politically charged, culturally diverse, and ethically complex environments, requiring preparation models that extend far beyond technical training. This chapter argues that evaluator education must be reimagined as a holistic, culturally responsive endeavor that prepares emerging professionals to navigate ethical dilemmas, methodological uncertainty, and political pressures with integrity and skill. Drawing on contemporary scholarship in evaluator education, culturally responsive evaluation, and the scholarship of teaching and learning, the chapter examines the limitations of traditional inquiry‐focused preparation and identifies persistent gaps in pedagogy, field experience, identity development, and political awareness. It then outlines an integrated model emphasizing ethical preparedness, methodological adaptability, and political literacy as foundational competencies for a democratic, just, and future‐ready evaluation workforce.
ABSTRACT In this article we share our story of using a developmental evaluation approach over seven years to facilitate two‐way learning between Yapa (Warlpiri language for Indigenous people from the Australian Western Desert region) and Kardiya (Warlpiri language for non‐Indigenous people). The effort was aimed at supporting an innovative, Yapa‐led initiative to strengthen the governance of two Aboriginal corporations to ensure their sustainability for future generations. Guided by the principles of culturally responsive evaluation in Indigenous contexts, the developmental evaluation approach enabled us to prioritize relationships and center Yapa voices, knowledge and culture to effectively enact two‐way learning within the complex cultural interface of our context. We created a culturally safe learning environment, which promoted cultural humility and creativity to enable effective Yapa‐led innovation co‐design. With readiness and capacity for developmental evaluation facilitated by an experienced, reflexive developmental evaluator, together with recognition of Indigenous people's sovereignty, this approach can effectively center Indigenous people's values and perspectives to strengthen relationships and decolonize evaluation to support Indigenous aspirations.
ABSTRACT Scholars have positioned evaluation as central to democratic life, linking it to accountability, transparency, and collective learning (Scriven, 1967; House, 1980; Greene & Mark, 2017), but this scholarship assumes a stable democratic order rather than questioning it. Drawing on research on democratic turnarounds and Slater's (2013) concept of “democratic careening,” this paper argues that evaluations not only support democratic governance but also actively help stabilize it, especially when democratic norms weaken, and credible evidence becomes contested. Using the Foundations for Evidence‐Based Policymaking Act as an example, the paper examines how evaluation systems function amid institutional fragility and explores strategies to preserve evaluative independence and protect evidence as a public good.
ABSTRACT International organizations' (IOs) evaluation policies face unprecedented threats from post‐truth dynamics—delegitimization of expertise, nationalist framing against multilateralism, authoritarian overconfidence, and anti‐scientific sentiment. Despite institutional convergence on independence safeguards, methodological standards, and normative frameworks, comparative analysis reveals distinct vulnerabilities to contemporary political pressures. Drawing on behavioral mechanisms of framing, illusion of control, and motivated reasoning, this commentary maps five potential systemic risks affecting evaluation policies even when formal institutions remain intact. Safeguarding strategies require multilevel coordination: transnational professional standards embedding peer accountability, institutional reforms protecting independence through deliberative techniques, and alternative evaluation capacities operating outside potentially captured systems.
ABSTRACT National evaluation policy in the United States has substantially improved over the past half century, yet honest assessment requires acknowledging where fundamental challenges persist. This article provides a policy perspective on structural failures in evaluation policy design, drawing on the author's experience helping lead the U.S. Commission on Evidence‐Based Policymaking, negotiating the Evidence Act's passage, and designing implementation frameworks. Using Lee Cronbach's 95 theses as an organizing framework, the article examines six failures in national evaluation policy: pretending evaluation isn't political, aspiring to evaluate everything instead of prioritizing strategically, obsessing over internal validity at the expense of external validity, building dependency rather than sustainable capacity, failing to build knowledge translation infrastructure, and treating evaluation as judgment rather than learning. These failures share a common thread: evaluation policy was designed for researchers' preferences rather than decision‐makers' needs. The article argues that neither political party deserves a gold star on evaluation policy implementation, and that hyperpoliticization of data and evaluation is a bipartisan and longstanding challenge. Looking ahead, the article proposes five adjustments for a future evaluation policy framework oriented toward better, faster, cheaper, and more usable evaluation — including honest acknowledgment of politics, strategic prioritization, increased focus on core components, internal capacity building, and alignment of cost, timeline, and quality.
A reflexive stance of program evaluation requires evaluators and researchers to reflect on their role in fostering or interrogating the reproduction of inequities. For these professionals to fully leverage their potential to promote social changes, they must avoid neutral stances by committing to understanding context, challenging deficit narratives, and seeking a relational practice. As we reflect on our 5‐year social research journey within SEAS through the lens of the People‐Centered Evaluation approach (PCE), we aim to share the theoretical and applied ways our research engages with its core tenets. We share applied examples in the ways of prioritizing relational accountability, lived experience, community expertise, contextualization, and the collaboration of cultural liaisons to co‐create definitions of meaning and value, and centering issues of equity. In addition, we acknowledge the lived experience of participants coming from historically underserved communities and recognize participants' agency by centering their science identities within their place‐based contexts, their engagement in science‐related activities, and their intrinsic motivations to pursue science careers. We close our paper highlighting issues challenging access and participation in science‐related activities and the ways PCE enlightens a responsive, critical, yet humanized approach to research and evaluation.
This article provides two examples (an external and an internal evaluation with the NSF INCLUDES SEAS Islands Alliance) of a people‐centered approach to evaluation. We review how we came to our people‐centered approaches and how we used that approach in this particular context. First, we discuss an external evaluation of the Alliance examining relationships among Alliance members and with their community partners, and then we offer a discussion of the internal evaluation strategy used to better understand relationships within the Alliance. There were some differences, as well as many commonalities, in the way we, as evaluators, approached building authentic relationships that valued the context and the Alliance members. We contend that, regardless of an evaluation's goals, there are ways to incorporate people‐centered evaluation approaches into evaluation work .
Derived from a larger qualitative study examining how social justice-oriented evaluators conceptualize, operationalize, and advance racial equity and justice in their practice, we draw on the reflective accounts of 29 evaluators to ask: How do social justice-oriented evaluators center people when aiming to advance racial equity and justice? We consider people-centered evaluation to be an evaluation that focuses on the needs of the people most impacted in the evaluative context, their engagement with the evaluative process, and recognize how power dynamics, context, history, and systems play a part in people's participation in and view of the evaluation. Our findings offer three strategies: (a) understanding self and context, (b) evaluator responsibilities of pushing back or calling out actions that foster inequities, and (c) relationality in authentic community engagement. This article posits that the work of advancing racial equity cannot be separated from people or communities.
As the final conversation in the issue, this article reflects on the preceding articles by drawing on commonalities and distinctions regarding the broader concept of people-centered evaluation (PCE) in theory and practice. Much like the other issue contributors, we, too, take an inter-, cross-, and transdisciplinary perspective, relying on the core tenets of other evaluation frameworks that both center people and offer suggestions for the fields and sectors in which we evaluators find ourselves. Therefore, our aims are to: (1) draw upon the lessons learned in preceding articles, (2) offer new directions for the field by connecting people-centered approaches with broader evaluative traditions and theories that also sought to center people and communities, and (3) reflect on our own research and evaluation experiences to contextualize and imagine future possibilities. These reflections provide a space for the three authors to engage bidirectionally: on one side, to review and respond to the learning that emerged across the articles in this special issue, and on the other, to situate these insights within a broader conversation in the field of evaluation. Finally, we briefly connect (PCE) with other theoretical lineages, as well as decolonial and Indigenous frameworks that invite us to imagine evaluation as a moral, relational, and human practice grounded in justice and collective flourishing.
