Considering culture, equity and accessibility in monitoring and evaluation practice
Background
Effective service delivery in the child and family sector relies on being responsive to the diverse needs of the communities they serve. A common way to address this need is to embed considerations of culture, equity and accessibility in the design and delivery of programs. These considerations should also inform how programs and services are monitored and evaluated. This ensures that the diversity and voices of the community are reflected in the evidence about ‘what works’.
Monitoring and evaluation practice has the power to make a difference in the world (American Evaluation Association [AEA], 2011). Whether you intend to or not, monitoring and evaluation work generates the stories of and evidence for impact that will in some way affect those funding, managing and receiving programs.
It is important that these stories of programs and services are considerate of culture, equity and accessibility. Ethical evaluation practice requires that we are clear about who is included in any monitoring or evaluation work, how they are engaged and how power, risk and benefit are managed.
This is true even if the results of monitoring and evaluation activities are not publicly available.
The good news is that, when it comes to embedding considerations of culture, equity and accessibility in programs and services, there is considerable overlap between design and delivery and monitoring and evaluation.
About this resource
This resource is for practitioners and program managers who deliver programs and services for families and children and who are planning or undertaking monitoring or evaluation of their program or service.
The first section introduces some key concepts and explains how they are relevant to monitoring and evaluation.
We then list practice tips and useful resources to help practitioners consider culture, equity and accessibility in monitoring and evaluation work.
This resource can be read alongside Resources to support evaluation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their communities for guidance on planning, undertaking or commissioning monitoring and evaluation work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families.
Key concepts for considering culture, equity and accessibility in monitoring and evaluation practice
Culture
Culture can be thought of as the lens through which we see the world.1 It includes:
- beliefs and values
- shared behaviours, customs and language
- history, identity and politics (AEA, 2011).
Everyone has their own way of viewing the world that is influenced and shared by groups of people with similar identities, values and backgrounds.
All program delivery and monitoring and evaluation activities take place in the context of culture, and there may be multiple overlapping cultural considerations at any one time. That is:
- Organisations may wish to design and deliver programs in a way that reflects the cultural norms and needs of the community they serve.
- Organisations may wish to evaluate whether their program or service is culturally responsive.
- Evaluators, organisations, individual practitioners and funders can reflect on their own cultural understandings, needs and norms, and how these shape their program design or evaluation practices.
Monitoring and evaluation strategies that do not consider the way these various factors intersect and interact may not capture the full picture of the program or service, or the perspectives of the people using or delivering a program or service.
Cultural competence
Cultural competence in evaluation is about understanding, respecting and appreciating the cultural context in which a program, or an evaluation, takes place. This means having an awareness of the culture(s) of those receiving, delivering, evaluating and funding a program. It also means recognising how culture affects the power that individuals and groups hold, and how monitoring and evaluation work can be used to call attention to and address inequity.
Those involved in evaluation can practise cultural competence by:
- acknowledging the complexity of culture
- responding to differences between and within cultures
- being aware of the effect of language and by deliberately using language that is inclusive
- using culturally appropriate tools for data collection, analysis and reporting (AEA, 2011).
Cultural safety
Cultural safety means creating environments where people feel respected and free from discrimination. We most commonly think about cultural safety when working in and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities – where it is deeply rooted in work to address the impacts of colonisation, sovereignty and systemic racism – but the concept can be applied more broadly to other cultural contexts (e.g. migrant, refugee, faith-based, disability, LGBTQIA+ or other marginalised communities).
Cultural safety in the context of evaluation can use a principles-based approach that examines:
- who has power in monitoring and evaluation work, whose norms are treated as ‘standard’, and how the system privileges some cultural identities and marginalises others
- what bias and assumptions practitioners and organisations bring to monitoring and evaluation practices, and how these shape those practices
- processes for self-reflection and accountability in monitoring and evaluation practice.
Cultural safety is not something practitioners can declare – it is something that is determined and defined by those who experience it (Australian Evaluation Society [AES], 2013; Gollan & Stacey, 2021).
Culturally responsive evaluation
Culturally responsive evaluation is about acknowledging the effect that culture has on evaluation and deliberately attending to this effect. It involves consideration of groups that have been historically marginalised and left out of program decision making, delivery and evaluation.
Culturally responsive evaluation positions culture as central to the evaluation purpose, design, methods, interpretation and use. It emphasises meaningful involvement of people with lived experience of the community or population of interest, reflexivity by evaluators and methods that are appropriate to context and community need.
Those involved in evaluation can practise cultural responsiveness by:
- paying deliberate attention to culture and context, including the social, historical and structural influences on programs and outcomes
- considering the purpose of the evaluation and how it can be designed in a way that benefits services and the communities they serve
- meaningfully engaging with a wide range of stakeholders across all stages of delivery and evaluation, including decision makers, service providers and program recipients, and particularly those who are often left out of program design, delivery and evaluation
- being reflexive and paying attention to the influence of one’s own bias and assumptions across all stages of the evaluation process
- drawing on flexible, mixed and context-appropriate evaluation methodologies; for example, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Hood et al., 2015).
Equity
Equity is the ‘absence of avoidable, unfair or remediable differences among groups of people’ (World Health Organization [WHO], 2024). These differences often relate to factors such as:
- age and gender
- ethnicity
- disability status
- sexual orientation
- socio-economic status.
Equitable evaluation is an approach to practice that focuses on the power of evaluation to address inequity. As with culture, equity can be considered in multiple ways through the design, delivery and evaluation of programs and services.
Evaluations can be designed to gather evidence in a more equitable way but evaluation findings can also be used to assess whether service delivery is equitable (or can be made more equitable). Inequities may relate to certain groups being left out of program design, inaccessible service delivery or a lack of representation in decision making (including decisions about monitoring and evaluation activities).
Those involved in evaluation can consider equity by:
- identifying and including groups that have been historically marginalised or not considered in either service delivery or evaluation
- calling attention to and challenging power imbalances that are present in the service, evaluation and wider society
- using collaborative and participatory approaches
- adapting evaluation instruments and methods, if necessary, to ensure they are not stigmatising or harmful to the community2
- engaging in self-reflection and self-learning (Faruquzzaman et al., 2025).
Accessibility
Accessibility is about the extent to which something can be used and understood by everyone who interacts with it (Disability Gateway, n.d.). In this way, you can consider both accessibility of the evaluation and monitoring process as well as the capacity to use evaluation and monitoring findings to improve the accessibility of services and programs.
In evaluation, accessibility tends to be associated with the creation of the language, design and formatting of reports and other communication outputs. However, you can consider accessibility throughout the entire evaluation process by learning about and addressing the needs and preferences of different stakeholders. Those involved in evaluation can consider accessibility by:
- making accommodations to maximise the contribution different members of the community can make to evaluation planning, data collection and analysis
- using plain language and inclusive visual design
- providing materials in alternative forms and multiple languages
- considering the format and access options for reports and other communication outputs (BetterEvaluation, 2024).
Principles for considering culture, equity and accessibility in monitoring and evaluation practice
While the needs and interests of individual communities are often unique and context driven, there are several common principles that support practitioners to consider culture, equity and accessibility in monitoring and evaluation practice. This is not an exhaustive list and you may have other principles that are important for practice in your setting. See the list of resources below for more specific guidance.
Context is key
All programs are influenced by contextual factors. That is why a vital first step in monitoring and evaluation is identifying the social, cultural, historical and political context of the program being evaluated. This can be done by learning about and listening to the community as well as looking at previous evaluations of similar programs and research in communities with shared experiences.
Example
As part of your program outreach activities, you attend community cultural events to promote your program or service. You also use this opportunity to meet local people, learn about their values and participate in their interests. This greater understanding of your service delivery context allows you to more effectively design monitoring and evaluation activities that respond to your context. These include writing evaluation questions that are important to the community and/or altering your data collection strategies to ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute.
Consider all stakeholders
In the initial stages of planning, you can map out who should be involved in or may be impacted by your program and evaluation. It is important that during this process you identify those who have less power and may therefore have been excluded from previous evaluations. Similarly, you should consider those who may be indirectly affected by your evaluation, such as members of the wider community.
Example
You are planning to expand an existing program to a new area but you need to better understand how the new community’s needs may differ from the people you are currently serving. You decide to conduct a needs assessment, so you create a list of individuals and institutions that live and operate in the new area. You create a map of these stakeholders and brainstorm strategies for learning about and engaging with them.
Prioritise collaboration
There are a variety of ways to engage with stakeholders when planning an evaluation, from getting input from participants during key stages to sharing decision making with the community. Culturally responsive and equitable approaches to evaluation emphasise the importance of prioritising collaboration with the community and your stakeholders, particularly those who have been historically marginalised or left out of decision-making processes. This means you should work to engage and share power with stakeholders throughout the entire evaluation process, from planning to reporting.
Example
You create an evaluation advisory board that includes a diverse group of stakeholders, including community leaders, subject matter experts, service users and other community members. You work to consistently inform this group about your progress and create pathways for them to act as a group to lead decision making at key intervals. You also use this group to help analyse and interpret the findings of your evaluation and develop insights and recommendations to help make sense of – and act on – what those findings mean in your program or service context.
Centre the community in evaluation design and delivery
Evaluations should centre the diverse values, perspectives and needs of the community and stakeholders throughout the entire monitoring and evaluation process. Culturally responsive and equitable approaches are intended to make sure that monitoring and evaluation reflects, and even benefits, the community in which they take place.
You can incorporate community perspectives in the design and delivery of evaluation and monitoring activities in a variety of ways. From the outset, key stakeholders in the community can be involved in determining the purpose of evaluation and monitoring activities, and in the development of key evaluation questions and evaluation measures. This can help to ensure you collect information and insights that are meaningful to the community. These stakeholders can also help guide your approach to communicating evaluation findings and insights, so that information is shared in a way that is meaningful and understandable to the community.
Example
You are developing an evaluation plan for a school-based program. You have worked with program staff and funders to write several evaluation questions. You decide to collaborate with key members of staff to create an evaluation question that is relevant and meaningful to their role in the program. When you have collected enough evidence to answer all your evaluation questions, you hold a presentation to share your findings with staff and work with them to help make sense of those findings in the context of their work.
Collect information in a way that makes sense for the community
When choosing how you will collect information for your monitoring and evaluation activities, you will need to consider what is appropriate for community needs and context. Not all data collection methods work well in every context, so without this consideration, you may have difficulty engaging with the community and/or the information you collect for monitoring and evaluation may be inaccurate, irrelevant or not represent the perspectives of all relevant groups.
Collecting information in a way that makes sense to the people involved in your evaluation may involve exploring how information has been collected in similar communities in previous evaluations and/or consulting with key local experts in the community to explore what data collection methods would work best for them. If you are using standardised measures, you can contact the developer to see if their tool has been adapted and tested for a population or context relevant to you. If you are developing your own tools for collecting information, you can be guided by the community’s language, ways of knowing and values. These same considerations can be applied to reporting the findings of your monitoring and evaluation work.
Example
You are in the early stages of developing a survey to collect feedback from parents. As part of this process, you engage with frontline staff who express concern that not all parents they work with are comfortable completing forms. To ensure you are able to collect feedback from all the parents engaged with your service, you work with frontline staff to develop different methods of administering the survey, with options for parents to either complete the survey independently or with the support of a program facilitator.
Be curious about outliers
Good evaluation seeks to understand the experiences of everyone affected by the program being evaluated, not just the majority. It is good practice to explore whether certain types of people have distinct experiences of or perspectives on a program. This can involve comparing different groups through statistics or through undertaking qualitative case studies. You may notice different patterns in your data as you work through your evaluation findings. Part of the continuous process of improvement is thinking about what those patterns tell you about how different people experience a program and whether it is operating as intended.
Example
Your program monitoring data indicate that a certain group in the community is not engaging with your services, even though the group is a key target population for your program. To address this information gap, you develop some strategies for directly engaging with members of that target group. This could include reaching out to community leaders and networks and engaging with more tailored services. The insights from this engagement can help you understand why this group is not using a service and whether the service delivering a program needs to act to better respond to the needs of that group.
Practise self-reflection and learning
Self‑reflection is central to good evaluation practice because it enables evaluators to learn from their practice, adapt their approach and create more respectful and equitable evaluation processes. In this context, self-reflection means considering how your beliefs, values and assumptions influence the evaluation process. It might also include reflecting on the standards or ways of working that come with your profession and/or your organisation’s customary ways of operating and what it considers to be valid evidence.
Self-reflection and learning involves thinking about the power you hold relative to your stakeholders and community, and about how you can minimise power imbalances throughout monitoring and evaluation. This continual process of reflection should lead to new insights that drive positive changes to your practice and service delivery.
Example
You and a colleague are conducting interviews for a service delivering support to young mothers. Before you begin conducting the interviews you organise a meeting with your colleague to reflect on how young mothers receiving supports may perceive you and how this might influence their responses. For example, young mothers may see you as an authority figure and therefore be hesitant to talk about negative experiences they’ve had with services or share details about behaviour they think might reflect poorly on their parenting skills. You work together to brainstorm ideas about how to conduct interviews to ensure that your service users can feel comfortable to share their feedback.
Other resources for considering culture, equity and accessibility in monitoring and evaluation practice
The following table lists resources providing information about considering culture, equity and accessibility in monitoring and evaluation practice. This is not an exhaustive list but rather provides further introduction to the topic. You may know of other resources or sources of guidance that are helpful for your program and service context.
| Resource | Publisher | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Definitions | ||
| The Eval MatrixTM | Strategic Learning Partners for Innovation (SLP4i) | An evaluation matrix that provides information on 7 evaluation philosophies and approaches that centre cultural responsiveness and equity for all in various ways |
| Approaches, frameworks and tools | ||
| Public statement on cultural competence in evaluation | American Evaluation Association | Summarises the role of culture in evaluation and shares essential practices for cultural competence |
Chapter 7: A guide to conducting culturally responsive evaluations | US National Science Foundation | Guidance for conducting culturally responsive evaluations from the design stage to reporting |
| Approaches for diverse, equitable, and inclusive evaluation | Bellwether Education Partners | Describes approaches to making evaluation more equitable and inclusive. Written for the education sector but applicable to family and community services |
| Practical tools for designing and implementing culturally responsive and inclusive evaluations | Learning for Action | Lists of reflective questions to consider equity and cultural humility across the evaluation process. Written for external evaluators but may be helpful for child and family support professionals |
| National standards for collection of demographic information | Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) | National standards for collecting demographic information, including gender, cultural and language diversity |
| Re-imagining evaluation: A guide to evaluating differently | University College London | Guide draws from the work of the Evaluation Exchange and describes steps for inclusive approaches to evaluation |
| Resources for working with specific communities | ||
| Resources to support evaluation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their communities | Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) | Considerations and resources for non-Indigenous people involved in evaluation of programs that work with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children and their families |
| Involving children in evaluation | Australian Institute of Family Studies | Guidance for professionals who work directly with children and are involved in evaluation |
Toolkit for engaging with people with disability in evaluation
| Disability Gateway | Toolkits and resources for those conducting evaluation involving people with disability. Also includes information for people with disability who are involved in evaluation |
| Pride in prevention evaluation guide | Rainbow Health Australia | Guidance for LGBTIQ practitioners and organisations, and those working in family violence prevention who are involved or interested in evidence, evaluation and learning |
| Guidance for communication and reporting | ||
| The equitable communications guide for evaluators | Innovation Network | Guidance on sharing messages from evaluation in a way that centres the experience of others and platforms the voice of marginalised communities |
| Diversity, equity, and inclusion in data visualization: General recommendations | Urban Institute | Recommendations and considerations for visualising data in an inclusive and equitable manner. Also available as a full guide |
| Digital access blog | Vision Australia | Guidance for making digital communication accessible and inclusive for all |
| Create accessible materials – Forms and surveys | Disability Gateway | Advice on creating inclusive forms and surveys |
| Create accessible Office documents | Microsoft | Instructions for making Microsoft Office documents more accessible to people with disabilities |
| Inclusive language | Commonwealth of Australia | Advice on using language that is respectful and culturally appropriate |
| Ensure accessibility – Rainbow Framework | BetterEvaluation | Advice on increasing the accessibility of evaluation reports |
| Color.review tool | Robsarve Studios | One of the many free online tools for assessing the accessibility of your colour palette |
How this resource was made
For this article, we have summarised some of the current discussions about culture, race, inclusivity and equity in evaluation to inform child and family support professionals who are conducting or involved in evaluation.
If you have any other resources or examples that you would like included in this resource, email [email protected].
Acknowledgements
This resource sheet was developed by Holly Helprin. Thank you to Dr Stewart Muir, Sharnee Moore, Carla Loodewijk and Frances Lockie at AIFS for their feedback on various drafts.
This resource was developed as part of the Evidence and Evaluation Support project, which is funded by the Department of Social Services.
Bibliography
American Evaluation Association (AEA). (2011). Public statement on cultural competence in evaluation. Fairhaven, MA: AEA. www.eval.org/Community/Volunteer/Statement-on-Cultural-Competence-in-Evaluation
Australian Evaluation Society (AES). (2013). Guidelines for the ethical conduct of evaluations. AES. www.aes.asn.au/images/AES_Guidelines_web_v2.pdf
BetterEvaluation. (2024). Accessibility. BetterEvaluation. www.betterevaluation.org/methods-approaches/methods/accessibility
Bledsoe, K., Guillen-Woods, B., & Gonzales, F. (2022). Equity-focused evaluation approaches: Annotated bibliography. Strategic Learning Partners for Innovation. slp4i.com/additional-resources
Disability Gateway. (n.d.). Language and definitions. Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. www.disabilitygateway.gov.au/ads/strategy/good-practice-guidelines/language-and-definitions
Equitable Evaluation Initiative (EEI). (2023). Equitable Evaluation Framework™ (EEF). EEI. www.equitableeval.org/framework
Frierson, H. T., Hood, S., & Hughes, G. B. (2010). A guide to conducting culturally responsive evaluations. In Frechtling, J. (Ed.), The 2010 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation. US National Sciences Foundation. evalu-ate.org/external-resource/doc-2010-nsfhandbook
Faruquzzaman, O., Tse, S., Cameron, R., Chee, K., Kirst, M., & Wilson, C. (2025). Approaches to incorporating equity into program evaluation: A scoping review. Evaluation and Program Planning, 112. doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102648
Gollan, S., & Stacey, K. (2021). Australian Evaluation Society First Nations cultural safety framework. Australian Evaluation Society. AES_FirstNations_Cultural_Framework_finalWEB_final.pdf
Golson-Mickens, S., Marchant, A., Boisvert, K., & Jorquiera Johnson, A. (2023). Equitable communications guide: A roadmap for evaluators in the social sector. Innovation Network. www.innonet.org/news-insights/resources/equitable-communications-guide
Hood, S., Hopson, R. K., & Kirkhart, K. E. (2015). Culturally responsive evaluation: Theory, practice, and future implications. In Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., Newcomer, K. E. (Eds), Handbook of practical program evaluation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch12
Kushnier, L., Nadin, S., Hill, M. E., Taylor, M., Jun, S., Mushquash, C. J. et al. (2023). Culturally responsive evaluation: A scoping review of the evaluation literature. Evaluation and Program Planning, 100. doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102322
Phillips, G., Felt, D., Perez, B. E., Ruprecht, M. M., & Elías Glenn, E. (2022). Principles of LGBTQ+ evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 175, 15–30. doi.org/10.1002/ev.20519
Thomas, V. G., & Campbell, P. B. (2020). Evaluations of future: Inclusive, equity-focused, useful, and used. In Evaluation in today’s world: Respecting diversity, improving quality, and promoting usability (pp. 1–24). SAGE Publications. collegepublishing.sagepub.com/products/evaluation-in-todays-world-1-263463
World Health Organization (WHO). (2024) Health equity. WHO. www.who.int/health-topics/health-equity
1There is no universal definition or singular understanding of ‘culture’. However, for the purposes of this resource we have focused on how culture shapes peoples’ view of the world, including their perception of others.
2When using standardised instruments or validated measures, such as the Parent Empowerment and Efficacy Scale (PEEM) or Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), it is not advisable to remove questions, change the original question wording or alter the order of the questions. Doing so can mean the measure loses the key benefits of reliability, validity and standardisation. In some cases, questionnaire developers may have already adapted and tested their measure with different populations or in different contexts. So, if you are considering adapting a measure, you should first contact the questionnaire developer to see what already exists.
24 June 2026