A culturally competent evaluation should pay attention to “how race, power, inclusion, politics, and privilege may be affecting the context, and discuss their relevance to the program” (CDC, 2014). Culturally competent evaluator(s) “represent the values and standards of marginalized stakeholders [and] use their power to promote equality and self-determination” (AEA, 2011). However, the culturally competent evaluation approach has been critiqued when power is not addressed. Thomas et al. (2018) argue that “the emphasis on the multiple dimensions of culture has been inadequate in addressing many of the systemic racial issues related to social programs … attention to cultural responsiveness in evaluation has stalled thoughtful deliberation of how we could integrate issues of race and racism in our work.”

A key characteristic of culturally responsive evaluation (CRE) is “attention to issues of power differentials among people and systems” (Hood et al., 2015). CRE requires the use of methods and tools that best serve the community (Hood et al., 2015) and the use of evaluation to promote social agendas that challenge current power structures and dynamics rooted in white supremacy and oppression (Caldwell & Bledsoe, 2019; Chouinard & Cram, 2019; Hopson 2009; Public Policy Associates, 2015).

As indicated by its name, a focus on equity is inherent to culturally responsive and equitable evaluation (CREE). As part of the CREE Learning Series, Tamara Cadet addresses why equity matters and draws from Chimamanda Adichie who explains, if we only hear about a people, place, or situation from one point of view, we risk accepting one experience as the whole truth (Expanding the Bench, 2021, video 1.3). In video 2.4 of the Learning Series (Expanding the Bench, 2021), Michael P. Arnold addresses the importance of being intentional and transparent in our work and our definitions of equity to help create a better understanding of equity goals.

Social justice itself is not specifically mentioned; instead, it is assumed to be “baked“ into the theory of culturally responsive Indigenous evaluation (CRIE) and tribal critical theory (TCT). The call for CRIE evaluators and researchers to be intimately involved in social change and calling out injustices is specifically mentioned (Bowman et al., 2015). Bowman and colleagues (2007, as cited in 2015) discuss indigenizing research and evaluation via seven steps, including (1) utilizing traditional-knowledge councils and elders; (2) using oral and written traditional knowledge and Indigenous institutions; (3) providing traditional gifts as part of the evaluation process to show gratitude for allowance into the community; (4) understanding that Indigenous intellectual knowledge, approval of evaluation, and ownership of data by the tribal community is controlled by the Indigenous community and is formalized through memoranda of understanding; (5) understanding that evaluation data is used to inform and improve (not pathologize) Indigenous communities and institutions; (6) understanding that evaluation work is examined by traditional knowledge councils to prohibit racism and colonization, and to promote value and use of Indigenous ways of knowing, knowledge, and processes; and (7) making evaluation useful to community needs, and through Indigenous control/ownership of data. That said, neither social justice nor equity can exist without true decolonization. Decolonization — which would include reparations and the return of stolen lands and property — is a foundation of equity, social justice, and transformation.

Social justice is one of the approach’s 10 principles — evaluation can and should be used to address social inequities in society. A key component is inclusion, ensuring that all voices, particularly those most impacted, are heard and valued (Fetterman et al., 2015). Indeed, Fetterman et al., (2015) expanded this to “transformative empowerment evaluation,” which specifically focuses on psychological, social, and what he refers to as the “political power of liberation.” Empowerment Evaluation has long addressed the ability to engage in social redress (Mithaug  as cited in Fetterman et al.,1996) by enabling capacity building and increased opportunity. This is prominent throughout empowerment evaluation, which additionally seeks to close the gap between evaluator and partners; empowerment evaluators and partners learn from one another, thereby closing the power gap between them (Andrews, 1996).

Equitable evaluation as practiced in the international and domestic contexts is rooted in social justice. The primary aim of equitable evaluation in the U.S. “is not only to shed light on the factors that impede equity, but also to analyze and assess interventions, investments, and strategies through a lens of promoting equity” (Dean-Coffey et al., 2014). Dean-Coffey and Equitable Evaluation Initiative (EEI) collaborators believe that “evaluators have a moral imperative to contribute to equity. Evaluators who work with foundations and nonprofits who are working on equity have a special obligation to ensure that their evaluation practices don’t reinforce or even exacerbate the inequities that efforts seek to address” (Center for Evaluation Innovation et al., 2017). The approach requires practitioners to call out institutional and structural policies that create inequities to attain equity, justice, and liberation. It also requires that evaluators pay attention to power throughout the entire evaluation process. “Power [is] the understanding of how privilege is attached to some cultural signifiers and prejudice to others. It involves paying attention to equity and social justice, and avoiding perpetuating discrimination, disparity, or condescension” (EEI & GEO, 2021). While likely in agreement with these goals, those interested in the practice of the Equitable Evaluation Framework™ (EEF) in international contexts have not been able to be as proactive in the conduct of evaluation in service of equity, justice, and liberation due to political limitations. International evaluators have, however, begun to shift their focus from the most marginalized populations (e.g., women) to the power dynamics that contribute to marginalized statuses (e.g., between men and women).

Power is a central issue that must be addressed at each stage of a transformative evaluation (Mertens, 2007). Evaluators who subscribe to the transformative paradigm “consciously and explicitly position themselves side by side with the less powerful in a joint effort to bring about social transformation” (Mertens, 2020). The transformative evaluator focuses on “unequal distributions of power and the resultant oppression of subjugated groups,” and “a preset goal of the research is to empower participants to transform the status quo and emancipate themselves from ongoing oppression” (Mertens, 2012). “Evaluators have a responsibility to make visible the dynamics of discrimination and oppression that are relevant in the evaluation context” (axiological assumption) (Mertens, 2016). “The transformative paradigm has relevance for people who experience discrimination and oppression on [the basis of any] characteristics that are associated with less access to social justice” (Mertens, 2010).