Locus of power in VfM assessment
Building on a model by Nan Wehipeihana
Ten years ago, I sat proudly in the audience at the AES 2013 Conference in Brisbane where my Kinnect Group colleague Nan Wehipeihana gave a keynote presentation: A Vision for Indigenous Evaluation. Nan presented a framework for reflecting on evaluation practice, for organisations and individuals to assess how they share power and decision-making with indigenous peoples.
Nan’s framework resonated with me as a clear and memorable way to distinguish between evaluation done to, for, with, by, or as indigenous peoples. These five prepositions describe where the locus of power sits along a continuum from Western to Indigenous power and control. For example:
Evaluation done to indigenous peoples serves to marginalise indigenous values and worldviews
Evaluation done for indigenous peoples may be carried out with virtuous intent and some consultation, but power isn’t meaningfully shared
Evaluation done with indigenous peoples involves genuine power sharing, combining Indigenous and Western perspectives and priorities
Evaluation done by indigenous peoples honours indigenous perspectives while still accommodating Western expectations and priorities
Evaluation done as indigenous peoples involves full indigenous ownership and control of the evaluation, led by indigenous values and worldviews.
In 2019, Nan published an open-access article on the model in the Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, which you can read here.
Nan’s model has stuck with me and often comes up in my Value for Investment (VfI) work. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve shared it with colleagues, clients and workshop participants. I’ve been meaning for a long time to integrate it better into the VfI system. With this in mind, I’ve adapted Nan’s model (with her permission and endorsement) as follows. This version is intended for international development and social development programs that target or affect indigenous peoples.
VfM assessment done to indigenous peoples
The initiative and the VfM assessment are commissioned, funded, designed and managed by Western organisations without reference to indigenous values and priorities. Decision-making power resides with and serves the interests of the donor. For example, the donor prescribes VfM criteria and determines what counts as credible evidence. There are no clear benefits for indigenous people (or the benefits are presumed).
VfM assessment done for indigenous peoples
The initiative and the VfM assessment are commissioned, funded, designed and managed by Western organisations (e.g. donors and delivery partners). Indigenous organisations/staff may be sub-contracted to assist, but the donor has control over the initiative and the VfM assessment, determining what is valuable, to whom, and on what basis. Indigenous people may be consulted but power is not meaningfully shared. Paternalistic and Western worldviews/science prevail.
VfM assessment done with indigenous peoples
Power and decision making in the initiative and the VfM assessment are shared and negotiated. It is a collaborative space. Indigenous organisations/individuals are involved in the governance and leadership of the initiative and the VfM assessment on an equal footing with non-indigenous people. Indigenous and Western worldviews and approaches are utilised.
VfM assessment done by indigenous peoples
Indigenous people have a large degree of control over the design and management of the initiative and the VfM assessment, leading the determination of what is valuable, to whom and on what basis. Donor funding comes with a high-trust, flexible approach to relationship management and accountability. Indigenous worldviews and knowledge prevail. Western approaches may be included, negotiated with the donor.
VfM assessment done as indigenous peoples
The initiative, and the VfM assessment, are designed and delivered by indigenous organisations, in accordance with indigenous values and worldviews. Indigenous people have full control over determining what is valuable, to whom, and on what basis. Indigenous knowledge is the norm and its legitimacy and validity are taken for granted. Participation by non-indigenous people is not assumed, but by invitation only. Western approaches may be included if they are seen to be useful. Likely to be funded through indigenous resources or no-strings philanthropic funding.
A chance to reflect
VfM is assessed to determine whether a policy or program is a good use of resources, whether it creates enough value and how it can create more value.
Value is the merit, worth or significance that people and groups place on something.
OK, so:
Which people and groups?
When the program targets or affects indigenous people, who has a right to participate in determining what is valuable, to whom, and on what basis?
Who has a right to lead this determination?
Thinking about the sectors and settings where you work:
Where do evaluation and VfM practices sit on this continuum? To, for, with, by, or as? Where should they sit?
Where does your evaluation/VfM practice sit on this continuum? Where should it sit?
What’s one tangible, achievable thing you can do to nudge the locus of power closer to where it should be?
Ngā mihi nui,
Julian