Who is best equipped to do equitable evaluation?

This is the second installment of a 12-part blog series discussing doing evaluation in service of racial equity as part of a collaboration with the Kellogg Foundation. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not represent the views of any partner organizations, including the Kellogg Foundation.

Racial Equity and Evaluation

The national racial reckoning that began in 2020 and the executive order on equity have continued to shape and transform social norms and policies across the United States. The work of evaluation practitioners is no exception. Many of us working as evaluation and research partners in the social sector have experienced a shift in the field, with more colleagues and partners explicitly embracing, endorsing, and exploring what it means to practice evaluation in service of racial equity. While this was already a dynamic topic of conversation prior to 2020, we see that colleagues are now more comfortable being explicit in their focus on race. 

While these discussions remain focused on race and structural racism as a pressing social issue of primary concern, we are seeing shifts in discussions about who is best qualified or positioned to carry out evaluations that center equity, and who can best apply an equity lens.  

The Role of Identity in Equity-Centered Evaluation 

There are many, among practitioners/evaluators, who will assume that it is always better to have a person of color as the evaluator and/or learning partner in equity-centered work. There are various reasons for this belief. Some we have heard and discussed with colleagues firsthand include: 

• People of color will have more credibility when studying communities that are marginalized because they understand what it is like to be minoritized and marginalized 

• People of color should be in the evaluator role because they should be in the position of power and influence on redress and to confront historical and present-day structural inequities 

• People of color are more qualified to center equity in evaluation because they are anti-racist 

It is encouraging to see more organizations seek support from evaluators explicitly asking potential partners to endorse a framework and demonstrate the racial and ethnic diversity of the teams bidding on a project or proposal. And yes, we do still have experiences where a team may ask for a person of color to be part of their project because they think that it looks better, or it is what the client needs to see. Unfortunately, in many of those situations the focus on equity is purely performative or superficial. 

Moreover, identifying as a person of color does not guarantee that you will bring an anti-racist perspective or that you are better able to do equity work. This idea does not serve the field as it unnecessarily leaves out the potential and much-needed support from white colleagues and practitioners who play a critical role in transforming the field, so that practicing evaluation in service of racial equity becomes the more normalized standard rather than something we are doing right now because it is ‘in.’ It also dampens the shared sense of accountability, potentially minimizing the collective work needed from both people of color and white practitioners to advance racial equity and social justice. 

To be clear, we are not suggesting that representation does not matter. Indeed, it is very important to continue to build out the pipeline of evaluators and researchers who have historically been excluded and underrepresented in the evaluation field. We also acknowledge the tokenizing experiences that may exist as a result of some organizations hiring a person of color to simply check a box without valuing their whole person. And while we know that you do not have to be a person of color to practice evaluation in service of racial equity, we must also stay mindful about how critical it is that we all interrogate our biases when deciding on who is the best person to be your evaluator partner and/or if you have the skills to carry out the work. 

Shared Accountability in Advancing Equity-Centered Evaluation 

Advancing equity and anti-racism requires the effort and accountability of people from diverse disciplines and backgrounds. The process of creating sustainable change in a complex world necessitates collaboration, synergy, and consolidation across differences. In challenging biases about who will be the best fit to advance equity work, it is helpful to view the accountability of doing evaluations in service of racial equity as shared. How can you improve your own practice to model equitable evaluation? And how can you partner with other evaluators along the process?           

The journey towards equity is a lifelong mission. Conducting evaluation in the service of equity is an ongoing and iterative practice for all hands involved in the work. As a practice, it both allows and requires us to continually refine and improve our work. Practicing evaluation in service of racial equity is a skill that can be learned and continually honed over time. As Dr. Krenn of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation reminds us “…[p]practicing equitable evaluation is not, cannot, and should not be only for evaluators of color. As a group of professionals, we all bear the responsibility and obligation to do so.” 

We agree and believe that it bears repeating that this is everyone’s work. Conducting evaluation in service of racial equity entails applying these skills throughout the evaluation process. We can begin incorporating them early, starting with our personal worldviews and biases. 

Self-Reflection of Evaluators 

In line with TRUE’s framework for equity-centered research, evaluators need to do deep self-work—identifying their biases and assumptions, identifying the privileges and disadvantages that society affords one due to aspects of one’s social identity, and understanding how one’s personal background impacts the way they relate to the communities of interest. By being honest with ourselves and transparent with others, we position our lens to view people first with empathy. We learn that while everyone deserves justice and equity, not everyone starts at the same place and not everyone is given a fair chance due to infrastructures of historical oppression. 

Knowledge of Past and Current Systems of Oppression 

Conducting evaluation in service of racial equity also requires that evaluators build out their knowledge of historical oppression and systemic inequity and bring that lens to their practice. This applies to all of us, regardless of race and ethnicity. By learning about your communities’ history, you demonstrate a willingness to defer to their lived experiences as a source of knowledge rather than coming in solely with an understanding about the community based on research evidence. This is not to undermine research but to pivot what we view as one way of knowing (e.g., “evidence”) with multiple sources of knowledge generated from lived experiences embedded in communities’ history, values, and culture. With this growing source of knowledge, we also learn how to view social issues as rooted in systems rather than in individuals. 

Another skill relates to relationship-building with practices that center values of trust in evaluations done with communities, particularly with communities of color. Building equity needs to begin with building meaningful relationships with communities. Many evaluators are likely well versed in collaborative evaluation models; however, evaluators engender strong, reliable, and trustworthy relationships in service of racial equity. 

While there is some evidence on how shared identities with communities of interest can facilitate relationship building in research this is not always the case. Everyone, regardless of race and ethnicity, has a shared responsibility to ensure the relationships generated with communities are not harmful and, at the very least, mutually beneficial in the broader scope. Some conflicts are to be expected, and these need to be viewed as opportunities for compromise. But overall, all evaluators need to view relationships with communities as a core part of the work. This can only start when we are willing to unlearn boundaries of evaluation as being objective and value-free, and instead place the heart of communities at the forefront. 

We must be ongoing learners, working through our equity journeys and meeting others where they are in theirs. Whether you are a person of color or not, working on those skills can help you improve your evaluation design as you are better able to: 1) incorporate the perspectives of multiple communities, including communities of color, in the consideration of designs, impacts, and outcomes of a decision-making process, 2) consider the impacts of the evaluation on multiple communities, including communities of color, 3) and rethink what types of technical analysis are most appropriate, and turning a critical lens to the assumptions and perspectives we bring to interpretation of data and ultimately the stories we tell in our work. 

We Want to Hear from You

The call for evaluators to be agents of change is everywhere.  We have seen this shift in the last three years in our own practice working with foundations and federal and local agencies. It is a good time to be doing this work, and it is difficult to do this work. We believe that evaluators can and should transform their evaluation practice to advance racial equity. We are inviting other practitioners to share their experiences and reflections, dilemmas, and insights so that others may benefit from them, be inspired, and get engaged. We want to hear from you. Send us a message with your thoughts, we would love to hear from you.  We believe in the power of our collective wisdom.