‘Activating Indigenous Ways’ – perceptions of how Australian Indigenous health and wellbeing program evaluations are commissioned and future recommendations

‘Activating Indigenous Ways’ – perceptions of how Australian Indigenous health and wellbeing program evaluations are commissioned and future recommendations

Indigenous peoples--Social conditions

Summer May Finlay, Amohia Boulton, Jenni Judd, Bronwyn Fredericks, Janaya Pender, James A. Smith, Helen Simpson, Yvette Roe, Sophie Kerrigan, Anna Temby, Margaret Cargo

International Journal for Equity in Health

Vol. 24

No. 303

2025

Springer Nature

Journal article

English

14759276

Australia

Open Access

Background In Australia, billions of dollars are spent on Indigenous programs, services, and initiatives annually; however, more evidence is needed regarding which modes of commissioning program evaluations best benefit Indigenous communities. The Australian Productivity Commission called for ‘more and better’ evaluations of Indigenous programs, and commissioning processes that engage Indigenous communities, organisations, and leaders. So, too, have Indigenous representative organisations, Indigenous services, and stakeholders. To date, few studies have sought to characterise the commissioning practices of government and non-government organisations surrounding Indigenous health and wellbeing programs. Fewer still have investigated the role of Indigenous engagement and leadership before, during and after the commissioning process. Methods Using Indigenous Standpoint Theory and a qualitative approach, this study illuminates the perceptions of Australian Indigenous and non-Indigenous commissioners, evaluators, and providers on the commissioning of evaluated Indigenous health and wellbeing programs. Results Building on a published scoping review by undertaking 23 qualitative interviews with 35 Australianbased participants about commissioning practices, this study verifies and canvases the strengths of individual commissioning models, and the interplay between power, cultural safety, and reciprocity in the commissioning space. The paper also considers the relationship between these three factors along a continuum of practice and posits a sliding scale across the five commissioning models. Conclusions To improve the quality of evaluations further attention needs to be paid to the commissioner’s cultural capability. Additionally, Commissioners need to develop their understanding of the relationship between Commissioner and Indigenous people’s power and the utility of evaluations.

Shaunda King