On 23rd June 2026, CECAN hosted its annual conference, under the theme ‘Global Perspectives on Complex Evaluation’. Bringing together policy practitioners, evaluators and academics, this year’s online event looked beyond the UK to examine how public policy evaluation is evolving internationally in an era of complexity, political shift and rapid global change.
Comprising a series of in-depth interviews followed by interactive Q&A sessions chaired by Dr Paul Brand, the day featured prominent voices from Europe and the US: Peter van der Knaap (Director of the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department [IOB] in the Netherlands and President of the European Evaluation Society [EES]), May Pettigrew (Recent Past President of EES), Professor Bianca Montrosse-Moorhead (University of Connecticut), and Associate Professor Aileen Reid (University of North Carolina at Greensboro). The conference concluded with synthesis and closing remarks from Professor Nigel Gilbert, Director of CECAN.
Key Themes and Insights
- Legislative Mandates and the Institutional Landscape
Speakers explored how institutional frameworks heavily dictate how evaluation is conducted:
- US Legislative Anchor: Discussions highlighted how the Evidence Act of 2018 institutionalised evaluation across US federal agencies by mandating ‘Chief Evaluation Officers’ and formal ‘Learning Agendas’.
- The European Context: Delegates examined how the EU’s Better Regulation Agenda embedded mandatory Impact Assessments into policy cycles, alongside the Netherlands’ 25-year history of mandatory evaluations of spending every 4 to 7 years under the ‘Polder Model’ of consensus building.
- Systemic Losses: The impact of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) closure in 2025, resulting in the loss of a key pioneer in ‘complexity-aware monitoring’, was noted.
- Evaluator Identity and Lived Experience
A central theme of the day was the rejection of ‘value neutrality’ in evaluation work:
- The 80/20 Rule: Discussions emphasised that evaluation is 80% interpersonal and only 20% technical – a human-centred practice where lived experience is essential for context.
- Identity as a Professional Tool: An evaluator’s visible and invisible identities (race, gender, faith, immigrant status) shape how data is interpreted. Speakers stressed that ‘numbers don’t speak for themselves’ and must be paired with the lived realities of impacted communities.
- Methodological Strategies and Tensions
Speakers debated the shift from linear models to systems thinking across regions:
- Beyond Experimentalism: While RCTs and the ‘what works’ frame retain a strong foothold (particularly in the US since 2001), speakers noted these narrow metrics often fail to capture system dynamics.
- Matching Tools to Questions: The speakers advocated for a dynamic ‘toolbox’ approach, distinguishing between Type 1 evaluations (focused on compliance / failing programmes) and Type 2 evaluations (supportive, learning-oriented approaches for complex environments).
- Unwritten Cultural Rules: Success often relies on understanding institutional micro-cultures – whether navigating the ‘hidden curriculum’ of US federal agencies or understanding the EU as an organisation where decisions are frequently brokered orally among key figures.
- Procurement, AI, and Future Challenges
The panels addressed systemic barriers facing modern evaluators:
- Bureaucratic Constraints: Rigid framework contracts often ‘suffocate’ innovation by reinforcing outdated, linear assumptions.
- The Dual Nature of AI: Discussions highlighted artificial intelligence as a major game-changer that requires strong ethical oversight to prevent automating existing inequities.
- The Politics of Learning: Evaluators must balance supportive learning with accountability, ensuring ‘learning evaluation’ terminology isn’t used by organisations to dodge performance scrutiny.
A Vision for the Future
In a period marked by political volatility and democratic backsliding, the conference delivered a resounding message: evaluators cannot remain passive observers. To address root causes of systemic inequity, evaluators must act as strategic partners equipped with courage, systemic methods, and an understanding of human context.
For those who missed the live conference or wish to revisit the sessions, recordings are available in the ‘Videos’ section of our website.
This post was drafted with support from AI tools for clarity and structure.