Guidelines for Good Practice & Framework of Capabilities in Evaluation

UK Evaluation Society

Introduction to Guidelines and Framework

There are many routes into evaluation, and many ways to build a career around it.

Some people identify as evaluators. For others, evaluation is part of a wider role, whether in monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL), research, analysis, commissioning, consultancy, programme management, policy, HR or another field.

That mix of backgrounds and perspectives is one of evaluation’s strengths. What connects people is not a particular job title, but a shared purpose: using evidence to understand what works, for whom, why and in what circumstances, and using that understanding to help make better decisions.

As evaluation grows in influence, the skills and expectations around it are evolving too. Developing your practice is not simply about gaining more technical knowledge. It is about learning throughout your career, reflecting on your work, exchanging ideas and experience with others, and keeping pace with changes in the field.

Wherever you are in your career, the UK Evaluation Society can help you take the next step. Through professional development, resources, communities and opportunities to connect with others, we support people to strengthen their practice and contribute to the future of evaluation.

Background and context to Guidelines and Framework

Two core documents (Framework of evaluation capabilities and Guidelines for good practice in evaluation) have been used by the UK Evaluation Society for many years as the basis of our professional approach to evaluation and the professional development of evaluators. The Guidelines describe expected conduct, the Framework describes individual capability. There was significant work to update them in 2018-2021 including consultation with members and stakeholders, and it is those updates on which the 2026 versions build.

Evaluation is becoming more visible, more influential and more important across every sector. In recognition of this, the documents are not set in stone, they will continue to evolve and UKES will continue to take account of feedback, and update on a regular basis going forward, when required.

The framework and guidelines will steer the UKES Centre for Professional Evaluation as they generally provide a coherent and comprehensive approach to both personal development of people who work in or with evaluation, and the multiple dimensions of the evaluation process. Training that delivers against these two will support better evaluation, which is at the core of UKES’ charitable purpose.

Alongside the framework and guidelines, we will introduce additional resources, which may include support for the different roles involved in evaluation (programme leads, evaluators, commissioners, decisionmakers), learning outcomes for non-evaluators, training pathways suitable for different roles and career guidance for early career evaluators. We encourage suggestions as to what could be most helpful to anyone looking to develop their involvement with evaluation. These resources are all intended to support, and not restrict, evaluation and a professional approach to doing it at the best level within the limited resources that most people are working.

UK Evaluation Society

Guidelines for Good Practice in Evaluation

The UK Evaluation Society Guidelines for Good Practice in Evaluation were first published in 2003, at a time when evaluation societies internationally were giving increasing attention to standards and guiding principles as a way of supporting professionalism and the professionalisation of evaluation.

An important early influence was the work of the American and Canadian Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation and, in particular, its Program Evaluation Standards, published in 1994. A number of evaluation societies subsequently developed their own standards and guidance, with several adapting the Joint Committee’s approach.

The UK Evaluation Society Working Group on Ethics took a different route. As a relatively new Society, inaugurated in 1994, Council decided that establishing formal standards was not appropriate at that stage. Instead, it looked towards the approach taken by the American Evaluation Association, which developed its Guiding Principles for Evaluators in 1994 and has revised them several times since.

The Working Group on Ethics examined the existing sets of guidelines and standards and decided that, rather than adapting those developed in other countries, the UK Evaluation Society should develop its own. These were grounded in democratic values and principles while placing greater emphasis on practical guidance that could be applied in evaluation practice. Hence the title, Guidelines for Good Practice in Evaluation.

The Guidelines were revised in 2018 following extensive discussion and consultation with members, including through a survey, conversations at the UK Evaluation Society Annual Conference, input from Council members and the work of a small working group.

The Guidelines were reviewed and updated again in 2026, led by the UK Evaluation Society’s Centre for Professional Evaluation Committee. This latest review reflects developments in evaluation practice and the changing context in which evaluators work. It also forms part of the Society’s wider commitment to supporting professional development, strengthening evaluative practice and providing practical guidance that remains relevant to the evaluation community.

This document presents Guidelines developed by the UK Evaluation Society on the commitments and actions required from different groups involved in evaluation to ensure high-quality evaluation. The Guidelines are distilled from the practical experience of evaluators across a range of sectors and approaches. They are underpinned by three core principles: (1) evaluators should treat people fairly and with dignity; (2) evaluators hold responsibility for how findings are used and whether they help or harm people; and (3) evaluation has a wider democratic purpose, supporting openness, accountability, and public debate rather than serving only commissioners’ interests.

The first edition of the document was published in 2003. The Guidelines were substantially revised in 2018 through a consultative process with members of the UK Evaluation Society, assisted by a small working group. In the 2018 revision, more attention was given to equity and diversity issues and to the evolution of new approaches to evaluation.

Since the 2018 revision, the evaluation landscape has continued to evolve. Three developments are particularly significant for these Guidelines:

The maturation of the UK data protection framework following the UK's departure from the European Union, the establishment of the UK GDPR alongside the Data Protection Act 2018, and the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
The widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools in research and evaluation practice, raising new questions about transparency, accountability, data protection, and human judgement.
The continued growth of social media, platform and other digital data sources, alongside firmer regulatory expectations including those introduced by the Online Safety Act 2023.

These Guidelines now address each of these in the sections that follow. Detailed guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in evaluation is provided in a separate companion UK Evaluation Society document, which should be read alongside these Guidelines.

The Guidelines are:

written for evaluation practitioners, commissioners, participants (those who have provided data and/or been involved in the conduct of the evaluation) and institutions conducting self-evaluation, with the aim of supporting each of the four groups and encouraging dialogue between them to achieve good practice in evaluation. Underpinning this aim is the assumption that evaluation is a social, political and ethical practice, and that responsibility for quality evaluation lies with all those involved in the commissioning and conduct of evaluation.
organised in sections addressing the four groups to highlight the distinctive role and responsibilities each has for ensuring relevant, credible and useful evaluation. They also act as a checklist for planning an evaluation and/or resolving problematic issues encountered in the field.
designed to span the entire spectrum of the evaluation process with the statements in each section falling into the three areas of principles, planning and conduct, and reporting, communicating and use.
intended for use by the novice and the experienced alike, with each statement offering a starting place for deliberation and a reference point for evaluation intentions, ethics and practice. The points raised in each section are not ranked as their importance will depend upon the specific evaluation context. At their heart is the need to be open and transparent about the expectations and requirements of all stakeholders in the evaluation.
available for members and non-members in keeping with the Society's commitment to open access. They are accessible online and can be printed.

These Guidelines:

do not replace but complement organisational standards of governance.
do not constitute a specific ethics code as ethics inform all its statements. Note that ethics codes for evaluation and sets of principles and codes generated by other organisations are listed at the end of this document.
are separate but complementary to the UK Evaluation Society Framework of Evaluation Capabilities. The two documents answer different questions. The Guidelines set out the conduct expected of each party to an evaluation and function as a checklist for planning and conducting one. The Framework sets out what an individual needs to be able to do, and functions as a reflective tool for professional development. Where the same ground appears in both, most obviously on commissioning, the Guidelines describe what should happen and the Framework describes the capability required to make it happen. Both documents represent steps to promote a culture of professionalisation and good practice in evaluation, and together with the work of the UK Evaluation Society’s Centre for Professional Evaluation form the core of the Society's offer to support professional practice.
are not definitive and will continue to evolve; thus they should be considered as work-in-progress. The Society anticipates a substantive review of these Guidelines approximately every five to seven years, with companion guidance (such as that on AI in evaluation) reviewed on a more frequent cycle.

The Society welcomes comments on the use of the Guidelines in practice, please get in touch.
The Society gratefully acknowledges the work of the original working group, including Helen Simons and Georgie Parry-Crooke, whose contribution to earlier editions continues to shape this document. These Guidelines are for use in the commissioning, conduct and reporting of evaluation, as well as in evaluation training and professional development.

Clarity: Evaluations should be designed, conducted and reported with a clear purpose that is transparent to all who are part of the evaluation.
Integrity: The practice of evaluation should demonstrate responsibility to participants according to agreed ethical principles and assure the veracity and validity of the findings, and to populations who are most likely to be affected by the evaluation findings.
Independence: Evaluations should be independent of vested interests and power differences.
Accessibility: Findings of evaluations should be available in the public domain and communicable to agreed audiences.
Trust: No evaluation can effectively proceed without trust, which needs to be developed and nurtured through agreed ethical procedures for conduct and reporting that are fair and just to all.
Equity: The conduct of evaluation should respect the perspectives and human dignity of all participants and stakeholders, irrespective of their position in professional contexts or social structures, and should be alert to the power dynamics that shape whose perspectives are heard and how.
Transparency: The principles underlying an evaluation, its approach, ethical practices, limitations and uses should be made explicit to all stakeholders. This includes transparency about the use of artificial intelligence or algorithmic tools in any aspect of the evaluation, the data sources drawn upon, and the role of human judgement in the conclusions reached.
Diversity: Evaluation should respect cultural, gender and age differences and strive to include all relevant standpoints, including those of the traditionally disenfranchised and marginalised.

Evaluators need to acknowledge the principles in evaluation by:

• adopting a code of ethics that is inclusive of all legitimate interests in the evaluation and treats all stakeholders equally and fairly in the evaluation process, reporting and use

• demonstrating commitment to the integrity of the process of evaluation and its purpose to increase learning in the public domain

• making every attempt to minimise harmful effects that may prejudice the status, position, careers or lives of participants

• ensuring the design of the evaluation has paid due attention to equity and diversity

• reflecting on how their own positionality, assumptions and lived experience may shape the evaluation, and taking reasonable steps to mitigate bias through peer challenge, diverse team composition, or external review

• making sure the evaluation team has the capacity and appropriate skills and experience necessary to deliver high quality evaluation

• being mindful that evaluation often has unanticipated effects and consequences

• ensuring the evaluation design and conduct are transparent and fit for purpose and the methodology and procedures are accessible to all relevant stakeholders

• being transparent with commissioners and participants about any use of artificial intelligence or algorithmic tools in the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of the evaluation, and remaining accountable for the judgements reached

• considering the environmental impact of the evaluation approach, including travel, data storage and computational intensity, and taking proportionate steps to minimise this where consistent with evaluation quality

• stipulating that the evaluation is independent of the vested interests of all stakeholders, commissioners and participants, while responsive to issues each might raise relevant to the evaluation, with any potential or perceived conflicts of interest declared and reflected upon in the analysis

• being prepared to argue the case for the public 'right to know' in evaluation

• knowing when to refuse or terminate an evaluation contract because it is undoable, self-serving, or threatens to undermine the independence and integrity of the process and outcomes

• negotiating contractual agreement over copyright of evaluation methodology, findings, report and publication.

In the planning and conduct of evaluation, evaluators need to demonstrate that they:

• are realistic about what is a feasible, robust methodology to adopt within the time-scale and budget agreed

• conduct detailed planning at the outset of the evaluation

• remain open to revisiting the approach and methodology if changes in policy or field circumstances necessitate

• work within the UK data protection framework and/or any other data protection legislation relevant to the region in which the evalution is taking place (for example, the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 as amended, and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025), or EU GDPR where the evaluation processes personal data of EU residents, to ensure the lawful, fair and secure processing and storage of data

• where using social media, platform, web-scraped or other digital data sources, apply the same ethical standards that would govern primary data collection, including consideration of user expectations, platform terms of service, re-identification risk, and the provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023 where relevant

• where AI tools are used for transcription, coding, synthesis, drafting or analysis, verify outputs against source material, document the tools used and their role, consider implications for data protection and confidentiality, and avoid uploading identifiable or sensitive data to tools without appropriate safeguards (see the UK Evaluation Society companion guidance on AI in Evaluation for further detail)

• acknowledge the intellectual property and work of others

• build outcomes of preliminary discussions with commissioners into the contract yet remain responsive to shifts in purpose and funding

• agree with commissioners a process for managing complaints raised by participants/stakeholders while maintaining confidentiality

• maintain dialogue with commissioners informing them of progress and any changes required to the design and delivery of the evaluation

• follow quality assurance procedures as agreed in the evaluation contract

• consider the usefulness of building external support into the contract (e.g. advisory group or consultant) and/or conditions for quality assurance or arbitration if conflicts cannot be resolved

• include different stakeholder perspectives which, though equally relevant, may be in conflict

• ensure the perspectives of the populations who are directly affected by the evaluation including in particular those less frequently heard are included, by making all methods as accessible as possible.

In reporting, communicating and use, evaluators need to show that they have:

• agreed a communications policy with commissioners in advance which indicates how the findings will be communicated and the resources required

• assured public access of the evaluation and made every attempt to clear potentially difficult data for public release with those concerned in the context in which it is to be reported

• ensured that evaluation conclusions and implications can be traced to the evidence

• disclosed, in evaluation reports and to commissioners, any material use of AI tools in the analysis or drafting of findings, in a manner proportionate to the role AI played in the conclusions reached

• written and communicated evaluation findings in ways that are useful to all stakeholders by using accessible language, graphics and/or visual presentations

• paid due attention to privacy concerns while at the same time making evaluation knowledge public.

To ensure the principles are embedded in the evaluation, it would be helpful if commissioners:

• are aware of the principles and guidelines that should govern ethical evaluation

• ensure that these are adhered to in appropriate evaluation questions, methodology and budgeting

• maintain adherence to these principles in the contract and see that they are followed in the conduct and reporting of the evaluation

• have realistic expectations of what an evaluation can and cannot provide and agree these with evaluators

• hold preliminary consultations with all parties to the evaluation to develop a relevant, realistic and viable specification

• design tenders that consider environmental sustainability of the evaluation approach alongside cultural responsiveness, equity and diversity

• specify in tender documents their expectations regarding the use of artificial intelligence tools in the evaluation, including any constraints on data processing, disclosure requirements, and expectations for human oversight of AI-assisted outputs

• operate a tendering procedure that is open and fair and make explicit the criteria upon which a tender decision will be made

• ensure that the tendering process does not exploit competitors' ideas or their intellectual property rights

• take into account the advice of evaluators on appropriate fit-for-purpose methods for collecting and analysing data and reaching evaluative judgements

• acknowledge the benefits of external, independent evaluation and ensure that evaluators are free to undertake their work as agreed in the contract without any constraints

• are open to receiving findings that are unexpected

• recognise that negative findings provide opportunities for learning and potential future policy or programme development

• recognise and accept where evaluators need to keep their sources of information anonymous.

During the planning and conduct of evaluation, commissioners should:

• be well versed in the contextual and sometimes conflicting realities of the policies and programmes in action before commissioning an evaluation

• be aware of new and emerging methodologies and the increasing complexity of the contexts in which evaluations have to be conducted

• include experienced evaluators (who are not potential applicants for funding) in initial drafts of evaluation specifications, to inform feasible budgeting and realistic timescales

• specify the context, purpose and audience(s) for the evaluation to encourage relevant tenders

• develop clear and realistic Terms of Reference for the evaluation tender

• include stakeholders in the identification of the core focus and questions an evaluation tender seeks to answer

• ensure sufficient time for evaluators to respond to an initial invitation to tender and produce a proposal

• be open to the inclusion of new methods beyond those specified in the brief where these will better realise the aims of the evaluation

• clarify the constraints they operate under, e.g. timescales, budgets, and deadlines

• provide access to all relevant documentation and data required for the purpose of the evaluation, including administrative data, digital platform data, and any AI or algorithmic systems relevant to the programme being evaluated, subject to appropriate data protection and confidentiality provisions

• adhere to the contract and consult with evaluators and other interest groups if significant changes are required to the design of the evaluation

• communicate openly and keep the evaluation team informed of changes in circumstances or policy affecting the delivery of the evaluation.

In practice, in reporting, communicating and use, commissioners need to consider:

• establishing clear principles for the reporting and communication of evaluations, the resources required and whose role this is, i.e. the commissioners' or evaluators'

• discussing with evaluators, early in the evaluation process, how they wish to receive the findings of the evaluation

• establishing with evaluators the specific criteria for quality work and reporting

• being open to alternative ways of reporting and dissemination that will ensure wide impact and take-up of findings

• respecting the independence of the evaluation by ensuring that it is widely available to all stakeholders and the public

• upholding the independence of the planning and conduct of the evaluation, e.g. not censoring any content of the evaluation or prohibiting its public access

• providing timely and realistic responses to evaluation findings and acting upon them

• preserving the integrity of the findings, e.g. by not quoting or publicising findings out of context.

To ensure the principles are adhered to in institutional self-evaluation, participants need to:

• treat all colleagues equally in the process of the evaluation and communication of findings

• ensure the agreement and understanding of all members of the institution before starting the evaluation

• establish methods training for the team conducting the evaluation and ethics training for all staff

• make the purposes, aims, and objectives of the evaluation clear to all members of the institution

• ensure that the process is built into the structure and function of the institution

• make sure all perspectives are included in data collection and analysis

• where AI or algorithmic tools are used in gathering, analysing or interpreting evidence — including staff surveys, performance data or service user feedback — be transparent about their use, consider implications for fairness across different groups, and retain human judgement over the conclusions reached

• demonstrate consistency and predictability of behaviour in the conduct and negotiation of the evaluation

• have the backing and support of the head of the institution, including financial support, where needed, for meetings, networking, communication and publication

• check that all staff know how the process of evaluation will be conducted and how the findings will be used

• involve and co-develop the evaluation with participants throughout the process

• seek out procedures other organisations may have used to guarantee the quality of the self-evaluation, and/or generate any which may be specific to the institution.

During the planning and conduct of institutional self-evaluation, participants need to:

• institute a professional development programme within the institution to help staff develop and build on their capabilities for evaluation

• take steps to ensure that all members of the institution believe the evaluation is worth doing and that, with a clear set of procedures, it has both an internal and external accountability function

• ensure that all involved in the evaluation (whether as data givers, collectors or users) are engaged at some level from the start so they know what is happening and why

• adopt methods that are feasible to use in the time-scales and operations of the institution

• indicate that the process is methodologically sound and one from which valid implications can be drawn

• seek advice and/or consider adopting a critical friend to conduct a process audit of the methodological rigour and fairness with which the evaluation is conducted

• consider any risks that the institution may encounter in the conduct and reporting of the evaluation.

In practice, in reporting, communicating and use, participants in an institutional self-evaluation need to:

• assure members of the institution that the findings from the evaluation are fed back into development as well as providing a measure of accountability

• have a clear set of procedures for the appropriate sharing of data within and beyond the institution

• assure members that data collected for self-evaluation will not be used for any other purpose without their consent

• acknowledge and take steps to reduce any anxiety about the sharing of knowledge within the institution, as this is often more threatening than sharing knowledge with those outside the institution

• recognise and agree when it is important to make data public and when, to encourage development within the institution, it may be necessary to only share the process, not detailed substantive issues

• communicate honestly with colleagues, consistent with maintaining fair and equitable ethical procedures

• communicate in accessible language and engage colleagues in discussion on the usefulness of the evidence and findings.

(who have given data and/or are involved in the conduct of the evaluation)

All participants in an evaluation need to know that the principles will be adhered to by:

receiving full information of what participation in the evaluation will mean for them and the relevant data protection processes and rules that will guide the evaluation before seeking consent
being assured that data will not be gathered or used without fully informed consent and that this may need to be revisited through the evaluation, e.g. rolling or process consent
being fully informed about the purpose of the evaluation and the procedures for collection and use of data (including explicit use of interview transcripts, observations and image-based data)
being informed where artificial intelligence tools will be used to process data they provide — including for transcription, translation, coding or analysis — and what this means for confidentiality, accuracy and re-identification risk
being informed where data about them may be drawn from social media, platforms or other digital sources, and having opportunity to discuss the implications
establishing clear procedures for the access to and release of data (anonymising identifiable individuals where necessary, but where this is not possible, clearing data with them before public release)
informing them that the processing of data they offer complies with the UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 as amended, and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, and that any data made public is on the grounds of fairness, accuracy and relevance
having the opportunity to comment on how they are represented in the evaluation to see that this is fair and accurate
being assured that, in the event of a dispute or difficulties between evaluation participants and evaluators, they will have access to independent arbitration
knowing that evaluators have taken all reasonable measures to check that the data are valid

During the planning and conduct of evaluation, participants will have the opportunity to:

be engaged in the process of designing, collecting and analysing data if appropriate, as in participatory and co-produced evaluation, and with methods accessible to them
discuss the basis of and reason for their participation and ask what feedback they will receive
discuss with evaluators innovative ways of gathering and reporting data about them
receive training in methods where they are involved in data collection, analysis and reporting
be assured that every effort will be made to represent all their perspectives in the evaluation
renew informed consent once more understanding of what the evaluation involves becomes apparent
have access to the evaluation team for purposes of feedback, reporting and ongoing support for the duration of the evaluation.
In practice, in relation to reporting, communicating and use, participants will:
have opportunities to comment on the fairness and accuracy with which data they provided has been reported
be consulted about the form of reporting and its consistency with their data
know that evaluators will be open to receiving ideas from them about how best to report and communicate findings, including, for example, through digital and social media channels
be assured that any data they have asked to be kept confidential has been honoured, providing this was not already public knowledge
be informed that final reports will normally be in the public domain and available to all participants. If there are sound reasons for any exemption from this policy, this and the reasons for it will be recorded.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of complementary resources. Readers are encouraged to consult the most current versions, as documents and their titles may change over time.

UK Evaluation Society companion resources

UK Evaluation Society Guidance on AI in Evaluation and associated resources

UK Evaluation Society Framework of Evaluation Capabilities and associated resources

UK Evaluation Society Centre for Professional Evaluation training resources (forthcoming)

Evaluation ethics codes and principles

Academy of Social Sciences: Generic Ethics Principles in Social Science Research

American Evaluation Association (AEA): Guiding Principles for Evaluators

Australasian Evaluation Society (AES): Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Evaluations, and Code of Ethics

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO, formerly DFID): Ethics principles for research and evaluation

International Development Evaluation Association (IDEAS): Code of Ethics

United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG): Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation

Research ethics and social media

British Psychological Society: Code of Ethics and Conduct, and supplementary guidance on the use of social media

Social Research Association: Ethical Guidelines

Data protection and AI

Information Commissioner's Office: Guidance on AI and data protection

Information Commissioner's Office: Guide to the UK GDPR

UK Statistics Authority: Guidance on the ethical use of data and AI in statistics and research

Central Digital and Data Office: Guidance on AI use in the public sector.

UK Evaluation Society

Framework of Evaluation Capabilities

The major purpose of the UK Evaluation Society’s Framework of Evaluation Capabilities is the professional development of evaluators through reflective practice of their knowledge, skills and ability to conduct evaluation.

By focusing on the capabilities evaluators need to demonstrate, the Framework advances evaluation as a social, political and ethical practice. Evaluators may use the capabilities in different ways: to assess where they stand in relation to all capabilities; to explore one or two in depth through a peer review process; to consider what gaps there may be in their evaluation knowledge or skills and what professional development or training they may need to improve their practice.

Capabilities constitute the knowledge, skills, and qualities evaluators need to conduct valid, credible evaluation and provide a basis for reflection on their professional practice.

This document is the 2026 revision of the UK Evaluation Society’s Framework of Evaluation Capabilities. The original Framework was published in 2013 and last revised in 2021. This revision, like those which preceded it, builds on the Society’s Guidelines for Good Practice in Evaluation and is underpinned by the same democratic principles and values: clarity, integrity, equity, diversity, accessibility, independence, trust, transparency.

The five years since the 2021 revision have seen significant change in the landscape of evaluation practice. The rapid emergence of generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted tools has fundamentally altered what evaluators need to know, and what they can do. The data governance environment has been updated, with the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 joining UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 as the legislative framework within which UK evaluators operate. Equity and positionality have moved from the margins to the mainstream of evaluation discourse. Communication practice has evolved, with data visualisation, interactive reporting, and accessible digital outputs becoming expected professional competencies.

The 2026 revision responds directly to these developments. It does not dismantle the existing Framework; rather, it updates it to ensure evaluators have the capabilities they need to work with integrity and confidence in the environment they actually face. New capability statements are introduced where genuine gaps exist, and existing statements are revised where their framing has become dated. Statements that remain fully current are carried forward unchanged.

This revision also provides an important foundation for the UK Evaluation Society’s Centre for Professional Evaluation and its developing training programme, including the forthcoming AI in Evaluation course. The Framework is the professional reference point against which training pathways and capability development should be organised and communicated.

In the last two decades, competency frameworks for evaluation have been advanced by an increasing number of professional evaluation societies. Foremost in this movement has been the Canadian Evaluation Society (CES), which developed a set of competencies in 2008–2009 for the purpose of professional designation. The German Evaluation Society DeGEval generated a framework of competencies in 2004 to guide the design of evaluation training programmes. The European Evaluation Society (EES) in 2013 produced a framework of competencies, using the terminology ‘capabilities’, following a survey conducted in 2011 that validated its structure and content.

More recently, AEA (2018), SAMEA, ANZEA, and AES have generated frameworks, as have other organisations with responsibilities for evaluation including the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). A clear zeitgeist of competency generation has taken hold in the professional evaluation community, and the frameworks produced have increasingly reflected not only technical practice but the ethical, social and political dimensions of evaluation work.

The UK Evaluation Society’s Framework sits within this tradition. It has consistently emphasised capabilities in the broadest sense — encompassing knowledge, practice skills, and the personal qualities and dispositions that enable evaluators to function with integrity in complex and contested environments. This 2026 revision maintains that orientation while updating the Framework’s content for a changed landscape.

2026 RevisionThe Framework was last revised in 2021; the 2026 revision responds to significant developments in evaluation practice, technology, and the policy environment since that date. The architectural integrity of the 2021 Framework — its three-domain structure, its principles-based orientation, and its commitment to evaluation as a social, political and ethical practice — has been retained in full.

Changes are concentrated in these areas:

the addition of new capability statements addressing the commissioning and preparation for evaluation
new statements addressing artificial intelligence and data governance
revisions to existing statements to reflect developments in equity, positionality, and digital communication practice;

Explanations for the new and revised statements can be read below, and the document is intentionally aligned with the refresh of the UKES Guidelines for Good Practice in Evaluation.

Artificial Intelligence and Digital Tools
No development since 2021 has more significantly altered the practice environment for evaluators than the emergence of generative AI and large language model tools. Evaluators are now routinely encountering AI tools in their data collection, analysis, synthesis, and reporting work — whether they choose to use them or not, and whether or not the evaluations they are conducting have any explicit AI focus.

The 2021 Framework contains no capability statement directly addressing AI or algorithmic tools. This is now a significant gap. The 2026 revision adds a dedicated capability (1.27) addressing the critical assessment of AI and automated tools in evaluation, and updates the extended statements for data methods capabilities (1.22, 2.15–2.17) to reflect the expanded methodological landscape. This is consistent with UKES’s more focused guidance on AI in Evaluation and provides the capability foundation for the AI in Evaluation training course that is offered by the Centre for Professional Evaluation.

Data Governance
The legislative framework governing data in the UK has evolved since 2021. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduced new provisions relevant to data sharing, automated decision-making, and the use of data for research and public interest purposes. Evaluators working with personal or sensitive data — which is most evaluators, most of the time — need to understand this framework and their responsibilities within it.

The 2021 Framework has no explicit capability statement on data governance or data protection. The 2026 revision adds a new capability (2.29) to address this gap, consistent with the data governance updates being made to the UKES Guidelines for Good Practice in Evaluation.

Equity and Positionality
Since 2021, equity (as distinct from equality), positionality, and power dynamics have become considerably more prominent in UK evaluation discourse and practice. Government evaluation guidance, evaluation society frameworks internationally, and leading evaluation practitioners have all increasingly foregrounded the evaluator’s own position and the ways in which it shapes the evaluation process and findings.

The 2021 Framework’s statement on equality, diversity and inclusion (2.25) reflects an earlier framing that does not fully capture this shift. The 2026 revision updates this statement to include explicit reference to positionality and power dynamics.

Digital Communication
The communication competencies required of evaluators have expanded significantly. Data visualisation, interactive and digital reporting, and accessible format design are now expected components of professional evaluation practice. The existing statement (3.1) refers to ‘appropriate language, style and media’ but does not reflect the specificity of current expectations. The extended statement for this capability is updated accordingly.

Professional Development in a Rapidly Changing Field
The pace of change in evaluation practice — methodological, technological, and regulatory — makes continuous and critical engagement with professional development more important than ever. The existing statement on professional development (3.7) is updated to reflect this, emphasising the need to keep pace with emerging methods, tools and technologies as an active professional responsibility.

Commissioning and evaluation preparation
A new sub-group of eight statements have been added at the head of the Professional Practice domain, covering the ground between the decision to evaluate and the start of evaluation design. Each statement is written to read equally well from either side of the commissioning relationship - the commissioner drafting the terms of reference or the evaluator responding to them.

Capability statements within this Framework have the following features:

They are generic. The capability is the same, though how it is demonstrated or applied may differ.
They are applicable to different social and political contexts, local, national, and international.
They are not restricted to any particular methodology or evaluation approach and can be adapted to new forms of evaluation and changing areas of practice, including digital and AI-assisted approaches.
They are designed to be educative, to promote understanding of the capabilities required to conduct quality evaluation and build a culture of evaluation.

Further factors to note:

The capability statements are not intended to be a comprehensive list that could lead to designation or accreditation. (This purpose has been raised in discussion but the Society has not taken this step or has the resources to institute such a system.)
Instead the statements offer scope for evaluators to decide which capabilities they need to strengthen.
It is not expected that individual evaluators will be fully competent in all areas, but should they wish to add to their skills and practice, through self-assessment they can develop their own professional development action plan.
It is not expected that an individual evaluator will be able to meet all capabilities necessary for any evaluation; at times a team approach will be needed from several evaluators with different capabilities to deliver quality evaluation.
The Framework may also be used by evaluators new to the field to identify gaps in their knowledge where training would be appropriate.
There are inevitable overlaps between some statements, as capabilities in different sections interact in practice.

The UK Evaluation Society Framework of Evaluation Capabilities has been designed for individual evaluators to reflect upon their evaluation practice and pursue professional development where they consider their skills, knowledge or dispositions require strengthening. While intended for individual evaluators, the generic nature of the capabilities means that they can be adopted for purposes in other contexts.

Commissioners of evaluation can reflect on the capabilities they require in an evaluation contract to deliver a quality evaluation and whether these can be met by one person, a team or a partnership between institutions. This is particularly relevant in the context of AI-assisted and data-intensive evaluation, where commissioners may need to understand what capabilities are required to quality-assure novel methodological approaches. Commissioners themselves should give particular attention to a new sub-group of eight statements added at the head of the Professional Practice domain, covering the ground between the decision to evaluate and the start of evaluation design. Each statement is written to read equally well from either side of the commissioning relationship - the commissioner drafting the terms of reference or the evaluator responding to them.

Organisations and evaluation societies can consider building a training programme around capabilities to provide a basis for new evaluators or advanced training for mid-career professional evaluators. The Capabilities Framework can further act as a quality assurance process for participants, managers and stakeholders. For the UK Evaluation Society, our Centre for Professional Evaluation will use as our core training frameworks the capabilities framework alongside our AI guidelines and our general guidelines for good practice in evaluation. Taken together, we think they provide the most comprehensive articulation of what makes an effective evaluator and an effective evaluation.

In parallel with other evaluation competency frameworks, the generic competencies listed in the UK Evaluation Society’s Framework of Evaluation Capabilities fall into three main domains:

Evaluation Knowledge: The knowledge base of philosophy and method evaluation brings from the social sciences, disciplines, and professions, and the specific knowledge generated within the field of evaluation. This includes knowledge of evaluation theories, methodologies and their political implications; of evaluation designs, purposes and approaches; of the social and political role evaluation plays in society; and of the technological and data landscape within which contemporary evaluation takes place.

Professional Practice: The capabilities evaluators need to ensure not only that they can conduct a credible, valid evaluation but that they also have the interpersonal, technical, and political skills to manage the process, including if they are commissioning evaluation. These include the ability to work with digital and AI-assisted tools in a principled and critical manner; to navigate complex data governance responsibilities; and to manage the social and political dimensions of evaluation effectively.

Qualities and Dispositions: The personal characteristics that enable evaluators to function in challenging circumstances — to manage conflict, maintain an impartial and independent stance, manage complexity, tolerate ambiguity, and engage in continuous learning in a field that is evolving rapidly.

1.1 Understands the role of evaluation in society
1.11 Identifies the reasons and purpose for which evaluation evolved as a distinct form of inquiry
1.12 Distinguishes the linkages and differences between evaluation and research
1.13 Identifies the political implications of different evaluation theories and their use
1.14 Explores how evaluative thinking influences evaluation practice
1.15 Determines how different policy contexts may influence the design and conduct of evaluation
1.16 Understands the cultural and historical context of the evaluation and its role in driving social change

1.2 Familiarity with evaluation approaches and methodologies
1.20 Understands different types of evaluation and their purpose (formative/summative, developmental/theory based, principle focussed)
1.21 Selects evaluation theories and approaches appropriate for the evaluation task, including participatory approaches
1.22 Assesses advantages and potential constraints of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, including digital and data-intensive approaches
1.22a Assesses the suitability of digital data sources, administrative data, online and social media data, and AI-assisted analysis tools for specific evaluation tasks

1.23 Distinguishes different uses of monitoring systems and their role(s) in evaluation

1.24 Understands different ways of identifying and attributing impact in evaluation

1.25 Identifies how concepts of validity and reliability differ according to method and purpose of the evaluation

1.26 Determines when evaluation requires approaches that can encapsulate and analyse complexity, including systems-level and developmental evaluation

1.27 Critically assesses the use of AI, algorithmic, and automated tools in evaluation, including their implications for validity, bias, transparency, and ethical responsibility

1.28 Considers the different use cases of evaluation and appropriateness of different outputs to ensure maximum utility (e.g., events, communities of practice, presentations, briefings, infographics, slide decks, posters or a report)

2.0 Establishes the foundations for evaluation

2.01 Establishes the purpose, scope and intended use of an evaluation, together with those who will use it, before intervention design begins

2.02 Assesses evaluability and proportionality, including whether the evaluation questions, budget, timeframe and available data are realistically matched

2.03 Develops, or critically appraises, terms of reference that can be answered within the time and resources available

2.04 Communicates evaluative concepts clearly to the non-evaluators involved in commissioning — programme leads, procurement staff and decision-makers — so that expectations are realistic from the outset

2.05 Initiates and fosters honest dialogue between commissioner and evaluator about constraints and trade-offs before commitments are made

2.06 Assesses whether the capabilities offered for an evaluation match those the task requires

2.07 Establishes governance, comment and publication arrangements that protect the independence of the evaluation's findings while providing for the commissioner's management response.

2.08 Works effectively within institutional procurement policies and processes, understanding the flexibility they genuinely allow and recognising how contracting choices allocate risk and shape what an evaluation can deliver

2.1 Demonstrates ability to conduct and/or measure evaluations

2.11 Constructs an evaluation design appropriate to the evaluation task

2.12 Identifies critical elements in the social and political context

2.13 Develops the programme logic and/or theory of change

2.14 Generates relevant evaluation questions

2.15 Selects data gathering instruments appropriate to the task, including consideration of digital and AI-assisted tools where relevant

2.16 Collects data that are relevant and credible for purpose and audience, applying appropriate data governance standards

2.17 Conducts robust data analysis appropriate to the design, with critical awareness of the use and limitations of automated and AI-assisted analysis

2.18 Interprets data and findings in context and validates findings

2.19 Applies UKES principles and guidelines to ground professional evaluation practice, including the updated Guidelines for Good Practice in Evaluation

2.20 Reports fairly and justly in the public interest

2.2 Demonstrates interpersonal skills

2.21 Engages effectively with evaluation stakeholders

2.22 Shows ethical sensitivity to the cultural norms and socio-political context of the evaluation

2.23 Adapts to changing circumstances in a principled manner

2.24 Uses effective negotiating skills which respect different views

2.25 Demonstrates awareness of cultural context, positionality, and power dynamics, reflecting a commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion in evaluation design and practice

2.26 Acts impartially when conducting and reporting evaluation

2.27 Manages conflicts of interests and values fairly

2.28 Facilitates dissemination of evaluation findings in engaging, appropriate and useful ways

2.29 Demonstrates understanding of data governance responsibilities, including relevant data protection legislation (UK GDPR, DPA 2018, Data (Use and Access) Act 2025), consent, data security, and the ethical handling of personal and sensitive data

2.30 Draws on leadership and influencing skills where appropriate

3.1 Communicates clearly in oral and written form using appropriate language, style and media, including data visualisation, digital, and accessible formats

3.2 Exercises trustworthy and fair judgment, approaching questions and issues with curiosity and sensitivity

3.3 Shows ability to cope with ambiguity, uncertainty and unforeseen circumstances, including those arising from rapid technological change

3.4 Demonstrates how relationships with stakeholders contribute to validity of the evaluation

3.5 Maintains the independence and integrity of the evaluation, particularly when challenged

3.6 Upholds democratic values in designing, conducting and reporting evaluation

3.7 Engages critically and continuously in professional development, including keeping pace with emerging methods, tools and technologies relevant to evaluation practice

3.8 Contributes to the professional evaluation community

3.9 Promotes the value and culture of evaluation in the wider community

Acknowledgement
The UK Evaluation Society would like to thank everyone who contributed their time, expertise and perspectives to the development and review of the guidelines and framework. We are grateful for the thoughtful input from colleagues across the evaluation community, which has helped ensure the guidance is practical, relevant and grounded in evaluation practice.

Disclaimer
These guidelines are intended to support good practice and professional judgement in evaluation. They provide guidance rather than prescriptive rules and should be applied with consideration for the specific context, purpose and circumstances of each evaluation.

The guidance does not replace relevant legal, regulatory, ethical or organisational requirements, or the need to seek appropriate specialist advice where necessary. The UK Evaluation Society has taken reasonable care to ensure the guidance is accurate and useful at the time of publication. However, practice, technology and regulation continue to evolve, and users are responsible for considering the most current and relevant requirements when applying the guidance.

Who we are

The Centre for Professional Evaluation is part of the UK Evaluation Society, which has supported evaluators for more than 30 years.

Get in touch

learning@evaluation.org.uk
Customer service Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm
Main website

Connect with us

Created with

Guidelines for Good Practice & Framework of Capabilities in Evaluation

Introduction to Guidelines and Framework

Background and context to Guidelines and Framework

Guidelines for Good Practice in Evaluation

History of the Guidelines for Good Practice in Evaluation

Introduction

Principles

Guidelines for evaluators

Guidelines for commissioners

Guidelines for Institutional Self-evaluation

Guidelines for Evaluation Participants

Guidelines for Evaluation Participants

Framework of Evaluation Capabilities

Introduction

Background

2026 Revision & Rationale

Specific Capabilities

Target Audience

Scope of the framework

Framework of Capability Statements

1 EVALUATION KNOWLEDGE

2 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

3 QUALITIES AND DISPOSITIONS

Who we are

Featured links

Get in touch

Connect with us