The Guiding Principles reflect the core values of the AEA and are intended as a guide to the professional ethical conduct of evaluators. The five Principles address systematic inquiry, competence, integrity, respect for people, and common good and equity. The Principles are interdependent and interconnected. At times, they might even conflict with one another. Therefore, evaluators should carefully examine how they justify professional actions.
The Principles govern the behavior of evaluators in all stages of the evaluation from the initial discussion of focus and purpose, through design, implementation, reporting, and ultimately the use of the evaluation.
The Principles are part of an evolving process of self-examination by the profession in the context of a rapidly changing world. They have been periodically revised since their first adoption in 1994. It is the policy of AEA to review the Principles at least every five years, engaging members in the process. These Principles are not intended to replace principles supported by other disciplines or associations in which evaluators participate.
Communication of Principles: It is primarily the evaluator's responsibility to initiate discussion and clarification of ethical matters with relevant parties to the evaluation. The Principles can be used to communicate to clients and other stakeholders what they can expect in terms of the professional ethical behavior of an evaluator.
Professional Development about Principles: Evaluators are responsible for understanding professional development to learn to engage in sound ethical reasoning. Evaluators are also encouraged to consult with colleagues on how best to identify and address ethical issues.
Structure of the Principles: Each Principle is accompanied by several sub statements to amplify the meaning of the overarching principles and to provide guidance for its application. These sub-statements do not include all possible applications of that principle, nor are they rules that provide the basis for sanctioning violators. The Principles are distinct from Evaluation Standards and evaluator competencies.
Accessible - This term has been used in the past to mean ‘clear’ or ‘understandable’ or ‘easily available.’ It has more recently come to be broadly understood as ‘available to people with disabilities.’ While AEA continues to use “accessible” using its earlier definition, we believe a deeper look at the principles and glossary during an upcoming revamp will provide an opportunity to update the meaning of “accessible” to be more reflective of both interpretations.
Application Transparency: The extent to which a technology system’s operations, algorithms, and data practices are made transparent and understandable for both technical and non-technical audiences.
Common Good - The shared benefit for all or most members of society including equitable opportunities and outcomes that are achieved through citizenship and collective action. The common good includes cultural, economic, natural, political, and social resources.
Context/Contextual Factors - Factors that may influence an evaluation process or its findings, such as geographic location and conditions; political, technological, environmental, and social climate; cultures; economic and historical conditions; language, customs, local norms, and practices.
Culturally Competent Evaluator - The culturally competent evaluator draws upon a wide range of evaluation theories and methods to design and carry out an evaluation that is optimally matched to the context. In constructing a model or theory of how the evaluation operates, the evaluator reflects the diverse values and perspectives of key interest groups. (Adapted from AEA Public Statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation).
Data Sovereignty - Data that is governed by the laws, policies, and cultural protocols of the jurisdiction or community where it is collected or to whom it relates, with control retained by the data’s rightful owners or stewards.
Environment - The surroundings or conditions in which a being lives or operates; the setting or conditions in which a particular activity occurs.
Equity - the condition of fair and just opportunities for all people to participate and thrive in society regardless of individual or group identity or difference. Striving to achieve equity includes mitigating historic disadvantages and existing structural inequalities.
Evaluand - The subject of an evaluation (e.g., program, product, performance).
Guiding Principles vs. Evaluation Standards - The Guiding Principles pertain to the ethical conduct of the evaluator whereas the Evaluation Standards pertain to the quality of the evaluation.
Interest holders Stakeholders - individuals, groups, or organizations affected by, or having an association with an evaluation. Groups include, but are not limited to: individuals, groups, communities, who are impacted by an evaluation; evaluators; and commissioners of evaluation.
Positionality - The identity and social positions (as defined by intersections among race, ethnicity, religion, gender, income, status, health, ability, etc.) of an evaluator that shapes their perspectives, world views, and values. These identities and positions can materially impact an evaluation and its interpretations, requiring a careful approach to addressing these effects.
Professional Judgment - Decisions or conclusions based on ethical principles and professional standards for evidence and argumentation in the conduct of an evaluation.
Safeguarding: The ability to protect users of technological tools from malicious or harmful activities.
Structural Inequalities: These are disparities in wealth, opportunities, and outcomes rooted in the discriminatory practices of institutions (such as legal, educational, economic, governmental, and health systems) arising from entrenched power imbalances in which dominant groups have historically established rules that deliberately or inadvertently restrict others’ access[1].
[1] What Is Structural Inequality? (n.d.). Center for High Impact Philanthropy - University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved September 26, 2025, from https://www.impact.upenn.edu/what-is-structural-inequality/
A.1 Evaluators...adhere to the highest standards appropriate to the methods being used while attending to the context of the evaluation*, the evaluation's scale, and available resources.
A.2 Evaluators...engage interest holders*, including those affected by the evaluand*, on: the strengths and limitations of the core evaluation questions; the most appropriate approaches for answering the questions; independent sources of knowledge; and the dissemination and use of evaluation.
A.3 Evaluators...communicate methods and approaches accurately in sufficient detail, and in contextually* appropriate ways to allow others to understand, interpret, critique, and inform the work.
A.4 Evaluators...make clear the limitations of the evaluation approach, findings, and recommendations.
A.5 Evaluators...discuss in contextually appropriate ways the values, assumptions, theories, methods, analyses, and positionality* that significantly affect their interpretations of the findings.
A.6 Evaluators...ensure application transparency*, respect data sovereignty*, and implement safeguarding* when using emerging technologies, including Artificial Intelligence tools.
B.1 Evaluators...ensure that they or the evaluation team brings experience relative to the evaluand and the evaluation context, and possess the education, abilities, skills, and experiences required to complete the evaluation competently.
B.2 Evaluators...communicate any significant limitations to the evaluation when proceeding with a commission that is outside the team's experience, professional preparation, or competence and address these limitations through professional learning and/or collaboration with peer evaluators or others who have relevant experience.
B.3 Evaluators...possess the cultural competence needed to work effectively within the context of the evaluation. (See the AEA Public Statement on Cultural Competence in Evaluation for further guidance).
B.4 Evaluators...pursue personal and professional development through formal and informal education, training, and practice on an ongoing basis to acquire and strengthen understanding of new concepts, techniques, and skills, with the goal of enhancing professional evaluation competence. (See the AEA Evaluator Competencies for further guidance).
C.1 Evaluators...communicate all aspects of the evaluation, including its limitations, with relevant interest holders, including those affected by the evaluand, in a transparent, accurate, and accessible* manner.
C.2 Evaluators...disclose any actual, perceived, or potential conflicts of interest before accepting an evaluation commission and manage or mitigate conflicts constructively throughout the evaluation. (See the AEA Evaluator Competencies for further guidance)
C.3 Evaluators...record and promptly communicate any changes to the original evaluation plans, including the rationale for those changes and potential impacts on scope and results.
C.4 Evaluators...make explicit to interest holders the values and perspectives of key interest groups, concerning the conduct and outcome of the evaluation.
C.5 Evaluators...share evaluation procedures, data, and findings transparently and accurately engaging relevant interest holders to ensure contextually meaningful interpretation of findings.
C.6 Evaluators...communicate, justify, and address concerns about procedures that may lead to misleading information or conclusions, consult colleagues if issues persist, and decline the evaluation with commissioners/interest holders if unresolved concerns compromise the integrity of the findings.
C.7 Evaluators…disclose relevant sources of financial support and the origin of the evaluation commission.
D.1 Evaluators...understand and include all perspectives, particularly those that are typically excluded or oppositional, to ensure all voices are heard and respected.
D.2 Evaluators…uphold professional ethics, cultural norms, and regulations to protect participants, ensuring informed consent, confidentiality, and prevention from harm.
D.3 Evaluators...maximize the benefits and reduce risks or harms (including psychological, physical, legal, social, and economic) for groups and individuals associated with the evaluation.
D.4 Evaluators...ensure individuals and groups who contribute data understand the risk and benefits of doing so, participate willingly, provide informed consent and where relevant, are compensated for their time or provided with access to evaluation data, where feasible.
E.1 Evaluators...understand and balance the diverse perspectives of interest holders, including those affected by the evaluand, as well as the broader public in service to the common good while maintaining fairness, impartiality, and integrity, and access to the evaluation.
E.2 Evaluators...identify and make efforts to address the evaluation's potential threats to the common good especially when specific groups’ or individual’s interests conflict with the goals of an equitable, and just society.
E.3 Evaluators...identify and address the evaluation's potential risks of exacerbating historic disadvantage, inequity or structural inequality.
E.4 Evaluators…share data and findings transparently with all interest holders, including those affected by the evaluand, aiming for fair access to information in ways that are culturally sensitive, respectful, and consistent with confidentiality agreements.
E.5 Evaluators...identify and mitigate the bias and power imbalances that exist in the context of the evaluation, and assess and account for their own privilege and positionality within that context.
The Guiding principles were last updated in 2025 with input from the Foundational Documents Task Force, AEA Leadership, and AEA Members.