This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
These worked examples show how the ethical review requirements in this Knowledge Base apply in policy and program evaluation settings. Each is a hypothetical, generic scenario; it does not describe a real Iris Ethics application.
Case study: Process evaluation of a pilot family support program
Description: A government agency commissions an evaluation of a pilot family support program. The evaluation involves interviews with program staff, program participants (parents), and children aged 8–14, and a review of case file data.
Key considerations: This evaluation involves multiple populations with different requirements: staff, who are in a dependent relationship with the commissioning agency (NS Chapter 4.4); adult participants, who may be in vulnerable circumstances; and children, whose involvement requires parental or guardian consent and, where they have sufficient maturity, the child's own assent (NS 4.3.4). The case file review involves personal information, and the combination of interviews with an existing case file review is exactly the kind of activity the NHMRC's QA and Evaluation guidance identifies as triggering ethics review: targeted analysis of data, comparison of cohorts, and use of information beyond what is routinely collected. Full HREC review is appropriate given the population mix and the personal information involved. See Evaluation and quality assurance and Children and young people (NS 4.3).
Review pathway: Full HREC review. Key issues: multiple populations with distinct consent requirements; case file access; children's involvement.
Case study: Developmental evaluation of a community health initiative
Description: A health promotion organisation proposes a developmental evaluation of a new community-led health initiative with an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community.
Key considerations: This evaluation requires respectful and meaningful engagement with the community throughout design and conduct (NS 4.7.2), local-level support (NS 4.7.7), and agreement on how benefits will be shared (NS 4.7.10–4.7.11). Where cultural knowledge or data generated with the community will be used in research or evaluation outputs, data sovereignty principles under the AIATSIS Code of Ethics apply; ownership, management, and communication of research data should be negotiated with the community based on Indigenous data sovereignty and governance (AIATSIS Code, Sections 2.7(a) and 4.3). The developmental design, where the evaluation approach is refined iteratively as the initiative unfolds, means full details of every activity may not be settled at the outset; our Pre-review and conditional approval processes accommodate this by allowing staged review as the design firms up. See Developmental evaluation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (NS 4.7).
Review pathway: Full HREC review, meeting the criteria in NS 4.7.13–4.7.14 for cultural safety in review. Key issues: community consultation; AIATSIS Code compliance; data sovereignty; developmental design.
Case study: Co-designed evaluation framework with service users
Description: An evaluator plans a series of co-design workshops with service users to shape the evaluation questions and data collection tools for a disability support program, before the formal evaluation begins.
Key considerations: Consultation and engagement with potential participants and community representatives that precedes the design of research or evaluation is not itself human research and typically does not require ethics review; the National Statement explicitly supports early engagement with potential participants to identify likely harms and accommodate their needs (NS Chapter 4.1). The position changes if outputs from the co-design workshops (recordings, notes, or artefacts) are later analysed as evaluation data, for example in a process evaluation of the design phase itself: at that point the material becomes evaluation data and ethical review is required before that analysis begins (NS 5.1.6 prohibits retrospective approval). The evaluator should decide at the planning stage whether co-design outputs may be used this way and, if so, seek participants' consent to that use and include it in the initial application. See Co-design.
Review pathway: No ethics review required for the co-design workshops themselves; lower risk review required if co-design outputs are subsequently used as evaluation data.
Related resources
This page was last updated on 16 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.