aes24 International Evaluation Conference

Authors: Michael Limerick (Myuma Pty Ltd ),Melinda Mann (Myuma Pty Ltd, AU),Melissa Osborn (Myuma Pty Ltd, AU)

Emerging best practice principles for Indigenous evaluations encourage evaluators to find new ways of conducting evaluations of programs delivered in First Nations settings. The impetus for this work is a growing awareness that evaluation activity carries the risk of perpetuating colonising impacts on First Nations people, especially in relation to the sovereignty over knowledge and data, the level of consent and self-determination in the process, the level of appreciation of cultural insights and community strengths, and the sharing of the benefits of evaluation activity. For the evaluation of the Community Justice Group (CJG) Program in Queensland, the Department of Justice & Attorney General engaged our organisation, an Aboriginal social enterprise from Queensland, to deliver an evaluation guided by best practice Indigenous evaluation principles. Encouraged by the Department's evaluation brief, our organisation assembled a team of predominantly Indigenous people with deep community connections to facilitate a strengths-based and collaborative approach that would put First Nations voices and perspectives at the centre of the evaluation. Over three years, the team followed a process of working with CJG staff and members to co-design and deliver place-based 'local evaluations' in 25 locations, as the central feature of the Statewide program evaluation. The goal was to 'walk alongside' CJGs to respect their agency and afford them growth opportunities, and to seek out stories of success rather than evidence of deficit. Working in partnership, our organisation and the Department learned much on this journey. Fully implementing Indigenous ethical evaluation principles was not without its challenges - for example, meaningful participation can only occur by relationship-building that takes time and stretches evaluation budgets, and principles such as Indigenous data sovereignty can be difficult to implement in government contexts. However, the value of the approach is evident in firstly, the way that many CJGs embraced the local evaluations, and secondly, in the powerful qualitative evidence of program success yielded by the Appreciative Inquiry-inspired storytelling methods.

Authors: John Gargani (Gargani + Co ),Julian King (Julian King & Associates, NZ)

In this participatory session, we pose the question, "How should evaluators innovate the practice of value-for-money assessment to meet the needs of an expanding set of actors that include governments, philanthropists, impact investors, social entrepreneurs, program designers, and Indigenous and First Nations communities?" We begin by framing value for money as an evaluative question about an economic problem. How well are we using resources, and are we using them well enough to justify their use? Then we suggest new methods intended to help innovate the practice of value for money based on our body of published and current research spanning over 10 years.
These include new methods that (1) produce "holistic" assessments of value for money, (2) reflect rather than hide multiple value perspectives even when values conflict, (3) estimate social benefit-cost ratios without monetizing benefits or costs, and (4) adjust monetary and nonmonetary value for risk using Bayesian methods. Along the way, we facilitate discussions with participants, asking them to consider if, how, and by whom these innovations should be pursued, and what other innovations may be needed. We provide participants with access to a collection of our published and draft papers, and invite them to comment and continue our discussion after the conference.

Authors: Eugenia Marembo

Representatives of First Nations communities have been advocating for changes in the way initiatives are planned, prioritised, and assessed. This includes greater visibility on where funding is going, more partnerships on designing initiatives and more evaluation on the outcomes being achieved, to inform government decision making.

This paper presents key insights on what constitutes good practice when designing and appraising initiatives that affect First Nations people and communities. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap is built around four new Priority Reforms that will change the way governments work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities. Priority Reform Three is about transforming government institutions and organisations. As part of this Priority Reform, parties commit to systemic and structural transformation of mainstream government organisations to improve accountability, and to respond to the needs of First Nations people.

The findings presented in this paper draw on insights from consultations with various First Nations community representatives and government stakeholders in New South Wales, and the subsequent process of developing a government department's First Nations investment framework which seeks to strengthen the evidence on what works to improve outcome for First Nations people. Additionally, the frameworks to improve practice across government processes and better inform how initiatives are designed, prioritised and funded.

Authors: Rhiannon Birch (Victorian Department of Education ),Hayden Jose (Urbis, AU),Joanna Petkowksi (Victorian Department of Education, AU),Ekin Masters (Victorian Department of Education, AU)

How can an evaluation balance the need to generate pragmatic insights while meeting central agency requirements for rigorous measurement of outcomes? What ingredients can facilitate the effective evaluation of a government initiative and achieve improved outcomes? This paper explores the essential ingredients for evaluating a large-scale government program using an example of a statewide initiative aimed at attracting and retaining suitably qualified teachers in hard-to-staff positions in Victorian government schools.

We showcase how an adaptive and evidence-led method of enquiry helped identify program implementation bottlenecks and probe potentially unintended program outcomes over a three-year evaluation. We discuss enablers for the integration of evaluation recommendations into program implementation and future policy direction, particularly on participatory action approaches and deep relationships with policy and implementation teams. We will also present the robust and varied methodology, particularly the novel use of system data to facilitate a quasi-experimental design that aligned with central agency requirements and met stakeholder needs.
This presentation will benefit policymakers, program evaluators, and others interested in evaluating government programs, by sharing key learnings on how evaluations can balance pragmatic insights with central agency requirements and identifying the key elements for influencing such programs and achieving improved outcomes.

Authors: Emily Lapinski (Central Land Council ),Malkirdi Napaljarri Rose (Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University, AU), Glenda Napaljarri Wayne (Central Land Council, AU), Geoffrey Jungarrayi Barnes (Central Land Council, AU), Alex Gyles (Centre For Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University, AU)

For evaluation to support transformational change, research suggests strategies must focus on localised Indigenous values, beliefs and worldviews. Decolonising evaluation involves identifying and addressing power and considering what is being evaluated, by whom and how. In this paper we argue that these developments are necessary but insufficient and suggest a possible way forward for further decolonising the field of evaluation. To support change for Indigenous Australians the emphasis needs to move from simple evaluation of individual programs to more critical examination of their combined impact on communities from local perspectives.

This paper explores how Warlpiri and non-Indigenous allies are collaborating to create and use their own community-level impact assessment tool. The 5-year Good Community Life Project is supporting Warlpiri residents of Lajamanu in the Northern Territory to define, assess and take action for a 'good community life'. Warlpiri will explain how they created the approach for assessing wellbeing in Lajamanu, and how they are using emerging results to give voice to their interests and advocate for the life they envision for future generations.

The project involves collaboration between Warlpiri community members, land council staff and university researchers, drawing on Indigenous concepts of 'two-way' seeing and working, relationality, and centring Indigenous voice and values. Applying these concepts in practice is challenging, particularly for non-Indigenous allies who must constantly reflect and use their privilege to challenge traditional views on 'robust' evaluation methodology.

Warlpiri and the land council see potential for this work to improve life in Lajamanu and as an approach that could be applied across Central Australian communities. Going beyond co-designed and participatory evaluation to critical examination of impact is the next step in supporting change with Indigenous communities. This paper will focus on Warlpiri perspectives, plus brief reflections from non-Indigenous allies, with time for the audience to discuss broader implications.

Authors: Caroline Crothers (Allen + Clarke Consulting)

A collaborative effort between community organisations and Victoria Police has demonstrated significant impact in addressing youth offending in Victoria's northwest metropolitan region. This initiative brought together 12 partner organisations from various sectors, including police, legal services, and youth support services around the shared goal of reducing youth offending. By diverting young offenders from the criminal justice system, the initiative seeks to enhance overall justice, health, and wellbeing outcomes for vulnerable youth. Allen + Clarke was commissioned to evaluate the success of this initiative during its inaugural year. In this presentation, we share key lessons learned from the evaluation including how minimally resourced and small-scale interventions can have an outsized impact on organisational change to culture and practice. We also reflect on the journey embarked upon and explore how the evaluation process itself serves as a tool for navigating through complex challenges and adapting to changes encountered along the way. Through critical reflection, the presentation delves into the differing perspectives of the delivery partners involved highlighting how the evaluation journey facilitates a shared understanding of the path forward and shaping future strategies and interventions.

Authors: Laura Faulker (NSW Treasury)

This paper presents the key findings from research and engagement on how cost-benefit analysis (CBA) has been applied to First Nations initiatives to date. CBA is an important tool used by governments to help prioritise budget funding decisions. It assesses the potential impacts of an initiative - economic, social, environmental, and cultural - to determine whether it will deliver value for money.

The paper explores the methods in which the value of First Nations cultures has been incorporated into CBAs, along with the associated challenges and opportunities to improve current practice. The findings have informed the development of an investment framework for the design and evaluation of initiatives that affect First Nations people and communities. The framework focuses on the key principles for embedding First Nations perspectives and ensuring culturally informed evaluative thinking.

Authors: Alli Burness (Tetra Tech), Lisa Faerua (Vanuatu), Nathan Sentance (Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, AU), David Lakisa (Talanoa Consultancy, AU)

In the inaugural ANU Coral Bell Lecture on Indigenous Diplomacy, Dr Mary Graham outlined a powerful legacy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander relational methods that have operated across a spectacular time scale. She envisioned a compelling future for its renewed application and spoke of these practices as a type of "thinking in formation, a type of slow, collective, and emergent process".

Inspired by Dr Graham's vision, this panel explores synergies, distinctions, and complementarities in local and Indigenous research methods across Australia and the Pacific. The panel features Wiradjuri, Samoan (Polynesian), Ni-Vanuatu (Melanesian) and settler-background (Australian) researchers from a range of fields who will explore, engage and showcase locally specific methodologies that connect across Australia and the Pacific continents, as ways of knowing, doing, and relating with the land, the moana (ocean) and air.

This session frames evaluation and research approaches as reflecting their contextual political order. While the panel will critique the legacies of individualist and survivalist research methods, it will focus on exploring the futures that relational research methods could realize. How do we evolve current institutional approaches to become more commensurate with Indigenous methods? Would institutionalizing these methods resolve the legacy, structure, and form of colonialist political approaches? Panelists will speak to their experience in working to evolve institutions in this way and the research and evaluation methodologies used within them.

The session also situates evaluation within a cannon of contextualizing evidence-based practices (such as political economy analysis, GEDSI analysis or feasibility.

Authors: Kizzy Gandy

Surveys are an excellent data collection tool when they reach their target response rate, but low response rates hinder the generalisability and reliability of the findings.

This Ignite presentation will discuss techniques Verian evaluators have applied to increase survey response rates while also assessing the efficacy and efficiency of these techniques. We will also explore other evidence-based strategies for boosting response rates and the value of drawing on other data sources if your response rates are still low.

Authors: Amanda Reeves (Victorian Department of Education), Rhiannon Birch (Victorian Department of Education, AU), Eunice Sotelo (Victorian Department of Education, AU)

To provide insight to complex policy problems, evaluations need to adopt a systems perspective and examine the structures, relationships and contexts that influence program outcomes.

This paper outlines the design of a 4-year strategic evaluation that seeks to understand how a portfolio of over 25 education programs are interacting and collectively contributing to system-level outcomes. In this context, policy makers require evaluation to look beyond the boundaries of individual programs and assess the holistic impact of this investment to inform where and how resources can be directed to maximise system outcomes.

The strategic evaluation presented is theory-based and multi-layered, using logic modelling to identify outcomes at the program, cluster and system level and draw linkages to develop a causal pathway to impact. The strategic evaluation and the evaluations of individual education programs are being designed together to build-in common measures to enable meta-analysis and synthesis of evidence to assess system-level outcomes. The design process has been broad and encompassing, considering a diverse range of methods to understand impact including quantitative scenario modelling and value for money analysis.

The authors will describe how the strategic evaluation has been designed to respond to system complexity and add value. The evaluation adopts an approach that is:
• interdisciplinary, drawing on a range of theory and methods to examine underlying drivers, system structures, contextual factors and program impacts
• collaborative, using expertise of both internal and external evaluators, to design evaluations that are aligned and can tell a story of impact at the system-level
• exploratory, embracing a learning mindset to test and adapt evaluation activities over time.

This paper will be valuable for anyone who is interested in approaches to evaluating the relative and collective contribution of multiple programs and detecting their effects at the system level to inform strategic decision-making.

Authors: Kate Nichols (Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions - Victoria), Milbert Gawaya (Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions, AU)

First Peoples/settler state treaties have been likened to marriage - an evolving and changeable (political) relationship, not an endpoint or divorce (Blackburn, 2007). But what does this look like in practice given marriage's checkered connection with power imbalance and violence through to romance and deep, trusting companionship?

Contemporary colonial 'settlerism' (after Aunty/Dr Lilla Watson, in Watego, 2021) is undergoing structural change in Victoria, with Victoria's First Peoples sitting down with the Victorian State Government in 2024 to commence statewide treaty negotiations. Treaty is an acknowledgement that British sovereignty did not extinguish Aboriginal sovereignty, opening-up a "third space of sovereignty" (after Bruyneel, 2007) where co-existing sovereigns can further contest the "sovereignty impasse" (ibid., 2007), while Indigenous people control their own affairs.

Treaty is expected to reshape how the Victorian state government operates, challenging state laws, institutions, policies, programs and processes, which together, have contributed to First Nations disadvantage and suffering. Government evaluation practices will need their own shake-up.

How can public sector evaluators help establish an equal, strong and nourishing treaty marriage? This short paper shares emerging ally insights into how local practices are evolving to support Victoria's Treaty and self-determination. It shares reflections from a recent evaluation of Traditional Owner grant programs, conducted in partnership between key Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal public sector staff. It is a story of both-ways practice and the time, trust and bravery required to achieve deep change. It also highlights the role of lifelong cultural learning and behaviour change for ally evaluators. Culturally responsive evaluation, Indigenous research practices, restorative justice and the AES First Nations Cultural Safety Framework provide useful framing. Although focused on the Victorian treaty context, the paper may be transferable to other jurisdictions and evaluations involving or impacting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in support of their sovereignty and self-determination.
ion trainers and facilitators.

Authors: Julian King (Julian King & Associates), Adrian Field (Dovetail)

The rapid growth of video-conferencing technology has increased the ability for evaluations to be conducted across multiple countries and time zones. People are increasingly used to meeting and working entirely online, and evaluations can in principle be designed and delivered without need for face to face engagement. Translational AI software is even able to break through language barriers, providing further efficiencies and enabling evaluation funds to be directed more to design, data gathering and analysis.

Yet the efficiency of delivery should not compromise the integrity with which an evaluation is conducted. This is particularly true in situations where different dimensions of equity come into question, and in an evaluation where two or more languages are being used, ensuring that the design and delivery are meaningful and accessible to all participants, not just the funder.

The growth of remote evaluation working presents a very real, if not even more pressing danger, of the consultant "parachuting in" and offering solutions that have little or no relevance to the communities who are at the centre of the evaluation process.

In this presentation we explore the wayfinding process in designing and implementing a Value for Investment evaluation of an urban initiative focusing on the developmental needs of young children, in Jundiaí, Brazil. We discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by a largely (but ultimately not entirely) online format, in leading a rigorously collaborative evaluation process, and gathering data in a way that ensures all stakeholder perspective are appropriately reflected. We discuss the trade-offs involved in this process, the reflections of evaluation participants, and the value of ensuring that underlying principles of collaborative and cross-cultural engagement are adhered to.

Authors: Sandra Ayoo (University of North Carolina Greensboro)

With quality in improving interventions to improve societal and planetary wellbeing being the desired destination of evaluation, it is imperative that evaluators reflect on the meaning of quality and methods to assess if evaluation is achieving it. Meta-evaluation, coined by Michael Scriven in 1969, evaluates evaluations and aids in understanding how evaluations contribute to addressing structural and systemic problems in interventions and evaluation practice. Meta-evaluation has evolved over the past five decades and is included in the program standards by major professional associations. While the field of evaluation is confronted with major concerns regarding the centrality of social justice, there is currently there are no one-size-fits-all guidelines for meta-evaluation and for addressing social justice in evaluations. To address this, we reviewed meta-evaluation literature, mapped the American Evaluation Association's foundational documents with the United Nations Evaluation Group's Norms and Standards to explore their intersectionality on social justice, and analyzed 62 United Nations Population Fund evaluation reports alongside their management responses. The study findings indicated that meta-evaluation is contingent on context rather than established standards. Thus, it's crucial for evaluators to intentionally prioritize social justice in evaluation design and implementation and to select quality assurance tools that match the evaluation context and professional association guidelines to improve the quality of the intervention. I will share key characteristics of the United Nations Group's Norms and Standards on social justice to stimulate discussions on evaluators' efforts to address systemic issues. Collectively, participants will benefit from discussing and reflecting on their own practice by responding to questions like (a) what are the examples of their work in collaborative and systems-informed ways to intentionally include social justice in their evaluations, and (b) what should the field of evaluation do to ensure that evaluations add value for people and planet?anagement response.

Authors: Eleanor Kerdo (Attorney Generals Department ),Claudia Oke (Attorney Generals Department, AU),Michael Amon (Attorney Generals Department, AU),Anthony Alindogan (Attorney Generals Department, AU)

To embed a culture of evaluation across the Australian Public Service (Commonwealth of Australia, 2021), we must first have an accurate understanding of the current state of evaluation capability and priorities across Commonwealth agencies. This paper shares tools on how to build an effective measurement framework for evaluation culture, and discusses how to use these for evaluation capability uplift.
We explore quantitative and qualitative methods to gather and analyse data to measure an organisation's readiness to change its culture towards evaluation. This includes assessing staff attitudes towards evaluation, the level of opportunity for staff to conduct and use evaluation, and confidence in their knowledge of evaluation.
We discuss the development of a staff evaluation culture survey based on Preskill & Boyle's ROLE and how behavioural insight tools can be utilised to boost engagement. The paper discusses the utility of holding focus groups with senior leaders to understand authorising environments for evaluation and key leverage points. Also discussed, are challenges and innovative solutions that were encountered throughout the assessment process.
This paper will be valuable for those who work in, or with, any government agency with an interest in evaluation capacity building and driving an evaluation culture within organisations. This paper explains each stage of measurement design, data analysis and results, and discussing opportunities for action.
1 Preskill, H., & Boyle, S. (2008). A Multidisciplinary Model of Evaluation Capacity Building. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 443-459. ://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1098214008324182

2 Michie S, Atkins L, West R. (2014) The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. London: Silverback Publishing. www.behaviourchangewheel.com.

3 Lahey, R. (2009). A Framework for Developing an Effective Monitoring and Evaluation System in the Public Sector: Key considerations from International Experience. Framework for developing an effective ME system in the public sector (studylib.net)

Authors: Stephanie White (Victoria Department of Education )

Evaluators can fail in many ways. The consequences of these failures can be relatively contained or wide ranging within the evaluation and can also flow on to program operations. But failure is a part of life and can be a useful catalyst for professional growth. What happens when you find yourself failing and can see the risks ahead? How do you keep going?

The session focuses on the experiences of an emerging evaluator who failed while leading a large-scale education evaluation. When some elements of the evaluation became untenable, they struggled to find the right path forward and could foresee the risks materialising if the situation wasn’t addressed. On the other side of it, they reflect on how they drew on tools in every evaluator’s toolkit to start remedying their previous inaction and missteps to get the evaluation back on track…and improve their practice along the way!

This session is relevant to any evaluator who grapples with the messiness of expectations and reality in their practice.