aes24 International Evaluation Conference

Authors: Matt Healey (First Person Consulting), Alicia McCoy (First Person Consulting, AU), Tenille Moselen (First Person Consulting, AU)

In the dynamic realm of evaluation methodology, the discourse surrounding the use of validated tools versus the customization of evaluation metrics remains a contentious issue. This session aims to delve into the inherent risks associated with both approaches. This is often compounded when those in positions of power have preferences for the use of validated tools over for-context data collection questions or approaches. The tension this elicits is only increasing in a time when evaluating digital interventions where there is no direct tool to draw upon, leaving evaluators to navigate uncharted territory.

Moreover, there are an ever-increasing range of validated tools available, but little direction for evaluators - particularly emerging and early career evaluators to assist in deciding. This session presents on experiences from a range of digital and in-person projects, and we explore scenarios where there was no 'obvious solution'. This session will be of particular relevance to those undertaking evaluations of digital and novel programs.

Through candid dialogue and shared anecdotes, participants will reflect on their experiences in navigating decisions to adopt, adapt, or reject validated tools, and the learning that resulted. Embracing controversy, this session encourages attendees to challenge conventional wisdom and critically examine the balance between the reliability of validated tools, the importance of fitting data collection to context, and most importantly what 'good' looks like.

Join the conversation as we navigate the complex landscape of evaluation methodology, exploring the tensions between established practices and the pursuit of innovation in evaluation processes.

Authors: Tony Kiessler (First Nations Connect), Alice Tamang (First Nations Connect, AU)

Effective First Nations engagement is integral in the design and delivery of culturally safe evaluations. The AES' First Nations Cultural Safety Framework discusses 10 principles for culturally safe evaluation and describes the journey of engagement. However, the question of how to engage effectively can be the first and most significant challenge faced by evaluators. There is little clarity on how to create opportunities for First Nations leadership and voices in our evaluations, how to engage appropriately, and who we should engage with. There is also the challenge of managing tight timeframes, client expectations and capabilities that can limit the focus on meaningful First Nations participation, partnership and co-creation.

This is a unique offering that enables practitioners and First Nations facilitators to walk together, explore shared challenges and identify opportunities to improve First Nations engagement. The session will explore the potential for partnerships in informing and implementing evaluations, opportunities to increase First Nations participation, privilege their experience and knowledge, and how evaluation practitioners can draw on these strengths through co-creation to amplify First Nations voices and leadership in evaluation practice.

This session aims to:

• Explore a principles-based approach to First Nations engagement;
• Discuss shared experiences on successful approaches to enhance First Nations partnership, participation and co-creation; and
• Develop a shared understanding of to take this knowledge forward through culturally safe evaluation commissioning, practice and reporting.

Discussion will draw on the collective experience of both the attendees and the facilitators, walking together. The sharing of ideas will be encouraged in a safe space that engages the audience in a collaborative dialogue with First Nations practitioners. This dialogue will explore current knowledge, capabilities and gaps, as well as the challenges (and how they can be overcome), as part of the broader journey to culturally safe evaluation practice.

Authors: Harry Greenwell (Australian Treasury), To be determined (Australian Treasury, AU)

This session will provide an overview of some of the main quantitative methods for identifying the causal impacts of programs and policies, while emphasising the importance of mixed-methods that also incorporate program theory and qualitative research. It is intended for people unfamiliar with quantitative evaluation methods who would like to develop their understanding of these methods in order to better contribute to theory-based, mixed method impact evaluations.

The session will cover 3 of the most common quantitative approaches to separating causality from correlation: i) mixed-method RCTs, ii) discontinuity design, and iii) matching. Each method will be explained with real examples. The session will also cover: the benefits and limitations of each method, and considerations for determining when such methods might be suitable either on their own, or as a complement to other evaluation methods or approaches.

Special attention will be given to the ethical considerations inherent in the choice of impact evaluation method, including issues related to consent, fairness, vulnerability, and potential harm.

After attending this session, participants will have a better understanding of: how program theory can inform the design of quantitative impact evaluations, including through mixed-method impact evaluations; and how to identify when certain quantitative impact evaluation methods may be suitable for an evaluation.

Authors: Caitlin Barry (Y Victoria), Eugene Liston (Clear Horizon Consulting, AU)

The demand for organisations to measure impact seems to be ever increasing. However, impact measurement looks different depending on what level you are measuring it (program level, organisation-wide, ecosystem level etc). While a lot of organisations focus on measuring social impact at a program level, what appears to be less commonly achieved is the jump to effective measurement of impact at an organisation-wide level.

The literature providing guidance on how to implement org-wide social impact measurement makes it seem so straight-forward, like a Roman highway - all straight lines. But what is it really like in practice? How does it differ from program-level impact measurement? How can it be done? What resources does it take? And, what are the pitfalls?

The Y Victoria has spent the last three years on a journey to embed org-wide social impact measurement under the guidance of our evaluation partner. The Y Victoria is a large and diverse organisation covering 7 different sectors/service lines; over 5,500 staff; over 180 centres; and delivering services to all ages of the community. This presented quite a challenge for measuring organisation-wide impact in a meaningful way.

While the journey wasn't 'straight-forward', we've learnt a lot from navigating through it. This presentation will discuss the approach taken, tell the story of the challenges faced, trade-offs, lessons learnt (both from the client and consultant's perspective), and how we have adapted along the way.

Authors: Duncan Rintoul (UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance (IPPG) ),George Argyrous (UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance (IPPG), AU),Tish Creenaune (UTS Institute for Public Policy and Governance (IPPG), AU),Narina Dahms (ACT Government: Chief Ministers, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate, AU),Peter Robinson (ACT Government: Chief Ministers, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate, AU),Robert Gotts (ACT Government: Chief Ministers, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate, AU)

The ACT Evidence and Evaluation Academy is a prominent and promising example of sustained central agency investment in evaluation capability building (ECB).

The Academy was launched in 2021 as a new initiative to improve the practice and culture of evidence-based decision-making in the ACT public sector. Its features include:

• a competitive application process, requiring executive support and financial co-contribution
• a series of in-person professional learning workshops where participants learn alongside colleagues from other Directorates
• a workplace project, through which participants apply their learning, receive 1-1 coaching, solve an evaluation-related challenge in their work and share their insights back to the group
• executive-level professional learning and practice sharing, for nominated evaluation champions in each Directorate
• sharing of resources and development of evaluation communities of practice in the Directorates
• an annual masterclass, which brings current participants together with alumni and executive champions.

Four years and over 100 participants later, the Academy is still going strong. There has been an ongoing process of evaluation and fine tuning from one cohort to the next, with encouraging evidence of impact. This impact is seen not only for those individuals who have taken part but also for others in their work groups, including in policy areas where evaluation has not historically enjoyed much of a foothold.

The learning design of the Academy brings into focus a number of useful strategies - pedagogical, structural and otherwise - that other central agencies and line agencies may like to consider as part of their own ECB efforts.

The Academy story also highlights some of the exciting opportunities for positioning evaluation at the heart of innovation in the public sector, particularly in the context of whole-of-government wellbeing frameworks, cross-agency collaboration and strategic linkage of data sets to support place-based outcome measurement.

Authors: Johannes Prio Sambodho (SKALA), Ratna Fitriani (SKALA, ID)

SKALA (Sinergi dan Kolaborasi untuk Akselerasi Layanan Dasar- Synergy and Collaboration for Service Delivery Acceleration) is a significant Australian-Indonesian cooperation focuses on enhancing parts of Indonesia's extensive, decentralized government system to accelerate better service delivery in underdeveloped regions. As part of its End of Program Outcome for greater participation, representation, and influence for women, people with disabilities, and vulnerable groups, SKALA is commissioning baseline research focusing on understanding multi-stakeholder collaboration for mainstreaming Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) in Indonesia. The program has designed a mixed-method study consisting of qualitative methods to assess challenges and capacity gaps of GEDSI civil society organizations (CSOs) in actively participating and contributing to the subnational planning and budgeting process, coupled with a quantitative survey to measure trust and confidence between the same CSOs and the local governments with whom they engage. The paper first discusses the baseline study's design, its alignment with SKALA's strategic goals and consider how the research might itself contribute to improved working relationships in planning and budgeting at the subnational level. Second, the paper discusses approaches taken by the SKALA team to design a robust programmatic baseline that is also clearly useful in program implementation. These include a) adopting an adaptive approach to identify key emerging issues based on grassroots consultations and the broader governmental agenda into a research objective; b) locating the study within a broader empirical literature to balance practical baseline needs with academic rigor, and c) fostering collaboration with the program implementation team to ensure the study serves both evaluation and programmatic needs. Lastly, based on SKALA experience, the paper will argue for closer integration of research and implementation teams within programs that can support systems-informed methodologies, and will consider ways in which this can be practically accomplished.

Authors: Lydia Phillips (Lydia Phillips Consulting ), Jo Farmer (Jo Farmer Consulting )

As evaluators, we often work with people who have experienced trauma and/or marginalisation (whether we realise or not!). We're also seeing increased recognition in government and community organisations of the importance of lived experience and cultural safety in program design, implementation and evaluation.

Beginning an evaluation with a clear plan for how you'll engage and empower people from diverse cultural backgrounds and people who have experienced trauma can help to ensure success - of your project and of participants' experience.

So how can you design an evaluation framework to recognise diverse cultural backgrounds and empower survivors of violence?

And how can evaluators who don't have lived experience or identify from those cultural backgrounds best navigate the design process?

This session will share strategies, learnings and reflections from a project working with a multicultural family violence service to develop a culturally-safe, trauma-informed evaluation framework for a two-year program.

It will:

• explore what worked well and what was challenging in the project
• discuss similarities and differences in the concepts of culturally-safe and trauma-informed practice, drawing on current literature; and
• pose questions and provide suggestions for evaluators who want to develop their skills in culturally safe and trauma-informed evaluation practice.

The session will offer key tips and strategies that are translatable to other contexts and conclude with reflective questions for attendees.

Authors: Gina Mancuso (Drummond Street Services), Arielle Donnelly (Drummond Street Services, AU)

LGBTIQA+ young people experience discrimination and marginalisation which contribute to poorer mental and physical health outcomes, compared to the general population. QHub is an initiative that creates safe spaces, offers mental health and well-being services, and provides outreach tailored for LGBTIQA+ young people in Western Victoria and the Surf Coast. QHub provides LGBTIQA+ young people and their families/carers with welcoming, inclusive and integrated support, as well as opportunities to connect with peers and older role models. This presentation will outline how the collection and selection of stories of change (Most Significant Change) is helping us evaluate the impact of QHub.

Authors: Josh Duyker (Centre for Evaluation and Research Evidence, Victorian Department of Health)

Much like Felix the Cat, evaluators have a bag of tricks to get us out of sticky situations. But when you are staring face to face with a complex evaluand, juggling tricky stakeholders whist sat on a mountain of data, it's not always clear what 'trick' you need! One twisted potential solution is the colourful, yet humble rubric. In this reflective practice ignite presentation, I will guide you through our journey of using rubrics as a tool to way find through an evaluation, and our key takeaways in how rubrics can support evaluators to make comprehensive and balanced evaluative judgements.

Authors: Skye Trudgett (Kowa ),Sharmay Brierley (Kowa, AU)

This ignite presentation will delve into the pioneering evaluation within the education sector, where a series of education initiatives were designed and implemented by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCO's) and mainstream Education partners to uplift and support young First Nations peoples. We will uncover how the initiative's evaluation framework was revolutionarily constructed with First Nations communities at its heart, applying the reimagining evaluation framework, utilising diverse data collection methods and producing Community Reports that reflect First Nations experiences and voices.

Attendees will be guided through the evaluative journey, showcasing the incorporation of wisdom to demonstrate the profound value of community-delivered initiatives that contribute to change. The session will highlight the success stories and learnings, emphasising how this approach not only benefits the current generation but also lays the groundwork for the prosperity of future generations.

Authors: Lyndal Sleep (Central Queensland University)

AI and other forms of digital technologies are being increasingly used in programs and services delivery. They promise increased efficiency, accuracy and objectivity, however these technologies can also cause significant harm and trauma, as seen in Robodebt. It is vital for evaluators to be aware of key questions to ask to prevent AI having unintended impact on program processes, outputs and outcomes, or cause harm to service users.

Objective
This session aims to support evaluation of AI assisted programs and services by introducing evaluators to a new and innovative trauma informed AI assessment tool.

Core argument
(1) AI is increasingly being used in programs and services, and understanding the resulting risks is essential for evaluators to assess whether services are meeting intended outcomes.
(2) many evaluators are unaware of what types of risks to look for when assessing AI assisted services, or what questions to ask - especially when conducting trauma informed evaluations.
(3) a practical trauma informed AI assessment tool has been developed by researchers from [Universities omitted], with funding from [omitted] to address this need, and will be briefly introduced.

A short paper session will:
(1) Highlight the problem that AI is increasingly being used to assist program and services delivery, but many evaluators are unaware of the main risks to consider when evaluating these services.
(2) Suggest the solution of a practical tool which considers these risks, with technological knowledge and within a trauma informed framework, that can be employed by evaluators.
(3) Introduce a trauma informed AI assessment tool, the method used to develop it, as well as its intended practical use by evaluators (both internal and external to organisations).

There will be 10 minutes for questions and discussion at the end of the presentation.