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: Martina Donkers (Martina Donkers), Ellen Wong (ARTD, AU), Jade Maloney (ARTD, AU)

Some programs comprise a range of diverse projects striving towards a common goal - for example grant programs, where a wide range of different grantees are carrying out different projects with very different activities in pursuit of the grant program objectives.

These can be a challenge to evaluate - with so many different activities, outputs cannot be easily aggregated, and each project may be responding to its local context in unique but important ways. These programs need efficient ways to identify common factors affecting implementation and outcomes that reflect the richness of the activities undertaken, but do not place undue burden on organisations, particularly those receiving smaller grants.

We developed a novel method that uses participatory workshops to explore commonalities in implementation across projects and the various ways they seek to achieve common program outcomes. The theory-driven method builds off the Most Significant Change and Qualitative Comparative Analysis, and combines data collection with collaborative participatory data analysis to build a rich qualitative understanding of projects in a relatively short timeframe with fewer resources. Active participation from project leaders (e.g. grant recipients) builds cohesion across the program, and helps project leaders feel more connected and supported.

This paper outlines the theory, approach and uses of Participatory Analysis Workshops, including strengths and limitations, the types of data and insights the method can yield. We use our work with the NSW Reconstruction Authority to evaluate the Covid Community Connection and Wellbeing Program using this method to illustrate what we've learnt about how the method works and in what circumstances, and then identify other potential use cases. Participants will have an opportunity to ask questions to help inform future uses of this methods. This information will equip evaluations with Tools to navigate varying territory together to understand progress toward program outcomes.

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

Evaluation rubrics are increasingly used to help make evaluative reasoning explicit. Rubrics can also be used as wayfinding tools to help stakeholders understand and participate meaningfully in evaluation. Developing rubrics is conceptually challenging work and the search is on for additional navigation tools and models that might help ease the cognitive load.

As a preliminary step toward rubric development it is often helpful to co-create a theory of change, proposing a chain of causality from actions to impacts, documenting a shared understanding of a program, and providing a point of reference for scoping a logical, coherent set of criteria.

However, it's easy to become disoriented when getting from a theory of change to a set of criteria, because the former deals with impact and the latter with value. Implicitly, a theory of change may focus on activities and impacts that people value, but this cannot be taken for granted - and we argue that value should be made more explicit in program theories.

Specifying a program's value proposition can improve wayfinding between a theory of change and a set of criteria, addressing the aspects of performance and value that matter to stakeholders. Defining a value proposition prompts us to think differently about a program. For example, in addition to what's already in the theory of change, we need to consider to whom the program is valuable, in what ways it is valuable, and how the value is created.

In this presentation, we will share what we've learnt about developing and using value propositions. We'll share a simple framework for developing a value proposition and, using roving microphones, engage participants in co-developing a value proposition in real time. We'll conclude the session by sharing some examples of value propositions from recent evaluations.

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: Linda Kelly (Praxis Consultants), Elizabeth Jackson (Latrobe University, AU)

This presentation focuses on a multi-year program funded by Australia that aims to empower people marginalised by gender, disability and other factors. Like similar programs, the work is subject to regular monitoring and evaluation - testing the effectiveness of program activities largely from the perspective of the Australian and national country Government.
But what of the views of the people served by the program? Is the impact of the various activities sufficient to empower them beyond their current condition? How significant are the changes introduced by the program, given the structural, economic, social and other disadvantages experienced by the marginalised individuals and groups.
Drawing from feminist theory, qualitative research methods and managed with local research and communication experts this presentation outlines the study focused on the long-term impact of the program.

The presentation will outline the methodology and practical considerations in the development of the approach and data collection methodologies. It will highlight the value of exploring impact from a qualitative perspective, while outlining the considerable management and conceptual challenges required in designing, introducing and supporting such an approach. It will consider some of the implications in shifting from traditional evaluation methods to more open-ended enquiry and consider whose values are best served through evaluation versus impact assessment?

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: 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.