aes24 International Evaluation Conference

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: Lucy Macmillan (ANROWS), Micaela Cronin (Domestic and Family Violence Commission, AU), Tessa Boyd-Caine (ANROWS, AU),Tiffiny Lewin (Lived Experience Advisory Council Member) (National Lived Experience Advisory Council, AU)

As evaluators, we are often asked to examine complex, systems-change initiatives. Domestic, family and sexual violence is a national crisis. In late 2022, the Commonwealth Government, alongside all state and territory governments released the second National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. The plan provides an overarching national policy framework to guide actions across all parts of society, including governments, businesses, media, educational institutions and communities to achieve a shared vision of ending gender-based violence in one generation.

After 12 years of implementation under the first National Plan, assessing whether our efforts had made a meaningful difference towards ending violence against women was a difficult task. We ask: As we embark on setting up measurement and evaluation systems against the second National Plan, how do we avoid making the same mistakes again?

The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission was established in 2022 to focus on practical and meaningful ways to measure progress towards the objectives outlined in the National Plan. This session will discuss:

1. the current plans, opportunities and challenges in monitoring progress, and evaluating the impact of this national framework, and
2. the role of lived-experience in evaluation and how large publicly-funded institutions can balance their monitoring and sensemaking roles at the national-level with accountability to victim-survivors.

The panel will explore common challenges faced when seeking to monitor and evaluate complex national policy initiatives, including data capture, consistency and capacity, and explore some of the opportunities ahead.

The audience will have the opportunity to contribute their insights and expertise on how we, as evaluators, approach the evaluation of complex systems-change at a national scale, and over extended durations, while also prioritising the voices of those most affected. How do we collectively contribute to understanding if these national policy agendas will make a difference?

Authors: Lauren Gibson (Mind Australia ),Dr. Edith Botchway (Mind Australia, AU), Dr. Laura Hayes (Mind Australia, AU)

Outcome measurement in mental health services is recommend as best practice and provides an opportunity for clients and staff to track progress and navigate the complex road to recovery together. However, there are many barriers to embedding outcome measures in mental health services, including time constraints, low perceived value among staff and clients, and not receiving feedback on outcomes regularly. To overcome these challenges, a national not-for-profit provider of residential and non-residential psychosocial support services, created an innovative approach for designing and implementing outcome measures. The objective of our presentation is to describe this approach which has resulted in average outcome measure completion rates of over 80% across 73 services in Australia.

Design
We believe the key to achieving these completion rates is through understanding the needs of outcome measures end-users, including clients, carers, service providers, centralised support teams, and funding bodies. In this presentation we will share how we:

• "Begin with the end in mind" through working with stakeholders to create user personas and program logics to identify meaningful outcomes and survey instruments.
• Design easy to use digital tools to record quality data and provide stakeholders with dashboards to review their outcomes in real time through visualising data at an individual client level, and service level.

Implementation
Also key to embedding outcome measures is having a structured, multi-stage approach for implementation, with tailored support provided to:

• Prepare services (e.g., Training)
• Install and embed outcome measures in routine practice (e.g., Service champions)
• Maintain fidelity over time (e.g., Performance monitoring)

The presentation will highlight the salient barriers and enablers identified during each design and implementation stage.

Overall, the presentation will provide a practical example of how to design and implement outcome measures in mental health services to ensure they are adding value for relevant stakeholders and enabling efficient and meaningful evaluation.