aes24 International Evaluation Conference

Authors: Claire Grealy (Rooftop Social ),Duncan Rintoul (Rooftop Social, AU),Virginia Poggio (Paul Ramsay Foundation, AU),Luciana Campello (NSW Department of Communities and Justice, AU),Kirsty Burow (NSW Department of Communities and Justice, AU),Jacqueline Webb (National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN), AU)

The evaluation of grant programs has long frustrated grantees and perplexed fund managers.
Evaluators often arrive at the end, and may find a strong narrative about the funded activity (assuming the project staff are still in place) but less of the documentation and data that demonstrates the impact or learning, or shows the link between each project to the fund objectives.

Fund managers have often had to be content with the limited results available to them, sometimes as basic as acquittals on activity and expenditure. This limits funders' ability to capture learning, feed into new fund designs, mount budget bids, or tell a compelling story about the work grant holders are doing.

This panel brings together a cross-section of key players and beneficiaries from a variety of contexts:
* a state government fund manager in the human services sector
* an evaluation lead from a large national philanthropic organisation
* an experienced project manager from a national NGO that receives grants from various sources
* two evaluation specialists who have deep experience working in this space, developing and delivering this kind of support.

Drawing on case studies from practice, this panel will share some innovative approaches from their work, which bring the right mix of expectation and support to the design stage of grant-based projects, from the time of submitting an EOI through to the point of evaluation readiness.

The fruit that hangs off this tree includes:
* strengthening the 'evaluability' of each project and the overall fund
* testing each project's assumptions and ambitions
* deep conversations between grant makes and grant holders about outcome alignment
* building the evaluative thinking and capability of project teams and organisations, activating the 'ripple effect' as participants share their newfound commitment and skills with their colleagues.
"You couldn't drag me to program logic workshop before this. And now look at me - I took that process you did with us and yesterday I ran it with my team on another project."

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: Mark Power (Murawin ),Carol Vale (Murawin, AU)

This presentation explores the paramount importance of culturally sensitive engagement methodologies in ensuring meaningful contributions from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to mission programs. Murawin, an Aboriginal-led consultancy, has developed a robust Indigenous Engagement Strategy Framework grounded in the principles of reciprocity, free, informed and prior consent, mutual understanding, accountability, power sharing, and respect for Indigenous knowledge systems. Our session aims to share insights into the necessity of prioritising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices in engagement, co-design, and research, highlighting the significance of cultural competence in fostering mutual respect and understanding.
We will discuss three key messages: the imperative of deep knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures in engagement practices; the success of co-design processes in facilitating genuine and respectful engagement; and the strategic partnership with CSIRO to enhance cultural competence and inclusivity in addressing Indigenous aspirations and challenges. These points underscore the critical role of acknowledging cultural interactions and ensuring cultural sensitivity in building strong, respectful productive relationships with Indigenous communities.
To achieve our session's objectives, we have designed an interactive format that blends informative presentations with the analysis of case studies, complemented by engaging intercultural discussions. This approach is intended to equip participants with actionable insights drawn from real-world examples of our collaborative ventures and co-designed projects. Through this comprehensive exploration, we aim to enrich participants' understanding of successful strategies for engaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, ultimately contributing to the achievement of more inclusive and impactful outcomes in mission programs and beyond.

Authors: Victoria Pilbeam (WWF-Australia)

Across social and environmental movements, we are often reticent to talk about failure. But as innovation and learning gain greater emphasis across the sector, Not-for Profits are finding new ways to share and learn from their failures (eg: Engineers Without Borders failure reports, Save the Children Fail Fest, etc.). In this presentation, I will share both insights from the available research and reflect on my own journey developing failure programming at WWF-Australia. This presentation will provide practical guidance to evaluators and organisations navigating the challenging terrain of learning from failure.

Authors: Linda Kelly (Praxis Consultants), Mary Raori (UNDP Pacific, FJ)

This presentation outlines an approach to program assessment of a long-term governance program working across the Pacific, the UNDP Governance for Resilience program. It tells the story of the program’s maturing evaluation approach which has shifted from serving the information needs of those with money and power to focus more particularly on the values and interests of local participants and partners..
Despite the well-documented limitations of single methodology evaluation approaches for complex programs, many international development donors and corresponding international and regional organisations, continue to require program assessment that serves their needs and values. Typically, this includes narrowing evaluation to assessment against quantitative indicators. Notwithstanding the extensive limitations of this approach, it serves the (usually short-term) needs of international donors and other large bureaucracies. It generates simple information that can be communicated and showcased in uncritical forms. It provides numbers that are easily aggregated and used for concise reporting to senior and political masters.
Such approaches risk crowding out attention to the information needs of other participants and undermine attempts to support more locally led processes. This presentation will explain how this long-term and large-scale program has shifted, making use of a values-based evaluative approach to better serve the interests of partners and participants in the Pacific. This has involved both a methodological and political shift, broadening the range of data collection and analysis methodologies and approaches, increasing resourcing to accommodate different types of data and data collection and internal and external advocacy. This one program experience echoes wider views across the Pacific about the limitations of externally imposed measures and the lack of attention to what is valued by pacific countries and people.

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: Shefton Parker, Monash Univeristy; Amanda Sampson, Monash Univeristy

Increasingly, turbulent, and rapidly changing global operating environments are disrupting organisational plan implementation and strategy realisation of institutions. The session introduces a novel organisational collaborative strategic learning and effectiveness model, intended to bolster organisational resilience responses amidst such turbulence.
A scarcity of suitable organisational strategic learning systems thinking models utilising evaluation methodology in a joined-up way, prompted the presenters to develop a model. The model is tailored for strategic implementation in a complex organisational system environment, operating across decentralised portfolios with multiple planning and operational layers. The model amalgamates evaluation methodologies to identify, capture, share and respond to strategic learning in a complex system. It is hypothesised the model will outperform conventional organisational performance-based reporting systems, in terms of organisational responsiveness, agility, adaptability, collaboration, and strategic effectiveness.
The presentation highlights the potential value of integrating and embedding evaluation approaches into an organisation's strategy, governance and operations using a three-pronged approach:
- Sensing: Gathering relevant, useful timely data (learning);
- Making sense: Analysing and contextualising learning data alongside other relevant data (institutional performance data, emerging trends, policy, and legislative reform etc); and
- Good sense decisions: Providing timely and relevant evaluative intelligence and insights to support evidence based good decision making.
The presenters advocate for a shift from viewing evaluation use as a 'nice to have' to a 'must have' aspect of organisational growth and sustainability. The model aims to foster a leadership culture where decision makers value the insights that contextualised holistic organisational intelligence can provide for;

i) Strategic planning: Enhanced planning and strategic alignment across portfolios;

ii) Operational efficiency: Reducing duplication in strategic effort and better collaboration towards strategic outcomes;

iii) Business resilience and sustainability: Improved identification and quicker response to emerging opportunities and challenges; and

iv) Strategic effectiveness: Informing activity adaptation recommendations for strategic goal realisation.

Authors: Justine Smith (Nation Partners )

There is a pressing need to reduce the risks associated with climate change and the disasters that are likely to increase as a result. Along with the need to take action, comes the need to show we are making a difference - or perhaps more importantly the need to learn and evolve to ensure we are making a difference. However when operating in an ever changing, uncertain environment, with layers of complexity and outcomes that may not be realised for some time, or until disaster strikes, evidence of impact is not always easy to collect nor a priority.

Drawing on experience developing evaluation frameworks and delivering evaluation projects in the areas of climate change and disaster and emergency management, I will present some of the challenges and opportunities I have observed. In doing so, I propose that there is no 'one way' to do things. Rather, taking the time to understand what we are evaluating and to continually learn, evolve and adjust how we evaluate is key. This includes having clarity on what we really mean when we are talking about reducing risk and increasing resilience. Ideas I will explore include:

• The concepts of risk reduction and resilience.
• The difference between evaluation for accountability and for genuine learning and improvement.
• Balancing an understanding of and progress towards big picture outcomes with project level, time and funding bound outcomes.
• The challenge and potential benefits of event-based evaluation to learn and improve.

Evaluation has the capacity to contribute positively to action taken to reduce climate change risks and improve our management of disasters and recovery from disasters. As evaluators we too need to be innovative and open-minded in our approaches, to learn from and with those working directly in this space for the benefit of all.

Author Lena Etuk (CIRCA Research, AU)

In this presentation we will outline an approach to culturally inclusive evaluation with people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in Australia, its strengths, and its growth opportunities. This approach fills a critical gap in the way evaluation and research with culturally and linguistically diverse communities is traditionally conducted in Australia.

In this presentation we will explain how the Cultural & Indigenous Research Centre Australia (CIRCA) conducts in-culture and in-language evaluation with diverse cohorts of Australians, and how this practice fits within the broader methodological discourse in evaluation and social science more broadly. We will illustrate how our culturally inclusive methodology is put into practice with findings from CIRCA's own internal research into the way cultural considerations shape our data collection process. We will conclude with reflections on how CIRCA might further draw on and leverage standpoint theory and culturally responsive evaluation as this practice is further refined.

Our key argument is that doing culturally inclusive evaluation is a process that requires reflexivity and learning, alongside strong and transparent institutional processes. Combining these approaches creates systemic ways of acknowledging and working within stratified and unequal social systems, inherent to any research. Our findings will advance knowledge within the field of evaluation about how to engage and represent culturally and linguistically diverse community members across Australia.

Authors: Stephanie Quail (ARTD Consultants), Kathleen De Rooy (ARTD Consultants, AU)

Progress reports and case notes contain rich information about program participants' experiences and frequently describe theoretically important risk and protective factors that are not typically recorded in administrative datasets. However, the unstructured narrative nature of these types of data - and, often, the sheer volume of it - is a barrier for human-drive qualitative analysis of this data. Often, the data cannot be included in evaluations because it is too time and resource intensive to do so.

This paper will describe three approaches to the qualitative analysis of progress reports used to examine within-program trajectories for participants, and the factors important for program success as part of an evaluation of the Queensland Drug and Alcohol Court.

It will explore how we navigated the balance between human and machine-driven qualitative analysis. We will reflect on the benefits and challenges of text-mining - how humans and machines stack up against each other when identifying the sentiment and emotion in text, the strengths and challenges of each approach, the lessons we have learned, and considerations for using these types of approaches to analyse datasets of progress reports in future evaluations.

Authors: Donna-Maree Stephens (Community First Development ),Sharon Babyack (Community First Development, AU)

As First Nations' economies grow and develop, wayfinding of monitoring and evaluation frameworks that meaningfully address the holistic outcomes of First Nations' economic independence are a necessity. Culturally responsive monitoring and evaluation frameworks provide footprints for distinct ways of thinking about the holistic and significant contribution that First Nations' economies make to their communities and the broad Australian economic landscape.
Presenting findings from an organisation with more than 20 years of experience working alongside First Nations' communities and businesses grounded in collective and community focused outcomes, this presentation will highlight key learnings of monitoring and evaluation from First Nations' enterprises. It is an invitation to explore and rethink notions of success by drawing on experiences and Dreams (long-term goals) for community organisations, businesses and journeys towards positive outcomes alongside the role of one culturally responsive monitoring and evaluation approach. Our presentation will provide an overview of our work in the community economic development space and key learnings developed through our monitoring and evaluation yarns with First Nations' enterprises across a national First Nations' economic landscape that includes urban, regional and remote illustrations.

Authors: Mallory Notting (First Person Consulting)

The ACT Government implemented a suite of programs over the ten year period between 2012 and 2022 aiming to increase the rates of students actively travelling to and from school. 102 schools in the ACT participated in at least one of the three programs during this time which targeted well-known barriers to active travel, including parental perceptions of safety and infrastructure around school. The programs were intended to contribute towards a range of broader priorities, including health, safety, and environmental outcomes.

This short-paper session will share learnings from evaluating long-term behaviour change at a population level, based on the school active travel evaluation. The evaluation represents a unique case study, as the evaluators needed to look retrospectively over ten years of program delivery and assess whether the combination of programs had created changes within the system and had resulted in the achievement of wider goals.

The presenter will illustrate that the line between short-term and long-term outcomes is rarely linear or clear, as is the relationship between individual interventions and whole of system change. This will be done by summarising the approach taken for the evaluation and sharing the diversity of information collated for analysis, which included individual program data and attitudinal and infrastructure-level data spanning the whole school environment.

Evaluators are often only able to examine the shorter term outcomes of an intervention, even in complex policy areas, and then rely on a theory of change to illustrate the assumed intended wider impacts. The presenter was able to scrutinise these wider impacts during the active travel evaluation, an opportunity not regularly afforded to evaluators. The lessons from the active travel evaluation are therefore pertinent for other evaluations in complex policy areas and may carry implications for program design as the focus shifts increasingly towards population-level, systems change.

Authors: Rochelle Tobin (Curtin University)

Measuring evaluation capacity building is complex, and there are few examples of quantitative measurement tools to enable evaluators to chart progress. WAAC (WA AIDS Council) and Curtin established a five-year partnership to build evaluation capacity within WAAC. To measure progress, a validated tool (Schwarzman et al. 2019) to assess organisational evaluation capacity was modified and combined with another partnership-based tool (Tobin et al. in press). The survey was administered to WAAC staff at baseline (n = 17) and then one year after the partnership was established (n = 19). Significant improvements were seen in individual skills for evaluation tasks, tools for evaluation and evaluation systems and structures. These tools provide a rigorous approach to tracking progress towards organisational evaluation capacity.

Authors: Katrina Barnes (Clear Horizon), Irene Guijt (Oxfam Great Britain, GB), Chipo Peggah (Oxfam Great Britain, ZW)

Traditional measures of success for international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) have been based on western (and often colonial), theories of change, use of predefined metrics and ways of knowing - rarely fitting local realities and interests. Projectised pre-determined understandings of change, limit honest reflection on larger transformative change, and inhibit meaningful learning and adaptation.

INGOs globally are being challenged to decolonise their knowledge and evaluation processes. Over the past 18 months, Oxfam Great Britain has undergone a journey to redesign how we understand impact, to rebalance and reframe accountability and strengthen learning. This new approach focuses on collective storytelling, sensemaking and regular reflection on practice. We are taking a theory-led approach to make meaning out of signals that systems are shifting across a portfolio of work. Drawing on a bricolage of various evaluation methodologies (Outcome Harvesting-lite, meta-evaluation and synthesis, evaluative rubrics, and impact evaluations) we are slowly building a picture up over time across the organisation, to tell a story of systemic change. We have seen how meaningful and honest evidence and learning processes, have enabled a stronger culture of learning.

Although we are far from the end of this journey, we have learnt some critical lessons and face ongoing challenges. We are not the only ones, many foundations, funders, and philanthropic organisations are going through similar processes as organisations increasingly try to understand their contribution to systems change. These conversations are therefore imperative to the field of evaluation, as organisations navigate new ways to 'evaluate' their own work.

At this presentation, we will start the discussion by sharing Oxfam Great Britain's journey with key challenges faced and lessons learnt. After this, we will invite a Q&A conversation to harvest insights from others also seeking to reimagine organisational learning that is grounded in decolonising knowledge processes and seeking to understand systems change.

Authors: Mohib Iqbal (Department of Education), Kira Duggan (Department of Education, AU), Ben McNally (Department of Education, AU)

This presentation will showcase the use of quasi-experimental impact evaluation and the use of a relatively new data linkage capability within the Victorian public sector.
Impact evaluation provides important evidence on program effectiveness and helps to inform government investment decisions. Quasi-experimental design identifies a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group/program participants in terms of baseline or pre-intervention characteristics. Statistical methods such as propensity score matching, and regression discontinuity can create valid comparison groups with a reduced risk of bias (White & Sabarwal, 2014).

However, the implementation of this method faces significant technical, data availability, and other challenges.
The Evaluation and Program Impact (EPI) branch at the Victorian Department of Education (DE) used quasi-experimental assessment as part of six different education program evaluations spanning issues from teacher supply to support for vulnerable students. This approach was used to evaluate impact/effectiveness and the economic evaluation of interventions to measure avoided costs. The presentation will outline the process of design, methodology and implementation of quasi-experimental methods used as part of these six evaluations.

Key enablers of the use of quasi-experimental designs are data availability and expertise in undertaking advanced quantitative impact evaluations. This presentation will give an overview of the types of departmental data used (such as regularly administered student, parent/carer, teacher and school leader surveys, assessment results such as NAPLAN and administrative data) as well as the relatively new analytical capability available through linked service use data from the Victorian Social Investment Integrated Data Resource (VSIIDR) and Centre for Victorian Data Linkage (CVDL).
The presentation also contextualises quasi-experimental impact evaluations as being one component of mix-method approaches that were staged after evaluation of appropriateness, design and fidelity. Decisions on intervention effectiveness were made using a broader array of evidence including quasi-experimental impact evaluation as one of many sources.

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: Laura Baker (ACIL Allen), Larissa Brisbane (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water NSW, AU)

Recommendations are the sharp end of evaluation, connecting evidence and insights to the improvement we aim to achieve. Many evaluation theories focus on framing and conducting evaluations, rather than developing recommendations or the associated organisational change required to complete the journey.

Recommendations point the way beyond an evaluation report, as the journey doesn't end when the report is produced. This presentation tells the story of recommendation wayfinding. We will share an evaluation practitioner and a commissioner's journey on navigating the challenge of developing actionable recommendations to promote impact beyond program close and into future decisions.

Evaluators need ways to integrate diverse evidence sources and generate actionable insights. The consultant will share perspectives on where these insights and the associated recommendations "come from": how different data come together to inform insights, the process for developing recommendations (balancing independence and engagement from commissioners), and how to design recommendations for the program and beyond.

Commissioners need recommendations that make sense in their context. The commissioners will share considerations in what makes a recommendation useful, and how we use this evaluation journey to leverage learning, skill building, and improvement opportunities. They will also discuss the evaluation audience and how ambitious can you get with recommendations.

This work over a number of years has helped build the evaluation knowledge base within our organisations. We will close with our recommendations to you - with the top ideas that we plan to take with us on our next evaluation journey.
eloped evaluations for multiple end users, each with their own needs. They'll share the research and engagement approaches and tools, which have been useful in different situations, as well as what was useful specifically for this project.

Authors: Sandra Opoku (Relationships Australia Victoria), Kate Matthies-Brown (Relationships Australia Victoria, AU)

Yarra Communities That Care (CTC) is a network of 24 local partner agencies who share a commitment to support the healthy development of young people in the City of Yarra. One of the key initiatives of Yarra CTC is the collaborative delivery of evidence-based social and emotional messaging to families by a centrally coordinated Facilitator Network involving multiple partner agencies. Building on positive feedback and program achievements from 2017-2022, we led an evaluation of the collaborative and place-based approach of the Yarra CTC Facilitator Network to better understand its contribution to systemic change and apply learnings to future place-based approaches for our respective organisations. The evaluation project team adopted the 'Place-Based Evaluation Framework' and was informed by a comprehensive theory of change. This provided an anchor in an otherwise complex and dynamic environment and unfamiliar territory.
There is an increased focus on collaborative place-based approaches at the federal, state and local levels as a promising approach to addressing complex social problems. Previous evaluations and literature identify successful collaboration and a strong support entity or backbone as key enabling factors that make place-based approaches successful. The collaborative place-based approach to strengthening family relationships in Yarra provides a local example of this.

Consistent with systems change frameworks this evaluation provided evidence of structural changes. These changes, manifested in the form of improved practices and dedicated resources and supports, ultimately leading to effective collaborative and transformative changes for the community.

This presentation will share the journey, key insights, and learnings of the evaluation project team over a two-year period to collaboratively gather evidence to inform ongoing program development and contribute to future place-based approaches. The Yarra CTC Facilitator Network serves as a valuable template for implementing best practices for place-based coalitions due to its focus on collaboration and fostering a sense of community.

Authors: Marnie Carter (Allen + Clarke Consulting)

Increasingly, evaluators are called upon to quickly equip decision makers with evidence from which to take action. A program may be imminently approaching the end of a funding cycle; a critical event may have taken place and leadership needs to understand the causes and learnings; or a new program of work is being designed for which it is important to ensure that finite resources are being directed to the most effective interventions. For such circumstances, Rapid Evaluation can be a useful tool.

Rapid Evaluation is not simply doing an evaluation quickly. It requires a deliberate, interlinked and iterative approach to gathering evidence to generate fast insights. What makes Rapid Evaluation different is that the evaluation design needs to be especially flexible, constantly adapting to the context. Data collection and analysis don't tend to follow a linear manner, but rather iterate back and forth during the evaluation. Rapid Evaluation is often conducted in response to specific circumstances that have arisen, and evaluators therefore need to manage a high level of scrutiny.

This presentation will provide an overview of how to conduct a rapid evaluation, illustrated by practical examples including rapid evaluations of a fund to support children who have been exposed to family violence, and a quickly-established employment program delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic. It will discuss the methodological approach to conducting a Rapid Evaluation, share lessons on how to manage the evolving nature of data collection as the evaluation progresses, and discuss how to maintain robustness while evaluating at pace.

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: Kristy Hornby (Grosvenor), Eleanor Williams (Australian Centre for Evaluation), Mandy Chaman (Outcomes, Practice and Evidence Network)

Navigating ethics is an essential part of any evaluation journey. As evaluators we often encounter complex situations that require thoughtful consideration of ethical principles and practice, far beyond the formal ethics process itself.

This session will explore real-world scenarios and provide attendees with actionable strategies to enhance ethical decision-making in their evaluation practice. The panel will speak to questions of managing commissioners' expectations, how to speak frankly to program areas where under-performance is found, issues of confidentiality, ensuring culturally sensitive practice, and ensuring power imbalances are acknowledged and addressed.

The panel presentation will take attendees through the journey of ethical practice and will consider:
- The overall significance of ethical thinking in evaluation
- Common ethical challenges faced by evaluators
- Practical tools and frameworks that empower evaluators to uphold their ethical standards and deliver meaningful results that can withstand scrutiny
- From an internal evaluator perspective, the balancing act of managing these tensions successfully
- Case studies that can illustrate the application of practical ethics in evaluation
- Takeaways and recommendations.

Eleanor Williams, Managing Director of the Australian Centre for Evaluation; Mandy Charman, Project Manager for the Outcome, Performance and Evidence Network in the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare; and Kristy Hornby, Victorian Program Evaluation Practice Lead at Grosvenor will be the panellists. Our expert panellists will talk to their deidentified war stories in their current and previous roles to set out exactly what kind of challenges evaluators can face in the conduct of their work, and learn from the panellists' hands-on experience on what to do about them. Attendees will be encouraged to participate in a dynamic dialogue with the panellists and with each other, to share their own experiences and strategies for addressing ethical concerns, building on the content shared through the session.

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.