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: Samantha Abbato (Visual Insights People )

The psychology of evaluation capacity building: Finding the way with the rider, elephant and the pathway
Evaluation capacity building is increasingly becoming a core part of evaluation practice and a critical part of incorporating evaluation into the everyday activity of organisations (Preskill and Boyle, 2008, White, Percy and Small, 2018). Reaching the point where evaluation becomes the way of doing business requires a change of knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

Changes need to happen at the level of individuals, teams, organisations, and partnerships. This journey requires supporting and managing change to systematic enquiry processes as much as it requires evaluation expertise. In this skill-building session, we introduce Jonathan Haidt's 'rider, elephant and pathway' metaphor as a framework to support change and strengthen evaluation capacity (Haidt, 2018).

Haidt's metaphor for change includes the rider (our rational thinking side) atop an elephant (our emotional side). Behaviour change for individuals and collectives requires steps that (1) support the rider, such as giving clear directions, (2) motivate the elephant by tapping into emotions, and (3) shape a pathway to change, including clearing obstacles. In this interactive session, the facilitator will provide case studies applying Haidt's metaphor,spanning two decades Through these examples the power of this framework to support evaluation capacity building is demonstrated. Examples include using Haidt's framework for:
1. Building a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) system with a medium-sized community organisation;
2. Increasing the maturity of MEL in an existing large organisation; and
3. Increasing the impact of evaluation partnerships.

The active skill-building component incorporates:_

• Cartoon elephant, rider and pathway flashcards;
• A 'snakes and ladders' style game; and
• Evaluation-specific examples.

The combination of examples and activities are designed to support participant learning. The session will encourage discussion of barriers, enablers and actions to build evaluation capacity relevant to different situations and contexts.

Learning objectives include:

• Knowledge of a sound and memorable psychological framework for supporting evaluation capacity building;
• Ability to apply Haidt's metaphor

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: Susie Fletcher (Australian Healthcare Associates)

Auslan is a visual, signed language that was developed by and for the Australian Deaf community. People who use Auslan as their primary or preferred language are not necessarily fluent in English. Our team was engaged to review access to interpreter services for Auslan users, a population group that is often underrepresented in evaluation. In this presentation we will highlight some of the issues evaluators need to consider when working with this marginalised community, and share practical skills and techniques for making their evaluations more accessible.

Authors: Kathleen Stacey (beyond...Kathleen Stacey & Associates Pty Ltd), Cheryl Augustsson (Yorgum Healing Services), Raelene Rosas (NT Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation), Pat Thompson (Link-Up (Qld) Aboriginal Corporation), Jamie Sampson (Link-Up (NSW) Aboriginal Corporation)

Link-Up Services support Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people who were forcibly removed, fostered or adopted from their families as children, and their descendants who live with the ongoing impact of forcible removal policies, to reconnect with family, community, culture and Country. Wayfinding is at the core of our work - navigating unfamiliar territory with clients towards a hoped for destination of a greater sense of 'home', wherever this is possible, in a culturally safe, appropriate and trauma-informed manner.

In 2019, the National Indigenous Australians Agency funded development of a national Link-Up monitoring and evaluation strategy with the eight Link-Up Services operate across six jurisdictions. Each Link-Up Service is either a stand-alone Aboriginal community controlled organisations or based in an Aboriginal community controlled organisation.

This interactive workshop invites participants into our collective experiences of co-creating and implementing the M&E Strategy on a national basis, presented from the voices and position of Link-Up Services. We believe our experiences and learnings will be instructive for monitoring and evaluation activity with other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and programs.

Travel with us in reflecting on our monitoring and evaluation wayfinding journey over three phases of work. Pause with us at key points throughout the session to exercise your critical self-reflection and analysis skills, share your ideas and learn what has worked well or presented challenges for us and why in creating, navigating and implementing a culturally safe monitoring and evaluation strategy in a complex and demanding service context.

Authors: Kathryn Erskine (Cube Group), Michael Maher (Cube Group, AU)

The session is intended to provide a practical example of how a traditional program evaluation was re-orientated to allow the application of findings to inform broader system transformation. This echoes current discourse in evaluation - particularly since the global pandemic - whereby traditional notions about how the field of evaluation is viewed and developed are being challenged (Ofir, Z. 2021). Specifically, there are calls to rethink and elevate evaluation practice to actively contribute to and support systems transformation (see Dart 2023; Norman 2021), beyond a narrow programmatic focus.

This session will illuminate this discussion by examining a mental health program evaluation in the context of significant service reform across the Victorian mental health system. The presentation will outline insights and techniques about how to lift and reconfigure a tightly defined program evaluation into one which can have broader application to the system ecosphere. It outlines how and why the pivot was made; changes we made to the methodology and the key benefits that arose from taking an expansive view of the sector in which the program operated within.

The design of the session will be a presentation format supported by a PowerPoint slide deck, comprising:
•    Introduction and purpose of session
•    Overview of the program we evaluated
•    Key challenges which required an evaluation 'pivot' - and how we worked with our client
•    Key changes made to the methodology
•    Key benefits from elevating from a programmatic to systems focus.

Authors: Matt Healey (First Person Consulting)

The Design and Evaluation Special Interest Group (DESIG) was established in 2017. Its primary aim has been to explore the intersection of evaluation and design, and that aim has been interpreted in different ways over time. In 2024, the DESIG identified an opportunity to take the SIG model in a slightly different direction, embarking on an innovative venture with the launch of the Evaluation Lab, an initiative aimed at talk into action, and taking evaluators through a design process to address evaluation challenges.
Drawing inspiration from the concept of 'living labs,' which serve as real-world testing grounds, the Evaluation Lab created a space where evaluation professionals could come together. Employing a design-thinking process, the Lab guided participants through a structured expedition of defining, ideating, and prototyping solutions to tackle nominated challenges. Participants also learned pitch skills to communicate their solutions.
This Big Room Session provides an opportunity for the DESIG to outline the Evaluation Lab model, capped off with participants presenting their solutions through rapid-fire pitches, either live or pre-recorded, akin to explorers sharing tales of new lands discovered. The session's innovative twist lies in the audience's role, acting as both audience and judges. The audience will vote on their favourite solution, and be involved in crowing the first AES Evaluation Lab winner.
By blending lecture-style content with dynamic team presentations and active audience engagement, the Big Room Session not only highlights the critical role of design in navigating evaluation challenges but also demonstrates the practical application of these methodologies in charting a course through real-world problems.

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: Julia Suh (Tobias)

Humans are complex and diverse. To create social change, what do we need to understand about them?

Their behaviours and mindsets are key, but the broader context and systems they operate within paints a fuller picture of the multiple moving parts that need to change simultaneously for sustained impact. These changes can be mapped, with embedded evaluative thinking, building a pathway for formal evaluation.

In this session, experts in Human-Centred Design and social change share their innovative approaches to thinking beyond the project- or program-level goals or organisational level performance indicators. Examples are drawn from direct experiences working across various transformation projects, from reducing child sexual exploitation and preventing academic misconduct to improving the care economy and elevating patient outcomes. They demonstrate how program goals and social change vision can not only be realised together, but also how a combination of strategic prioritisation, collaboration capability building and network can accelerate the process.

Authors: Samantha Abbato (Visual Insights People), Lisa Stafford (University of Tasmania, AU)

Researchers from fields including public health, community, and disability have been utilising film methods such as participatory video and digital storytelling for decades. Co-creation of film narratives for evaluation can engage participants as unique people with lived experiences connected to social and cultural worlds and relationships, including their connection with the community. Evaluation has been reluctant to adopt participatory film methods.

Virtual Reality (VR) animation presents a distinctly participatory approach to evaluation data collection and a new lens for communicating findings. It places the participant in the driver's seat and the evaluation audience, in the passenger seat, alongside them. Using VR stories can increase the potential for the intended audience, including decision-makers, to deeply engage with the information communicated through focused immersion in participant stories using familiarity of local settings.

We present a case study examining the process of collaborating with young people with disabilities to tell their stories of inclusion in Tasmania, Australia. Three young people participated in online storyboarding and script-writing workshops over twelve months to develop short stories of everyday experiences in their community. An introduction to the particpants and their stories, the three completed stories, and a collaborative call to action were made into a set of five connected VR short films. The films were displayed as a report on a website page and for viewing as a complete VR story on a headset.

The presenters examine the process of applying this new VR digital storytelling approach to participatory evaluation. The challenges and benefits of the approach for participants and its impact on the intended audience, including urban planning and design students, are discussed. Using the lessons learned from the case study, recommendations for evaluators considering using participatory digital storytelling and VR animation are made.

Authors: Kristy Hornby (Grosvenor), Tenille Moselen (First Person Consulting)

Systems evaluation - many might have heard the term, but few have done one. This session shares two case studies of different systems evaluations and the learnings from these to benefit other evaluators who are conducting or about to begin a systems evaluation.

The session will open with an overview and explanation of what systems evaluation is, in terms of its key features and how it is distinguished from other forms of evaluation. The presenters will then talk through their case studies, one of which centres on the disability justice system in the ACT, while the other takes a sector-wide focus across the whole of Victoria. The co-presenters will share openly and honestly their initial plans for commencing the systems evaluations, how they had to amend those plans in response to real-world conditions, and the tips and tricks and innovations they picked up along the way.

Authors: Tamara Van Der Zant (Australian Council for Educational Research), Katherine Dix (Australian Council for Educational Research, AU)

In this presentation we will discuss the diverse and flexible data collection methods suitable for program evaluation in the context of schools. We will discuss the types of evidence that can be used to evaluate social and emotional learning programs and wellbeing initiatives, specifically, and considerations when working with educators, children and young people. We will invite all to participate in discussions about challenges to the evaluation of these programs in complex, real-world contexts (including data quality, confounding factors, system requirements, etc.) and propose methods we use to navigate these challenges.

Optimising program evaluation methods is important because of the ever-growing number of wellbeing programs being offered to schools. Accordingly, the need for high quality evaluation to guide funding decisions and use of programs and initiatives to support student and educator wellbeing in schools has never been greater.

By drawing on comprehensive experience in undertaking wellbeing program evaluations, this presentation will share our lesson learnt and recommendations that should support evaluators in crafting contextually appropriate evaluations. High quality program evaluations, often a requirement for ongoing funding, addresses the growing need for meaningful and accessible evidence that is currently being sought by schools, educators, funders, and policy decision makers.

Authors: John Gargani (Gargani + Co)

The world has never faced larger problems—climate change, refugee crises, and Covid19, to name just three. And organizations have responded by scaling solutions to unprecedented size—sustainable development goals, global refugee policies, and universal vaccination programs. But scaling is a journey to a destination imperfectly imagined at the onset and difficult to recognize upon arrival. At what point is scaling a program, policy, or product successful? Under what conditions should scaling stop? Or "descaling" begin? Robert McLean and I posed these and other questions to innovators in the Global South and shared what we learned in our recent book *Scaling Impact: Innovation for the Public Good*. In this session, we outline the book's four research-based scaling principles—justification, optimal scale, coordination, and dynamic evaluation. Then we discuss how to (1) define success as achieving impact at optimal scale, (2) choose a scaling strategy best suited to achieve success, and (3) judge success with dynamic evaluation. My presentation goes beyond the book, reflecting our most current thinking and research, and I provide participants with access to free resources, including electronic copies of the book.

Authors: Alli Burness (Tetra Tech), Sharon Marra-Brown (ARTD, AU), Matt Health (First Person Consulting, AU), Monica Wabuke (Tetra Tech, FJ)

Sensemaking is the process of making meaning and distilling the signal from the noise in primary research. Inclusive and transparent sensemaking ensures the critical link is maintained between evidence and insights, that evidence is interpreted correctly, and the views of participants are understood correctly. Using intentional sensemaking approaches with integrity can ensure transparency and logical rigor in an evaluation or research project.

Despite its critical nature, sensemaking can often be the most opaque step in an evaluation process. While replication is a hallmark of good sensemaking, especially in academia, this is not always feasible in the fast-paced world of evaluation. The time required to do sensemaking well, the importance of applying the correct approaches and engaging the correct parties, and the critical role of a lead facilitator can be overlooked or underestimated. By shining a spotlight on this step in an evaluation, this session will highlight inclusive and accessible sensemaking approaches used across the design and evaluation spectrum to identify new or emergent approaches. It will pay particular focus to sensemaking when working in complex systems.

Panellists bring deep experience in evaluation or design research in Australian or international consulting settings. They will touch on what sensemaking approaches can be used to maintain integrity through a rapid or agile sensemaking process common in large or complex evaluations; popular sensemaking processes for coding data and new or emerging methods; and how insights or recommendations emerge from the sensemaking process. The moderator will start the panel by reflecting on the definitions, understanding and application of sensemaking, with an emphasis on inclusive and accessible aspects. Our presenters will then explore methods through this same lens and with a focus on emergent or new approaches. Methods will be presented in a manner that audience members can learn and apply.

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: Gabby Lindsay-Smith 

Using linked Government data sets provide an opportunity to investigate the impact of state-wide programs and policies but are often out of reach for many evaluators, and especially non-analysts. This presentation will detail a non-analyst’s experience incorporating state linked data sets into a recent evaluation of a Victorian-wide family services program evaluation. The presentation will outline tips and tricks for those who may consider incorporating government-level linked data or simulation models into large program or policy evaluations in the future. It will cover areas such as: where to begin, navigating the data and key tips for working with analysts.

Authors: Sharon Marra-Brown (ARTD Consultants), Moya Johansson (ARTD Consultants, AU)

Think it's important to enable children and young people to have a voice in evaluations, but find it challenging? This paper presents tried and tested strategies for ensuring ethical engagement with children and young people and encouraging meaningful participation.

Involving children and young people in evaluation is critical to ensure that we arrive at evaluations that accurately reflect their experiences and capture the outcomes they consider most important. Children and young people have the right to have a say about their experiences, and evaluations that avoid their involvement risk perpetuating ongoing inequities.

However, involving children and young people in evaluations can prompt ethical concerns in relation to their comprehension of research, capacity to provide consent, potential coercion by parents, and the potential conflicting values and interests between parents and children. Depending on the subject, it can also create concerns about safety and readiness.

Based on our experience successfully achieving ethics approval for multiple evaluations of services for children and young people across Australia, which include interviews with children and young people who have accessed these services, we will talk through considerations for ensuring the voice of children and young people in evaluation while safeguarding them from unnecessary risks.

We will then take you through how we've overcome challenges engaging children and young people in evaluations with youth-centred innovative solutions, including carefully considering the language we use and how we reach out. We will demonstrate the developmental benefits of meaningful participation of children and young people once ethical considerations have been carefully considered and navigated.

Finally, we will take you through our tips for ensuring meaningful and safe engagement with children and young people. We will point you in the direction of Guidelines and practice guides for involving young people in research and evaluation in a safe and meaningful way.

The presenters are evaluators with extensive experience in designing, delivering and reporting on evaluations that include data collection with children and young people. This includes recently achieving ethics approval and commencing interviews with children as young as seven, accessing a suicide aftercare service.

While much attention is devoted to ensuring safe and inclusive data collection with various demographics, specific considerations for engaging children and young people remain relatively uncommon. Recognising the unique needs of this population, coupled with the understandably cautious stance of ethics committees, underscores the necessity for a thoughtful and deliberate approach to evaluations involving children and young people.

Given the additional complexities and ethical considerations involved, the default tendency can be to exclude children and young people from evaluation processes. However, it is important that children and young people are able to have a say in the programs, policies and services that they use. Participation in evaluations can be a positive experience, if risks are managed and the process is designed to be empowering.

This session will provide valuable insights, actionable strategies, and an opportunity for participants to reflect on their own practices, fostering a culture of inclusivity and responsiveness in evaluation.

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: Anne Smyth (LDC Group), Lesley Thornton (LDC Group, AU), Kym Coupe (First Step, AU), Caroline Lynch (Launch Housing, AU)

As all Wayfinders would understand, when we embarked on a developmental evaluation of the Road Home, we really had no idea how the program or evaluation would play out in practice. We did know however that the usual way of delivering crisis housing services was not working well for either clients or staff. Something needed to change. We needed to change. So, we did - we being the Road Home team working with the evaluators.

Road Home centres on a strong and engaged multidisciplinary team to deliver mental health, medical, legal and housing services to people in crisis accommodation, where they are, and when they need it the most. This integrated way of working is in stark contrast to the conventional, single discipline outreach and in-reach approaches that characterise service delivery in the community sector - its impact has been significant.

This panel will bring leading representatives of the Road Home team and the evaluators together to explore with our audience what we have learned; what it takes to do this well, the benefits to clients, staff and participating organisations, the pitfalls and challenges and the value of developmental evaluation and its methods.

We now have a much better idea of what Road Home looks like, what it takes to support and enable it, to achieve valued outcomes and to meaningfully evaluate it. The role of evaluators and the project manager in holding the uncertain and evolving space characteristic of developmental evaluation and wayfinding is central - it has taken clarity, alignment of purpose, a lot of patience and much persistence, not to mention flexibility. It has been and remains quite the journey!

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: 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: Gillian Kennedy (The University of Notre Dame Australia), Tammy Solonec (Kimberley Aboriginal Law and Culture Centre, AU)

Traditional Healers, known in the Kimberley as mabarn (medicine men) and parnany parnany warnti (group of women healers), have been practicing their craft for millennia, however, cultural forms of healing are not funded or incorporated into health services in Western Australia. In 2019 a Kimberley cultural organisation was funded to develop and trial a service delivery model of traditional healing. The trial ended in November 2023.

This presentation will reflect on a Developmental Evaluation (DE) that was undertaken throughout the model development and trial of this traditional healing service using a multi-method approach, incorporating participant observation; semi-structured interviews; small group discussions; and a client survey. Data was collated into a 'checklist matrix', using a traffic light system to show how each element of the model was tracking according to different stakeholder perspectives. This information was then provided back to the healing team iteratively to incorporate further into the model design.

The DE team acted as a 'critical friend' to the project. Two Aboriginal research assistants (one male and one female) were able to provide valuable cultural interpreting for the project to ensure that cultural sensitivities around the healing practices were carefully managed. The DE team also helped the healing team to develop a set of guiding principles and a Theory of Change to help the project stay true to their underpinning cultural values.

The DE process helped to inform a culturally-governed and owned clinic model, working with both men and women healers, that is unique to the Kimberley. DE puts the evaluation team inside the project. This relational element is reflective of Aboriginal worldviews but may bring challenges for perceptions of objectivity that are championed in traditional forms of evaluation. We argue that the evaluator as a trusted, critical friend was ultimately part of the success of the healing project.

Authors: Claire Treadgold (Starlight Children's Foundation Australia), Erika Fortunati (Starlight Children's Foundation, AU)

Our program creates personalised experiences of fun, joy, and happiness for families with a palliative child, aiming to foster family connections and celebrate the simple joys of childhood during this challenging circumstance. Evaluating the program is of utmost importance to ensure that it meets the needs of the families involved. Equally, due to the program's sensitivity and deeply personal nature, a low-pressure, flexible evaluation approach is necessary.
In our session, we will showcase our response to this need and share our highly engaging, low-burden tools to gather participant feedback that leverages concepts of gamification and accessibility to boost evaluation responses and reduce participant burden. In particular, we will focus on our innovative “activity book”, which evaluates the program through artistic expression. By emphasising creativity and flexibility, our tools aim to enrich the evaluation process and respect the diverse preferences and abilities of the participating families.
The core argument will focus on our innovative evaluation methodology, how it aligns with best practices in the literature, and our key learnings. Key points include the considerations needed for evaluating programs involving palliative children, empowering children and young people through their active involvement in the evaluation process, and how gamification and creativity boost participation and engagement.
Outline of the session:

• Introduction to the palliative care program and the need for flexible, creative, and respectful evaluation methods
• What the literature tells us about evaluation methods for programs involving palliative children and their families
• A presentation of our evaluation protocol
• Case studies illustrating the feedback collected and its impact

Our learnings and their implications for theory and practice

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: 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: Samantha Abbato (Visual Insights People)

Values guide all evaluation processes, methods and judgements. Although evaluators are often not aware of the values shaping their work and can't readily name them, they know when we are straying off their values path through the experience of conflict or unease. Reflecting on the evaluation literature and two decades of evaluation practice using a 'values' perspective, it is argued that there has never been a more important time to build values literacy. This presentation demonstrates how values literacy can guide conversations with yourself, your team and others and provide signposting and illumination of a more rigorous and ethical evaluation journey.

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: 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.

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.