Skip to content

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA)

Evaluation of the Link Up Program

Year: 2003
Evaluator: Office of Evaluation and Audit (Indigenous Programs)
Website: http://www.finance.gov.au/docs/LinkUp-2003.pdf

Terms of Reference:

Findings:

The six link ups assessed were found in the main to be providing their core activities, dominated by family tracing and reunion activities (60%). Four main measures were used as an illustrative indicator of the effectiveness of the service including the number of reunions as a percentage of clients, and the progression of cases to closure, drop off rates and cost per reunion. The achievement of reunions varied between SA (28%) and QLD (3%). The poorer performing states had a higher drop off rate for reasons other than lack of a reunion. Costs per link up varied greatly ($7,000 to $53,000 per reunion) due to the additional funding contributed by some state governments. Client dissatisfaction with link ups is primarily reported as being due to unrealistic expectations.

Demand for link up services is difficult to measure and strongly relates to the level of promotion of the service in the regions. The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey suggests that there is a good deal of latent demand (10 – 12% of Indigenous people aged over 25). Capacity to meet demand may be derived by comparing latent need with actual funding. For example, NSW had 30% of the latent need but only 14% of funding. Funding should be increased in NSW and WA and decreased in QLD. Actual numbers of clients who received counselling services was not available. Other findings included that 45% of link up staff were dissatisfied with the counselling service and 40% of link up cases involved the use of archival resources at AIATSIS. The accessibility of other archival resources has improved with greater state contributions.

Indigenous Family Violence: Phase 1 Meta-Evaluation Report

Year: 2004
Evaluator: Strategic Partners
Website: http://www.padv.dpmc.gov.au/projects/padv_phase_one_ifv.pdf

Summary:

The Australian Government has conducted a meta-evaluation of the first phase of its $50 million Partnerships Against Domestic Violence Initiative (PADVI). The report documents the key findings from the range of PADVI and associated Indigenous family violence projects funded by the Australian Government, categorised into six broad groups: prevention; community education and development; collaboration; counselling and therapeutic interventions; working with men; and community capacity building.

PADVI has provided a unique and groundbreaking opportunity for governments and community organisations to work together to examine ways of addressing the impact of domestic and family violence on women, children and the broader community.

The national collaborative approach has met key objectives and has demonstrated the capacity of the Australian Government, State and Territories to work together with resources, commitment and goodwill to address a major social issue.

National Aboriginal Health Strategy Delivery of Housing and Infrastructure to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities Follow-up Audit

Year: 2004
Evaluator: Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and P. Farrelly & Associates Pty Ltd
Website: http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/F1717B8031E74528CA256E82007AFF15/$file/Audit%20Report%2044.pdf

Terms of Reference:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services (ATSIS) provided the ANAO with a written statement commenting on progress against the seven recommendations of the previous audit report. The ANAO then assessed ATSIS’ progress in implementing the recommendations by analysing its statement, conducting interviews with relevant ATSIS staff in late 2003 and checking relevant documentation.

Findings:

The ANAO concluded that ATSIS has fully implemented four of the seven recommendations of the previous audit. Specifically, recommendations relating to benchmarking performance, program monitoring, and stakeholder relationships have been implemented. Other recommendations have either been partially implemented or are no longer relevant.

Evaluation of Aboriginal Hostels Limited

Year: 2004
Evaluator: Office of Evaluation and Audit (Indigenous Programs)
Website: http://www.finance.gov.au/docs/AHL_Evaluation_report_for_web2.pdf

Terms of Reference:

The evaluation attempts to measure the likely impact of Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL) on its recipients indirectly through indicators including:

Findings:

The report found that the average bed occupancy rate in all AHL hostels is 72%, which compares very well with the room occupancy rate of 55% in the tourism accommodation industry, and even more favourably with the more comparable bed occupancy rate in that industry. The report notes that AHL is only a gap provider for homeless, aged and substance use rehabilitation accommodation, and supply of AHL hostels for such accommodation is unavoidably influenced by state government funding decisions in these areas. There is an opportunity for AHL and the Council of Australian Governments to better coordinate the matching of demand and supply for Indigenous housing and accommodation.

The evaluation found that AHL hostels are meeting a real need for accommodation for many who have to travel a long distance to access important services that are otherwise not available where they usually reside. Furthermore, the reasons given by residents for staying at the hostel are satisfactorily consistent with the purpose for which the hostel was established. While the authors conclude that AHL appears to need the most improvement in targeting to areas of greatest need, they also find that patrons of AHL hostels are by and large representative of the most disadvantaged section of the Indigenous population. Hostels appear to be underused by Torres Strait Islanders.

A Red Tape Evaluation in Selected Indigenous Communities

Year: 2006
Evaluator: Morgan Disney & Associates Pty Ltd
Website: http://www.facsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/via/indigenous/$file/Indigenous_RedTapeReport.pdf

Summary

This evaluation on the administrative burden of government funding programs on Indigenous organisations was undertaken between mid-2005 and January 2006. The evaluation involved a sample of half of the Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs), and 22 Indigenous organisations in receipt of government funding and nominated by the 14 ICCs in the sample. The evaluation set out to establish the extent and nature of the administrative burden commonly known as ‘red tape’.

Australian Government funding programs operate under an accountability framework that places obligations on both the funding agency and the organisation receiving funding. The evaluation did not identify anything within this framework which, in and of itself, creates red tape or an unreasonable burden on funded organisations. In the assessment of the evaluators, actual red tape is less than perceived red tape, and many of the issues raised as examples of red tape are in fact about relationships, program management practices, and the capacity of government agencies, ICCs and funded organisations. Thus the evaluation concluded that red tape or unreasonable burden is created primarily at the operational level in terms of how the accountability framework is translated into departmental and local practices.

Possible areas for investigation include:

Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004-08

Year: On-going from 2006
Evaluator: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW & the Australian Institute of Family Studies

Terms of Reference:
Three of the four strategy initiatives (Communities for Children; Invest to Grow – including established and developing programs; and Local Answers) are being evaluated on an on-going basis.

Out of scope for the evaluation is the Tools and Resources component of Invest to Grow and the Choice and Flexibility in Child Care initiative which will have their own evaluations.

Updated evaluation activities can be found on the Communities and Families Clearinghouse Australia (CAFCA) website: http://www.aifs.gov.au/cafca/

Indigenous Community Housing Organisations

Year: 2006
Evaluator: Office of Evaluation and Audit (Indigenous Programs)
Website: http://www.finance.gov.au/published_oea__ip__evaluation_.html

Background:
Community housing services are provided through some 600 Indigenous Community Housing Organisations (ICHOs) that are primarily funded through the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP).  The estimated expenditure for CHIP is $292 million in 2006-07.

ICHOs may have several roles including asset and tenancy management, community management, community welfare and municipal services.
The objective of the audit is to assess the community housing activities undertaken by ICHOs funded through the Community Housing and Infrastructure output of CHIP.  This will involve an examination of how efficiently and effectively a sample of ICHOs are managed and have used funding for:

Aspects of the reporting arrangements for program outputs and outcomes will also be examined.

Terms of Reference:
The scope of the audit was confined to activities funded under the Housing and Housing Related Infrastructure element of the CHIP program (which comprised $59.012M of the 2004-05 appropriation of $249.869M).  In addition, the audit was limited to ICHOs which receive funding directly from the Commonwealth (i.e. those in Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania).  Therefore, details of any poor performing ICHOs operating in states funded under pooled arrangements are not addressed by the audit.

Findings:
To be advised

Torres Strait Regional Authority

Year: 2006
Evaluator: Office of Evaluation and Audit (Indigenous Programs), Department of Finance and Administration
Website: http://www.finance.gov.au/published_oea__ip__evaluation_.html

Background

The Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) was originally established as a Statutory Authority under Part 3A Division 1 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989.  It came into effect on 1 July 1994.  TSRA comprises a Board of 20 elected Members and is supported by an administrative arm of about 26 staff.  Funding of $56.8 million was allocated to administer TSRA in 2006-07.

TSRA is responsible for many national and regional programmes for people in the Torres Strait, which were previously administered by ATSIC.  These include Economic Development, Native Title, Housing and Environment Health Infrastructure, and Social, Cultural and Development. Section 76 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 required the then Office of Evaluation and Audit to regularly evaluate and audit the operations of TSRA.

Terms of Reference:

The objective of this audit was to form an opinion as to whether the TSRA’s Economic Development Programme (EDP) was being managed and administered in an effective and efficient manner and the extent to which the ‘High Priority’ recommendations contained in the Office’s August 2005 audit report had been progressed and/or implemented.

Findings:

To be advised.

Family and Community Network Initiative

Terms of Reference:

Since February 2003, the Family and Community Network Initiative has been primarily focused on supporting Indigenous communities participating in the Council Of Australian Governments’ Indigenous Community Coordination Pilots (ICCP) around Australia. A program evaluation will be finalised in 2005-06 and will examine:

The department also plans to conduct a study on:

Evaluations of the Eight COAG Trial Sites and Synopsis Review

Year: 2005-06
Evaluator: Various (Eight COAG Trial Sites); Morgan Disney (Synopsis Review)
Website: http://www.facsia.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/indigenous/publications.htm

Evaluations of all eight Council of Australian Governments (COAG) trial sites have been completed, and were publicly released on 22 February 2007, along with a Synopsis Review that pulled together the findings from the individual reports.  All reports are available on the FaCSIA website.  The purpose of the trials was to find new ways for governments and Indigenous communities to work together to achieve better outcomes. The evaluations focused on the lessons learnt from the trials, and in particular how governments can improve their engagement with each other and with Indigenous people and communities. The reports include the history of the trial, the coordination processes used in the trial, interim outcomes and options for further consideration. Findings show that trial partners saw better relationships being built between governments and communities, and among governments.

Review of Individual Shared Responsibility Agreements

Year: On-going from 2006
Evaluator: Ten independent consultants

The reviews of the individual Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) typically commence some 12 months after the SRAs are signed or at an appropriate review point. The reviews are conducted by a panel of 10 consultants over a 3 year period.  The first group of reviews was completed in September 2006, and provided to the signatories shortly after.  The second round of reviews was completed in April 2007, and the reviews have been sent to the signatories.  The third round is due to start in the latter half of the 2008 financial year. 

Because of the learning nature of this process and the potential impact on individuals in small communities, FaHCSIA does not plan to make the reviews of individual SRAs public.  However a summary of the lessons will be made available from time to time and the Implementation Review of SRAs has been made publicly available (see next).

Year: 2007
Implementation Review of Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) Evaluator: Morgan Disney & Associates
Website: 

In April 2007 Morgan Disney & Associates were contracted through an open tender process to undertake an overarching SRA Implementation Review.  The review:

Review of Communities in Crisis

Year: 2007
Evaluator: SGS Economics and Planning

Background
The Communities in Crisis initiative aims to help stabilise communities suffering from intolerable levels of alcohol, substance and child abuse, violence and high rates of suicide and self-harm. Due to the volatile and unstable environment, initial work focuses on stabilising the community. The work may also require the long-term presence of a community development coordinator/place manager, access to specialised services and may act as a catalyst for a more comprehensive response.

The approach requires the Commonwealth and State Governments to work together to address a number of objectives, while recognising the responsibilities of each level of government. The objectives, dependant on the need within individual communities, are:

Terms of Reference
The Consultant will conduct a formative evaluation of a selection of communities involved in the Communities in Crisis initiative. The evaluation will occur at Beagle Bay, Balgo, Kalumburu and Yalata. The evaluation will look at what is working, what isn’t working and what could be done better.  The evaluation will also provide the Australian Government with options it might consider for continued positive change for the future, best practice inventions and ongoing performance measurement.

Implementation Review of Indigenous Coordination Centres

Year: 2007
Evaluator: KPMG

In March 2007, independent consultants KPMG were contracted through a single-stage open tender process to undertake a review of the ICC model.  The review was strategic in nature and comprised of two stages.  The first stage was a diagnostic evaluation designed to measure how well ICCs are performing against the Secretaries Group ICC model; while the second stage involved the development of a Continuous Development Plan, with a menu of options to enhance ICC performance.   

Consultations were carried out on a sample of eight ICCs using a combination of semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with ICC stakeholders.  In developing and progressing the review, OIPC Group consulted with a range of stakeholders. 

The first stage of the ICC review focused on collecting qualitative data to measure ICC performance against the Secretaries Group ICC model.  The second stage of the review focused on enhancing ICC performance.

The final evaluation report is still to be published.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission/ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services (to July 2004)- Putting the pieces together: Regional plans, data and outcomes

Year: 2003
Evaluator: Office of Evaluation and Audit, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
Website: http://www.finance.gov.au/published_oea__ip__evaluation_.html

Background:

This evaluation was conducted as a result of the Programme Manager’s demand for regional level data.  Regional Planning was one of the key functions of the Regional Councils established under the ATSIC Act.  The absence of reliable and comprehensive data for regional planning has been a major issue, although at the national level this issue has been advanced under the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) initiatives.

Terms of Reference:

Findings:

Availability and accessibility to data are prerequisites for the development of Regional Plans.  The lack of information base limits Regional Councils’ ability to effectively negotiate with mainstream agencies for service delivery programmes for communities. 

The range of information required for developing regional planning includes population, growth, composition, living conditions, spatial distribution, migration patterns, housing and infrastructure and the living environment.
Regional Council plan was considered to be the important document for policy, advocacy policy and development plans representative of the Regions. 
As part of the evaluation a workshop was held including Regional Council Chairs, Regional Managers and other policy experts.  Based on their views a planning framework was developed that could be used by Regional Councils as guide.

Recommendations included a setting up of a statistical coordination unit to establish, develop and monitor data bases for ATSIC Regions; revision of ATSIC Act to allow Regional Councils to enter into agreements and Memoranda of Understanding with mainstream agencies to strengthen the position of Regional Councils in planning and advocacy. 

A capacity development program covering planning, advocacy and negotiations is to be provided to members of Regional Councils.

Outcome data measurement: Unfinished business

Year: 2002
Evaluator: Office of Evaluation and Audit, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
Website: http://www.finance.gov.au/published_oea__ip__evaluation_.html

Background:

The absence of reliable and comprehensive data on service delivery programmes of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission or those funded by it has been a major impediment for planning and monitoring of programmes. Recognising this limitation COAG asked the Productivity Commission to report on performance information on Indigenous programmes it its annual reports to the Parliament (Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision). The major objective of the evaluation was to critically assess the existing data sources for key Indigenous programmes and to indicate to what extent the data could be used for planning and monitoring Indigenous programmes.

Terms of Reference:

Findings:

The evaluation focussed on four subject matter areas: law and justice; health; education and training; and housing and infrastructure.  Also, it assessed the quality of population census counts and existing projections.

Over 75 key data sets were reviewed.  Some 22 data sets, despite their doubtful coverage (under-identification of Indigenous people), were considered to be reasonably good (reliable) to be used for measuring programme outcomes.

Nine data sets did not identify Indigenous clients/people separately.

Forty-two data sets, although contained valuable information for programme monitoring, had one or more of the following limitations: poor coverage of Indigenous peoples, small sample sizes (or small number of Indigenous clients); poor data quality or incomplete information recorded.

The evaluation strongly recommended the establishment of a statistical unit within the Commission and suggested that there should be a better coordination with other agencies such as ABS, AIHW, AIC and Productivity Commission to improve the coverage and the quality of the Indigenous data.

Northern Territory Land Councils and the Aboriginals Benefit Account

Year: 2003
Evaluator: Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)
Website: http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/6F305A0E51814A79CA256CC2000CAB4E/$file/Audit%20Report%2028.pdf

Terms of Reference:

The audit assessed the operations of the four Northern Territory Land Councils which provide a range of services to Aboriginal people under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The audit also assessed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission’s (ATSIC) administration of the Aboriginals Benefit Account, which provides funding to the Land Councils under the same Act. The objectives of the audit were to assess: whether the governance arrangements used by ATSIC and the Land Councils are appropriate; whether ATSIC meets its legislative requirements concerning the Aboriginals Benefit Account in an effective and efficient way; and whether the Land Councils are effective and efficient in managing their recourses to meet the objectives of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

Findings:

Recommendations were made relating to funding and payments, planning and risk management, communication with stakeholders and operations. ANAO made seven recommendations, of which ATSIC and the Land Councils agreed.

Audit Report No. 48 2002-03: Indigenous Land Corporations – Operations and Performance Follow-up Audit

Year: 2003
Evaluator: Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)
Website: http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/E9773CF94646DF0DCA256D44006EA6F3/$file/Audit%20Report%2048.pdf

Terms of Reference:

In 2000, the ANAO tabled Audit Report No 49 1999-2000, Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) operations and performance. The 2000 audit made nine recommendations for improvement. This follow-up audit examined the Indigenous Land Corporation's implementation of the recommendations of the 2000 audit.

Findings:

ANAO made four recommendations as a result of this evaluation. Recommendations were made in relation to performance measurement and reporting, appropriate evaluation regime, quality assurance and stakeholder communication. The ILC agreed to all four of the recommendations.

Audit Report No.13 2003–04: Performance Audit of ATSIS Law and Justice Program

Year: 2003
Evaluator: Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)
Website: http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/EA1872D915D751B6CA256DD70004E737/$file/Audit+Report+13.pdf

Terms of Reference:

The objective of the audit was to appraise ATSIS’ management of the Law and Justice Program, with particular regard to the relative needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The audit focused primarily on how effectively ATSIS manages and delivers the provision of legal services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and was designed to complement rather than reproduce previous audit and other evaluation activity relevant to the Program.

Findings:

The ANAO concluded that there is a need for considerable improvement in the management of the Law and Justice Program. ATSIS has effective processes in place regarding the oversight of grant allocations, commitments and actual expenditure. However, there are weaknesses in the program’s planning processes, the communication of roles and responsibilities between the National Office and the Regional Offices, and the monitoring of the program’s performance. The growing volume of services being delivered by ATSILS is being achieved on the basis of the efforts of individuals working within those organisations. From an overall program perspective, ATSIS has little information or assurance on the quality of the services being provided.


Return to top

Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA)