1. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Involving Community in Government Policy Evaluation Evaluating Meeting Challenges, Making Choices

2. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Funding Partners  Queensland Government  Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation  Injury and Prevention (Control) Australia Ltd  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

3. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Evaluation Research Principles Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation Cultural appropriateness Evaluation research design Adapted from: Guidelines for Ethical Research in Indigenous Studies, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, May 2000. Monitoring and Evaluation Models for Indigenous Peoples: A Literature Review for the Western Australian Aboriginal Affairs Department, Dennis Gray, Sherry Saggers, Paul Plowright and Mary Drandich, National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse, Edith Cowan University, April 1995.

4. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s participation Consultation, negotiation and free and informed consent are the foundations for research with or about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and should be pursued throughout a research process Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers, individuals and communities should be involved in research as collaborators A researched community should benefit from, and not be disadvantaged by, the research project The negotiation of outcomes from research should include findings specific to the needs of the researched community

5. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Cultural appropriateness Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems, cultural processes and protocols must be respected. There must be recognition of the diversity and uniqueness of peoples as well as of individuals. Evaluators should consider the inter-connectedness of health, housing, education, employment, land, cultural activities and spiritual needs. Evaluators of programs need to consider not only their agencies’ program objectives but also the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

6. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Evaluation research design The appropriateness of data collection techniques depends upon the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community involved Indigenous people that are the subject of research should be involved in, or have an opportunity to, generate hypotheses about the research The use of, and access to, research results should be agreed with researched communities

7. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Context of the MCMC evaluation Policy Politics Media

8. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Policy context Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Women’s Taskforce on Violence Report Cape York Justice Study

9. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Political context Indigenous advocates outspoken on need for change Queensland Government with significant majority in Parliament Opposition looking to de-stabilise the Government Commonwealth Government dissatisfied with ATSIC and seeking a new way forward

10. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Media context Media positioning itself as the “opposing voice” to Government Regular reporting on Indigenous issues

11. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Complexity of the policy Over 170 specific actions in 8 domains (now 9) 19 remote communities Every Queensland Government agency had a role Directors-General were personally engaged as Government Champions for a community

12. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Balancing stakeholder interests Premier and Ministers CEOs and Qld Govt agencies Community councils Community residents Commonwealth Government Representative/regional organisations NGO Service providers Private sector Media Public Project partners

13. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Competing interests Policy goals –Consensus on goals? Policy in practice –Consensus on actions? –Who participates? –How do they participate? Evaluation –Who participates in the process? –Who gets to see the findings?

14. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell An Australian policy cycle model The Policy Handbook: Governing Queensland

15. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Methodology Comprehensive Approach Literature review Content analysis of documentation Trend analysis of performance data and historical data Survey Interviews Community case studies

16. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell How did we address the interests? Cabinet processes Case study approach Publishing on a generalised basis Letter from DG to stakeholders Ministerial Statement from the Premier to Queensland Parliament

17. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Case Study Process Research team – mix of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers Community negotiation and agreements – we sought agreement from the communities about conducting the case studies

18. Hope Vale Shared Responsibility Agreement 4. MEASUREMENT AND REVIEW OF PROGRESS The community and governments agree to monitor and evaluate progress against the timeframes and activities set out in the attachments. Progress will be reviewed at regular intervals, with the first formal review will be on Tuesday 18 May 2004. The community and governments also agree to participate in the evaluation being conducted of Meeting Challenges: Making Choices. It is agreed that Hope Vale will be a case study for this evaluation and that the evaluators will work with Hope Vale residents to gather and analyse information. 5. ACCESS TO DATA Data collected during an activity carried out under this agreement will be made available to both community and governments. Records of the data and analysis for the evaluation case study of Meeting Challenges: Making Choices will be provided to the community for the benefit of the community.

19. Case Study Process Intellectual property shared with community Community participation in analysis Skills transfer with local research assistants

20. MCMC Meeting Challenges, Making Choices Photograph by Kerry Trapnell Community case studies Researchers visited 5 communities up to 3 times over a 6 month period Yarning with people in community groups, family groups and one on one Community analysis of information to generate the stories or hypotheses about change Records of all information and analysis were provided for the community

21. MCMC Evaluation Intellectual Property Considerations PropertyCommunities IPCADPCAERFATSIC DataIP – Joint with DPCLicence (To be negotiated with communities and DPC and limited by Cabinet- in-Confidence) IP – Joint with communities Licence – not legally enforceable AnalysisIP – Joint with DPCLicence (To be negotiated with communities and DPC and limited by Cabinet- in-Confidence) IP – Joint with communities Licence – not legally enforceable ReportsIP (Limited by Cabinet-in- Confidence) Licence (Limited by Cabinet-in- Confidence) Licence – not legally enforceable PublicationsIP (Limited by Cabinet-in- Confidence)

22. Contract provision with AERF The Foundation agrees that material which may: (a)identify individuals, families and communities; or (b)detail specific incidents in communities that are subject to allegations, investigations and legal proceedings; or (c)not be broadly generalised to indigenous policy matters and contexts beyond the specific community in which the material was produced; may be masked or restricted for publication and distribution. The Organisation agrees to take direction from the Department about the project data and project material and its restriction from publication and distribution.

23. Contract provision with IPCA Project deliverables include…. Publications in the Peer Reviewed Literature relating to generalisable aspects of the study results that advance knowledge in the areas of Indigenous Quality of Life