When experiencing domestic and family violence (DFV) in Australia, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women seek help for diverse needs. In response, women's specialist DFV services provide a range of programs. Given this diversity and program range, evaluating impact and outcome is challenging. A deeper challenge rests on who decides what to measure and how. This article describes a multi-site research collaboration between women's specialist services and researchers. Part of the project aimed to identify the perspectives and priorities of Aboriginal women users of three specialist services: one each in an urban, regional and remote location. In a series of iterative steps, Aboriginal women, service workers and researchers explored what was valued in interactions with crisis programs. Each collaboration then moved to identify ways to measures the items, and to determine when and how other service users might be asked to respond. Aboriginal women participated primarily as service users but in overlapping capacities as victims of DFV, as community members, as local researchers and service workers. The underlying principle that guided the research was to respect and acknowledge Aboriginal women as knowledge-holders, producers and translators. However, clear limits to ideas of 'co-research' are identified.

This paper demonstrates how the voices of people affected by a policy can contribute to evaluation quality and utilisation. In this participatory mixed-methods approach, Indigenous Australians in remote parts of the Northern Territory of Australia were involved in evaluation of an intervention that significantly affected their daily lives. The evaluation was inspired by the ideas and values demonstrated in a both-ways learning model. This mixed-methods approach combines a people-centered participatory methodology with a more standardised policy-focused application of survey methods to contribute to policy development and local planning. The aim of the study was to hear from local people in communities and encourage them to share their views about changes in community safety. It provided a voice for Indigenous Australians affected by the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER), which sought to protect children in 73 Indigenous communities across the Northern Territory. The aim of the NTER was to create safer communities and to improve health, nutrition, educational outcomes, service delivery and engagement with Indigenous people. Regardless of views about the NTER, a clear gap in the evidence base for evaluation was to understand if people felt safer after the intervention. Increased police, safe houses, night patrols, health services, family support services and management of income support payments were introduced, but what did Indigenous people living in remote communities think? What was their experience and what will happen to the information they may choose to share? Adopting a mixed-methods approach that included a large-scale survey and qualitative research conducted with local Indigenous residents of remote communities strengthened evaluative findings, particularly for policy makers and community residents. A participatory research cycle was used to engage local people and return results in an ethical feedback process that aimed to build capacity on the ground and link into future planning. We sought to promote the role of evaluation in remote Northern Territory communities as a worthwhile way for local people to share their voice, stories and experiences with the policy makers whose decisions can so significantly affect their lives.

This paper offers reflections on our experience and learning arising from implementing a study design that used evaluation research to pursue multiple benefits. The Community Safety and Wellbeing Study adopted a mixed methods approach, referred to as a ‘both-ways’ (or two-ways) research model, that addressed decision maker's needs and heard the people's voice. The study design was inspired by a both-ways learning model and attempted to address both needs together. The aim of the study was to involve local people in communities and encourage them to share their views about changes in community safety. Through systematic research it provided a voice for Indigenous Australians affected by the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER), often called ‘the intervention’. Regardless of views about the intervention, this paper aims to share the lessons learned from conducting this study. The mixed method approach involved a community based standardised survey and qualitative data collection techniques. The study was undertaken in a representative sample of 17 NTER communities with over 1300 local residents, around five percent of the relevant population. Over 60 Indigenous people were employed in conducting the study; the majority lived in or had strong ties with remote communities in the study and around 10 had significant experience with social research projects. The research had many objectives in addition to providing evidence on outcomes on a multi-faceted and sometimes controversial government policy. Ethically the research had to have benefit for the people and communities involved. In addition, the community had to be able to see there were benefits from the research for them, not just for government. This paper documents how these objectives were achieved in relation to the methodology, content, data collection and reporting aspects of the research, and discusses what worked and what could be done differently in the future.

No abstract

No abstract