The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C or the department) has been the lead agency for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs since 2013. With the introduction of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) in 2014, 27 programs were consolidated into five broad programs under a single outcome, with $4.8 billion initially committed over four years from 2014–15. The Australian National Audit Office’s (ANAO’s) performance audit of the IAS (Auditor-General Report No.35 2016–17) noted that the department did not have a formal evaluation strategy or evaluation funding for the IAS for its first two years.

In February 2017 the Minister for Indigenous Affairs announced funding of $40 million over four years from 2017–18 to strengthen IAS evaluation, which would be underpinned by a formal evidence and evaluation framework. In February 2018 the department released an IAS evaluation framework document, describing high level principles for how evaluations of IAS programs should be conducted, and outlining future capacity-building activities and broad governance arrangements.

Five years after the introduction of the IAS, the department is in the early stages of implementing an evaluation framework that has the potential to establish a sound foundation for ensuring that evaluation is high quality, ethical, inclusive and focused on improving the outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Following substantial delays in establishing an evaluation framework, the department is now designing a framework that has the potential to support the achievement of the Government’s policy objectives by strengthening evaluations under the IAS. The design of the framework has been informed by recognised principles of program evaluation, relevant literature, previous evaluation activity and stakeholder feedback. The framework could more clearly link evaluation to the Government’s objectives for the IAS and other relevant strategic frameworks such as Closing the Gap.

The department’s implementation and management of the IAS evaluation framework is partially effective. Management oversight arrangements are developing, and evaluation advice provided to program area staff has been relevant and high quality. The department has not developed a reliable methodology for measuring outcomes of the framework and its evaluation procedures are still being developed.

As the department is still developing procedures to support the application of the IAS evaluation framework, it is too early to assess whether evaluations are being conducted in accordance with the framework. The department’s approach to prioritising evaluations should be formalised by developing structured criteria for assessing significance, contribution and risk. The department has taken recent steps to: mandate early evaluation planning; publish completed evaluations; and ensure findings are acted upon.