Despite significant funding flowing into higher education for programs aimed at improving participation, access and success, there still exists a limited amount of systematic evaluation taking place within the sector. In some institutions (including universities, research centres and centres of excellence), a greater level of onus has been felt in recent years for the need to ascertain whether funding sources such as the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) have led or are likely to lead to positive equity-related outcomes. An understanding of the causal links that lead or do not lead to these outcomes being met is also being sought for potential replication and evidence of success, along with advice from funders about what they are looking for. This creates a ‘perfect storm’ in which it seems evaluation is an ideal tool. The landscape this storm is creating—which is leading to a slowly growing body of evidence around how equity programs work—has potential to generate convincing evidence about the efficacy of such programs and lead to significant improvements in how they are run. This paper will document aspects of this emergence, and suggest ways forward which could sustainably hasten this process.
CooksyL. J., GillP., & KellyP. A. (2001). The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation.Evaluation and Program Planning, 24(2), pp. 119–128. Retrieved 26 November 2016 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718901000039
De Silva LokuwadugeC. S., & ArmstrongA. (2015). An evaluation of governance mechanisms as determinants of performance: A case study of Australian universities.Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 15(2), pp. 22–32. Retrieved 26 November 2016 from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=183278035711386;res=IELBUS
10.
Deakin University. (2012). National HEPPP Evaluation Think Tank Discussion Paper.
Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE). (2012). Higher Education Support Act 2003-Other Grants Guidelines (Education).
DowningL., RoganS., & YoungI. (2015). Future Moves—Reaching in, not out. Paper presented at the 2015 Equity Practitioners in Higher Education Australasia Conference, Geelong.
National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE). (2016). NCSEHE: About. Retrieved 26 November 2016 from https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/about/
O'Brien-MaloneA., & DiamondM. R. (2014). Why we can't trust evaluation and what we should do about it. How to rise to the next level in evaluating government programs. Paper presented at the 2014 Australasian Evaluation Society International Conference, Darwin. Retrieved 26 November 2016 from http://www.aes.asn.au/images/stories/files/conferences/2014/AES-Ref-46727-Diamond.pdf
34.
OwenJ. M., & RogersP. (1999). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches.London: Sage Publications.
35.
PhillipsS. K. (2012). Widening participation in higher education for people from low SES backgrounds: A case study of Deakin University's existing community partnerships and collaborations. Retrieved 26 November 2016 from https://www.deakin.edu.au/research-services/forms/v/3669/wps-34w.pdf
University of Melbourne. (2016). The University of Melbourne equity innovation grants 2016: Grant guidelines.
41.
VolkovB. B. (2011). Beyond being an evaluator: The multiplicity of roles of the internal evaluator.New Directions for Evaluation, 2011(132), pp. 25–42.
