Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander viewers are advised that this website contains the names and images of people who have passed
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander viewers are advised that this website contains the names and images of people who have passed
Process and Aims
Assessment process and aims for Looking Back, Moving Forward
Looking Back, Moving Forward (Looking Back) is the result of years of advocacy to revisit the implementation of RCIADIC recommendations in Victoria from an Aboriginal perspective. Our process aimed to prioritise Aboriginal community values.
We sought to embed these values both in the project process and the assessment of recommendation implementation – framing progress and success on our terms, not governments.
About our team
Looking Back was led by a steering committee (the AJC Working Group) made up of AJC members. The Working Group met regularly to assess recommendations, determine actions for further work, and provide guidance regarding the framing and publication of findings.
To support the AJC, a small project team was created (The Project Team). This team of researchers were responsible for collecting background information, making requests to departments and organisations responsible for implementation, and delivering on the day-to-day requirements of Looking Back. The Project Team were governed and overseen at all stages by the AJC.
Looking Back sought to consider a wide variety of publicly available sources and community advocacy, as well as directly seeking perspectives from key Aboriginal community-controlled organisations. We extend our sincere thanks to all those whose work, alongside the ongoing advocacy of AJC, forms the foundations of this project.
About our process
In planning the project, we paid particular attention to two previous reviews of the implementation of RCIADIC recommendations in Victoria, the 2005 Victorian Implementation Review (2005 Review), led by Aunty Joy Murphy and Dr Mark Rose, and the 2018 Independent Review of the Implementation of the Recommendations of the RCIADIC (2018 Review) conducted by Deloitte Access Economics.
By returning to an Aboriginal-led process, our goal was to build on the work of the 2005 Victorian Implementation Review and to address the gaps and issues found in the later government-led reviews. It was important to us that the project centred Aboriginal values, perspectives and leadership at every step of the way.
The approach taken in Looking Back is in line with ways of working set out in Burra Lotjpa Dunguludja (AJA4), which is the prioritisation of self-determination and the transfer of power and decision making to Aboriginal groups.
1. Deciding on an assessment process and criteria
The assessment process was designed by the Aboriginal Justice Caucus in collaboration with the project team. In devising assessment criteria, we prioritised:
- Aboriginal values – criteria that reflected Aboriginal perspectives on the most important aspects of implementation
- Consistency – criteria that could be consistently applied across recommendations and over time as different AJC members were involved
- Simplicity – criteria that could easily applied, understood and interpreted by various audiences
- Replicability – criteria that could be applied at different points in time to assess progress in future
Rather than only assessing the ‘completion’ of a recommendation, Looking Back aimed to identify which recommendations remained the highest priority for further work. With over 339 RCIADIC recommendations, prioritisation was important to ensure any further implementation efforts are directed towards actions with the greatest potential to really improve justice outcomes for our communities.
We decided to consider these questions for each recommendation:
- Does the action taken align with the intent of the recommendation?
- Is there evidence of the desired impact or outcome/s?
- How relevant is the recommendation in the current context?
- Does full implementation have potential to reduce incarceration, increase safety in custody and/or progress Aboriginal self-determination?
2. Collecting background information
To support the AJC in making their assessments, the Project Team collected background information on each recommendation, with a focus on evidence of the impact of actions taken.
This information included past implementation assessments, and updates from government agencies and departments responsible for implementation.
Implementation assessments from both 2005 and 2018 were included in the information provided to the Working Group. We know that Aboriginal groups raised significant concerns with the 2018 Review funded by the Commonwealth Government, and these are shared by us. We have included a brief summary of the assessments from that Review as they reflect government perspectives on implementation at the time and often offer a stark contrast to ours.
Background information for each recommendation was supplemented with community perspectives, advocacy, publicly available statements and submissions, media articles, legislation, policies, manuals, reports, evaluations, and statistics. The Project Team also worked to draw links with related recommendations from other reviews, inquiries and Commissions.
3. Working Group assessments
Throughout the project, the Working Group and Project Team came together in regular workshops.
For each recommendation, summary information on its background, intent and history was provided, alongside contemporary updates and findings. This allowed government and agency responses to be discussed in light of Community perspectives, publicly-available sources, and the knowledge and experience of AJC members.
We considered both the accuracy of information provided by government departments and agencies, and whether action(s) taken were relevant to what the recommendation was trying to achieve.
A score of 0-3 (none, low, medium, high) was assigned to each of the four assessment criteria. Plotting the total score for the ‘action and outcomes’ criteria against the total score for the ‘relevance and potential impact’ assisted to prioritise recommendations for future work.
- Green zone: Moderate to high degree of action taken towards implementation, with further action unlikely to have a significant impact. These recommendations are the lowest priority for further work.
- Orange zone: Moderate to high degree of action taken towards implementation but further action likely to have additional impact on desired outcomes. These recommendations remain a moderate priority for further work.
- Red zone: Low to moderate degree of action taken towards implementation, with further action necessary and likely to have a significant impact. These recommendations remain highly relevant, with potential to contribute to key Aboriginal justice outcomes. These recommendations are the highest priority for further work.
When the Working Group saw that more work was needed to make the changes the recommendation was aiming for, they identified actions that could help make that happen.
4. Review and approval by the full AJC
Discussion and assessments made by the Working Group were written up by the Project Team and taken back to full Aboriginal Justice Caucus for review, further contribution and endorsement.
Titles and Themes
As part of Looking Back, each RCIADIC recommendation was given a short title and assigned to one of fourteen themes. Each theme is broken down into subthemes. We hope this helps to make these recommendations more accessible and easily searchable. Each recommendation has been assigned a primary theme, and some also have a secondary theme where they are relevant to multiple areas.
Themes
Scope of the Project
This process also allowed AJC to determine which recommendations are most closely connected with the criminal legal system. These recommendations were given the most in-depth consideration in Looking Back in line with AJC’s area of expertise. Recommendations that were not relevant to Victoria when they were made, or were deemed no longer relevant to Victoria by us were not assessed further. Recommendations were generally considered out of scope where they were directed towards another state or territory or were the responsibility of the Commonwealth to implement.