GROOTE EYLANDT AND BICKERTON ISLAND REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT PROGRESS EVALUATION MAY 2012 Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Regional Partnership Agreement Progress Evaluation, February 2012 Contents Background to the review 2 Conclusions 6 Recommendations 13 1. Introduction 16 1.1 Purpose of the evaluation 16 1.2 Terms of reference for the evaluation 16 1.3 Methodology and approach 16 1.4 Findings 18 2. Background and context 20 2.1 The policy context 20 2.2 Groote Eylandt: its history and people 24 2.3 Towards a Regional Partnership Agreement 32 2.4 Regional Partnership Agreement Stage 1 33 2.5 Regional Partnership Agreement Stage 2 35 3. The regional partnership approach 37 3.1 Rationale for a whole-of-government partnership approach 37 3.2 Readiness for a partnership approach 38 3.3 Governance structures and processes 40 4. Effectiveness of the RPA as a partnership 45 4.1 Vision and leadership 45 4.3 Partnership dynamics: practice and performance 54 4.4 RPA influence 69 4.5 Participation and community engagement 71 5. Achievements/impacts of the partnership 77 5.1 Township leases 78 5.2 Planning and infrastructure 78 5.3 Housing and development 79 5.4 Better education outcomes 81 5.5 Economic development and participation 83 5.6 Improved community health 85 5.7 Safe communities 88 5.8 Youth, sport and recreation 90 5.9 Leadership and governance 92 5.10 Supporting the partnership 93 5.11 Discussion of achievements 94 6. Barriers to the effectiveness of the RPA 97 i Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Regional Partnership Agreement Progress Evaluation, February 2012 7. Important governance issues 101 7.1 Duration of the RPA 101 7.2 Integration of Government strategies 104 7.3 Improving place-based implementation arrangements 106 8. Lessons learned 108 8.1 Critical success factors 108 8.2 ‘Replicability’ of the Groote Eylandt Archipelago RPA approach 109 9. Summary and conclusions 112 9.1 Effectiveness of the RPA partnership and operations 112 9.2 General impacts of the RPA on the Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island communities 114 10. The way forward 117 11. Recommendations 123 12. Bibliography 126 Appendix A—Program logic 129 Appendix B—Case studies 130 Case study 1: Umbakumba Road upgrade 130 Case study 2: Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program (SIHIP) 134 Case study 3: Education 139 Case study 4: GEBIE Job Shop 144 Case study 5: GEMCO training and mentoring 148 Case study 6: Machado Joseph Disease (MJD) 151 Case study 7: Fluoridation 154 Case study 8: Umbakumba and Angurugu police posts 158 Case study 9: Australian Football League Angurugu and Umbakumba clubrooms 162 Case study 10: Basketball 165 Case study 11: Governance development plan and training 168 Appendix C—Earlier regional partnership agreements 172 Appendix D—People consulted 173 ii Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Regional Partnership Agreement Progress Evaluation, February 2012 Abbreviations and acronyms ABA Aboriginal Benefits Account AETB Anindilyakwa Education and Training Board (the board) AFL Australian Football League ALC Anindilyakwa Land Council BCP Baseline Community Profile 2009 BMR Remote Service Delivery Baseline Mapping Reports 2010 CDEP Community Development and Employment Program COAG Council of Australian Governments CTCG Community Tasking and Coordination Group DEEWR Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations DET Northern Territory Department of Education and Training DEST Department of Education, Science and Training DHF Northern Territory Department of Health and Families DoHA Department of Health and Ageing FaHCSIA Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs GCC GEBIE Civil and Construction GEBIE Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Enterprises GEMCO Groote Eylandt Mining Company Pty Ltd (a subsidiary of BHP Billiton) GEMDYU Groote Eylandt and Milyakburra Youth Development Unit Land Rights Act Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 MJD Machado Joseph Disease MJDF Machado Joseph Disease Foundation NAPLAN National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy iii Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Regional Partnership Agreement Progress Evaluation, February 2012 NTER Northern Territory Emergency Response PowerWater Northern Territory Power and Water Corporation RPA Regional Partnership Agreement RPC Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Regional Partnership Committee RSD National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery SIHIP Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program YSC Youth Steering Committee iv Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to a number of key stakeholders for the time, information and insights they made available during the period of the evaluation, including for interviews and completion of a questionnaire. In particular we are grateful to the Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Regional Partnership Committee (RPC) and to its sub-committees for allowing us to observe meetings and to the Anindilyakwa Land Council (ALC) for its hospitality during our visits to Groote Eylandt. Finally, production of this report would not have been possible without the support and guidance of the Evaluation Working Group and the Secretariat to the RPC. Thank you for your patience with our endless requests for information. Margaret MacDonald and Margaret Browne 1 Executive summary Background to the review Tempo Strategies was engaged to evaluate the progress of the Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Regional Partnership Agreement (RPA) which is currently in the second stage of its operations. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide a progress review of the RPA with a view to using the findings to take stock of the RPA as a partnership and consider progressive improvement to its processes providing feedback on the impacts it is having recommending what improvements can be made, and providing advice to government on the lessons which have been learned from the partnership approach. The Terms of Reference for the evaluation were to examine the: effectiveness of the RPA progress in implementing the commitments made under the RPA and resultant projects in the region (noting that the primary focus of this evaluation is the RPA, not community development outcomes), and the impacts to-date of RPA work. The report was also required to address a number of specific questions relating to the partnership functioning and its progress against the principles and objectives of the RPA stages 1 and 2. Evaluation methodology The evaluation methodology was a mixed method approach incorporating an examination of partnership literature, administrative document review, semi-structured interviews, case study development and a partner/committee member survey. Primary and secondary data sources were used and the information triangulated to ensure the findings were as robust as possible. To support the research design and data collection tools a limited literature review was undertaken of the governance of partnerships. The Department of Families, Housing, Communities and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) also provided the outcomes of a literature search to underpin this process. A detailed review of the documentation of RPA governance activity and additional relevant literature and data related to the RPA and associated strategies such as Remote Service Delivery (RSD) was also conducted. This included close examination of meeting minutes and consultancy reports. 2 Strategic-level program logic (Appendix A) was also developed to identify the main areas of change over time and this was used to formulate evaluation questions and hypotheses and provide some basis of assessing progress and the progress and impact of the partnership to-date. Semi-structured interviews were supplemented by a survey of partners, committee members and stakeholders to gain more detailed and quantitative information where there was strong variance in interview responses. There were 48 semi structured interviews with RPA partners and RPC committee members and other stakeholders. The evaluation team also undertook observations of meetings namely the Anindilyakwa Education and Training Board, the Youth Steering Committee (YSC) and the Community Tasking and Coordination Group (CTCG) and consulted minutes of meetings. All of these committees had community representatives. Eleven case studies were completed to illustrate a range of work that the partnership is undertaking. These studies: Umbakumba Road, Housing, Education, GEBIE Job Shop, GEMCO Training Program, Machado Joseph Disease (MJD), Fluoridation, Umbakumba and Angurugu police posts, Australian Football League (AFL), Basketball and Governance training, are found at Appendix B. The evaluation team worked closely with the Evaluation Working Group to refine the methodology and to receive guidance and support throughout the evaluation. This process helped to build a shared understanding of the processes and findings and enabled the evaluation team to be given feedback through the duration of the evaluation. It should be noted input to the evaluation from the East Arnhem Shire Council was sought but the response was late and very limited. In addition, the review team was unable to meet with local reference groups due to deaths and illnesses on Groote Elyandt. Key findings Effectiveness of the partnerships arrangements The Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island RPA is working very strongly as a government, Indigenous community and industry partnership. It exhibits effective qualities of leadership,