FINAL EXECUTIVE REPORT

EVALUATION OF THE JOBS FUND HERITAGE PROGRAM

FOR

THE DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, WATER, POPULATION AND COMMUNITIES

31 AUGUST 2011

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

Purpose and structure of this report

This Executive Report serves the purpose of an ‘extended’ executive summary for Courage Partners’ evaluation of the Jobs Fund Heritage Program. It provides summaries of findings (with brief discussion) and recommendations. It is intended for use as a briefing aid to senior Department staff and the Minister.

A more extensive Report (but without an executive summary) is provided separately, which sets out Courage Partners’ more detailed discussion and analysis, key findings and recommendations. The following is structured around the evaluation’s three Terms of Reference (TOR), with a summary of recommendations presented in Section 3. Please note that project examples are used throughout this document to illustrate findings or demonstrate better practice. A brief description of each project involved in the evaluation sample is provided in Attachment A of the main report.

Background to the Jobs Fund Heritage Program

The Jobs Fund

The Jobs Fund was a $650 million Australian Government initiative designed to support and create jobs and skill development through projects that built community infrastructure and social capital in local communities. The Jobs Fund was a discretionary grants program which commenced in June 2009 and finished in June 2011.

The Jobs Fund Heritage Program

As part of the Jobs Fund, $60 million was allocated for the Jobs Fund Heritage Program (or the Program). To be considered for funding under this program, projects also had to deliver positive heritage outcomes. The Program focused on strengthening the role of heritage in the community by protecting, conserving and promoting: National Heritage-listed places; National Trust properties; Community heritage places; and Natural heritage places.

As well as seeking to deliver positive heritage benefits, the Program aimed to provide employment and economic stimulus, particularly in areas of high unemployment. Program funding was also intended to improve heritage infrastructure and bring increased value and opportunities to heritage places.

Assessment and recommendations for projects were undertaken in line with heritage specific criteria. Approximately 571 project applications for heritage grant funding were received for the Heritage Program across two funding rounds in 2008-09 and 2009-10. Of these, 191 were accepted and funded over the two rounds. Projects were dispersed across Australia with grant sizes ranging from $20,000 to $2 million. Issues that were also taken into consideration included whether the project would contribute to one or more of the priority heritage themes of: Australian Democracy; Peopling a Nation; and Diversity of Landscapes.

2

Purpose of the evaluation

The purpose of this evaluation was to provide the Department with a source of information concerning:

The effectiveness of the Jobs Fund Heritage Program in delivering the heritage outcomes detailed in the heritage guidelines for the Jobs Fund Program;

The social and economic impacts (including potential impacts) of heritage grants (funded and non-funded) on the general community, as well as level of unmet demand; and

Opportunities for improving and widening future Australian Government involvement in heritage initiatives.

The evaluation was based on a review of a sample of 33 selected projects (33 file reviews with 14 of these including site visits) as well as interviews with a sample of ten unsuccessful applicants. It will be used to support reporting on the performance of the Jobs Fund Heritage Program, as well as the design and development of future heritage programs and associated policy proposals.

Scope and focus

The evaluation was focused at the Program level, on an examination of the effectiveness and impact of heritage grants on communities, including further opportunities for Government involvement in heritage. As there was limited aggregated Program data available from the Department, the evaluation approach was based on the review of a sample of funded and unfunded projects to provide indicative results and judgments about Program level performance, impacts and opportunities. As requested by the Department, detailed data for this evaluation was collected via site visits to a sample of project sites.

Please note that this evaluation did not include:

An examination of jobs creation data or the immediate impact of heritage grants on direct employment from initial program funds (although any subsequent indirect employment impacts have been explored where possible). Courage Partners understood that job creation data and direct employment impacts of the Heritage Program were being examined in a separate evaluation by Sweeney and Associates;

An examination of the efficiency or effectiveness of the administration of the Heritage Program, as these aspects were being addressed by the concurrent ANAO performance audit;

The assessment and selection process for successful project applications.

Methodology and Sources of Data Collection

Key methods and sources of data collection

As agreed by the Department, the evaluation focused on the collection of essentially qualitative data as follows:

Interviews with key Departmental staff responsible for administering the Program;

3

Desk-top review of a sample of 33 completed1 project grant applications and project reports;

Desk-top review of, and follow up telephone interviews with, a sample of 10 unsuccessful project grant applicants;

Follow up face to face site visits with a cross section of 14 completed funded projects (including one pilot visit to test data collection instruments and to inform planning)2. Site visits involved an in-depth interview with the grant recipient, interviews with other key project stakeholders and (normally) inspection of the heritage property and the works completed.

Terms of Reference and Key Evaluation Questions

The following TOR was developed to address the purpose of the evaluation. The Key Evaluation Questions detailed below each TOR guided the research and data collection.

TOR 1: To what extent has the Jobs Fund Heritage Program been successful in meeting the heritage outcomes as detailed in the heritage guidelines for the Jobs Fund Program?

1. To what extent did selected projects contribute to the heritage values of a place, including conservation, protection, adaption or interpretation works?

2. To what extent were selected projects consistent with the principles of the Burra Charter, management plans currently in place, and state, territory and Commonwealth legislation?

3. To what extent did selected projects contribute to one or more of the priority heritage themes identified by the Australian Heritage Council, and include elements designed to promote awareness of the activity, and of the social and economic value of the heritage property?

4. To what extent did selected projects provide on-going direct and indirect social and economic benefits in the community (such as increasing tourism, or increasing the appropriate utilisation/value/rental returns of heritage properties)?

TOR 2 - What has been the impact of heritage grants on the general community, both economically and socially?

1. What are the social and economic impacts and benefits (including potential benefits) of selected heritage grants projects on the general community?

2. Was the grant useful in leveraging additional funding support and community recognition of the project?

3. What are selected non-successful grant applicants’ views on:

a. the social and economic impact of not receiving heritage funding on the general community?; and

b. the impact of not receiving heritage funding on the status of the heritage place?

4. What are key project stakeholders’ opinions of the level of unmet demand for further heritage funding in their community? (For both successful and unsuccessful applicants).

4

TOR 3: Are there further opportunities for improving and widening future Government involvement in heritage at the local and state community level?

1. What are stakeholders’ views of opportunities for improving and widening future government involvement in heritage?

1 Completed projects were those that had submitted a draft final or final report that has been accepted by the Department.

2 Projects selected for site visits were drawn from the sample of 33 projects selected for desk-top review.

5

SECTION 2 FINDINGS (AND BRIEF DISCUSSION)

TOR 1: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE JOBS FUND HERITAGE PROGRAM BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN MEETING THE HERITAGE OUTCOMES AS DETAILED IN THE HERITAGE GUIDELINES FOR THE JOBS FUND PROGRAM?

Achievement of intended outcomes

Finding 1: The Jobs Fund Heritage Program has been successful

Based on the selected 33 projects identified for the evaluation, the evaluation team found that the Program has been successful in meeting the heritage outcomes detailed in the heritage guidelines for the Jobs Fund Program. One exception to this was in projects’ use of supporting promotional activities.

In particular:

All works identified in the original applications for the selected projects were undertaken and completed (including agreed changes of scope) by the time of reporting.

All projects reviewed had contributed to the recognised heritage values of a place (which included conservation, protection or interpretation). Most projects directly contributed to those heritage values, and some indirectly supported heritage outcomes by improving access to the heritage site.

All selected projects indicated that their plans were consistent with the Burra Charter and Management Plans and this was attested to by an expert or technical adviser in most cases.

All projects contributed in a range of ways to one or more of the heritage themes: A Free and Fair Australia; Peopling a Nation; and Diversity of Landscapes. About half (17 out of 33) of the projects were reported as consistent with a multiple of these themes.

Promotions and awareness raising

Finding 2: There was inconsistent completion of project promotional activities

On the whole, the file review revealed that there was not a comprehensive approach taken by grant recipients to the design and delivery of promotional activities around projects. The evaluation team concluded that overall, promotional activities were not given sufficient priority by grant recipients in project management and delivery.

The evaluation team found that:

Information in applications about strategies for promotions was generally limited.

Promotional activities were completed as per strategies set out in their applications in about 45% of works (15 out of 33).

In terms of implementation, many plans for promotional activities had either been delayed, or not pursued with vigour. The team concluded that there was insufficient promotion and awareness raising, due to a variety of reasons, including: lack of time; lack of skill or lack of funding.

6

Better practice examples found on site visits showed that some sites had comprehensive marketing plans in place, and were actively involved in seeking out promotional and marketing opportunities both locally and more broadly.

Finding 3: Promotions and awareness raising is important in maximising project benefits

Better practice examples in site visits evidenced that strong promotions can maximise positive heritage, social and economic impacts for the project and the community.

Social and economic impacts

Finding 4: The program achieved a number of social and economic impacts, with further potential benefits identified

The Jobs Fund Heritage Program has resulted in a number of social and economic benefits for communities. However, site visits did highlight that it is simply too early to gauge the extent of full impacts; which will also depend on the strength of promotional aspects.

All project final reports examined indicated progress towards achieving desired social and economic impacts. Site visits enabled the information in these reports to be confirmed and extended. However, site visits did highlight that it is simply too early to gauge the extent of full impacts; which will also depend on the promotional aspects outlined earlier.

Based on the sites visited, the evaluation team identified that the potential identified for social and economic impacts was significant, and this is discussed further under TOR 2.

The evaluation team further identified that:

Project reports provided limited information regarding the full extent of social and economic impacts achieved for each project. However, site visits did provide some very useful examples of levels of improvement and indicators of potential benefits.

There were a couple of sites visited, where the team concluded that potential impacts may not be realised in the short term, due to a lack of skill in promotions, lack of data being collected and lack of clarity around objectives for the site, for example around increased access or visitation.

On the whole, projects did not maintain robust measures around social and economic impacts, either before or after project works and this is an area to be addressed by the Department for future grants programs. The evaluation team observed that part of the reason for this is the scarcity of clear measures around performance of heritage projects, both generally and for this specific program.

TOR 2: WHAT HAS BEEN THE IMPACT OF THE HERITAGE GRANTS ON THE GENERAL COMMUNITY, BOTH ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY?

Social and economic benefits

Finding 5: Potential for achieving social and economic benefits was identified

Social and economic benefits varied, depending on the nature of the project; the amount invested; and the timeframes required for impacts to be realised. Due to the recent conclusion of the projects; many of these can only be identified as potential impacts.

7

In 12 of the 14 sites visited, the evaluation team found strong indications that potential impacts were likely to come to fruition in the short term.

However, as mentioned under TOR 1, the means by which social and economic impacts could be measured was limited; with little information on for example, increase in visitor numbers not just to the site but also to the local community or region. Further details regarding tourism information, visitor experiences, income and expenditure before and after project commencement was rare. There were no examples of community perception data regarding social or economic impacts. To better manage their sites and prepare for potential projects, heritage sites should consider collecting a range of useful baseline data (for example, visitor numbers, running costs and satisfaction levels) that would enable them to better measure the impacts of any future projects they get involved in, or just better managing their site.

What was apparent in all sites visited was the huge depth of passion and commitment from project stakeholders about the projects, and heritage more generally. This extended from the volunteer groups in small communities to larger heritage organisations such as the National Trust and through to state departments and local councils. The evaluation team found that the Jobs Fund Heritage Program had effectively engaged with a genuine community interest in heritage, and had raised the profile of the Department with stakeholders and their communities.

Nature of social and economic impacts identified

Finding 6: A variety of social and economic impacts were identified

During site visits, a number of economic and social impacts were identified as resulting from the Jobs Fund Heritage Program:

Community pride;

Enhanced visitor experience;

Extending the life of the site;

Increased time of stay in the area;

Improved aesthetics;

Increased access;

Increased capacity for further use (adaptive re-use);

Applied training opportunities and preservation of heritage skills; and

Other short term impacts from project work (other than job creation).

These are described with corresponding project examples in the following.

1. Community pride

The large majority of stakeholders interviewed on site visits found it easy to articulate numerous examples of how the project had contributed to a stronger sense of community pride and understanding of their heritage and culture. This was apparent in most, and identified by stakeholders in 12 out of 14 visits.

8

To illustrate:

At The Roxy – stakeholders were thrilled with the extent of community engagement and interest in the project; which extended from local Bingara residents to the wider Australian Greek community;

The Brickenden / Woolmers sites have engaged the local Longford Community and more broadly highlighted Tasmania’s role in assignment of convicts both nationally and internationally;

At Hermannsburg, with the refurbishment of the precinct’s dining room and bakery, the community has become increasingly supportive of the site’s heritage value and what it now has to offer them and people who visit. It was reported by stakeholders interviewed at the site that it is now proudly valued by the local community.

A number of staff at the Department commented on the level of commitment from project stakeholders across the various grant categories, and made the point that community engagement was vital to the success of the project.

2. Enhanced visitor experience

Stakeholders reported that in providing additional services for the site, it has improved visitors’ experiences, and made the site a more attractive place for visitation. For example in the following projects, stakeholders attested to works enabling enhanced visitor experiences, such as:

Improvements to the interior of buildings and improvements to exterior lighting and driveways at the Everglades; and

Exhibitions, tea rooms and accommodation facilities at Hermannsburg.

3. 3. Extending the life of the site

In 12 out of the 14 visits, stakeholders identified the importance of the Jobs Fund Heritage Program in extending the life of the site. File reviews indicated the likelihood that the life of the site would be extended in all cases.

One of the key advantages reported by these stakeholders was that project works had meant future and ongoing maintenance of the sites would now be feasible and affordable. In this way, their comments raised a ‘stitch in time, saves nine’ theme, whereby investing in the restoration and preservation of the site sooner rather than later, was a money saving strategy in the long term. The more degraded and run down the site became, the more difficult it was to maintain, and the more expensive it had become to restore. This was especially apparent in the smaller community organisations, where the major maintenance funded under this program would never have been feasible from their own resources.

4. Increased time of stay in the area

One of the key benefits identified by stakeholders at three of the sites visited was that with the increased access to, and use of the site, there was likely to be a corresponding increase in the length of stay by site visitors. The team found there were 10 out of 33 projects where increased length of stay may reasonably be expected. This in turn has the potential for

9

increased economic activity; as when visitors stayed longer they made use of more services and spent more money in the area. For example:

Since The Roxy started staging more events (such as concerts) there has been a significant increase in the number of visitors coming to Bingara and staying the night; not just from the local Bingara community but also from neighbouring towns and the broader region. Bingara residents have reported a significant increase in economic activity during these events, with an increased use of local hotels and restaurants.

The new accommodation available at Brickenden and Woolmers which the owners put in, has opened up the potential for visitors to stay longer and therefore further explore the site and surrounding local area’s attractions and environment. It has also provided opportunities to establish a clientele base who are seeking to utilise conference and seminar activities. Extending visitor duration is also likely to eventuate in further expenditure in the broader Longford community at local shops and restaurants.

The new accommodation planned at Hermannsburg will enable the development of additional activities at the site which will create employment opportunities for locals; by means of domestic help to maintain the accommodation and through provision of night time bush fire talks and site tours.

5. Improved aesthetics

In file reviews, the evaluation team identified improved aesthetics as a key impact (highlighted by 70% of projects or 23 out of 33). This was confirmed in sites visited, with stakeholders from 8 of the 14 projects commenting on the fact that improving the site’s aesthetics had resulted in the community placing an increased value on the heritage site. The evaluation team concluded that due to the impact of improved aesthetics, there was a corresponding increase in community pride in the site simply because it looked attractive and well cared for and in some cases raised the standard of the community’s streetscape.

These stakeholders commented that in making the site look attractive and well maintained, it encouraged increased use. One stakeholder further noted that visitors were now more likely to appreciate the beauty and history of the place, rather than focusing on the ‘cracks in the walls and peeling paint’ (Calthorpes’ House).

The theme of improved aesthetics was also noted by the Wilcannia Council Chambers in their final report, where following its restoration, other shops in the main street followed the Council Chambers’ example, thus improving the entire streetscape.

6. Increased access

Many stakeholders interviewed during site visits, appreciated the broad scope of the Jobs Fund Heritage Program, which allowed for strategies to improve access to, and therefore use of, the site. This applied to projects that assisted to provide direct access, such as the Woodbridge Jetty; but also extended to infrastructure such as: rewiring; asbestos removal; and making buildings fire safe.

For 8 of the 14 sites visited, the projects assisted with access or infrastructure. Enabling increased access to the site was seen as both a social and economic benefit enabling increased visitation and improving the site’s profile.

10

7. Increased capacity for further use (adaptive re-use)

Stakeholders at 9 of the 14 sites visited identified that their project had enabled them to extend and increase use of the basic site. (This was for both community and economic use.) Including file reviews, 54% or 18 out of 33 projects reported capacity for extended use of the site, because of the program works. For example:

The Sacred Heart building works have meant that the Abottsford Convent precinct will be able to open up space for room rental much sooner than otherwise could have happened without the grant. Similarly, the Gawler Museum restoration will enable rental of an office space, income from which will go back into sustaining the ongoing operations of the Museum.

Upgrades to the outside shed at Tuggeranong Homestead will enable the site to be used for big events such as weddings and other private functions.

Upgrades to the Hermannsburg Historic Precinct has expanded and extended capacity and scope of activities for the site.

8. Applied training opportunities and preservation of heritage skills

Some projects (6 of 14 sites visited, and 12 of 33 overall) highlighted benefits resulting from providing the opportunity to learn and apply heritage conservation and restoration skills. This has contributed to the preservation of heritage skills and identified a potential pool of skilled individuals and firms for future heritage work. This included skills to do with building, architecture, stonemasonry, painting, curating, art restoration, and re-afforestation. For example:

Restoration of the Ramsay Graveyard and Vault enabled local stonemasons, including apprentices, to “up skill” in this particular type of stone work. The stonemasons involved noted that they have applied these skills in subsequent heritage projects.

The Villa Alba Boudoir restoration enabled Melbourne based university students to practise restoration techniques under the supervision of world renowned experts. Similarly at Calthorpes’ House, local students were involved in the restoration work and had the opportunity to practise and develop such skills. In both these cases the sites had developed ongoing relationships of this nature with the universities involved.

Woolmers and Brickenden project works enabled the ‘Longford Academy’3, to visit the site in 2010 and 2011 to discuss challenges with the site managers and explore and learn conservation and restoration techniques.

A further example was provided by the Gondwana Indigenous Re-afforestation project, which trained and identified a potential pool of applicants for future Indigenous ranger positions.

9. Other short term impacts resulting from project work (other than job creation)

As part of field work, many sites visited identified a number of short term economic and social benefits that arose directly from project work, in addition to the creation of jobs. In most cases, supplies and materials were sourced locally, giving a welcome boost to the local economy. Furthermore, wages generated from the projects were at least partially spent on local products and services.

11

By way of example, the Gondwana Re-afforestation project sourced all materials locally, including: petrol; equipment hire; seedling supplies; and first aid training. Furthermore, wages earned by the Green Army teams were also spent in the Warwick community. While stakeholders interviewed also highlighted the longer term positive social and economic impacts of this project, they emphasised that the short term and immediate economic benefits were not insignificant for Warwick, and raised the profile of the project and the Department, in that community.

10. Negative impacts

In looking at the benefits, the evaluation team also reviewed any negative impacts.

The team identified that a potential negative impact might be an adverse effect on other local businesses that had been disadvantaged by having to compete with a site that had received funding. This was not raised as an issue that had occurred by any stakeholders interviewed on site visits.

Stakeholders from one site mentioned there had been a few complaints by neighbours that had been inconvenienced by the building works and increased traffic from visitation.

However, aside from these relatively minor issues, there were no negative issues raised by stakeholders, as part of this study.

Synergies developed with other projects

Finding 7: The benefits of a number of the projects was in the synergies developed with other projects

The evaluation team found that many positive social and economic impacts typically arose in cases where projects built on other works done previously or concurrently. Often the impacts realised were the result of a happy mix of multiple projects and investments, of which the Jobs Fund Heritage Program formed a part. It was apparent that in many of the sites visited, the impacts of a Jobs Fund Heritage project could not be isolated from other works done previously or concurrently.

For example:

The Abottsford Convent had already undertaken significant restoration works to various buildings in the precinct. The impacts from works done to the Sacred Heart building are likely to build on these and further contribute to this thriving site; and

At Tuggeranong Homestead, works contributed by the grant combined with other works done by site owners, lessees and volunteers to provide a site of environmental, social and heritage value.

In looking at the sites where more significant impacts were likely, it was common to find these kinds of synergies in place.

12

The value of auxiliary works

Finding 8: Auxiliary works can be valuable

The evaluation team found that valuable impacts were achieved from investments that either increased use of, or access to, the site; for example projects involving rewiring, fire safety, plumbing and installing toilets.

A key factor in achieving a number of these impacts was that the Program’s scope was flexible and allowed sites to pursue strategies that were not necessarily around more traditional heritage restoration and conservation project types. For example, some projects involved rewiring, fire safety, plumbing and installing toilets.

While technically not ‘heritage’ restoration as such, these works had enabled, or opened up, opportunities for the site to increase its scope and potential for use, and in doing so generate further income which goes towards maintaining the site and its ongoing sustainability and support of heritage outcomes.

Leveraging funding

Finding 9: The Jobs Fund Heritage Program projects facilitated the leveraging of additional funding

The majority of grants were shown to be useful in leveraging additional funding support. Grant investment in the majority of projects visited either built on work done previously or was used concurrently with other funding sources, including income derived from: philanthropic organisations; other Commonwealth and state funding; local council funding; and community donations as well as income from the site itself.

In summary, in 28 of the 33 files reviewed, applications and reports showed either in kind or cash contributions. Overall this amounted to around 26% of the grant funding in the sample.

Demand for heritage funding

Finding 10: Negative impacts arose from not receiving funding

Non-successful grant applicants identified negative impacts had resulted from not receiving funding. The majority of unsuccessful applicants reported that their projects had been ‘shelved’ while they sought further funding.

Specifically:

Seven out of the ten projects in the sample of unsuccessful applicants reported that their projects had been ‘shelved’ while they continued to seek funding opportunities. In the three instances where projects had continued, the project scope had been significantly reduced and was progressing at a much slower pace than would have happened, if they had been successful in their grant application;

At least three of the unsuccessful applicants reported that project sites where work had not progressed remained leaky and unsafe for collections or general access by the public.

All respondents commented on the limited availability of funding to support heritage projects. Nearly all unsuccessful applicants felt they were in a ‘continuous hunt’ for money and had unsuccessfully applied for numerous grants and funding programs.

13

Finding 11: There is a continuing demand for heritage funding

All stakeholders interviewed perceived significant demand for heritage funding in their community. This applied to both continuing the heritage work for their own individual projects or for additional projects in their local community.

The heavy oversubscription of the program is also indicative of a large level of unmet demand for heritage funding. The program received approximately 571 applications, of which 191 were successful. 380 project applications were therefore unsuccessful.

In talking to stakeholders across the spectrum of heritage categories; from volunteer community groups to National Trust organisations and other representatives from National and World Heritage Listed sites, it was evident that there is a high level of demand at local, regional and state levels. While stakeholders expressed needs according to their own interests, it was clear to the evaluation team that there are ongoing needs at all levels. Maintenance of a diverse heritage program would help maintain the level of interest in Australia’s heritage places that has been generated by the Jobs Fund Heritage Program.

Department staff commented on the potential availability of other grants for heritage projects; both from the Department itself, and from other Departments and institutions. For example: ‘Caring for our Country Community Action Grants’ jointly administered by the Department or ‘Community Heritage Grants’ (related to collections) available from the National Library of Australia. They commented on the usefulness of providing information about these to future heritage project applicants.

3 Established by the Association of Preservation Technology International (APT) Australia Chapter comprising a group of volunteers with professional conservation and related expertise.

14

TOR 3 ARE THERE FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING AND WIDENING FUTURE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN HERITAGE AT THE LOCAL AND STATE COMMUNITY LEVEL?

Finding 12: The Evaluation identified a number of opportunities for Government involvement

Stakeholders had a number of different suggestions for other ways Governments or other peak bodies could be involved in heritage in the future:

Facilitating linkages between nearby heritage sites;

Facilitation of networking opportunities and provision of heritage workshops and training;

Provision of storage facilities;

Provision of an information portal, and expert heritage advice and assistance;

Provision of coordination support;

Assistance with collection of oral histories;

Provision of opportunities which enable applied training in heritage conservation /restoration;

Improving grant application and reporting processes, including extending the timeframes for applications and completion of projects; and

Better definition and collection of performance measures.

These are described in more detail below.

1. Facilitating linkages between nearby heritage sites

Three sites visited (Ramsay Graveyard, Calthorpes' House and Brickenden / Woolmers) suggested that Government could play a role in facilitating links between nearby heritage sites, which have synergies, or are of a similar type of ‘site’ and in this way encourage development of local heritage networks. For example, the Ramsay Graveyard and Yamsar House in Haberfield, NSW, or convict sites located in Norfolk Island, Port Arthur and Longford.

The evaluation team recognised that this activity is primarily the responsibility of the owners or managers of the heritage places. The Commonwealth Government, possibly working with other agencies, could assist with advice and better practice information.

2. Facilitation of networking opportunities and provision of heritage workshops and training

Three sites visited, felt the Government could play a useful role in coordinating and providing opportunities for networking opportunities with other heritage organisations. In this way they could tap into national and international expertise and learn from others’ experiences and better practice examples. However, in contrast, stakeholders at a number of other sites felt they had adequate linkages built up already.

15

3. Storage Facilities

Two sites visited (Calthorpe’s House, The Roxy), and one unsuccessful applicant highlighted their need for assistance in finding and funding appropriate storage facilities to house their collections, either in a longer term capacity or while works were being done to the site. Sites facing the challenge of finding and funding appropriate storage were from both urban and rural communities.

4. Provision of an information portal, and expert heritage advice and assistance

Respondents had differing opinions regarding Government providing services such as expert advice, depending on their access to heritage expertise and experience. For example, respondents from the National Trust projects indicated little support for provision of expert advice and similar services as they felt they already had access to a ‘huge reservoir’ of experience and skill through its volunteer base and staff. Stakeholders from four of the 14 sites visited, primarily the smaller community projects, in rural and remote areas, felt that access to training, advice or assistance would be useful.

One suggestion was for a well coordinated website or portal. This could include information about: heritage activities going on Australia wide, and internationally; and resources and web links to other heritage organisations and websites as well as information on funding opportunities available.

5. Coordination

One comment was that there are already sound linkages between the Chairs of State Heritage Councils which should be maintained. They did suggest there was a role for the Commonwealth Government in facilitating more cohesive national alignment of heritage activities and events, for example it was suggested that there could be better coordination of heritage weeks in the different states.4

6. Oral histories

Three sites commented on their need to fund development of oral histories. They noted there was some urgency to this, as many of the holders of precious historical information about the site were aging and would soon be too infirm to contribute information. It was suggested that this information should be made available to community members and visitors to the site as well as being made available via the web.

7. Applied training in heritage conservation and restoration

There were at least three project sites (Gondwana, Calthorpes’ House and Villa Alba) and one unsuccessful applicant that suggested the Government should invest in applied training and skills development in heritage conservation and restoration. This could include skills in heritage conservation and restoration techniques, as applied to building, architecture, painting or re-afforestation of natural landscapes.

These stakeholders noted that for this strategy to be successful there is a requirement for longer term funding, over the course of three years as a minimum and partnerships to be built up between project sites, training institutions and employers.

16

8. Improving grant application and reporting processes

When responding to questions around suggestions for improvements, in the main, project respondents were very grateful for the funding opportunity and extremely pleased with the project results (this was apparent in feedback in both the file review and site visits). Respondents often commented on the helpfulness of the Departmental team in their administration of the grants, and the good working relationships that had developed over the course of the project. There were, however, some suggestions as to how the grants application and management processes could be improved. These are discussed below.

A number of stakeholders (6 of 14 sites visited) offered suggestions about improving the application and reporting processes. Four of these sites (and three of the unsuccessful applicants) felt that with respect to this program and future grants in general, promoting the availability of grants needed to be improved and better communicated.

It was suggested that the Department could make use of the information it builds up as part of any of its grants applications. For example, in the case of future grants, all previous grant applicants (both successful and unsuccessful) could be notified via e-mail of grant opportunities.5

With regard to other aspects:

The timeframe for submission of applications was too short, particularly for projects that required complex scoping requirements;

Some unsuccessful applicants noted that it was an expensive and time consuming application to submit, in that architectural drawings and detailed documentation were required. One unsuccessful applicant indicated that it cost them in the vicinity of $20,000 in staffing time and the required scoping works to put the application together;

Some applicants would have appreciated assistance, or even visits from officials, to assist with completion of the grant application (this was particularly apparent among smaller volunteer groups);

Some stakeholders commented that reporting requirements were very detailed and time consuming, even in comparison to other Commonwealth grant programs. This was particularly evident for the smaller grants, for which the reporting regime was as frequent and comprehensive as the multi-million dollar grants;

The initial twelve month timeframe was unrealistic, particularly given the nature of heritage projects, which need to accommodate things like: bad weather, complex conservation and building work, local planning and approval processes, hiring of specialists and specialist equipment and accessing scoping and project advice from heritage advisers, architects, engineers, builders etc. Many grant recipients noted that they were appreciative of the Departmental team’s ability to extend timeframes where required and changes of scope where needed. Nevertheless, some commented that the tight timeframes constrained activities such as planning and consultation. It should be noted that 75% of the project sample required project extensions.

9. Program logic and defining performance measures

As mentioned under TOR 1, the evaluation team noted that there needed to be greater clarity around the desired outcomes of the Jobs Fund Heritage Program and the link with program

17

design. This in turn could have informed development of performance measures to indicate the success of the program.

The evaluation team observed that in order to better determine whether the overall program has been successful, there needs to be consistent collection of performance information at the project level. In this program, there were no laid down measures (and it is a problematic area for heritage projects generally). A more consistent approach to performance information at both the program and project levels is an opportunity for improvement in the development of future programs.

4 It should be noted that the Commonwealth Government has addressed this, through the establishment of an Australian Heritage Week.5 It should be noted that the Department has implemented a mailing list of this nature.

18

SECTION 3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The evaluation team made nine recommendations for consideration by the Department. These are listed below and categorised by the following themes: Heritage Grants; Promotion, Communication and Linkage; Evaluation and Monitoring and Additional Observations and Suggestions.

Heritage Grants

Recommendation 1: Continue a similar program

To meet the different needs of diverse heritage groups, the Department should continue with programs similar to the Jobs Fund (Heritage) Program; that have inherent flexibility and meet a range of both community and nationally focused funding needs. A longer term, strategic approach to the development of these programs should be considered. Future program design should continue to include opportunities for:

small grants for small scale activities; and

larger grants (of the order of $500k to $1m or more) to meet accumulated maintenance and degradation issues of major heritage structures.

Recommendation 2: Seek triennial funding for heritage programs

To provide for more efficient and effective delivery of major heritage works, and to recognise the longer term nature of heritage projects, future programs should provide for triennial funding. Longer program duration would:

enable more considered planning and comprehensive consultation, especially on alternative conservation techniques;

provide for contingencies such as bad weather or unavailability of scarce heritage expertise;

provide greater opportunity for promotion of projects; and

allow more time for gathering of data and measurement of effectiveness of the project.

Recommendation 3: Provide for sustainability of heritage sites

To foster future sustainability of heritage sites, the Department should continue to support and explicitly recognise in program and application documentation, the value of auxiliary activities; not immediately recognised as heritage activities but which support and enable the achievement of heritage outcomes. These include activities such as: providing better access; and investing in commercial activities on heritage sites to enable them to become financially more self-sustaining.

Recommendation 4: Provide for heritage support activities

To support ongoing heritage work throughout the Australian heritage community, the Department should consider undertaking and becoming more involved in the following initiatives (including as future programs):

Facilitation of networking opportunities between heritage organisations and sites, and provision of heritage workshops and training;

19

Provision of information on other programs supporting heritage activities, for example the

National Library of Australia program ‘Community Heritage Grants’ that helps community groups to preserve and manage locally held Nationally-significant cultural collections, and the Department’s ‘Caring for Our Country Community Action Grants’ that may be relevant to natural heritage projects, as well as various state and territory programs;

Provision of support for development of conservation management plans6;

Provision of an information portal, and expert heritage advice and assistance;

Coordination (for example, in aligning heritage activities and events);

Oral histories; and

Projects that provide for applied training in heritage conservation and restoration.

Recommendation 5: Recognise heritage project contribution to other social and economic outcomes

In designing the program the Department went beyond conventional heritage activities and included environmental, Indigenous and community sectors. In recognition of the positive impacts the program has had, and its contribution to sense of community and improved perceptions of heritage worth, the Department should continue to take this broad view in developing future programs.

Relevant to this recommendation, the Department should establish closer liaison with other relevant agencies to enhance overall success of whole of government objectives.

Promotion, communication and linkage

Recommendation 6: Encourage celebration and promotion of heritage sites

To ensure maximum value from investment in heritage activities, the Department should place greater priority and emphasis on promotions and awareness raising strategies within future programs. This could include encouraging grant applicants and other stakeholders to:

Take more effective steps to communicate the importance of their sites to the community, including: organising specific events to celebrate the site; and where practicable, link with nearby properties as a 'package' to put to visitors;

Where relevant, undertake training in promotions and marketing; and

To support these activities, the Department should provide advice, such as checklists and suggestions relating to promotion and, if practicable, make available funding within program allocations. The Department could also encourage project managers to raise their awareness of promotion activities being undertaken by other heritage projects (see also Recommendation 7).

Recommendation 7: Provide a web portal

To further strengthen links and encourage information exchange and mutual learning between Heritage stakeholders (from small community groups to National Trust to State and Federal departments), the Department should consider hosting a Heritage 'portal' for easy access to

20

heritage-related information. This could include access to relevant heritage websites, all grant programs and heritage policy.

Evaluation and monitoring

Recommendation 8: Improve performance measurement

To facilitate routine monitoring and evaluation of future grants programs and demonstrate effectiveness and accountability, the Department should:

establish clear program outcomes and supporting performance measures for heritage programs generally, based on a sound program logic, in order to better articulate what success might look like;

require recipients of larger grants under future grant programs to establish regimes for data collection on basic performance information which could include ‘before and after’ information on visitor numbers, visitor perceptions and cost of maintenance and high order condition report of property; and

require simple reporting on longer term outcomes beyond the end of the project funding.

Additional observations and suggestions

Recommendation 9: Consider possible suggestions for improvements to the application process

The evaluation did not examine management processes, as they were out of scope, but during the course of the evaluation it did identify opportunities for improvements to application processes, which the Department could consider. These include:

In order to achieve better quality applications and better outcomes, allow more time for development of applications;

Structure applications and reporting differently for small grants, (much less paperwork) and larger grants (allow more time) – that is, take a risk management approach;

Improve guidelines for grant applications, for example: through a clear connection of program outcomes to information requested; provision of examples of the sort of information required; an explanation of how the applications will be assessed and ranked; and providing a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ list;

A greater recognition in the application process of the limited resources and experience among smaller organisations applying for grants, within the requirements of due process and probity. This would require some additional form of support, such as a help service.

As recommendations 1 to 8 above may result in increased numbers in applications, a potential risk is that the number of future applications will far exceed the number that can be funded. This represents a cost both to the applicants who write the unsuccessful applications, and the Department officials who have to process them. The Department could include in the grant design, and make public, the scoring methodology (or filters) for successful applications, including mandatory and scored criteria. Mandatory criteria could include factors such as: being consistent with the Burra Charter; or being able to complete the project by a certain date etc. Scored criteria could include: having a promotional plan; extent of anticipated heritage impacts with respect to conservation, protection, alternative

21

use or interpretation; anticipated auxiliary heritage impacts such as access, and ability to gain income to meet future costs; or non heritage impacts such as employment, social capital and / or environmental protection.

Conclusion

As many projects in the Jobs Fund Program have only recently been completed, it will still be some time before outcomes from the Program can be properly assessed; however, this evaluation has identified strong potential and probability for a range of positive social and economic impacts to be realised.

In talking to the stakeholders involved, it was clear that the Program has been perceived as a very positive initiative, which has engaged communities with a depth of passion and commitment, both for their own local heritage projects, as well as heritage more generally.

The evaluation identified a range of possible areas for further Australian Government involvement in heritage projects, and suggestions for improvement to programs including more emphasis on promotional aspects as well as increasing time frames for the duration of heritage projects beyond 12 months.

Overall, the evaluation concluded that the program was successful in achieving its heritage objectives and that continuation of a diverse heritage program such as the Jobs Fund Heritage Program would help to contribute to government heritage goals, and maintain the level of community engagement and interest that has been generated.

Courage Partners would like to take this opportunity to thank all involved in the evaluation, including Program staff at the Department and all stakeholders consulted. The evaluation was completed in a tight time frame and required considerable support from the Department team and project participants. This was readily and enthusiastically given.

Courage Partners

August 2011

6 It is noted that this is already provided for in the NHS program for places of national significance.

22