Academic literature on the topic 'Program budgeting Australia'

ABSTRACTThe Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions (ANARE) are conducted through the cooperation of various government agencies and research and interest groups. Changes in organisational arrangements since 1946 have reflected the emphasis given to different aspects of Australian Antarctic policy. The Antarctic program is focussed in Hobart, and the lead agency, the Australian Antarctic Division, is currently part of the federal environment portfolio. Australia spent an estimated $A75.7 million on its Antarctic program in the financial year 1991/92, $A67.3 million, or 89%, of which was channelled through the Antarctic Division. The'disposable budget'for research activities has remained relatively static in real terms during the past decade. The consolidation of expenditure through the Antarctic Division and the program approach to budgeting now provide some degree of breakdown of the total expenditure, identify the large sums spent on infrastructure and technology support, and quantify the high threshold cost of research in Antarctica. It remains to be seen what effect the changes in national policies, such as the decision to ban mining in Antarctica, and geopolitical developments will have on future levels of funding.

This special edition of the Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture presents papers from work undertaken as part of the Temperate Pasture Sustainability Key Program (TPSKP; see Fig. 1), and presented at a workshop in Sydney in November 1997. TPSKP was initiated by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA). The Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, the International Wool Secretariat and the Murray Darling Basin Commission were joint funders of some of the individual projects. Most projects were carried out on private properties, and many had producer groups associated with the sites to provide input into treatment selections as well as management guidance and support. This substantial producer input was provided free to the program. The success of TPSKP relied heavily on physical and financial support from State departments of agriculture and conservation, CSIRO and universities, and also on the enthusiasm of these groups to work collaboratively across the 4 south-eastern states. One of the key results of this cooperation was the development of a set of experimental protocols so that measurements taken anywhere in TPSKP could be directly compared. TPSKP aimed to develop the principles for manipulating pasture composition to make grazing systems more productive and sustainable. The program priorities were to: (i) determine by survey the attitudes of producers to grazing management and identify the characteristics of those producers most likely to adopt the program results; (ii) demonstrate by June 1996 that potentially responsive perennial grass-based pastures could be upgraded using grazing management to become a ‘desirable’ pasture for animal production and sustainability; (iii) demonstrate by June 1996 that newly sown perennial grass-based pastures could be maintained in a desirable condition using grazing management; (iv) determine the critical factors responsible for the capacity of perennial grasses to persist, respond to drought, and ameliorate land degradation; (v) develop producers’ skills in pasture species identification, pasture and animal assessment, and feed budgeting, both to enhance their existing management, and to ‘prime’ them for the outputs from TPSKP; (vi) to demonstrate (in phase 2) that improvements in pasture composition and grazing management can have both economic and environmental benefits.

Food literacy is seen as a key component in improving the increasing levels of food insecurity. While responsibility for providing training falls on the charitable service organizations, they may not have the capacity to adequately reach those in need. This paper proposes a tertiary education - (university or higher education) led model to support the food literacy training needs of the food charity sector. A cross-sectional study comprised of online surveys and discussions investigated food services offered by Western Australia (WA) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) agencies, food literacy training needs for staff, volunteers and clients, and challenges to delivering food literacy training programs. Purposive sampling was used, and ACT and WA charitable service originations (survey: ACT n = 23, WA n = 32; interviews: ACT n = 3, WA n = 2) were invited to participate. Findings suggest organizations had limited financial and human resources to address the gap in food literacy training. Nutrition, food budgeting, and food safety education was delivered to paid staff only with limited capacity for knowledge transfer to clients. The Food Literacy Action Logic Model, underpinned by a tertiary education engagement strategy, is proposed to support and build capacity for organizations to address training gaps and extend the reach of food literacy to this under-resourced sector.

Empirical research studies of finance students’ language use have investigated students’ performance in finance courses and the effect of class attendance on students’ performance.Similarly, research on accounting students’ texts has been directed at readability of accounting narratives and lexical choices. Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) based research in multimodal communication and representation has been confined to school and workplace contexts. Whereas multimodal communication investigations in tertiary contexts has been conducted across the fields of mathematics, science and computing, and nursing, business courses have not been explored. The purpose of this paper is to report on a case study designed to investigate the key multimodal academic literacy and numeracy practices of ten international Master of Commerce Accounting students enrolled at an Australian university. Specifically, it aims to provide an account of the salient textual and the logical patterns through the analysis of cohesive devices in a key topic in the Principles of Finance course, namely capital budgeting techniques and management reports. This study is pertinent as most international ESL/EFL students’ enrolments in Australia and elsewhere is in business programs. This study is underpinned by Halliday’s (1985) Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) approach to language and Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) cohesion analysis scheme. The study employs a Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) for the analysis of cohesive devices in the participants’ multimodal texts. Lexical cohesion formed the largest percentage of use, and in particular repetition of the same lexical items, followed by reference.The findings contribute to the description of the meaning-making processes in these multimodal artefacts. They provide a potential research tool for similar investigations across a broad range of educational settings. Implications of the findings for finance students and educators are finally presented.

Background People of low socioeconomic position (SEP) are disproportionately affected by type 2 diabetes (T2D), partly due to unhealthy eating patterns that contribute to inadequate disease self-management and prognosis. Digital technologies have the potential to provide a suitable medium to facilitate diabetes education, support self-management, and address some of the barriers to healthy eating, such as lack of nutritional knowledge or shopping or cooking skills, in this target group. Objective This study aims to test the feasibility, appeal, and potential effectiveness of EatSmart, a 12-week, evidence-based, theoretically grounded, fully automated web-based and mobile-delivered healthy eating behavior change program to help disadvantaged people living with T2D to eat healthily on a budget and improve diabetes self-management. Methods EatSmart is a mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) pre-post design pilot study. Sixty socioeconomically disadvantaged people with T2D aged 18 to 75 years will be recruited. Participants will complete self-reported baseline assessments of their basic demographic and clinical data, dietary intake, dietary self-efficacy, and barriers to healthy eating. They will be provided with login access to the EatSmart web program, which includes six progressive skill-based modules covering healthy eating planning; smart food budgeting and shopping; time-saving meal strategies, healthy cooking methods, modifying recipes; and a final reinforcement and summary module. Over the 3-month intervention, participants will also receive 3 text messages weekly, encouraging them to review goals, continue to engage with different components of the EatSmart web program, and eat healthily. Participants will undertake follow-up assessments directly following the intervention 3 months post baseline and again after a 6-month postintervention follow-up period (9 months post baseline). Feasibility will be evaluated using the number of participants recruited and retained and objective indicators of engagement with the website. Program appeal and potential effects on primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed via the same surveys used at baseline, with additional questions asking about experience with and perceptions of the program. In-depth qualitative interviews will also be conducted 6 months post intervention to provide deeper insight into experiences with EatSmart and a more comprehensive description of the program’s appeal. Results The EatSmart website has been developed, and all participants have viewed the modules as of May 2020. Results are expected to be submitted for publication in December 2020. Conclusions This study will provide data to address the currently limited evidence regarding whether disadvantaged populations with T2D may benefit from digitally delivered behavior change programs that facilitate eating healthily on a budget. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12619001111167; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12619001111167 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/19488

The National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper—drafted to assist the Australian Government in developing the first national Cultural Policy since Creative Nation nearly two decades ago—envisages a future in which arts, cultural and creative activities directly support the development of an inclusive, innovative and productive Australia. "The policy," it says, "will be based on an understanding that a creative nation produces a more inclusive society and a more expressive and confident citizenry by encouraging our ability to express, describe and share our diverse experiences—with each other and with the world" (Australian Government 3). Even a cursory reading of this Discussion Paper makes it clear that the question of impact—in aesthetic, cultural and economic terms—is central to the Government's agenda in developing a new Cultural Policy. Hand-in-hand with the notion of impact comes the process of measurement of progress. The Discussion Paper notes that progress "must be measurable, and the Government will invest in ways to assess the impact that the National Cultural Policy has on society and the economy" (11). If progress must be measurable, this raises questions about what arts, cultural and creative workers do, whether it is worth it, and whether they could be doing it better. In effect, the Discussion Paper pushes artsworkers ever closer to a climate in which they have to be skilled not just at making work, but at making the impact of this work clear to stakeholders. The Government in its plans for Australia's cultural future, is clearly most supportive of artsworkers who can do this, and the scholars, educators and employers who can best train the artsworkers of the future to do this. Teaching Artsworkers to Measure the Impact of Their Work: The Challenges How do we train artsworkers to assess, measure and articulate the impact of what they do? How do we prepare them to be ready to work in a climate that will—as the National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper makes clear—emphasise measuring impact, communicating impact, and communicating impact across aesthetic, cultural and economic categories? As educators delivering training in this area, the Discussion Paper has made this already compelling question even more pressing as we work to develop the career-ready graduates the Government seeks. Our program, the Master of Creative Industries (Creative Production & Arts Management) offered in the Creative Industries Faculty at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, is, like most programs in arts and cultural management in the US, UK, Europe and Australia, offering a three-Semester postgraduate program that allows students to develop the career-ready skills required to work as managers of arts, cultural or creative organisations. That we need to train our graduates to work not just as producers of plays, paintings or recordings, but as entrepreneurial arts advocates who can measure and articulate the value of their programs to others, is not news (Hadley "Creating" 647-48; cf. Brkic; Ebewo and Sirayi; Beckerman; Sikes). Our program—which offers training in arts policy, management, marketing and budgeting followed by training in entrepreneurship and a practical project—is already structured around this necessity. The question of how to teach students this diverse skill set is, however, still a subject of debate; and the question of how to teach students to measure the impact of this work is even more difficult. There is, of course, a body of literature on the impact of arts, cultural and creative activities, value and evaluation that has been developed over the past decade, particularly through landmark reports like Matarasso's Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts (1997) and the RAND Corporation's Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate about the Benefits of the Arts (2004). There are also emergent studies in an Australian context: Madden's "Cautionary Note" on using economic impact studies in the arts (2001); case studies on arts and wellbeing by consultancy firm Effective Change (2003); case studies by DCITA (2003); the Asia Pacific Journal of Arts and Cultural Management (2009) issue on "value"; and Australia Council publications on arts, culture and economy. As Richards has explained, "evaluation is basically a straightforward concept. E-value-ation = a process of enquiry that allows a judgment of amount, value or worth to be made" (99). What makes arts evaluation difficult is not the concept, but the measurement of intangible values—aesthetic quality, expression, engagement or experience. In the literature, discussion has been plagued by debate about what is measured, what method is used, and whether subjective values can in fact be measured. Commentators note that in current practice, questions of value are still deferred because they are too difficult to measure (Bilton and Leary 52), discussed only in terms of economic measures such as market share or satisfaction which are statistically quantifiable (Belfiore and Bennett "Rethinking" 137), or done through un-rigorous surveys that draw only ambiguous, subjective, or selective responses (Merli 110). According to Belfiore and Bennett, Public debate about the value of the arts thus comes to be dominated by what might best be termed the cult of the measurable; and, of course, it is those disciplines primarily concerned with measurement, namely, economics and statistics, which are looked upon to find the evidence that will finally prove why the arts are so important to individuals and societies. A corollary of this is that the humanities are of little use in this investigation. ("Rethinking" 137) Accordingly, Ragsdale states, Arts organizations [still] need to find a way to assess their progress in …making great art that matters to people—as evidenced, perhaps, by increased enthusiasm, frequency of attendance, the capacity and desire to talk or write about one's experience, or in some other way respond to the experience, the curiosity to learn about the art form and the ideas encountered, the depth of emotional response, the quality of the social connections made, and the expansion of one's aesthetics over time. Commentators are still looking for a balanced approach (cf. Geursen and Rentschler; Falk and Dierkling), which evaluates aesthetic practices, business practices, audience response, and results for all parties, in tandem. An approach which evaluates intrinsic impacts, instrumental impacts, and the way each enables the other, in tandem—with an emphasis not on the numbers but on whether we are getting better at what we are doing. And, of course, allows evaluators of arts, cultural and creative activities to use creative arts methods—sketches, stories, bodily movements and relationships and so forth—to provide data to inform the assessment, so they can draw not just on statistical research methods but on arts, culture and humanities research methods. Teaching Artsworkers to Measure the Impact of Their Work: Our Approach As a result of this contested terrain, our method for training artsworkers to measure the impact of their programs has emerged not just from these debates—which tend to conclude by declaring the needs for better methods without providing them—but from a research-teaching nexus in which our own trial-and-error work as consultants to arts, cultural and educational organisations looking to measure the impact of or improve their programs has taught us what is effective. Each of us has worked as managers of professional associations such as Drama Australia and Australasian Association for Theatre, Drama and Performance Studies (ADSA), members of boards or committees for arts organisations such as Youth Arts Queensland and Young People and the Arts Australia (YPAA), as well as consultants to major cultural organisations like the Queensland Performing Arts Centre and the Brisbane Festival. The methods for measuring impact we have developed via this work are based not just on surveys and statistics, but on our own practice as scholars and producers of culture—and are therefore based in arts, culture and humanities approaches. As scholars, we investigate the way marginalised groups tell stories—particularly groups marked by age, gender, race or ability, using community, contemporary and public space performance practices (cf. Hadley, "Bree"; Gattenhof). What we have learned by bringing this sort of scholarly analysis into dialogue with a more systematised approach to articulating impact to government, stakeholders and sponsors is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. What is needed, instead, is a toolkit, which incorporates central principles and stages, together with qualitative, quantitative and performative tools to track aesthetics, accessibility, inclusivity, capacity-building, creativity etc., as appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Whatever the approach, it is critical that the data track the relationship between the experience the artists, audience or stakeholders anticipated the activity should have, the aspects of the activity that enabled that experience to emerge (or not), and the effect of that (or not) for the arts organisation, their artists, their partners, or their audiences. The combination of methods needs to be selected in consultation with the arts organisation, and the negotiations typically need to include detailed discussion of what should be evaluated (aesthetics, access, inclusivity, or capacity), when it should be evaluated (before, during or after), and how the results should be communicated (including the difference between evaluation for reporting purposes and evaluation for program improvement purposes, and the difference between evaluation and related processes like reflection, documentary-making, or market research). Translating what we have learned through our cultural research and consultancy into a study package for students relies on an understanding of what they want from their study. This, typically, is practical career-ready skills. Students want to produce their own arts, or produce other people's arts, and most have not imagined themselves participating in meta-level processes in which they argue the value of arts, cultural and creative activities (Hadley, "Creating" 652). Accordingly, most have not thought of themselves as researchers, using cultural research methods to create reports that inform how the Australian government values, supports, and services the arts. The first step in teaching students to operate effectively as evaluators of arts, cultural and creative activities is, then, to re-orient their expectations to include this in their understanding of what artsworkers do, what skills artsworkers need, and where they deploy these skills. Simply handing over our own methods, as "the" methods, would not enable graduates to work effectively in a climate were one size will not fit all, and methods for evaluating impact need to be negotiated again for each new context. 1. Understanding the Need for Evaluation: Cause and Effect The first step in encouraging students to become effective evaluators is asking them to map their sector, the major stakeholders, the agendas, alignments and misalignments in what the various players are trying to achieve, and the programs, projects and products through which the players are trying to achieve it. This starting point is drawn from Program Theory—which, as Joon-Yee Kwok argues in her evaluation of the SPARK National Mentoring Program for Young and Emerging Artists (2010) is useful in evaluating cultural activities. The Program Theory approach starts with a flow chart that represents relationships between activities in a program, allowing evaluators to unpack some of the assumptions the program's producers have about what activities have what sort of effect, then test whether they are in fact having that sort of effect (cf. Hall and Hall). It could, for example, start with a flow chart representing the relationship between a community arts policy, a community arts organisation, a community-devised show it is producing, and a blog it has created because it assumes it will allow the public to become more interested in the show the participants are creating, to unpack the assumptions about the sort of effect this is supposed to have, and test whether this is in fact having this sort of effect. Masterclasses, conversations and debate with peers and industry professionals about the agendas, activities and assumptions underpinning programs in their sector allows students to look for elements that may be critical in their programs' ability to achieve (or not) an anticipated impact. In effect to start asking about, "the way things are done now, […] what things are done well, and […] what could be done better" (Australian Government 12).2. Understanding the Nature of Evaluation: PurposeOnce students have been alerted to the need to look for cause-effect assumptions that can determine whether or not their program, project or product is effective, they are asked to consider what data they should be developing about this, why, and for whom. Are they evaluating a program to account to government, stakeholders and sponsors for the money they have spent? To improve the way it works? To use that information to develop innovative new programs in future? In other words, who is the audience? Being aware of the many possible purposes and audiences for evaluation information can allow students to be clear not just about what needs to be evaluated, but the nature of the evaluation they will do—a largely statistical report, versus a narrative summary of experiences, emotions and effects—which may differ depending on the audience.3. Making Decisions about What to Evaluate: Priorities When setting out to measure the impact of arts, cultural or creative activities, many people try to measure everything, measure for the purposes of reporting, improvement and development using the same methods, or gather a range of different sorts of data in the hope that something in it will answer questions about whether an activity is having the anticipated effect, and, if so, how. We ask students to be more selective, making strategic decisions about which anticipated effects of a program, project or product need to be evaluated, whether the evaluation is for reporting, improvement or innovation purposes, and what information stakeholders most require. In addition to the concept of collecting data about critical points where programs succeed or fail in achieving a desired effect, and different approaches for reporting, improvement or development, we ask students to think about the different categories of effect that may be more or less interesting to different stakeholders. This is not an exhaustive list, or a list of things every evaluation should measure. It is a tool to demonstrate to would-be evaluators points of focus that could be developed, depending on the stakeholders' priorities, the purpose of the evaluation, and the critical points at which desired effects need to occur to ensure success. Without such framing, evaluators are likely to end up with unusable data, which become a difficulty to deal with rather than a benefit for the artsworkers, arts organisations or stakeholders. 4. Methods for Evaluation: Process To be effective, methods for collecting data about how arts, cultural or creative activities have (or fail to have) anticipated impact need to include conventional survey, interview and focus group style tools, and creative or performative tools such as discussion, documentation or observation. We encourage students to use creative practice to draw out people's experience of arts events—for example, observation, documentation still images, video or audio documentation, or facilitated development of sketches, stories or scenes about an experience, can be used to register and record people's feelings. These sorts of methods can capture what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls "flow" of experience (cf. Belfiore and Bennett, "Determinants" 232)—for example, photos of a festival space at hourly intervals or the colours a child uses to convey memory of a performance can capture to flow of movement, engagement, and experience for spectators more clearly than statistics. These, together with conventional surveys or interviews that comment on the feelings expressed, allow for a combination of quantitative, qualitative and performative data to demonstrate impact. The approach becomes arts- and humanities- based, using arts methods to encourage people to talk, write or otherwise respond to their experience in terms of emotion, connection, community, or expansion of aesthetics. The evaluator still needs to draw out the meaning of the responses through content, text or discourse analysis, and teaching students how to do a content analysis of quantitative, qualitative and performative data is critical at this stage. When teaching students how to evaluate their data, our method encourages students not just to focus on the experience, or the effect of the experience, but the relationship between the two—the things that act as "enablers" "determinants" (White and Hede; Belfiore and Bennett, "Determinants" passim) of effect. This approach allows the evaluator to use a combination of conventional and creative methods to describe not just what effect an activity had, but, more critically, what enabled it to have that effect, providing a firmer platform for discussing the impact, and how it could be replicated, developed or deepened next time, than a list of effects and numbers of people who felt those effects alone. 5. Communicating Results: Politics Often arts, cultural or creative organisations can be concerned about the image of their work an evaluation will create. The final step in our approach is to alert students to the professional, political and ethical implications of evaluation. Students learn to share their knowledge with organisations, encouraging them to see the value of reporting both correct and incorrect assumptions about the impact of their activities, as part of a continuous improvement process. Then we assist them in drawing the results of this sort of cultural research into planning, development and training documents which may assist the organisation in improving in the future. In effect, it is about encouraging organisations to take the Australian government at its word when, in the National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper, it says it that measuring impact is about measuring progress—what we do well, what we could do better, and how, not just success statistics about who is most successful—as it is this that will ultimately be most useful in creating an inclusive, innovative, productive Australia. Teaching Artsworkers to Measure the Impact of Their Work: The Impact of Our Approach What, then, is the impact of our training on graduates' ability to measure the impact of work? Have we made measurable progress in our efforts to teach artsworkers to assess and articulate the impact of their work? The MCI (CP&AM) has been offered for three years. Our approach is still emergent and experimental. We have, though, identified a number of impacts of our work. First, our students are less fearful of becoming involved in measuring the value or impact of arts, cultural and creative programs. This is evidenced by the number who chooses to do some sort of evaluation for their Major Project, a 15,000 word individual project or internship which concludes their degree. Of the 50 or so students who have reached the Major Project in three years—35 completed and 15 in planning for 2012—about a third have incorporated evaluation into their Major Project. This includes evaluation of sector, business or producing models (5), youth arts and youth arts mentorship programs (4), audience development programs (2), touring programs (4), and even other arts management training programs (1). Indeed, after internships in programming or producing roles, this work—aligned with the Government's interest in improving training of young artists, touring, audience development, and economic development—has become a most popular Major Project option. This has enabled students to work with a range of arts, cultural and creative organisations, share their training—their methods, their understanding of what their methods can measure, when, and how—with Industry. Second, this Industry-engaged training has helped graduates in securing employment. This is evidenced by the fact that graduates have gone on to be employed with organisations they have interned with as part of their Major Project, or other organisations, including some of Brisbane's biggest cultural organisations—local and state government departments, Queensland Performing Arts Centre, Brisbane Festival, Metro Arts, Backbone Youth Arts, and Youth Arts Queensland, amongst others. Thirdly, graduates' contribution to local organisations and industry has increased the profile of a relatively new program. This is evidenced by the fact that it enrols 40 to 50 new students a year across Graduate Certificate / MCI (CP&AM) programs, typically two thirds domestic students and one third international students from Canada, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway and, of course, China. Indeed, some students are now disseminating this work globally, undertaking their Major Project as an internship or industry project with an organisation overseas. In effect, our training's impact emerges not just from our research, or our training, but from the fact that our graduates disseminate our approach to a range of arts, cultural and creative organisations in a practical way. We have, as a result, expanded the audience for this approach, and the number of people and contexts via which it is being adapted and made useful. Whilst few of students come into our program with a desire to do this sort of work, or even a working knowledge of the policy that informs it, on completion many consider it a viable part of their practice and career pathway. When they realise what they can achieve, and what it can mean to the organisations they work with, they do incorporate research, research consultant and government roles as part of their career portfolio, and thus make a contribution to the strong cultural sector the Government envisages in the National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper. Our work as scholars, practitioners and educators has thus enabled us to take a long-term, processual and grassroots approach to reshaping agendas for approaches to this form of cultural research, as our practices are adopted and adapted by students and industry stakeholders. Given the challenges commentators have identified in creating and disseminating effective evaluation methods in arts over the past decade, this, for us—though by no means work that is complete—does count as measurable progress. References Beckerman, Gary. "Adventuring Arts Entrepreneurship Curricula in Higher Education: An Examination of Present Efforts, Obstacles, and Best pPractices." The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 37.2 (2007): 87-112. Belfiore, Eleaonora, and Oliver Bennett. "Determinants of Impact: Towards a Better Understanding of Encounters with the Arts." Cultural Trends 16.3 (2007): 225-75. ———. "Rethinking the Social Impacts of the Arts." International Journal of Cultural Policy 13.2 (2007): 135-51. Bilton, Chris, and Ruth Leary. "What Can Managers Do for Creativity? Brokering Creativity in the Creative Industries." International Journal of Cultural Policy 8.1 (2002): 49-64. Brkic, Aleksandar. "Teaching Arts Management: Where Did We Lose the Core Ideas?" Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 38.4 (2009): 270-80. Czikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. "A Systems Perspective on Creativity." Creative Management. Ed. Jane Henry. Sage: London, 2001. 11-26. Australian Government. "National Cultural Policy Discussion Paper." Department of Prime Minster and Cabinet – Office for the Arts 2011. 1 Oct. 2011 ‹http://culture.arts.gov.au/discussion-paper›. Ebewo, Patrick, and Mzo Sirayi. "The Concept of Arts/Cultural Management: A Critical Reflection." Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 38.4 (2009): 281-95. Effective Change and VicHealth. Creative Connections: Promoting Mental Health and Wellbeing through Community Arts Participation 2003. 1 Oct. 2011 ‹http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/en/Publications/Social-connection/Creative-Connections.aspx›. Effective Change. Evaluating Community Arts and Community Well Being 2003. 1 Oct. 2011 ‹http://www.arts.vic.gov.au/Research_and_Resources/Resources/Evaluating_Community_Arts_and_Wellbeing›. Falk, John H., and Lynn. D Dierking. "Re-Envisioning Success in the Cultural Sector." Cultural Trends 17.4 (2008): 233-46. Gattenhof, Sandra. "Sandra Gattenhof." QUT ePrints Article Repository. Queensland University of Technology, 2011. 1 Oct. 2011 ‹http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Gattenhof,_Sandra.html›. Geursen, Gus and Ruth Rentschler. "Unravelling Cultural Value." The Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 33.3 (2003): 196-210. Hall, Irene and David Hall. Evaluation and Social Research: Introducing Small Scale Practice. London: Palgrave McMillan, 2004. Hadley, Bree. "Bree Hadley." QUT ePrints Article Repository. Queensland University of Technology, 2011. 1 Oct. 2011 ‹http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Hadley,_Bree.html›. ———. "Creating Successful Cultural Brokers: The Pros and Cons of a Community of Practice Approach in Arts Management Education." Asia Pacific Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 8.1 (2011): 645-59. Kwok, Joon. When Sparks Fly: Developing Formal Mentoring Programs for the Career Development of Young and Emerging Artists. Masters Thesis. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology, 2010. Madden, Christopher. "Using 'Economic' Impact Studies in Arts and Cultural Advocacy: A Cautionary Note." Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy 98 (2001): 161-78. Matarasso, Francis. Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. Bournes Greens, Stroud: Comedia, 1997. McCarthy, Kevin. F., Elizabeth H. Ondaatje, Laura Zakaras, and Arthur Brooks. Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate about the Benefits of the Arts. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2004. Merli, Paola. "Evaluating the Social Impact of Participation in Arts Activities." International Journal of Cultural Policy 8.1 (2002): 107-18. Muir, Jan. The Regional Impact of Cultural Programs: Some Case Study Findings. Communications Research Unit - DCITA, 2003. Ragsdale, Diana. "Keynote - Surviving the Culture Change." Australia Council Arts Marketing Summit. Australia Council for the Arts: 2008. Richards, Alison. "Evaluation Approaches." Creative Collaboration: Artists and Communities. Melbourne: Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne, 2006. Sikes, Michael. "Higher Education Training in Arts Administration: A Millennial and Metaphoric Reappraisal. Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 30.2 (2000): 91-101.White, Tabitha, and Anne-Marie Hede. "Using Narrative Inquiry to Explore the Impact of Art on Individuals." Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 38.1 (2008): 19-35.

Of the many components of reform to Australian government administration in the 1980s, the introduction of systematic program evaluation is perhaps one of the least examined. This thesis seeks to assess the Federal Labor Government's evaluation strategy as an instrument for enhancing what are here termed the policy management capacities of central agencies. It proceeds in two steps. First, the thesis traces in detail the development of program evaluation policy in Australian federal government from the effectiveness reviews of the Coombs Report of 1976 to the current evaluation strategy, and argues that, despite competing purposes for it, evaluation was intended primarily to serve decision making in central government. This policy aim was cemented by the economic crisis of the mid 1980s and framed around budgetary issues by its steward, the Department of Finance. Second, in order to assess the impact of the evaluation strategy, the thesis develops a framework for analysing program evaluation as one instrument for strengthening the core policy management functions of central agencies. In this context, policy management is essentially a coordination task. The contribution of evaluation to two aspects of policy management-resource coordination, and policy development and coordination-is examined. The findings confirm that attempts to formalise evaluation processes have had a variable impact- central budgetary processes remain dependent on relatively informal assessment procedures, although recent attempts to enhance policy coordination through the evaluation of policy advising processes have proved potentially to be more influential. In conclusion, the thesis argues that the evaluation strategy represented a credible attempt to better inform policy making in central government, but suffered for want of clear policy design and firm execution that resulted in only a marginal impact on these processes.

During the early 1960s, the US Department of Defense, under Secretary Robert McNamara implemented for the first time in national government a Planning-Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) in order to improve effectiveness and efficiency in defence program management. McNamara sought improved effectiveness through a formal five-year program designed to reduce costs. He also sought efficient methods of managing joint service strategy coordination, requirements' analysis and planning, and improved alignment between the choice of requirements and the size and nature of the acquisition program. The Australian Defence Organisation (ADO) and the UK Ministry of Defence later sought to implement their own forms of PPBS. Recently, both have introduced program management innovations that seek to achieve more reliably effective and efficient outcomes. The thesis has reviewed program management theory with a particular focus on its implementation challenges relating to strategic management, program review, personnel management and program coordination. It has sought to answer the research problem: Which specific management designs could offer better outcomes for Australian defence technological edge programs? The thesis' central proposition is that the greatest opportunities for improving defence program outcomes occur when classic PPBS concepts are implemented within a Program Management System that incorporates Zero- Base budgeting (ZBB), Management by Objectives (MBO), and Matrix structural systems. All of these systems, either alone or in combination seek to enhance program quality, scheduling, financial management and evaluation. The research used in-depth case study research based on qualitative data found within a selection of recent Australian National Audit Office reports, and other public records. The central proposition is subjected to dynamic reliabilityrelated contingency analysis and evaluation. The thesis concludes with the proposition that if managers were to implement a contingency based integrated mixture of the above-mentioned systems they could expect improved technological edge program outcomes.

Of the many components of reform to Australian government administration in the 1980s, the introduction of systematic program evaluation is perhaps one of the least examined. This thesis seeks to assess the Federal Labor Government's evaluation strategy as an instrument for enhancing what are here termed the policy management capacities of central agencies. It proceeds in two steps. First, the thesis traces in detail the development of program evaluation policy in Australian federal government from the effectiveness reviews of the Coombs Report of 1976 to the current evaluation strategy, and argues that, despite competing purposes for it, evaluation was intended primarily to serve decision making in central government. This policy aim was cemented by the economic crisis of the mid 1980s and framed around budgetary issues by its steward, the Department of Finance. Second, in order to assess the impact of the evaluation strategy, the thesis develops a framework for analysing program evaluation as one instrument for strengthening the core policy management functions of central agencies. In this context, policy management is essentially a coordination task. The contribution of evaluation to two aspects of policy management-resource coordination, and policy development and coordination-is examined. The findings confirm that attempts to formalise evaluation processes have had a variable impact- central budgetary processes remain dependent on relatively informal assessment procedures, although recent attempts to enhance policy coordination through the evaluation of policy advising processes have proved potentially to be more influential. In conclusion, the thesis argues that the evaluation strategy represented a credible attempt to better inform policy making in central government, but suffered for want of clear policy design and firm execution that resulted in only a marginal impact on these processes.

Gender budget analysis has provided a range of understandings of the different impacts of budgets on women compared to men. The central characteristics of this analysis has been its attempt to systematically recognise the contribution of unpaid care work in economic and social outcomes and women's disproportionate responsibilities for unpaid care work. In this context time use analysis is potentially an important tool uncovering the gender impacts of budgets.