 Big Masters from the New South Wales Committee of the Evaluation Society. I've got a couple of my colleagues from the New South Wales Committee here. I saw Karen here. I think Flo might have been here out first while chair. Jade is here as well. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land where I'm coming from today. Dark and Jung up in the central coast of New South Wales. Perhaps people might want to pop in the chat where what lands are there coming from today or whether they're, I know we have some overseas people with us today as well. And I guess I'd just also like to acknowledge the pretty difficult times First Nations people are experiencing at the moment around the referendum whether as passionate advocates for the voice or non-committal or opponents. I think they're being put under enormous pressure and worse still some absolute crap that we've seen on social media and not just social media, general media in recent times. So I think the acknowledgement of the difficulty around that is worth remembering. Today's session, I've got a bit more details about that in a moment, is one of the, as many of you would know, we've got some frequent flyers here, our monthly free events that we organise for by the New South Wales Evaluation Society. Although in the post-COVID age, the concept of board is in New South Wales, Victoria a little bit irrelevant. So we do get lots of people from different parts of the country and internationally as I mentioned. So welcome to everybody and particularly some of this. I know we've got some new New South Wales members joining us today and some people haven't been to these before and really encourage people who aren't members to think about joining up. We've got some interesting events over the next few months of valuation and criminal justice, systemic reform, methodologies and metrics. Looking at the hardy perennial of randomised controlled trials, which is getting a bit of interest with the establishment of the evaluated general announced in the Commonwealth budget last week. Interesting article in the mandarin for those of you who read that publication about RCTs. And the shortcomings, which many of us would know. And we've also got the conference in Brisbane and early bird discounts are available now, I gather. So you might be great to get together again, face to face. Those of you who've just joined, we do have a poll going around where people work just out of interest. So fill that in if you get a chance. Today's session about evaluating advocacy, which is another hardy perennial, I guess. And we've got two or fabulous speakers and two fabulous or from two fabulous organisations to talk about that. So Rithga Nisum will be leading the presentation really. She's the impact manager at PAIC, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. I'll get Rithga to provide us some more details about PAIC shortly. And then followed by Rithga will be Camilla Pantol-Theney, who is the CEO at the Redford Legal Centre. I should declare an interest time on the board of Redford Legal Centre. So nevertheless, it is an amazing organisation and like PAIC has really done some, made some great gains for social justice in New South Wales and nationally. A really good roll up today. So thanks a lot for coming. And I'd also like to acknowledge our friends from Simna Paula, who I think put this out through their network as well and as did Rithga and Camilla. Thank you so much for the help of us. So we're going to hear from Rithga. Thank you so much for the help of us, Rithga. Just a bit of action. I think I've been able to mute that one. So the format is we're going to be handing over to Rithga shortly, then she'll pass over to Camilla and we'll probably then just open up for Q&A. During the session, I might want to start popping in some questions in the chat that we can toss around. Our recent experience of putting people in small groups hasn't been great. We have a big dropout up there and we're getting a preference that people do like larger sessions, even though this is a very large group. So we will have to do it by probably having questions by chat, but we can do that after about half an hour or so. Over to you, Rithga. Thanks, Greg and hi, everyone. I'm coming to you from Gadigal land in not so sunny Sydney. I also acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and I know that sovereignty was never ceded. Thank you for inviting me to speak today. This is going to be interesting, I hope, I think. I'm going to give a little bit of background to PAAC and the work that we do and the genesis, I suppose, of our impact framework and our impact work generally. And then I'll talk a little bit about the framework. I'll talk a little bit of the framework and then I'll throw to Camilla and then as Greg said, we'll have a bit of a chat. So PAAC, for those who aren't familiar, as Greg said, we're the Public Interest Advocacy Centre where a not-for-profit social justice law and policy centre based here in Sydney. We've been around for 40 years. We had our 40th birthday last year. And what we do is best defined, I suppose, as legal policy and advocacy work that is often done in partnership and in collaboration with others to challenge laws, policies and practices that cause or contribute to injustice. So social justice, law and policy work broadly defined. At the moment, we're working across five policy areas. Civil rights, climate and energy, disability rights, First Nations, justice and homelessness. So I joined PAAC at the start of 2022. So just short of 18 months ago. My background, well, I've done a whole bunch of weird and wonderful things. For most of my life, I suppose I've worked in and around the social justice, social policy, human rights sort of space. A lot of the time it's not for profits, sometime in government, statutory agencies, most recently in the private sector. Before I joined PAAC, I was in the private sector as a consultant, which is where I did most of my evaluation and impact work. But for most of my life, I've been, I suppose, a policy geek with a sideline in project management. So I call that out really because I guess it shapes my approach to the way I engage with this whole world of impact and particularly the way I approach the impact work at PAAC. I guess I came to impact measurement, impact management evaluation as a practitioner in, as I said, policy and project management and then learnt these skills and then have applied them for the last few years. So I guess that's really framed the way that I come to work that I do. So when I joined PAAC, I had a number of conversations with our CEO, Jonathan Hunya, about where PAAC was at on its impact journey, which I have to put in quotation marks, but it genuinely is an impact journey that I think organisations go on and people go on as well. So a few things stood out for me from those conversations that go to, I guess, the genesis of the impact framework and our impact approach at PAAC. The first thing was that engaging me as PAAC's first impact manager is not PAAC's first go on the impact roundabout. They'd made a commitment a number of years ago to build a culture of impact within the organisation and a very genuine commitment from both the perspective of wanting to be better at articulating impact, measuring impact, talking about impact, but also genuinely as a social justice organisation achieving impact. So if you think about what impact means in the social justice context, it is actually change. And as PAAC, that's very important. So they'd made a commitment some years ago to building a culture of impact. What that looked like was they'd done a fair bit of work, particularly on theories of change. They'd developed theories of change for a number of key projects and done some work on a theory of change for the whole organisation. So I promised Jonathan I wouldn't reinvent the wheel that I would build on what was done already that was already very solid and take it from there because that was a very solid base from which to start. The second thing is that Jonathan talked to me about impact management being important to PAAC as well as impact measurement, which I thought was very smart and I would think that smart as a project manager, but I thought it's very smart because as I don't need to tell you guys, impact is not just an end of the process thing. It's as much about how you frame and you establish the work that you do. So you set up your outcomes, you set up your objectives, you set up your activities with ideally a line of sight towards those things and then look at how you're going to measure them. It is an end to end thing, not just a thing that you do at the end. So I thought framing in a establishing impact, planning for impact, managing for impact and then measuring impact, establishing it within that frame, I thought was a very smart way to do it. It also said to me that whatever I developed by way of impact measurement approach was going to have to be useful in project planning and management as well as impact measurement. The other thing that really stood out was that what PAP really was wanting and needed was a holistic approach to how they did or we didn't do impact. So a way of conceptualizing and articulating impact both at the organizational level, but also at the project and program level and an approach that would really bring these two things together. So bringing a real level of consistency, I suppose, to how we do this impact stuff across the organization and building the capability across the organization. So that was really what framed it for me. So speaking in consulting terms, I took that as my brief and that was the background, I guess, from which I thought about the building an impact framework for PAAC and what has eventually become a global impact framework. So Greg asked me to talk about, well, he suggested I might talk about some challenges. We can frame challenges as opportunities, depending on how we look at them. But I guess the two main things that I would call out is being the things that were front of mind for me when I started to work on PAAC's framework. The first is just the sheer diversity of the work that PAAC does. So I called out the number of themes or areas in which we work and that's wonderful and it's also not unusual. A number of organizations work across a number of areas, but particularly in terms of the impact management and measurement, the things that really gave me pause for thought were the diversity of the types of work. So PAAC does everything from strategic litigation. So test cases, casework, legal advice, advocacy in a legal sense. We do legal service delivery. We run a homeless person's legal service, which as the name suggests, is a legal service for homeless people. We do a lot of work on policy and advocacy and we have a very strong focus on collaborations and partnerships, but in a very genuine sense. So working with partners and others in ways that amplify the voices of the people that we work with and really serve to, we do use the word empowerment, but in a very genuine sort of way to empower and amplify the voices of our partners, particularly in our work around First Nations, justice and disability rights. So in terms of types of work, they're really quite different. So it is a strength of what PAAC does, but for me, I guess the challenge was, how do I come up with an impact measurement management approach that will speak to the diversity of these types of work and be able to be applied across these different types of work, but not be so broad as to be meaningless. So something that was actually gonna be able to be tangible and applied in a very practical sense in all of these different areas. Along with that diversity of types of work comes a diversity of funders with a diversity of needs and interests in impact measurement. And that as I won't go into detail, but that brings its own interestingness, I suppose, in terms of what funders think of as impact or what is important to them in terms of what they conceive of as impact, what they would like to see and how they articulate that. And we've had a number of very interesting conversations at the time that I've been here around what that looks like. The second challenge slash opportunity is the advocacy thing broadly defined. PAAC is quite upfront about doing advocacy and being about systemic change. It's not a thing that we shy away from, but oftentimes these concepts can be quite slippery and not well understood by funders, but also by government, by people who aren't us basically. People have different ideas around what advocacy means, what systemic change means. And there can be a suspicion, I suppose, about what's actually being done and what's actually being achieved when we say we're doing advocacy and we're about systemic change. So it was important to me to be specific about what we are doing when we are doing the business of advocacy and what systemic change looks like, how will we know it when we see it or we see bits of it? And no doubt we will talk more about that in the conversation and obviously how we'll measure it. So in developing the framework, I set out to develop something that does three things. The first is give us a line of sight across all of PAAC's work and between the framework as a whole and frameworks for individual projects. The second thing I needed to do was to be fit for purpose and I use that language a lot, probably to the point that it bore people to hear it, but I think fit for purpose is important. In this context, I mean that the framework has to do what it needs to do and nothing else. And why that's important is that this is the thing that really has to speak to people who aren't evaluators. It has to be able to mean something to people who are lawyers, who are practitioners, who are policy people within the organization so that we can work with it. It needs to be able to speak to stakeholders outside the organization, particularly our funders and partners because we need to have a live conversation about the way in which we can see what the measure impact and what they need and how we can do that jointly. So it needs to be audience appropriate. So it really needs to do what it says it's going to do, not be overly elaborate. And I feel like at least I hope that what we've come up with is something that does do that. The third thing is, and this kind of goes to the fit for purpose thing, is that it was important for me that it does what it says on the box, which is it is a framework for impact measurement. And part of that for me was defining what do we mean by impact measurement? And I thought this was quite important because I think impact is another thing that gets talked about a lot. And I think people have very different ideas what it means. And unless I think we are clear about what we mean, it can contribute to confusion, to different expectations about what we're doing and what we're measuring and what people can expect from us. And I talk about funders when I say that, but I, you know, it's as relevant to partners for people we work with than also people internally. Impact can be quite scary for people as in, you know, what if I'm not delivering impact? What if this is not impactful? Well, let's talk about what that actually means and how we know it's not supposed to be a bar that you can't jump over. It's genuinely supposed to be, are we doing what we set out to do? So in our impact framework, I included a definition on what impact means in our space. So in the not-for-profit space. From the Centre for Social Impact, those who aren't familiar with the Centre for Social Impact, bit of a shout out, I think they're pretty fantastic. I'm biased. I did the Graduate Certificate in Social Impact there a number of years ago, but they really, for me, produce some of the most useful, practical, fit-for-purpose plain English resources around what impact looks like in a not-for-profit and a social justice space. And I just find them incredibly useful. So I really like this definition of impact from the Centre for Social Impact. What impact looks like in a not-for-profit space? They define it as the longer-term outcomes that are achieved from the activities, outputs and outcomes of an intervention, program, organisation or sector. And for those of you familiar with theories of change, it sounds very much like what you might expect to see in a theory of change, which is also helpful because it gives us a definition that we can work with in that context. So I'm going to go on now to talk a little bit to the framework, which is where I throw to my trusty assistant, Greg, who is hopefully throwing up slides for me. I'm not going to talk through the whole thing. It's not very long. When I say the whole thing, it sounds big. It's not the version that is on our website. It's 10 pages. There's a link to it. I think that we're sent out with the invite or you can look it up. That version's a summary of a bigger internal version that's got a lot more moving parts to it, but it basically is a summary of what the framework looks like. So I'm only going to talk to two slides of it because that really gives you a sense of what it's about. The first is our theory of change. So I built this and the impact framework that comes from it around PX5 strategies for change that are set out in our strategic plan. And when I thought about how to cut this, I thought, really, I can't think of a better way to cut this than by these five strategies because they are strategies. They are strategies for change. So in the left-hand column, we've got our priority areas that I called out before. Our strategies for change are, you can see, exposing injustice, challenging decision makers. Thanks, Greg, for the arrow. That's awesome. I feel like I should have one of those pointers. Identifying solutions, engaging the public and decision makers, and empowering people. Next to each of those strategies, we've set out what they look like as action. So what are we doing when we're doing those things? And I won't read through all of them, but broadly, for exposing injustice, it's about exposing. We're about strategic litigation, research and advocacy. Challenging decision makers, primarily about our legal work. Identifying solutions is very much what we do in collaboration and partnership with others. Engaging the public and decision makers broadly covers our advocacy and much of our communication and public engagement work, excuse me. And then empowering people is, as we say there, around resourcing and supporting advocates, people from target populations. And as I talked about before, working in ways that amplify the voices and the work of the people that we partner with. And then we've got some broad outcomes that sit against each of those things. And we'll step these out a bit in a sec, but broadly, there's intended to be, I'm gonna talk about line of sight, a line of sight here between strategy, the action and the outcome across that horizontal plane. And broadly, the impact we would like to see is a fairer, stronger society, which is a statement or an impact goal that really reflects P.A.C. strategic objective. So I'll jump to the next slide. Thank you, Greg. So this really builds out the theory of change and it adds a couple of other columns that set out some short to medium term outcomes and some indicators. This really is the global impact framework. So the way that this is intended to be used and it does get used is it's something that we use to frame how we measure and report on our impact across the organization. We also use it as a template when we develop impact frameworks for individual programs and individual pieces of work. The short to medium term outcomes in here are intended to, again, there's intended to be a line of sight between the actions and the long term outcomes. These short to medium term outcomes are the things that we can measure. I use the language of short to medium term loosely in some projects that will be appropriate to set out short term and medium term outcomes in others that's not so useful, but this basically gives us the what is the stepping stone, what are the measurable things and the things that we are working towards in the life of or through the life of the piece of work that contributes to these long term outcomes and then to the longer term impact. The language in the outcomes and also the indicators, it's really chosen with the view to be things that we can measure, but also give us the ability to measure change over time. So things like visibility, influence, understanding, capability, these are all things that as I said are measurable, give us ways or there are ways that we can show change in these things over time, but they are things that apply to the different projects that we do, but also to us as an orbitalisation as a whole, and we can measure change in these things over time at both of those levels. The indicators was a bunch of fun developing indicators. I don't know about anybody else, I love indicators. She says, I have a love-hate relationship with indicators. No, really, I do love indicators, but they can be tricky to nail in my humble opinion. So these really are umbrella indicators. They are deliberately framed broadly to give us the ability, as I say, to measure against our outcomes at the whole of organisation level, but to give us a way of, I suppose, having a common language for indicators, KPIs, measures of success, what have you at the project level, and which is how that we use them. We do use them to inform, we've got a number of organisational KPIs, but we've also got measures of success indicators, KPIs, what have you for individual projects that reflect the language in these umbrella indicators. So I have found them useful in framing those things so that there is, again, that line of sight between the way that we measure outcomes and impact at the project and program level, having that speak to this broader impact framework. We've now got impact frameworks for four projects and their outcomes and their indicators do align with these, which is also handy because it means that we can use the measurement that we do for those projects as part of our global reporting. And as I said before, not reinventing the wheel, wherever there's an opportunity not to do that. I like to not do that. The other thing that I'll mention on these indicators is the language that we've used here, I've used here about extent. Using this language gives us the scope to use quantitative and or qualitative measures to measure change both at the global level and the individual project and program level. This is quite important because, you know, well, I'm a mixed method practitioner, so I like both quant and crawl, but also our funders, our partners have a preference for sometimes more of one than the other, but oftentimes both. But it's, I'm gonna say fit for purpose. Again, it's about what's fit for purpose and this gives us the opportunity to say right in terms of outcome X, it's really important to look at some quant measures over here to look at how we've contributed to those outcomes in a quantitative sense, whereas for something else, it's really more appropriate or more fit for purpose to develop some qualitative measures to really speak to a particular type of outcome. And this gives us the ability to do both. And in particular, when we're looking at measuring the impact of advocacy, which I won't go into now because we're about to talk about it, that language of extent gives us the scope to measure things like influence and contribution, which when I'm talking about measuring the impact of advocacy, we're talking about, and you can see some of that in some of those indicators, some of that language we're talking about, the extent to which we influence change. And so broadly, we're talking oftentimes about contribution when we're talking about measuring the impact of advocacy, and I won't go into that because I know it's gonna come up shortly. That really is all that I'm going to say, I think at this point. So on that note, thank you, Greg, and I'll throw it to Camilla. Thanks so much, Rivka. My name's Mila Pandolfini for those who joined a little bit late. I'm the CEO at Redfern Legal Centre. I'm also on the land of the Gadigal people of the Oranation and wanted to acknowledge Elders Past and Present and any First Nations people here with us today. I've had the pleasure of working very closely with Rivka because for 10 years, I was also a P.A.C. and the final three of those, I was part of the management team as Principal Solicitor. So I very much enjoyed working with Rivka and learning about impact. And I thought I'd just talk briefly about Redfern's work, which is a little bit different, but a little bit the same as P.A.C.'s. But then, I guess I have some questions for Rivka that I thought I could bring that come from the experience of sort of doing the work and experiencing what it is to be in an organisation that has moved to measuring impact and thinking about a theory of change because P.A.C. looked very different when I first started to where it is now. And I think that is a lot to do with thinking about impact and thinking about how we want to frame our work. So Redfern Legal Centre, like P.A.C. is a community legal centre based in New South Wales. We're different to P.A.C. in that we're a local CLC. So we have a whole lot of local services and also statewide services. So we do work in our sort of local catchment and then statewide, like all community legal centres. And this is very much my passion speech about community legal centres. What makes us unique is that we do casework. So we work with individuals either in large-scale systemic cases but more for Redfern in everyday cases in advice, representation, information. And then we use that work to also think about what's the change that we want to see? What's the systemic change that needs to happen to stop this disadvantage or this access to justice or inequality issue happening? So I think it's a point of difference that community legal centres really bring. And it also, as Rivka has talked about, means that it's complicated to measure impact because we do a whole lot of different things. And all of those things are crucial to create the change that we do. As a local CLC and a statewide CLC, it is important that we service the communities that we work with. So a bit of our thinking about impact at Redfern is actually how many people did we see? How many information and referrals did we provide? Because that is showing to a certain extent the impact we've had on the communities that we work with just through the sheer numbers and demand far outstrips supply of legal services in the community legal sector and in people experiencing disadvantage. So that is important as well. For Redfern Legal Centre, we wanted to think about what is the impact we want to see and how is it that we make change? And for us, we thought that was improved wellbeing, equal access to justice and a just and fair legal system. So some points of similarity there with PIAC as well. One of the ways that we measure improved wellbeing is that we survey our clients that's very resource intensive and we always have to think about whether it's important to send that survey to that individual depending on their circumstances. But we survey our clients the first time, we talk to them three months in and at the end of our interaction, whether that just be information and advice or ongoing representation for a number of years. And then our impact report that Greg has brought up there looks at the way that we have impact through improved wellbeing. So the responses to those surveys, it thinks about how we've managed to increase equal access to justice through the work that we've done with individuals and how we've contributed to adjust and fair legal system through the systemic advocacy we have. So our impact report there, anyway, Greg posted the link, it has a bit of narrative. So there's narrative about client stories and what happened to one particular individual that we thought was particularly important to talk about. And then it's also stories about and narrative about the change we've created in some systemic or policy space. So working with government to say, we're coming across this issue every day and it needs to change, collaborating with the sector as a whole to say we're all seeing this issue and we think there needs to be changed here and demonstrating how that change has happened in a sort of narrative way. And then there's numbers as well. So there's responses to our surveys and how many clients we've seen as well. So I guess impact can look different depending on what the work that you're doing. And I guess Rivka, one of the questions that I have is about thinking about that measurement and making it fit for purpose across an organization that does so many different things like PAAC. And how do you, I suppose give equal weight to the impact that you might have had on one individual as well as that huge systemic impact that you might have had thinking about the fact that both of those things might have taken the same amount of time and resources. Ah, that is such a good question. I should say for those playing along at home, these are genuine questions. I don't have them. So if I've got a thinking based on, I'm genuinely thinking. Look, it's interesting. I think the idea of equal weight is interesting. I don't know that I think about it in that way. I think about it as, I'm gonna say for purpose again. I think if what a piece of work is primarily about is creating outcomes for individuals, then that's what's of greatest importance. If a piece of work is about systemic change, then that's what will have the greatest weight, I suppose. I think what I think about in relation to that is I suppose oftentimes the impact we might think we're about or might think is front of mind is not necessarily what is front of mind or what is actually what we're gonna create or we might, but there's other stuff that we might be missing in that focus on the one thing. So I think why I find our framework helpful is I sit down with people when I- I don't necessarily start calling, but I like you just left a message on my phone. When I'm working with someone an impact framework for a project, I'll sit down with the framework and we'll look down the strategies and I'll go, so what are you doing? And I'll go, oh, this is a project about blards, about it's primarily about delegation, so we're doing this. And I go, okay, that's fantastic. Let's talk about how we measure that, but it sounds to me like you might also be doing some stuff in the empowering space. It sounds like you're working quite closely with X or Y group and that might have some impact around amplifying their voices or building their skills or capability and they might go, actually that's true too. So I guess I think about it as how do we look to the different types of impact that we might create and make sure that the things that aren't necessarily front of mind or the primary impact get some weight as well if there's other stuff there too. That's great. And so I can see the amazing work that people have done at Red Fern before my time to think about creating a strategic plan and a theory of change and impact report. And I certainly really experienced, as I said, the big shift in what was valued as an organisation at PAG to a sort of greatest sophistication, I think, in thinking about the change we're making. So I guess I was brought on the journey quite easily, but how do you think, what is the best way to bring, say, funders or staff on the journey of thinking about how impact can improve the way you work or improve the way you think about the work you're doing? Yeah, look, that's a very good question because not everyone is a true believer, I suppose. And I don't know, but it's true. Like I said, I wasn't born an evaluator or an impact person. I was once a policy person that had to be not convinced very hard because I thought it was useful, but had bigger fish fry and was like, oh, I know we've got to stop and think about impact. So it has got to be made useful to people. I think we talk about it in terms of, how do you know if you're being effective? And that really is what it's about. No matter what you're doing, you wanna know that what you're doing is achieving what you're setting out to do and if you're a funder, it's about, is your funding achieving, are you achieving bank for buck, whatever that looks like for you? Is the money being spent in a way that is most consistent with your purpose and your objectives? As a practitioner of any type, whether you're a lawyer or a policy person or providing services or what have you, you wanna know that what you're doing is effective and achieving the outcomes that are relevant to the work you're doing. So I put it in most terms and then it's a conversation around, well, what does that look like? What are those outcomes look like to you? And for me, if it's a Piat conversation and this is not just blowing smoke, like people genuinely, no one's kind of turned around a Piat can go on, why do we have to talk about this? Like everyone genuinely goes, okay, I can see why this is important. But I think it's the job of people like me to go, okay, I can help you frame these things into outcomes and impact. You tell me what's important to you and I'll work with you to build that into something that we can measure. And then my final question is, say, for example, you're working from criminal justice space as I have for a very long time. And it can feel very much like it's a long, very long and slow burn and you're throwing your absolute heart and soul into it and everyone around you agrees that this change needs to happen. But I guess sometimes when, so I think about it, I think, well, have I created impact or have I created change? So how do you keep the hope alive in that work where the impact that you wanna have, say, is a big change that is gonna take a big shift in thinking and community thinking, government thinking and that hasn't happened despite doing your best work for a couple of years. How do you say to that person, this is the impact that you've had and that you are shifting the dial a little bit? Yeah, I've been there, I was an advocate for a really long time and it can be a slog like genuinely. It's about counting the wins and to count the wins, we have to recognise the wins. And I think it's been so interesting at PAAC just somebody will tell me something or hear something and I go, did you just say blah? And I go, yeah, and I go, well, that's fantastic. Like that's a win and they'll be like, oh, okay. And people oftentimes will go, hey, I think we've got a win and I'll go, no, that absolutely was a win but oftentimes it's me sitting there going, that genuinely is a win, that actually is and you can count it. And it may not be massive in the scheme of things but when I say, I don't wanna say small wins because it makes them sound inconsequential but it's the stepping stones of the breadcrumbs and the things along the way. That time you heard from a ministerial advisor or someone, you've got a phone call or an email or you saw them and they said, hey, look, that briefing you gave us was so helpful. If we hadn't spoken to you, we wouldn't have known X and we wouldn't have gone on to do Y. That's fantastic. Or this government agency has agreed to trial this intervention that we've been lobbying for years and it's only a trial and we don't know how much they're gonna do or how long they're gonna do it for but they've committed to something where before that was nothing. And these are genuine wins. And again, I'm not just going, hey, be happy something happened. It's like, no, genuinely, these are markers of impact. These are outcomes. However, targeted and specific, they are genuinely markers of impact. Hey darling. And my questions, perhaps I can throw to you Greg if there's questions in the comments. Great questions. Thank you. People just indicate that they can hear me okay because I was getting some, a couple of notes saying, oh, I wasn't that clear. So that's good. Yes, we've got a couple of really interesting questions in the chat, which we'll come back to from Maddie and Jennifer and the others. But before going there, I was actually coincidentally, I got the email from Piac yesterday from the CEO, Jonathan Pugna. And he made the statement here, the historian Howard's in observed that lasting change does not come as one cataclysmic moment, propelling us to a new and better future. Instead, we move zigzag toward a more decent society. While history might record big leaps towards social justice such as achieving marriage equality or the high court recognizing the native title, these leaps only come up along and determine campaigns by many people who recognize injustice and fight to change it. And I think at piggybacking on the discussion we just had that in relation to Camilla's last question, that really highlights two of the big challenges in this area. One is, we're bloody long haul. And secondly, there's almost invariably multiple players involved in securing that sort of long-term systemic change and how you pinpoint Piac or Redfin Legal Centers or whoever's contribution to that can be pretty challenging. And when do you, as Camilla asked, you have abandoned ship or choose to keep going because you understand that it is a long haul. So interested in either Rivka or Camilla responded to that. But then I think we should open it up if people could maybe indicate that they've got something to say on that topic, put your hand up and then we'll come back to some of the questions that were lodged in the chat as well. I'm happy to have a crack at that. So I'd say two things. Contribution, yes. I said something in the piece we did with Philanthropy Australia about advocacy being a long game with many players. And so the contribution piece is about those specific wins or specific outcomes, but how do you isolate or define one organization's role in the change? And it is a challenge. And I think the flip side of claiming your wins is not claiming wins, you shouldn't be claiming. But I think overall in my experience, just in life, in this space, people tend to be more humble than take credit for things that they shouldn't. I think what I'm doing or what we're doing at the moment is doing some work with different techniques and contribution analysis to look at some change stories and look at specifically doing some of the analysis and developing some stories that focus on a couple of scenarios or a couple of wins and going, well, what did Piat contribute as opposed to any others? What difference did that make? How did we know? How do we get that evidence? So actually doing that and testing some of those techniques to see what that looks like for a couple of very specific things. The other part to your question, which I really wanted to answer and now I forgot what it was. I was so busy thinking about the first part. So long-term and also at the point that I think was Jesse made as well around multiple partners involved in securing systemic change. Yeah, and I think that was the second bit I forgot in the first bit. Do you want to say something, Camilla? And I'll try and get my thought back. I don't know that I have that much to add. Very happy to have some searing insights on this. It's a very easy question to ask and very difficult to answer. How do you measure your, the impact of advocacy work when it could be literally decades or might be years before the work you're doing brings about change? I know what it was, Greg. And it actually doesn't go to that question. You said something about how do you know when to stay and when to go. I'm a big believer in a timely exit. So it's not about just because something is long and hard. It's not about keeping on doing it at all costs. If something is not effective or you've done all the right things and the change isn't coming, I think it is appropriate and strategic to reassess and go, should we still be doing this or should we be in this space or doing something else or what have you? And I think a clear-eyed sort of use of some of these impact measurement techniques can help to facilitate those conversations. So it's not kind of about impacts at any cost. I think it comes back to that question of effectiveness. How do you know when you're there or when you're not? And no shame in saying, okay, it's time to let this go. Yeah, and certainly we've had those conversations. Haven't we, Rift? When I was at PAAC about, should we keep doing this work? Are we still having an impact? Are we the best ones to keep doing this work? And I think having an impact measurement framework and theory of change is a good way to stop and pause occasionally and think about whether you should keep going. I feel like it really has helped to structure and inform those conversations. As opposed to, do we still have the energy for this or are we fighting a losing battle? Because sometimes it might feel like a losing battle and then all of a sudden something shifts and it might be something that you've won or it might be that you have an impact in some way and you think that's as far as it's going to go. And as far as we can take this particular strength. And mentioning theory of change there, I might go to the question that was asked by Maddie in the chat and I'll hand over to Maddie. Let's hear a human voice rather than me repeating. And this is a challenging one. Thanks so much, Greg. So there's a lot of discussion around whether theory of change can actually adequately capture the complexity of outcomes. Particularly policy and advocacy is emergent and adaptability and taking up opportunities that present themselves in a really kind of ever-changing policy environment. How do you predict that? And so I just wanted to say like your theory of change looks amazing. I'm really curious to know how long has it been around for and have you validated it over time to see whether the outcomes that you'd really like to see or you feel are being achieved. Are they reflective of what was actually put into the theory of change? Question. So it's been around, I suppose, in iterative form for the last 12 months or so. We've put it out in the world a couple of weeks ago. But we've been working with it over the last 12 months to develop, as I think I talked about, specific outcomes and indicators for the organisation and also the way that we've been working with the organisation and also for different projects. I think it's a good point about this work being emergent and it is. I would say two things to that. I would say, and this might sound sacrilegious to put something in a framework and then say hold it lightly. But there's at least one project, for example, that we're working with that the nature of the work, we're looking at how we can be most effective. We're rethinking what some of that looks like. Some of what sits in their impact framework, I think, invariably will change. And we're looking at that with the team and looking at what that means. There may or may not have to be conversations with external partners or funders, depending on what that ends up looking like. But it's not a set and forget. It's not you create something beautiful and then shape the work to fit and then the work has to go on that trajectory forever more because you put it in a framework, a theory of change. So I think it's being open to the fact that this is emergent work and if it is strategic to change things that you do. The other thing is, I think, God, I'm really bad at the second part of my questions today. This is the second time I've forgotten what I was going to say. God damn it, I've done it again. I'm happy to jump jump in. Please, please do, Greg, I'm silly. I mean, I think also with the theory of change, I think, Maddie's point, I think you're right, Maddie, about the difficulty of in a complex environment and the cause-effect links become tenuous or the interdependencies. But I think where a theory of change can be useful is in choosing whether you do get involved in work. It's almost as much a planning tool. So for example, Redfern Legal Center when it did its theory of change a few years ago, it wasn't thinking about taking on COVID fines and the legal legality of those fines. But doing some casework around that and then subsequent advocacy that set off the back of that was consistent with the raise on death, why Redfern Legal Center exists. So I think it can provide a bit of a theory of change, can provide a, well, should we even go there to think about this? Is this piece of work consistent with what we're trying to achieve in terms of addressing inequities or lack of access to justice or whatever? Yeah, and similarly, I think it helps inform, you know, in an environment where we've all got like little resources and huge demand, it's really helped to inform Redfern's decisions around where we put our resources as well. And recently I was asking one team why they have this particular focus and they said, oh, you know, we tried doing this advocacy piece around this particular issue that tenants are seeing. And tenants is just, you know, you can imagine like just so in demand. And they thought about how will we, like what impact are we having in the policy and advocacy space and what we needed was more casework. And so they've had a real focus and resourced work with partners to sort of expand their capacity to do particular casework, to provide the evidence base to then go back and push on that policy and advocacy piece to get the systemic change around that issue. And I think there'll be space to then revisit the strategic plan and think, okay, are we now having an impact in this way? We've thought, you know, we've put the resources into this and then maybe think about have we made the change or do we need to pull some different levers, I guess, to have that impact and create that change that we wanna see. And I think Denise Boyd made a really interesting point in the chat about being opportunistic. And sometimes it's better to pull out, you know, it might be that it's not going to be amenable to a government at the moment, but it might change. And she cited the example with our payday lending. I might just go to a different sort of, more practical or direct level. So Ebony King asked about qualitative measures and how those data are guided when staff capacity is stretched. So Rithka, do you wanna have a go at answering that? Yeah, I so much do because as much as I said, I love Colin equally, I do have a bit of a preference for Colin. Everyone loves the story. I think the session is so much more than a story telling, but anyway, look, I think it's thinking creatively about what that looks like and also sparingly I suppose. So we're looking at, for example, one project, we're looking at case studies, but very specific case studies that are collected within the way that we normally collect data. And I've gone, okay, tell me what you collect for this particular project. What do you input into the system? Could you add to that in a qualitative sense? Not for every single case, but where something's got these elements to it. These are the things that we're interested in exploring because they're particularly outcomes you're looking for. Could you write a little bit about that? And they've gone, yeah, we could do that actually. They wouldn't take too much time and effort. So it's building it into what we've already got. The other way is, as I said, I talked about some contribution analysis techniques. This is I suppose where it's helpful to have someone like me in a role like this who can put some effort into collecting some of those stories, potentially doing some external interviews, doing some of that triangulation and analysis. It doesn't need to be a burden on staff. What I will say to the people I work with on that work is okay, what I need from you is a couple of examples. They need to look like this. I don't want you to waste time writing stuff for me. Can we sit down and have a conversation? Then if I need anything more from you, I'll ask you. Otherwise, I'll go on away and find it myself and I'll come back to you and I'll check in with you. So it is a luxury. I acknowledge that not every organisation has. But I guess what I would say to people who want to do more qual stuff is, I think sometimes we think it's got to be all or nothing. Oh, we've got to survey everyone or we've got to write a case study about everything or we've got to, it doesn't have to be everything. Think about what are the particular things that that technique will be helpful to illustrate? What are the particular outcomes or where a particular story might be helpful? Can you collect five really good case studies or client stories or what have you of a bigger sample size and you've got a bigger quantitative data pool and then some really tightly conceived, really poignant qualitative case studies that will be really helpful to you. And can I just encourage people, feel free to put your hand up if you do want to jump in and add anything to the discussion as well. There's been a couple of questions and I think it's been touched on a little bit around how staff and partners were engaged in the impact framework. And Kamela and Rithka, feel free to have a go at that one. Sorry, I just got caught up reading the chat. It's interesting. So we did a bit of workshopping with some staff, I think not everybody in these global measures, but what we needed to do was, I guess what we were wanting to test when we did workshop them was that they made sense to people, they described the work that people did and they would be useful at that high level as kind of umbrella terms for the work. So for example, positive legal and regulatory outcomes, you know, Kamela, you said something about working in the criminal space. What does a positive outcome look like if your client ends up in jail? Well, it still might be a better outcome than what they otherwise might have gotten or what have you. So that language needed to be able to be fit for purpose for different types of work and resonate with different people. And the indicators, I talked about that choice of language around influence, inform and understanding, it really is quite measured. And they had to be things that people were comfortable with in saying, okay, you know, we're not talking about where we've achieved things or measuring where we've achieved things or measuring those sort of hard, delivering things or what have you in that indicator space of the outcomes. It's around a people comfortable with looking at ways in which we increase the profile of unfair laws and policies or influence systemic change or influence public debates, legal and policy decision-making is that stuff that people are comfortable with in terms of things that describe their work. And then on a sort of micro level, when I'm working with someone on a project level impact framework, I'll sit down and we will literally workshop it. So, you know, as I talked about before, we'll talk about what strategies and actions are relevant to their particular project. For some projects, they'll be working across all of them. For some, they won't be working across all of them. There'll be one or two that are really prominent and maybe a third or a fourth that comes into play a little bit. And then we'll literally talk about what are the outcomes they wanna achieve, what did success look like to them and we'll frame versions of short or medium term outcomes that are things that they feel like they are working towards and that speak to them and then look at how they might measure them. And when there's a funder involved that's got their own measures, success or KPIs or indicators or what have you, we'll look at those and go, okay, how are we gonna work towards those? How do we match the things that they're looking for to the outcomes that we're working towards? Where do they fit and what's that gonna mean in terms of data collection and reporting? I think one of the things that someone else has mentioned you have as well, RIVCA, is that it does take resources, like it takes resources and it takes time and so I guess if you don't get a RIVCA, then someone at the organisation, be it the people that are doing the work or part of the management team, like someone needs to champion it and feel passionate about it. And I guess have the time and space a little bit to do it, so have it built into the time they allocate to their work. Yeah, because it does take time, RIVCA. Oh yeah, but I would say, look, I talk to a lot of organisations that don't have someone like me that go, what can we do? And I'll refer them to resources like the Centre for Social Impact, those sorts of resources that there's a couple of others that are really good and go look at the minimum, develop something, collect this data, report on it in this way. There's ways of doing things that are, yes it will take some time and effort and someone needs to be committed and drive it, but it doesn't have to be the whole box and dice and I guess it goes to the point before about theory of change. I think don't get bogged down in theories of change or impact frameworks or what have you, build something that is on a second purpose, do what you can, but with the end in mind, what do you wanna do? What are you doing this for? Do you need to communicate your effectiveness to a fund or a potential funder? Do you wanna measure what you're doing for the purposes of working out whether you continue or whether you stop or whether you change course? You know, so have that end in mind and then build something that does that within your resources. Can I ask a question? It's been mentioned a few times about funding and there are funders and funders and we know some government funders have explicitly or implicitly said, keep away from advocacy work and other, but at the same time are often moving more towards demonstrating outcomes or impact and then there are non-government funders with a philanthropic organizations or others that are often have different expectations around impact, thoughts on that and its implications for your work and measuring impact. Yeah, look, I think this is where I think that point about being really clear what we mean when we talk about impact and asking funders to be really clear what they mean. And sometimes, and I say this with no disrespect, they don't know and they say they don't know, but they know that it's important or they say we know it's important but we don't have a framework or a way of you're measuring it for us but we expect you to do X, Y and Z and then some will go, okay, yes, we have a framework and this is what it looks like. So funders are on a journey as well, very much so and it also depends what they're used to funding. I think we're seeing funders that might have been used to funding certain things that are branching out, maybe not necessarily into the advocacy space as such but into the social change or systems change or those sorts of spaces where impact can be more nebulous but are used to seeing purely quantitative measures or very specific ways of measuring impact that are trying to get their heads around, well, this is what impact looks like, you're doing this work. You know, it's that hammer to crack a nail type thing. So it's going, okay, with respect, I'm not sure that's fit for purpose. We're doing this work, you're funding us to do this work or you want to fund this sort of work. Here's some other ways you might wanna think about looking at impact and it is, I think it is, yeah, I'm gonna overuse the word journey. It is a journey and I think some just at the end of the day won't necessarily be convinced that qualitative measures can be as robust as quantitative measures necessarily or that advocacy is something that you can show impact in or what have you, but I think we have to have the conversation in our experience, the funders have been really open to having the conversation and it's a good open conversation I think because it is kind of an emergent space for them as well, but I think part of the advocacy staff apart from the fact that it can be politically unpalatable and sometimes very politically unpalatable depending on the nature of government is being specific about what we're doing. And so what does the doing of advocacy look like? What does it actually boil down to? Are we writing submissions? Are we meeting with influencers and decision makers? Are we doing media and communications activities? Are we, you know, what are the actual things that we're doing? How are we going to measure whether they're having an influence and being able to step it out for ourselves in that way so that we can say to funders, if you fund us for advocacy, this is actually what we're going to be doing with your money. Jeez, that's a cute baby. And this is how we can show that what it's leading to or what contribution it's making. And I think to, you can't underestimate the extent to which government quite rightly want to hear from the communities we work with and want to hear from us about the work we're doing and what our views are on law and what law reform should happen. We get requests for submissions all the time and that is advocacy. You know, that is saying we do think, you know, maybe the law could be better. Thanks for asking us for our opinion. And community legal centres are inundated with requests to do that. So sometimes, you know, we build on that or responding to that as sort of bigger and broader work but government interacting with, you know, the social change sector and the social justice sector and the community legal centre is something that happens every day and asking us for our opinions. I might bring in Denise Boyd here, I don't know, sorry, Denise, to spring this on you but you've made a couple of interesting comments and observations in the chat there. So would you like to either make a comment or ask a question there? No, I wasn't expecting that. Oh well. No, it's just, I do think it can be really challenging because I've done, you know, working big international NGOs and smaller government funded NGOs and it can be very challenging. If you're an organisation that's reliant on membership funding and big funders like Maya, for example, you'll think about how you attribute and measure your work differently then moving into the government sector, the government funded sector, where it tends to be, you know, like quite bold measures of number of people that have used your service but that doesn't tell you anything at all about the impact that you're having. That's simply, did you meet your service targets? So I think Ruth is right because she talks about, you know, the value of the story and we often find that the best way to can, you know, I've often found the best way to convince somebody of the benefits of funding a particular piece of work is that yes, we can measure some of it but you also need to hear the stories of the people that have benefited from it and that will often have a lot more lasting impact. They'll remember that much more than they'll remember a spreadsheet of numbers. Yeah. Does that, I don't know if that's useful or not but on the hop, that's my contribution. And some of my experience in this area too, sorry, Ruth, or is that, go on, Ruth, please, please go. I was gonna say, look, I think it really is true. I was being flippant when I say everyone loves the story but they do and even people who go, you know, show us the numbers, they will look at a shed of numbers and go, you've got new stories and that will be the thing that changes hearts and minds but it's, you know, I guess it's as we talked about it's how you tell the story. It's telling stories that illustrate outcomes and showing them, I suppose, giving stories their due as ways of measuring and reporting on impact. It's not just a nice story that's gonna make you feel good. It's actually a legitimate, robust way of reporting on outcomes and impact. So, Jonas, I'm going to pick on you now unannounced. I know you've put a couple of comments and questions in the chat. Risk of doing this is, Jonas may have left his desk for a moment. Yeah, I'm here. Yeah, I thank you so much. I have been thinking about how to evaluate advocacy works and then how, my understanding, my old understanding is that impact is something that brings change about in a wider society, not in an individual personal life. That was my old thinking and now I am about to be converted to individual change. But my question, I mean, this question has emanated from my experience that we have developed an outcome measurement framework and identified indicators. And we developed survey instrument to interview how much has our advocacy work may change in the community or the target group we serve in. And we have done all other surveys but we have not been successful in reaching out to the policy makers. So I'm trying to find a solution to my own organizational problem. So that's why I'm asking, have you ever tried to reach out to get feedback in terms of focus group discussion or survey or whatever? Or has it been, how easy has it been? Has it been difficult? Would you please share that experience to me or anyone who needs those experiences? Thank you so much. Yeah, look, it's not something I've done as yet at PAAC but I'm thinking about it. It is something I've done in work previously and evaluation work previously and it can be very powerful. I guess what I would say without knowing specifically who you're talking to or what you're talking about is think about the range of tools at your disposal. So a survey is one means of doing that. Focus groups are another, interviews are another. An interview can be a conversation that is structured and you take some notes. Sometimes those conversations are better had by somebody who's not you. Somebody might feel more comfortable being honest if they're not talking directly to the organization but we think about, I mean, people talk about different things. I've done them in the past and called them key informant interviews and you think about people who know you know your work and would at least be open to having a conversation if not with you then with someone about your work for the purposes of contributing to an evaluation or impact measurement for what you're working on jointly or just helping you to think about when you're being as effective as you can be. Thank you so much. I mean, sometimes the very people that you want to get those views from are the ones who are pissed off by your involvement. If you're trying to change law or change policy, they may well be reluctant to admit that the organization had any contribution there because they've been a thorn in the side. Although Greg, I'm going to jump in because I think Camilla said something that I really agree with is that we, and I can't speak to your organization, Jonas, but we often get, you know, PIAC always also gets requests for things from various levels of government. You know, government is a broad church and oftentimes when you're doing policy work, you're doing advocacy work. You are working in parallel with people who are inside government who are trying to achieve similar things. And I say this having worked as a policy person in other NGOs doing this sort of work. You can develop quite mature and thoughtful and respectful and reciprocal and trusting relationships with your colleagues on the other side of the fence. And sometimes they will be in your shoes and sometimes you'll be in theirs in terms of the work you do. You know, people move back and forward out of government all the time. So I think it's finding the people who are prepared to talk to you and it's not necessarily going, okay, go and interview the minister or, you know, whatever, but picking out who the people are, who understand what you're about and who do come to you and you do have a relationship with and who are the right people with whom to have that conversation if they are around. And if they're not, then, you know, that's a shame. And sometimes it is just purely adversarial. I'm not trying to, you know, be all sunshine lollipops about it. But oftentimes it is more of a, I wouldn't say collaboration, but a mutually respectful journey, I suppose, that might sometimes appear. Yeah, thank you so much. That means we need someone who can play an ambassador role between the ones who... Yeah, you're darling. And indeed, that discussion has prompted me to remember some work I did the predated Rivka and Camilla at PIAC many, many years ago. So it's long enough to say that I was involved in a review which was very much along those lines of pulling together information from disparate sources, but including a lot of key informant interviews with funders, partner organisations. And it was really insightful in getting a sense of what difference that organisation made, sort of collectively, but also, you know, suggested tweaks or differences in the weight engages with the sector and more building. Conscious of the time, as often happens, we've got a few people dropping off, but happy to hang in here too. We will definitely finish at 5.30. Just to open it up, we've got a few people around now, so feel free to just throw a question in, either in the chat or probably vocally if anyone's got a question of Camilla or Rivka or the larger group. Or maybe I'm going to go for another uninvited one. Jennifer Brown, I don't know whether you're still there, Jennifer, but you had a couple of interesting questions earlier on, I think, in the chat. Yeah, yes, yeah, hi. Sorry, I'm not very well, so I didn't put my camera on. Oh, sorry to pick on you there. No, no, no, that's fine, that's OK. I currently work for Legal Aid, New South Wales, and I look after all the allied staff. And I guess one of the things I put in was a question around the consultation that you need to do to kind of feel like you've really evaluated the impact. And I can't remember the other question I put up there, something about, something about, oh, yeah, those, the outcomes that you've found in terms of the communities you service, like, yeah, has that met for significant change for your organisations at any time? Yeah, I mean, I, Ruth, when I talked about this in a particular project, but I left before that happened, so I don't know whether it happened that consulting with stakeholders, Redfern does surveys. And that was put in place before my time. So it'll be great to see what comes back around the end of this financial year. But yeah, Redfern does surveys of stakeholders and then surveys of clients as well. And it's not just, did we win your case for you? It's like, did we provide a culturally safe and appropriate service? Did you have additional needs in talking with us? And did we meet them? And did we improve your wellbeing and like your knowledge of the law, as well as just, did we get you a successful outcome? You know, it's a really evaluating that whole-person service. But yes, certainly, I guess, depending on the number of stakeholders and who you're working with and their capacity to put the time into that, you know, I guess you could go deeper than surveys and have sort of conversations and think about what the questions would be around those conversations and how you run them, which is what Ruth and I had discussed in another project that had like a minimal amount of stakeholders. Yeah, but certainly Redfern does do that. But always good to think about, I guess, the better ways you could be doing that and evaluating that impact and the impact of your collaboration. Certainly like that we've been mentioning before, you know, it's sometimes not the little wins, but the little moments along the way and certain stakeholders that were really important to us at PAAC, having conversations with people and people just coming back with positive comments. And that certainly happened at Redfern as well, where you feel like, oh, they're really important to us and they're significant, a significant stakeholder and important for us to continue to know that we have their support to do that work. And they've said something off the cuff positive that we'd record that, you know, to keep as an organisation, as a measurement and not something perhaps that would go out publicly, but that you as an organisation know you're doing, you're on the right track. Yeah, and one of the things that I'm working on currently is doing exactly that, trying to collate some of those internal stories. So that hopefully when we get some time or funding or something that we can do a bit more in-depth kind of understanding around the impact of having allied staff and legal staff working together, you know, like integrated practice, particularly that's the kind of focus I'm interested in. Yeah. Yeah, that's super interesting and super new work, you know, as a sector that we're all wanting to do that multi-disciplinary working with other staff as well. Yeah, I was going to say as well, just because PAAC and Redfern are both not Aboriginal controlled organisations, but we both do both work with, you know, a lot of Aboriginal controlled organisations and on issues relating to First Nations justice, that that feedback that we're listening, that we're doing the right thing, that we are supporting in capacity building First Nations organisations is really important as well to know that you're doing the right thing in that work and in that space. Well, you know, First Nations organisations should be leading and to know that they're saying, you know, you are building our capacity to lead this work. Yeah, totally. The other thing I would say, so we also, I think like Redfern, those unsolicited emails, I saw one from, it came into the legal service about a client we'd represented and how much, you know, we always go, you know, people always go, oh, this changed my life, but this guy was like, this changed my life, this is what happened, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, you know, so we do get those things come in unsolicited and that's fantastic when we're looking at going out, whether it be through case studies or interviews or what have you, what I'm really interested in is picking apart where someone's had an experience, what was it about, what we did that made a difference to them. So for example, we've got a women's homelessness legal service or women's homelessness pilot as part of our homeless persons legal service. And as part of that, we say we're going to work in a trauma-informed way. So the way that we deliver the service is has a level of importance alongside what outcome they got, whether they came for help with a housing issue or a legal issue or a debt issue or what have you. So I was looking at, did we work in a way that was supportive, understanding, you know, all the ways that you would put trauma-informed in plain English language to find out if people had that experience as well as what the actual outcome was for them. So it's the outcome from the process as well as the outcome of the outcome, I suppose. Okay, well, we're fast approaching 5.30. Flow has just popped a survey in the chat. Really appreciate it if you could just spend a minute or so to fill that out. It only takes that long. Included in that are any suggestions for future topics. I'm going to hang around online for a little while longer. And I'm really keen to hear ideas from people here as to topics they might have for our monthly events. And in particular, if anybody's interested in leading a discussion on one of those, we'll be working with me or others on the committee to do that. So really happy to put the people with the hand up and say, I've got something really interesting to share with a larger audience. Can I ask everyone to thank Camilla and Rivka for giving us, giving up their valuable time? At pretty short notice, I might say, to lead a really interesting discussion about super important topic around super important work. So thanks very much to Camilla and Rivka. And thank you everybody for turning up. But I did...