evidoria

What works in Melbourne

All catalogues · Australia profile

22
evaluated practices
62/100
average quality score
12%
strong evidence, of 16 assessed

Quality scores are 0–100 rubric scores; “strong evidence” reflects study design; adoptions count documented replications elsewhere. Know more

Evidence snapshot for Melbourne

Ask Izzy — Digital Service-Finder for People Experiencing Homelessness is a Melbourne-based not-for-profit service launched in January 2016 that helps people experiencing or at risk of homelessness find nearby housing, food, health and family-violence services; by February 2022 it had logged over 10 million searches with over 10,000 users a month. An independent academic evaluation found the service delivered real benefits but also sometimes showed users ineligible or unavailable services, which eroded trust. The evidence does not quantify outcomes for service-users beyond search volume and usage patterns.

Drawn from: Ask Izzy — Digital Service-Finder for People Experiencing Homelessness · Men's Behaviour Change Programs — Australia's Evaluated but Contested Response to Domestic Violence Perpetrators · Victoria's Men's Behaviour Change Program Network · eSafety Commissioner's Image-Based Abuse Scheme — Australia's Statutory Response to Non-Consensual Intimate Image Sharing & Deepfake Abuse · Australia Post's Machine-Learning Route Planner — Two-Hour Delivery Windows for 500,000 Parcels a Day · ConnectUp — Co-Designed Social-Connection App for People with Disability and Carers · Plan Melbourne's 20-Minute Neighbourhood Pilots — Ambition Outpacing Delivery · Melbourne Connect

Generated from this place's cited practices only. Always check the linked sources.

Strengths & weaknesses vs peers

Strengths

Evaluation evidence +51 pts 100 here · 49 average

Documented learning +26 pts 100 here · 74 average

Transparency, ethics & data protection +20 pts 67 here · 47 average

Governance, certification & transferability +20 pts 83 here · 64 average

Biodiversity — conservation / improvement, evidenced +18 pts 67 here · 48 average

Inclusiveness / equity +16 pts 58 here · 43 average

Transparency, fairness & accountability +13 pts 67 here · 54 average

Achievement / evidence +12 pts 100 here · 88 average

Gender-mainstreaming embedding +11 pts 100 here · 89 average

Multi-stakeholder collaboration +9 pts 83 here · 74 average

Evidence of impact / measured results +9 pts 67 here · 57 average

Weaknesses

Water & soil — retention, infiltration, erosion control -8 pts 40 here · 48 average

Evidence of learning impact -10 pts 17 here · 26 average

Impact on gender equality -14 pts 57 here · 71 average

Efficiency -18 pts 14 here · 33 average

Teacher capability & pedagogy -21 pts 17 here · 37 average

Equity & inclusion -33 pts 17 here · 50 average

Demonstrated reach -42 pts 33 here · 76 average

Score profile vs peers

Evaluation evidence
100 · 49
Documented learning
100 · 74
Transparency, ethics & data protection
67 · 47
Governance, certification & transferability
83 · 64
Biodiversity — conservation / improvement, evidenced
67 · 48
Inclusiveness / equity
58 · 43
Transparency, fairness & accountability
67 · 54
Achievement / evidence
100 · 88
Gender-mainstreaming embedding
100 · 89
Multi-stakeholder collaboration
83 · 74
Evidence of impact / measured results
67 · 57
Sustainability / continuity
86 · 78
Fire resilience — risk reduction, evidenced
13 · 6
Transferability / demonstrated replication
64 · 60
Effectiveness
71 · 68
Scalability
62 · 62
Curator validation
71 · 73
Innovation
57 · 62
Carbon — sequestration / storage, evidenced
20 · 28
Evaluated outcomes
71 · 79
Water & soil — retention, infiltration, erosion control
40 · 48
Evidence of learning impact
17 · 26
Impact on gender equality
57 · 71
Efficiency
14 · 33
Teacher capability & pedagogy
17 · 37
Equity & inclusion
17 · 50
Demonstrated reach
33 · 76

Coloured bar: Melbourne. Grey bar: peer average across the corpus. Both on a common 0–100 scale.

Points compare this place's average on each dimension with the average across all evaluated places, on a common 0–100 scale. Know more

Top good practices here

Ask Izzy — Digital Service-Finder for People Experiencing Homelessness · 92

Men's Behaviour Change Programs — Australia's Evaluated but Contested Response to Domestic Violence Perpetrators · 85

Victoria's Men's Behaviour Change Program Network · 85

eSafety Commissioner's Image-Based Abuse Scheme — Australia's Statutory Response to Non-Consensual Intimate Image Sharing & Deepfake Abuse · 85

Australia Post's Machine-Learning Route Planner — Two-Hour Delivery Windows for 500,000 Parcels a Day · 80

ConnectUp — Co-Designed Social-Connection App for People with Disability and Carers · 76

Victoria's Gender Equality Act 2020 — Mandatory Workplace Gender Audits and Pay-Gap Reporting for ~300 Public Bodies · 74

Plan Melbourne's 20-Minute Neighbourhood Pilots — Ambition Outpacing Delivery · 67

Each number is the practice's overall 0–100 quality score against its catalogue's rubric. Know more

Recommended to adopt or replicate

Transferable practices from elsewhere that address this place's gaps.

Ciudad Mujer — El Salvador's Integrated Women's Services Programme · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions

Already adopted in 3 other places

SASA! Community Mobilisation Programme against Intimate Partner Violence — Uganda · fit 100/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions

Already adopted in 4 other places

Karya — Fair-Wage AI Data-Work Platform Bringing Digital Income to Rural India · fit 100/100

  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions

safe+natal — Comadrona-Designed Smartphone Checklist for Maternal Risk Screening in Rural Guatemala · fit 100/100

  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions

Digital Green — Video-Mediated Agricultural Extension · fit 100/100

  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions

Kartu Prakerja – National Digital Skills and Financial Inclusion Programme · fit 100/100

  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions

Rwanda's Land Tenure Regularization Programme — Titling Land in Women's Names · fit 90/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions

Sweden's Barnahus (Children's House) — Multidisciplinary One-Stop Centres for Child Victims of Sexual Abuse and Violence · fit 90/100

  • Rated highly transferable
  • Backed by strong evidence
  • Addresses this place's weak dimensions

Already adopted in 6 other places

Fit estimates how well a practice matches this place, 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent); the list is ordered to favour practices that address this place's gaps. Know more