1.2 Variety of information sources that participants and Project Hosts accessed to obtain Green Army information Participant survey: How did you hear about the Green Army? Careers service – 80 Careers fair or information session – 4 Work contacts or networks – 42 Employment agency / case worker – 199 Approached directly – 23 At school – 24 Family or friends – 451 Government website – 66 At tertiary education – 29 Contacts or networks – 87 Government website – 19 Green Army Service Provider – 28 Newspaper – 2 Social media – 93 Television – 1 Other – 130 Advertisement in a newspaper or other print media – 129 Advertisement on the internet – 241 1.3 Community activity on social media Facebook page: 2,328 likes GreenArmyGov Twitter: 473 followers Instagram: 442 followers 1.4 Awareness of program among target groups (potential Project Hosts, participants and their influencers) YouTube videos: 1,177,214 views Green Army webpage unique views: 235,124 Google searches for the Green Army: 86,649 ORIMA survey: potential participants 53%, parents/carers 46%, the general community 29% 1.5 Number of participants who registered interest in the program 30,036 1.6 Media articles generated from Green Army projects occurring in communities 2,300 2.1 Numbers and types of organisations that applied to host a Green Army project Organisation type Total Commonwealth/state/territory 70
Local government 377 Indigenous organisation 60 Environment/heritage organisation 209 NRM 71 Education/employment 26 Private company 30 Community group 43 Service Provider 8 Conservation trust 39 Total 933 2.2 Numbers and types of organisations that attended community information sessions Organisation type Registrations/attendees Indigenous 12 Council/shire 55 NRM/CMA/LLS 37 Government 39 Service Provider 81 Environmental organisation 66 Other 243 Total 533 2.3 Numbers and types of organisations hosting Green Army projects Organisation type Total Commonwealth/state/ territory government 113 Local government 360 Indigenous organisation 87 Environment/heritage organisation 288 NRM 97 Education/employment 35
Private company 5 Community group 23 Service Provider 94 Conservation trust 43 Total 1,145 Community engagement 2.4 Change in number and quality of applications from organisations over time Round Projects received Projects approved Average score (out of 10) One 410 265 6.71 Two 388 283 6.86 Three 529 156 7.01 Four 697 397 7.38 Five 1,251 –* 7.70 TOTAL 3,275 1,101 7.13 *There were no successful projects for Round Five as this round did not continue. 2.5 Number of community participation and engagement events 1,848 against a target of 1,585 events. 2.6 Number of Project Hosts acting in partnership 506 2.7 Types of contributions from Project Hosts and partners (e.g. equipment, technical expertise, volunteer days) staff time for supervision technical advice/assistance additional field equipment and tools financial assistance project planning and coordination 2.8 Community activity on social media 2,328 likes on GreenArmyGov Facebook page 473 GreenArmyGov Twitter followers 442 Instagram followers
4.3 Percentage of participants that received appropriate safety training 100% 4.4 Percentage of participants that stated that conflicts they saw or heard about were appropriately dealt with 80% 4.5 Percentage of Project Hosts that stated teams conducted activities in a safe manner 99% of Project Hosts thought teams ‘always’ or ‘very often’ conducted project activities in a safe manner Experience, skills and training 1.1 Percentage of participants with a training plan in place 100% 1.2 Percentage of participants that completed their training plan (compared to 80% target) 88% (8% above target) 1.3 Percentage of participants that completed accredited training (including units and certificates) 100% (12% gained a Certificate I or II) 1.4 Percentage of participants whose prior learning (on previous projects or outside the program) was taken into consideration in developing their training plan, and the extent to which participants could influence their training program 16% of surveyed participants had prior learning recognised and taken into consideration in the development of their training plan 2.1 Percentage of participants who left a project because they had found employment 8% of participants who were surveyed 31% of participants who exited early (as reported by Service Providers) 2.2 Number of participants who gained employment following the completion of a project 247 surveyed participants 2.3 Number of participants who did not return to income support following completion of a project 55% (of the 59% who were on income support prior to the Green Army)
2.4 Employment outcomes of participants in Green Army Program relative to employment outcomes of target group year olds) without program intervention 60% of surveyed participants who completed a project found a job or undertook further study after Green Army 2.5 Number of participants who became Green Army team supervisors 24 3.1 Average number of activities completed per project 7 3.2 Percentage of participants who reported gaining useful skills or qualifications through their involvement in the Green Army Program 79% 4.1 Participants’ sense of accomplishment with the work undertaken with regard to their involvement in the community, environmental work and increased knowledge and skills (compared to target of 80% positive response) Accomplishment 92% Greater appreciation for the environment 88% Increased knowledge 93% Made a positive difference 98% 4.2 Percentage of participants who reported that their expectations of the program were met 92% 4.3 Stakeholder views on the impact of the program on participants’ connection to peers and the community Available throughout the evaluation 4.4 Percentage of participants satisfied with training received 83% 5.1 The extent to which the Green Army Program provided a safe working environment for participants 99% of participants who completed a project completed WHS training Ernst & Young audit results: 92% average compliance score
Table 2 shows the priorities for each round of Green Army projects, as well as project applications versus successful applications. Table 2: Priorities for each round of Green Army Projects Round Round priorities Project applications received Successful project applications One Nil 307 265 Two Remote area and Indigenous outcomes Threatened species outcomes 385 283 Three Great Barrier Reef outcomes Remote area and Indigenous outcomes Threatened species outcomes 516 156 NDRR Environmental recovery in a natural disaster declared area 44 44 Four Heritage outcomes Outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef Remote area and Indigenous outcomes Threatened species outcomes 697 397 Total NA 3,200 1,145 Table 3 shows the distribution of projects across Australia for each project round. Table 3: Distribution of projects across Australia Project round Location classification Inner regional Major cities Outer regional Remote Very remote Total One 121 99 34 4 7 265 Two 96 79 81 17 10 283 Three 38 40 55 13 10 156 NDRR 20 13 8 3 0 44 Four 180 75 79 37 26 397 Total 455 306 257 74 53 1,145
Across the 1,145 approved Green Army projects, local government was the most common type of Project Host, representing more than 30 per cent (360) of all hosts, followed by environment/heritage organisations at 25 per cent (288), and then state and territory governments at 10 per cent (113) (Figure 11). Figure 11: Project Hosts by organisation type Organisations could nominate to be a Project Host in partnership with another organisation or community group (Figure 12). For the Green Army Program, a partnership meant two or more organisations working together to deliver a project; however, one organisation acted as the lead and completed and submitted the application on behalf of all the organisations. Figure 12: Number of organisations in Project Host partnerships Project Hosts worked to engage with the community through a range of events and community engagement activities to promote the work of the Green Army and share their achievements. They also worked with the community to provide extra training to participants and the implementation of project works. Of the 168 Project Hosts who competed a survey at the completion of their project, 81 per cent (136) stated that they publicised their Green Army project (Figure 13). Of these, 46 per cent used multiple forms of media. Figure 13: How Project Hosts publicised their Green Army project Participant and Project Host surveys On completion of a project, participants and Project Hosts were invited to complete a survey on their experience with the Program. Information captured in the participant surveys included participant training and skills outcomes, and circumstances prior to joining Green Army. Project Hosts were asked about the outcomes of their projects, their level of involvement with their project, and activities they undertook to publicise their project.