_edited.jpg)
Exceeding Compliance – Strengthening Your Training and Development for the Incoming National Code and Beyond
- Swick Learning
- Oct 1
- 7 min read
Updated: Oct 13
This post explains the independent feedback process we provide to support training and development experiences, called RED Track Feedback, which has been highly value-adding for those already using it. [1]
Below, we briefly make a case for how it can improve your overall training and development over time, while also playing an immediate role in helping you meet Standards 3 and 6 of the incoming National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence (hereafter, the 'Code'). [2]
Thank you for your attention to this, and for the investment you make in your staff and your students as they find their way in the world.
The Code will raise the bar on evaluating training and development
Under the proposed Code, your organisation will need to ensure it is delivering ongoing, comprehensive education and training for staff and students on gender-based violence (GBV) and a range of sub-topics, including, but not limited to: contributing and exacerbating factors, available supports, ethical bystander and compassionate responses, healthy relationships (s3.1), and responding to disclosures (s3.8–3.9). This training must be developed or chosen in a consultative manner (s3.3); and be evidence- and trauma-informed, tailored, inclusive, accessible, and supportive of ongoing learning and improving management of disclosures (s3.2).
But delivering training is only half the task – its impact must be actively monitored, evaluated, and used to guide decision-making. In this critical ‘second half’ of training and development, which is too often neglected, the Code calls for a more rigorous and disciplined approach than most organisations would currently be applying to any part of their current training and development mix.
For many organisations, this will be a significant challenge to overcome in a short time, especially alongside the acute operational changes required by the other Standards within the Code.
For this training and education aspect alone, your organisation must be ready to report not only what was delivered and attended (s6.11a), but on learning outcomes and participant feedback (s3.10); and whether participants’ report increased awareness and understanding of gender-based violence, its prevention, and their confidence and intent to act as ethical bystanders (s6.11b). This information must be gathered in a safe, trauma-informed, person-centred way and stored securely (s6.3a).
Merely gathering these data will not be enough. They must inform your future planning and your understanding of the specific systemic and cultural barriers present in your setting (s6.6); must strengthen your whole-of-organisation approach (s6.5); improve your training measures to ensure they are effective (s6.6a); and guide decisions around your future training mix (s3.11 and s3.13). Finally, this activity connects to a number of reporting obligations (s3.4, s3.11, s3.12, s3.19, and s6.11).
Moreover, while the Code broadly encourages evaluation (s6.7), in practice it requires the kind of structured, evidence-based evaluation usually seen in professionally-managed external program reviews – but on a continuous basis.
This is where Swick Learning can assist. We know our strengths, and maximising what people take from learning experiences is our craft. This is an area where we will always be a reliable, passionate, and innovative partner.
We have developed an independent feedback process that collects high-quality, well-structured and authentic insight from learners – and turns this into credible, actionable reports for both the training provider and the commissioning organisation.
Our process consistently delivers clean, credible, and useful data that builds authenticity and trust in all directions – and it will also help you meet several obligations under the Code.
How the RED Track Feedback process works:
RED stands for Rapid Evaluation Data, which is the essence of the process – to convert the once-off tasks in formal program evaluation into a continuous, efficient, business-as-usual processes.
This feedback track was originally developed with training providers who were determined to get the highest quality feedback and, in turn, the fastest possible pace of improvement.[1] The RED Track Feedback process expands access to this methodology, allowing the organisation commissioning the training to apply it to any learning experience for their people – regardless of who provided the training.
Here is how it works on any given training engagement:
Learner feedback is collected independently. Learners provide survey responses (typically both pre- and post-training surveys) directly to us via a standardised questionnaire, with space for tailored questions. Learners know they are anonymously providing feedback to independent education consultants who will provide an objective summary to decision-makers. This improves completion rates, reduces bias, and removes the pressure for validating feedback that often haunts feedback processes.
An objective summary report goes to the trainer and commissioning manager simultaneously. We compile a structured summary report for the training engagement and share it with your organisation and the training provider at the same time. Everyone working from the same trusted summary creates a solid foundation for effective dialogue and follow-up about future iterations of the training.
You provide feedback to the training provider. We also gather observations about the value and lasting impact of the training from the managers in your organisation who rely on it the most. These reflections are anonymised, aggregated, and released back to the training vendor (if external). Without our process, this feedback is almost never captured, meaning RED Track adds another layer of structured, credible information about the engagement for everyone’s benefit.
(Optional) We can also analyse the feedback from multiple training engagements to build your understanding of what works in your organisation – for instance: which training topics, formats, and approaches resonate with different learner groups, and at what times. This helps you make more informed investment decisions moving forward.
Why this approach is better than managing feedback and reporting in-house:
Greater consistency and reliability: When feedback is collected in-house, different people may manage the process differently, ask different questions, or skip steps, making comparisons across programs or years impossible. This process makes it easy to stay disciplined and consistent.
Better insights: Feedback in all directions becomes more honest, meaningful, credible and actionable than when the process is led by yourself or the training provider.
Reduced bias and pressure: Internal feedback collection almost always carries pressure to validate the training – unconsciously or otherwise. When this occurs the investment in the training is never truly justified.
Improves decision-making: Rich, de-identified data fuels a deeper understanding of impact, and helps make more informed choices about your training mix in the future.
Secure, privacy-aligned data: Data is stored securely and anonymised, keeping you on the right side of privacy principles. You can request access for analysis (notwithstanding any data cleaning required to preserve anonymity), or have us perform deeper dive analysis on your behalf.
Better business relationships: Giving your training vendors structured, impartial feedback they wouldn’t otherwise receive makes you a great partner, strengthening your relationships.
Time and resource efficiency: Collecting, analysing, and reporting feedback using in-house resources is a tedious, error-prone, and administratively heavy task that staff often openly dislike. This process reduces mistakes and ensures objectivity for less cost than the staffing expense that would be needed to resource this internally.
Insights from beyond your organisation: A reservoir of high-quality, well-structured data from a process that transcends your organisation allows us to provide sector-wide insights into which training experiences are working in relevant contexts. This helps you extract greater value from your data and make progressively smarter training investments over time.
How RED Track Feedback helps you meet the requirements of the Code:
At its core, RED Track Feedback is a professional, reliable, and intelligent way to monitor and evaluate education and training initiatives (s3.10), in alignment with the spirit of evaluation called for by the Code (s6.7). It makes meeting your reporting obligations (s3.12 and s6.11b) easier, and provides sound information from which to refine the mix of education and training experiences for your people (s3.11, s3.13, and s6.6).
This approach ensures you are truly evidence-informed. It is one thing to choose training whose content is based on evidence, but knowing it is actually working in your specific context is another level entirely. Regularly reviewing both layers of evidence and acting on them progressively improves how tailored, relevant (s3.2a and s3.2c), and effective your training is over time.
Data collection in this process is also trauma-informed and person-centred (s3.2b and s6.3a). By committing to a predefined process, the approach remains consistent and predictable for participants – while sending a powerful signal that their feedback is being taken seriously, and used to drive meaningful, positive change. Questionnaires are carefully designed, and it is made clear that responses are anonymous; helping participants feel safe and respected. They will know their input is being thoughtfully collected and is valued, because you are investing in a clear, stable and comprehensive process.
Finally, gathering high-quality, honest feedback which is fit for use in decision-making is itself an authentic way of collaboratively engaging students and staff in the development and selection of training (s3.3), which helps to embed continuous improvement and trust across your organisation.
Next steps and how to get started:
To learn more about the RED Track Feedback process, please visit our dedicated web page which is continuously expanding to include example reports, short videos and other artifacts from the process: swicklearning.com/red-track-feedback
Importantly, this process has been designed from the outset to be cost-effective. The base maintenance fee to have all this measurement and reporting ‘machinery’ in place is modest, at $1,850 per annum,[4] and the per-training engagement service fee is similarly reasonable, ranging from $95–$285 depending on the level of survey customisation.[5] For most organisations, this is far more cost effective than an in-house model and, more importantly, is a very small investment when weighed against the additional insights and improvements it makes possible.
Notes:
Until recently, the process has only been able to be initiated by training providers who have committed to using it everywhere possible (called LIFTERs – Listening & Improvement by Facilitators & Trainers through Evaluation & Research). The Red Track Feedback process allows the process to be initiated by any organisation.
For student accommodation providers — while 'Student Accommodation Providers' are only subject to Standard 7 our interpretation is that they are required to adopt the spirit of the entire Code via sections 7.1 or 7.2-7.8 depending on their ownership structure (for Affiliated Student Accommodation Providers, from their universities/Providers being expected to impose these standards on them via s7.9) where s7.5 calls for capability development in the spirit of Standard 3, and s7.8 calls for all relevant reporting under Standard 6.
Training providers who commit to using this process in every possible training engagement can become designated LIFTERs as a way to signal their commitment to transparency and improvement.
All fees quoted are for CY2026. This is excluding GST and is escalated annually by December to December CPI (Australia). All fees are calculated annually and billed quarterly.
An engagement is typically considered as one training experience per organisation per year – multiple sessions of the same training experience are usually considered a single engagement unless you require separate summary reports of each session.
