Monitoring and reporting performance - Queensland Audit Office · 2019. 10. 14. · Monitoring and reporting performance Summary Report 18 1: 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office Summary

Monitoring and reporting performance

Report 18 : 2013–14

Queensland Audit Office

Location Level 14, 53 Albert Street, Brisbane Qld 4000

PO Box 15396, City East Qld 4002

Telephone (07) 3149 6000

Email [email protected]

Online www.qao.qld.gov.au

© The State of Queensland. Queensland Audit Office (2014)

Copyright protects this publication except for purposes permitted by the Copyright

Act 1968. Reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without the prior written

permission of the Auditor-General of Queensland. Reference to this document is

permitted only with appropriate acknowledgement.

Front cover image is an edited photograph of Queensland Parliament, taken by QAO.

ISSN 1834-1128

Monitoring and reporting performance

Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 2 The Queensland framework .............................................................................................. 2 Public reporting of government services ........................................................................... 3 Internal monitoring and reporting....................................................................................... 5 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 6 Reference to comments .................................................................................................... 6

1 Context ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Performance management concepts ..................................................................... 8 1.2 Performance management frameworks ............................................................... 11 1.3 Audit objectives, scope and focus ........................................................................ 13 1.4 Report structure ................................................................................................... 14

2 Accountability for performance ................................................................................... 15

2.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Analysis of SDS service standards ...................................................................... 17 2.4 Application of the framework in the SDS .............................................................. 20 2.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 26

3 Improving service performance ................................................................................... 27

3.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 28 3.3 Application of the framework in departments ....................................................... 28 3.4 External imperatives ............................................................................................. 31 3.5 Recommendation ................................................................................................. 34

Appendix A— Comments......................................................................................................... 36

Appendix B— Audit approach ................................................................................................. 43

Appendix C— Glossary ............................................................................................................ 46

Appendix D— Previous reports on monitoring and reporting performance ....................... 48

Appendix E— Summary of SDS analysis ............................................................................... 52

Monitoring and reporting performance Summary

Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 1

Summary It is always important to know whether a government entity is effective—doing the right

things to achieve the intended results; and efficient—doing things right to make the most of

limited resources. In times of fiscal constraint, it is arguably more important to know.

Those charged with running public sector entities need regular access to a suite of both

financial and non-financial information to manage their business, determine whether they are

on track and take timely corrective action if needed.

Public sector entities also must report publicly on their performance as part of their

accountability obligations, to demonstrate their effective stewardship and responsible use of

taxpayer-funded resources.

Both sets of performance information—that used for internal management purposes and that

publicly reported—should share common attributes or characteristics. The information

should be relevant, reliable, balanced and understandable; so that users can readily

determine whether services are being delivered efficiently and effectively.

Ideally, both sets also are aligned, such that the information reported publicly to discharge

accountability is a sub-set of that reported internally, for managing the business.

Publicly reported information about financial performance—how much services cost—is

readily found in agency budgets and annual financial statements. This information is subject

to robust international and national accrual-based reporting frameworks and accounting

standards, which consistently produce reliable information that is comparable over time,

between entities and between jurisdictions.

Public information on non-financial performance—how well services are delivered—generally

is not subject to such recognised frameworks. It also is not audited nor required to be

reported consistently in annual reports.

In Queensland, public sector entities must comply with the requirements for monitoring and

reporting non-financial performance information set down in legislation and in the

Queensland Performance Management Framework (PMF).

The objective of the PMF, introduced in 2008, is to improve the analysis and application of

performance information to support accountability, inform policy development and

implementation and create value for clients, stakeholders and the Queensland community.

Some departments are required also to report non-financial performance information, either

as a condition of receiving Australian Government funding under national agreements and

national partnership agreements; or as part of the Report on Government Services (ROGS)

published annually by the Productivity Commission.

This audit examined how well the 20 core Queensland departments measure, monitor and

publicly report on their non-financial performance. We assessed the performance information

in their Service Delivery Statements (SDS) from the 2013–14 State Budget papers. We

focused on these budget papers because departments were required to remove any

performance information that reported on activities, inputs or processes; and replace it with

outcome-based information reporting on the efficiency and effectiveness of their services.

We sought to determine if the non-financial performance information in the budget papers

was outcome-based and whether it was relevant and useful, readily understood and actually

measured what it claimed to measure.

We also assessed departments' internally reported management information against these

same criteria, and against the most current information in their annual reports and strategic

plans, to understand the quality and comprehensiveness of the full suite of performance

information available to and used by management.


2 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office

Conclusions While we support and commend the intent of the reform to the 2013–14 SDS, it has yet to

deliver on its promise to support accountability and inform policy development and

implementation. The service standards reported by the majority of departments and service

areas fall well short of being direct measures of the efficiency or the effectiveness of the

services they deliver.

With the present sharp focus and debate on the ways and means to achieve fiscal neutrality

and to reduce public debt, the widespread lack of service standards and targets for the

efficiency of services is of particular concern.

In this regard, the aphorism 'what gets measured gets managed' is apt. While the costs and

benefits of monitoring performance must be balanced, measuring and monitoring the

ongoing performance of the business is a core governance responsibility. Not knowing

whether major government services are cost-efficient hampers effective decision making,

particularly from the viewpoint of contestable service provision and being able to quantify

reliably whether there are any significant potential savings from outsourcing of services. It

also weakens accountability, as the SDS and annual reports cannot serve fully their intended

purposes.

As with efficiency, there are issues with the way many departments report on their

effectiveness. Their over-reliance on client satisfaction surveys to gauge service quality, as a

proxy for measuring service effectiveness, makes it harder to know whether desired effects

are being achieved and so, harder to evaluate the efficacy of policy implementation.

Notwithstanding this, the goal to improve public performance reporting remains realistic and

attainable. We identified service standards used in other jurisdictions, and from first

principles, that speak more clearly to efficiency and effectiveness to provide guidance on

what could be measured.

The weaknesses we found in the suite of non-financial performance information used in

some departments is evidence of a lack of commitment by executive and senior

management to performance monitoring and reporting. These departments also were less

likely to have any other external reporting imperatives apply to them, such as the ROGS or

reporting requirements under a national partnership agreement.

These two common missing elements—management commitment and externally imposed

reporting imperatives—established a clear dichotomy between the better practice

departments and those lagging in this area. In this respect, requiring departments to publish

audited performance statements in their annual reports to complement their audited financial

statements would serve to consolidate the recent reforms.

The Queensland framework The PMF establishes a sound basis for public performance reporting. It sets out specific

requirements and guides departments to evaluate, monitor and report on performance.

Guidance for the strategic plan, SDS and annual report is comprehensive, specific and

current.

Each accountable officer is responsible for implementing a system to monitor the

performance of his or her specific agency, to improve service delivery and to manage

resources responsibly.

The departments that have not implemented the PMF well lack a strong leadership focus on

this area and have gaps in their organisational capacity and capability. Accordingly, their

executives do not have sufficient, appropriate performance information about their

cost-effectiveness; and cannot readily determine whether or how, they can improve their

efficiency; nor can they discharge fully their public accountability obligations.



Public reporting of government services Following the annual review of the SDS in 2012, publicly reported performance information

was required to focus on the services that public sector agencies produce (outputs) and their

achievements (outcomes). Service standards that did not report on efficiency or

effectiveness were to be discontinued in the SDS and reported elsewhere.

While the removal of input, process and activity-based measures has largely been achieved,

the measures have not been replaced with relevant information to judge whether resources

have been used well to achieve the desired result.

To meet the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) requirements, agencies were to

publicly report at least one standard of efficiency and one standard of effectiveness for each

service area. Service areas are related services grouped into a high level area, as deemed

appropriate by the individual agency.

Figure 1 shows that these minimum requirements were not met in the 2013–14 budget

papers, for the 20 core departments.

Figure 1 Public reporting of efficiency and/or effectiveness

2013–14 budget service areas

Source: Queensland Audit Office

Eight of 71 service areas, representing $10.8 billion of public expenditure, report publicly at

least one standard of efficiency and one standard of effectiveness. The lack of a balanced

suite of efficiency and effectiveness standards for 72 per cent of the budget makes it difficult

for the Parliament to hold departments fully to account.

Setting efficiency standards

Departments report on the efficiency of the service areas less than they report on their

effectiveness.

Efficiency & Effectiveness,

$10.8 b

Effectiveness only, $14.2 b

Efficiency only, $7.1 b

Neither Efficiency nor Effectiveness, $6.3 b

$38.4 b



While 31 service areas did not report effectiveness standards, 61 services areas,

representing $20.5 billion of public expenditure, had no efficiency standards in their SDS.

The lack of data on the cost of service outputs is the main barrier to measuring efficiency.

Where departments do not or cannot define and quantify their outputs and the costs of their

individual services, they are unable to measure efficiency.

Setting effectiveness standards

Measures of stakeholder satisfaction were most often used as proxies for service

effectiveness. While such measures provide useful information about the perceived quality of

the services, they do not directly demonstrate that the service objective has been achieved.

More direct indicators of service effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, while able to be

defined for many services in-principle, were not used in practice.

Defining service objectives

Significant scope remains to improve the expression of service area objectives.

Each service area must state its objective and how it contributes to the achievement of the

agency's objectives and the whole-of-government direction. Objectives are meant to express

clearly what the service area wants to achieve, be focused on the end result and be

measurable and understandable.

The stated objectives for 16 of 71 service areas were unclear; most often, they described

activities or processes instead of the expected results or intended effects. This makes it

difficult for stakeholders to assess whether outcomes are being achieved, reducing

accountability.

Defining service areas

Some services in the 2013–14 SDS were grouped into service areas using organisational

structures, rather than by logically combining interrelated services. This lack of a 'service

logic' approach in these cases made it unclear how each of the disparate services, grouped

into the one service area, contributed to the single service area objective or outcome.

Further, while each service area required at least one efficiency and one effectiveness

standard, this was commonly interpreted in practice as a requirement to report only one

standard.

Services that contribute logically to a single outcome can use a single standard of efficiency

and one of effectiveness to demonstrate performance. When services comprise multiple

disparate services, each individual service needs its own standard of both efficiency and

effectiveness.

In these latter cases, where only one standard was reported, it tended to cover the

performance of one service and not the others included in the service area. For 33 service

areas (46 per cent), the service reported was not the most material, or highest cost, service.

Matching service standards and service areas

Not all the service standards in the 2013–14 SDS were relevant to the stated objective. This

mismatch blurred accountability for performance, as it placed responsibility for achieving

outcomes at the wrong organisational level.

Across the 20 departments, 28 (nine per cent) of the service standards were for

whole-of-government outcomes, not service-level outcomes. Such whole-of-government

service standards are relevant to higher level, whole-of-government priorities; and typically

require multiple agencies to work together. They are less relevant to specific departments,

service areas or services within the SDS.



Similarly, some service areas reported standards that related to their lower level specific

program or project objectives. Across the 20 departments, 154 standards (51 per cent)

related to lower level program or project objectives. As a result, they also were not as

relevant to the performance of the whole service area.

Internal monitoring and reporting The deficiencies we identified in public reporting by departments correlated strongly with

weaker internal monitoring and reporting in these same departments.

Of the 61 service areas in the SDS that do not report on efficiency, 59 service areas also do

not report internal efficiency standards to departmental executive management. Internal

reporting on effectiveness shows similar patterns; 28 of the 31 service areas not reporting

publicly on effectiveness, also did not monitor it internally.

Figure 2 shows the performance reporting hierarchy where data on inputs inform the output

metrics, which, in turn, are used to develop service standards and performance measures.

By combining output metrics, departments can report on the efficiency and effectiveness of

their services.

Figure 2 Data, metrics and service standards hierarchy


Without an underlying suite of output-based metrics informed by reliable data on each

service area, departments cannot identify opportunities to improve their operations and

demonstrate they are doing more or doing better, with less.

A common constraint identified by departmental staff is the lack of systems to measure and

track reliably the cost of their services. This particularly inhibited their ability to develop

useful efficiency service standards.

Creating external imperatives

The PMF is aligned to the national framework, ROGS. Service areas that are required to

report under the national ROGS performance indicator framework were more able to report a

balance of efficiency and effectiveness standards in their SDS.



Across the 71 service areas in the 2013–14 budget papers, 47 of the 61 (78 per cent) that

did not report efficiency standards also do not report in ROGS.

Recommendations It is recommended that:

1. departments apply a service logic approach to define their service areas so that

they only group services where they contribute to common objectives and

outcomes

2. Queensland Treasury and Trade and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet update their mandatory guidance to require:

service standards that relate to whole-of-government objectives and

outcomes to be reported at the ministerial portfolio or departmental level, not

at the service standard level

where a service area comprises multiple services, that each material service

has a separate line item budget and at least one efficiency service standard

and one effectiveness service standard

3. departments be required to publish an audited performance statement in their

annual reports to complement their audited financial statements.

Reference to comments In accordance with section 64 of the Auditor-General Act 2009, a copy of this report was

provided to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and Queensland Treasury and Trade

with a request for comments. All departments were provided with copies of their individual

assessments throughout the audit and a copy of this report with advice that a fair summary

of other responses received within the 21 days, would be included in the report.

Their views have been considered in reaching our audit conclusions and are represented to

the extent relevant and warranted in preparing this report.

The comments received are included in Appendix A of this report.

Monitoring and reporting performance Context


1 Context

Governments deliver public goods and services for use by, or to benefit, the community.

While some are provided on a fee-for-service basis, most are funded through taxation and

other involuntary transfers.

The cost of government services are significant to national and state economies. Around

$184 billion or 12.1 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product was spent on such

services in 2012–13, according to the Australian Government's Report on Government

Services 2014.

In Queensland, the cost of public services in 2012–13 provided by the general government

sector (comprising the 'core' departments, statutory authorities and agencies that are largely

budget-funded) was $46.129 billion, or 15.9 per cent of gross state product.

The processes and systems to capture and measure these costs are mature and robust; as

are the financial reporting frameworks used in the preparation and presentation of public

sector financial statements. Accrual-based budgeting and reporting is a long-standing

requirement and is commonplace in government financial management frameworks. A

hallmark of transparency and public accountability in this regard is the requirement to include

independently audited financial statements in agency annual reports.

In the context of public sector service delivery, however, measuring and reporting on the cost

of services tells us only how much is spent, not how well it is spent.

By way of contrast, the profit or loss reported by private sector entities is a direct measure of

entities' efficiency of production and of their effectiveness in delivering goods and services

that consumers want to buy; as is their share price and other financial measures like

earnings per share and return on their assets.

For the general government sector, there is no meaningful 'bottom line', equivalent to profit

or loss, which speaks directly to service efficiency and/or effectiveness. For this reason,

significant attention has been paid over the past twenty years to establishing 'non-financial'

performance reporting frameworks in all state and territory jurisdictions, nationally and

internationally.

The common features of such frameworks are that they comprise a set of performance

indicators or measures aligned to major government services that ideally provide direct

insights into the cost-efficiency and effectiveness of each service in fulfilling its objectives.

Less commonly, the suite of indicators developed, or a sub-set thereof, may be contained in

a 'performance statement', an analogue to the financial statement. These statements may be

included in either, or both, the annual budget papers and the annual reports of agencies.

However, while non-financial performance reporting frameworks are now a long-standing

requirement, it is clear from reviews by Auditors-General over the past decade that they

consistently fail in their intent. Appendix D summarises the reports and findings of such

audits. Notably, the list includes five previous reviews undertaken in Queensland that found

serious deficiencies.

This is not just an Australian phenomenon. In 2008, the Auditor-General of New Zealand

commented that:

'Overall, the poor quality of non-financial performance reporting by public

entities is disappointing. It needs to improve significantly to allow

Parliament and the public to hold public entities accountable for their use

of taxes and rates and for the effectiveness of their service delivery.'



Some Queensland agencies presently report also to the Australian Government as a

condition of funding agreements or through special purpose reports. The mechanism for

collecting, collating and comparing performance across all states and territories is the Report

on Government Services (ROGS). Figure 1A provides background information on the ROGS

framework.

Figure 1A The national framework for reporting on government services

The Report on Government Services

The Council of Australian Governments established the Review of Government Service Provision in

1993 to provide information on the equity, efficiency and effectiveness of government services in

Australia, through the publication of the annual Report on Government Services (ROGS).

The 2014 ROGS states:

Traditionally, much of the effort to improve the effectiveness of government

services has focused on increasing the level of resources devoted to them.

Another way of improving services is finding better ways to use existing

resources.

According to the 2014 ROGS, performance measurement can:

help clarify government objectives and responsibilities

promote analysis of the relationships between agencies and between programs, enabling

governments to coordinate policy within and across agencies

make performance more transparent, and enhance accountability

provide governments with indicators of their policy and program performance over time

inform the wider community about government service performance

encourage ongoing performance improvements in service delivery and effectiveness, by

highlighting improvements and innovation.

Queensland government services that contribute to the ROGS comprise:

child care, education and training: early childhood education and care, school education and

vocational education and training

justice: police services, courts and corrective services

emergency management: fire and ambulance services

health: public hospitals, primary and community health and mental health management

community services: aged care services, services for people with a disability, child protection

services and youth justice services

housing and homelessness services.

Source: Queensland Audit Office, adapted from ROGS

1.1 Performance management concepts

1.1.1 Service level concepts

Public sector entities are typically made responsible through administrative arrangements

and thus organised and resourced; and their services are typically defined in such a way that

there is no overlap with other entities. This means each entity has its own unique set of

services assigned to it.



The government services provided by these entities are many and varied—for example:

services provided to the benefit of all such as those that maintain and uphold the law

and good order, like criminal and civil court services, law enforcement, custodial and

public safety services

services provided to the benefit of some individuals or groups such as economic

infrastructure (roads, railways and ports) and social infrastructure (public and social

housing public open space, parklands and gardens), education, childcare and aged

care

services provided directly to other public sector entities that then indirectly support

service delivery such as policy advice, economic forecasting, public debt management

and control.

A relatively few, well established concepts underpin the frameworks used for measuring and

managing the non-financial performance of such services. Service logic diagrams provide a

succinct depiction of these concepts and their interrelationships. Figure 1B is one example of

a service logic diagram that is used widely in Australia.

Figure 1B Service logic diagram

Source: Queensland Audit Office adapted from ROGS

This diagram demonstrates that each service delivered:

requires a combination of inputs

- human effort, skill and knowledge

- physical assets

- information and other intangible assets

- financial assets.

which are translated, converted or otherwise used up in processes

that are applied to produce outputs—the units of services produced, which may

themselves be discrete units (such as licenses issued) or continuous units (such as

teaching hours provided).

Objectives for each service delivered are able to be expressed in terms of the outputs

produced and the outcomes expected.

Service

objectivesInput Process Output Outcomes

External

influences

Service effectiveness

Efficiency

Cost-effectiveness

Service



1.1.2 Service standards

Service level output objectives relate to the delivery of the service to pre-determined service

level standards. Such output performance standards typically are expressed in terms of:

their quantity—the desired number to be produced for discrete outputs or planned

activity level for continuous outputs

their timeliness—when the service is to be provided as required by the user, or

otherwise made available as intended by the provider when it is not a demand-driven

service

their cost—the expected cost, as set out in the approved budget

their quality—the fitness for purpose of the service, which may include factors such as

accuracy or extent of adherence to externally mandated quality standards.

Service level outcome objectives relate to the intended or desired effect of that service on

the recipient. If the objective of the service is to provide affordable housing, then the

outcome objective would be to maximise the numbers of those requiring assistance who are

successful in finding long term housing solutions.

The service logic diagram also shows services may be evaluated in terms of their efficiency

and their effectiveness:

efficiency—measured by establishing the relationship between the quantum of outputs

produced and the cost of inputs, this 'technical efficiency' is typically measured as the

cost per unit output

effectiveness—the degree of correlation between, or the extent of divergence from the

service objective, its expected cost and the actual outcomes achieved, service

effectiveness is typically determined by measuring the effect on the service recipient;

service cost-effectiveness is measured by relating the cost of the service to the

economic and other benefits realised.

1.1.3 Organisation and whole-of-government level concepts

While each public sector entity provides its own unique set of services; a number of these

services may be aggregated usefully into 'service areas', which are not necessarily unique to

one entity.

Ideally, the service areas within an entity are established by grouping the separate services

provided into combinations that collectively contribute to a common outcome objective.

The same principle applies across entities, where each entity provides a service or

combination of services that collectively contribute to a higher order outcome; an outcome

that each entity can influence through the services it delivers, but which none controls

completely.

This means there will be objectives and outcomes more relevant at the service area level

than at the service level. These are often represented as 'whole-of-government' objectives

and outcomes and are not able to be simply attributed to the actions of any one entity.

For example, a common service area across the Department of Transport and Main Roads

and the Queensland Police Service is road safety: both contribute toward this service

outcome, one standard of which is the number or rate of deaths and serious injuries from

road accidents.



1.2 Performance management frameworks

1.2.1 Central agency roles and responsibilities

The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) has responsibility for the design and

oversight of the operation of the Performance Management Framework (PMF) and for the

guidance material which supports it.

Queensland Treasury and Trade (QTT) administers the Financial and Performance

Management Standard 2009 (the FPMS).

The FPMS outlines governance requirements for departments, including the requirement for

each director-general to establish a performance management system. Performance

management and reporting systems are implemented to enable stakeholders to decide

whether each department is:

achieving the objectives stated in its strategic plan efficiently, effectively and

economically

delivering the services stated in its operational plan to the standard stated in the plan.

While QTT oversees departmental reporting of financial performance, it is DPC which

oversees non-financial performance reporting across government. It sets out its

requirements in three guidelines:

The Guide to the Queensland Government Performance Management Framework

Agency planning requirements

Annual report requirements for Queensland Government agencies.

DPC and QTT each year review the departmental service area objectives, standards and

targets that are published in departments' Service Delivery Statements (SDS). Departments

submit their draft service standards to DPC which checks:

there is at least one service standard that measures the effectiveness of the service

area

there is at least one service standard that measures the efficiency of the service area

there are no measures of activity, process, input or quality of the services.

1.2.2 Departmental roles and responsibilities

In August 2008, the Managing for Outcomes framework was replaced with the PMF,

illustrated in Figure 1C. The PMF aims to integrate and align planning and budgeting with

resource management and performance management.

Figure 1C The Queensland performance management framework




The PMF guidance material sets out clear minimum requirements for departments' three

primary external accountability documents: their strategic plans; the SDS; and their annual

reports.

Strategic plans

Section 9 of the Financial and Performance Management Standard 2009, requires

accountable officers and statutory bodies to develop a strategic plan. They must comply with

the Agency planning requirements prepared by DPC. A strategic plan clearly articulates an

agency’s direction to staff, clients and other stakeholders and sets the parameters for

operational plans. Strategic planning is an ongoing organisational process that helps

agencies identify their objectives, the strategies they will implement and the performance

indicators to measure how well they achieved their objectives.

The purpose of strategic planning is to:

describe the vision (strategic direction) of the agency

identify the agency’s purpose

demonstrate how the agency’s objectives will contribute to the achievement of the

whole-of-government direction (objectives for the community, priorities and strategies)

describe strategies to make the agency’s vision a reality

determine how the objectives will be measured (performance indicators).

Service delivery statements

The SDS are published annually as part of the state budget. They predominantly contain

budgeted financial and non-financial information about each agency for the current and

coming financial year.

The non-financial component outlines the services each agency will deliver and the

standards to which these will be delivered.

The SDS are a primary source of information for hearings of the parliamentary estimates

committees. These hearings allow Parliament to examine the funding provided in the state

budget to each ministerial portfolio.

The SDS are used by Members of Parliament, the media, the public and other interested

parties to obtain information on the objectives, service areas, key strategies and

performance of Queensland Government agencies.

Annual reports

Section 63 of the Financial Accountability Act 2009 requires all departments and statutory

bodies to prepare annual reports for tabling in the Legislative Assembly. They must comply

with the Annual report requirements for Queensland Government agencies prepared by

DPC.

Annual reports complement each agency's SDS by reporting both actual non-financial and

financial performance information and analysing this against targets and budgets. Annual

reports support transparency and can drive continuous improvement in performance. Where

annual reports incorporate relevant and reliable performance information, they increase trust

and confidence in public sector service delivery.

Special purpose performance reports

Public sector agencies also may contribute to, or produce, additional reports on their

performance that are not required by the PMF. Figure 1D lists examples of such reports.



Figure 1D Special purpose reports

Department Report Frequency

Department of Education, Training

and Employment

Performance measures report Annually

Department of Environment and

Heritage Protection

State of the environment report Four-yearly

Department of Health Hospital and Health Service performance Quarterly


Statistics and data on government services are also available as part of the open data

initiative at https://data.qld.gov.au/. The open data initiative aims to:

encourage people, companies, researchers and non-government organisations to

develop innovative solutions to Queenslanders’ problems

help make government more transparent and accountable.

Internal performance monitoring

Section 13 of the Financial and Performance Management Standard 2009, requires

accountable officers and statutory bodies to have systems in place to provide information

about performance to the accountable officer every 3 months and the appropriate Minister at

least annually or when asked for. Internal monitoring of service performance within an

organisation is an integral part of managing the business. Decision makers need regular,

relevant and reliable information to assess whether they are doing a good job and are on

track to achieve their objectives. Internal reports are the main mechanism for management

to judge performance and take corrective action if needed.

Internal reports typically contain a broader set of performance information than external

reports. Accountable officers determine the format, timing and approach to internal

monitoring of performance.

The reports are tailored to the individual agency but generally include:

performance reports—trend data on key performance metrics against the objectives and

service standards

human resource reports—staff numbers, absenteeism, vacancies, age profiles and

equal employment targets

finance reports—year to date figures and actuals, by organisational unit

risk reports—strategic risk registers and mitigating strategies

action/status reports—progress reports against milestones and budgets.

1.3 Audit objectives, scope and focus

The objective of the audit was to assess whether the core, general government, public sector

departments included in the SDS are efficiently and effectively measuring, monitoring and

reporting on their non-financial performance.

The audit examined whether:

the departmental performance measurement and public performance reporting policy

framework establishes a sound basis for comprehensive public performance reporting

departments have implemented a balanced suite of output and outcome efficiency and

effectiveness measures

publicly reported performance information enhances public sector accountability and

transparency.



Entities subject to this audit comprised:

Department of the Premier and Cabinet

Queensland Treasury and Trade

Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services

Department of Community Safety (former)

Department of Education, Training and Employment

Department of Energy and Water Supply

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

Department of Housing and Public Works

Department of Justice and Attorney-General

Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience

Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing

Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Queensland Health

Queensland Police Service

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

Department of Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games

Department of Transport and Main Roads.

1.3.1 Audit method and cost

We examined the SDS, strategic plans, annual reports and internal corporate reports of the

entities subject to the audit. The 2012–13 SDS contain the service standards for 71 service

areas with a total budget allocations of $38.4 billion.

Feedback was provided to the departments throughout the audit as they were reviewing and

updating their SDS for the 2014–15 budget.

We also delivered two workshops on monitoring and reporting performance attended by

77 participants across the public sector, to gather qualitative data on the implementation of

the Queensland performance management framework and their views on the barriers to

good performance monitoring and reporting.

The cost of the audit was $ 460 000.

1.4 Report structure

The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 discusses accountability for performance

Chapter 3 discusses improving service performance

Appendix A contains responses received

Appendix B contains the audit approach

Appendix C contains a glossary

Appendix D contains extracts from national and international reports on monitoring and

reporting performance

Appendix E contains a summary of findings across the 71 service areas.

Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance


2 Accountability for performance

In brief

Background

Government departments publicly account for their financial and non-financial performance through

their Service Delivery Statements (SDS) in the annual budget papers and through the performance

information they include in their annual reports.

Relevant and reliable information, which fairly represents performance, strengthens accountability

and improves transparency. Information on the efficiency and the effectiveness of the services

delivered is of most use; this has been recognised through the shift towards output-based efficiency

measures and outcome-based effectiveness measures.

Conclusions

While we support and commend the intent to reform the SDS, it has yet to deliver fully on its

promise. The service standards reported by the majority of service areas fell well short of being

direct measures of efficiency or the effectiveness of the services delivered by departments.

With the present sharp focus and debate on the ways and means to achieve fiscal neutrality and to

reduce public debt, the widespread lack of service standards and targets for the efficiency of

services is of particular concern. Not knowing whether services being delivered are cost-efficient

hampers effective decision making and weakens accountability.

Key findings

Of 71 service areas reported in the 2013-14 SDS across 20 departments, 51 (72 per cent)

express their service objectives clearly and in a way that facilitates measurement.

Not all service areas meet the requirements to report efficiency and effectiveness:

- eight (11 per cent) report at least one standard of efficiency and one standard of effectiveness

- 23 (32 per cent) report only effectiveness - two (3 per cent) report only efficiency - 38 (54 per cent) report no standards of efficiency or effectiveness.

There is a mismatch between service objectives and standards—60 per cent of the service

areas report standards that are too low level (51 per cent), relevant to project/program

objectives; or at too high a level (9 per cent), relevant to whole-of-government objectives and

outcomes.

The barriers to good performance monitoring and reporting include a lack of incentives, poor

leadership, limited staff capabilities and data and systems limitations.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:

1. departments apply a service logic approach to define their service areas so that they

only group services where they contribute to common objectives and outcomes

2. Queensland Treasury and Trade and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet update

their mandatory guidance to require:

service standards that relate to whole-of-government objectives and outcomes to

be reported at the ministerial portfolio or departmental level, not at the service

standard level

where a service area comprises multiple services, that each material service has a

separate line item budget and at least one efficiency service standard and one

effectiveness service standard.



2.1 Background

Public performance reporting by departments is a practical way to make government open

and accountable. The annual budget papers and annual reports have long been the

foundation for such reporting.

In the annual budget papers tabled in June each year, Service Delivery Statements (SDS)

for each department provide the Parliament and the public with unaudited forecasts of the

expected financial and non-financial performance for the current financial year; and the

financial and non-financial targets for the next budget year.

The annual reports of departments, tabled after financial year-end, contain the actual results

and should explain why these varied from the targets set and forecasts made for that year.

Only the financial results in the annual report are audited.

In 2012, the annual review of the service standards, led by the Department of the Premier

and Cabinet (DPC) and Queensland Treasury and Trade (QTT) changed the focus of the

standards from what was done to what was achieved and how well.

Standards of input and/or activity, which did not demonstrate effectiveness or efficiency,

were viewed as not relevant standards of the agency’s services. The 2012 DPC review

identified 335 standards across the 20 departments that did not report on the efficiency or

effectiveness of the service areas. These were discontinued for the 2013–14 State Budget

and if appropriate reported elsewhere.

The aim was to replace these with direct outcome-based standards of efficiency and

effectiveness of services. In its conception, this is a positive step toward strengthening public

accountability, designed appropriately to shift the focus of public performance reporting away

from inputs and activities to achievement of outcomes.

We examined the departmental SDS in the 2013–14 budget papers to determine whether

the intent of these reforms had been realised.

2.2 Conclusions

While we support and commend the intent to reform the SDS, it has yet to deliver fully on its

promise. The service standards reported by the majority of service areas fall well short of

being direct measures of outcomes, either in the efficiency or the effectiveness of the

services delivered by departments.

With the present sharp focus and debate on the ways and means to achieve fiscal neutrality

and to reduce public debt, the widespread lack of service standards and targets for the

efficiency of services is of particular concern. Not knowing whether services being delivered

are cost-efficient hampers effective decision making and weakens accountability.

In the same way, the tendency for departments to report output-based measures of service

quality, as a proxy for service effectiveness, makes it harder to know whether intended or

desired effects are being achieved, and so, harder to evaluate the efficacy of policy.

This notwithstanding, the goal to improve public performance reporting remains realistic and

attainable. We identified service standards in other jurisdictions and from first principles that

speak directly to efficiency and effectiveness to provide guidance on what could be

measured but not what must be measured. We also identified some weaknesses with the

current framework in the way service areas are grouped that work against transparent

reporting. Remedying these will help departments to develop more robust service standards

and targets.



2.3 Analysis of SDS service standards

2.3.1 Background

Section 12 of the Financial and Performance Management Standard 2009 (FPMS) describes

the need for an accountable officer to know whether the department's objectives are being

achieved 'efficiently, effectively and economically' and whether the services stated in its

operational plan are delivered to the standard stated in the plan'.

Service standards are set with the aim of defining a level of performance that is appropriate

and expected to be achieved for a service area or service. Establishing service standards

enables government and the public to make an assessment of whether or not departments

are delivering services to acceptable levels of efficiency and effectiveness.

The performance information of each department published in the SDS includes a selection

of service standards for each service area.

2.3.2 Summary analysis

All departments were required to include at least one service standard to demonstrate their

service efficiency and at least one standard to demonstrate their service effectiveness in the

2013–14 budget papers.

Figure 2A shows that, of the 71 departmental service areas in the budget papers, eight

(11.3 per cent) fulfilled this requirement, accounting for 28.1 per cent of total departmental

budgets of $38.3 billion.

A further 23 service areas (32.4 per cent) had at least one effectiveness standard, but no

standards of efficiency; while two more had at least one efficiency standard, but had no

effectiveness standards.

Figure 2A 2013–14 Budget: service area reporting on efficiency and/or effectiveness

Service Delivery Standards Service areas Cost

Number Per cent $ billion Per cent

Effectiveness and efficiency 8 11.3 10.8 28.1

Efficiency only 2 2.8 7.1 18.5

Effectiveness only 23 32.4 14.2 37.0

Sub-total 33 46.5 32.1 83.6

No effectiveness or efficiency 38 53.5 6.3 16.4

Total 71 100.0 38.4 100.0

Note: in Appendix E we categorise each service standard in terms of whether it is a direct outcome standard of efficiency or effectiveness; a direct output standard of activity, cost, timeliness or quality of service; or an input or process standard.


2.3.3 Outcome standards for efficiency

Only ten service areas reported an outcome efficiency standard, meaning that 61 areas

(85.9 per cent), accounting for $20.5 billion (53.4 per cent) of departmental budgets,

provided no direct information on the efficiency of their services.

Efficiency is about making the most out of available resources (dollars, people and

infrastructure) to optimise the quality and quantity of services produced.



Streamlining systems and processes, using new technology, introducing innovative

management approaches and reducing waste are all ways of making more efficient use of

resources. DPC provides clear and comprehensive guidance to departments on how to

measure efficiency. Figure 2B outlines the definitions, descriptions and some examples of

efficiency from the Performance Management Framework (PMF).

Figure 2B Definitions and examples of service standards of efficiency

Definitions and examples

Standards of efficiency—How the agency’s resources are being used

Definition: Reflect how capabilities (resources) are used to produce outputs for the purpose of

achieving desired outcomes.

Description: Efficiency standards are generally shown as a ratio, e.g. cost per service transaction,

or some other form of comparison

Example 1:

Screening cost per

patient

Example 2:

Average cost of

service per student:

Primary (Prep—

Year 7)

Example 3:

Average cost of policy

advice

Example 4:

Average cost per

regulation activity

Source: Queensland Audit Office adapted from Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Better Practice Guideline for Developing Performance Information—useful information and examples

Departmental staff involved in developing service standards frequently contended that the

proportion of their operating budget used in delivering their services is a measure of their

efficiency. Budget underspend does not demonstrate efficiency, as overspend does not

demonstrate inefficiency. It is simply the direct measure of input cost; and at best it could be

a proxy indicator of activity, where cost and activity are correlated.

Similarly, completing projects and initiatives on budget, on time, or delivering activities when

planned, while purported in the SDS also to be efficiency standards, are simply activity

standards.

In this regard, DPC staff are not consistently applying the PMF definitions when advising

departments; for example, three accountable officers specifically commented that measuring

performance against plan, such as projects delivered on time and on budget, has been

agreed by DPC and Queensland Treasury and Trade (QTT) as an acceptable standard of

efficiency.

Case study 1

Good practices

Housing services in the Department of Housing and Public Works report a standard of efficiency in

the SDS that demonstrates how well the area is using its resources:

average tenancy and property management administration cost per households assisted.

Other good efficiency standards that departments report publicly in their SDS include:

cost of supervision per day (Department of Justice and Attorney-General)

average cost per transaction to deliver biosecurity registration, certification and licensing

services (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry)

gross cost per ambulance incident (Former Department of Community Safety).




2.3.4 Outcome standards for effectiveness

There were 31 service areas that reported an effectiveness standard, meaning 40 service

areas (56.3 per cent), accounting for $13.4 billion (34.9 per cent) of departmental budgets,

provided no direct information on the effectiveness of services.

Outcome effectiveness is about measuring the quantifiable effect of the service in the

community. The level and quality of the service provided are variables that can change the

effect of the service in the community.

Figure 2C outlines the PMF definitions, descriptions and some examples of effectiveness

standards.

Figure 2C Definitions and examples of service standards of effectiveness

Definitions and examples

Standards of effectiveness: How well the agency’s service delivery is creating the desired results

Definition: Reflect how well the actual outputs of a service achieve the agency’s stated purpose

(objective) of the service.

Description: Standards of effectiveness describe the quantifiable extent of the effect of the service

on recipients (i.e. the outcome experienced by them), as a result of the level and quality of the

service or product provided.

Example1:

Number of stage 1

XYZ cancers detected

through screening

service as a proportion

of total patients

diagnosed with XYZ

cancer

Example 2:

Years 3, 5, 7 and 9

test—Proportion of

students at or above

the national minimum

standard: reading,

writing and numeracy

Example 3:

Proportion of Cabinet

submissions that meet

or exceed agreed

quality criteria

Example 4:

Percentage of

decisions upheld on

appeal

Source: Queensland Audit Office adapted from Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Better Practice Guideline for Developing Performance Information – useful information and examples

In place of outcome efficiency or effectiveness standards, there was a propensity by

departments in their SDS to use output-based standards of the quality and timeliness of their

services as proxies for service effectiveness.

Of the 301 standards in the 2013–14 SDS, 161 (53 per cent) are standards that relate to

outputs, rather than outcomes. Figure 2D summarises the numbers of output-based metrics

by type.

Cost is the least used, and quality the most used, output-based standard.

The lack of cost-based standards is consistent with comments from the workshops we ran,

at which the absence of costing systems to generate data on the unit costs of services was

identified as a major barrier to departments being able to measure directly their service

efficiency.



Figure 2D Numbers of output standards in the SDS by type, 2013–14


Measures of service quality are, at best, indirect indicators of effectiveness. The quality of a

service can be quite high but still not be effective; for example, clients of a weight loss clinic

may be very satisfied with the service but not have lost any weight.

There also is a strong preference to measure service quality by determining the level of

'client satisfaction'—even where the client is another government agency. Just over half

(53 per cent) of the output-based quality metrics are standards of client satisfaction.

But client satisfaction is not an end in itself. It is, therefore, a weak measure of service quality

and so an even weaker proxy for outcome effectiveness. If used, it needs to be combined

with other quality standards to understand if service objectives are being met.

2.4 Application of the framework in the SDS

The results of this analysis indicate that departments are experiencing problems in the

interpretation and application of the performance management framework to the SDS.

The following common issues were evident from our review of the SDS:

setting objectives—lack of clarity in expression of service and service area objectives

defining service areas—organisational structures, rather than a 'service logic', being

used to establish service areas, leading to combinations of unrelated services

mismatching objectives and standards—service standards set too low for project-level

outcomes; or too high for whole of government outcomes, blurring accountability

selective reporting of service standards—a minimum compliance approach taken where

'at least one' is interpreted as 'only one'; and the one used relates to immaterial services

poor formulation of service standards—confusion between standards and targets and

the ways these are represented, which obscures expected and actual performance and

reduces transparency.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Activity Cost Time Quality

Client satisfaction



2.4.1 Setting service objectives

A clearly stated service objective:

is easy to understand and to measure

expresses what the agency wants to achieve from that service

focuses on the end result, not on the means of achieving the result

is consistent with the government's broad objectives for the community.

Figure 2E provides an example of a service objective clearly articulating the outcome for the

community.

Figure 2E Example of a clear service area objective

Service area Objectives

Police services The objectives of the Queensland Police Service are to:

stop crime

make the community safer (including stopping road trauma)

build relationships across the community.

Source: 2013–14 SDS Queensland Police Service

Of the 71 service areas in the 2013–14 SDS, 51 have clear and measureable objectives.

Due to machinery of government changes, the objectives of the four service areas for the

former Department of Community Safety were not assessed.

Unclear, poorly expressed service objectives reduce accountability for the resources

invested in the service, because stakeholders cannot readily determine what the intended

outcomes are and so, whether they are achieved.

When service areas do not have clear, outcome-focused objectives, they tended to describe

what they do, such as:

work with partners and industry

develop and implement a strategy

provide policy advice

lead programs and initiatives.

Figure 2F provides two examples of services areas that describe the service or how they

intend to deliver the service, rather than the results they want to achieve for their clients,

stakeholders or the community.



Figure 2F Examples of service areas with unclear objectives

Service area Objective Audit observations How it could be improved

Revenue

management

The revenue management

service area administers a

revenue base of around

$13 billion by delivering and

administering simple,

efficient and equitable

revenue management

services for state taxes and

royalty revenue. Additional

responsibilities include

undertaking revenue

compliance, grant schemes

and debt recovery activities

for the state.

This describes the role

of the service, not its

objective. It is internally

focused rather than

stating what the service

will deliver and how it

will contribute to the

government's priorities.

Maximise revenue

collected, reduce the cost

to collect debt and improve

client satisfaction.

Disability

services

Disability Services leads

disability policy and

manages program

investment across the

government and

non-government sectors to

support people with

disability, their families and

carers and provides and

funds services for children,

young people and adults with

disability and their families

and carers.

This an internally

focused description of

how the service

undertakes its

responsibilities. It does

not state the outcomes

to be achieved for the

community.

Measuring this objective

would involve assessing

how successful the

department was in

leading program

investment, rather than

the end result for its

clients.

Enhance the quality of life

experienced by people

with disability by assisting

them to live as valued and

participating members of

the community.


Expressing objectives that are centred on actions steers departments to monitor their

progress through activity standards or quantity metrics, instead of standards of efficiency and

effectiveness.

2.4.2 Defining service areas

Service areas are the lowest level 'units of accountability' used in the SDS, against which

budgeted revenues and costs and service standard targets are set.

To maximise their usefulness requires the application of a 'service-logic' approach. Such

approaches relate and align objectives, inputs, processes and outputs to outcomes. They

produce service areas comprising either a single service, where there is one-to-one

correspondence between output and outcome; or groupings of interrelated services which

work together to produce common outcomes against a common objective.

This allows users of the SDS and annual reports to make better sense of how individual

services work either singly or collectively to deliver on the government's priorities.



Such a service logic approach was not used consistently to define service areas in the

2013-14 SDS—for example:

transport safety, regulation and customer service (Department of Transport and Main

Roads (DTMR)): the two functions in the service area are not closely aligned to any one

outcome as evidenced by the need to express two objectives, being 'improved customer

service' and 'managing and regulating the transport system safely, economically and

sustainably'

economic (QTT) functions include the Government Statistician, government owned

corporations sector, best practice regulation and reducing red tape, microeconomic and

competition reform, intergovernmental fiscal relations issues, including national financial

agreements, matters pertaining to the distribution of the goods and services tax (GST),

and national tax reform and Queensland’s compulsory third party insurance scheme

and the Motor Accident Insurance and Nominal Defendant funds.

2.4.3 Matching service standards to objectives

To be useful, service standards must be relevant; that is, they need to relate closely to the

service objective if they are to demonstrate that the objective is being achieved or the

desired impacts are being effected.

Not all the service standards in the 2013–14 SDS were relevant to the stated objective. This

mismatch operates to blur accountability for performance, because it ostensibly attributes

responsibility for outcomes to the wrong organisational level.

Some service areas used standards that were more relevant to higher-level,

whole-of-government objectives and outcomes; many of which are outside the direct control

of a department or which could not be significantly and directly influenced by the services

under that service area. Across the 20 departments, 28 (nine per cent) of the service

standards were whole-of-government outcomes.

One example is the Department of Health which includes service standards on

Queenslanders’ healthy eating habits, engagement in physical activity, alcohol consumption,

rates of smoking, sun protection behaviours and screening rates. Changes in these statistics

rely on actions across a number of government departments, as well as the positive actions

of individuals. While the standards indicate the contribution of public health campaigns, they

would be better placed at a whole-of-government plan level so the coordinated actions and

outputs can be assessed.

Some service areas used standards that related to lower level program or project objectives;

standards that did not assess the performance of the whole service area. Across the

20 departments, there were 120 service standards that reported on the overall performance

of the service area, but there were 154 (51 per cent) that related to lower level program or

project objectives. Examples are:

National parks: percentage of the protection and wildfire mitigation zones prescribed

burning target achieved on Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service-managed estate to

protect life and property

Revenue management: State Penalties Enforcement Register (SPER) clearance rate

(finalisations/lodgements)

Prevention, promotion and protection: number of rapid tests for human

immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) performed.

2.4.4 Fairly representing performance

The PMF requires that departments include a selection of service standards for each service

area to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery.



As part of its 2012 review of service standards in the SDS, DPC advised departments to

review the service standards for the 2013–14 SDS so:

there is at least one service standard that measures the effectiveness of the service

area

there is at least one service standard that measures the efficiency of the service area.

For the performance of a service area to be fairly represented by the standards selected

requires consideration of which services contribute most to the objective and which consume

the most funds. This may mean that more than one efficiency and more than one

effectiveness standard is needed; particularly where a service area comprises multiple

services or functions.

The minimum requirement of 'at least one' was translated in practice into a 'maximum'

requirement for the efficiency standards in the 2013–14 SDS. Of the 10 service areas that

had an efficiency standard in the SDS, nine had only one. By contrast, of the 31 service

areas that had an effectiveness standard, 13 had only one.

When the service areas are constructed along organisational structures or using other

non-service logic approaches, a single service standard for efficiency or for effectiveness

does not help users assess performance. To demonstrate:

transport safety, regulation and customer service (DTMR): measuring how long a

customer waits in line does not demonstrate improved safety on roads or ports

economic (QTT): measuring satisfaction of the Government Statistician provides no

accountability for the other important functions undertaken by the Economic Division.

There were 33 service areas (46 per cent) that did not report on the material services within

service areas or on significant aspects of their objectives. Case study 2 demonstrates the

selective reporting of an immaterial service, while ignoring services that consume relatively

more material expenditures.



Case study 2

Science Delivery: Budget 2013–14 $60.7 million

Objective

Science Delivery provides a scientific evidence base to underpin legislative responsibilities across

several Queensland Government departments. This scientific evidence base contributes to

Queensland Government policy and planning related to legislation, ensuring that government

decision making is founded on sound, practical science. The work of Science Delivery supports

planning and management processes in other government departments across the environment and

natural resources spectrum.

DSITIA’s ambient air quality monitoring network comprises 27 monitoring sites throughout

Queensland, including South-East Queensland, Gladstone, Mackay, Townsville, and Mount Isa.

Program objectives are to evaluate compliance with National and State standards and goals, identify

long-term trends in air quality, support the statutory role of the Department of Environment and

Heritage Protection (DEHP) in investigating air quality complaints and managing emissions for

licenced facilities, and to provide the community with information on air quality.

Services

informed purchaser and/or independent broker of scientific services for and in partnership with

client agencies

scientific and technical services and advice in the priority areas of water (freshwater and

marine), land and vegetation, climate variability, air quality and biodiversity.

Service standards

average time taken to upload air quality monitoring data to the Department of Environment and

Heritage Protection website

percentage of clients satisfied with the natural resource and environmental science, information

and services provided.

QAO analysis

1. Air quality monitoring is only one output of the service area costing $1.5 million

annually (2.5 per cent of the $60.7 million budget). There is no reporting on the other outputs;

scientific and technical services and advice on water, land and vegetation, climate or

biodiversity.

2. Client satisfaction on the quality of services as perceived by the recipient of the advice is an

indirect and highly subjective measure. It does not measure the quality of the scientific and

technical services against objective standards but client perceptions.


2.4.5 Service standards and targets

Service standards use the data from organisational metrics on activities, quality, cost and

time. The standards are typically calculated and reported as numbers, dollars, percentages

or hours. The way they are defined and reported can either demonstrate performance or

obscure performance.

Service performance can be obscured by constructing the standard as the percentage of

improvement in timeliness. This confuses the standard with the target.

The Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning reports the percentage

of projects being managed, delivered or facilitated which meet committed time frames and

approved budgets. This standard is a process measure that relates directly to how the

department delivers these services, rather than to the outcomes of the services themselves.

By reporting the percentage, the department obscures actual performance, as the standard

provides no useful data on the actual length of any delays or on the amount of any cost

overruns or revenue shortfalls.



Another example are the DTMR reports on the percentage of projects in the State Planning

Program:

commencing no later than four months after the programmed commencement date

completed no more than 10 per cent after the programmed period

costing less than 10 per cent over the programmed estimate.

Again this provides no useful data on the actual length of any delays or on the amount of any

cost overruns or lost revenues.

2.5 Recommendations It is recommended that:

1. departments apply a service logic approach to define their service areas so that

they only group services where they contribute to common objectives and

outcomes

2. Queensland Treasury and Trade and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet update their mandatory guidance to require:

service standards that relate to whole-of-government objectives and

outcomes to be reported at the ministerial portfolio or departmental level, not

at the service standard level

where a service area comprises multiple services, that each material service

has a separate line item budget and at least one efficiency service standard

and one effectiveness service standard.

Monitoring and reporting performance Improving service performance


3 Improving service performance

In brief

Background

The Queensland Performance Management Framework (PMF) aims to allow clear line of sight

between planning; measuring and monitoring results; and public reporting so performance

information is accountable, relevant and valuable to the Queensland community.

The Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC) administer the PMF. Accountable officers are

responsible for implementing the PMF in their respective departments.

Conclusions

Departments have not implemented the PMF well. A lack of leadership and internal capability in

applying the PMF is frustrating improvements in accountability and transparency. Service areas

outside the human services arena have made little progress reporting efficiency and effectiveness

as there are few incentives or pressures to do so.

Shortfalls in public reporting of efficiency and effectiveness reflect deficiencies in internal monitoring

of government services. As a result, opportunities to improve the performance of government

services are being missed. Departments are not able to optimise available resources to meet the

government’s broad objectives for the community.

Key findings

The minimum requirements for external documents are specific and guidance is detailed.

DPC's advice to departments is occasionally at odds with the PMF.

The 2012 review of the Service Delivery Statements concentrated on reporting standards of

efficiency and effectiveness by discontinuing 335 service standards reporting on inputs,

activities or processes.

Service areas delivering human services and operating within a Report on Government

Services performance framework have more mature performance measurement systems and

are more likely to report efficiency standards.

Barriers to good performance monitoring and reporting include a lack of incentives, poor

leadership, limited staff capabilities and data and systems limitations.

Recommendation

3. It is recommended that departments be required to publish an audited performance

statement in their annual reports to complement their audited financial statements.



3.1 Background

The objective of the PMF is to improve the analysis and application of performance

information to support accountability, inform policy development and implementation and

create value for clients, stakeholders and the Queensland community.

Accountable officers implement the PMF through systems, practices and controls for their

departments. When departments monitor and report on both their service efficiency and

effectiveness, it improves their accountability and their decision making.

They can identify areas for improvement and develop the best and most appropriate

solutions. To do this, departments need to have non-financial measures of how well they are

performing, complementing their traditional financial measures of how much they are

spending.

3.2 Conclusions

That the PMF is not well implemented in many departments can be attributed variously to a

lack of leadership, knowledge, skills and systems required to support a strong performance

management culture. By not realising the full benefits of the PMF, departments are missing

opportunities to analyse systematically and improve their delivery of government services.

Public confidence in reports on the delivery of government services is reduced by the lack of

a corroborated performance statement in annual reports. Trust in performance reports could

be improved if the reports were independently audited to demonstrate they included relevant

and appropriate information that fairly represented performance.

3.3 Application of the framework in departments

To achieve its objective, the PMF needs to be implemented as part of a sustained and

deliberate effort to improve performance.

At the department level, it means officers need to have the skills and capacity to develop

efficiency and effectiveness standards that provide a relevant, balanced view of

performance, underpinned by a reliable and robust performance measurement system.

3.3.1 Guidance, training and culture

Currently, departmental officers can access guidance materials on planning, monitoring and

reporting from the DPC website, but training on the principles of the PMF and their

implementation is not offered routinely.

Responding to this lack of training, as part of this audit, we ran two workshops for

departmental staff who develop strategic plans, SDS and annual reports. In addition to

providing these staff with practical guidance on how to develop efficiency and effectiveness

standards, we also used these workshops to canvass with them whether they encountered

or perceived any systemic barriers to developing robust performance measurement systems.

In relation to leadership and the 'tone at the top'—promoting and fostering a strong

performance management culture—systemic matters were commonly raised by workshop

participants:

Performance measurement is undervalued and not supported. Some departmental staff

perceive their executive and senior management lack necessary understanding of the

principles and concepts involved in measuring, monitoring and reporting on service

performance.

Departments adopt a ‘compliance mentality’ to performance reporting—something

which has to be done, rather than something which provides valuable insights into

service performance gaps and which could be used to drive improvements.



There is resistance to adopting a more outcome-focused framework. Departments do

not want to publicise poor or under-performance.

There are perceptions that the cost of performance measurement, including investing in

information systems and skilled staff, is too high. Little or no budget is set aside for

making improvements to performance measurement systems.

In relation to performance measurement systems and processes:

There is a tendency by departments to measure what they can, rather than what they

should. Their information systems are not being tailored to capture, collate and report

information on the achievement of outcomes. 'Legacy' performance measurement

systems have traditionally been activity-focused and, accordingly, staff have difficulty

accessing accurate, reliable and up to date data for performance analysis and reporting.

In relation to staff capability—their skills and knowledge—matters were consistently identified

as requiring a systemic response:

Staff lack education and understanding of performance measurement. They are not

familiar with terminology and definitions, especially about objectives, outputs and

outcomes. They have difficulty defining relevant and meaningful objectives, service

outputs, intended outcomes and standards of efficiency and effectiveness

Staff are not skilled in developing meaningful and measurable performance indicators.

They find it challenging to establish relevant benchmarks and standards that report

performance attributable to the department.

These comments echo barriers to good performance reporting identified in other

jurisdictions.

Case study 3

Barriers to good performance reporting

Obstacles:

basic principles of good reporting are not understood or applied

performance reporting takes place in a political environment

there are few incentives for good reporting and few sanctions for poor reporting.

As there is little incentive to prepare quality reports, those preparing performance reports often:

report what can be reported rather than what should be reported

are reluctant to report information that may reflect poorly on the entity

do not adequately report information to allow users to assess how outputs affect intended

outcomes.

Source: Queensland Audit Office adapted from Report of the Auditor-General of Canada, April 2002; and The Auditor-General's observations on the quality of performance reporting, Office of the Auditor of New Zealand, June 2008.

Accountable officers have commented that monitoring and reporting performance can be a

complex and costly task which must be balanced with drawing resources away from frontline

service delivery.

While the costs and benefits of developing new standards and the effort to compile the data

must be judged, measuring and monitoring the ongoing performance of the business is a

core governance responsibility.

Only when accountable officers receive regular, reliable and relevant performance data, are

they best placed to assess how well their organisations are using public resources and to

identify improvement and savings opportunities. They are also better able to determine the

cost and effectiveness of their services to evaluate their contestability.



3.3.2 Internal reporting of efficiency standards

Departments often consider that measuring the time it takes to deliver a service, such as

licence applications, is about being efficient. Processing cycle times typically correlate

weakly to resource consumption and, at best, are a weak proxy for efficiency. This is

because cycle time does not directly measure the resources used to deliver the service or

the cost of those resources.

The length of time a customer or client waits is a better measure of service quality and could

be used as an effectiveness standard.

Where efficiency standards are reported publicly, they are not being further disaggregated or

reported more frequently within the departments as part of monitoring service area

performance.

Only three of the 61 service areas that do not publicly report on their efficiency reported

information internally to management. The remaining 58 service areas did not provide

information to management about their efficiency in delivering services.

Case study 4 is an example of good practice for a service area that has a range of internal

performance standards to assess and manage the efficiency. These internal standards are

summarised and reported publicly to demonstrate performance.

Case study 4

Monitoring and reporting efficiency: Custodial services

Overview

The area of custodial services includes government and privately operated facilities and a range of

service providers to support the rehabilitation of offenders within and outside custodial services

facilities. Custodial services provide community safety and crime prevention through the humane

containment, supervision and rehabilitation of offenders in correctional centres throughout

Queensland.

Internal standards

The following standards are reported internally either quarterly or monthly to executive

management, by facility:

cost of containment per prisoner per day

average daily state vs. built bed capacity: high security facilities

high security facilities built capacity use

built capacity use—male and female custodial centres and farms.

These internally reported standards allow senior management to maintain accountability for the

efficient use of resources and to take action to remediate any variations in performance on a site by

site basis. This reduces the risk of significant variance against the budget. These standards then

form the basis of their public performance reporting.

Public reporting

Standards reported externally for transparency purposes allow users of the public information to

form a view on whether the service area is efficient:

cost of containment per prisoner per day

facility utilisation (percentage).


3.3.3 Internal reporting of effectiveness standards

Of the 40 service areas with no service standards of effectiveness in the SDS, service

effectiveness was being monitored in three cases through internal reports to senior executive

management and in departmental annual reports. For the other 37 service areas with no

standards in the SDS, there is no other internal monitoring or reporting on effectiveness to

senior management.



Case study 5 highlights one service in the emergency management, fire and rescue service

area that does have a range of internal performance standards to measure and manage the

effectiveness of the services. These internal standards are also summarised and reported

publicly to demonstrate performance.

Case study 5

Monitoring and reporting effectiveness: Fire and emergency services

Service area objective: Emergency management, fire and rescue services contribute to safer and

sustainable communities through emergency management, community assistance, responses to

structure and landscape fires, and rescue across all hazards. This area includes the

State Emergency Service, enhancing community resilience and mitigating risk through community

safety programs.

Internal standards

These effectiveness standards are reported quarterly/monthly to executive management in the area

of fire safety services:

estimated percentage of households with a smoke alarm/detector that is operational/has been

tested

percentage of households with non-mandatory fire safety measures

percentage of building premises inspected and deemed compliant at first inspection

hazardous condition incidents attended by urban personnel/rural brigades

number of hazardous material incidents

number of accidental residential structural fires

number of incomplete rural vegetation fire reports

response times to structure fires including call taking time (50th percentile / 90th percentile)

percentage of building approvals processed within agreed time frame

total number of mobile property crashes.

The internal effectiveness standards allow senior management to monitor the service at the state

and regional level and take action to remediate any variations in performance on a site by site basis.

This reduces the risk of service failures.

Public reporting

These effectiveness standards are reported externally for accountability purposes. They allow the

department to demonstrate that the service area is effective and delivering value:

estimated percentage of households that have undertaken new natural disaster preparedness

actions within the last 12 months

percentage of identified disaster management training capability delivered

percentage of local governments with a current disaster management plan reviewed for

effectiveness

estimated percentage of households with a smoke alarm/detector that is operational/has been

tested

response times to structure fires, including call taking time (50th percentile / 90th percentile)

percentage of building and other structure fires confined to room/object of origin

percentage of building premises inspected and deemed compliant at first inspection.


3.4 External imperatives

The PMF incorporates the better practice principles from the national Report on Government

Services (ROGS) framework. ROGS is a key tool to measure and report on the productive

efficiency and cost effectiveness of government services.

The strength of aligning these two frameworks is that Queensland service areas reporting for

ROGS can use the same standards for PMF reporting. This removes duplication and

provides national benchmarks that departments can use to compare their performance—

important where the agency may be the only one delivering government services in that

state or territory.



Education, health, justice, emergency management, community services and housing and

homelessness sectors report on their performance in ROGS. Across these sectors,

16 service areas contribute to ROGS and have national performance frameworks that

include a balance of equity, efficiency and effectiveness indicators.

Service areas that are required to comply with national reporting requirements are more

likely to report a balance of efficiency and effectiveness standards. Figure 3A shows that

47 (78 per cent) of the 61 service areas not reporting on efficiency also do not have a ROGS

performance framework.

Figure 3A Service areas not reporting efficiency or effectiveness


Human service areas have been able to work with other jurisdictions to develop common

performance frameworks with a set of balanced performance indicators.

Government services such as infrastructure project delivery, policy development and

regulators have not had the same external drivers or support to develop performance

frameworks. These areas have not successfully initiated or led inter-jurisdictional

partnerships themselves to develop national performance frameworks for the non-human

service areas.

Figure 3B shows three examples of jurisdictions where government departments include

audited performance statements in annual reports.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

No efficiency No effectiveness

ROGS Non-ROGS



Figure 3B Jurisdictions with audited non-financial performance statements

Performance statements in annual reports

In Western Australia, annual reports include certified performance indicators. By signing the

certification, the accountable officer provides assurance that the performance indicators are based

on proper records, are relevant and appropriate for assisting users to assess the agency's

performance and fairly represent the performance of the agency for the financial year.

The Auditor-General for Western Australia is required to audit the performance indicators disclosed

in the annual report and express an opinion on their relevance and appropriateness, and whether

they fairly represent performance for the period under review.

Similar requirements exists in New Zealand where the accountable officer signs a statement of

responsibility in the annual report that, in the officer's opinion, the agency's statement of service

performance fairly reflects its operations for the financial year. The Auditor-General of New Zealand

audits the performance information contained in the annual reports and expresses an opinion.

In Canada (British Columbia), the Auditor-General provides an assurance for organisations on

request: a user driven process. An opinion is given that performance was fairly presented in

accordance with the reporting requirements. There is corroboration provided to the public that the

reports contain reliable information on the organisation's actual performance in relation to its

planned performance and the information was relevant, as required by the reporting principles.


Some aspects of performance can be gauged or measured with greater certainty than

others. Management can build the confidence of users in the reliability of the performance

reports by providing greater levels of assurance. Figure 3C shows the different steps

management can take to improve trust in reporting.

At stage one, users assess the reports themselves, based on the content. This provides

users with little confidence in the reliability of the performance reports. At stage two, the

report might include a brief statement acknowledging management’s responsibility for the

preparation of the report and confirming that it reflects all circumstances and decisions that

might affect it.

Stage three builds further confidence of users by:

briefly describing the steps management has taken to develop confidence in the

reliability of reported information

identifying any significant caveats or limitations in the supporting information (such as

limitations of proxy indicators being used until better measures become available) that

might reasonably influence the judgments of readers

describing strategies to remedy limitations (where appropriate to do so)

affirming that the interpretations embedded in reporting reflect the best judgments of the

reporting unit’s leaders.

The highest level of assurance is to engage outside support at stage four. A formal

corroboration from a third party of the information and judgements in the report is the

hallmark and top level of credibility of a performance report.



Figure 3C Basis for confidence in reports

Source: CCAF-FCV, Reporting Principles: Taking Public Performance Reporting to a New Level, 2002

The PMF currently requires an assurance that all information in departmental annual reports

complies with the relevant legislative requirements and associated policy and/or guidelines.

A letter of compliance addressed to the relevant Minister for the agency must be included in

the annual report and the letter of compliance must be signed by the accountable officer.

This affirms that management are confirming that all aspects of the reporting requirements

have been acquitted (stage two). The level of assurance over financial performance is stage

four — corroborated, independent audit assurance.

3.5 Recommendation 3. It is recommended that departments be required to publish an audited

performance statement in their annual reports to complement their audited

financial statements.

Stage 4:

Corroborated

Third party examines

report, and adds

assurance (or

delivers cautions).

Stage 3:

Described

Management

describes basis for

judgements, steps to

validate information,

data limitationsStage 2:

Affirmed

Management affirms

responsibility for

reportingStage 1:

Inferred

User assesses

confidence from

report content



Appendices Appendix A— Comments ........................................................................................................ 36

Appendix B— Audit approach................................................................................................. 43

Audit objective ................................................................................................................. 43 Reason for the audit ........................................................................................................ 43 Performance audit approach ........................................................................................... 44

Appendix C— Glossary ........................................................................................................... 46

Appendix D— Previous reports on monitoring and reporting performance ....................... 48

Appendix E— Summary of SDS analysis ............................................................................... 52

Service Delivery Statements: 2013–14 ........................................................................... 52

Monitoring and reporting performance Comments


Appendix A—Comments

In accordance with section 64 of the Auditor-General Act 2009, a copy of this report was

provided with a request for comment to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and

Queensland Treasury and Trade, as central agencies. The following departments were also

provided a copy of the report with advice that a fair summary of other responses received

within the 21 days, would be included in the report:

Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services

Department of Education, Training and Employment

Department of Fire and Emergency Services

Department of Energy and Water Supply

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

Department of Housing and Public Works

Department of Justice and Attorney-General

Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience

Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing

Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

Department of Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games

Department of Transport and Main Roads

Public Safety Business Agency

Queensland Health

Queensland Police Service.

Responsibility for the accuracy, fairness and balance of the comments rests with the head of

these agencies.



Comments received from Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet









Comments received from Director-General, Department of Transport and Main Roads



Comments received from Director-General, Department of Education, Training and Employment

Monitoring and reporting performance Audit approach


Appendix B—Audit approach

Audit objective The objective of the audit is to assess whether public sector entities effectively measure,

monitor and report performance.

Reason for the audit The public sector should be accountable and sufficiently transparent to encourage public

confidence in the way government does business.

Effective performance reporting provides public sector agencies the opportunity to

demonstrate that government services are:

delivering value-for-money

achieving the government’s objectives

providing access equitably for all Queenslanders.

As per the Financial and Performance Management Standard 2009, public sector agencies

demonstrate accountability and transparency through a range of external and internal

planning, monitoring and reporting processes and documents.

Externally, each agency sets its long-term strategic directions in the strategic plan and

service standards and targets in the service delivery statements. Performance results are

published in Service Delivery Statements (SDS) and annual reports. Internally, regular

(quarterly or monthly) monitoring of services against strategic plans and operational plans

allows accountable officers to determine whether the department is:

achieving its objectives efficiently, effectively and economically

delivering its services to the standards stated in the SDS and operational plans.

By monitoring performance, the extent to which those services are creating value can be

determined.

As the lead agency in the Queensland Public Service, the Department of the Premier and

Cabinet (DPC) works closely with all other agencies to drive the government's key strategies

and plans from conception through to implementation. A Guide to the Queensland

Government Performance Management Framework aims to support improved performance

management, evaluation, monitoring results and public reporting in the Queensland public

sector. It also aims to assist government agencies to develop greater understanding of the

Performance Management Framework (PMF).

Public sector agencies use taxpayers’ money to deliver services, therefore it is important that

they are held accountable for performance, as required under public sector ethics

Principle 4: Accountability and transparency. The PMF, through the Financial Accountability

Act 2009 and subordinate legislation, addresses this by requiring agencies to publicly report

results – through the SDS and annual reports.

The SDS and annual reports provide information to the public on the state budget totalling

$38 billion in 2013–14. The statements are a key accountability document for assessing the

value of government services.

As part of the continuous improvement of the PMF, each year, DPC and Queensland

Treasury and Trade (QTT) (the central agencies) work with public sector agencies to review

service areas, service standards and targets that are published in the SDS. Central agencies

jointly seek the government’s approval through the Cabinet Budget Review Committee for

these changes on behalf of all agencies preceding the budget process each year.



Performance audit approach The audit was conducted in accordance with the Auditor-General of Queensland Auditing

Standards, which incorporate the requirements of standards issued by the Australian

Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.

Feedback

Feedback was provided to the 20 core departments throughout the audit on the assessment

of the service standards and performance measures. This enabled some feedback to be

considered in the development of the 2014–15 service standards. Departments have

advised us that some of the feedback is still being considered as:

the data is being tested and checked for reliability

the objectives for some service areas have been revised

some departments have reconfigured their service areas

additional and new data sources are still being investigated.

Workshops

We conducted two workshops on monitoring and reporting performance; 5 December 2013

and 14 February 2014. A total of 77 participants attended the workshops from across the

public sector, including agencies that were not within the scope of the audit. The workshops

covered the following topics:

accountability and transparency in the public sector

the value of clear and measureable objectives

how to measure:

- efficiency

- effectiveness

- equity

barriers to developing performance measurement systems (group discussion).

Figure B1 shows the results of the participant feedback on the workshops. Participants

provided positive feedback on the usefulness of the workshops, the overall average

satisfaction with the workshops was 4.4 out of five. Both workshops were oversubscribed.



Figure B1—Average satisfaction workshop participants - workshop one and two


1 2 3 4 5

The content was organised and easy to follow.

The materials distributed were relevant and useful.

The presenters were knowledgeable.

Participation and interaction were encouraged.

Adequate time was provided for questions anddiscussion.

How do you rate the workshop overall?

1 is the lowest rating and 5 the highest

Monitoring and reporting performance Glossary


Appendix C—Glossary

Figure C1—Glossary

Term Definition Examples

Activity

measures

Measure the quantum of service instances,

service recipients, or other activities for the

service. They demonstrate the volume of work

being undertaken. Quantity measures under

the former Managing for Outcomes framework

would generally be measures of activity.

Activity measures can often be converted into

efficiency measures by combining them with

input measures to show the unit cost of the

activity.

Number of services provided.

Number of patients screened.

Cost

measures

Cost of outputs/services produced (direct

and/or fully absorbed).

Ideally, the outputs are uniform and the cost

per unit of output provides an obvious

benchmark for measuring performance both

over time and between like service providers.

However, such uniformity is not always

possible.

Average cost of school per student.

Average cost of processing

application.

Effectiveness Service effectiveness: Reflects the extent to

which the objectives of the service/program

are being achieved.

Reduced mortality rates for serious

and life-threatening illnesses.

Efficiency Technical: Reflects how capabilities

(resources) are used to produce outputs for

the purpose of achieving desired outcomes.

Cost per unit of service or output.

Cost per annual curriculum hour for

vocational education and training.

Staff levels per student in

government schools.

Administrative costs as a proportion

of total expenditure in services for

people with disability.

Equity Measures how well a service is meeting the

needs of particular groups that have special

needs or difficulties in accessing government

services.

Outputs and outcomes measures

disaggregated by sex, disability

status, ethnicity, income and so on.

Input

measures

Measure the resources consumed in delivering

a service, either as an absolute figure or as a

percentage of total resources. Input measures

demonstrate what it costs to deliver a service.

Input measures can often be converted to

efficiency measures by combining them with

activity measures to show the unit cost of the

activity.

Number of inputs, resources, FTEs

used to deliver a service.

Total cost of screening services.

Total cost of processing licence

applications.

Location

measures

Relate to where the service is delivered. This

is usually as a measure of access and equity

for clients in rural remote or targeted locations.

Percentage of clients in rural areas.

Monitoring and reporting performance Glossary


Term Definition Examples

Outcome An outcome is the impact of a service on the

status of an individual or a group.

Improved health outcomes for

patients.

Output An output is the service delivered. Vaccination clinics.

Cost effectiveness: Cost to provide the desired

outcome.

Cost as ratio of savings from

reduced rates of obesity, cost as a

ratio to savings from reduced road

trauma, cost of education per

graduate.

Process

measures

Measure throughput, or the means by which

the agency delivers the service, rather than the

service itself. They demonstrate how the

agency delivers services, rather than how

effectively services are delivered. They are

generally measures of busyness.

Process measures are sometimes used as

proxies for effectiveness measures if it is

impractical or uneconomical to measure the

effectiveness of the service or its outcome.

Average time for screening service.

Compliance with medical protocols.

Quantity

measures

Relate to the number of units of output and are

usually described in terms of ‘how many’.

Quantity is a volume measurement and, as

such, shows the number or amount of services

or goods provided.

Number of vaccinations provided.

Number of dwellings inspected.

Quality

measures

Measures of whether service is fit for purpose

e.g. extent to which outputs conform to

specifications, literacy and numeracy rates

Quality in itself is one dimension of

effectiveness, but does not necessarily fully

represent how effective a service is (e.g. a

service could be high quality, but still not

effective, and vice versa – a low quality service

could be highly effective).

The quality of a service can be measured in

various ways – timeliness, accuracy,

completeness, accessibility and equity of

access, continuity of supply, and/or customer

satisfaction.

Average waiting time (accessibility).

Percentage population screened

(market penetration).

Percentage of premises inspected

and deemed complete and

compliant.

Timeliness

measures

Relate to the time taken to produce an output

and provide an indication of the processing or

service speed and efficiency. Measures of

timeliness provide parameters for ‘how often’

or ‘within what time frame’ outputs are to be

produced. 'Projects are completed on time' is

an activity as there is no external client.

Licences are supplied to clients

within two working days. (For

external clients).

Whole-of-

government

level

measures

Apply across multiple services and

departments and outputs to achieve an

outcome that one department or service area

alone cannot achieve.

Crime rates.

Source: The Guide to the Queensland Government Performance Management Framework. The Report on Government Services

Monitoring and reporting performance Previous reports on monitoring and reporting performance


Appendix D—Previous reports on monitoring and reporting performance

Figure D1—National and international reports on monitoring and reporting performance

Reports on monitoring and reporting performance: key findings

Chapter 1—Service quality, Auditor-General, Canada, 2000

to improve their performance reports, departments would need to take a number of steps,

including the following :

- set concrete expectations; - use consistent terms; - improve the reporting of accomplishments (and not report just activities and outputs); - place performance in the context of past years (not just the latest year); - achieve a better balance of reporting between good results and shortcomings; and - give attention to the reliability of the data.

disappointed by the pace at which departments were making the needed improvements to their

performance reports.

Departmental Performance Management and Reporting, Auditor-General, Victoria, 2001

the performance management and reporting framework is not complete.

key components - desired outcomes, measures of progress, departmental objectives and

associated performance indicators - have yet to be finalised or publicly released.

implementing results-based management is a long-term and complex process…it is important

that momentum be maintained to ensure commitment within the public sector.

in the absence of clear linkages between the Government’s desired outcomes and departmental

objectives, and the finalisation of associated measures of progress and performance indicators,

the framework, at this stage, does not drive the achievement of the Government’s outcomes.

Results of Performance Management Systems Audits of Output Performance Reporting,

Auditor-General, Queensland, 2005

the overall maturity of agencies’ output measurement frameworks, systems and reporting

practices varied significantly. The maturity of agency systems ranged from approaching

moderate implementation (level 2) to approaching full implementation (level 4) on a five-level

rating scale.

departments were appropriately advanced in the implementation of their output measurement

framework. However, their supporting systems and reporting processes required further

attention.

there appears to be a need to enhance agency output performance reporting systems and

practices.

departments who view external reporting as merely a compliance exercise risk duplicating their

effort and costs by maintaining separate systems and processes for internal and external

reporting on performance.

47 per cent of the output measures reviewed were focused solely on the quantity aspect of

service delivery.

for performance measures to be meaningful and relevant they need to be representative of the

more material activities encapsulated under each output and reflect a balance of the range of

performance measure types - quantity, quality, timeliness, location and cost.




Agency Use of Performance Information to Manage Services, Auditor-General, New South Wales,

2006

many of the public sector reforms that governments have introduced have focussed on

maximising results through the better use of performance information.

sound information is essential in determining the extent of community need, how those needs

can be most effectively met and how the taxpayer’s dollar can be most efficiently used. The

monitoring and regular review of existing services also require sound information.

three agencies did not have sufficient information to provide a balanced view of services; and

two of these agencies could not tell us whether their services actually made a difference to

customers.

agencies that we identified as not having sufficient information to judge services were either

unaware of its importance, collected data on activities but not results or reported system

limitations.

Are departmental performance measures relevant, appropriate and a fair representation of

performance achievements?, Auditor-General, Queensland, 2007

a lack of clarity across the sector about what are relevant and appropriate performance

measures.

departments have not developed clear objectives for each of their outputs, and there continues

to be minimal alignment between the measures reported in the departments’ strategic and

operational plans, the MPS and their annual reports.

the impression gained during the audit was that not only was the performance information

reported to Parliament of limited relevance for external stakeholders, but also that this

performance information was not used extensively by the government and departmental officers

responsible for resource allocation and monitoring activity.

the (previous) recommendation to improve output costing methodologies has been met with little

or no progress. The original recommendation was accepted at that time by all but one

department. Four of the seven departments needing improvement now disagree with the need to

have improved cost performance information for their output service delivery and have taken no

further action.

Public sector performance information, Auditor-General, Tasmania, 2008

poorly defined objectives were a contributing factor to lack of alignment with KPIs.

many of the measures did not convey a genuine sense of performance because they were

activity measures without strong enough links to the objectives.

no department reported efficiency measures despite the obvious importance of this information

to the public. To a lesser extent, there was also a shortage of information about equity.

performance targets and explanatory comments for large variations were seldom used.




Discussion Paper, The Auditor-General’s observations on the quality of performance reporting,

Auditor-General of New Zealand, 2008

overall, the poor quality of non-financial performance reporting by public entities is disappointing.

It needs to improve significantly to allow Parliament and the public to hold public entities

accountable for their use of taxes and rates and for the effectiveness of their service delivery.

for nearly 20 years, there have been statutory requirements for a range of public entities to report

on their non-financial performance. Most of the requirements for performance reporting were

introduced during the late 1980s and refined in the early 2000s.

the quality of performance reporting represents a significant weakness in the public sector’s

accountability to its stakeholders. Despite the sector having nearly 20 years’ experience in

preparing and using performance reports, performance reports are:

- not prepared as robustly as they should be to serve external readers’ needs - not used as well as they might be by external readers as part of the accountability process

- not used as well as they might be by internal readers – managers and governors of public entities – to improve public service effectiveness

Enhancing Accountability through Annual Reporting, Auditor-General, Queensland, 2008

the information provided to the Parliament through departmental annual reports does not fully

comply with legislation, is incomplete and ambiguous in the portrayal of agency accountability

and performance.

guidance provided by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Treasury Department

is not sufficient to support accountability and promote a culture of performance management.

according to better practice standards, the performance information in the audited annual reports

does not meet the disclosure and transparency needs of readers.

planning documents such as ministerial portfolio statements and agencies’ strategic plans do not

set clear expectations of results and lack relevant and appropriate performance measures.

other forms of performance reporting presented to Parliament are not part of the current

legislative accountability framework and do not meet the better practice criteria for disclosure

and transparency.

overall, annual reports fail to answer questions such as “Has the agency achieved what it was

intended to do?”, “Is this better than last year?”, “Is this good enough?”, “Were these activities

needed in the first place?”, “Could they have done this for less money?”

Follow-up on government owned corporation and budget sector performance measurement and

reporting, Auditor-General, Queensland, 2009

policy guidance and requirements produced by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet

(DPC) meet most of the previous audit recommendations, namely:

- the requirement for the setting of objectives for outputs and services and alignment to strategic plans and whole-of-government priorities is addressed in the policy

- completeness in reporting Service Delivery Statements (SDS) performance indicators in Annual Reports is documented in policy

- use of evaluation as a formal means of performance review - need for continuous improvement in reporting on agency performance information over time - clearly defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities - guidance and support to ensure Annual Reports comply with prescribed requirements.

across individual departments, audit has observed a significant increase in compliance with

prescribed requirements in the past year. The summary of financial data information has

significantly improved. Information on how efficiently and effectively the agency has carried out

its operations has however not improved.

audit also found a significant increase in the percentage of outputs with a clear and measurable

objective.

it will take at least two years to implement the new performance regime across the departmental

sector.




Performance Reporting by Departments, Auditor-General, Victoria, 2010

the focus of performance reporting in Victoria has largely remained on output performance

measures.

there is a lack of effective outcomes performance reporting across the departments, and the

standard of reporting varies considerably. Only a few departments were able to demonstrate the

extent to which objectives had been met.

six departments had no or a limited number of departmental indicators that were relevant to the

achievement of their objectives. These departments represented nearly half of the state’s

allocated funding for the general government sector.

while this funding can be accounted for in a stewardship sense, the effective use of this funding,

equating to around $31 billion over the two years, has not been demonstrated.

Systems to coordinate delivery of the Toward Q2: Tomorrow's Queensland target, Auditor-General,

Queensland, 2011

departments cannot specifically answer key accountability questions, such as:

- is what we are doing helping? - how much of what we are spending is contributing to the achievement of the target? - are our clients satisfied with the services we are delivering?

performance measures are not relevant and appropriate.

the performance data available relate to actions being undertaken but cannot show the impact of

those activities.

reports focusing on how busy departments are do not show whether they are effective or efficient

in achieving their objectives.

departments do not have a plan which shows how and when relevant data collections will be

established to allow the impacts of the activities to be reported.

The Australian Government Performance Measurement and Reporting Framework, Auditor-General,

Australia, 2013

entities report against 650 government programs with approximately 3 500 KPIs but it is difficult

to get an accurate picture of program performance.

entities continue to experience challenges in developing and implementing meaningful

effectiveness KPIs.

a more comprehensive model would include ‘efficiency’ indicators to complement the

‘effectiveness’ indicator focus.

the administrative framework supporting the development and auditing of KPIs remains

problematic.

the framework would benefit from consideration of intermediate objectives where an overall

outcome can only be achieved over the longer‐term. It may be necessary to relate targets

associated with effectiveness indicators to milestones that demonstrate progress towards the

program objective.

Source: As referenced above

Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis


Appendix E—Summary of SDS analysis

We analysed the 2013–14 Service Delivery Statements of the 20 core departments.

Our initial assessments of the service standards were provided to departments in

October 2013. It is pleasing to note that some departments have been able to implement the

necessary steps to revise the service standards for the 2014–15 State Budget based on our

advice and guidance. Some departments have advised that they are still considering the

feedback and have been unable to revise the service standards for the 2014–15 budget.

We also make suggestions for potential service standards based on our research. The

suggestions are intended to provide guidance on what could be measured but are not what

must be measured.

For explanations of variances between revenues and total costs, refer to departmental

financial statements.

Service Delivery Statements: 2013–14 Service Delivery Statements (SDS) are published annually as part of the state budget. They

predominantly contain budgeted financial and non-financial information about each agency

for the current and coming financial year.

The non-financial component outlines the services each agency will deliver and the

standards to which these will be delivered. The SDS are a primary source of information for

hearings of the parliamentary Estimates committees. These hearings allow Parliament to

examine the funding provided in the state budget to each ministerial portfolio.

The SDS are used by Members of Parliament, the media, the public and other interested

parties to obtain information on the objectives, service areas, key strategies and

performance of Queensland Government agencies.

Definitions

The following definitions were used to assess the service standards in the 2013–14 SDS.

Figure E1—Definitions

Standard type Definition

Input Measures of the resources used to deliver a service (absolute or relative

amounts) e.g. quantity measures such as FTE, cost, number of vehicles;

and quality measures such as the extent of compliance with mandated

input standards like professional qualifications, compliance with Australian

standards for raw materials used.

Process Measures of throughput, or of the means by which the service is

delivered, rather than of the service itself e.g. initial response times, order

times, per cent of workload outsourced or automated, extent of process

compliance with mandatory standards.

Activity Measures of quantum of services provided/number of units of outputs

produced e.g. number of recipients, number of policy papers produced,

number of responses to incidents, number of occasions of care.

Cost Cost of outputs/services produced (direct and/or fully absorbed) e.g. total

or on a non-output per unit basis e.g. cost per input hour, per FTE, or per

head of population.



Standard type Definition

Time Measures of timeliness of delivery of service against service need e.g.

wait times, treatment times, case turnover/clearance rates or duration.

Quality Measures of whether service is fit for purpose e.g. extent to which outputs

conform to specifications, literacy and numeracy rates.

Technical efficiency Cost per unit of service or output e.g. cost per teaching hour delivered;

cost per incident; cost per occasion of care provided.

Cost effectiveness Cost to provide the desired outcome e.g. cost as ratio of savings from

reduced rates of obesity, cost as a ratio to savings from reduced road

trauma, cost of education per graduate.

Service effectiveness Measures of how well the service achieves its stated purpose e.g. deaths

from treatment or prescription errors, cardiac-arrest survival rates,

additional economic activity generated, crime rates, tertiary entrance

rates.

Source: Queensland Audit Office based on the Guide to the Queensland Government Performance Management Framework



Figure E2—Department of the Premier and Cabinet

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

A m

ore

dir

ect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e q

ua

lity w

ou

ld b

e th

e

pro

po

rtio

n o

f ca

bin

et su

bm

issio

ns th

at m

eet

or

exce

ed

ag

ree

d q

ualit

y c

rite

ria

. C

lien

t sa

tisfa

ctio

n is o

ne

dim

en

sio

n o

f se

rvic

e q

ualit

y b

ut

do

es n

ot

fully

re

pre

sen

t

eff

ective

ness. T

he

de

pa

rtm

en

t's s

tate

d in

ten

t is

fo

r th

e

pu

blic

se

rvic

e t

o b

e th

e b

est in

Au

str

alia

. If

th

is is t

o b

e

de

mon

str

ate

d it

req

uire

s s

erv

ice

sta

nda

rds f

or

eff

icie

ncy a

nd e

ffective

ne

ss t

ha

t can

be b

enchm

ark

ed

ag

ain

st o

the

r ju

risdic

tio

ns,

su

ch

as a

ve

rag

e c

ost

of

po

licy a

dvic

e b

y t

yp

e o

r sca

le.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f e

ffic

iency is th

e a

ve

rag

e c

ost

pe

r

ca

bin

et m

eetin

g.

Base

d o

n 5

2 m

ee

tin

gs p

er

yea

r, t

he

imp

lied a

ve

rag

e c

ost p

er

me

etin

g is $

61

6 0

00

.

Dis

agg

reg

atio

n o

f th

e c

ost

to s

ep

ara

te t

he

costs

of

co

mm

unity c

ab

ine

t m

ee

tin

gs w

ou

ld im

pro

ve

tra

nsp

are

ncy.

Th

e S

DS

sta

nda

rd o

bscu

res p

erf

orm

an

ce

abo

ut a

ctu

al

se

rvic

e p

erf

orm

an

ce

as it p

rovid

es n

o u

se

ful

info

rma

tio

n a

bo

ut h

ow

well

the b

ud

ge

t w

as u

se

d to

de

live

r th

e s

erv

ice

.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n is o

ne

dim

en

sio

n o

f se

rvic

e q

ua

lity

bu

t d

oe

s n

ot

fully

rep

rese

nt e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss.

As t

he

se

rvic

e a

rea h

as n

ot

inclu

de

d a

n o

bje

ctive

in t

he S

DS

,

sta

nd

ard

s o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss c

an

no

t b

e

su

gge

ste

d.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f e

ffic

iency w

ou

ld b

e th

e

ma

nag

em

en

t a

nd

co

ord

ina

tion c

osts

pe

r eve

nt.

The

SD

S s

tan

da

rd o

bscu

res p

erf

orm

ance

ab

ou

t a

ctu

al

se

rvic

e p

erf

orm

an

ce

as it p

rovid

es n

o u

se

ful

info

rma

tio

n a

bo

ut h

ow

well

the b

ud

ge

t w

as u

se

d to

de

live

r th

e s

erv

ice

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

● ●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 85

85

85

85

99

85

85

85

99

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

r cen

t clie

nt

sa

tisfa

ction

with

ad

vic

e b

y D

PC

to

age

ncie

s o

n

pe

rfo

rma

nce

ma

nag

em

en

t a

nd

rep

ort

ing

req

uire

men

ts.

Pe

r cen

t clie

nt

sa

tisfa

ction

with

DP

C

en

ga

ge

me

nt

with

the

polic

y

de

velo

pm

ent

pro

cess.

Pe

r cen

t clie

nt

sa

tisfa

ction

with

su

ppo

rt p

rovid

ed

by C

ab

ine

t

Se

rvic

es.

Pe

r cen

t clie

nt

sa

tisfa

ction

with

ad

vic

e a

nd

su

pp

ort

re

latin

g t

o

inte

rgo

ve

rnm

en

tal is

sue

s.

Pe

r cen

t o

pe

ratin

g b

ud

ge

t u

tilis

ed

in

de

live

ry o

f se

rvic

e.

Pe

r cen

t clie

nt

sa

tisfa

ction

with

su

ppo

rt a

nd

ad

vic

e p

rovid

ed

by

Sta

te A

ffa

irs.

Pe

r cen

t clie

nt

sa

tisfa

ction

with

su

ppo

rt a

nd

ad

vic

e p

rovid

ed

by

Sta

te S

erv

ice

s.

Pe

r cen

t clie

nt

sa

tisfa

ction

with

su

ppo

rt a

nd

ad

vic

e p

rovid

ed

by

Corp

ora

te S

erv

ice

s.

Pe

r cen

t o

pe

ratin

g b

ud

ge

t u

tilis

ed

in

de

live

ry o

f se

rvic

e.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (0

00

's)

To

tal

co

st

$3

2 0

31

$5

1 2

08

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$0

$9

298

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$3

2 0

31

$4

1 9

10

DP

C

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Po

licy A

dvic

e,

Coo

rdin

ation

and

Cab

ine

t S

up

po

rt

Se

rvic

e

2.

Go

ve

rnm

en

t

an

d E

xe

cu

tive

Su

pp

ort

Se

rvic

e

A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness




Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Co

rpo

rate

se

rvic

es a

re 'ba

ck o

ffic

e' s

erv

ice

s a

nd

do

no

t

pro

vid

e a

ny u

sefu

l in

form

atio

n o

n t

he e

ffe

ctiven

ess o

r

eff

icie

ncy o

f th

e s

erv

ice d

eliv

ere

d t

o th

e c

om

mun

ity.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n is o

ne

dim

en

sio

n o

f se

rvic

e q

ua

lity b

ut

do

es n

ot fu

lly r

ep

rese

nt e

ffective

ness.

Th

e S

DS

sta

nda

rd o

bscu

res p

erf

orm

an

ce

abo

ut

actu

al

se

rvic

e p

erf

orm

an

ce

as it p

rovid

es n

o u

se

ful in

form

atio

n

ab

ou

t h

ow

we

ll th

e b

ud

ge

t w

as u

se

d to

deliv

er

the

se

rvic

e.

Su

mm

ary

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss s

tan

da

rds.

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct m

ea

su

res o

f o

utc

om

e e

ffic

iency o

r co

st

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

0

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

● 9

T 0

C 0

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

● ●

4

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t

ne

w

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Cost

of co

rpo

rate

se

rvic

es a

s a

pe

r

ce

nt o

f de

pa

rtm

enta

l cost.

Pe

rce

nta

ge c

lien

t satisfa

ctio

n w

ith

leg

isla

tive

dra

ftin

g s

erv

ices p

rovid

ed

by t

he

Off

ice

of

the Q

ue

ensla

nd

Pa

rlia

me

nta

ry C

ou

nse

l.

Pe

rce

nta

ge c

lien

t satisfa

ctio

n w

ith

the

qua

lity o

f access t

o le

gis

latio

n

ava

ilable

on

line

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f op

era

tin

g b

udge

t

utilis

ed

in

de

livery

of

se

rvic

e.

20

13–1

14 B

ud

ge

t (0

00

's) T

ota

l c

os

t

$1

0 8

92

$9

4 1

31

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$3

5

$9

333

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

0 8

57

$8

4 7

98

DP

C

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Le

gis

lative

Dra

ftin

g a

nd e

-

Pu

blis

hin

g S

erv

ice

To

tal





Figure E3—Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n m

ay b

e a

me

asu

re o

f q

ualit

y o

f

se

rvic

e b

ut it d

oe

s n

ot d

em

onstr

ate

eff

ective

ness. A

be

tte

r m

easu

re o

f p

olic

y a

dvic

e is w

he

the

r th

e a

dvic

e

wa

s a

ccep

ted a

nd im

ple

me

nte

d.

A d

ire

ct m

ea

su

re o

f

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess is t

he

incre

ase in

acce

ss t

o

fro

nt-

line

se

rvic

es. A

dd

itio

na

l m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness a

re in

cre

ase

d e

co

no

mic

in

de

pe

nd

ence

,

cu

ltu

rally

vib

ran

t com

mun

itie

s, sa

fety

an

d r

esili

en

ce

as p

er

the a

gen

cy o

bje

ctive

. F

or

exa

mple

, C

losin

g th

e

Ga

p t

arg

ets

such

as t

he

incre

ase

in

em

plo

ym

en

t o

f

Ab

ori

gin

al a

nd T

orr

es S

tra

it Isla

nd

er

pe

ople

in

no

n-C

DE

P job

s c

ould

be

use

d.

As a

bove

, clie

nt satisfa

ctio

n w

ith

th

e s

erv

ice

are

a

pro

vid

es little

in

form

atio

n a

bout

its e

ffic

ien

cy a

nd

eff

ective

ness. A

dire

ct m

ea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness, re

late

d to

the

age

ncy's

str

ate

gic

ob

jective

s,

is a

ccessib

ility

and

cu

ltu

ral

resp

on

siv

en

ess o

f g

ove

rnm

ent a

nd

fu

nd

ed

se

rvic

es,

wh

ich

co

uld

be

me

asu

red a

s a

pe

rce

nta

ge

of clie

nts

rep

ort

ing

th

e a

bsen

ce o

f ba

rrie

rs o

r as a

pe

rce

nta

ge

of

se

rvic

es t

hat

are

desig

ne

d to

mee

t th

e n

ee

ds o

f

cu

ltu

rally

div

ers

e c

lien

tele

.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is n

ot d

ire

ctly r

ep

ort

ed

in e

ith

er

se

rvic

e a

rea.

The

re a

re n

o c

ost

eff

icie

ncy o

r cost

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us S

e 0

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n Q

●

● 2

T 0

C 0

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

0

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t 70

70

Un

its

Pe

r C

en

t

Pe

r C

en

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Le

vel o

f sta

ke

ho

lde

r sa

tisfa

ctio

n

with

the

advic

e p

rovid

ed

to

im

pro

ve

acce

ss t

o s

erv

ice

s b

y A

bo

rig

ina

l a

nd

To

rre

s S

tra

it I

sla

nde

r

Qu

ee

nsla

nde

rs.

Le

vel o

f sta

ke

ho

lde

r sa

tisfa

ctio

n

with

DA

TS

IMA

's p

rom

otio

n o

f

cu

ltu

ral d

ive

rsity a

nd

advic

e

pro

vid

ed

to

im

pro

ve

access t

o

se

rvic

es b

y p

eo

ple

fro

m c

ultu

rally

an

d lin

gu

istica

lly d

ive

rse

ba

ckg

roun

ds.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

04

15

9

$5

466

$1

09

62

5

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$5

5 8

83

$0

$5

5 8

83

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$4

8 7

56

$5

466

$5

4 2

22

DA

TS

IMA

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Ab

orig

ina

l an

d

To

rre

s S

tra

it

Isla

nd

er

Affa

irs

2.

Multic

ultu

ral

Aff

air

s

To

tal





Figure E4—Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is a

dir

ect m

ea

su

re o

f q

ualit

y o

f th

e t

rain

ing

pro

gra

ms.

It d

oes n

ot

pro

vid

e a

ny u

sefu

l in

form

ation

on a

ny

resu

ltin

g im

pro

ve

me

nts

in p

rod

uctivity. It

only

cove

rs t

wo

co

mp

on

en

ts o

f th

e a

gri

cu

ltu

re a

nd

fo

restr

y s

erv

ice

are

a.

Giv

en

th

e lo

ng

te

rm n

atu

re o

f th

e o

bje

ctive

, be

havio

ur

ch

ang

e m

ay b

e th

e fir

st in

dic

ato

r o

f th

e s

uccess o

f th

e

se

rvic

e.

Th

is is a

pro

xy f

or

tech

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy a

s it lo

oks a

t

qu

an

tity

ra

ther

than

va

lue

of p

rod

uctio

n,

wh

ich

is

de

term

ined

by t

he

qua

lity o

f th

e p

rodu

ct.

Th

is is a

pro

xy t

ime

me

asu

re b

ut

it is lim

ited

to

in

tern

al

pro

cessin

g a

nd

do

es n

ot

ind

ica

te t

he

full

imp

act o

n t

he

clie

nt.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

.

Th

is p

roxy tim

e m

ea

su

re r

ela

tes t

o a

co

mp

on

en

t o

f

inte

rna

l p

roce

sse

s a

nd

do

es n

ot

sho

w th

e f

ull

imp

act

on

the

clie

nt.

A b

ett

er

mea

sure

at th

e w

hole

of

gove

rnm

ent

level w

ould

be

the

ave

rage

tim

e b

etw

ee

n lo

dge

men

t a

nd

no

tificatio

n o

f de

ve

lopm

en

t d

ecis

ion

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

Ce

Te

●

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

T ● ●

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 20

2 5

30

;

66

230

90

75

10

0

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Cu

bic

me

tres/

FT

E

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f g

razie

rs a

nd c

an

e

gro

wers

wh

o h

ave

incre

ase

d b

est

ma

nag

em

en

t p

ractice

kn

ow

ledg

e

an

d s

kill

s t

hro

ug

h p

art

icip

atio

n in

go

ve

rnm

en

t fu

nd

ed

pro

gra

ms.

To

tal o

f fo

rest p

rodu

ct sale

s

qu

an

tities p

er

tota

l F

ore

st

Pro

du

ct

Fu

ll T

ime

Eq

uiv

ale

nt

(FT

E):

Na

tive

fore

st tim

be

r (m

3/F

TE

); q

ua

rry

ma

teria

l (m

3/F

TE

).

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ap

plic

ation

s fo

r

bu

sin

ess a

ssis

tan

ce

as a

re

sult o

f

na

tura

l d

isaste

r o

r d

rou

gh

t

pro

cesse

d w

ith

in 2

1 d

ays o

f

lod

gem

en

t (w

ate

r &

fre

igh

t re

ba

tes).

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ke

y Q

ue

ensla

nd

fis

h

sto

cks a

ssessed

as b

ein

g

su

sta

ina

bly

fis

hed

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ap

plic

ation

s fo

r

de

velo

pm

ent

rela

ted

ap

pro

vals

pro

cesse

d w

ith

in a

gre

ed

tim

efr

am

es.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$8

2 5

42

$3

7 5

34

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$3

0 1

38

$8

557

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$5

2 4

04

$2

8 9

77

DA

FF

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

an

d F

ore

str

y

2.

Fis

he

rie

s

Qu

ee

nsla

nd





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is m

ea

su

re r

ela

tes t

o in

tern

al p

roje

ct

ma

na

ge

me

nt

an

d

do

es n

ot p

rovid

e in

form

ation

ab

ou

t th

e a

ch

ieve

men

t o

f

ou

tco

mes.

A d

irect se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss m

ea

su

re in

lin

e

with

the

na

tio

na

l ag

reem

ent

on

bio

secu

rity

is th

e

de

cre

ase in

im

pa

ct o

f p

ests

and

dis

ease

on

the

eco

no

my,

en

viro

nm

en

t a

nd

the

com

mu

nity.

Fu

rth

er

wo

rk

ma

y b

e r

eq

uire

d a

t a

na

tio

na

l le

ve

l to

de

ve

lop a

pra

ctical

wa

y t

o m

easu

re t

his

.

Th

is m

ea

su

re is a

go

od p

roxy fo

r se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness

for

this

se

rvic

e a

rea

re

sp

onsib

ility

. T

he d

irect m

easu

re o

f

techn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy is t

he c

ost p

er

test.

Th

is is a

goo

d te

chn

ica

l e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re o

f re

gula

tory

se

rvic

es.

A m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e q

ua

lity s

ho

win

g ta

ke

-up

of

ad

vic

e

an

d in

form

atio

n.

Th

e d

irect

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness is th

e in

cre

ase

d p

rod

uctivity r

esu

ltin

g fro

m

the

ch

ang

ed

pra

ctice

(b

eh

avio

ur

cha

ng

e).

Ap

pro

pria

te m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ne

ss.

Th

is s

atisfa

ctio

n m

ea

su

re c

on

firm

s t

ha

t in

th

e v

iew

of

info

rme

d, clo

se s

takeh

old

ers

, in

cre

ase

d p

rodu

ctivity is

att

ribu

table

to o

utp

uts

of th

e s

erv

ice

are

a.

Fo

r th

e

pu

rpose

of

accou

nta

bili

ty, th

e s

urv

ey s

co

pe

an

d

me

tho

do

logy s

ho

uld

be a

va

ilab

le o

n o

pe

n d

ata

.

Ap

pro

pria

te p

roxy m

easu

re o

f co

st e

ffectiven

ess o

f th

e

se

rvic

e a

rea.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

● ●

●

Ce

●

Te

●

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

10

0

95

20

.9

60

60

60

4

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f sig

nific

ant

respo

nse

pro

gra

ms o

n t

rack t

o d

eliv

er

na

tion

ally

ag

reed

outc

om

es (

on

tim

e

an

d o

n b

ud

ge

t).

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f hig

h p

rio

rity

lab

ora

tory

re

su

lts c

om

ple

ted

,

ve

rifie

d a

nd

ma

de

ava

ilable

with

in

ag

ree

d t

ime

an

d q

ua

lity

sp

ecific

atio

ns.

Ave

rage

co

st p

er

tra

nsa

ctio

n to

de

live

r B

iose

cu

rity

re

gis

tration

,

ce

rtific

ation

and

lic

en

sin

g s

erv

ice

s.

Clie

nt b

usin

esse

s im

ple

me

nting

ne

w

or

imp

rove

d p

ractice

s, p

roce

sse

s,

syste

ms, p

rod

ucts

and

tech

no

log

ies

as a

re

sult o

f fu

nd

ed

in

no

vation

an

d

ca

pacity d

evelo

pm

ent

activitie

s.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f a

ssis

ted

firm

s

rep

ort

ing

im

pro

ved

pe

rfo

rma

nce

follo

win

g fu

nde

d in

nova

tio

n a

nd

ca

pacity d

evelo

pm

ent

activitie

s.

Ma

jor

co

-fu

ndin

g p

art

ne

rs’

sa

tisfa

ctio

n t

ha

t de

pa

rtm

enta

l

rese

arc

h o

utc

om

es c

ontr

ibute

to

ind

ustr

y p

rodu

ctivity g

row

th.

Pe

rce

nta

ge r

etu

rn o

n R

&D

investm

en

t th

rou

gh

ro

yalty r

etu

rns.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$9

3 5

79

$1

42

82

2

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$2

7 5

03

$4

9 3

44

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$6

6 0

76

$9

3 4

78

DA

FF

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Bio

se

cu

rity

Qu

ee

nsla

nd

4.

Ag

ri S

cie

nce

Qu

ee

nsla

nd





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Ap

pro

pria

te p

roxy m

easu

re o

f co

st e

ffectiven

ess o

f th

e

se

rvic

e a

rea.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is d

irectly r

epo

rte

d in

:

th

ree

of

fou

r se

rvic

e a

reas (

75

pe

r ce

nt)

fo

ur

of 1

3 m

easu

res (

31

pe

r ce

nt)

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is n

ot

rep

ort

ed

fo

r at

lea

st

23

pe

r cen

t o

f th

e to

tal b

ud

ge

t.

Se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency is d

irectly r

ep

ort

ed

fo

r:

th

ree

of

fou

r se

rvic

e a

reas (

75

pe

r ce

nt)

fo

ur

of 1

3 m

easu

res (

31

pe

r ce

nt)

.

Se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency is n

ot

rep

ort

ed

fo

r a

t le

ast

11

pe

r ce

nt

of

the

to

tal b

ud

ge

t.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

4

Ce

●

2

Te

2

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q 2

T 2

C 0

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

1

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t

0.4

Un

its

po

ints

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Rate

of

retu

rn o

n R

&D

in

vestm

en

t

ab

ove

the

na

tio

na

l ave

rag

e.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$3

56

47

7

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

15

54

2

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$2

40

93

5

DA

FF

Se

rvic

e a

rea

To

tal





Figure E5—Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is a

dir

ect m

ea

su

re o

f e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss o

f th

e

co

mb

ined

go

ve

rnm

en

t e

ffo

rts to

pro

tect ch

ildre

n a

nd

yo

ung

peo

ple

wh

o a

re a

t risk o

f h

arm

within

the

ir

fam

ilies o

r w

ho

se

fam

ilie

s d

o n

ot

have

th

e c

ap

acity t

o

pro

vid

e c

are

an

d p

rote

ctio

n a

nd

to

assis

t fa

mili

es to

pro

tect

ch

ildre

n a

nd

yo

un

g p

eo

ple

. T

he

dir

ect m

easu

re

for

the e

ffective

ne

ss o

f C

hild

Sa

fety

Se

rvic

es in

pro

tecting

ch

ildre

n a

t risk w

ou

ld inclu

de

su

bm

easu

res

sh

ow

ing

the

ra

te o

f su

bsta

ntiate

d h

arm

tha

t occu

rre

d to

ch

ildre

n a

nd y

ou

ng

pe

ople

afte

r a

n in

itia

l a

sse

ssm

en

t,

ha

rm w

hile

in

ca

re a

nd s

afe

retu

rn h

om

e.

Th

e s

tan

da

rd s

ho

ws t

he e

ffe

ctive

ness o

f th

e

go

ve

rnm

en

t in

pro

tectin

g c

hild

ren

and

assis

tin

g fa

mili

es

to p

rote

ct a

nd

ca

re f

or

the

ir c

hild

ren

ou

tsid

e o

f th

e

sta

tuto

ry s

yste

m.

Impo

rta

ntly it in

dic

ate

s th

e

dis

cre

pan

cy b

etw

ee

n e

ffectiven

ess f

or

Ind

ige

no

us a

nd

no

n-I

nd

ige

no

us c

hild

ren (

the

pro

po

rtio

n n

ee

din

g s

tate

ca

re).

Fo

r C

hild

Sa

fety

Se

rvic

es a

nd

Co

urt

Se

rvic

es

this

sta

nd

ard

ind

ica

tes t

he

vo

lum

e o

f w

ork

, w

hic

h is

als

o a

ffecte

d b

y p

olic

y s

ettin

gs a

nd

ju

dge

men

ts o

f risk.

Th

e u

nd

erlyin

g d

ata

co

uld

be

use

d t

o r

ep

ort

ou

tpu

t

su

bm

easu

res s

uch a

s t

ime

, cost

and

qua

lity o

f th

e

pro

cess in

pla

cin

g a

ch

ild o

n o

rde

r. A

dir

ect

me

asu

re o

f

the

qua

lity o

f re

gu

lato

ry s

erv

ice

s is t

he

pe

rce

nta

ge

of

ca

se

s w

he

re c

hild

ren a

nd y

oun

g p

eo

ple

and

th

eir

fam

ilies r

ece

ive

tim

ely

an

d a

pp

rop

ria

te s

up

po

rt a

nd

gu

idan

ce

du

rin

g a

nd

aft

er

the

de

term

ination

pro

cess.

Th

e r

ate

of child

ren

an

d y

ou

ng p

eo

ple

on

sta

tuto

ry

ord

ers

is a

lso

aff

ecte

d b

y th

e s

erv

ice

eff

ective

ness o

f

se

co

nd

ary

pro

gra

ms a

t re

du

cin

g t

he r

isk.

Th

ere

is n

o

rep

ort

ing

on

the

co

st, e

ffic

ien

cy,

qua

lity o

r e

ffe

ctiven

ess

of

pre

ve

nta

tive

pro

gra

ms in

eith

er

this

se

rvic

e a

rea

or

in

the

so

cia

l in

clu

sio

n s

erv

ice

are

a.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 7

8.8

, 49

,

5.9

Un

its

Ra

te p

er

1 0

00

Ra

te p

er

1 0

00

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Rate

of su

bsta

ntiate

d h

arm

pe

r 1

00

0 c

hild

ren

(0

–1

7 y

ea

rs o

f

ag

e).

Rate

of ch

ildre

n s

ub

ject

to p

rote

ctive

ord

ers

pe

r 1

000

ch

ildre

n (

0–

17

ye

ars

of

ag

e):

All,

Ab

ori

gin

al a

nd

To

rre

s S

tra

it I

sla

nde

r ch

ildre

n, o

the

r

ch

ildre

n.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$8

19

82

4

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

309

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$8

18

51

5

DC

CS

DS

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Child

Sa

fety

Se

rvic

es





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is th

e p

refe

rre

d d

irect

mea

su

re o

f sta

bili

ty b

y R

OG

S -

a m

ea

su

re o

f q

ualit

y o

f ch

ild p

rote

ctio

n s

erv

ice

s.

Ho

we

ve

r it

do

es n

ot p

rovid

e a

cle

ar

pic

ture

of sta

bili

ty fo

r th

e m

ajo

rity

of

child

ren

who

are

in

ou

t-o

f-ho

me

ca

re f

or

less t

ha

n

12

mo

nth

s.

An a

dditio

na

l d

irect

me

asu

re o

f sta

bili

ty o

f ca

re

is t

he

num

be

r o

f p

lacem

en

ts p

er

child

in

on

e y

ea

r. S

tabili

ty

is a

n im

po

rta

nt su

bm

easu

re o

f q

ua

lity s

erv

ice

ho

we

ve

r

oth

er

su

bm

easu

res s

ho

win

g c

ritica

l asp

ects

of q

ualit

y c

are

inclu

de

access to

hea

lth a

nd e

du

catio

n s

up

po

rt.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is th

e

pro

po

rtio

n o

f ch

ildre

n a

nd y

oun

g p

eo

ple

re

ferr

ed

to

the

se

rvic

e w

ho

ha

ve im

pro

ve

d the

ir w

ellb

ein

g (

as p

er

the

de

pa

rtm

enta

l key o

bje

ctive

), inclu

din

g fe

elin

g s

afe

,

co

nne

cte

d,

an

d m

ee

tin

g h

ealth

an

d e

duca

tio

n g

oals

, a

t

cri

tica

l m

ilesto

ne

s, in

clu

din

g t

ran

sitio

n f

rom

ca

re a

s a

n

ad

ult.

Th

ere

is n

o r

ep

ort

ing

of

cost,

eff

icie

ncy a

nd

se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness o

f ad

op

tio

n s

erv

ice

s. T

he d

irect m

easu

re o

f

techn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy is t

he a

ve

rag

e c

ost p

er

ap

plic

ation

at

mile

sto

ne

s.

The

dire

ct m

ea

su

re o

f qu

alit

y o

f in

form

atio

n

an

d s

up

po

rt s

erv

ices in

co

mplia

nce w

ith

th

e A

do

ptio

n A

ct

is

the

pe

rcen

tage

of case

s t

ha

t m

et

pre

scri

be

d q

ua

lity

sta

nd

ard

s (

inclu

din

g t

he

Ha

gue

con

ven

tion

). T

he

dir

ect

me

asu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness is th

e p

erc

en

tage

of

ca

se

s w

he

re th

e a

do

ptio

n p

roce

ss p

rom

ote

s t

he

we

llbein

g

an

d b

est in

tere

sts

of

ado

pte

d p

ers

on

s th

roug

ho

ut

the

ir

lives,

whic

h c

ou

ld b

e m

easu

red

at

pa

rtic

ula

r a

ge

mile

sto

ne

s.

Th

is d

irect m

easu

re o

f co

st

per

pe

rso

n d

oe

s n

ot p

rovid

e

su

ffic

ien

t in

form

atio

n fo

r tr

an

sp

are

ncy. T

he

no

tes d

o n

ot

exp

lain

wh

eth

er

the

exp

end

itu

re r

an

ge

inclu

des inte

rnal

an

d e

xte

rna

l o

ve

rhe

ad

s a

s w

ell

as a

llow

ance

s f

or

pe

ople

with

a d

isa

bili

ty.

The

ave

rage

co

st o

f ea

ch

se

rvic

e type

or

eff

icie

ncy o

f th

e s

erv

ices c

an

no

t b

e c

alc

ula

ted

.

Co

st

an

d s

erv

ice e

ffective

ne

ss o

f a

do

ptio

n s

erv

ice

s a

re n

ot

rep

ort

ed

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

T

C ●

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 34

74

000

–

79

000

7 5

00–

10

500

15

000

–

18

000

13

000

–

16

000

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

$ r

an

ge

pe

r use

r

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f child

ren

on

a c

are

an

d

pro

tection

ord

er

exitin

g c

are

afte

r 1

2

mo

nth

s o

r m

ore

wh

o h

ad 1

or

2 p

lacem

en

ts.

Go

ve

rnm

en

t e

xp

en

ditu

re,

pe

r

pe

rson

, re

ce

ivin

g d

isab

ility

se

rvic

es:

Accom

mo

da

tio

n s

upp

ort

;

Com

mun

ity s

up

po

rt;

Com

mun

ity

acce

ss;

Resp

ite

se

rvic

es.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

430

777

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$3

29

79

9

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

100

978

DC

CS

DS

Se

rvic

e a

rea

2.

Dis

ab

ility

Se

rvic

es





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

e d

ire

ct

qua

lity s

erv

ice m

easu

re fo

r dis

ab

ility

is th

e

pe

rcen

tage

of clie

nts

wh

o r

eceiv

ed a

rele

va

nt,

tim

ely

and

ap

pro

pria

te s

erv

ice

. A

sub

measu

re s

ho

win

g th

e

pe

rcen

tage

of clie

nts

wh

o c

ou

ld a

ccess th

e s

erv

ices o

f th

eir

ch

oic

e w

ou

ld in

dic

ate

whe

the

r th

e p

rog

ram

is m

ee

tin

g th

e

de

pa

rtm

ent's

polic

y d

irectio

n o

f Y

ou

r C

hoic

e.

Su

bm

ea

su

res

sh

ow

ing

the

bre

akd

ow

n o

f re

cip

ien

ts b

y c

ore

activity

limita

tio

n w

ou

ld d

em

onstr

ate

wh

eth

er

the

se

rvic

es a

re

be

ing d

eliv

ere

d to

the

in

tend

ed

ta

rge

t g

rou

p b

ased

on

leve

l

of

ne

ed

.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is th

e im

pa

ct o

f

go

ve

rnm

en

t su

ppo

rt o

n t

he

wellb

ein

g o

f clie

nts

(de

pa

rtm

ent's

pu

rpose

) an

d the

ir p

art

icip

atio

n in

all

are

as

inclu

din

g h

ea

lth

, ed

uca

tion

, em

plo

ym

en

t, justice

se

rvic

es

an

d h

ou

sin

g (

Dis

ab

ility

Pla

n o

bje

ctive

).

Th

is p

roxy s

erv

ice

effe

ctiven

ess m

easu

re s

ug

gests

th

e

su

ccess o

f th

e s

erv

ice

are

a in

mo

vin

g c

lien

ts t

ow

ard

s

ind

epe

nde

nce

in h

ousin

g.

How

eve

r it d

oe

s n

ot

ind

ica

te t

he

su

sta

ina

bili

ty f

or

clie

nts

.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency f

or

ho

usin

g

se

rvic

es is th

e c

ost p

er

pe

rso

n f

or

each

su

pp

ort

type

. T

he

dir

ect

me

asu

re o

f serv

ice

qu

alit

y is t

he

pe

rce

nta

ge o

f

clie

nts

wh

o r

eceiv

e a

rele

va

nt, t

imely

an

d a

pp

rop

ria

te

se

rvic

e.

Th

e s

erv

ice

are

a h

as n

ot re

po

rte

d o

n o

utp

ut e

ffic

ien

cy o

r

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess f

or

8 o

f its 9

fu

nctio

ns w

ort

h

$3

29

mill

ion

. T

he

dir

ect

me

asure

fo

r se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency o

f

so

cia

l in

clu

sio

n s

erv

ices is t

he

co

st p

er

pe

rso

n fo

r e

ach

su

ppo

rt s

erv

ice.

Eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

res w

ould

sh

ow

th

e c

ost

of

adm

inis

tra

tion

of se

rvic

es s

uch

as s

enio

r ca

rd

pe

r tr

an

sactio

n.

Qu

alit

y m

ea

sure

s w

ould

sh

ow

th

e

pro

po

rtio

n o

f use

rs w

ho

fo

und

th

e s

erv

ice

ap

pro

pria

te to

the

ir n

ee

ds.

Dir

ect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss f

or

wo

men

, yo

uth

,

se

nio

rs a

nd

dis

aste

r m

an

ag

em

en

t se

rvic

es a

re th

e im

pa

ct

of

the

se

rvic

e o

n t

he

ir w

ellb

ein

g,

safe

ty a

nd

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

83

–-8

7

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Clo

sed

sup

po

rt p

erio

ds in w

hic

h

clie

nts

ne

ed

ed

assis

tance

to

ob

tain

/ma

inta

in in

de

pen

de

nt

ho

usin

g, b

y t

ype

of te

nu

re.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$3

29

56

2

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$8

8 6

68

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$2

40

89

4

DC

CS

DS

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

So

cia

l In

clu

sio

n

Se

rvic

es





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness is d

ire

ctly r

ep

ort

ed

in:

tw

o o

f th

e t

hre

e s

erv

ice

are

as (

67

pe

r cen

t).

On

e o

f

the

se

is a

who

le-o

f-g

ove

rnm

en

t m

ea

sure

an

d d

oe

s

no

t in

dic

ate

th

e e

ffective

ne

ss o

f th

e s

erv

ice

are

a.

th

ree

of

five

me

asu

res (

60

pe

r ce

nt)

Th

ere

are

no

me

asu

res o

f te

ch

nic

al eff

icie

ncy o

r

co

st-

eff

ective

ne

ss.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

3

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

1

T

0

C

1

A

0

Pro

ce

ss

0

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t

Un

its

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$2

580

163

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$4

19

77

6

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$2

160

387

DC

CS

DS

Se

rvic

e a

rea

To

tal





Figure E6—Department of Education, Training and Employment

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is h

ow

we

ll

stu

de

nts

in

ea

rly c

hild

hoo

d p

rog

ram

s d

eve

lop

th

e

fou

nda

tion

s fo

r le

arn

ing

. T

he

pro

po

rtio

n o

f e

nro

lme

nts

is a

n ind

irect m

easu

re. O

the

r ju

risdic

tio

ns (

Vic

) in

clu

de

a m

ea

su

re o

f child

ren

's';

physic

al h

ea

lth

an

d w

ellb

ein

g,

so

cia

l com

pe

ten

ce

, em

otio

na

l m

atu

rity

, la

ng

uag

e a

nd

co

gnitiv

e s

kill

s (

sch

oo

l-ba

sed

), c

om

mun

ica

tion

skill

s

an

d g

en

era

l kn

ow

led

ge.

Va

lidate

d c

usto

me

r co

mp

lain

ts c

an

be

a u

se

ful p

roxy

for

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness a

s t

he

y c

an

in

dic

ate

wh

ere

qu

alit

y c

an im

pro

ve

.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

●

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

●

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 95

95

–1

00

10

0

84

–9

4

67

–9

3

78

–9

5

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f Q

ue

en

sla

nd

ch

ildre

n

en

rolle

d in

an

ea

rly c

hild

ho

od

ed

uca

tion

pro

gra

m.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f e

nro

lme

nts

in a

n e

arly

ch

ildh

oo

d e

du

ca

tion

pro

gra

m:

Ind

ige

no

us/ d

isa

dva

nta

ge

co

mm

unitie

s.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f com

pla

ints

re

latin

g t

o

se

riou

s s

afe

ty b

reach

es in

educa

tio

n

an

d c

are

se

rvic

es a

nd

ch

ild c

are

se

rvic

es th

at

are

resp

on

de

d t

o

with

in tw

o w

ork

ing d

ays.

Se

rvic

e s

tand

ard

s L

ite

racy a

nd

Num

era

cy Y

ea

r 3 T

est

- P

rop

ort

ion

of

stu

de

nts

at

or

ab

ove

th

e N

atio

nal

Min

imum

Sta

nd

ard

: R

ead

ing,

wri

tin

g, n

um

era

cy b

y a

ll a

nd

Ind

ige

no

us.

Ye

ar

5 T

est

- P

rop

ort

ion

of stu

de

nts

at

or

ab

ove

the

Na

tio

nal M

inim

um

Sta

nd

ard

: R

ead

ing,

wri

tin

g,

nu

me

racy b

y a

ll a

nd

Ind

ige

no

us

stu

de

nts

.

Ye

ar

7 T

est

- P

rop

ort

ion

of stu

de

nts

at

or

ab

ove

the

Na

tio

nal M

inim

um

Sta

nd

ard

: R

ead

ing,

wri

tin

g,

nu

me

racy b

y a

ll a

nd

Ind

ige

no

us:

Rea

din

g,

wri

tin

g, n

um

era

cy b

y a

ll

an

d I

nd

ige

nou

s s

tude

nts

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$3

15

39

1

$7

042

368

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

79

61

1

$1

439

102

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

35

78

0

$5

603

266

DE

TE

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Ea

rly C

hild

ho

od

Ed

uca

tio

n a

nd

Care

2.

Scho

ol

Ed

uca

tio

n





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es r

ele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es r

ele

van

t to

ob

jective

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy.

Th

is is a

n in

dire

ct m

ea

su

re o

f e

ffe

ctive

ness.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es r

ele

van

t to

ob

jective

s.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

Ce

Te

●

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

69

–9

4

83

95

72

55

0

88

11

162

–

28

087

90

89

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Nu

mb

er

Pe

r cen

t

$

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Ye

ar

9 T

est

- P

rop

ort

ion

of stu

de

nts

at

or

ab

ove

the

Na

tio

nal M

inim

um

Sta

nd

ard

: R

ead

ing,

wri

tin

g,

nu

me

racy b

y a

ll a

nd

Ind

ige

no

us

stu

de

nts

.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f Y

ea

r 1

2 s

tude

nts

aw

ard

ed

a Q

CE

.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f Y

ea

r 1

2 s

tude

nts

wh

o

are

co

mple

tin

g o

r h

ave

co

mp

lete

d a

SA

T o

r w

ere

aw

ard

ed

one

or

mo

re

of:

QC

E,

IBD

or

VE

T q

ualif

ica

tio

n.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

P/I

BD

stu

de

nts

wh

o

rece

ive

d a

n O

P 1

to

15

or

an

IB

D.

Num

be

r o

f stu

de

nts

aw

ard

ed

a

Qu

ee

nsla

nd C

ert

ific

ate

of

Ind

ivid

ua

l

Ach

ievem

en

t.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f stu

den

ts w

ho

, six

mo

nth

s a

fte

r com

ple

ting

Ye

ar

12

,

are

pa

rtic

ipa

tin

g in

ed

uca

tio

n,

tra

inin

g o

r e

mp

loym

en

t.

Ave

rage

co

st o

f se

rvic

e p

er

stu

de

nt:

Pri

ma

ry,

Seco

nd

ary

, S

tude

nts

with

dis

ab

ilities.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

are

nts

satisfied

with

the

ir c

hild

's s

ch

ool.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f a

ll a

tte

mp

ted

co

mp

ete

ncie

s s

uccessfu

lly

co

mp

lete

d.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

314

685

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$6

65

38

3

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$6

49

30

2

DE

TE

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Tra

inin

g,

Te

rtia

ry E

duca

tio

n

an

d E

mp

loym

en

t





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is d

irectly m

ea

su

red

in

:

tw

o o

f th

e t

hre

e s

erv

ice

are

as

5

of

the

21

se

rvic

e s

tand

ard

s (

71

pe

r cen

t)

a

cco

un

tin

g fo

r 96

pe

r cen

t o

f to

tal cost.

Se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency is d

irectly m

ea

su

red

in

:

tw

o o

f th

e t

hre

e s

erv

ice

are

as

2

of

the

21

se

rvic

e s

tand

ard

s (

9.5

pe

r cen

t)

a

cco

un

tin

g fo

r 96

pe

r cen

t o

f to

tal cost.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

●

●

●

●

15

Ce

0

Te

●

2

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q 3

T 0

C 0

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

1

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t 57

87

5 0

00–

24

000

0.8

9

83

–8

5

71

2

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Nu

mb

er

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f Q

ue

en

sla

nd

ers

with

hig

he

r q

ua

lific

ation

s.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f g

rad

ua

tes in

em

plo

ym

en

t o

r fu

rth

er

stu

dy.

Num

be

r o

f co

mp

letio

ns:

ap

pre

ntice

sh

ips,

train

ee

ship

s, S

AT

s.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f g

rad

ua

tes s

atisfie

d

with

the

ove

rall

qua

lity o

f th

eir

tra

inin

g.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f em

plo

ye

rs s

atisfie

d

with

gra

du

ate

s o

f: n

ation

ally

accre

dite

d t

rain

ing

, a

pp

ren

ticesh

ips

an

d t

rain

ee

ship

s.

Ave

rage

co

st p

er

co

mp

ete

ncy

su

ccessfu

lly c

om

ple

ted

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$8

672

444

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$2

284

096

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$6

388

348

DE

TE

Se

rvic

e a

rea

To

tal





Figure E7—Department of Energy and Water Supply

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is th

e

aff

ord

ab

ility

, se

cu

rity

an

d r

elia

bili

ty o

f e

ne

rgy s

up

ply

.

Th

is d

ata

wo

uld

allo

w c

ost-

effe

ctive

ne

ss m

ea

su

res t

o

be

deve

lop

ed

. T

he

me

asu

re to r

ed

uce

pe

ak d

em

an

d is

a m

ea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e q

ua

lity b

ut

is n

ot tr

ansp

are

nt a

s it

pro

vid

es n

o u

sefu

l d

ata

on

affo

rda

bili

ty a

nd

the

im

pact

on

co

st o

f liv

ing

pre

ssu

res.

A d

irect

me

asu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss is w

he

the

r

the

in

itia

tive

s a

re s

uccessfu

l. T

o d

ate

th

e 3

0 y

ea

r

ele

ctr

icity s

tra

tegy h

as n

ot

be

en

ap

pro

ved

.

Th

is s

tan

da

rd r

ela

tes d

ire

ctly to

ho

w the

dep

art

me

nt

de

live

rs t

he s

erv

ices,

rath

er

tha

n t

o th

e s

erv

ice

s

the

mse

lves,

an

d s

o is n

ot

a p

roxy fo

r eith

er

effic

ien

cy o

r

eff

ective

ness o

f ou

tco

mes.

In its

pre

se

nt

form

it a

lso

ob

scu

res a

ctu

al p

erf

orm

an

ce

, a

s it p

rovid

es n

o u

se

ful

da

ta o

n t

he

len

gth

of

an

y d

ela

ys, o

r o

n t

he

am

ou

nt o

f

an

y c

ost

ove

rrun

s.

Sta

ke

ho

lde

r sa

tisfa

ction

with s

erv

ice

s c

an

be a

pro

xy

for

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness if

it m

ea

su

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m the

sup

po

rtin

g n

ote

s t

ha

t

all

of

these

aspe

cts

are

su

rveye

d.

As a

bove

.

As a

bove

.

Th

e S

DS

sta

nda

rd is a

pro

xy fo

r e

ffective

ne

ss.

It

ind

ica

tes th

e e

ffe

ctive

ness o

f p

olic

y a

nd

sta

nd

ard

s. It

do

es n

ot p

rovid

e a

ny info

rma

tio

n o

n th

e p

erc

en

tag

e o

f

wa

ter

se

rvic

es t

ha

t m

ee

t w

ate

r q

ua

lity s

tan

da

rds o

r th

e

nu

mbe

r o

f in

cid

en

ts a

nd t

he

nu

mb

er

of

pe

ople

aff

ecte

d

by a

dve

rse

wate

r qu

alit

y e

ven

ts.

Su

mm

ary

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct m

ea

su

res o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness

for

eith

er

se

rvic

e a

rea

.

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct o

utc

om

e e

ffic

iency o

r cost

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res fo

r e

ith

er

se

rvic

e a

rea

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

0

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

● ●

●

● 4

T

0

C

0

A

0

Pro

ce

ss

● ●

2

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t

11

5

90

90

90

90

Un

its

Me

ga

-

wa

tts

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Rela

tive

red

uction

in p

eak e

lectr

icity

ne

two

rk d

em

an

d f

rom

dem

and

ma

nag

em

en

t/e

ne

rgy e

ffic

ien

t

initia

tives a

nd

pro

jects

fa

cili

tate

d.

Le

ad

im

ple

me

nta

tion

and

deliv

er

rele

va

nt in

itia

tives o

f th

e 3

0 Y

ea

r

Ele

ctr

icity S

tra

tegy o

n t

ime

and

with

in b

udg

et.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f sta

ke

hold

ers

wh

o

rate

the

dep

art

me

nt's

eng

ag

em

en

t

on

ke

y E

ne

rgy p

rog

ram

s/in

itia

tives

as s

atisfa

cto

ry o

r b

ett

er.

Le

ad

im

ple

me

nta

tion

and

deliv

er

rele

va

nt in

itia

tives o

f th

e 3

0 Y

ea

r

Wa

ter

Str

ate

gy o

n t

ime

an

d w

ith

in

bu

dg

et.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f sta

ke

hold

ers

wh

o

rate

the

dep

art

me

nt's

en

ga

gem

en

t

on

ke

y W

ate

r S

up

ply

an

d S

ew

era

ge

Se

rvic

es p

rog

ram

s/in

itia

tive

s a

s

sa

tisfa

cto

ry o

r b

ett

er.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e S

tate

's d

rinkin

g

wate

r se

rvic

es t

ha

t h

ave

ap

pro

pri

ate

dri

nkin

g w

ate

r q

ua

lity m

on

ito

rin

g

an

d r

esp

on

se.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$4

3 1

61

$6

2 7

87

$1

05

94

8

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$2

11

$2

484

$2

695

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$4

2 9

50

$6

0 3

03

$1

03

25

3

DE

WS

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

En

erg

y

2.

Wa

ter

Su

pp

ly

an

d S

ew

era

ge

Se

rvic

es

To

tal





Figure E8—Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

ese

me

asu

res r

ep

ort

on

th

e q

ua

lity o

f p

rog

ram

ou

tpu

ts.

Th

ey d

o n

ot a

dd

ress th

e s

erv

ice

are

a o

bje

ctive

of

avo

idin

g m

inim

isin

g o

r m

itig

atin

g im

pa

cts

to

the

en

viro

nm

en

t.

Mo

re d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness a

re th

e

nu

mbe

r o

f in

cid

en

ts w

he

re th

e e

nvir

onm

en

t w

as

ha

rmed

and

the

pro

po

rtio

n o

f fa

cili

tie

s th

at a

re d

ee

me

d

co

mp

lian

t on

in

itia

l in

sp

ectio

n.

Dir

ect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency a

re th

e a

ve

rag

e

co

st p

er

ap

plic

ation

and

ave

rag

e c

ost p

er

inspe

ctio

n.

Th

is is a

pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss a

s it

rep

ort

s

on

a p

rog

ram

rath

er

tha

n th

e s

erv

ice

ob

jective

of

en

su

rin

g th

e d

ive

rsity a

nd

in

teg

rity

of

Qu

ee

nsla

nd

’s

na

tura

l eco

syste

ms a

re p

rese

rve

d. It

als

o o

bscu

res

pe

rfo

rma

nce

da

ta a

bo

ut

actu

al la

nd g

aze

tted

. B

ette

r

pro

xy m

ea

su

res o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness a

re th

e

pro

po

rtio

n o

f la

nd

in

Qu

ee

nsla

nd

th

at

is c

on

se

rved

and

the

pro

po

rtio

n o

f hig

h q

ua

lity c

on

se

rve

d lan

d t

ha

t ha

s

be

en

ga

ze

tted

.

Th

is m

ea

su

re is a

pro

xy f

or

outp

ut

qu

alit

y. T

he

actu

al

ou

tpu

t q

ualit

y m

easu

re is th

e a

mo

unt

of la

nd

reh

ab

ilita

ted.

Be

tte

r se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctiven

ess m

ea

su

res a

re th

e n

um

be

r

an

d p

rop

ort

ion

of

na

tive

sp

ecie

s t

ha

t ha

ve e

nha

nce

d,

ma

inta

ine

d a

nd

de

terio

rate

d a

nd

num

be

r o

f

ecosyste

ms th

at h

ave

bee

n p

rese

rve

d.

Th

e t

ech

nic

al e

ffic

iency m

ea

su

re is t

he c

ost p

er

na

tive

sp

ecie

s t

ha

t a

re m

ain

tain

ed

or

en

han

ced

.

Th

is m

ea

su

re is a

pro

xy f

or

outp

ut

qu

alit

y a

s it

me

asu

res t

he

effe

ctiven

ess o

f p

roje

cts

ag

ain

st

the

ir

ob

jective

s,

not

the p

rog

ram

or

se

rvic

e a

rea

eff

ective

ness. It

is a

lso d

epe

nd

en

t on

ho

w w

ell

the

pro

ject

ob

jective

is d

efin

ed

. T

his

me

asu

re is n

ot

req

uire

d in

th

e S

DS

if su

ita

ble

eff

icie

ncy a

nd

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res a

re in

pla

ce

.

Th

is is a

co

mplia

nce

mea

su

re s

pecific

to

one

pro

gra

m

are

a w

ith

in th

e s

erv

ice

are

a a

nd

it

is n

ot

cle

ar

wh

y th

is

pro

gra

m is m

ore

im

po

rta

nt to

re

po

rt o

n t

ha

n o

the

r

pro

gra

m a

rea

s w

hic

h a

re n

ot

rep

rese

nte

d in t

he S

DS

. It

do

es n

ot

rela

te t

o t

he

eff

icie

ncy o

r eff

ective

ness o

f th

e

se

rvic

e a

rea o

bje

ctive

. It

is th

ere

fore

no

t re

qu

ire

d in

the

SD

S.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

●

T

C

A ● ●

Pro

ce

ss

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 60

60

2.8

10

90

10

0

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f asse

ssm

en

t

ap

plic

atio

ns t

ha

t a

re d

ea

lt w

ith

with

ou

t fu

rthe

r, f

orm

al in

form

atio

n,

req

uests

be

ing

req

uire

d.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f fa

cili

tie

s t

ha

t a

re

de

em

ed

co

mp

lian

t u

nd

er

the

En

vir

on

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

ct 1

99

4

du

rin

g a

fo

llow

-up

in

sp

ectio

n.

An

nu

al p

erc

en

tag

e incre

ase

in h

igh

qu

alit

y c

onse

rva

tio

n la

nd g

azett

ed

as n

atu

re r

efu

ge

s.

An

nu

al p

erc

en

tag

e incre

ase

in t

he

tota

l a

mou

nt o

f la

nd

secu

red th

at

will

be

re

ha

bili

tate

d a

s n

ew

ko

ala

ha

bita

t.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ‘E

ve

ryo

ne

's

En

vir

on

men

t' p

roje

cts

asse

ssed

as

de

live

rin

g o

n t

he

ir o

bje

ctive

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f m

acro

pod

ha

rve

st

qu

ota

s n

ot

excee

ded

du

rin

g a

ny

ha

rvest

pe

riod

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$7

9 3

43

$7

8 6

31

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$3

4 2

84

$8

657

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$4

5 0

59

$6

9 9

74

DE

HP

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

En

vir

onm

ent

Ma

nag

em

en

t

2.

Conse

rva

tion

Pro

gra

ms





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is m

ea

su

re r

epo

rts o

n th

e o

utp

ut o

f on

e p

rog

ram

un

de

r th

e s

erv

ice

are

a b

ut

no

t o

n t

he e

ffe

ctiven

ess o

f

the

se

rvic

e a

rea a

gain

st

the

ob

jective

of p

rote

ctin

g

Qu

ee

nsla

nd

's b

uilt

he

rita

ge

.

A t

echn

ica

l e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re is c

ost

pe

r in

clu

sio

n o

n

the

He

rita

ge R

eg

iste

r.

Co

st

effe

ctive

ness m

easu

res a

re t

he c

ost p

er

reg

iste

red h

erita

ge

pla

ce a

nd th

e r

atio

of cost

to v

alu

e

of

regis

tere

d h

eri

tag

e p

laces.

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness m

ea

su

res a

re th

e n

um

be

r an

d

va

lue

of

reg

iste

red

he

rita

ge

pla

ces.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is d

irectly m

ea

su

red

in

:

o

ne

of th

e t

hre

e s

erv

ice

are

as (

33

pe

r cen

t) in

rela

tio

n o

nly

to

som

e o

f th

e s

erv

ice

s u

nd

ert

ake

n in

tha

t a

rea

o

ne

of th

e s

eve

n s

tan

da

rds r

ep

ort

ed

(1

4 p

er

ce

nt)

.

Th

ere

is n

o d

ire

ct

serv

ice

eff

ectiven

ess m

easu

re fo

r a

t

lea

st

51

pe

r ce

nt o

f to

tal cost.

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct te

ch

nic

al eff

icie

ncy o

r cost

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res.

Tw

o o

utp

ut m

easu

res a

re n

ot re

qu

ired

as t

he

y d

o n

ot

ad

d t

o e

xis

tin

g e

ffic

ien

cy a

nd

eff

ective

ness r

ep

ort

ing.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

1

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

4

T

0

C

0

A

2

Pro

ce

ss

1

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t 90

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f de

pa

rtm

en

tal re

gis

ter

recom

men

da

tio

ns,

for

inclu

sio

n o

n

the

He

rita

ge R

eg

iste

r, a

cce

pte

d b

y

the

Que

en

sla

nd H

eri

tag

e C

oun

cil.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$3

146

$1

61

12

0

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$0

$4

2 9

41

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$3

146

$1

18

17

9

DE

HP

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Bu

ilt H

eri

tag

e

To

tal





Figure E9—Department of Health

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

e S

DS

me

asu

res f

or

pre

ve

nta

tive

hea

lth

re

po

rt

po

pu

latio

n s

tatistics s

uch

as, Q

ue

en

sla

nde

rs’

he

alth

y e

atin

g h

ab

its, e

ng

ag

em

en

t in

ph

ysic

al

activity,

alc

oh

ol con

sum

ptio

n, ra

tes o

f sm

okin

g, su

n

pro

tection

beh

avio

urs

an

d s

cre

en

ing

ra

tes, a

re

su

sce

ptib

le t

o b

e a

ffecte

d b

y o

the

r g

ove

rnm

en

t

ag

encie

s,

inclu

din

g th

e D

epa

rtm

en

t o

f E

du

catio

n,

Tra

inin

g a

nd

Em

plo

ym

en

t, Q

ue

en

sla

nd

Po

lice

Se

rvic

e,

Dep

art

me

nt o

f N

atio

na

l P

ark

s,

Recre

ation

,

Sp

ort

and

Racin

g.

This

re

duces t

he v

alu

e o

f th

ese

me

asu

res f

or

acco

un

tabili

ty p

urp

oses f

or

this

se

rvic

e a

rea.

The

y p

rovid

e n

o in

form

atio

n o

n t

he

imp

act o

f p

art

icip

atin

g in

fu

nded

pre

ve

nta

tive

he

alth

pro

gra

ms. T

hey a

lso o

bscu

re th

e p

erf

orm

an

ce

of

fun

ded

pro

gra

ms.

Reco

gn

ise

th

em

as

wh

ole

-of-

gove

rnm

en

t o

utc

om

es.

The

y a

re m

ostly

RO

GS

in

dic

ato

rs.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness w

ou

ld

be

th

e p

rop

ort

ion

of p

art

icip

ants

in

Dru

g a

nd

Alc

oho

l

pre

ven

tion

pro

gra

ms w

ho

re

duce

alc

oh

ol

co

nsu

mp

tion

ove

r tim

e.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

res o

f eff

icie

ncy a

re th

e c

ost

pe

r

ca

pita

of p

rovid

ing

pre

ve

ntive

in

terv

en

tio

ns,

hea

lth

pro

motio

n a

nd p

rote

ctio

n a

ctivitie

s a

nd

th

e a

ve

rag

e

co

st p

er

pa

rtic

ipa

nt b

y p

rog

ram

typ

e (

die

t, a

ctivity,

alc

oh

ol, s

mo

kin

g, m

ela

no

ma a

nd

HIV

).

Th

e S

DS

sta

nda

rd is a

n a

ctivity m

ea

su

re w

hic

h

do

es n

ot p

rovid

e in

form

ation

ab

ou

t se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness. T

he

pro

po

rtio

n o

f site

s t

ha

t p

rovid

e

testin

g s

erv

ice

s a

nd

th

e p

erc

en

tag

e o

f pe

ople

wh

o

are

dia

gno

sed

as p

ositiv

e a

nd w

ho

succe

ssfu

lly

acce

ss c

are

or

tre

atm

ent

(acce

ssib

ility

) w

ou

ld b

e

be

tte

r p

roxie

s f

or

qu

alit

y o

f se

rvic

e d

eliv

ery

. T

he

dir

ect

me

asu

re o

f e

ffic

iency is th

e c

ost p

er

HIV

te

st

pe

rfo

rme

d. T

he

dir

ect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness is th

e p

erc

en

tage

of

pa

tien

ts a

nd

he

alth

wo

rke

rs r

ep

ort

ing im

pro

ve

d c

linic

al o

utc

om

es

an

d w

ellb

ein

g.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

of

fully

vaccin

ate

d c

om

mu

nity.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

iency is th

e

ave

rag

e c

ost

pe

r vaccin

atio

n. A

fu

rth

er

se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness m

easu

re is t

he r

ate

of in

cid

en

ce

of

pre

ven

table

dis

ea

se

s.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

●

●

● ●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

T

C

A ●

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

56

.1,9

.7

63

, 6

8.2

,

57

.7

59

.1, 6

6.2

,

52

.2

11

.4, 1

3.1

,

9.8

12

.5, 1

3.7

,

11

.3

52

.7, 5

7.2

,

48

.3

5

6 0

00

92

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Nu

mb

er

Nu

mb

er

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e Q

uee

nsla

nd

po

pu

latio

n w

ho c

on

sum

e

recom

men

ded

am

ou

nts

of:

fru

it,

ve

geta

ble

s.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e Q

uee

nsla

nd

po

pu

latio

n w

ho e

nga

ged

in

leve

ls o

f

ph

ysic

al activity fo

r h

ea

lth b

ene

fit:

Pe

rso

ns, m

ale

, fe

male

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e Q

uee

nsla

nd

po

pu

latio

n w

ho a

re o

ve

rwe

ight o

r

ob

ese

: P

ers

ons, m

ale

, fe

ma

le.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e Q

uee

nsla

nd

po

pu

latio

n w

ho c

on

sum

e a

lcoh

ol at

risky a

nd

hig

h r

isk le

vels

: P

ers

on

s,

ma

le,

fem

ale

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e Q

uee

nsla

nd

po

pu

latio

n w

ho s

mo

ke

: P

ers

on

s,

ma

le,

fem

ale

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e Q

uee

nsla

nd

po

pu

latio

n w

ho

were

su

nbu

rn:

Pe

rso

ns, m

ale

, fe

male

.

An

nu

al n

otifica

tio

n r

ate

.

Num

be

r o

f ra

pid

HIV

te

sts

pe

rfo

rme

d.

Va

ccin

atio

n r

ate

s a

t d

esig

na

ted

mile

sto

ne

s f

or;

All

ch

ildre

n 1

2–1

5,

24

–2

7,

60–

63

mo

nth

s.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$5

76

98

1

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$2

70

34

3

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$3

06

63

8

QH

(D

oH

)

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Pre

ve

ntio

n,

Pro

mo

tio

n a

nd

Pro

tectio

n





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s (

RO

GS

ou

tco

me

mea

su

re).

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f cost

effe

ctive

ne

ss is t

he

sa

vin

gs in c

an

ce

r tr

eatm

en

t th

rou

gh

ea

rly d

ete

ctio

n

as a

ra

tio o

f th

e c

ost

of scre

enin

g.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f e

ffic

iency is th

e a

ve

rag

e c

ost

pe

r b

rea

st scre

enin

g.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f q

ua

lity in

dic

atin

g

wh

eth

er

the

scre

en

ing

se

rvic

e is w

ell

targ

ete

d a

nd

accu

rate

.

Th

e r

ate

of in

fectio

ns is a

qu

alit

y m

ea

su

re r

ela

ted

to

sa

fety

of th

e s

erv

ice

. T

he

dir

ect

me

asu

re o

f se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness is th

e n

um

be

r of d

ea

ths o

r p

erm

an

en

t

inju

ry f

rom

occu

rre

nces o

f b

loo

dstr

ea

m in

fectio

n

ca

use

d b

y S

tap

hylo

coccus a

ure

us, a

ttrib

uta

ble

to

rece

ivin

g c

are

. A

n a

pp

rop

ria

te s

erv

ice e

ffectiven

ess

me

asu

re fo

r th

e w

hole

se

rvic

e a

rea

is t

he

lo

ss o

f lif

e

fro

m p

rem

atu

re d

ea

th d

ue

to id

en

tifia

ble

ca

uses o

f

pre

ven

table

dis

ea

se

or

inju

ry (

as u

se

d b

y W

A).

Ap

pro

pria

te p

roxy m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess

for

a w

hole

-of-

gove

rnm

ent

ou

tco

me

of clo

sin

g t

he

ga

p b

etw

ee

n I

ndig

en

ous a

nd

no

n-I

nd

ige

no

us

po

pu

latio

n h

ea

lth

sta

tus.

It a

lso

acts

as a

qu

alit

y

me

asu

re o

f th

e h

ea

lth s

yste

m in

re

latio

n t

o

acce

ssib

ility

of p

rim

ary

and

seco

nda

ry h

ealth

ca

re.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

e

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

to

elim

inate

sm

okin

g d

urin

g

pre

gn

an

cy b

ecau

se

of se

rio

us b

irth

eff

ects

. T

he

co

ve

rag

e o

f th

e m

easu

re is n

ot

de

fin

ed

(p

ublic

ho

spita

l, p

riva

te,

co

mm

unity-b

ase

d m

ate

rnity

pro

gra

ms).

Th

e S

DS

sta

nda

rd m

easu

res a

ctivity a

s it re

po

rts

the

num

be

r o

f re

cip

ien

ts r

ece

ivin

g t

he

se

rvic

e a

nd

do

es n

ot in

dic

ate

the

effic

iency o

r eff

ective

ness o

f

the

se

rvic

e. T

he s

erv

ice

eff

ective

ness m

ea

su

re is

the

pe

rcen

tage

of b

abie

s r

ece

ivin

g a

pp

rop

ria

te c

are

an

d m

ee

tin

g e

arly m

ilesto

ne

s.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

● ●

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

●

T

C

A ●

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

57

.6,5

5.3

,38

60

.9

1.7

39

.4,1

0.1

75

827

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Ra

te

Ra

te

Pe

r cen

t

Nu

mb

er

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ta

rge

t p

opu

lation

scre

en

ed f

or,

bre

ast,

ce

rvic

al, b

ow

el

ca

nce

r.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f in

va

siv

e c

ance

rs

de

tecte

d th

roug

h B

rea

stS

cre

en

Qu

ee

nsla

nd t

hat

are

sm

all

(<15

mm

)

in d

iam

ete

r.

Rate

of h

ealth

ca

re a

sso

cia

ted

Sta

ph

ylo

co

ccus a

ure

us (

inclu

din

g

MR

SA

) b

loo

dstr

eam

(S

AB

)

infe

ction

s/1

0 0

00

acu

te p

ub

lic

ho

spita

l p

atie

nt d

ays.

Ratio

of

po

ten

tia

lly p

reven

table

ho

spita

lisa

tion

s -

ra

te o

f A

bo

rig

inal

an

d T

orr

es S

tra

it I

sla

nde

r

ho

spita

lisa

tion

s to

ra

te o

f n

on

-

Ab

ori

gin

al a

nd T

orr

es S

tra

it Isla

nd

er

ho

spita

lisa

tion

s.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f w

om

en w

ho

, d

uri

ng

the

ir p

reg

na

ncy w

ere

sm

okin

g a

fte

r

20

weeks: In

dig

eno

us a

nd

no

n–

In

dig

eno

us.

Num

be

r o

f in

-hom

e v

isits,

fam

ilie

s

with

ne

wbo

rns (

in a

cco

rda

nce

with

the

Mu

ms a

nd

Bu

bs c

om

mitm

en

t).

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$6

74

06

5

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$9

9 7

18

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$5

74

34

8

QH

(D

oH

)

Se

rvic

e a

rea

2.

Pri

ma

ry H

ea

lth

Care





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

ese

activity m

ea

su

res d

o n

ot

rep

ort

on

eff

icie

ncy

or

eff

ective

ne

ss o

f th

e s

erv

ices a

nd

do

no

t d

efin

e

the

co

ve

rag

e (

pu

blic

or

priva

te).

Th

e r

ate

of

usa

ge

of

pu

blic

den

tal se

rvic

es p

er

po

pu

lation

wo

uld

pro

vid

e m

ore

in

form

atio

n a

bout

the

exte

nt

of th

e

se

rvic

e.

A t

ech

nic

al e

ffic

iency m

easu

re is th

e

ave

rag

e c

ost

of p

rovid

ing

ca

re p

er

patien

t a

dju

ste

d

with

co

st

weig

hts

fo

r th

e r

ela

tive

com

ple

xity o

f th

e

pa

tien

t’s c

linic

al co

nditio

n.

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctiven

ess is

me

asu

red b

y t

he

pe

rce

nta

ge

of

pa

tie

nts

and

hea

lth

ca

re w

ork

ers

re

po

rtin

g t

he

tre

atm

en

t m

et

the n

eed

.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f cost

effe

ctive

ne

ss is t

he

cost

of

the

se

rvic

e a

s a

ra

tio

of

the

sa

vin

gs f

rom

red

uce

d

ora

l he

alth

pro

ced

ure

s a

s a

resu

lt o

f p

reven

tive

se

rvic

es.

Th

e S

DS

sta

nd

ard

s a

re p

rocess

me

asu

res.

The

y p

rovid

e n

o u

se

ful in

form

atio

n o

n

the

effe

ctive

ness o

r e

ffic

iency o

f th

e s

erv

ice

. T

he

dir

ect

me

asu

re o

f e

ffic

iency is th

e a

ve

rag

e c

ost p

er

pa

tien

t, b

y p

rovid

er

typ

e.

Th

ese

tim

elin

ess m

easu

res r

ep

ort

on o

ne

co

mp

on

en

t o

f th

e s

erv

ice

ou

tpu

t. H

ow

eve

r o

the

r

asp

ects

such

as q

ualit

y o

f ca

re a

re n

ot

rep

ort

ed

.

Fo

cusin

g o

n t

ime

liness a

lone

ca

n p

ut

pre

ssu

re o

n

sta

ff to

cu

t co

rne

rs a

nd

ta

ke

ris

ks.

An

eff

icie

ncy

me

asu

re fo

r th

is s

erv

ice

are

a is t

he c

ost

pe

r p

atien

t

of

am

bu

lato

ry c

are

(as u

se

d in W

A).

Ap

pro

pria

te e

ffective

ne

ss m

easu

re r

ep

rese

ntin

g th

e

de

sire

d n

atio

na

l o

utc

om

e a

s b

irth

we

igh

t in

dic

ate

s

the

lik

elih

oo

d o

f p

ositiv

e h

ea

lth o

utc

om

es (

an

d lo

w

he

alth

ca

re c

osts

) th

rou

gh

life

(R

OG

S).

No

tes d

o

no

t in

dic

ate

th

e c

ove

rag

e e

.g. p

ub

lic o

r p

riva

te

ho

spita

ls.

As t

his

me

asu

re r

esu

lts fro

m p

rim

ary

and

se

co

nd

ary

he

alth

ca

re a

nd

in

clu

de

s p

riva

te a

nd

co

mm

unity h

ealth

pro

vid

ers

, it is a

ssu

med

it

rep

rese

nts

a s

tate

pe

rsp

ective.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

T ●

●

●

●

●

C

A

●

●

Pro

ce

ss

●

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

2 4

00

00

0

1 3

00

00

0

15

8

90

80

20

10

0,8

0,7

5,7

0,

70

48

,33

,90

8.7

,5.8

Un

its

Nu

mb

er

Nu

mb

er

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Min

ute

s

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Num

be

r o

f ad

ult o

ral h

ealth

weig

hte

d o

ccasio

ns o

f se

rvic

e

(ag

es 1

6+

).

Num

be

r o

f ch

ildre

n a

nd a

dole

sce

nt

ora

l he

alth

we

igh

ted

occasio

ns o

f

se

rvic

e (

0–

15

ye

ars

).

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f o

ral h

ea

lth

we

igh

ted

occa

sio

ns o

f se

rvic

e w

hic

h a

re

pre

ven

tive

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f o

ral h

ea

lth

we

igh

ted

occa

sio

ns o

f se

rvic

e p

rovid

ed

by

pri

vate

de

nta

l p

art

ne

rs.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f pa

tien

ts t

ransfe

rre

d

off

str

etc

he

r w

ith

in 3

0 m

inu

tes.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f em

erg

ency

de

pa

rtm

ent

atte

nd

an

ce

s w

ho

de

pa

rt

with

in 4

hou

rs o

f th

eir

arr

iva

l in

th

e

de

pa

rtm

ent.

Me

dia

n w

ait t

ime

fo

r tr

ea

tme

nt in

em

erg

en

cy d

ep

art

men

ts.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f em

erg

ency

de

pa

rtm

ent

pa

tie

nts

se

en

within

recom

men

ded

tim

efr

am

es:

Cate

go

rie

s 1

–5

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f sp

ecia

list

outp

atie

nts

waitin

g w

ithin

clin

ica

lly

recom

men

ded

tim

es:

Cate

go

rie

s

1–

3.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ba

bie

s b

orn

of

low

bir

th w

eig

ht; I

ndig

en

ous a

nd

no

n–

In

dig

eno

us.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$2

461

713

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$8

58

63

4

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

603

079

QH

(D

oH

)

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Am

bu

lato

ry

Care





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is a

n a

ctivity m

easu

re. A

te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

iency

me

asu

re is th

e p

rog

ress a

gain

st

the

Na

tio

nal

Eff

icie

nt

Price o

f a

mbu

lato

ry c

are

. A

se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness m

easu

re is t

he p

erc

enta

ge o

f pa

tie

nts

an

d h

ea

lth

ca

re p

rovid

ers

re

port

ing

th

e t

rea

tme

nt

eff

ective

ly a

dd

resse

d t

he

sym

pto

ms.

(No

te t

he s

urv

ey o

f E

me

rge

ncy D

ep

art

men

t clie

nts

)

htt

p:/

/ww

w.h

ea

lth

.qld

.gov.a

u/p

su

/he

alth

-

exp

erie

nce

/do

cs/e

dp

es-2

013

–re

po

rt.p

df.

Th

is is a

tim

e m

easu

re ind

ica

tin

g t

he a

ccessib

ility

of

se

rvic

es.

Tim

elin

ess o

f se

rvic

e is a

n im

po

rta

nt m

easu

re.

Ho

we

ve

r oth

er

aspe

cts

of

qua

lity s

uch

as s

afe

ty a

nd

resp

on

siv

en

ess a

re a

lso

im

po

rta

nt

in d

eliv

erin

g

go

od

ou

tco

me

s.

Th

is s

ho

uld

be

a

n in

tern

al m

ea

su

re.

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

iency.

Th

e

lan

gua

ge

is n

ot cle

ar

to t

he

aud

ience

an

d th

e

term

ino

log

y is n

ot e

xpla

ine

d in t

he

no

tes.

An

alte

rna

tive

me

asu

re is th

e p

rog

ress a

ga

inst

the

Na

tio

nal E

ffic

ien

t P

rice.

Th

is is a

n a

ctivity m

easu

re. A

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess

me

asu

re is th

e p

erc

en

tag

e o

f p

atien

ts a

nd

he

alth

ca

re p

rovid

ers

rep

ort

ing

th

e t

rea

tme

nt

eff

ective

ly

ad

dre

ssed

the

sym

pto

ms. It

is a

lso o

f pu

blic

in

tere

st

to r

ep

ort

the

incid

ence

of a

dvers

e e

ve

nts

fo

r

pa

tien

ts u

nde

rgoin

g a

cu

te c

are

(a

s p

er

RO

GS

).

Th

is is a

n a

ctivity m

easu

re. A

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess

me

asu

re is th

e p

erc

en

tag

e o

f p

atien

ts a

nd

he

alth

ca

re p

rovid

ers

rep

ort

ing

th

e t

rea

tme

nt

eff

ective

ly

ad

dre

ssed

the

sym

pto

ms w

ith

in a

tim

e p

erio

d.

It is

als

o o

f pu

blic

in

tere

st to

rep

ort

th

e in

cid

ence

of

ad

ve

rse

even

ts fo

r pa

tien

ts r

ece

ivin

g r

eha

bili

tatio

n

an

d e

xte

nd

ed c

are

.

Th

is is a

pro

xy q

ua

lity m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e d

eliv

ery

of

bo

th t

he

acu

te c

are

unit a

nd t

he

co

mm

unity

ba

sed

se

rvic

e p

rovid

ers

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

Te

●

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

T ●

●

C

A

● ●

●

Pro

ce

ss

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

19

3 4

82

,

18

76

31

,

15

6 7

29

25

10

0,9

1,9

6

1.7

,0.8

4 5

68

85

3 0

15

10

2 8

59

<1

2

Un

its

Nu

mb

er

Da

ys

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$

Nu

mb

er

Nu

mb

er

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

To

tal w

eig

hte

d a

ctivity u

nits:

ED

,

ou

tpa

tie

nts

, in

terv

en

tion

s a

nd

pro

ced

ure

s.

Me

dia

n w

ait t

ime

fo

r ele

ctive

su

rge

ry

(All)

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ele

ctive

su

rge

ry

pa

tien

ts tre

ate

d w

ith

in c

linic

ally

recom

men

ded

tim

es:

Cate

go

rie

s

1–

3.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ad

mitte

d p

atie

nts

dis

ch

arg

ed

ag

ain

st m

ed

ica

l a

dvic

e:

Ind

ige

no

us a

nd

no

n-I

nd

ige

nous.

Ave

rage

co

st p

er

weig

hte

d a

ctivity

un

it fo

r A

ctivity B

ase

d F

un

din

g

facili

tie

s.

To

tal w

eig

hte

d a

ctivity u

nits:

acu

te

inp

atie

nt.

To

tal w

eig

hte

d a

ctivity u

nits: su

b-

acu

te.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

-ad

mis

sio

ns t

o a

cu

te

psych

iatr

ic c

are

with

in 2

8 d

ays o

f

dis

ch

arg

e.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$6

435

674

$1

058

216

$1

119

770

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$2

456

798

$5

08

61

6

$4

17

94

8

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$3

978

876

$5

49

60

0

$7

01

82

2

QH

(D

oH

)

Se

rvic

e a

rea

4.

Acute

Ca

re

5.

Reh

ab

ilita

tio

n

an

d E

xte

nd

ed

Care

6.

Inte

gra

ted

Me

nta

l H

ealth

Se

rvic

es





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is a

qua

lity m

easu

re o

f one

asp

ect o

f se

rvic

e

de

live

ry,

as a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness.

Th

e

targ

et is

lo

w,

with

ou

t fu

rth

er

exp

lan

ation

.

Th

is is a

wh

ole

-of-

go

ve

rnm

en

t m

easu

re o

f

co

mm

unity m

en

tal h

ealth

re

flecting

th

e

eff

ective

ness o

f an

arr

ay o

f socia

l a

nd e

co

nom

ic

po

licie

s a

nd

se

rvic

es to

re

du

ce

th

e in

cid

en

ce o

f

me

nta

l he

alth

pro

ble

ms a

nd m

en

tal ill

ness.

Th

is a

ctivity m

easu

re is u

ncle

ar

as th

ere

is n

o

exp

lan

atio

n o

f th

e c

ou

nt

(e.g

. h

ou

rs,

days).

It

do

es

no

t p

rovid

e e

ffic

iency o

r e

ffe

ctive

ness in

form

atio

n.

A

co

st e

ffectiven

ess m

easu

re is th

e r

atio

of

the

red

uce

d c

ost

of h

osp

ital ad

mis

sio

n d

ue t

o

co

mm

unity-b

ase

d h

ea

lth

se

rvic

es to

the

pro

gra

m

co

st. A

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ne

ss m

easu

re o

f am

bula

tory

se

rvic

es in

clu

des im

pro

ved

wellb

ein

g s

ho

wn b

y

se

lf–

ca

re a

nd

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n a

nd s

ocia

l a

nd e

co

nom

ic

inclu

sio

n.

Th

is is a

n a

ctivity m

easu

re. A

n e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re

for

this

se

rvic

e w

ou

ld b

e p

rog

ress a

gain

st

the

Na

tio

nal E

ffic

ien

t P

rice.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is d

irectly r

epo

rte

d:

in

fou

r o

f th

e s

ix s

erv

ice

are

as

fo

r 1

3 o

f 37

me

asu

res.

Se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency is d

irectly r

ep

ort

ed

:

in

one

of six

se

rvic

e a

reas

fo

r o

ne o

f 3

7 m

easu

res.

Th

ere

are

no

me

asu

res o

f co

st e

ffective

ness.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

13

Ce

0

Te

1

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

● 4

T 7

C 0

A ●

●

7

Pro

ce

ss

3

Inp

ut

2

Ta

rge

t >6

0

1.8

–2

.0

96

1 3

88

–

16

4 5

71

12

0 5

37

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Nu

mb

er

Nu

mb

er

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Rate

of com

mun

ity f

ollo

w u

p w

ith

in

1–

7 d

ays f

ollo

win

g d

isch

arg

e fro

m

an

acu

te m

enta

l h

ealth

in

patien

t

un

it.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e p

op

ula

tio

n

rece

ivin

g c

linic

al m

en

tal he

alth c

are

.

Am

bu

lato

ry m

en

tal h

ea

lth s

erv

ice

co

nta

ct d

ura

tio

n.

To

tal w

eig

hte

d a

ctivity u

nits–m

en

tal

he

alth

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

2 3

26

41

9

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$4

612

057

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$7

714

363

QH

(D

oH

)

Se

rvic

e a

rea

To

tal





Figure E10—Department of Housing and Public Works

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Sa

tisfa

ctio

n is a

we

ak s

erv

ice q

ua

lity m

easu

re w

he

n it

is r

ep

ort

ed

witho

ut a

ny c

lari

ty o

f th

e c

rite

ria o

n w

hic

h

it is b

ase

d. It

do

es n

ot

indic

ate

wh

eth

er

the

pro

ce

ss

me

t qu

alit

y s

tan

da

rds o

r th

e o

utc

om

e w

as f

it f

or

pu

rpose

. A

te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy is th

e c

ost p

er

clie

nt

for

each

se

rvic

e t

yp

e.

A d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness is w

he

the

r th

e s

erv

ice

pro

vid

ed a

ssis

ted

the

clie

nts

to

ma

inta

in s

uitab

le,

aff

ord

ab

le, sta

ble

ho

usin

g. T

he

re is n

o r

ep

ort

ing o

n t

he s

erv

ice

are

a

ob

jective

to

im

pro

ve

eco

no

mic

an

d s

ocia

l p

art

icip

atio

n

an

d s

ocia

l in

clu

sio

n f

or

indiv

idu

als

an

d f

am

ilie

s.

Th

is q

ualit

y m

ea

su

re in

dic

ate

s w

he

the

r th

e s

erv

ice

is

rea

chin

g th

e g

ove

rnm

en

t's p

rio

rity

ta

rge

t g

rou

p.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect se

rvic

e t

ime m

easu

re f

or

so

cia

l

ren

tal h

ousin

g.

Ap

pro

pria

te te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re f

or

ma

nag

em

en

t o

f so

cia

l re

nta

l ho

usin

g.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect se

rvic

e q

ua

lity m

easu

re fo

r so

cia

l

ren

tal h

ousin

g.

Pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f cost

effe

ctive

ne

ss t

hro

ugh

ma

xim

isin

g th

e p

ote

ntia

l o

f th

e h

ousin

g s

tock.

Th

is in

tern

al m

ea

sure

in

dic

ate

s t

he s

erv

ice

are

a's

pro

gre

ss in

ou

tso

urc

ing s

ocia

l re

nta

l h

ousin

g.

Th

is

me

asu

re is n

ot

req

uire

d a

s it

do

es n

ot

ad

d to

exis

tin

g

eff

icie

ncy a

nd e

ffective

ne

ss r

ep

ort

ing

. A

n e

ffic

ien

cy

me

asu

re w

ou

ld in

dic

ate

th

e s

avin

gs a

ccru

ed

fro

m t

he

sh

ift to

no

n–g

ove

rnm

en

t h

ousin

g.

A d

irect

me

asu

re o

f e

ffe

ctivene

ss o

f ho

usin

g s

erv

ice

s

is t

he

pe

rcen

tage

incre

ase

in

ho

usin

g s

tock

acco

mm

od

ating

hig

h n

ee

ds c

lien

ts (

as p

er

Hou

sin

g

20

20

go

al).

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

●

Te

●

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

● ●

T ●

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

●

Ta

rge

t 92

95

10

1 1

26

97

0.1

55

35

by e

nd

20

14

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Mo

nth

s

$

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Le

vel o

f clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n: B

on

d

loa

ns;

ho

me a

ssis

t se

cu

re;

hom

e

pu

rcha

se a

ssis

tance

; socia

l re

nta

l

ho

usin

g.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ne

w h

ou

seh

old

s

assis

ted

in

gove

rnm

en

t-m

an

ag

ed

so

cia

l re

nta

l ho

usin

g w

ho

we

re in

ve

ry h

igh

or

hig

h n

eed

.

Ave

rage

wa

it t

ime

to a

lloca

tion f

or

assis

tan

ce

(m

on

ths)

with

go

ve

rnm

en

t-m

an

ag

ed

socia

l re

nta

l

ho

usin

g fo

r clie

nts

in

ve

ry h

igh o

r

hig

h n

ee

d.

Ave

rage

ten

ancy a

nd

pro

pe

rty

ma

nag

em

en

t a

dm

inis

tratio

n c

ost

pe

r

ho

use

hold

s a

ssis

ted

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f de

pa

rtm

en

t o

wn

ed

so

cia

l re

nta

l ho

usin

g d

welli

ngs in

acce

pta

ble

co

nd

itio

n.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f un

de

r o

ccu

pie

d

go

ve

rnm

en

t o

wne

d a

nd

ma

nag

ed

so

cia

l re

nta

l ho

usin

g.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f so

cia

l h

ousin

g u

nd

er

no

n–

go

vern

me

nt m

ana

gem

en

t.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$9

32

49

4

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$6

85

97

6

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

52

92

6

DH

PW

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Housin

g

Se

rvic

es





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Dir

ect m

easu

re o

f cost

effe

ctive

ne

ss s

ho

win

g

su

ccess in

ma

xim

isin

g v

alu

e o

f g

ove

rnm

en

t a

sse

t.

Pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f cost

effe

ctive

ne

ss s

ho

win

g o

ptim

al

use

of

gove

rnm

en

t assets

. It

do

es n

ot

rep

ort

whe

ther

the

accom

mo

datio

n is f

it fo

r purp

ose.

A d

ire

ct

me

asu

re o

f se

rvic

e a

rea p

erf

orm

ance

is t

he

pe

rcen

tage

of g

ove

rnm

en

t sta

ff in

aff

ord

ab

le

acco

mm

od

ation

suited

to

bu

sin

ess a

nd

co

mm

un

ity

ne

eds.

Dir

ect m

easu

re o

f cost

effic

iency.

Pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f cost

effic

iency-m

axim

isin

g u

se

of

go

ve

rnm

en

t asse

t. A

te

chn

ica

l e

ffic

ien

cy is t

he c

ost

pe

r p

ers

on p

er

sq

ua

re m

etr

e.

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f in

tern

al pro

cu

rem

ent

and

co

ntr

act m

ana

gem

ent

pro

cesse

s.

It is n

ot

req

uir

ed

to

rep

ort

in

the

SD

S.

Sta

ke

ho

lde

r sa

tisfa

ction

with s

erv

ice

s m

ay b

e a

pro

xy

for

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness if

the

me

asu

re in

clu

de

s a

ll

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, su

ita

bili

ty a

nd

accessib

ility

. It is n

ot cle

ar

wh

at

this

me

asu

re s

urv

eys a

nd

ho

w it

rela

tes t

o th

e

se

rvic

e a

rea o

bje

ctive

.

Th

e a

mo

un

t o

f savin

g b

y its

elf d

oe

s n

ot in

dic

ate

the

eff

icie

ncy o

r e

ffe

ctive

ness o

f th

e s

erv

ice

are

a in

pro

cu

rem

en

t. Im

me

dia

te s

avin

gs c

ou

ld incre

ase

lo

ng

term

co

sts

in

go

ods a

nd

incre

ase

la

bo

ur

costs

. A

techn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re is t

he

red

uctio

n in

cost

of

go

ods a

nd

se

rvic

es p

er

pe

rson

. A

dire

ct m

ea

su

re o

f

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess is t

he

perc

en

tag

e o

f p

rocu

red

go

ods a

nd

se

rvic

es t

ha

t a

re f

it fo

r p

urp

ose

ove

r th

e

exp

ecte

d t

ime

of

use

.

Th

is is a

n in

tern

al a

ctivity m

easu

re a

ime

d a

t re

du

cin

g

co

sts

th

rou

gh

eco

no

mie

s o

f sca

le.

Ho

weve

r it d

oe

s

no

t in

dic

ate

eff

icie

ncie

s o

r eff

ective

ness o

f th

e

str

ate

gy. A

tech

nic

al e

ffic

iency m

easu

re is th

e

pe

rcen

tage

re

du

ctio

n in

cost

of

go

ods a

nd

se

rvic

es

pro

cu

red

th

rou

gh

the

wh

ole

of g

ove

rnm

en

t str

ate

gy. A

co

st e

ffectiven

ess m

easu

re is th

e r

atio

of

the r

ealis

ed

sa

vin

gs a

nd

the

se

rvic

e a

rea

exp

end

itu

re.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

●

●

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

T

C ●

● ●

A ●

Pro

ce

ss

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

≥6

,5,

≥2

.2

≤4

, ≤ 3

≤3

30

0

<=

13

.6;

12

≤2

.0

0.7

50

70

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Kw

h p

er

an

num

Sq

ua

re

me

tres

pe

r

pe

rson

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$ m

illio

n

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Retu

rn o

n investm

en

t: c

om

merc

ial

pro

pe

rtie

s,

gove

rnm

en

t em

plo

ye

e

ho

usin

g.

Va

ca

ncy r

ate

: o

ffic

e p

ort

folio

,

go

ve

rnm

en

t em

plo

ye

e h

ou

sin

g.

En

erg

y c

on

sum

ptio

n p

er

em

plo

ye

e

occu

pyin

g o

ffic

e s

pace

(in

th

e

ow

ne

d o

ffic

e p

ort

folio

).

Wo

rk p

oin

t d

en

sity: a

ve

rag

e; ne

w f

it-

ou

t.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f de

faults b

y

pre

– q

ua

lifie

d b

uild

ing

in

du

str

y

co

ntr

acto

rs o

n g

ove

rnm

en

t bu

ildin

g

pro

jects

.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n.

Sa

vin

gs a

nd

be

nefits

deliv

ere

d

un

de

r e

xis

tin

g a

nd

ne

w

arr

an

gem

en

ts to

go

ve

rnm

en

t.

Incre

ased

utilis

atio

n o

f

wh

ole

– o

f– g

ove

rnm

en

t

arr

an

gem

en

ts.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$6

46

47

5

$1

4 1

27

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$5

91

70

1

$0

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$5

4 8

20

$1

4 1

27

DH

PW

Se

rvic

e a

rea

2.

Bu

ildin

g

Se

rvic

es

3.

Pro

cu

rem

en

t

Se

rvic

es





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is n

ot d

ire

ctly r

ep

ort

ed

in a

ny o

f

the

se

rvic

e a

reas.

Se

rvic

e e

ffic

ien

cy is d

ire

ctly

rep

ort

ed

in:

tw

o o

f th

ree

se

rvic

e a

rea

s (

66

pe

r ce

nt)

fo

ur

of 1

5 m

easu

res (

27

pe

r ce

nt)

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

0

Ce

3

Te

1

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q 4

T 1

C 3

A 1

Pro

ce

ss 1

Inp

ut 1

Ta

rge

t

Un

its

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

593

096

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

277

677

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$2

21

87

3

DH

PW

Se

rvic

e a

rea

To

tal





Figure E11—Department of Justice and Attorney-General

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

RO

GS

cla

ssifie

s c

lea

rance

rate

as a

n e

ffic

iency

me

asu

re, b

ut

QA

O a

ssesse

s it a

s a

tim

e m

easu

re

wh

ich

is a

pro

xy f

or

eff

icie

ncy.

Th

e b

ett

er

tech

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy m

easu

re is c

ost

pe

r

fin

alis

ation

.

Ba

cklo

g in

dic

ato

r' m

ea

su

res tim

elin

ess a

nd

de

lay

wh

ich

is a

no

the

r p

roxy f

or

eff

icie

ncy.

Th

e b

ett

er

techn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re is c

ost

pe

r fina

lisa

tio

n.

Th

is m

ea

su

res th

e e

ffective

ness o

f a

pro

gra

m a

rea

rath

er

tha

n th

e s

erv

ice

are

a a

nd

is th

ere

fore

a q

ua

lity

ind

ica

tor

of o

utp

uts

an

d a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m the

sup

po

rtin

g n

ote

s t

ha

t

all

of

these

aspe

cts

are

su

rveye

d.

This

me

asu

re is a

we

ak p

roxy a

s t

he p

erc

ep

tio

ns o

f co

urt

use

rs a

bo

ut

the

qua

lity o

f th

e s

erv

ices d

eliv

ere

d b

y c

ou

rts m

ay b

e

str

ong

ly in

flu

en

ced

by t

he o

utc

om

es o

f ju

dic

ial

de

cis

ion

s.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

from

th

e s

up

po

rtin

g n

ote

s th

at a

ll o

f

the

se

asp

ects

are

su

rve

yed

.

Th

is is a

pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f cost

eff

ective

ne

ss.

Th

is m

ea

su

res th

e e

ffective

ness o

f a

pro

gra

m a

rea

rath

er

tha

n th

e s

erv

ice

are

a a

nd

is th

ere

fore

a q

ua

lity

ind

ica

tor

of o

utp

uts

an

d o

ne

pro

xy fo

r se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness.

Th

is m

ea

su

re is a

pro

xy f

or

tech

nic

al e

ffic

iency. T

he

techn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re is c

ost

pe

r d

ecis

ion

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ● ● ●

T

●

● ●

C ●

A

Pro

ce

ss

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

95

–1

02

0–

12

50

80

95

70

85

3.2

5

65

2

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$

Pe

r cen

t

Da

ys

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Cle

ara

nce

ra

tes (

sup

rem

e,

dis

tric

t,

ma

gis

trate

s, a

pp

ea

ls, ch

ildre

n's

,

co

rone

r's. la

nd c

ou

rts a

nd

tri

bu

na

ls)

(fin

alis

ation

s/lo

dge

me

nts

).

Ba

cklo

g in

dic

ato

rs (

sup

rem

e,

dis

tric

t, m

ag

istr

ate

s, a

pp

ea

ls,

ch

ildre

n's

, co

ron

er's,

lan

d c

ou

rts a

nd

trib

una

ls)

(gre

ate

r th

an

24

mon

ths).

Ag

ree

me

nt

rate

pe

r ce

nt:

C

ivil

La

w -

ma

nd

ato

ry

me

dia

tion

s fo

r Q

CA

T

C

ivil

La

w -

vo

lun

tary

co

mm

unity m

ed

iatio

ns

C

rim

ina

l La

w.

Ove

rall

clie

nt satisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es p

rovid

ed.

Pri

va

te s

ecto

r in

du

str

ial re

lation

s

Ove

rall

clie

nt satisfa

ctio

n w

ith

inspe

cto

rate

's e

ffe

ctiven

ess a

nd

pro

fessio

nalis

m.

Cost

of P

SIR

se

rvic

es p

er

Qu

ee

nsla

nde

r.

Ad

min

of

the

In

dustr

ial C

ou

rt a

nd

Com

mis

sio

n s

yste

m

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f m

atte

rs r

esolv

ed

at

co

nfe

rence

.

Ave

rage

tim

e fo

r d

ecis

ion

s to

be

pu

blis

he

d a

nd

ma

de a

va

ilab

le to

th

e

co

mm

unity.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$2

73

76

6

$1

08

14

3

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$3

7 0

36

$6

9 5

61

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$2

36

73

0

$3

8 5

82

DJA

G

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Cri

min

al a

nd

civ

il ju

stice

2.

Fa

ir a

nd s

afe

work





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

from

th

e s

up

po

rtin

g n

ote

s th

at a

ll o

f

the

se

asp

ects

are

su

rve

yed

.

Th

is is a

pro

xy m

ea

su

re f

or

serv

ice

effe

ctiven

ess.

Be

tte

r se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctiven

ess m

ea

su

res a

re th

e

nu

mbe

r o

f in

juri

es a

nd

fata

litie

s a

nd

num

be

r o

f

bre

ach

es.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

from

th

e s

up

po

rtin

g n

ote

s th

at a

ll o

f

the

se

asp

ects

are

su

rve

yed

.

Th

is is a

pro

xy f

or

tech

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy.

A b

ett

er

techn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re is c

ost

pe

r in

sp

ection

.

Th

is is a

n a

pp

rop

ria

te s

erv

ice

eff

ective

ness m

easu

re.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

from

th

e s

up

po

rtin

g n

ote

s th

at a

ll o

f

the

se

asp

ects

are

su

rve

yed

.

Th

is is a

n o

utp

ut

co

st m

ea

su

re a

nd

is a

pro

xy fo

r co

st

eff

ective

ness. M

ea

su

res o

f cost

effic

iency a

re c

ost

pe

r in

sp

ectio

n /

ou

tpu

t / p

rog

ram

.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

from

th

e s

up

po

rtin

g n

ote

s th

at a

ll o

f

the

se

asp

ects

are

su

rve

yed

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

●

● ● ●

T

C ● ●

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 85

65

85

27

.88

10

85

3.4

0

3.5

7

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$

Nu

mb

er

Pe

r cen

t

$

Ra

tin

g

1–

5

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Le

vel o

f clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

reg

istr

y s

erv

ice

s.

Wo

rkpla

ce

hea

lth a

nd

safe

ty

se

rvic

es

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f su

ccessfu

l

pro

secu

tio

ns.

Ove

rall

clie

nt satisfa

ctio

n w

ith

:

in

spe

cto

rate

's e

ffe

ctiven

ess

an

d p

rofe

ssio

nalis

m

b

usin

ess e

ng

ag

em

en

t

pro

gra

ms.

Cost

of W

HS

Q s

erv

ice

s p

er

wo

rke

r

co

ve

red

by th

e w

ork

ers

'

co

mp

ensa

tio

n s

che

me

.

Ele

ctr

ical sa

fety

se

rvic

es

Th

e n

um

be

r o

f re

po

rte

d s

erio

us

ele

ctr

ica

l in

cid

en

ts in

vo

lvin

g p

ow

er

lines,

insta

llation

s a

nd

ele

ctr

ica

l

eq

uip

men

t p

er

mill

ion

po

pula

tio

n.

Ove

rall

clie

nt satisfa

ctio

n w

ith

:

in

spe

cto

rate

's e

ffe

ctiven

ess

an

d p

rofe

ssio

nalis

m

a

cce

ss t

o a

nd

re

leva

nce

of

ele

ctr

ica

l sa

fety

sem

ina

r

pro

gra

ms.

Cost

of e

lectr

ical sa

fety

se

rvic

es p

er

pe

rson

in Q

ue

ensla

nd

.

Le

ga

l se

rvic

es t

o g

ove

rnm

en

t

Ove

rall

clie

nt satisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es p

rovid

ed.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$5

4 9

14

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$3

6 0

70

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

8 8

44

DJA

G

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Le

ga

l





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is a

ppe

ars

to

be

a m

easu

re o

f in

pu

t. T

he

re is n

o

exp

lan

atio

n o

f ho

w t

he m

ea

su

re o

f p

rod

uctivity f

or

ch

arg

ea

ble

ho

urs

is c

alc

ula

ted,

or

su

ffic

ien

t de

tail

to

ad

eq

ua

tely

asse

ss t

he

effic

iency o

f th

e s

erv

ice

. T

he

techn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re is c

ost

pe

r se

rvic

e

pro

vid

ed

.

Tim

elin

ess o

f re

gis

tra

tio

n a

nd

ce

rtific

ate

issu

e a

re

pro

xie

s o

f e

ffe

ctive

ness. O

the

r p

roxie

s a

re q

ua

lity

me

asu

res s

uch a

s a

ccu

racy,

pre

se

rva

tio

n a

nd

ca

re o

f

reco

rds, m

ain

tena

nce

of a

rch

ive

s a

nd

th

e s

ecu

rity

of

da

ta. T

he

te

chn

ica

l e

ffic

ien

cy m

easu

res a

re c

ost

pe

r

reg

istr

atio

n /

ce

rtific

ate

.

Tim

elin

ess is o

ne

pro

xy o

f eff

ective

ness.

Oth

er

pro

xie

s a

re q

ua

lity m

ea

su

res s

uch

as a

ccu

racy o

f th

e

asse

ssm

en

ts, in

form

ation

bein

g u

nde

rsto

od

by c

lien

ts

an

d p

rop

ort

ion

of clie

nts

be

ne

fitin

g f

rom

th

e s

erv

ice

.

Th

e t

ech

nic

al e

ffic

iency m

ea

su

re is a

ve

rage

co

st p

er

asse

ssm

en

t.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

from

th

e s

up

po

rtin

g n

ote

s th

at a

ll o

f

the

se

asp

ects

are

su

rve

yed

.

Ave

rage

tim

e to

co

mple

te is a

tim

elin

ess m

ea

su

re

wh

ich

is a

pro

xy f

or

eff

icie

ncy. T

he

tech

nic

al

eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re is c

ost p

er

investig

atio

n.

Th

is is a

pro

xy f

or

ou

tpu

t q

ua

lity a

nd

effe

ctiven

ess.

Th

e t

ech

nic

al e

ffic

iency m

ea

su

re is c

ost p

er

inspe

ctio

n.

Th

is is a

pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss.

Oth

er

pro

xie

s in

clu

de

num

be

r o

f com

pla

ints

an

d p

erc

en

tag

e

of

com

pla

ints

re

sultin

g in

re

dre

ss.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ● ●

T ●

●

● ●

●

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

●

Ta

rge

t

10

0

6

5

3

10

4.5

21

21

80

15

0

75

80

5.5

90

3

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Da

ys

Da

ys

Ca

len

da

r

da

ys

Pe

r cen

t

Mo

nth

s

Pe

r cen

t

$ m

illio

n

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pro

du

ctivity fo

r ch

arg

ea

ble

hou

rs.

Life

even

t re

gis

tra

tio

n s

erv

ices

Ave

rage

tim

e to

re

gis

ter

life

eve

nts

:

b

irth

s

m

arr

iag

es

d

ea

ths

ch

ang

es o

f na

me

.

Ave

rage

tim

e to

issue

life

event

ce

rtific

ate

s.

Vic

tim

s o

f cri

me

assis

tan

ce

serv

ice

s

Ave

rage

len

gth

of

tim

e f

or

fin

an

cia

l

assis

tan

ce

:

in

terim

asse

ssm

en

ts

fu

ne

ral assessm

ents

g

en

era

l asse

ssm

en

ts

g

en

era

l asse

ssm

en

ts fo

r

se

co

nd

ary

an

d r

ela

ted

vic

tim

s.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f clie

nts

satisfied

with

the

ove

rall

se

rvic

e:

fin

ancia

l assis

tan

ce

L

inkU

p.

Gu

ard

ianship

se

rvic

es

Ave

rage

tim

e to

co

mple

te r

efe

rre

d

investig

atio

ns.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f lic

ensin

g a

pp

lica

tio

ns

an

d r

eg

istr

atio

n s

erv

ice

s p

rocessed

with

in tim

efr

am

es e

sta

blis

he

d in

se

rvic

e d

eliv

ery

sta

nd

ard

s.

Con

sum

er

red

ress fa

cili

tate

d b

y t

he

Off

ice

of

Fair

Tra

din

g.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$3

8 6

74

$7

9 3

46

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

4 4

85

$3

716

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$2

4 1

89

$7

5 6

30

DJA

G

Se

rvic

e a

rea

4.

Hum

an

rig

hts

pro

tection

5.

Liq

uo

r, g

am

ing

an

d f

air

tra

din

g





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is a

n o

utp

ut

co

st m

ea

su

re a

nd

a p

roxy m

easu

re

of

cost

eff

ective

ness.

Th

ese

me

asu

res a

ssess th

e e

ffe

ctiven

ess o

f p

rog

ram

are

as r

ath

er

than

the

se

rvic

e a

rea

and

are

th

ere

fore

qu

alit

y in

dic

ato

rs o

f ou

tputs

and

pro

xie

s f

or

se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness. S

erv

ice e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss m

easu

res

acco

rdin

g t

o R

OG

s a

re:

se

cu

re h

ou

sin

g

e

du

ca

tion

and

em

plo

ym

en

t re

ad

iness

re

pe

at o

ffen

din

g.

Te

chn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

res in

clu

de c

ost p

er

yo

ung

pe

rson

su

bje

ct

to c

om

mu

nity-b

ase

d s

up

erv

isio

n a

nd

co

st p

er

yo

un

g p

ers

on

to d

ete

ntio

n-b

ase

d

su

pe

rvis

ion

.

Th

is is a

pro

xy f

or

eff

ective

ne

ss o

f a

pro

gra

m.

Th

is is a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness.

Th

is is a

tim

elin

ess m

ea

su

re w

hic

h is a

pro

xy f

or

pro

gra

m e

ffe

ctive

ness. It

doe

s n

ot co

ve

r q

ua

lity

asp

ects

such

as th

e a

pp

rop

ria

ten

ess o

f in

terv

en

tio

ns

an

d w

heth

er

inte

rve

ntion

s m

et th

e n

ee

ds o

f th

e c

hild

.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is d

irectly m

ea

su

red

:

in

one

of th

e s

ix s

erv

ice

are

as (

17

pe

r cen

t) in

rela

tio

n o

nly

to

som

e o

f th

e s

erv

ice

s u

nd

ert

ake

n

in t

ha

t a

rea

b

y o

ne

of th

e 3

0 s

tand

ard

s r

epo

rte

d (

3 p

er

ce

nt)

.

Th

ere

is n

o d

ire

ct

serv

ice

eff

ectiven

ess m

easu

re fo

r

at

lea

st 8

5 p

er

ce

nt

of

tota

l co

sts

.

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct te

ch

nic

al eff

icie

ncy o

r cost

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

1

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

●

●

● 14

T ● 9

C

● 4

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

1

Inp

ut

1

Ta

rge

t 18

72

81

78

57

59

62

98

3.5

0.1

4

0.3

5

80

80

Un

its

$

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Ra

te

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Cost

of liq

uo

r, g

am

ing a

nd f

air

tra

din

g s

erv

ices p

er

Que

ensla

nd

er.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f o

rde

rs s

up

erv

ise

d in

the

co

mm

unity th

at a

re s

uccessfu

lly

co

mp

lete

d:

A

bo

rigin

al a

nd T

orr

es S

tra

it

Isla

nd

er

yo

un

g p

eo

ple

o

the

r yo

un

g p

eo

ple

a

ll yo

ung

peo

ple

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f co

mp

lete

d r

efe

rra

ls to

the

co

nditio

na

l b

ail

pro

gra

m t

ha

t a

re

su

ccessfu

l:

A

bo

rigin

al a

nd T

orr

es S

tra

it

Isla

nd

er

yo

un

g p

eo

ple

o

the

r yo

un

g p

eo

ple

a

ll yo

ung

peo

ple

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f yo

uth

justice

co

nfe

rencin

g p

art

icip

ants

(in

clu

din

g

the

vic

tim

) th

at a

re s

atisfie

d w

ith

th

e

ou

tco

me

.

Rate

pe

r 1

000

yo

ung

peo

ple

(a

ge

d

10

–1

6 y

ea

rs)

in d

ete

ntion

:

A

bo

rigin

al a

nd T

orr

es S

tra

it

Isla

nd

er

yo

un

g p

eo

ple

o

the

r yo

un

g p

eo

ple

a

ll yo

ung

peo

ple

.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f case

pla

ns r

evie

we

d

with

in 6

we

eks o

f a

you

ng

pe

rso

n

co

mm

encin

g a

yo

uth

ju

stice

ord

er:

se

nte

nce

d c

om

mu

nity-b

ase

d

ord

er

se

nte

nce

d d

ete

ntio

n o

rde

r

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

44

10

5

$6

98

94

8

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$6

68

$1

61

53

6

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

43

43

7

$5

37

41

2

DJA

G

Se

rvic

e a

rea

6.

Yo

uth

justice

To

tal





Figure E12—Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Sta

ke

ho

lde

r sa

tisfa

ction

with s

erv

ice

s c

an

be a

pro

xy

for

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness if

it m

ea

su

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m the

sup

po

rtin

g n

ote

s t

ha

t

all

of

these

aspe

cts

are

su

rveye

d.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss is th

e

pro

po

rtio

n o

f lo

cal g

ove

rnm

en

ts t

hat

are

fin

an

cia

lly

su

sta

ina

ble

and

accou

nta

ble

to

th

eir

com

mu

nitie

s.

Th

ese

tw

o s

tand

ard

s r

ela

te d

ire

ctly t

o h

ow

th

e

de

pa

rtm

ent

deliv

ers

th

ese

se

rvic

es,

rath

er

than

to

th

e

se

rvic

es th

em

se

lves a

nd

so

are

no

t p

roxie

s f

or

eithe

r

eff

icie

ncy o

r e

ffe

ctive

ness o

f ou

tcom

es.

In th

eir

pre

se

nt

form

th

ey a

lso

ob

scu

re a

ctu

al p

erf

orm

ance

, a

s th

ey

pro

vid

e n

o u

se

ful d

ata

on

the

le

ng

th o

f an

y d

ela

ys,

or

on

th

e a

mo

un

t o

f an

y c

ost

overr

un

s o

r re

ve

nue

sh

ort

falls

.

Oth

er

jurisdic

tio

ns (

e.g

. W

A)

me

asu

re t

he

im

pro

ve

me

nt

in local g

ove

rnm

ent's c

ap

ab

ility

to

en

able

th

e fu

lfilm

en

t

of

their

resp

on

sib

ility

to

th

eir

co

mm

un

itie

s:

p

rop

ort

ion

of

local g

ove

rnm

en

ts m

ee

tin

g t

he

full

se

t of

fou

r cap

abili

ty e

lem

en

ts a

t a

ba

sic

le

ve

l

p

rop

ort

ion

of ca

pab

ility

ele

me

nts

me

t a

t th

e b

asic

level acro

ss a

ll lo

ca

l.

Tim

elin

ess is o

ne

dim

ensio

n o

f se

rvic

e o

utp

ut

eff

ective

ness, b

ut th

e m

easu

re u

sed

and

ta

rge

t ob

scu

re

actu

al p

rocessin

g tim

es a

nd

do

no

t a

llow

exte

rnal

be

nch

ma

rkin

g w

ith

or

lon

gitud

ina

l co

mp

ariso

ns.

Oth

er

jurisdic

tio

ns (

e.g

. W

A)

me

asu

re a

ve

rage

co

st o

f

ad

vic

e a

nd

su

pp

ort

to

de

velo

p lo

cal g

ove

rnm

en

t, w

hic

h

is a

dir

ect m

easu

re o

f te

chn

ical e

ffic

ien

cy.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is w

he

the

r

the

pro

jects

we

re d

eliv

ere

d a

nd

re

sili

en

ce

activitie

s

imp

lem

en

ted

to

mitig

ate

the

effe

ct o

f n

atu

ral d

isaste

rs.

Th

e m

easu

re a

nd

ta

rge

t o

bscure

pe

rfo

rman

ce a

s t

hey

pro

vid

e n

o in

form

atio

n o

n d

ela

ys o

r th

e s

ca

le o

f th

e

fun

din

g a

gre

em

en

ts th

at

are

be

hin

d s

ch

edu

le.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

T ●

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

● ●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 85

85

90

90

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f Lo

cal G

ove

rnm

en

ts

sa

tisfie

d w

ith

advic

e a

nd

se

rvic

es

pro

vid

ed

by th

e d

ep

art

men

t.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f sche

dule

d a

ctivitie

s

an

d p

rog

ram

s u

nde

rta

ke

n b

y th

e

de

pa

rtm

ent

co

mple

ted

within

ag

ree

d

se

t tim

efr

am

es a

nd

bu

dge

t

allo

ca

tio

n.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f Lo

cal G

ove

rnm

en

t

Gra

nts

an

d S

ub

sid

ies

(in

frastr

uctu

re)

Pro

gra

m fu

nd

ing

ag

reem

en

ts m

an

ag

ed

acco

rdin

g t

o

ag

ree

d t

ime

fram

es.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f Lo

cal G

ove

rnm

en

t

Gra

nts

an

d S

ub

sid

ies (

Flo

od

)

Pro

gra

m f

und

ing a

gre

em

en

ts

ma

nag

ed

acco

rdin

g to

ag

ree

d

tim

efr

am

es.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

93

12

0

$2

4 9

90

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$4

30

$1

6

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

53

17

8

$2

3 1

70

DL

GC

RR

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Loca

l

Go

ve

rnm

en

t

2.

Com

mu

nity

Reco

ve

ry a

nd

Resili

ence





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Su

mm

ary

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct o

utc

om

e e

ffic

iency o

r e

ffe

ctiven

ess

me

asu

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

0

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

1

T

1

C

0

A

0

Pro

ce

ss

2

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t

Un

its

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$2

18

11

0

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$4

46

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

76

34

8

DL

GC

RR

Se

rvic

e a

rea

To

tal





Figure E13—Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

e m

easu

re s

ho

ws t

he

in

tern

al e

ffic

iency o

f th

e

se

rvic

e a

rea in

ad

min

iste

rin

g p

roje

cts

bu

t do

es n

ot

rep

ort

on

the

actu

al o

utp

uts

or

ou

tco

mes o

f th

e

pro

jects

. T

he m

ea

sure

of cost e

ffe

ctive

ness is th

e

incre

ased

va

lue

of th

e a

men

ity p

er

se

rvic

e a

rea

exp

en

ditu

re.

A te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re is t

he

cost

pe

r vis

ito

r. T

he

dir

ect

se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctiven

ess m

easu

re is

the

% o

f th

e m

an

ag

ed

esta

te th

at

is p

rote

cte

d a

nd

acce

ssib

le f

or

use

(as p

er

se

rvic

e a

rea

ob

jectives).

Th

e m

easu

re r

ep

ort

s m

ee

tin

g th

e t

arg

et a

ctivity r

ate

bu

t

no

t th

e e

ffic

iency o

r e

ffe

ctivene

ss o

f th

e f

ire

ma

nag

em

en

t syste

m.

Th

e t

ech

nic

al eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re

is t

he

co

st p

er

he

cta

re o

f tr

ea

tme

nt. T

he

dir

ect se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness m

easu

re is t

he p

erc

enta

ge o

f vu

lne

rable

esta

te p

rote

cte

d a

ga

inst fire

(th

at

is,

pe

rcen

tage

fire

fre

e).

A fu

rth

er

mea

sure

ma

y r

eflect

the

pe

rce

nta

ge

va

lue

loss o

f th

e e

sta

te f

rom

bu

sh

fire

s.

Oth

er

activitie

s

with

in th

is s

erv

ice

are

a a

re n

ot re

po

rte

d e

.g.

pe

st

co

ntr

ol, m

arin

e p

ark

ma

na

gem

en

t (f

ish

ha

bita

t),

Gre

at

Ba

rrie

r R

ee

f (j

oin

tly w

ith

Com

mo

nw

ealth

) a

nd

wo

rld

pro

tecte

d a

reas.

As a

bove

.

Th

ere

is n

o r

ep

ort

ing

of

se

rvic

e p

erf

orm

an

ce in

re

latio

n

to t

he

ob

jectives to

incre

ase

access to

recre

ation

al a

nd

tou

rism

use

of

na

tion

al p

ark

s a

nd

to

su

pp

ort

bu

sin

ess

de

velo

pm

ent

and

com

mu

nity p

art

ne

rsh

ips.

Th

is is a

dir

ect se

rvic

e e

ffective

ne

ss m

easu

re in

dic

atin

g

ap

pro

pria

te s

ele

ction

and

tra

inin

g o

f p

ote

ntia

l a

thle

tes.

Th

is is a

pro

xy e

ffic

ien

cy m

easu

re.

A b

ett

er

me

asu

re is

the

full

co

st

(und

er

the

de

pa

rtm

en

t's c

on

tro

l) o

f se

rvic

es

pe

r a

thle

te.

Sa

tisfa

ctio

n is a

we

ak m

easu

re o

f qu

alit

y u

nle

ss t

he

cri

teria

on

wh

ich

sa

tisfa

ctio

n is b

ase

d a

re r

epo

rte

d e

.g.

acce

ssib

ility

, aff

ord

ab

ility

, su

ita

bili

ty, e

xp

ert

ise

. A

dire

ct

me

asu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness, in

lin

e w

ith

th

e

se

rvic

e a

rea

's o

bje

ctive

is t

he

pe

rcen

tage

of child

ren

an

d y

ou

ng

peo

ple

active

ly e

nga

ge

d in

sp

ort

an

d

recre

atio

n.

Th

is is a

pro

xy s

erv

ice

eff

ective

ne

ss m

easu

re fo

r th

e

Ge

t S

tart

ed p

rog

ram

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

● ●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

● ●

T

C ●

A

Pro

ce

ss

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

80

–1

00

90

80

25

19

:1

92

>7

Un

its

Ind

ex

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Ra

tio

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Deliv

ery

of

vis

ito

r an

d to

urism

fa

cili

ty

an

d p

ark

ma

na

gem

en

t in

fra

str

uctu

re

pro

jects

on

Quee

nsla

nd

Pa

rks a

nd

Wild

life

Se

rvic

e (

QP

WS

) m

an

ag

ed

esta

te,

as m

easu

red b

y t

he

cap

ita

l

work

s a

ctivity in

dex.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e P

rote

ctio

n a

nd

Wild

fire

Mitig

atio

n Z

on

es p

rescri

bed

bu

rnin

g t

arg

et a

chie

ve

d o

n Q

PW

S

ma

nag

ed

esta

te to

pro

tect

life

an

d

pro

pe

rty.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e Q

PW

S m

ana

ge

d

esta

te p

rescrib

ed

bu

rnin

g t

arg

et

ach

ieved

to p

rote

ct lif

e,

pro

pe

rty a

nd

bio

div

ers

ity.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ath

lete

s s

ele

cte

d f

or

na

tion

al te

am

s fro

m th

e Q

ue

en

sla

nd

Aca

dem

y o

f S

po

rt.

Ratio

of

elit

e a

thle

te d

irect

co

ach

ing

an

d s

pecia

list

se

rvic

es c

osts

to

ad

min

istr

atio

n s

upp

ort

costs

.

Pa

rtic

ipa

nt

sa

tisfa

ction

with t

he

de

pa

rtm

ent’s s

po

rt a

nd

active

recre

atio

n p

rog

ram

s.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f yo

ung

pe

op

le

be

com

ing

ne

w m

em

be

rs o

f spo

rt

an

d r

ecre

atio

n c

lubs (

as a

resu

lt o

f

the

Get

Sta

rte

d p

rog

ram

).

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

92

07

4

$1

25

99

9

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$4

2 3

07

$6

924

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

48

24

7

$1

19

07

5

DN

PS

R

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Natio

na

l P

ark

s

2.

Recre

atio

n a

nd

Sp

ort





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is a

dir

ect m

ea

su

re o

f tim

elin

ess o

f re

gula

tory

pro

cesse

s. T

ime

liness b

y its

elf c

an

drive

be

havio

ur

that

red

uce

s q

ualit

y,

and

it d

oes n

ot

indic

ate

wh

eth

er

the

pro

cess is f

air

an

d c

orr

ect. I

t is

im

po

rta

nt

to e

nsu

re th

at

reg

ula

tory

pro

ce

sses m

ee

t q

ua

lity s

tan

da

rds a

nd a

re

co

nsid

ere

d to

be f

air.

Th

is m

ea

su

re d

oes n

ot

ind

ica

te

wh

eth

er

the

se

rvic

e a

rea

is c

on

trib

utin

g t

o c

om

plia

nce

of

the

Ra

cin

g A

ct

or

the

eff

ective

ness o

f th

e r

acin

g

ind

ustr

y.

Th

is m

ea

su

res th

e tim

elin

ess o

f o

ne p

roce

ss a

nd

is n

ot

an

effic

iency m

easu

re o

f th

e s

erv

ice

as a

wh

ole

.

Re

po

rtin

g t

he

cycle

tim

e f

or

dru

g s

am

ple

te

sts

doe

s n

ot

pro

vid

e a

ny in

form

atio

n t

ha

t th

e s

erv

ice

is e

nsu

rin

g th

e

inte

grity

of

the

in

dustr

y.

While

tim

ely

, a

ccu

rate

se

rvic

es

are

im

po

rta

nt o

utp

uts

, th

ey a

re t

he

me

ans to

th

e e

nds,

no

t th

e e

nd

s in

th

em

se

lves.

A c

ost

effic

iency m

easu

re is t

he

cost

pe

r in

qu

iry o

r

investig

atio

n.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is r

ep

ort

ed

:

in

one

of th

ree s

erv

ice

are

as (

30

pe

r cen

t)

fo

r tw

o o

f n

ine

sta

nd

ard

s

a

cco

un

tin

g fo

r 34

pe

r cen

t o

f th

e b

ud

ge

t.

Th

ere

are

no

cost e

ffective

ne

ss o

r co

st

effic

iency

me

asu

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

2

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q 3

T

●

●

2

C 1

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

1

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t 80

95

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f R

acin

g A

ct 2

002

an

nu

al assessm

en

t n

on

-co

mplia

nce

issu

es r

eso

lve

d w

ith

in r

eq

uir

ed

tim

efr

am

es.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f d

rug

sa

mp

le a

na

lyse

s

fro

m lic

en

se

d r

acin

g a

nim

als

co

mp

lete

d a

nd

rep

ort

ed

with

in 1

0

work

ing

days.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$4

7 9

08

$3

65

98

1

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$4

433

$5

3 6

64

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$4

3 5

65

$3

10

88

7

DN

PS

R

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Ra

cin

g

To

tal





Figure E14—Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is m

ea

su

re a

nd

its

lo

w t

arg

et

of

10 p

er

ce

nt

pro

vid

e

little

info

rma

tion

abo

ut th

e e

ffic

ien

cy o

r e

ffective

ne

ss o

f

the

se

rvic

e a

rea

's r

ole

in n

ative

title

co

mple

tio

n. T

he

se

rvic

e a

rea

's s

tate

d r

ole

is t

o p

rovid

e c

larity

fo

r th

e

co

mm

unity a

nd t

o e

nsu

re c

onsid

era

tio

n o

f In

dig

en

ou

s

inte

rests

. T

his

me

asu

re d

oe

s n

ot

ind

ica

te w

he

the

r

sta

ke

hold

ers

we

re c

on

fide

nt

ab

ou

t th

e tim

elin

ess,

acce

ssib

ility

an

d f

air

ness o

f th

e p

roce

ss.

A d

irect

me

asu

re o

f te

ch

nic

al eff

icie

ncy is t

he s

erv

ice

are

a c

ost

pe

r co

mple

tio

n.

A p

roxy s

erv

ice

eff

ective

ne

ss m

ea

su

re

is t

he

pe

rcen

tage

of case

s r

eso

lved

witho

ut tr

ial, w

ith

ag

reem

en

t b

y p

art

ies.

Alte

rna

tive

me

asu

res a

re t

he

pe

rcen

tage

ch

an

ge

in

num

be

r o

f o

uts

tan

din

g N

ative

Title

cla

ims a

waitin

g r

eso

lutio

n (

WA

) a

nd t

he

ave

rag

e

len

gth

of tim

e f

or

reso

lutio

n o

f n

ative

title

cla

im.

Th

e m

easu

re is lim

ited

to

tim

elin

ess o

f a

n a

spe

ct o

f th

e

se

rvic

e a

ctivity a

nd d

oes n

ot

ind

icate

the

effic

iency o

r

eff

ective

ness o

f th

e v

alu

ation

se

rvic

e.

A t

ech

nic

al

eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re is t

he

co

st p

er

va

luation

and

app

ea

l.

A p

roxy s

erv

ice

eff

ective

ne

ss m

easu

re is s

atisfa

ctio

n

by t

he

co

mm

unity th

at a

sse

ssm

en

t o

f la

nd

va

lue

as a

ba

sis

fo

r ra

tes a

nd

ta

x is fa

ir, accu

rate

an

d a

pp

rop

ria

te.

Th

e m

easu

re is lim

ited

to

tim

elin

ess o

f o

ne

asp

ect

of

the

se

rvic

e a

ctivity. A

dire

ct cost

effic

iency m

easu

re is

the

ave

rag

e c

ost p

er

land

re

gis

tra

tio

n o

r in

form

ation

actio

n (

use

d in

WA

). A

dir

ect

se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness

me

asu

re is th

e a

ccu

racy, a

ccessib

ility

an

d

co

mp

reh

en

siv

en

ess o

f th

e s

tate

's r

eco

rds,

with a

qu

alit

y b

enchm

ark

com

pa

rab

le t

o o

the

r ju

risd

iction

s.

Th

is p

roce

ss m

easu

re is u

ncle

ar

in its

in

ten

t an

d it

doe

s

no

t p

rovid

e in

form

atio

n a

bo

ut e

ffic

iency o

r e

ffe

ctive

ness

of

the

pro

vis

ion

of

qu

alit

y w

ate

r se

rvic

es. T

he

se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness o

f w

ate

r m

on

ito

rin

g n

ee

ds t

o b

e r

epo

rted

e.g

. %

of

wa

ter

reso

urc

es o

r to

tal w

ate

r volu

me

me

etin

g r

eq

uir

ed

sta

nd

ard

. A

co

st e

ffic

ien

cy m

easu

re is

the

co

st o

f re

gu

lating

and

testin

g p

er

meg

a litre

of

wa

ter

de

live

red

. T

ech

nic

al eff

icie

ncy is t

he

co

st p

er

me

ga

litre

of

po

tab

le w

ate

r p

rodu

ced

. C

ost

effe

ctiven

ess m

easu

re

is t

he

co

st o

f w

ate

r p

er

pe

rso

n.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

T ●

C

A

●

Pro

ce

ss

● ●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 10

85

90

,90

70

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Reso

lution

of o

uts

tand

ing

Na

tive

Title

Cla

ims.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ob

jectio

ns lo

dge

d

ag

ain

st a

nn

ua

l sta

tuto

ry lan

d

va

lua

tion

s p

roce

sse

d w

ith

in

cu

sto

me

r serv

ice

sta

nd

ard

s.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f re

co

rds p

roce

sse

d

with

in c

usto

me

r se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds:

Title

s r

eg

istr

y (

in 5

days),

Dig

ita

l

ca

dastr

al d

ata

base

(in

7 d

ays).

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e S

tate

’s n

atu

ral

wate

r re

so

urc

es w

ith

mo

nito

ring

pro

gra

ms in

pla

ce

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

95

30

9

$1

26

30

9

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$5

4 2

00

$5

1 9

01

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

41

10

9

$7

4 4

08

DN

RM

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

La

nd

Se

rvic

es

2.

Wa

ter

Se

rvic

es





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

e m

easu

re is a

pro

xy fo

r tim

elin

ess h

ow

eve

r, it

do

es

no

t p

rovid

e c

lea

r in

form

ation

on

wh

at m

ana

gem

en

t

de

alin

gs inclu

des a

nd

th

e im

pa

ct

on

cu

sto

me

rs.

Wa

ter

ava

ilabili

ty fo

r th

e c

om

mu

nity a

nd

in

dustr

y,

wa

ter

se

cu

rity

, in

cre

ased

pro

duction

an

d u

se

of

wa

ter,

and

su

sta

ina

bili

ty o

f w

ate

r re

so

urc

es h

ave

no

t b

ee

n

rep

ort

ed

. A

dir

ect

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness m

ea

su

re f

or

the

ava

ilabili

ty o

f w

ate

r is

th

e p

erc

enta

ge o

f po

pula

tio

n

with

access to

su

ffic

ien

t w

ate

r fo

r in

du

str

ial a

nd

do

mestic u

se

(u

rba

n,

rura

l, r

em

ote

).

Ap

pro

pria

te s

erv

ice

effe

ctive

ne

ss m

ea

su

re f

or

min

ing

an

d q

ua

rryin

g. A

n a

dd

itio

na

l im

po

rta

nt m

easu

re o

f

sa

fety

is t

he

nu

mbe

r o

f d

ea

ths a

nd

se

rio

us inju

ries.

Sa

fety

an

d h

ealth

of

pe

tro

leu

m a

nd

ga

s w

ork

ers

are

no

t

rep

ort

ed

.

Tim

elin

ess is o

ne

asp

ect

of o

utp

ut

qu

alit

y b

ut d

rivin

g

pe

rfo

rma

nce

on

tim

e a

lone

can

le

ad

to

po

or

qu

alit

y.

A

dir

ect

qua

lity m

easu

re is th

e p

erc

enta

ge o

f au

dits a

nd

investig

atio

ns m

ee

tin

g q

ua

lity s

tand

ard

s.

A c

ost

eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re is t

he

co

st p

er

aud

it a

nd

investig

atio

n.

Se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess m

ea

su

res a

re th

e

pe

rcen

tage

of o

rgan

isa

tio

ns m

ee

ting

qua

lity s

tand

ard

s

an

d t

he

perc

en

tage

of n

on

-com

plia

nt o

rgan

isa

tion

s

me

etin

g q

ualit

y s

tan

da

rds w

ithin

sp

ecifie

d t

ime

fra

me

po

st a

udit o

r in

ve

stig

atio

n.

As a

bove

, tim

elin

ess is a

pa

rtia

l m

ea

su

re o

f o

utp

uts

an

d d

oe

s n

ot in

dic

ate

eff

icie

ncy o

r eff

ective

ness o

f th

e

se

rvic

e in

me

eting

th

e s

erv

ice

are

a o

bje

ctives.

Te

chn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy is m

ea

su

red

by t

he a

ve

rage

cost o

f

the

gra

nts

ap

plic

atio

n p

roce

sse

d.

A d

ire

ct

co

st

eff

ective

ness m

easu

re is t

he s

erv

ice

co

st

as a

ra

tio

of

the

in

cre

ased

investm

en

t fr

om

explo

ratio

n, b

y type

(Str

ate

gic

Pla

n o

utc

om

e).

A t

echn

ica

l e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re is th

e a

ve

rag

e c

ost

pe

r

ap

plic

atio

n p

roce

sse

d.

Co

st

effe

ctiven

ess is t

he

co

st o

f

pro

ducin

g e

ach

$ o

f in

cre

ase

d p

rod

uctio

n.

Dire

ct

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess m

easu

res a

re incre

ase

d r

even

ue

fro

m r

esou

rces a

ctivity a

nd

in

cre

ased

pro

du

ctivity a

nd

su

sta

ina

bili

ty o

f th

e r

esou

rces in

dustr

y (

Fo

ur

pill

ar

go

als

).

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is r

ep

ort

ed

:

in

one

of fo

ur

se

rvic

e a

rea

s (

25

pe

r ce

nt)

fo

r o

ne o

f n

ine m

ea

sure

s (

11

.1 p

er

ce

nt)

re

pre

se

ntin

g 1

2 p

er

cen

t of

the t

ota

l b

udg

et.

Th

ere

are

no

cost e

ffic

ien

cy,

tech

nic

al e

ffic

iency o

r co

st

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

● 1

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q 0

T

● ●

●

● 5

C 0

A 1

Pro

ce

ss

2

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t 75

<3

.3

90

90

90

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r C

en

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f w

ate

r re

so

urc

e

ma

nag

em

en

t d

ealin

gs p

rocesse

d

with

in c

usto

me

r se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds.

Lo

st tim

e inju

ry f

req

ue

ncy r

ate

(in

jurie

s p

er

mill

ion

hou

rs)

in the

min

ing

an

d q

ua

rryin

g ind

ustr

ies.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f sche

dule

d a

nd

leg

isla

tive

aud

its,

inspe

ctio

ns a

nd

investig

atio

ns c

om

ple

ted

within

pre

scri

be

d t

imes.

Pe

rce

nt

of m

inin

g e

xp

lora

tion

ap

plic

atio

ns g

ran

ts in a

cco

rdan

ce

with

tim

elin

es s

et

ou

t in

pub

lish

ed

pe

rfo

rma

nce

sta

nd

ard

s.

Pe

rce

nt

of n

ew

pro

duction

te

nu

re

ap

plic

atio

ns g

ran

ted

within

tim

elin

es

ag

ree

d b

etw

ee

n th

e d

ep

art

men

t a

nd

ind

ustr

y p

ropo

nen

ts.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$5

8 1

86

$8

9 9

18

$4

69

72

2

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$5

4 2

14

$2

6 9

05

$1

87

22

0

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$3

972

$6

3 0

13

$2

82

50

2

DN

RM

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Min

e S

afe

ty a

nd

Hea

lth

Se

rvic

es

4.

Min

ing

and

Pe

tro

leu

m

Se

rvic

es

To

tal





Figure E15—Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is m

ea

su

re r

eco

rds t

he

pro

ce

ss c

ycle

tim

e, a

nd

is

on

ly a

pro

xy f

or

the

tim

elin

ess o

f th

e o

utp

ut.

It

als

o

rep

rese

nts

only

$1

.5 m

illio

n o

f th

e $

60

mill

ion

se

rvic

e a

rea.

A b

ett

er

mea

su

re f

or

tim

elin

ess o

f th

e o

utp

ut

is t

he

pro

po

rtio

n o

f ho

urly u

pd

ate

s tha

t w

ere

no

t p

rovid

ed.

Th

e t

ech

nic

al e

ffic

iency m

ea

su

res a

re c

ost p

er

insta

nce

of d

ata

pro

vis

ion o

r co

st

pe

r u

pd

ate

.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of

ad

vis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m th

e s

upp

ort

ing

no

tes t

hat

all

of th

ese

asp

ects

are

su

rveye

d.

Th

e s

erv

ice

eff

ective

ne

ss m

easu

re is th

e

pe

rcen

tage

of d

ata

wh

ich

was u

se

d b

y c

lien

ts.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n m

easu

res o

ne

dim

ensio

n o

f

eff

ective

ness, b

ut d

oes n

ot

repo

rt if

the

se

rvic

e its

elf

is e

ffe

ctive

in a

ch

ievin

g its

ob

jectives.

Dir

ect

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res o

f th

e s

erv

ice o

bje

ctive

inclu

de

pro

du

ctivity g

row

th,

Busin

ess e

xp

en

ditu

re

on

R&

D,

Pa

ten

ts a

nd t

rade

mark

s p

er

ca

pita

,

nu

mbe

r o

f kno

wle

dg

e-i

nte

nsiv

e jo

bs a

nd

Pro

po

rtio

n

of

busin

esse

s u

sin

g d

igita

l te

ch

no

log

ies.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of

ad

vis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m th

e s

upp

ort

ing

no

tes t

hat

all

of th

ese

asp

ects

are

su

rveye

d.

Th

e t

ech

nic

al e

ffic

iency m

ea

su

re is a

ve

rage

co

st

pe

r tr

an

sactio

n.

Cu

sto

me

r sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an b

e a

pro

xy

for

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness if it m

ea

su

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of

ad

vis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m th

e s

upp

ort

ing

no

tes t

hat

all

of th

ese

asp

ects

are

su

rveye

d.

Cu

sto

me

r sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an b

e a

pro

xy

for

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness if it m

ea

su

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of

ad

vis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m th

e s

upp

ort

ing

no

tes t

hat

all

of th

ese

asp

ects

are

su

rveye

d.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

●

●

●

●

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

1

Ba

se

line

to

be

esta

blis

hed

85

≥8

0

≥8

0

≥9

3

Un

its

Ho

urs

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Ave

rage

tim

e ta

ken

to u

plo

ad

air

qu

alit

y m

onito

rin

g d

ata

to

th

e D

EH

P

web

site

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f clie

nts

satisfied

with

the

natu

ral re

so

urc

e a

nd

en

viro

nm

en

tal scie

nce

, in

form

atio

n

an

d s

erv

ices p

rovid

ed.

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f sta

keh

old

ers

who

are

sa

tisfie

d w

ith

Inn

ova

tion

and

Scie

nce

Develo

pm

en

t se

rvic

es,

co

nsu

lta

tive

an

d e

ng

ag

em

en

t

pro

cesse

s.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n S

ma

rt S

erv

ice

Qu

ee

nsla

nd (

SS

Q).

Custo

me

r sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

the

se

rvic

es d

eliv

ere

d b

y S

SQ

.

Cu

sto

me

r sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

Qu

ee

nsla

nd S

tate

Arc

hiv

es’ de

live

ry

of

se

rvic

es t

o th

e p

ub

lic (

QS

A).

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

mil

lio

ns

) To

tal

co

st

$6

0 7

24

$6

7 1

97

$9

6 3

40

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

1 8

23

$8

23

$3

4 2

74

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$4

8 9

01

$6

7 1

71

$6

2 0

66

DS

ITIA

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Scie

nce

Deliv

ery

Se

rvic

es

2.

Inno

vatio

n a

nd

Scie

nce

Deve

lop

me

nt

Se

rvic

es

3.

Qu

ee

nsla

nd

Go

ve

rnm

en

t

Info

rma

tio

n a

nd

Com

mun

ica

tio

n

Te

chn

olo

gy

Se

rvic

es

(exclu

din

g C

ITE

C)





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is m

ea

su

res th

e c

ost

of th

e s

erv

ice r

ath

er

tha

n

eff

icie

ncy.

An

in

cre

ase

in p

opula

tion

wo

uld

sh

ow

incre

ased

"e

ffic

ien

cy",

re

ga

rdle

ss o

f th

e n

um

be

r o

f

ite

ms s

tore

d o

r re

trie

ve

d. T

he te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

iency

me

asu

res a

re c

ost

pe

r a

rch

ived

ite

m a

nd

co

st p

er

retr

ieva

l /

access.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n c

an b

e a

pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f

eff

ective

ness if

it c

ove

rs a

ll se

rvic

e d

ime

nsio

ns.

Be

tte

r

pro

xy m

ea

su

res inclu

de

le

vel o

f a

tten

da

nce,

pa

rtic

ipation

in a

rts s

ecto

r e

ven

ts a

nd

utilis

atio

n o

f art

s

an

d c

ultu

ral fa

cili

ties a

nd

me

mb

ers

hip

of

art

s

org

an

isa

tio

ns.

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f in

pu

t, n

ot e

ffic

ien

cy o

r

eff

ective

ness.

Th

e t

ech

nic

al e

ffic

iency m

ea

su

re is c

ost p

er

pe

rson

per

eve

nt.

The

dire

ct m

ea

su

re o

f co

st

eff

ective

ness is th

e

co

st o

f even

ts a

s a

ra

te o

f e

ven

t re

ve

nue

.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ne

ss a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m the

sup

po

rtin

g n

ote

s t

ha

t all

of

these

aspe

cts

are

surv

eye

d.

Th

is m

ea

su

re r

epo

rts t

he

in

pu

t co

st

of d

eliv

erin

g th

e

se

rvic

e r

ath

er

tha

n c

ost e

ffective

ness o

r e

ffic

iency. T

he

techn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy m

ea

su

re is t

he

co

st p

er

tra

nsa

ction

.

Co

st

effe

ctive

ness m

easu

res in

clu

de

th

e c

ost o

f th

e

se

rvic

e c

om

pa

red

to

the

reco

ve

red

co

st o

f re

pla

ced

du

plic

ate

/ n

on

-sta

nd

ard

/ leg

acy b

usin

ess s

yste

ms.

Su

mm

ary

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct te

ch

nic

al eff

icie

ncy, cost

eff

ective

ness o

r se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness m

ea

su

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

0

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ● ● 7

T 0

C

● 1

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

1

Inp

ut

● ● 2

Ta

rge

t

Ba

se

line

to

be

esta

blis

hed

85

12

≥7

5

56

Un

its

$

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Cost

pe

r cap

ita

pe

r w

ee

k t

o p

rovid

e

arc

hiv

al serv

ices t

o Q

ue

ensla

nd

(QS

A).

Le

vel o

f clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith A

rts

Qu

ee

nsla

nd’s

fu

ndin

g p

rog

ram

s a

nd

se

rvic

es.

Com

me

rcia

l re

ve

nu

e a

s a

pe

rcen

tage

of to

tal re

ve

nue

.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n.

La

bo

ur

as a

pe

rcen

tage

of to

tal

co

sts

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

19

68

3

$1

95

20

7

$5

39

15

1

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

7 5

23

$1

95

20

7

$2

59

65

0

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

02

16

0

$0

$2

80

29

8

DS

ITIA

Se

rvic

e a

rea

4.

Art

s a

nd

Cu

ltu

re

Se

rvic

es

5.

Qu

ee

nsla

nd

Sh

are

d S

erv

ice

To

tal





Figure E16—Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f e

ffic

iency is th

e a

ve

rag

e c

ost

pe

r

de

cis

ion

ma

de.

Ba

se

d o

n t

he

ta

rge

t of

90 d

ecis

ions,

the

imp

lied a

ve

rag

e c

ost is

$5

72

87

8 p

er

decis

ion

.

Th

e s

erv

ice

sta

nd

ard

use

d in

th

e S

DS

is a

n a

ctivity

me

asu

re. It

pro

vid

es n

o r

ele

van

t d

ata

to

ga

ug

e s

erv

ice

eff

icie

ncy.

Ba

cklo

g d

ata

, d

ata

on

ca

ses o

n h

an

d a

t yea

r

en

d,

or

ann

ua

l tu

rno

ve

r ra

te o

f ca

se

s w

ou

ld b

e b

ett

er

pro

xie

s.

Tim

elin

ess o

f d

ecis

ion

makin

g is o

ne

dim

en

sio

n o

f

se

rvic

e o

utp

ut

eff

ective

ness,

bu

t th

e m

ea

su

re u

se

d a

nd

the

ta

rge

t o

bscu

re a

ctu

al p

roce

ssin

g tim

es, a

nd

do

no

t

pe

rmit e

xte

rna

l be

nch

ma

rkin

g w

ith

or

lon

gitud

inal

co

mp

ariso

ns.

If t

he

se

rvic

e o

utp

ut o

bje

ctive

is t

o r

ed

uce

asse

ssm

en

t

tim

efr

am

es, th

e r

ele

va

nt se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rd is t

he

ave

rag

e e

lapse

d t

ime

taken

(or

me

dia

n if

the

re is a

sig

nific

an

t sp

rea

d in

tim

es).

The

desir

ed r

ed

uctio

n in

tim

efr

am

es c

ould

th

en

ha

ve

be

en

exp

resse

d b

y

pro

gre

ssiv

ely

re

ducin

g t

he t

arg

et

for

the

avera

ge

ela

pse

d tim

e.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

res o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ne

ss a

re t

he

va

lue

of n

ew

ma

rke

ts a

ccessed

, a

dditio

na

l b

usin

ess

wo

n,

or

em

plo

ym

ent

gro

wth

(m

easu

red b

y a

dditio

na

l

sa

laries/w

ag

es p

aid

) in

th

e s

urv

eye

d b

usin

esses.

Th

is

da

ta w

ou

ld a

lso

perm

it c

ost-

effe

ctive

ne

ss m

ea

su

res t

o

be

deve

lop

ed

.

Th

e S

DS

sta

nda

rd is a

n ind

irect

me

asu

re o

f se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness, a

nd is n

ot tr

ansp

are

nt a

s it

pro

vid

es n

o

use

ful da

ta o

n s

cale

or

valu

e.

Sta

ke

ho

lde

r sa

tisfa

ction

with s

erv

ice

s c

an

be a

pro

xy

for

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness if

it m

ea

su

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

●

T ●

C

A

●

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t 90

50

70

75

23

0

2 3

80

Un

its

Nu

mb

er

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$ m

illio

n

Nu

mb

er

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Sta

tuto

ry d

ecis

ion

s m

ad

e.

Ave

rage

re

du

ctio

n in

asse

ssm

en

t

tim

efr

am

es.

Bu

sin

esse

s e

nga

ged

in t

he

de

pa

rtm

ent’s t

arg

ete

d in

du

str

y

su

ppo

rt p

rog

ram

s r

ep

ort

ing

positiv

e

ou

tco

mes.

Sta

ke

ho

lde

rs in

dic

atin

g t

hey a

re

sa

tisfie

d w

ith

the

qua

lity o

f

facili

tatio

n s

erv

ices f

or

indu

str

y

de

velo

pm

ent

and

Inve

st

Qu

ee

nsla

nd s

erv

ices.

Va

lue

of

private

se

cto

r ca

pita

l

investm

en

t le

ve

rage

d th

roug

h

ind

ustr

y f

acili

tatio

n.

Gro

ss jo

bs g

en

era

ted

or

sa

feg

ua

rde

d a

s a

re

su

lt o

f p

roje

ct

facili

tatio

n.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$5

1 5

59

$1

34

39

1

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

2 1

07

$3

072

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$3

9 4

52

$1

31

31

9

DS

DIP

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Co

-ord

ina

tor

Ge

ne

ral

2.

Deve

lopm

en

t





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es r

ele

van

t to

ob

jective

s.

Sta

ke

ho

lde

r sa

tisfa

ction

with s

erv

ice

s c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e d

imen

sio

ns

su

ch

as t

ime

liness, re

sp

onsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy,

co

mp

lete

ness a

nd

acce

ssib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es. It

is

no

t cle

ar

fro

m t

he s

up

po

rtin

g n

ote

s th

at a

ll o

f th

ese

asp

ects

are

su

rveye

d.

A d

irect

me

asu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss is w

he

the

r th

e

facili

tate

d p

roje

cts

pro

ce

ed

.

Th

ese

tw

o s

tand

ard

s r

ela

te d

ire

ctly t

o h

ow

th

e d

ep

art

me

nt

de

live

rs t

hese

se

rvic

es, ra

the

r th

an

to

the

se

rvic

es

the

mse

lves,

an

d s

o a

re n

ot p

roxie

s fo

r e

ith

er

eff

icie

ncy o

r

eff

ective

ness o

f ou

tco

mes.

In th

eir

pre

sen

t fo

rm th

ey a

lso

ob

scu

re a

ctu

al p

erf

orm

ance

, as t

hey p

rovid

e n

o u

se

ful da

ta

on

th

e len

gth

of

an

y d

ela

ys,

or

on

the

am

ou

nt

of a

ny c

ost

ove

rrun

s o

r re

ve

nue

sh

ort

falls

.

Th

is s

atisfa

ctio

n m

ea

su

re is p

rim

arily

ab

ou

t sta

ke

hold

er

vie

ws a

bou

t ch

ang

es t

o p

rocess, n

ot

the

eff

ective

ness o

r

eff

icie

ncy o

f th

e s

erv

ice.

It is the

refo

re a

we

ak p

roxy f

or

ou

tpu

t q

ualit

y,

an

d p

rovid

es n

o u

se

ful in

form

atio

n o

n

ou

tco

me

eff

ective

ne

ss.

Dir

ect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss a

re t

he

re

ductio

ns

ach

ieved

in

tim

e a

nd

co

st

to d

eve

lop

ers

asso

cia

ted w

ith

th

e

sim

plif

ied p

lan

nin

g s

yste

m.

Ano

the

r dir

ect

me

asu

re o

f

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess is t

he

pro

po

rtio

n o

f a

pp

ea

ls to

pla

nnin

g d

ecis

ions a

nd

/or

the

pro

po

rtio

n o

f th

ese

app

ea

ls

tha

t a

re s

ub

se

que

ntly u

ph

eld

. T

he

sta

ted

inte

nt is

fo

r th

e

sim

plif

ied p

lan

nin

g s

yste

m t

o b

e t

he

'mo

st e

ffic

ien

t a

nd

eff

ective

in A

ustr

alia

'. If

th

is is to

be

de

mo

nstr

ate

d it

req

uire

s s

erv

ice

sta

nda

rds f

or

eff

icie

ncy t

ha

t can

be

be

nch

ma

rked

aga

inst

oth

er

jurisd

ictio

ns,

su

ch a

s c

ost

pe

r

ap

pro

ve

d a

pplic

ation

; an

d fo

r co

st-

eff

ective

ne

ss s

uch a

s

co

st p

er

estim

ate

d v

alu

e o

f a

pp

roved

develo

pm

en

ts.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ● ●

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

●

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

20

0

75

75

75

80

Un

its

$ m

illio

n

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Va

lue

of

infr

astr

uctu

re inve

stm

en

t

en

ab

led

th

roug

h t

he

Ro

ya

ltie

s fo

r

the

Re

gio

ns p

rog

ram

.

Ind

ustr

y p

ropo

ne

nts

in

dic

atin

g th

ey

are

sa

tisfied

with s

erv

ice

s p

rovid

ed

for

the m

an

ag

em

en

t, d

eliv

ery

or

facili

tatio

n o

f p

roje

cts

.

Pro

jects

be

ing

ma

nag

ed

, d

eliv

ere

d

or

facili

tate

d,

whic

h m

eet

co

mm

itte

d

tim

efr

am

es a

nd

ap

pro

ve

d b

udg

ets

.

La

nd

tra

nsa

ctio

ns b

ein

g d

eliv

ere

d,

whic

h m

eet

co

mm

itte

d tim

efr

am

es

an

d a

pp

rove

d r

even

ue t

arg

ets

.

Sta

ke

ho

lde

rs in

dic

atin

g t

hey a

re

sa

tisfie

d w

ith

Que

en

sla

nd’s

sim

plif

ied p

lan

nin

g s

yste

m.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

23

26

4

$3

9 2

14

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$4

6 5

13

$1

326

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$7

6 7

51

$3

7 8

88

DS

DIP

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Majo

r p

roje

cts

4.

Pla

nn

ing





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

e f

orm

ula

tio

n o

f th

ese

sta

nda

rds o

bscu

res im

port

an

t

pe

rfo

rma

nce

da

ta a

bo

ut

actu

al se

rvic

e p

erf

orm

an

ce

. T

he

10

pe

r cen

t re

du

ctio

ns w

ould

be

be

tte

r exp

ressed

by

pro

gre

ssiv

ely

se

ttin

g lo

we

r ta

rge

ts fo

r th

e a

ve

rag

e o

r

me

dia

n d

ays t

ake

n t

o m

ake

decis

ions.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is d

irectly m

ea

su

red

in

:

o

ne

of th

e f

ou

r se

rvic

e a

rea

s (

25

pe

r cen

t) in

re

lation

on

ly t

o s

om

e o

f th

e s

erv

ice

s u

nd

ert

ake

n in

th

at a

rea

th

ree

of

the

13

sta

nd

ard

s r

ep

ort

ed

(23

.1 p

er

ce

nt)

a

cco

un

tin

g fo

r 35

pe

r cen

t o

f to

tal costs

.

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct o

utc

om

e e

ffic

iency o

r cost-

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

3

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q 4

T

●

●

3

C 0

A 1

Pro

ce

ss

2

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t 10

10

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Imp

rovem

en

t in

tim

e t

ake

n fo

r

refe

rra

l a

gen

cy r

esp

on

ses.

Imp

rovem

en

t in

tim

e t

ake

n fo

r S

tate

asse

ssm

en

t m

an

ag

er

de

cis

ions

issu

ed

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$3

48

42

8

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$6

3 0

18

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$2

85

41

0

DS

DIP

Se

rvic

e a

rea

To

tal





Figure E17—Department of Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is a

dir

ect m

ea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctiven

ess r

ela

ted

to o

ne c

om

pon

ent

of

the

se

rvic

e a

rea

's o

bje

ctives.

Giv

en

th

e b

roa

d n

atu

re o

f th

e s

erv

ice o

bje

ctive

it is

difficu

lt t

o id

en

tify

add

itio

nal serv

ice

effe

ctiven

ess o

r

co

st e

ffectiven

ess s

tand

ard

s.

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f tim

elin

ess o

f o

ne

com

po

ne

nt o

f

the

outp

ut's

cycle

. It d

oes n

ot

ind

ica

te if

it m

et

the

ne

eds o

f th

e c

lien

t o

r is

only

an

in

tern

al q

ualit

y

sta

nd

ard

.

Th

is is a

pro

cess m

ea

su

re b

eca

use it

rela

tes to

inte

rnal

pro

ject m

an

ag

em

en

t a

nd

no

t th

e s

erv

ice

its

elf, so

is n

ot

a p

roxy fo

r e

ith

er

eff

icie

ncy o

r e

ffe

ctive

ness o

f

ou

tco

mes.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n is o

ne

dim

en

sio

n o

f se

rvic

e q

ua

lity

bu

t d

oe

s n

ot

fully

rep

rese

nt e

ffe

ctive

ne

ss.

A b

ett

er

me

asu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness w

ou

ld b

e th

at

all

issu

es r

ais

ed

by th

e C

GF

'aud

it/r

evie

ws' a

re a

dd

resse

d

with

in th

e s

pecifie

d tim

efr

am

es.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess.

Ap

pro

pria

te s

erv

ice

effe

ctive

ne

ss m

ea

su

re (

base

d o

n

clie

nt su

rve

y)

in lin

e w

ith

th

e S

ma

ll B

usin

ess A

ctio

n

Pla

n p

rio

rities,

sh

ow

ing

the

im

pa

ct o

f re

gu

lato

ry

red

uctio

n m

ea

su

res.

Th

is m

ea

su

re r

epo

rts s

atisfa

ctio

n o

f o

ne

type

of se

rvic

e

pro

vis

ion

, bu

t do

es n

ot m

ea

sure

eff

icie

ncy.

It is n

ot

ne

cessa

ry to

in

clu

de

an

ou

tput m

easu

re a

s th

e

eff

ective

ness o

f th

e s

erv

ice

is d

em

on

str

ate

d in

th

e t

wo

pre

ced

ing

me

asu

res.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is d

irectly m

ea

su

red

:

in

both

se

rvic

e a

reas (

10

0 p

er

ce

nt)

b

y t

hre

e o

f th

e s

eve

n s

tan

da

rds (

43

pe

r ce

nt)

.

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct cost

eff

icie

ncy o

r co

st e

ffective

ne

ss

me

asu

res.

Tw

o p

roce

ss m

easu

res a

re n

ot

req

uir

ed

as t

he

y d

o n

ot

ad

d t

o e

xis

tin

g e

ffic

ien

cy a

nd

eff

ective

ness r

ep

ort

ing.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

● ●

● 3

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

1

T ● 1

C 0

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

●

●

2

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t 25

90

80

Sa

tisfie

d

60

11

0

80

Un

its

$ m

illio

n

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Le

vel

$ m

illio

n

$ m

illio

n

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Am

ou

nt

of a

dd

itio

na

l ca

pital

att

racte

d in

to t

ou

rism

investm

en

t.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ap

plic

ation

s fo

r th

e

Att

ractin

g A

via

tio

n I

nve

stm

en

t F

un

d

eva

lua

ted

within

nin

e w

ork

ing

da

ys.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f cro

ss-a

ge

ncy tou

rism

pro

ject m

ilesto

nes d

eliv

ere

d o

n

sche

du

le a

nd

on

bud

ge

t.

Le

vel o

f C

om

mo

nw

ea

lth G

am

es

Fe

de

ratio

n s

atisfa

ctio

n w

ith

pre

pa

red

ness fo

r th

e

Com

mon

wea

lth

Gam

es.

Estim

ate

d v

alu

e o

f eff

icie

ncy

sa

vin

gs b

y b

usin

esses a

ssis

ted

.

Estim

ate

d v

alu

e o

f co

sts

avoid

ed

by

bu

sin

esses.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ove

rall

custo

mer

sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

th

e u

se

fuln

ess o

f

on

line

se

rvic

es.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$9

2 9

80

$7

012

$9

9 9

92

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$0

$0

$0

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$9

2 9

80

$7

012

$9

9 9

92

DT

ES

B

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

To

urism

and

Eve

nts

Deve

lop

me

nt

2.

Bu

sin

ess to

Go

ve

rnm

en

t

Se

rvic

es

To

tal





Figure E18—Department of Transport and Main Roads

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f e

ffic

iency is th

e a

ve

rag

e c

ost

pe

r p

roje

ct

of m

ana

gin

g th

e s

tate

pla

nnin

g p

rog

ram

.

Th

e s

erv

ice

sta

nd

ard

s r

ep

ort

ed

in

th

e S

DS

are

activity m

easu

res.

The

y p

rovid

e n

o r

ele

va

nt d

ata

to

ga

ug

e h

ow

th

e s

tate

pla

nn

ing

pro

gra

m is b

ein

g

de

live

red

in t

erm

s o

f va

lue

fo

r m

on

ey.

Th

e

pro

po

rtio

n o

f th

e b

ud

get

spe

nt o

n m

an

agin

g th

e

pro

gra

m,

the

actu

al va

lue

of bu

dg

et o

ve

rru

ns a

nd

the

ave

rag

e c

ost p

er

kilo

me

tre w

ou

ld b

e b

ett

er

eff

icie

ncy p

roxie

s.

Th

e S

DS

me

asu

re r

ep

ort

s t

he

pro

po

rtio

n o

f th

e

ne

two

rk w

hic

h h

as e

xce

ede

d o

ptim

al a

ge

. A

be

tte

r

me

asu

re o

f th

e s

erv

ice

eff

ective

ne

ss w

ould

be

the

pe

rcen

tage

of th

e n

etw

ork

wh

ich

me

ets

the

sta

nd

ard

s r

equ

ired

to

pro

vid

e th

e n

ecessa

ry le

vel o

f

se

rvic

e t

o s

upp

ort

eithe

r th

e c

urr

en

t o

r th

e

incre

asin

g d

em

an

ds o

f th

e s

tate

's g

row

th.

Th

e c

on

ditio

n o

f th

e r

oa

d n

etw

ork

is a

n ind

irect

me

asu

re o

f e

ffe

ctive

ness. T

he o

ve

rall

pe

rce

nta

ge

of

infr

astr

uctu

re th

at is

fit fo

r its c

urr

en

t a

nd

an

ticip

ate

d

futu

re p

urp

oses w

ould

be

the

dir

ect

me

asu

re o

f

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess.

Th

e p

rop

ort

ion

of

roa

d

ma

inte

nan

ce

backlo

g a

nd

th

e p

rop

ort

ion

of

the

ne

two

rk w

ith

tra

ffic

vo

lum

es e

xce

edin

g c

apa

city

wo

uld

als

o b

e u

se

ful p

roxie

s fo

r q

ualit

y.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f e

ffic

iency is th

e a

ve

rag

e c

ost

pe

r p

roje

ct

of m

ana

gin

g Q

TR

IP p

roje

cts

>$

5 m

illio

n

(by in

terv

al)

. T

he

se

rvic

e s

tand

ard

s r

ep

ort

ed

in

th

e

SD

S a

re p

rocess m

easu

res.

Th

ey p

rovid

e n

o

rele

va

nt d

ata

to

ga

uge

ho

w Q

TR

IP is b

ein

g

de

live

red

in t

erm

s o

f va

lue

fo

r m

on

ey.

Th

e

pro

po

rtio

n o

f th

e b

ud

get

spe

nt o

n m

an

agin

g th

e

pro

gra

m a

nd

the

actu

al va

lue o

f b

udg

et o

ve

rru

ns

wo

uld

be

bett

er

eff

icie

ncy p

roxie

s.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

●

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

●

●

● ●

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

90

80

80

29

97

–9

9,

95

–9

7

90

90

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f p

roje

cts

in

th

e S

tate

Pla

nn

ing

Pro

gra

m:

co

mm

encin

g n

o la

ter

tha

n

fou

r m

on

ths a

fte

r th

e

pro

gra

mm

ed

co

mm

encem

en

t

da

te

co

mp

lete

d n

o m

ore

th

an

10

pe

r cen

t a

fte

r th

e

pro

gra

mm

ed

pe

rio

d

co

stin

g less th

an

10

pe

r ce

nt

ove

r th

e p

rog

ram

me

d e

stim

ate

.

Roa

d s

yste

m s

ea

l ag

e (

pe

rcenta

ge

of

the

Sta

te-c

ontr

olle

d r

oa

d n

etw

ork

exce

ed

ing

th

e o

ptim

al sea

l age

).

Roa

d s

yste

m c

on

ditio

n (

the

pe

rcen

tage

of u

rban

and

ru

ral S

tate

co

ntr

olle

d r

oa

ds w

ith

co

nd

itio

n

be

tte

r th

an t

he

sp

ecifie

d

be

nch

ma

rk):

Urb

an

, ru

ral.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f Q

TR

IP p

roje

cts

>$

5 m

illio

n:

co

mp

lete

d n

o m

ore

th

an

10

pe

r cen

t a

fte

r th

e

pro

gra

mm

ed

co

nstr

uction

pe

rio

d

co

stin

g less th

an

10

pe

r ce

nt

ove

r th

e p

ub

lishe

d Q

TR

IP

fig

ure

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

80

2 4

78

2 1

69

97

4

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

45

756

3 6

92

20

1

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

75

6 7

22

1 9

06

07

3

DT

MR

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Tra

nsp

ort

syste

m investm

en

t

pla

nnin

g a

nd

pro

gra

mm

ing

2.

Tra

nsp

ort

infr

astr

uctu

re

ma

nag

em

en

t a

nd

de

live

ry





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es r

ele

van

t

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Th

is is a

le

ad

in

dic

ato

r o

f ta

rget

gro

up a

wa

ren

ess a

nd

th

e

eff

ective

ness o

f th

e a

wa

ren

ess p

rog

ram

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

T

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

10

.,9

.5,1

1 .2

85

,96

,82

74

,79

,72

0.0

5

5.4

0.1

0.4

0.4

5

3.4

5.9

13

5

90

Un

its

Min

ute

s

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Ra

te

Ra

te

Ra

te

Ra

te

Ra

te

Ra

te

Ra

te

Ra

te

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Roa

d n

etw

ork

eff

icie

ncy-

Ave

rag

e

tra

vel tim

e p

er

10

km

; A

M P

eak,

Off

pe

ak,

PM

Pe

ak.

Roa

d n

etw

ork

re

liab

ility

- P

erc

en

tag

e

of

the

ro

ad n

etw

ork

with

re

liable

tra

vel tim

es;

AM

Pe

ak,

Off

pe

ak,

PM

Pe

ak.

Roa

d n

etw

ork

pro

du

ctivity-

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f th

e r

oa

d n

etw

ork

with

go

od

pro

ductivity;

AM

Pe

ak,

Off

pe

ak,

PM

Pe

ak.

Num

be

r o

f fa

tal cra

sh

es o

n S

tate

-–

co

ntr

olle

d r

oa

ds p

er

10

0 m

illio

n

ve

hic

le k

ilom

etr

es t

ravelle

d w

he

re

the

ro

ad

co

nditio

n w

as lik

ely

to b

e a

co

ntr

ibu

tin

g fa

cto

r.

Ma

rine

fata

litie

s p

er

100

000

reg

iste

red v

esse

ls.

Rail

fata

litie

s p

er

100

000

po

pu

latio

n.

Hosp

ita

lise

d r

ail

ca

sua

ltie

s p

er

10

0 0

00

po

pula

tio

n.

Num

be

r o

f le

vel cro

ssin

g c

olli

sio

n

occu

rre

nce

s p

er

1 0

00

000

tra

in

kilo

me

tre

s tra

ve

lled

.

Fa

talit

ies p

er

100

000

pop

ula

tio

n o

n

Sta

te c

on

tro

lled

roa

ds.

Roa

d f

ata

litie

s p

er

10

0 0

00

po

pu

latio

n.

Hosp

ita

lise

d r

oa

d c

asu

altie

s p

er

10

0 0

00

po

pula

tio

n.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f pe

ople

in

ta

rge

t

au

die

nce

wh

o h

ave

hig

h le

ve

l

aw

are

ness o

f ro

ad

sa

fety

ca

mp

aig

ns.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

38

0 2

49

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

17

2 8

58

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

20

7 3

91

DT

MR

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Tra

nsp

ort

sa

fety

, re

gu

lation

an

d c

usto

me

r

se

rvic

e





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es r

ele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Ho

we

ve

r, t

here

are

no

eff

icie

ncy m

easu

res.

Oth

er

jurisdic

tio

ns (

e.g

. W

A)

me

asu

re:

A

ve

rage

Co

st

pe

r D

ay p

er

Ma

ritim

e I

nfr

astr

uctu

re

Asse

t M

an

age

d

A

ve

rage

Su

rve

y C

ost p

er

Com

me

rcia

l V

esse

l

Ave

rage

Co

st

pe

r P

riva

te R

ecre

ation

al V

esse

l R

eg

istr

atio

n.

Wa

itin

g tim

es a

re d

ime

nsio

ns o

f se

rvic

e o

utp

ut

eff

ective

ness b

ut

they p

rovid

e n

o d

ata

on t

he e

ffic

ien

cy o

f

the

se

rvic

e. T

he

re is n

o d

ata

pro

vid

ed

on

the

ave

rage

co

st

pe

r tr

an

sactio

n b

y typ

e.

An

ove

rall

red

uctio

n in

the

cost p

er

tra

nsa

ctio

n is a

be

tte

r m

easu

re t

ha

n t

ime

, a

s tim

e m

ay o

nly

ha

ve a

pa

rtia

l im

pact

on

the

cost

of som

e t

ran

sa

ctio

ns.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is th

e

acce

ssib

ility

of th

e in

teg

rate

d t

ran

spo

rt s

yste

m.

Oth

er

juri

sd

iction

s (

e.g

. W

A)

repo

rt o

n t

he

pro

po

rtio

n o

f str

ee

t

ad

dre

sses w

ith

in th

e P

ub

lic T

ran

spo

rt A

rea

wh

ich

are

with

in 5

00

me

tre

s o

f a

sto

p p

rovid

ing

an

acce

pta

ble

leve

l o

f

se

rvic

e.

Th

e

SD

S s

tand

ard

is a

pro

xy fo

r se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness a

s it

rep

ort

s o

n th

e e

ffective

ne

ss o

f o

ne

ou

tput,

be

ing t

he

ta

xi

su

bsid

y.

It p

rovid

es n

o info

rmatio

n o

n t

he

outc

om

e o

f

ove

rall

acce

ssib

ility

of

the

pub

lic t

ran

sp

ort

ne

two

rk f

or

all

pa

tro

ns.

Th

e p

rop

ort

ion

of

trip

s b

y d

isa

ble

d p

asse

ng

ers

co

uld

als

o b

e a

go

od

pro

xy.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency is th

e a

ve

rag

e c

ost

of

adm

inis

teri

ng

th

e s

erv

ice

per

trip

. T

he

me

asu

re d

oes n

ot

rep

ort

on

the

co

st o

f p

rod

ucin

g t

he

se

rvic

e,

pro

vid

ing t

he

su

bsid

y a

nd

the

refo

re c

an

not d

em

on

str

ate

th

e im

pa

ct o

f

ne

w s

yste

ms,

sta

ff t

rain

ing

or

oth

er

inn

ova

tio

ns in

imp

rovin

g t

he

effic

iency o

f de

live

ring

the

se

rvic

e.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f e

ffic

iency is th

e a

ve

rag

e c

ost

of

ad

min

iste

rin

g th

e s

erv

ice p

er

pa

sse

ng

er.

The

mea

su

re

do

es n

ot

rep

ort

on

th

e c

ost

of p

rod

ucin

g t

he s

erv

ice

,

pro

vid

ing

the

sub

sid

y a

nd t

he

refo

re c

ann

ot

de

mo

nstr

ate

the

im

pact

of

ne

w s

yste

ms, sta

ff t

rain

ing

or

oth

er

inn

ova

tio

ns in

de

live

rin

g t

he

se

rvic

e.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

T ●

●

●

C ●

●

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

99

.8

10

80

85

to

95

8.1

8

23

.46

,25

.

35

,3.0

8,

47

4.9

2

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Min

ute

s

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$

$

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ve

ssel m

ovem

en

ts

with

ou

t se

rio

us incid

en

ts;

Pilo

tag

e

an

d R

eef

VT

S a

rea

s.

Ave

rage

wa

it t

ime

in

Cu

sto

me

r

Se

rvic

e C

entr

es (

min

ute

s).

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ca

ll ce

ntr

e c

alls

an

sw

ere

d w

ith

in th

ree m

inu

tes.

Wh

ee

lch

air

acce

ssib

le t

axi re

sp

on

se

tim

es c

om

pa

red t

o c

onve

ntio

na

l ta

xi

fle

et

respo

nse

tim

es;

Pea

k a

nd

Off

Pe

ak b

y v

ario

us t

ime

in

terv

als

fo

r

Con

ve

ntion

al a

nd

Wh

eelc

ha

ir.

Ave

rage

su

bsid

y p

er

trip

pro

vid

ed

thro

ugh

the

Taxi S

ub

sid

y S

ch

em

e.

Ave

rage

su

bsid

y p

er

pa

ssen

ge

r o

n

go

ve

rnm

en

t co

ntr

acte

d s

erv

ice

s;

Reg

iona

l air

, Lo

ng

dis

tance

bus,

Reg

iona

l u

rba

n b

us,

Tra

ve

ltra

in.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

2 1

04

86

5

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

43

8 9

96

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

1 6

65

86

9

DT

MR

Se

rvic

e a

rea

4.

Pa

sse

ng

er

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es r

ele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

s.

Sta

ke

ho

lde

r sa

tisfa

ction

with s

erv

ice

s c

an

be a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e d

imen

sio

ns

su

ch

as t

ime

liness, re

sp

onsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy,

co

mp

lete

ness a

nd

acce

ssib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es.

Cu

sto

me

r co

mp

lain

ts c

an

be a

use

ful p

roxy f

or

se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness a

s th

ey c

an

in

dic

ate

wh

ere

qua

lity c

an

imp

rove

.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

re o

f te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

iency is th

e a

ve

rag

e

co

st o

f ne

two

rk m

an

age

men

t p

er

passe

ng

er

pe

r kilo

me

tre

tra

velle

d b

y t

ransp

ort

typ

e.

Tim

elin

ess is a

pro

xy m

easu

re

of

se

rvic

e q

ua

lity.

It is h

ow

eve

r o

nly

one

co

mpo

ne

nt

of

eff

ective

ness o

f ra

il se

rvic

es. C

lea

nlin

ess, safe

ty,

fre

qu

en

cy a

nd

ove

r-cro

wd

ing

wo

uld

als

o b

e g

ood

pro

xie

s

for

se

rvic

e q

ua

lity.

Th

e m

easu

re r

ep

ort

s o

n t

he c

ost

of

the o

utp

ut,

th

e d

irect

co

sts

of

sub

sid

isin

g t

he

se

rvic

e.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is d

irectly m

ea

su

red

:

in

th

ree

of th

e fo

ur

se

rvic

e a

rea

s

b

y 1

3 o

f th

e 3

2 s

tan

da

rds (

40

.6 p

er

ce

nt)

a

cco

un

tin

g fo

r 85

pe

r cen

t o

f to

tal costs

.

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct m

ea

su

res o

f te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

iency o

r cost

eff

ective

ness m

easu

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

13

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

●

●

● 7

T ● 4

C ●

3

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

5

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t

17

6.4

,11

8

.4,5

1.1

,7

12

.8,

0.4

,0.1

,11

.8,0

.4

≥7

0

<3

<3

95

>9

9.9

6.4

0

Un

its

Nu

mb

er

Pe

r cen

t

Ra

te

Ra

te

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pa

tro

nag

e o

n g

ove

rnm

en

t

co

ntr

acte

d s

erv

ices;

So

uth

-ea

st

QL

D:

bu

s,

rail,

fe

rry

Rest

of Q

ld:

Reg

iona

l air

, lo

ng

dis

tance

bus,

reg

iona

l u

rba

n b

us,

Tra

veltra

in.

Custo

me

r sa

tisfa

ctio

n r

atin

gs o

f

pu

blic

tra

nsp

ort

by s

erv

ice

type

(usin

g a

0–

100

(excelle

nt)

in

de

x:

Wh

ole

of

Qld

: T

axi;

So

uth

-ea

st

Qld

: B

us,

rail,

fe

rry;

Rest

of Q

ld:

Reg

iona

l u

rba

n b

us.

Custo

me

r co

mp

lain

ts o

n g

o c

ard

pe

r

10

000

trip

s.

Custo

me

r se

rvic

e c

om

pla

ints

in

SE

Q (

oth

er

tha

n g

o c

ard

) pe

r 1

0 0

00

trip

s.

Ave

rage

on

-tim

e r

unn

ing

pe

rfo

rma

nce

in

pea

k tim

es –

CityT

rain

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f sche

dule

d s

erv

ice

s

de

live

red

CityT

rain

.

Ave

rage

co

st o

f su

bsid

y p

er

pa

sse

nge

r tr

ip in S

EQ

– b

us,

rail

an

d f

err

y.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$5

457

566

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$4

349

811

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$4

536

055

DT

MR

Se

rvic

e a

rea

To

tal





Figure E19—Department of Queensland Police Service

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Ra

te o

f com

pla

ints

is a

pro

xy fo

r se

rvic

e q

ua

lity. A

mo

re d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e q

ualit

y w

ould

be

th

e

nu

mbe

r, o

r p

ropo

rtio

n,

of com

pla

ints

up

held

.

No

te:

RO

GS

uses t

he

ra

te p

er

10

0 0

00

po

pula

tio

n, so

this

me

tric

is n

ot com

pa

rab

le b

etw

ee

n ju

risd

ictio

ns.

Ge

ne

ral p

ublic

pe

rce

ptio

ns m

ay n

ot re

fle

ct a

ctu

al

levels

of

po

lice

pe

rfo

rma

nce

, be

ca

use

ma

ny f

acto

rs—

inclu

din

g in

div

idu

al e

xp

erie

nces,

hea

rsay a

nd

me

dia

rep

ort

ing

—ca

n in

flu

ence

co

mm

un

ity s

atisfa

ctio

n w

ith

po

lice

se

rvic

es.

No

te:

Oth

er

jurisdic

tio

ns (

e.g

. W

A)

an

d R

OG

S inclu

de

a m

ea

su

re o

f th

e p

ub

lic's

pe

rce

ption

of sa

fety

, w

hic

h

is a

mo

re d

ire

ct se

rvic

e q

ua

lity in

dic

ato

r.

Wh

ile a

lso

su

bje

ctive

pe

rce

ptio

n-b

ase

d m

easu

re,

it is

mo

re u

sefu

l th

an

th

e s

urv

ey o

f g

en

era

l pu

blic

pe

rcep

tion

s a

bove

, a

s it

rela

tes t

o s

pecific

inte

ractio

ns.

Cu

sto

me

r sa

tisfa

ction

with s

erv

ice

s c

an

be

a p

roxy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll

se

rvic

e d

ime

nsio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

resp

on

siv

en

ess,

accu

racy, com

ple

ten

ess a

nd

acce

ssib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m

the

su

ppo

rtin

g n

ote

s th

at a

ll o

f th

ese

asp

ects

are

su

rve

yed

.

Wh

ile t

his

is t

he

me

asu

re u

sed in

RO

GS

, cost

pe

r

he

ad

of

pop

ula

tion

gen

era

lly is a

we

ak p

roxy o

f

techn

ica

l eff

icie

ncy a

s p

opu

latio

n n

um

be

rs m

ay

co

rre

late

to

tota

l costs

bu

t th

ey d

o n

ot

drive

se

rvic

e

un

it c

osts

.

A b

ett

er

pro

xy fo

r te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

iency is o

rgan

isa

tio

nal

co

st p

er

se

rvic

e h

ou

r de

live

red,

or

ave

rage

co

st o

n a

pe

r o

ffe

nce

/incid

en

t b

asis

. T

hese

me

asu

res a

re u

se

d

in W

A.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

rele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

T

C ●

A

Pro

ce

ss

●

●

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

≤1

6.7

≥8

5

≥7

5

≥7

5

≥8

5

85

44

3

66

0–

77

0

44

00

–5

400

10

00

–1

200

Un

its

Ra

te

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$ 0

00

Ra

te

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Com

pla

ints

ag

ain

st p

olic

e (

pe

r

10

0 s

worn

off

ice

rs).

Pu

blic

pe

rcep

tion

of p

olic

e

pro

fessio

nalis

m a

nd

im

ag

e:

P

olic

e p

erf

orm

th

eir

job

pro

fessio

nally

P

olic

e t

rea

t pe

op

le f

air

ly a

nd

eq

ua

lly

P

olic

e a

re h

one

st

I

do

ha

ve c

on

fide

nce

in

th

e

Po

lice

.

Sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

mem

be

rs o

f pu

blic

who

ha

d c

on

tact

in p

ast ye

ar.

Cost

of p

olic

ing

se

rvic

es p

er

pe

rso

n.

To

tal o

ffen

ces r

ep

ort

ed

(p

er

10

0 0

00

po

pu

latio

n):

p

ers

on

al sa

fety

p

rop

ert

y s

ecu

rity

g

oo

d o

rde

r.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

604

581

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$6

1 8

82

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

542

699

QP

S

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Po

lice

Se

rvic

es

2.

Cri

me

and

Pu

blic

Ord

er





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is a

n e

ffective

ness m

ea

su

re a

cco

rdin

g t

o R

OG

S,

alo

ng w

ith

pro

po

rtio

n o

f th

e in

ve

stig

atio

ns f

ina

lise

d w

ith

in

30

days w

he

re p

roce

edin

gs w

ere

institu

ted

aga

inst

the

off

en

de

r.

It is n

ot cle

ar

in t

he S

DS

no

tes w

he

the

r th

is in

clu

des a

ll

pu

blic

or

mem

be

rs o

f th

e p

ub

lic w

ho

ha

d c

on

tact w

ith

QP

S.

Cu

sto

me

r sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es c

an b

e a

pro

xy fo

r

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess if it m

easu

res a

ll se

rvic

e d

imen

sio

ns

su

ch

as t

ime

liness, re

sp

onsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy,

co

mp

lete

ness a

nd

acce

ssib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es. It

is

no

t cle

ar

fro

m t

he s

up

po

rtin

g n

ote

s th

at a

ll o

f th

ese

asp

ects

are

su

rveye

d.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es r

ele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctive

.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is d

irectly m

ea

su

red

in

:

b

oth

se

rvic

es (

10

0 p

er

ce

nt)

fo

ur

of th

e 1

0 s

tand

ard

s r

ep

ort

ed

(4

0 p

er

ce

nt)

u

p t

o 1

00

pe

r ce

nt o

f co

sts

.

Th

ere

are

no

dire

ct te

ch

nic

al eff

icie

ncy o

r

co

st-

eff

ective

ne

ss m

ea

su

res.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

● ●

●

4

Ce

0

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q 1

T 0

C 1

A 0

Pro

ce

ss

●

●

4

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t

55

–6

0

20

–2

5

85

–9

0

≥6

5

≥8

5

6.4

13

5

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Ra

te

Ra

te

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

To

tal o

ffen

ces c

lea

red

with

in

30

days:

p

ers

on

al sa

fety

p

rop

ert

y s

ecu

rity

g

oo

d o

rde

r.

Pu

blic

sa

tisfa

ction

with p

olic

e

de

alin

g w

ith

pu

blic

ord

er

pro

ble

ms.

Pu

blic

sa

tisfa

ction

with p

olic

e

de

alin

g w

ith

dis

aste

rs a

nd

ma

jor

eve

nts

.

Rate

(p

er

10

0 0

00 p

opu

latio

n)

of

roa

d c

rash

fa

talit

ies.

Rate

(p

er

10

0 0

00 p

opu

latio

n)

of

pe

rson

s h

osp

italis

ed

fo

llow

ing a

cra

sh

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$3

96

14

4

$2

000

725

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

5 2

39

$7

7 1

21

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$3

80

90

5

$1

923

604

QP

S

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Roa

d S

afe

ty

To

tal





Figure E20—Department of Queensland Treasury and Trade

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

res o

f se

rvic

e o

utc

om

es

WO

G r

ele

van

t to

obje

ctive

s.

Oth

er

jurisdic

tio

ns (

e.g

. W

A)

use

the

follo

win

g d

irect

me

asu

res:

S

tatu

s o

f th

e S

tate

's c

redit r

atin

g

A

ccu

racy o

f key g

en

era

l g

ove

rnm

ent

reve

nue

fore

ca

sts

A

ccu

racy o

f key e

co

nom

ic f

ore

ca

sts

E

mp

loym

en

t le

ve

l

R

ea

l S

tate

Fin

al D

em

an

d (

SF

D/G

SP

) g

row

th.

Th

e d

ire

ct

mea

su

res o

f eff

icie

ncy a

re th

e d

irect

co

sts

of

deve

lop

ing

the

bud

get a

nd

th

e v

ari

ou

s s

tate

fin

ancia

l re

po

rts.

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n is o

ne

dim

en

sio

n o

f se

rvic

e

qu

alit

y b

ut d

oes n

ot fu

lly r

ep

rese

nt e

ffective

ne

ss.

As

the

se

rvic

e a

rea h

as n

ot in

clu

de

d a

n o

bje

ctive in

th

e

SD

S,

sta

nd

ard

s o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness c

an

no

t b

e

su

gge

ste

d.

Th

e S

DS

sta

nd

ard

is to

o b

roa

d to

co

ve

r

the

ma

teria

l a

spe

cts

of th

e s

erv

ice

are

a.

The

pe

rfo

rma

nce

of

the f

ollo

win

g s

erv

ice

s is n

ot vis

ible

in t

he

SD

S:

m

an

ag

ing

th

e S

tate

’s in

tere

st

in t

he

go

ve

rnm

en

t-o

wne

d c

orp

ora

tion

s s

ecto

r

b

est-

pra

ctice

re

gu

latio

n a

nd r

ed

ucin

g r

ed

tap

e,

m

icro

eco

nom

ic a

nd

co

mpe

tition

re

form

,

ma

nag

ing

and

co

ord

ina

tin

g in

terg

ove

rnm

en

tal

fisca

l re

latio

ns issu

es, in

clu

din

g n

atio

nal

fin

ancia

l ag

reem

en

ts, m

atte

rs p

ert

ain

ing

to

th

e

dis

trib

utio

n o

f th

e G

ST

, an

d n

atio

nal ta

x r

efo

rm

re

gu

lating

and

im

pro

vin

g Q

uee

nsla

nd’s

co

mp

uls

ory

th

ird

part

y in

su

rance

sche

me

an

d

ma

nag

ing

th

e M

oto

r A

ccid

en

t In

su

ran

ce a

nd

No

min

al D

efe

nd

an

t fu

nds.

Th

e r

ole

of th

e s

erv

ice

is to

ma

na

ge p

roje

cts

. If t

he

ob

jective

of

the s

erv

ice

are

a is t

o f

oste

r fo

r m

on

ey

investm

en

t p

art

ne

rsh

ips t

o d

eliv

er

pu

blic

infr

astr

uctu

re a

nd

se

rvic

es t

hen

th

e c

ost

eff

ective

ness m

easu

re is t

he c

ost

to g

ove

rnm

ent

pe

r p

roje

ct

as a

ratio

of

the

priva

te inve

stm

en

t.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

●

●

●

Ce

Te

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

●

T

●

C

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

Pa

rtia

lly

me

t

No

t m

et

Me

t

Me

t

95

10

0

Un

its

Te

xt

Te

xt

Te

xt

Te

xt

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Ach

ievem

en

t o

f G

ove

rnm

en

t’s f

ou

r

fisca

l p

rincip

les:

to

sta

bili

se

the

n s

ignific

an

tly

red

uce

deb

t

to

ach

ieve

an

d m

ain

tain

a

ge

ne

ral go

ve

rnm

en

t se

cto

r

fisca

l b

ala

nce

by 2

014

15

to

main

tain

a c

om

pe

titive t

ax

en

viro

nm

en

t fo

r bu

sin

ess

to

ta

rge

t fu

ll fu

ndin

g o

f lo

ng

term

lia

bili

ties in a

cco

rda

nce

with

actu

aria

l a

dvic

e.

Se

rvic

e s

tand

ard

s S

take

ho

lder

an

d

clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

Go

ve

rnm

en

t

Sta

tisticia

n o

utp

uts

(ra

ted

sa

tisfie

d

or

ve

ry s

atisfied

).

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ke

y p

roje

ct

mile

sto

ne

s m

et.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$3

3 2

22

$3

0 4

15

$1

7 1

02

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$1

025

$4

620

$6

123

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$3

2 1

97

$2

5 7

95

$1

0 9

79

QT

T

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Fis

cal

2.

Econ

om

ic

3.

Co

mm

erc

ial

se

rvic

es /

Pro

jects

Qu

ee

nsla

nd





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Sta

ke

ho

lde

r sa

tisfa

ction

with s

erv

ice

s c

an

be a

pro

xy

for

se

rvic

e e

ffective

ness if

it m

ea

su

res a

ll se

rvic

e

dim

en

sio

ns s

uch

as tim

elin

ess,

respo

nsiv

en

ess,

accu

racy, co

mp

lete

ness a

nd a

ccessib

ility

of a

dvis

ory

se

rvic

es.

It is n

ot cle

ar

fro

m the

sup

po

rtin

g n

ote

s t

ha

t all

of

these

aspe

cts

are

surv

eye

d.

Ap

pro

pria

te d

irect m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e c

ost

eff

ective

ness r

ele

va

nt

to o

bje

ctives f

or

pa

rt o

f th

e

reve

nu

e s

erv

ice

. O

the

r m

ea

sure

s c

ou

ld inclu

de

th

e

lea

ka

ge

of

reve

nu

e e

.g.,

th

e p

erc

enta

ge o

f fo

reca

st

reve

nu

e n

ot

co

llecte

d.

Th

e m

easu

re is a

n in

dire

ct m

ea

su

re o

f eff

ective

ness.

It

pro

vid

es n

o in

form

atio

n o

n th

e a

ge

of

the

deb

t o

r th

e

ab

ility

of

an

d c

ost to

th

e d

ep

art

me

nt to

co

llect it.

Th

e S

DS

sta

nda

rds o

bscu

re a

ctu

al p

erf

orm

an

ce

as

the

y p

rovid

e n

o u

sefu

l in

form

atio

n a

bo

ut

the s

ca

le o

f

the

unp

aid

fin

es.

If th

e o

bje

ctive

of

the

se

rvic

e is t

o h

elp

de

bto

rs m

ee

t th

eir o

blig

ation

s to

pay f

ine

s,

then

the

rele

va

nt sta

nd

ard

is t

he

num

be

r o

f fin

es r

eso

lve

d. In

WA

th

e m

easu

re is t

he

pe

rce

nta

ge

of

fin

es s

atisfie

d

with

in 1

2 m

on

ths. T

he

te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

iency s

tan

da

rd is

the

co

st p

er

en

forc

em

en

t.

Th

e S

DS

sta

nda

rd is a

n a

ctivity m

ea

su

re.

It p

rovid

es n

o

use

ful in

form

atio

n o

n t

he

effe

ctiven

ess o

r e

ffic

ien

cy o

f

the

se

rvic

e a

rea.

Th

e d

ire

ct m

ea

su

re o

f se

rvic

e

eff

ective

ness is th

e v

alu

e (

$$

) o

f th

e o

utc

om

e o

f

de

velo

pin

g m

ark

ets

, im

pro

vin

g e

xpo

rt c

ap

abili

ty o

r

pro

motin

g t

rade

and

investm

en

t o

ppo

rtun

itie

s.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is m

ea

su

red

dir

ectly f

or:

o

ne

of th

e f

ou

r se

rvic

e a

rea

s (

25

pe

r cen

t) in

rela

tio

n to

only

som

e o

f th

e s

erv

ice

s u

nd

ert

ake

n in

tha

t a

rea

fo

ur

of th

e 1

2 s

erv

ice

sta

nda

rds r

epo

rte

d

(33

pe

r cen

t)

1

4 p

er

cen

t o

f to

tal co

sts

.

Se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency is d

irectly m

ea

su

red

fo

r:

o

ne

of th

e s

erv

ice

s d

eliv

ere

d b

y o

ne

se

rvic

e a

rea

o

ne

of th

e 1

2 s

erv

ice

sta

nda

rds (

8.3

pe

r ce

nt)

n

o m

ore

tha

n 5

1 p

er

cen

t of

tota

l co

sts

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

4

Ce

● 1

Te

0

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

● ● ● 4

T 1

C 0

A ●

1

Pro

ce

ss

●

1

Inp

ut

0

Ta

rge

t 70

19

2

2

77

58

40

0

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

$

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Nu

mb

er

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Clie

nt sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith

se

rvic

es

pro

vid

ed

.

To

tal re

ve

nu

e d

olla

rs a

dm

inis

tere

d

pe

r d

olla

r e

xp

en

de

d –

accru

al.

Ave

rage

ove

rdue

deb

t as a

pe

rcen

tage

of to

tal re

ve

nue

co

llecte

d.

SP

ER

cle

ara

nce

ra

te

(fin

alis

ation

s/lo

dge

me

nts

).

SP

ER

pe

rcen

tage

of d

eb

t p

ool

un

de

r com

plia

nce

.

Num

be

r o

f ta

rge

ted

an

d q

ua

lifie

d

lea

ds f

or

Que

ensla

nd

bu

sin

esse

s

ge

ne

rate

d th

roug

h T

rad

e a

nd

Investm

en

t Q

ue

ensla

nd

’s o

ve

rse

as

tra

de

mis

sio

ns a

nd o

the

r tr

ad

e a

nd

exp

ort

deve

lop

me

nt a

ctivitie

s.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

18

05

0

$2

8 8

04

$2

27

59

3

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$2

232

$1

721

$1

5 7

21

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$1

15

81

8

$2

7 0

83

$2

11

87

2

QT

T

Se

rvic

e a

rea

4.

Re

ve

nu

e

ma

nag

em

en

t

5.

Tra

de

and

investm

en

t

To

tal





Figure E21—Department of Fire and Emergency Services (Former Department of Community Services)

Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Tim

elin

ess is o

ne

im

po

rta

nt m

ea

su

re o

f o

utp

uts

,

ho

we

ve

r b

y its

elf it ca

n d

rive

ris

ky b

eh

avio

ur.

Th

e

se

rvic

e a

rea

's o

bje

ctive

is f

or

bo

th t

imelin

ess a

nd

qu

alit

y s

erv

ice

. T

he

dir

ect

me

asu

re o

f se

rvic

e

qu

alit

y is th

e p

er

ce

nt o

f in

cid

en

ts th

at co

mp

ly w

ith

pro

ced

ure

s a

nd

me

et q

ualit

y s

tan

da

rds.

A

me

asu

re o

f te

ch

nic

al eff

icie

ncy is t

he

ad

min

istr

ative

cost

pe

r to

tal cost.

The

me

asu

re o

f

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess is t

he

per

ce

nt o

f pe

ople

who

rece

ive

d t

he m

ed

ica

l ca

re t

hey r

eq

uire

d w

ith

in t

he

sh

ort

est p

ossib

le tim

e.

As a

bove

, tim

elin

ess is o

ne

im

po

rta

nt com

po

ne

nt

of

this

se

rvic

e.

The

qua

lity o

f se

rvic

e to

assis

t

str

essed

clie

nts

to

giv

e u

sefu

l in

form

ation

is

pa

ram

ou

nt.

Th

is tim

elin

ess m

easu

re is a

we

ak m

easu

re f

or

the

se

rvic

e. It

do

es n

ot in

dic

ate

eff

icie

ncy o

r

eff

ective

ness a

nd

th

e s

erv

ice

ob

jective

is n

ot

sp

ecifie

d.

A te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re is t

he

co

st p

er

se

rvic

e.

If t

he

am

bu

lan

ce

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

e r

ed

uces t

he

len

gth

of sta

y o

f p

atie

nts

in

ho

spita

l, a

cost

effe

ctive

ness m

easu

re is th

e r

atio

of

the

cost

of

the s

erv

ice

an

d th

e r

edu

ced

co

st o

f

ho

spita

l se

rvic

es.

Ap

pro

pria

te te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re.

As a

po

pula

tio

n m

easu

re, th

is is a

pro

xy fo

r co

st

eff

ective

ness.

Ap

pro

pria

te s

erv

ice

effe

ctive

ne

ss m

ea

su

re.

Ap

pro

pria

te m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e q

ualit

y w

hic

h is a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness (

sa

fety

of

prison

ers

an

d s

taff

).

Ap

pro

pria

te m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e q

ualit

y w

hic

h is a

pro

xy f

or

se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness (

sa

fety

of

prison

ers

an

d s

taff

).

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

●

Ce

Te

●

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ●

●

T

●

●

●

C ●

A

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

Ta

rge

t

8.2

;16.5

90

>7

0

66

4

12

5

0;<

.63

<0

.02

,

<0

.24

,

<0

.69

,

<3

.4

0,

0

Un

its

Min

ute

s

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$

$

Ra

te p

er

10

0

Ra

te p

er

10

0

Nu

mb

er

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Tim

e w

ith

in w

hic

h c

ode

1 in

cid

en

ts a

re

att

en

din

g:

50

th;

90

th p

erc

en

tile

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f T

rip

le Z

ero

(0

00)

ca

lls

an

sw

ere

d w

ith

in 1

0 s

eco

nds.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f no

n-u

rge

nt in

cid

en

ts

att

en

de

d to

by t

he a

ppo

intm

ent

tim

e.

Gro

ss c

ost

pe

r in

cid

en

t.

Gro

ss c

ost

pe

r h

ead

of p

opu

latio

n.

Escap

e r

ate

: H

igh

se

cu

rity

facili

ties; L

ow

se

cu

rity

facili

ties.

Assau

lt r

ate

: se

rio

us/a

ssa

ult (

pri

son

er

on

off

ice

r),s

eri

ou

s/a

ssa

ult (

prisone

r o

n

pri

son

er)

.

Dea

ths f

rom

app

are

nt

unn

atu

ral ca

use

s:

Ind

ige

no

us p

riso

ne

rs,

no

n-I

nd

ige

no

us

pri

son

ers

.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$3

2 0

31

$5

76

85

9

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$0

$2

6 1

45

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$3

2 0

31

$5

50

71

4

DC

S

Se

rvic

e a

rea

1.

Am

bu

lan

ce

2.

Custo

dia

l





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is a

wh

ole

-of-

go

ve

rnm

en

t se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctiven

ess

ou

tco

me

fo

r th

e w

ellb

ein

g o

f In

dig

eno

us p

eo

ple

reco

gn

isin

g t

he

ob

jective t

o r

ed

uce t

he

incid

en

ce o

f o

ve

r-

rep

rese

nta

tio

n in

custo

dy.

Ap

pro

pria

te te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re.

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f o

utp

ut cost

wh

ich

is n

ot

req

uire

d a

s

the

pre

ced

ing m

ea

sure

s s

uffic

ien

tly c

ove

r e

ffic

ien

cy a

nd

se

rvic

e e

ffectiven

ess.

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f in

tern

al activity a

nd

is n

ot re

quir

ed in

the

SD

S a

s it d

oes n

ot

repo

rt e

ffic

iency o

r e

ffe

ctive

ness.

Ap

pro

pria

te m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ne

ss.

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f activity a

nd

is n

ot re

quir

ed a

s it

do

es

no

t re

po

rt e

ffic

iency o

r eff

ective

ne

ss.

Th

is is a

wh

ole

-of-

go

ve

rnm

en

t se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctiven

ess

ou

tco

me

fo

r th

e w

ellb

ein

g o

f In

dig

eno

us p

eo

ple

reco

gn

isin

g t

he

ob

jective t

o r

ed

uce t

he

incid

en

ce o

f o

ve

r-

rep

rese

nta

tio

n in

custo

dy.

Ap

pro

pria

te te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy m

ea

su

re.

Pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f q

ualit

y o

f p

ub

lic a

wa

ren

ess a

nd

co

mp

lian

ce

str

ate

gy. M

easu

res t

he e

ffectiven

ess o

f p

ublic

aw

are

ness a

nd

ed

uca

tio

n o

n c

om

mu

nitie

s a

nd

th

e e

xte

nt

to w

hic

h t

he

y h

ave

take

n s

teps t

o r

ed

uce

im

pa

cts

fro

m

na

tura

l d

isaste

r e

ven

ts.

Na

tura

l d

isa

ste

r a

re o

nly

on

e o

f

ran

ge

of

dis

aste

rs f

or

Qu

ee

nsla

nd

co

mm

unitie

s. T

he

sta

nd

ard

do

es n

ot

cove

r m

ed

ica

l e

me

rge

ncie

s,

tra

nsp

ort

accid

ents

, in

du

str

ial e

me

rge

ncie

s, o

r o

the

r th

rea

ts t

o h

ealth

an

d s

afe

ty.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

● ● ●

Ce

Te

● ●

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q

T

C ●

A ● ●

Pro

ce

ss

Inp

ut

●

Ta

rge

t

<3

0

19

9

85

–9

5

>3

.2

>6

8;

63

;

65

>6

.2

>2

0

14

Ne

w

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$m

Pe

r cen

t

$m

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

riso

ne

rs w

ho

are

Ind

ige

no

us.

Cost

of con

tain

men

t pe

r p

risone

r

pe

r d

ay.

Fa

cili

ty u

tilis

atio

n (

%):

Hig

h s

ecu

rity

;

low

secu

rity

; a

ll.

Fin

ancia

l va

lue

of

wo

rk p

erf

orm

ed

in

the

co

mm

unity b

y p

riso

ne

rs f

rom

low

secu

rity

fa

cili

ties.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f su

ccessfu

lly

co

mp

lete

d o

rde

rs:

su

pe

rvis

ion

ord

ers

; re

pa

ratio

n o

rde

rs;

all

ord

ers

.

Fin

ancia

l va

lue

of com

mu

nity

se

rvic

e w

ork

pe

rfo

rmed

(cou

rt

ord

ere

d).

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f o

ffe

nd

ers

who

are

Ind

ige

no

us.

Cost

of sup

erv

isio

n p

er

da

y.

Estim

ate

d p

erc

en

tag

e o

f ho

use

ho

lds

tha

t ha

ve u

nde

rtake

n n

ew

na

tura

l

dis

aste

r p

repa

redn

ess a

ctio

ns w

ith

in

the

la

st 1

2 m

on

ths.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

84

917

$6

31

84

4

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$0

$4

35

29

1

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$8

4 9

17

$1

95

73

8

DC

S

Se

rvic

e a

rea

3.

Pro

bation

and

Pa

role

4.

Em

erg

ency

Ma

nag

em

en

t, F

ire

an

d R

escue





Au

dit

co

mm

en

tary

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f activity a

nd

is n

ot re

quir

ed a

s it

do

es n

ot

rep

ort

effic

ien

cy o

r e

ffe

ctiven

ess.

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f activity a

nd

is n

ot re

quir

ed a

s it

do

es n

ot

rep

ort

effic

ien

cy o

r e

ffe

ctiven

ess.

Th

is is a

me

asu

re o

f tim

elin

ess.

Ap

pro

pria

te m

easu

re o

f se

rvic

e e

ffective

ne

ss.

Pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f q

ualit

y o

f p

ub

lic a

wa

ren

ess a

nd

co

mp

lian

ce

str

ate

gy.

Pro

xy m

ea

su

re o

f q

ualit

y o

f p

ub

lic a

wa

ren

ess a

nd

co

mp

lian

ce

str

ate

gy.

Ap

pro

pria

te m

easu

re o

f te

ch

nic

al e

ffic

ien

cy.

Pro

xy s

erv

ice

effe

ctive

ness m

ea

su

re b

ase

d o

n

Qu

ee

nsla

nd p

op

ula

tio

n.

Th

is is a

n o

utp

ut

co

st m

ea

su

re w

hic

h is a

pro

xy f

or

co

st e

ffectiven

ess.

Su

mm

ary

Se

rvic

e e

ffe

ctive

ness is r

ep

ort

ed

in:

th

ree

of

fou

r se

rvic

e a

reas (

75

pe

r ce

nt)

six

of

26

sta

nda

rds (

23

pe

r cen

t).

Se

rvic

e e

ffic

iency is r

ep

ort

ed

in

:

th

ree

of

fou

r se

rvic

e a

reas (

75 p

er

ce

nt)

fo

ur

of 2

6 s

tand

ard

s (

15

pe

r ce

nt)

.

Ou

tco

me

foc

us

Se

● ● 6

Ce

0

Te

● 4

Inp

ut/

ou

tpu

t fo

cu

s

Ou

tpu

t/s

erv

ice

dim

en

sio

n

Q ● 4

T ● ● 3

C ●

4

A

●

● 4

Pro

ce

ss

0

Inp

ut

1

Ta

rge

t

Ne

w

Ne

w

<7

.6;1

4

80

95

Ne

w

7 4

23

<3

5

11

3

Un

its

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Min

ute

s

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

Pe

r cen

t

$

$

$

Se

rvic

e s

tan

da

rds

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f id

en

tifie

d d

isaste

r

ma

nag

em

en

t tr

ain

ing c

ap

ab

ility

de

live

red

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f lo

ca

l go

ve

rnm

en

ts w

ith

a

cu

rre

nt

dis

aste

r m

ana

gem

en

t p

lan

revie

we

d f

or

effe

ctiven

ess.

Resp

onse

tim

es to

str

uctu

re fire

s

inclu

din

g c

all

takin

g t

ime

: 5

0th

pe

rcen

tile

;

90

th p

erc

en

tile

.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f bu

ildin

g a

nd

oth

er

str

uctu

re fir

es c

on

fin

ed

to

room

/obje

ct

of

ori

gin

.

Estim

ate

d p

erc

en

tag

e o

f ho

use

ho

lds w

ith

a s

mo

ke

ala

rm/d

ete

cto

r th

at is

op

era

tio

na

l/ha

s b

ee

n t

este

d.

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f bu

ildin

g p

rem

ise

s

inspe

cte

d a

nd

de

em

ed

com

plia

nt

at firs

t

inspe

ctio

n.

Cost

pe

r fire

and

re

scue

incid

en

t.

Pro

pe

rty loss fro

m s

tru

ctu

re f

ire

pe

r

pe

rson

.

Fir

e s

erv

ice o

rgan

isa

tio

n's

expe

nd

itu

re

pe

r p

ers

on.

20

13–1

4 B

ud

ge

t (

00

0's

)

To

tal

co

st

$1

325

651

Oth

er

rev

en

ue

$4

61

43

6

Sta

te

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

$8

63

40

0

DC

S

Se

rvic

e a

rea

To

tal



Auditor-General Reports to Parliament Reports tabled in 2013–14

Number Title Date tabled in Legislative Assembly

1. Right of private practice in Queensland public hospitals July 2013

2. Supply of specialist subject teachers in secondary schools October 2013

3. Follow up of selected 2011 audits—Report 9 for 2011: Acquisition

and public access to the Museum, Art Gallery and Library

collections

October 2013

4. Follow up of selected 2011 audits—Report 1 for 2011: Management

of offenders subject to supervision in the community

October 2013

5. Traffic management systems November 2013

6. Results of audit: Internal control systems November 2013

7. Results of audit: Water sector entities 2012–13 November 2013

8. Results of audit: Hospital and Health Services entities 2012–13 November 2013

9. Results of audit: Energy sector entities 2012–13 December 2013

10. Contract management: Renewal and transition December 2013

11. Results of audit: State public sector entities for 2012–13 December 2013

12. Results of audit: Queensland state government financial statements

2012–13

December 2013

13. Right of private practice: Senior medical officer conduct February 2014

14. Results of audit: local government entities 2012–13 March 2014

15. Environmental regulation of the resources and waste industries April 2014

16. Results of audit: Education sector entities 2013–14 April 2014

17. Ambulance service delivery May 2014

18. Monitoring and reporting performance June 2014

www.qao.qld.gov.au

Documents

Monitoring and reporting performance - Queensland Audit Office · 2019. 10. 14. · Monitoring and reporting performance Summary Report 18 1: 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office Summary