monitoring and reporting performance - queensland audit office · 2019. 10. 14. · monitoring and...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 3
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
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary
4 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 5
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
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary
6 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 7
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.'
Monitoring and reporting performance Context
8 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Context
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 9
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
Monitoring and reporting performance Context
10 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Context
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 11
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
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Context
12 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Context
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 13
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
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Context
14 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 15
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
16 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 17
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.
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
18 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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).
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 19
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
20 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
Figure 2D Numbers of output standards in the SDS by type, 2013–14
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 21
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
22 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 23
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
24 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 25
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.
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Accountability for performance
26 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 27
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Improving service performance
28 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Improving service performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 29
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Improving service performance
30 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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).
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Improving service performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 31
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.
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Improving service performance
32 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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
Monitoring and reporting performance Improving service performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 33
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.
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Improving service performance
34 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
Monitoring and reporting performance Improving service performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 35
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
36 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Comments
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 37
Comments received from Director-General, Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Monitoring and reporting performance Comments
38 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Comments
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 39
Monitoring and reporting performance Comments
40 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Comments
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 41
Comments received from Director-General, Department of Transport and Main Roads
Monitoring and reporting performance Comments
42 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
Comments received from Director-General, Department of Education, Training and Employment
Monitoring and reporting performance Audit approach
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 43
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Audit approach
44 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Audit approach
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 45
Figure B1—Average satisfaction workshop participants - workshop one and two
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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
46 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 47
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
48 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Previous reports on monitoring and reporting performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 49
Reports on monitoring and reporting performance: key findings
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Previous reports on monitoring and reporting performance
50 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
Reports on monitoring and reporting performance: key findings
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Previous reports on monitoring and reporting performance
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 51
Reports on monitoring and reporting performance: key findings
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
52 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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.
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 53
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
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
54 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 55
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
56 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 57
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
58 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 59
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
60 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 61
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
62 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 63
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
64 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 65
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
66 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 67
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
68 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 69
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
70 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 71
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
72 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 73
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
74 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 75
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
76 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 77
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
78 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 79
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
80 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 81
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
82 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 83
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
84 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 85
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
86 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 87
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
88 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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)
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 89
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
90 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 91
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
92 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 93
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
94 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 95
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
96 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 97
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
98 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 99
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
100 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 101
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
102 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office 103
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
Monitoring and reporting performance Summary of SDS analysis
104 Report 18 : 2013–14 | Queensland Audit Office
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
A = Activity; C = Cost; T = Time; Q = Quality; Te = Technical efficiency; Ce = Cost effectiveness; Se = Service effectiveness
Source: Queensland Audit Office
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