This presentation was made by Russell Campbell, Australia, at the 17th Annual Meeting of OECD Senior Management Officials held at the OECD, Paris, on 2-3 March 2017

1. Report on Government Services
Presentation to OECD
Senior Financial Management Officials
•Russ Campbell
•Minister-Counsellor(Economic)
•AustralianDelegation to OECD
1

2. What is the Report on Government
Services?
• February 1994, Council of Australian Governments agreed:
– In clarifying roles & responsibilitiesof Nationaland sub-nationalGovernments
in the delivery of services, the overriding objective should be to improve
outcomes for clients and value for money; and
– A central element of this involves developinga better understandingof how
existing services perform, and how well they currently meet the needs of their
clients.
• The 2017 edition released in January is the 22nd annual report.
• The Report focuses on ‘social services’, which aim to enhance the
wellbeing of people and communities by improving largely
intangible outcomes (such as health, education and community
safety).
2

3. Report on Government Services
• Includes performance information on child care, education and
training, health, justice, emergency management, community
services, social housing, and homelessness across 17 service areas
• Services of social & economic significance
– $205 billion 12% of GDP
• Important role of comparative reporting:
– Address lack of market pressures
– Clarify objectives
– Improve transparency & accountability
– Identify peers / relationships
– Create incentives to improve
3

4. Program Logic Approach
4
Program or service
objectives
Input Process Output Outcomes
External influences
Program effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness
Service
Technical efficiency

5. Indicator Framework
5
Outputs Outcomes
Equity of
outcome
indicators
Program
effectiveness
indicators
Cost
effectiveness
indicators
Access
Access
Appropriateness
Quality
Inputs per
output unit
Equity
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Equity of access
indicators
Access
indicators
Appropriateness
indicators
Quality
indicators
Technical
efficiency
indicators
PERFORMANCE
Objectives

6. Guiding Principles
6
• Outcomes focus
• Comprehensiveness
• Comparability
• Progressive data availability
• Timeliness
• Iterative improvement

7. Indicator limitations
7
• Data rarely pure and never simple
– Measurement issues can distract from policy issues
– Can miss unintended consequences
• Indicators rarely inform on allocative efficiency
– The best use of limited resources
• Indicators are only partial measures
– Interpretation requires knowledge of context
– Value in qualitative as well as quantitative information
• Risk of creating perverse incentives
– Need comprehensive framework
• One size doesn’t necessarily fit all
– Need to customise for purpose or target population

8. An example - Courts Performance
Indicator Framework
8
Outputs
Equity
To be determined
Judicial officers
Fees paid by
applicants
Outcomes
Key to indicators*
Text
Text Most recent data for all measures are either not comparable and/or not complete
Text No data reported and/or no measures yet developed
Most recent data for all measures are comparable and complete
Most recent data for at least one measure are comparable and completeText
* A description of the comparability and completeness of each measure is provided in indicator interpretation boxes within the chapter
Attendance
Backlog
Quality
Clearance
FTE staff per
finalisation
Judicial officers per
finalisation
Cost per finalisation
Objectives
Effectiveness
PERFORMANCE
Access To be determined
Affordability
Timeliness
and delay
Access
Inputs per unit
of output
Efficiency

9. Expenditure Elements
9
• Full cost to government (all government
resources consumed in providing the service)
• Costing includes:
– Superannuation
– Payroll tax (imputed where not available)
– Full range of capital costs
 User cost of capital
 Depreciation

10. Court Expenditure Components
10
Includes three components:
• Expenditure by court administration authority (direct service
provision)
– Salary and non-salary expenditure
• Expenditure by court administration authority
(contract/service agreement let for services)
– Excludes user charges imposed by provider under contract
• Expenditure by umbrella department (for court
administration authority)
Full costs reported, but also reported net of revenue

11. Court Expenditure Exclusions
11
• Compensation for legal costs
• Redundancies
• Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
• Ex-gratia payments
• Provisions for doubtful debts
• Capital expenditure (depreciation and UCC counted)
• Costs associated with police and counsel assisting the coroner

12. Court Expenditure Detail
12
Court administration agency in house provided services CAA contribution to private provider Umbrella,
other
Salary Non-salary Revenue (see Income – I) (contractual relationships) (incurred on behalf of CAA)
Judicial, or in court
Judicial officers X1101 - I - -
Judicial support X1102 - - - -
Court reporting X1105 X128 I X1222 X25
Library X1106 X125 I X1227 X24
Counselling, mediation X1108 X132 I - -
Interpreters X1109 X133 - - -
Jury costs - X123 - - -
Registry
Court registry X1103 - I - -
Probate registry X1112 X130 I X1228
First line support X1111 X129 - - -
Sheriff & bailiff.
Court security, etc. X1104 X131 I X1221 X22
Accommodation
Cleaning, maintenance X1110 X1215 - X1224 -
Depreciation - X1211 - - -
Rent - X1212 I - -
Electricity, gas, water - X1213 - - -
Telecommunications - X1214 - - -
Land rates - X1216 - - -
Overheads, court wide
Information technology X1107 X124 - X1223 X23
Autopsy, forensic. - - - X1229
Consultants - - - X1225 -
Other - X126,
X127, X134
I X1226,
X1230
X21,
X26, X27

13. Next steps
13
• Continue to reduce the time from data collection to clearance
by agencies for reporting, especially in health
• Continue work with stakeholders to make the report more
useful to the policy makers and the community
– The Report is undergoing an internal review with the aim of
streamlining content to focus on information directly relevant and of
significant influence to the performance of government services.