Refine search Expand filter

Reports

Published

Actions for Grants Administration

Grants Administration

Premier and Cabinet
Treasury
Health
Community Services
Planning
Compliance
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Procurement
Risk

We found no significant difference in the funding of government and opposition electorates. However, more money was given to electorates that were safely held by the major parties. These seats received $1.29 for every dollar given to marginal and independent seats with government marginals getting the least. Electorates also receive different levels of funding according to which region they are in. Such variations may reflect valid agency objectives such as meeting State Plan targets or addressing socio-economic disadvantage.

But while agencies publish who gets what, they do not adequately evaluate or explain what grant programs have achieved. As a result, there is a risk that New South Wales may not get the best value for its spending. We recommend that agencies regularly evaluate their grant programs and publish the results.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #186 - released 6 May 2009

Published

Actions for Helping older people access a residential aged care facility

Helping older people access a residential aged care facility

Health
Community Services
Compliance
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Risk
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

Assessment processes for older people needing to go to an Residential Aged Care Facility (RACF) vary depending on the processes of the Aged Care Assessement Teams (ACAT) they see and whether or not they are in hospital. The data collected on ACAT performance was significantly revised during 2004 making comparisons with subsequent years problematic. ACATs have more responsibilities than assessing older people for residential care. It is not clear whether they have sufficient resources for this additional workload.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #160 - released 5 December 2006

Published

Actions for Maintenance of public housing

Maintenance of public housing

Community Services
Management and administration

In recent years the Department of Housing (DoH) has made a major effort to improve both the quality of service to tenants and its processes for maintenance. In addition, the funding for maintenance has also been increased. There is, however, a need to ensure that the maintenance of assets is adequately planned for and funded from the start. Without adequate maintenance, the value of an asset will deteriorate more rapidly and can result in significant losses.

DoH needs to give greater emphasis to completing property condition surveys in order to improve the way in which maintenance is planned and organised. There is also a need for DoH to establish a performance reporting framework in order to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the maintenance function in an objective way. The framework should benchmark maintenance across regions and with public housing authorities in other States.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #81 - released 11 April 2001

Published

Actions for Redevelopment proposal for East Fairfield (Villawood) Estate

Redevelopment proposal for East Fairfield (Villawood) Estate

Community Services
Infrastructure
Management and administration
Procurement
Project management
Service delivery

This audit examines the processes which led to the Government’s decision to demolish and sell the East Fairfield (Villawood) housing estate at a cost of nearly $32m gross ($17m net). In doing so, the audit focuses on whether the decision process demonstrates that it is an efficient and effective use of government funds.

The audit raises a number of concerns about the decision-making process. Although demolition and redevelopment may have been the most efficient and effective outcome, The Audit Office is not able to confirm this from the evidence presented. Audit found that the process used to arrive at this decision was not transparent, nor was it adequately justified by available evidence.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #46 - released 29 January 1998