The NSW Government’s ‘program evaluation initiative’, introduced to assess whether service delivery programs achieve expected outcomes and value for money, is largely ineffective according to a report released today by NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford.

Government services, in areas such as public order and safety, health and education, are delivered by agencies through a variety of programs. In 2016–17, the NSW Government estimates that it will spend over $73 billion on programs to deliver services.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #277 - released 3 November 2016

Police officers and firefighters in NSW are benefiting from an improved focus on preventing and managing injuries, according to a report released today by the NSW Auditor-General. However, the audit found these gains may not be enough to offset risks associated with increasing common law claims, and death and disability scheme costs.

‘Emergency service workers face dangerous situations and traumatic scenes’ said the Auditor-General ‘and are at a significant risk of injury and illness. While the NSW Police Force and Fire & Rescue NSW have made positive shifts towards more proactive injury prevention and better return to work programs and practices, both face significant cost issues.’

Parliamentary reference - Report number #275 - released 13 October 2016

The effectiveness of Corrective Services NSW’s performance framework is limited because organisational key performance indicators (KPIs) do not cascade to public correctional centres, according to a report released today by the Acting New South Wales Auditor-General, Tony Whitfield.

'As a result, individual public correctional centres could not be assessed on how well they are contributing to overall Corrective Service objectives, and it is difficult to vary performance expectations in response to changing operating environments', said Mr Whitfield. 'Its commissioning and contestability project is designed to address these issues', he added.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #267 - released 3 March 2016

Neither agency (NSW Ministry of Health and NSW Police Force) demonstrated that they continued to get value for money over the life of these long term contracts or that they had effectively managed all critical elements of the three contracts we reviewed post award. This is because both agencies treated contract extensions or renewals as simply continuing previous contractual arrangements, rather than as establishing a new contract and financial commitment. Consequently, there was not a robust analysis of the continuing need for the mix and quantity of services being provided or an assessment of value for money in terms of the prices being paid.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #220 - released 1 February 2012

In our opinion the Government’s ‘no net cost to government’ requirement was a legitimate (but not the only possible) basis for the tunnel bid process. The Government was entitled to decide that tunnel users meet the tunnel costs. Structuring the bid process on the basis of an upfront reimbursement of costs incurred (or to be incurred) by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) was therefore appropriate.

In our opinion, however, the Government, Treasury and the RTA did not sufficiently consider the implications of an upfront payment involving more than simple project cost reimbursement (i.e. the ‘Business Consideration Fee’ component). In addition, the RTA was wrong to change the toll escalation factor late in 2002 to compensate the tunnel operator, Cross City Motorway Pty Ltd, for additional costs.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #152 - released 31 May 2006

In recent years the department has significantly changed its approach to rehabilitating prisoners. It has introduced programs to address offending behaviour based on evidence of what works. It has also formed partnerships with other agencies to help reintegrate prisoners into the community. We believe the department is on the right path and should continue building on these initiatives.

Despite these efforts, almost one in two prisoners return to prison or community supervision within two years of release, which is similar to other states. Most of these return to prison. In our opinion there is a risk that the department releases prisoners who have not addressed their rehabilitation needs. The department appears to address immediate health and welfare concerns. But it does not formally assess the education and work needs of all prisoners.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #151 - released 24 May 2006