Organisations generally work together to improve the safety of victims when there is an overt and serious crisis, particularly where children are involved. There are no standard ways for victims and perpetrators to access help that might prevent ongoing violence and address underlying issues. This is particularly problematic where there are repeat victims and perpetrators, many of whom have complex mental health, drug and alcohol problems and are difficult to work with. New South Wales has trialled a number of projects to improve the way that organisations work together to support vulnerable people in particular communities.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #218 - released 8 November 2011

To date the Two Ways Together Plan (the Plan) has not delivered the improvement in overall outcomes for Aboriginal people that was intended. Stronger partnerships between the government and Aboriginal people are only beginning to emerge. The disadvantage still experienced by some of the estimated 160,000 Aboriginal people in NSW is substantial. For example, the unemployment rate for Aboriginal people is at least three times higher than the rate for all NSW residents and hospital admissions for diabetes are also around three times higher.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #213 - released 18 May 2011

We found that ADHC is providing and funding more respite to help people with disabilities and their carers. The number of people using respite centres increased by 20 per cent between 2006-07 and 2008-09 from 2,769 to 3,326. Both NGOs and carer organisations told us that ADHC had improved the management of respite.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #200 - released 5 May 2010

Many projects, both Partnership Against Homelessness and by individual agencies, have shown good results or led to improvements. One example is helping mental health patients maintain stable housing. Another is providing street outreach services to homeless people in inner Sydney. Despite these efforts, we were unable to determine how well the government is responding to homelessness statewide. This is because there are no statewide performance measures or targets on homelessness. Also there is limited benchmarking, and no formal means of spreading information on homelessness initiatives and projects.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #165 - released 2 May 2007

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

We recognise that Home and Community Care Services (HCS) operates in an increasingly difficult and changing environment. However, HCS does not have the capacity to meet these needs. Currently at least 50 per cent of those eligible to receive a service will miss out. Under the current system, there are inequities in service delivery. The ability to receive a service depends on when the applicant calls, where they live and if this coincides with service hours becoming available at the local HCS branch. In addition, applicants who miss out on a service may not automatically be referred to another provider. HCS needs to better manage both demand and expectations regarding access to the services it provides.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #127 - released 13 October 2004

In our view, the agencies we studied cannot be sure that the grants they allocate align with their corporate objectives, and that program outcomes are achieved. This is mainly due to problems with grant selection and the evaluation of results. It was good to see that most of the grants programs had funding objectives which were fairly clear. But we found problems across most programs which could affect the fair and equitable selection of grants, such as, often no procedures for assessing applications, no assessment guidelines for advisory committees, often no clear rationale for assessments and poor documentation of the reasons for decisions.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #104 - released 4 December 2002

The Audit Office acknowledges that this is an extremely complex and difficult area of Government activity and that putting in place effective systems is a significant challenge. Nevertheless, it is a critical task, given the vulnerability of clients and the scarcity of resources. Whilst there has been progress in improving systems, and further enhancements are planned, nevertheless, five years after the creation of the Ageing and Disability Department as the industry regulator, there are a number of fundamental issues which remain to be resolved.

The Audit Office is of the opinion that significant further development of performance information systems is required before there can be an adequate level of assurance that Government funding is provided in conformity with the Disability Services Act 1993 and that services provided represent value for money.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #74 - released 27 June 2000

The Audit Office is of the opinion that cost of administration at the University of Western Sydney is unnecessarily high and could be reduced. In addition, its approach to administration can place barriers in the way of potential students and other users of the University. To its credit, the University has recognised that administrative costs are high and is developing plans to reduce those costs. The Audit Office considers that there is now an urgent need to accelerate those activities and to move from planning to implementation. Further delays will be costly and will affect the service the University provides to its customers, the students and other users.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #67 - released 17 November 1999

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