Key performance indicators

In this section

Certification of key performance indicators for the year ended 30 June 2017

I hereby certify that the key performance indicators are based on proper records, are relevant and appropriate for assisting users to assess the Public Sector Commission's performance, and fairly represent the performance of the Commission for the financial year ended 30 June 2017.

M C Wauchope
ACCOUNTABLE AUTHORITY

9 August 2017

return to top

Overview of key performance indicators

The Commission is responsible for assisting Government through the delivery of services to achieve the broad goal of a 'greater focus on achieving results in key service delivery areas for the benefit of all Western Australians'.

To realise this goal the Commission provides services to public sector entities to achieve our agency-level Government-desired outcome of an efficient and effective public sector that operates with integrity.

The Commission's service delivery areas are:

  1. Public sector leadership
  2. Assistance and support
  3. Oversight and reporting.

return to top

Measurement of agency level outcomes

Key effectiveness indicators

The Commission's key effectiveness indicators (KEIs) measure the extent to which our activities are achieving, or are progressing towards, our agency-level outcome. To measure how we are performing against our KEIs an annual Client perception survey is issued to the CEOs and Ministers of the Commission's core clients.

In total, the 2016/17 survey was distributed to 124 core clients. Due to the caretaker period and the State election, the 2016/17 survey was not distributed to ministerial offices.

The Commission's core clients for 2016/17 captured a large scope of clients, comprised of:

  • 40 departments created under Section 35 of the PSM Act
  • 37 SES organisations specified in Schedule 2, Column 2, of the PSM Act
  • 47 non-SES organisations including government boards and committees that have undertaken the Commission's good governance and ethical decision making professional development within the financial year.

The 2016/17 survey asked our core clients to rate how the advice and guidance offered by the Commission assisted them with the promotion of integrity, effectiveness and efficiency within their organisation. The survey also asked clients to rate how the Commission's assistance has helped them meet their statutory obligations under the PID Act and under Part IX of the EO Act.

The survey offered a four-step rating from strongly agree to strongly disagree, with an additional 'not-applicable' option. The Commission received a 54 per cent response rate to the survey, a decline of 20 percentage points on last year’s response. Due to the caretaker period and the State election, the response period was half as long as the previous year’s response period. Given this, a significant decrease in the response rate was anticipated.

Outcome: An efficient and effective public sector that operates with integrity

Key effectiveness indicator Target 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 Variance Actual 2015/16 Actual 2014/15

The portion of core clients who indicate the Commission has delivered policy, assistance and oversight that has assisted them to enhance integrity within their agencies.(a)

85%

92.5%

7.5%(i)

95.5%

97%

The portion of core clients who indicate the Commission has delivered policy, assistance and oversight that has assisted them to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of their agencies.(b)

85%

88.1%

3.1% (i)

85.6%

89%

The portion of core clients who indicate that assistance provided by the Commission has helped them to meet their statutory obligations under the PID Act.(c)

75%

79.1%

4.1%(i)

83.8%

75%

The portion of core clients who indicate assistance provided by the Commission has helped them to meet their statutory obligations under Part IX of the EO Act.(d)

75%

71.6%

(3.4%)(ii)

72.1%

69%

(a) This indicator measures the Commission’s capability at enhancing integrity in agencies through the minimum requirements of the principles of merit, equity, probity, integrity in an official conduct, ethical codes and human resource management. Data for this measure was collected from the Client perception survey.

(b) This indicator measures the Commission’s capacity at enhancing effectiveness and efficiency of public administration and management in agencies through legislative reform, the accountability framework, policies, advisory services and professional development. Data for this measure was collected from the Client perception survey.

(c) This indicator measures how the Commission is increasing the understanding of issues related to compliance of the PID Act in public authorities through advisory services, product delivery and professional development. Data for this measure was collected from the Client perception survey.

(d) This indicator measures how the Commission is increasing the understanding of issues related to compliance of Part IX of the EO Act in public authorities through advisory services, product delivery and professional development. Data for this measure was collected from the Client perception survey.

(i) The variance between the targeted and actual key effectiveness indicator responses likely reflects the continued delivery of high quality policy, assistance and oversight by the Commission to its core clients.

(ii) The variance between the targeted and actual key effectiveness indicator responses may be attributed to agencies having established strong equal opportunity mechanisms over previous years, resulting in a decreased need to seek advice from the Commission in this area.

Key efficiency indicators

Key efficiency indicators provide a measure of the cost of inputs required to achieve outcomes. In all instances the Commission's indicators include all direct costs associated with the particular service and a share of the corporate and executive support costs allocated to each service in accordance with the number of FTE employed.

An exception to this is the value of grants paid during the year, which are excluded because this is not considered a cost of delivering a service.

Service 1 – Public sector leadership

This service develops and supports current and future leaders and builds the capacity of the public sector workforce through the delivery of leadership and workforce development products, programs and training.

Key efficiency indicator Target 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 Variance Actual 2015/16 Actual 2014/15

Average cost per leadership development product, program or training hour

$117

$144

$27(a)

$117

$109

Average cost per workforce development program, product or training hour

$122

$147

$25(b)

$117

$118

(a) The average cost per leadership development product, program or training hour in 2016/17 was higher than the 2016/17 target. This was a result of a reduction in hours applied to directly support the leadership programs as they mature; whilst fixed costs remained constant and they were apportioned to fewer hours.

(b) The average cost per workforce development program, product or training hour in 2016/17 was higher than the 2016/17 target as additional costs were incurred to provide new traineeship and university cadetship programs whilst the hours used to support the programs were sourced from within the existing staff resources.

Service 2 – Assistance and support

This service provides advice, assistance and support to public sector bodies and employees on a range of administration, management, integrity and governance matters.

Key efficiency indicator Target 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 Variance Actual 2015/16 Actual 2014/15

Average cost per hour of assistance and support provided

$87

$106

$19(a)

$92

$93

Average cost per public administration, standards and integrity program, product or training hour

$114

$112

($2)

$85

$120

(a) The average cost per hour of assistance and support provided in 2016/17 was higher than the 2016/17 target. This is due to a reduction of hours as a result of staff movements within the Commission; whilst fixed costs remained constant for the function and they were apportioned to fewer hours.

(b) The average cost per public administration, standards and integrity program, product or training hour in 2016/17 was lower than the 2016/17 target due to the rationalisation of positions as a part of the Agency Expenditure Review.

Service 3 – Oversight and reporting

This service progresses changes to legislation and develops policies to improve public administration and management, and provides independent oversight to monitor and report to the Parliament and Ministers on compliance with the PSM Act, the CCM Act, the PID Act and Part IX of the EO Act.

Key efficiency indicator Target 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 Variance Actual 2015/16 Actual 2014/15

Average cost per hour of performance and oversight activity

$107

$111

$4(a)

$98(b)

$102

Average cost per hour addressing legislative and policy development

$95

$102

$7(c)

$91(b)

$97

Percentage of oversight actions completed within target timeframes

90%

91%

(1%)

93%

89%

(a) The actual average cost per hour of performance and oversight activity in 2016/17 was higher than the 2016/17 target due to salary costs being greater than expected, reflecting the seniority of staff members delivering this service.

(b) The actual average cost per hour of performance and oversight activity and the actual average cost per hour addressing legislative and policy development in 2015/16 was less than the 2014/15 actual, 2016/17 actual and 2016/17 target. Operating costs attributed to this function were reduced due to an internal functional review and realignment of the Commission’s structure during 2015/16.

(c) The actual average cost per hour addressing legislative and policy development in 2016/17 was higher than the 2016/17 target as a result of staff movements which reduced hours attributed to this function; whilst fixed costs remained constant and were apportioned to fewer hours.

return to top

return to Disclosures and legal compliance

return to Annual report homepage


Page last updated 14 September 2017