Key performance indicators

Certification of key performance indicators

for the year ended 30 June 2012

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 Public Sector Commission for the financial year ended 30 June 2012.

M C Wauchope
ACCOUNTABLE AUTHORITY
3 September 2012

Overview of key performance indicators

The Commission is charged with the responsibility of assisting the Government, through the delivery of services, to achieve the broad goal of ‘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 authorities that achieve two agency-level Government-desired outcomes:

  • ‘Assisting agencies deliver services to the community with excellence and integrity’
  • ‘The principles of merit, equity, probity and integrity underpin official conduct and human resource management of public authorities in Western Australia’.

The Commission has adopted a structure that provides the following six services to public sector agencies:

  1. Advice and assistance
  2. Public sector reform
  3. Professional development and training
  4. Development and monitoring of human resource standards, ethical codes and public interest disclosure guidelines
  5. Advice and evaluation of equity and diversity in public employment
  6. Independent chief executive officer selection and recruitment advice.

The last three services became the responsibility of the Commission following the merger with the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner (OPSSC) on 1 December 2010.

Measurement of agency-level outcomes

Key effectiveness indicators

The Commission’s key effectiveness indicators provide a measure of the extent to which its activities are achieving, or have made progress towards achieving the two agency-level outcomes. Departments and ministerial offices are considered to be the key agencies that deliver services to the community, and are therefore the primary focus of the Commission’s services. However, in certain circumstances legislation for which the Commission is responsible also impacts upon statutory authorities, universities, local governments, and boards and committees.

To measure how effective the Commission was at ‘Assisting agencies to deliver services to the community with excellence and integrity’ during 2011/12, the chief executive officers of departments created under section 35 of the PSM Act, and ministers and/or their chiefs of staff were surveyed and asked how they rate whether the advice and guidance offered by the Commission assisted them to promote integrity within their agency and deliver excellent services to the community. The rating was a five-step rating from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Outcome: Assisting agencies to deliver services to the community with excellence and integrity

Key effectiveness indicator

Target
2011/12

Actual
2011/12

Actual
2010/11

Actual
2009/10

Proportion of clients who indicate that the advice and guidance offered by the Commission assisted them to promote integrity within their agency and deliver excellent services to the community

98%

89.1%

97.1%

97.9%

The 2011/12 result of 89.1 per cent is lower than previous years and the target measure of 98 per cent. This may be due to the low response rates from ministerial offices as a consequence of cabinet changes occurring at the time the survey was issued. Respondent comments were generally favourable with no clear trend that may indicate areas for improvement noted.

To measure the Commission’s effectiveness at ensuring that ‘The principles of merit, equity, probity and integrity underpin official conduct and human resource management of public authorities in Western Australia’, agencies were surveyed to determine the extent to which they comply with public sector standards, codes of ethics, and any relevant code of conduct.

Outcome: The principles of merit, equity, probity and integrity underpin official conduct and human resource management of public authorities in Western Australia

Key effectiveness indicator

Target
2011/12

Actual
2011/12

Actual
2010/11

Actual
2009/10

Percentage of public authorities who have provided all reports as required by legislation (a)

100%

100%

100%

95%

Percentage of public authorities who have met the minimum requirements (a)

100%

89%

94%

95%

Percentage of public authorities provided with assistance on the principles of merit, equity, probity and integrity in official conduct and human resource management during the year (b)

100%

100%

100%

100%

Percentage of public authorities who agree that feedback through the Public Sector Commission survey process has increased their understanding of the principles of merit, equity, probity and integrity in official conduct and human resource management (c)

97%

86.4%

93%

87%

Percentage of breach of standard claims and matters referred to the Public Sector Commission that are handled within specified timeframes (d)

90%

78%

72%

79%

  1. This indicator refers to mandatory reporting by public sector agencies and statutory authorities under section 31 of the PSM Act, the PID Act, and Part IX, s146 of the EO Act. Reports received are assessed to determine the proportion of agencies and authorities that have met minimum requirements of ensuring and monitoring that the principles of merit, equity, probity and integrity in official conduct and human resource management have been met. Data for the measure is collected through the annual agency survey which contains more than 60 questions. Submission of the completed survey provides sufficient information to determine whether the public authority has provided all reports required by legislation.
  2. This indicator measures how much the Commission has penetrated public authorities through direct awareness raising activities focusing on the principles of merit, equity, probity and integrity in official conduct and human resource management, as specified in the PSM Act, the PID Act and Part IX, s146 of the EO Act. It refers to direct assistance (including newsletters and email updates) and consultancy services, customised agency presentations and general public sector presentations.
  3. This indicator refers to increased understanding of issues related to compliance with section 31 of the PSM Act, the PID Act, and Part IX, s.146 of the EO Act, measured using client satisfaction surveys issued at training workshops, forums and presentations conducted by the Commission. This includes surveys of chief executive officers and directors general as well as public sector employees.
  4. This indicator measures the Commission’s effectiveness in assessing breach claims and matters of referral. It measures the time taken to complete the investigation into and report on breach of standards and other matters referred to the Commission against predetermined time frames, usually 90 days. This was chosen in preference to the proportion of breach claims upheld, as the latter figure could be significantly influenced by how much the Commission penetrates the sector. For example, increased assistance and education activities may increase the number of claims lodged. Alternatively, low breach claim activity could also indicate that the sector is meeting the principles of merit, equity, probity and integrity in official conduct and human resource management, when in reality it may simply reflect a lack of awareness of the principles or the claim process.

Key efficiency indicators

Key efficiency indictors 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 full-time equivalent (FTE) employed. Exceptions to this are the value of grants paid during the year and the cost of redeployees from other agencies, which are excluded because it is considered that they are not a cost of delivering services.

Service 1 - Advice and assistance

This indicator measures the cost to the Commission of providing advice and assistance services to client agencies on matters including:

  • the application of the public sector’s employment framework
  • the application of practices, procedures, the PSM Act and subsidiary legislation
  • redeployment and disciplinary matters
  • the review and establishment of executive structures
  • the creation, classification and remuneration of CEOs and SES positions.

Key efficiency indicator for Service 1

Target $
2011/12

Actual $
2011/12

Actual $
2010/11

Actual $
2009/10

Average cost of advice and assistance services provided per client (a)

38 904

34 475

30 409

32 737

  1. Grants of $492 000 for 2011/12 and $18 182 for 2010/11 have been excluded from this indicator as they are not considered to be a cost of delivering service.

The actual average cost for 2011/12 is lower than budgeted due to operating below FTE levels, and higher than previous years primarily because the service operated with comparatively more staff resulting in more direct and corporate costs, the latter apportioned across services based on FTE levels.

Service 2 - Public sector reform

This service provides advice, policies and direction in public sector reform in order to position the public sector for the future. Key components of this service include strategic policy development aimed at modernising the public sector and initiating and implementing legislative and regulatory reform of public sector management practices.

The average cost per reform initiative indicates the cost of providing long-term future benefits for the public service, which are intended to improve the quality of services provided to the community. The public sector reform program comprised 17 initiatives, most of which had an initiative development phase and a separate implementation phase. The implementation phase generally involved training agency staff and is the responsibility of ‘Professional development and training’ (Service 3). Some initiatives were dependent on the successful implementation of others. The program commenced in 2009/10 and most initiatives have now been incorporated into normal operations.

Key efficiency indicators for Service 2

Target $
2011/12

Actual $
2011/12

Actual $
2010/11

Actual $
2009/10

Average cost per client of supporting policies and frameworks (a)

8 412

9 144

5 736

29 273

Average cost per major reform initiative

275 506

217 816

396 390

748 827

  1. Grants of $5490 for 2009/10 have been excluded from this indicator as they are not considered to be a cost of delivering service.

The actual average cost per client of supporting policies and frameworks for 2011/12 is in line with the budget target, however it is higher than the 2010/11 actual due to increased FTE in this service attracting a comparatively larger amount of corporate costs.

The average cost per major reform initiative is lower than the budget target because the budget assumed a higher allocation of resources. The cost is lower this year compared with last year due to a higher number of completed initiatives.

Service 3 - Professional development and training

This service provides professional development and training courses focused on leadership skills, improving knowledge of government operations, and reinforcing public sector values and ethical requirements. This training will improve management, decision making and officer behaviour that will impact on services provided by agencies.

Key efficiency indicators for Service 3

Target $
2011/12

Actual $
2011/12

Actual $
2010/11

Actual $
2009/10

Average cost per participant (a)

764

578

435

3 269

Average cost per public sector reform initiative developed for implementation

242 752

158 495

582 342

621 145

  1. Grants of $683 000 in 2011/12, ($233 944 in 2010/11 and $615 010 in 2009/10) have been excluded as they are not considered to be a cost of delivering service.

The average cost per participant is lower than the budget target because comparatively fewer resources were applied to this service as resources were redirected to equal opportunity employment. However, compared with the previous year, more resources were applied to the development and delivery of training courses with an increased focus on delivering quality training courses, some with recognised qualifications, and on ensuring public sector staff in regional areas receive training.

The average cost per reform initiative was below the budget target and the 2010/11 actual. The cost differences reflect costs incurred last year that had benefits this year, together with a larger number of initiatives completed than in previous years.

Service 4 - Development and monitoring of human resource standards, ethical codes and public interest disclosure guidelines

The Commission’s functions under this service area include:

  • establishing standards of merit, equity and probity, and ethical codes
  • monitoring and reporting on the extent of agency compliance with these standards and codes
  • assisting public authorities to develop their capacity to operate in accordance with these standards and codes.

This indicator illustrates the average cost per public authority for developing, monitoring and assisting compliance with the principles, standards and ethical codes under the PSM Act and provisions of the PID Act.

Key efficiency indicator for Service 4

Target $
2011/12

Actual $
2011/12

Actual $
2010/11(a)

Actual $
2009/10(b)

Cost of assistance and monitoring per public sector agency for the Public Sector Management Act 1994 and for the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003

12 203

13 695

10 372

8 964

  1. Includes costs totalling $1 192 766 reported by OPSSC in the Final report for the period to 30 November 2010 to provide full year costs for comparison purposes.
  2. As reported in the 2009/10 Annual report for OPSSC.

The cost is higher than the budget target and previous years, reflecting the increasing significance of this service and the investment in systems and processes to ensure its effective operation.

Service 5 - Advice and evaluation of equity and diversity in public employment

This service area works to create a workforce matching the diversity of people found in the Western Australian community at all levels of public employment as well as promoting a work environment that is inclusive and free from discrimination. The main activities performed under this service include:

  • assisting public authorities to develop quality business-focused equal employment opportunity management plans
  • coordinating or participating in the development and implementation of strategies and initiatives to increase workforce equity and diversity
  • monitoring, evaluating and reporting on progress made in equal employment opportunity and diversity endeavours.

This indicator shows the average cost per public authority for reporting on compliance with Part IX of the EO Act and helping public authorities achieve a more diverse workforce.

Key efficiency indicator for Service 5

Target $
2011/12

Actual $
2011/12

Actual $
2010/11(a)

Actual $
2009/10(b)

Cost of assistance and monitoring per public sector agency and authority for Part IX of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984

4 184

8 516

7 766

4 450

  1. Includes costs totalling $481 208 reported by OPSSC in the Final report for the period to 30 November 2010 to provide full year costs for comparison purposes.
  2. As reported in the 2009/10 Annual report for OPSSC.

The indicator is higher than the budget target and previous year primarily due to the implementation of new initiatives, particularly the Aboriginal employment strategy 2011-2015.

Service 6 - Independent chief executive officer selection and reappointment advice

This service has responsibility for recommending the appointment and reappointment of CEOs, and involves performing or arranging for independent executive recruitment consultants to perform all or some of the aspects of the recruitment process including advertising vacant positions, executive searches and applicant assessment to final recommendation for a position.

This indicator shows the average cost per selection for providing independent selection advice to the minister under sections 45 and 48 of the PSM Act. Vacancy numbers vary from year to year, but costs may not vary in line with these movements.

Key efficiency indicator for Service 6

Target $
2011/12

Actual $
2011/12

Actual $
2010/11(a)

Actual $
2009/10(b)

Cost per CEO selection

103 644

39 502

128 980

98 567

  1. Includes costs totalling $169 505 reported by OPSSC in the Final report for the period to 30 November 2010 to provide full year costs for comparison purposes.
  2. As reported in the 2009/10 Annual report for OPSSC.

The indicator is lower than target and previous year actual costs because the number of appointments made this year was significantly more than anticipated. In addition, due to its small size, the service attracts comparatively less corporate overhead costs.


Page last updated 11 September 2014