Coordination and Targeting of Domestic Violence Funding and Actions
Entities Audited: Department of Social Services
Introduction
7.1
The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children
2010-2022 (the National Plan) is the Australian Government’s framework to address specific forms of violence where women are more likely to be victims than men: domestic and family violence, and sexual assault.
7.2
The vision of the National Plan is for Australian women and children to ‘live free from violence in safe communities’. Governments set the target for ‘a significant and sustained reduction in violence against women and their children’ over the course of the National Plan’s timespan.
7.3
The National Plan was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in February 2011, with the support of all state and territory governments. The National Plan is designed to have a 12-year span, separated into four three-year ‘Action Plans’ over that period. The Action Plans are designed to deliver outcomes according to specific priority areas for all governments to focus on. Practical actions are also included in each Action Plan, which are designed to improve matters in relation to the National Plan’s objective. Actions Plans are implemented in different forms by individual jurisdictions who indicate which actions are being committed to as part of their implementation process.
7.4
The Australian Government is responsible for the financial support of the National Plan in addition to funding other services such as family law, legal assistance and social security. As of June 2019, approximately $723 million had been expended on the National Plan since its inception.
7.5
The Department of Social Services (DSS) oversees the implementation of the National Plan, the Action Plans and national services relating to the National Plan’s operations.
Audit Scope
7.6
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) undertook the inquiry in order to assess the National Plan’s administration and whether DSS had effectively administered its responsibilities, including monitoring achievements and progress according to the National Plan’s objectives.
7.7
The ANAO report focussed on the planning, implementation and delivery of the National Plan to date, focusing on the First, Second and Third Action Plans. The Third Action Plan was launched in October 2016 and was due for completion in 2019. The Fourth Action Plan was launched in July 2019.
7.8
Criteria were adopted by the ANAO in conducting the audit, including whether:
Effective governance arrangements are in place;
Targeting of funding and actions is aligned to the outcomes of the National Plan; and
Monitoring and reporting of performance for key DSS’s initiatives and the National Plan is effective.
7.9
In conducting the audit, the ANAO utilised methodology including examination of performance reporting, contracts and deliverables, reviewing departmental policies and minutes of key stakeholder working groups, and conducting interviews with DSS staff and external stakeholders. The audit cost approximately $509 000 and utilised five ANAO officers.
Overall Audit Conclusion
7.10
The ANAO found that while the DSS’s systems of governance were satisfactory, the lack of performance assessment and reporting significantly impacted on the effectiveness of the program.
7.11
The audit reported that the DSS had established effective governance structures and systems to support the implementation of the National Plan. It further found that the DSS’s funding and actions taken during the Third Action Plan corresponded to the National Plan’s objectives and key priorities.
7.12
The ANAO, however, considered that the DSS’s effectiveness in implementing the National Plan ‘is reduced by a lack of attention to implementation planning and performance measurement’. It highlighted a number of areas which raised concerns in relation to these matters, including the failure to complete an Implementation Plan for the Third Action Plan, an apparent lack of appropriate performance measurement, and incomplete data used to inform the National Plan’s evidence base.
7.13
The lack of clear annual reporting of the National Plan’s performance and progress was particularly identified in the ANAO’s report as a barrier to the assessment of the National Plan’s progress. The audit found that that the Annual Progress Reports do not provide sufficient information for the purposes of public accountability and transparency. It found that there is limited public reporting regarding the extent to which outcomes of the National Plan are being progressed or achieved. Further, internal reporting is focused only on specific outcomes, such as results from the four-yearly National Surveys.
7.14
Five recommendations were made by the ANAO, which were all accepted by the DSS. One recommendation related to specifying research and data projects as actions for the Fourth Action Plan. The second recommendation related to the development of an Implementation Plan for the Fourth Action Plan. The three remaining recommendations focused on improvements to performance measures, evaluations and progress reporting.
Governance
7.15
The National Plan was developed in collaboration with all state and territory governments, and was subsequently endorsed and released by COAG in February 2011.
7.16
The governance arrangements for the National Plan are structured as follows:
COAG oversees the National Plan and “has responsibility for linking policy and investment across all levels of government”;
Relevant Commonwealth, state and territory ministers oversee implementation and provide advice on specific matters;
The National Plan Implementation Executive Group (ImpEG) provides strategic policy advice regarding the development and implementation of the Action Plans;
Advisory and working groups monitor and progress key actions under the Plan; and
Jurisdiction level arrangements.
7.17
In relation to governance, the ANAO reported that:
The department has established and implemented suitable arrangements to share and coordinate information and engage formal stakeholders, including government and non-government representatives with expertise in areas relevant to the National Plan.
Risk Management
7.18
A risk management plan was not developed for the entirety of the National Plan. In 2017, a risk management plan was created for the Third Action Plan that ‘notes current controls as effective, and therefore no further treatments are required’.
7.19
The DSS advised the ANAO that an update to the risk management plan was afoot. The DSS, however, did not specify what the risk management plan would take account of nor outline the key risks to the National Plan.
Performance Measurement and Management
7.20
The National Plan is designed to achieve the outcome of ‘Australian women and their children [living] free from violence in safe communities’. Progress towards this objective is assessed against seven measures of success, corresponding to the six National Outcomes. These measures are supported by data sources which include three national surveys to inform the results. In addition to the data sources being unable to adequately measure the success of each outcome, there appears to be limited evidence of the use of traditional performance measurement methods, such as key performance indicators.
7.21
The ANAO found that the DSS’s performance monitoring, evaluation and reporting is not sufficient in measuring the extent to which the National Plan’s actions are successful and the outcomes are being met. The report stated:
In order to assess and demonstrate the achievements of the National Plan as a whole, the department will need to develop new measures of success and data sources, plan for evaluations beyond the National Partner initiatives and improve public transparency.
7.22
The ANAO identified a number of areas of the National Plan’s administration relating to measuring performance which impacted its effectiveness, including:
A failure to conduct evaluations of Action Plans after their completion, and consequently a failure to incorporate the learnings from that evaluation into the next Action Plan;
Insufficient planning regarding the implementation and funding arrangements relating to the proposed National Data Collection and Reporting Framework;
A failure to create a plan to prioritise gaps in the research evidence base or track where gaps in research may be occurring; and
A limited research focus on which services under the National Plan are working, services clients and the context of such use.
7.23
As noted above, three recommendations to the DSS were made by the ANAO in relation to performance management:
to ‘identify and develop new measures of success, data sources and specific outcomes for the Fourth Action Plan, and any future National Plan’;
to collaborate with the state and territory governments to review individual programs and services funded under the National Plan to assist in evaluating the Fourth Action Plan and National Plan overall; and
to provide public annual reports for the Fourth Action Plan detailing the status of each action item and outcomes for the National Plan in its entirety.
7.24
In response, the DSS advised that it had implemented a number of new methods of performance measurement, including: collaborating with states and territories in the creation of a new performance management framework, to be released in June 2020; planning an evaluation of the entire National Plan in addition to smaller evaluations of individual programs and the Fourth Action Plan; and undertaking to provide national progress reports annually. The department did not provide detail regarding how the new performance monitoring and reporting framework would operate or the types of measurement methods to be used.
7.25
In its submission, the DSS further advised that the performance monitoring and reporting framework would be accompanied by a ‘focus on improving data on all cohorts of women and children at risk of violence and on all forms of violence that women and their children could experience’. There was no detail, however, on how this would relate to or interact with the planned performance monitoring and reporting framework.
Implementation Planning
7.26
Under the National Plan, an Implementation Plan is to be developed for each Action Plan period in order to effectively achieve the outcomes of the assigned plan. Implementation Plans are designed to provide ‘clear deliverables and timeframes to work towards to assist in achieving the expected outcomes’.
7.27
The audit found that the DSS did not complete an Implementation Plan for the Second or Third Action Plans or provide clear details regarding the responsibility of jurisdictions in actioning items under the National Plan. The audit report stated:
The absence of a supporting implementation plan for the Third Action Plan means that there is a lack of transparency and accountability about which jurisdictions intend to take responsibility for the implementation of the 106 actions identified in the plan and when the actions will be delivered.
7.28
The ANAO recommended that the DSS create a National Plan Implementation Plan for the Fourth Action Plan, to be developed in consultation with state and territory governments. This recommendation was agreed to by the DSS, which advised that the Fourth Action Plan would include an Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan was released in 2019, and provides details of the proposed implementation of the Fourth Action Plan, including outlining roles and responsibilities, approaches to stakeholder engagement, and reporting requirements.
Annual Reporting
7.29
The ANAO raised concerns in its report that performance measurement and annual reporting in relation to the National Plan was insufficient in measuring the efficacy of the National Plan.
7.30
The ANAO stated that while the National Plan had established outcomes with some metrics to assess performance against, these metrics assessed limited elements of each outcome. The ANAO further stated that the reliance on select data sources to measure performance was limited in a number of ways, and could be improved upon to better assess outcomes. Stakeholders additionally raised concerns in consultations in relation to performance measurement, including that there were no performance indicators included in the National Plan.
7.31
The ANAO also commented on the National Plan’s annual reporting practices. It stated that since 2016-17 the DSS has provided annual performance statements in relation to the National Plan against Outcome 2 of the department’s Annual Report and Portfolio Budget Statements. The ANAO provided an example of the 2017-18 annual reporting for the National Plan, contained in the DSS’s Annual Report for that reporting period:
7.32
The ANAO expressed concern regarding the DSS’s annual reporting, stating:
Reporting the extent of progress in implementing the National Plan in annual reports as being ‘met’ is only meaningful with some metric to assess it against (for example, timeframes for specific actions). The department advised the ANAO that ‘met’ indicates that the department has expended the appropriated funding, not that the National Plan is meetings [sic] its objective or that progress is being made towards individual outcomes.
7.33
The DSS also provides Annual Progress Reports for the National Plan to communicate the Plan’s advancement to the public and contribute to performance monitoring and evaluation. The ANAO found that the Annual Progress Reports are compiled of descriptions of projects being undertaken across jurisdictions without reference to specific results or outcomes. The audit found that these reports did not provide ‘a sufficient level of information for public transparency and accountability’. The ANAO stated that the Annual Progress Reports do not provide information regarding the extent to which outcomes under the Plan are being achieved, nor do they (with one exception in the 2010-12 progress report) provide discussions in relation to learnings or developing issues.
7.34
The ANAO recommended that ‘public annual progress reports for the Fourth Action Plan document the status of each action item and the outcomes of the National Plan as a whole’. This recommendation was agreed to by the DSS, which advised that a revised framework of the Annual Progress Reports would be informed by the performance monitoring and evaluation framework work to be completed in June 2020. No advice was provided in relation whether performance measurements such as key performance indicators would be considered as part of this work.
Stakeholder Engagement
7.35
The audit found that the DSS had engaged stakeholders in a planned and phased approach throughout the life of the National Plan. The department was found to have developed a stakeholder engagement plan under the Third Action Plan, which focused on ‘refining specific actions and building on, rather than duplicating, the range of public consultation already undertaken by governments’. Early consultations with stakeholders such as National Plan partner organisations enabled DSS to focus on the National Plan priorities and outcomes.
7.36
The evaluation of the Second Action Plan, released by DSS in March 2017, reported that stakeholders had suggested that links with community and other relevant groups be improved. Consultations in relation to the Fourth Action Plan undertaken in 2018 also suggested that improvements be made in relation to collaboration and information sharing between the government and non-government sectors in order to increase efficiency.
Concluding Comment
7.37
The Committee acknowledges that the National Plan is an ambitious and complex project across multiple levels of government to coordinate responses to domestic violence and other forms of family or gender-based violence.
7.38
The Committee welcomes the ANAO’s positive finding regarding the governance arrangements and stakeholder engagement put in place by DSS throughout the life of the National Plan.
7.39
The Committee is concerned, however, that the ability to assess the National Plan’s effectiveness has been impacted by issues regarding performance measurement and management, particularly in relation to the use of performance indicators, implementation planning and annual reporting practices.
7.40
The Committee commends the strong performance of the DSS in relation to its governance arrangements and stakeholder engagement throughout the life of the National Plan, which were praised in the ANAO’s report.
7.41
The National Plan’s effectiveness, however, has been impacted by issues regarding performance measurement and management, particularly in relation to the use of performance indicators, implementation planning and annual reporting practices.
7.42
Effective performance measurement and management is a critical topic for all government agencies when managing programs. In relation to the National Plan, this is particularly important given the broad scope of involved organisations and governments, in addition to the importance of the topic of domestic violence itself.
7.43
The provision of clear annual reporting of performance and progress towards set goals is a fundamental element of transparency and accountability. The Committee considers that the annual reporting provided by the National Plan has so far been insufficient to appropriately judge the performance of the program.
7.44
The Committee concurs with the recommendations issued by the ANAO in its audit, and has outlined additional suggested changes in the recommendations following.
7.45
Noting that the National Plan has reached its final stage, the Fourth Action Plan, the Committee suggests that potential successive programs incorporate the learnings from the ANAO’s audit and this Committee’s report in formulating an effective response to domestic violence in Australia.
7.46
The Committee recommends that the Department of Social Services implement a risk management plan for the final delivery of the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022, and any successive plans that the department delivers.
7.47
The Committee recommends that the Department of Social Services:
Expand its Annual Report and Portfolio Budget Statements to provide information as to how the outcome being reported against was either ‘met’ or ‘not met’ against specific metrics regarding the National Plan, and;
Publicly report in the Annual Progress Reports for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022 and for any successive plans on outcomes and achievements. This should include evidence on actions taken by governments and achievements of actions relating to each of the six National Outcomes.
Monitor and publicly report their progress against the Implementation Plan for the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022.