Aged care, NDIS and child protection programs are not properly evaluated, report finds

More than $60bn in government spending each year on services such as disability, aged care, social supports and child protection are not properly evaluated, a new study finds.

The report notes the lack of progress in reducing poverty and disadvantage despite massive spending.

More than $60bn in government spending each year on services such as disability, aged care, social supports and child protection are not properly evaluated to determine whether they are value for money or achieving their purpose, a new study finds.

And many big-spending programs not only have no evaluation component, but no clear objectives on which to measure success, the Committee for Economic Development Australia report finds.

Cassandra Winzar

The CEDA study included an examination of $200bn worth of federal government programs over the past decade, finding 95 per cent had not been appropriately evaluated. A quarter of the programs had no evaluation framework at all.

Given state and federal governments spend around $64bn per year on community services such as disability, aged care, social supports and child-protection services, the study suggests “at least $61bn of community services spending a year is unlikely to be properly evaluated”.

CEDA senior economist Cassandra Winzar, the author of the report, said better evaluation of programs and services could have averted the failings in aged care that led to a royal commission, the issues that led to the Robodebt Royal Commission and the concerns about the spiralling costs of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

More broadly, the report notes the lack of progress in reducing poverty and disadvantage despite the massive spending, which Ms Winzar said was “in part due to governments’ failure to evaluate community services for their effectiveness and value.”

“If we had evaluated and checked the impact of programs along the way we could have done better,” she said.

Ms Winzar said one of the reasons for evaluation failures is a lack of political will. “Evaluation can be costly and difficult, and might show something isn’t working, which governments don’t like,” she said. “Culturally it might be seen as too much of a risk.”

The study, Disrupting Disadvantage, notes the problem is baked in early. “Many programs were found to lack clear objectives and any definition of ‘success’,” it states.

Melinda Cilento

Federal and state government spending on community services has increased by around 5 per cent a year for a decade, with little evidence of improved outcomes.

“We can’t keep increasing spending on these programs while they fail to make tangible progress on reducing poverty and disadvantage,” CEDA chief executive officer Melinda Cilento said.

“The community rightfully expects that taxpayer funds are used to effectively improve economic and social outcomes for all citizens, but too often this is not the case,” Ms Cilento said.

The study recommends major federal government programs, especially in community services, should be evaluated every five years. And new programs should require an evaluation plan as a precondition for securing funding.

It notes the Albanese government is planning to create an evaluator-general role, which CEDA said should “champion an evaluation culture among government departments and external service providers”.

“If we want to end the cycle of reviews and inquiries that gather dust on politicians’ desks, evaluation must be integrated into government processes,” Ms Cilento said.