that the reporting and measurement requirements of some social impact bonds are preventing takeup and hindering their benefits (Edmiston and Nicholls 2017). Overcoming information gaps In conventional (reasonably competitive) markets, prices often convey quality. However, such price signals are typically not present for many governmentfunded services as they are either provided free of charge or heavily subsidised. Equally, there is no equivalent in most government services of in the commercial sphere provide signals ‘warranties’, which, about the qualities of services. This creates a greater imperative for information provision to consumers that provides them with some understanding of the variation in the quality of providers/services. Consumers can express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with services formally (such as through complaint lines) and informally (such as through online forums), but these may not be representative of all or provide clear or very useful information. Provision users’ views of meaningful information that genuinely gives consumers some agency is nontrivial. This reflects that many governments services have effects that take years to surface (for example, there is considerable uncertainty about future earnings and employment prospects from different types of education) or involve complex technical matters (for instance, in making choices between various clinical procedures). As such, wellcurated comparative information is needed, although, as discussed below, governments need not always themselves provide the curation service. Examples of existing performance reporting The Productivity Commission undertakes annual comparative performance reporting of many government services on behalf of the Steering Committee for the Review of — Government Service Provision (SCRGSP) through the Report on Government Services — (ROGS). These reports include performance indicators for services funded by the Commonwealth, States and Territories (such as emergency management, health, justice, community services, education and housing and homelessness) and measure their equity, effectiveness and efficiency across different states and territories (SCRGSP 2017). Commonwealth, State and Territory governments have also progressed a range of different platforms for reporting and comparing the performance of different governmentfunded service providers (box 2).
that the reporting and measurement requirements of some social impact bonds are preventing takeup and hindering their benefits (Edmiston and Nicholls 2017). Overcoming information gaps In conventional (reasonably competitive) markets, prices often convey quality. However, such price signals are typically not present for many governmentfunded services as they are either provided free of charge or heavily subsidised. Equally, there is no equivalent in most government services of ‘warranties’, which, in the commercial sphere provide signals about the qualities of services. This creates a greater imperative for information provision to consumers that provides them with some understanding of the variation in the quality of providers/services. Consumers can express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with services formally (such as through complaint lines) and informally (such as through online forums), but these may not be representative of all users’ views or provide clear or very useful information. Provision of meaningful information that genuinely gives consumers some agency is nontrivial. This reflects that many governments services have effects that take years to surface (for example, there is considerable uncertainty about future earnings and employment prospects from different types of education) or involve complex technical matters (for instance, in making choices between various clinical procedures). As such, wellcurated comparative information is needed, although, as discussed below, governments need not always themselves provide the curation service. Examples of existing performance reporting The Productivity Commission undertakes annual comparative performance reporting of many government services — on behalf of the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP) — through the Report on Government Services (ROGS). These reports include performance indicators for services funded by the Commonwealth, States and Territories (such as emergency management, health, justice, community services, education and housing and homelessness) and measure their equity, effectiveness and efficiency across different states and territories (SCRGSP 2017). Commonwealth, State and Territory governments have also progressed a range of different platforms for reporting and comparing the performance of different governmentfunded service providers (box 2).
productivity-review-supporting3.docx