2 Outcomes for Indigenous Australians — the current situation Robert Fitzgerald1 Abstract While the majority of Indigenous Australians lead productive, successful and rewarding lives, on average, Indigenous Australians remain significantly disadvantaged compared with other Australians across a wide range of socio-economic indicators. Some outcomes for Indigenous Australians are improving, particularly in education and economic participation, but other outcomes are stagnating or even deteriorating. Governments in Australia spend $25 billion annually on services for Indigenous Australians. While much of this expenditure is on mainstream services used by all Australians, some specifically addresses Indigenous disadvantage. Ensuring that expenditure aimed at ‘closing the gap’ for Indigenous Australians is effective and efficient requires good evaluation. There are lessons to be learnt about the success factors that underpin effective programs from the ‘things that work’ case studies identified in the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage reports, but the value of these is often limited by a lack of rigorous evaluation. 2.1 Introduction This paper draws on results from four streams of performance reporting work by the Productivity Commission, in its role as secretariat to the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision: • Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators (OID report) (SCRGSP 2011b) • Indigenous Expenditure Report (SCRGSP 2012a) • Report on Government Services: Indigenous Compendium (SCRGSP 2012b) 1 Commissioner, Productivity Commission and Convenor, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Working Group and Indigenous Expenditure Report Working Group, Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. OUTCOMES FOR 21 INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS • National Indigenous Reform Agreement: Performance Information reports (SCRGSP 2011a). This paper provides background information on the Indigenous population in Australia, describes the OID report’s background and strategic framework of outcome indicators, and presents data on outcomes for Indigenous people across several key themes: • remoteness • economic outcomes • health • education • safe and supportive communities • service delivery and governance. 2.2 The Indigenous population in Australia In this paper, the term ‘Indigenous Australians’ is used to refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. In 2006,2 90 per cent of the estimated Indigenous population were of Aboriginal origin only, 6 per cent were of Torres Strait Islander origin only and 4 per cent were of both origins. Box 2.1 summarises some information about Australia’s Indigenous population. On average, Indigenous Australians are younger than other Australians, and a higher proportion of Indigenous Australians live in remote and very remote areas. 2 Separate population estimates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for 2011 have not yet been published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 22 BETTER INDIGENOUS POLICIES: THE ROLE OF EVALUATION Box 2.1 How many people? In 2011, the estimated resident Indigenous population of Australia was 670 000 people, out of a total population of 22.3 million people (3 per cent of the Australian population). The Indigenous population has a young age profile — in 2011, 36 per cent of Indigenous Australians were aged 14 years or under, compared with 18 per cent of the non-Indigenous population. Using 2011 census data, a higher proportion of both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations lived in New South Wales than other States and Territories (31 per cent and 32 per cent respectively). In contrast, 10 per cent of the national Indigenous population lived in the Northern Territory, but less than 1 per cent of the non-Indigenous population lived there. Proportion of the Australian population, by State and Territory, 2011 Indigenous Non-Indigenous Tas NT SA NT Tas 4% 10% NSW 7% 1% 2% SA 31% WA NSW 6% 10% 32% ACT WA 2% 13% ACT Vic Qld 1% 7% Qld 20% Vic 28% 25% Seventy-five per cent of Indigenous Australians lived in major cities or regional areas in 20063 (32 per cent in major cities, 21 per cent in inner regional areas and 22 per cent in outer regional areas). Nine per cent lived in remote areas and 15 per cent lived in very remote areas. Proportion of the Australian population by remoteness area, 2006 Indigenous Non-Indigenous Remote Very Very Major Outer 1% remote remote cities regional 15% 9% <1% Remote 32% 9% Inner regional 20% Major cities Outer 69% regional Inner 22% regional 21% Data sources: ABS (2008); ABS (2012a). While a number of dimensions of disadvantage increase with geographic remoteness, many Indigenous Australians in urban settings also face significant disadvantage, when compared with other Australians living in the same areas. 3 Population data by remoteness areas for 2011 are yet to be published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. OUTCOMES FOR 23 INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS 2.3 The Steering Committee’s role in Indigenous reporting Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report In April 2002, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) commissioned the Steering Committee to produce a regular report against key indicators of Indigenous disadvantage. The OID report has an important long-term objective — to inform Australian governments and Indigenous people about whether policy programs and interventions are collectively achieving positive outcomes for Indigenous people. In turn, this information can help identify where further work is needed. The latest edition of the report was released on 25 August 2011. Previous editions were published in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. National Indigenous Reform Agreement In December 2007, COAG identified Indigenous policy as one of seven priority areas of national reform. COAG set six high-level targets for closing the gaps in Indigenous outcomes, and identified seven ‘building blocks’ that underpinned a National Indigenous Reform Agreement (NIRA) (COAG 2011). The NIRA sets out governments’ agreed objectives and outcomes, and clarifies the respective roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories in the delivery of services. The NIRA contains the COAG targets and a number of other performance indicators. The performance of all governments against the targets and indicators is assessed by the COAG Reform Council (CRC). The Steering Committee collates the NIRA performance information for analysis by the CRC. The CRC has published three reports assessing progress against the NIRA, in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Indigenous Expenditure Report In December 2007, COAG committed to reporting on expenditure on services to Indigenous Australians, to inform better understanding of the level and patterns of expenditure. The first Indigenous Expenditure Report (IER) was published in 2010 and, in 2011, COAG transferred responsibility for future reports to the Steering Committee. A second report was published in 2012. The IER provides estimates of expenditure by the Australian Government and State and Territory governments on Indigenous specific services and the estimated 24 BETTER INDIGENOUS POLICIES: THE ROLE OF EVALUATION Indigenous share of mainstream services. Expenditure is reported across 86 categories, mapped to the OID and NIRA building blocks. In the 2012 IER, total direct government expenditure on services to Indigenous Australians was estimated to be $25.4 billion in 2010–11, accounting for 5.6 per cent of total direct general government expenditure. Indigenous Australians made up 2.6 per cent of the population. Estimated expenditure per head of population was $44 128 for Indigenous Australians, compared with $19 589 for other Australians (a ratio of 2.25 to 1). The $24 538 per person difference reflected the combined effects of: • greater intensity of service use ($16 109 or 66 per cent) — Indigenous Australians use more services per capita because of greater need, and because of population characteristics such as the younger age profile of the Indigenous population • additional cost of providing services ($8429 or 34 per cent) — it can cost more to provide services to Indigenous Australians if mainstream services are more expensive to provide (for example, because of location), or if Indigenous Australians receive targeted services (for example, Indigenous liaison officers in hospitals) in addition to mainstream services (SCRGSP 2012a). The estimates in the IER provide information relevant to a number of key policy questions. • How much did government spend on key services? • How much was spent on Indigenous Australians and how does this compare with expenditure on other Australians? • What were the patterns of service use by Indigenous Australians and how do these compare with service use by other Australians? • What drove the differences in expenditure between Indigenous and other Australians? However, the estimates in the IER on their own cannot answer questions about the adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency of government expenditure on services for Indigenous Australians. This requires more targeted evaluation, combining information on expenditure with information on the level of need and the performance of services. OUTCOMES FOR 25 INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS Report on Government Services: Indigenous Compendium Heads of government (now COAG) commissioned the annual Report on Government Services (RoGS) to provide information on the equity, efficiency and effectiveness of government services. For a number of years, the Steering Committee has devoted