QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report June 2012
Table of Contents Table of Contents... 1 Executive Summary... 2 Introduction... 3 About the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool... 3 Understanding outputs and cost the bigger picture... 4 Working with the Department of Communities... 6 Workshop design and delivery... 7 Workshop structure and content... 7 Communications and promotional approach... 7 Workshop locations... 7 Pre-and post workshop evaluation surveys... 8 Workshop outcomes... 9 Workshop survey results... 9 Organisational size... 9 Knowledge of output-based funding...10 Confidence negotiating outputs based service agreements...11 Understanding the full cost of delivering services...12 Helpfulness of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool in analysing the sustainability of services...14 Confidence using the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool...14 Qualitative feedback from workshop participants...15 Conclusion...16 Future opportunities...16 Additional functionality, support and scope of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool...16 Benchmarking the cost of service delivery...17 The Queensland Council of Social Service would like to acknowledge Adam Kerr, Business Consultant for his support analysing the workshop survey data. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 1 of 21
Executive Summary The Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS) self-funded the development of a Unit Costing Tool for organisations to understand the relationship between their service delivery capacity and the full cost of delivering programs. Understanding this relationship gives organisations vital information to help assess their long-term sustainability, and inform their service contract negotiations with government. Although the tool has not been officially endorsed by Government, a strong working partnership between QCOSS and the (then) Queensland Department of Communities ensured that the tool complements the roll-out of output-based funding and reporting reforms. This partnership has been crucial in ensuring the success of the Unit Costing Tool, and the workshops. The Department funded QCOSS to deliver workshops across the state to build the community service industry s capacity to understand the cost of service delivery and begin to consider strategic issues relating to long-term sustainability. The QCOSS Unit Costing Tool is a core instrument in achieving this goal. 21 workshops outlining output-based funding and reporting and the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool were delivered in 13 locations, reaching 249 individuals from 165 community service organisations. The incomes of organisations who attended ranged from no income to those with revenues of more than $120 million. Overall, the workshops were successful in building organisations capacity to understand the cost of service delivery and begin considering strategic issues relating to the long-term sustainability of their programs, services and organisations. 233 workshop attendees completed a post-workshop survey, and more than 90 per cent of the respondents felt that the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool would be helpful or very helpful in determining the full cost of service delivery. And more than 85 per cent these respondents felt that the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool would be helpful or very helpful when analysing the sustainability of their services. The workshops also significantly improved organisations awareness of output funding and reporting, and increased their confidence in negotiating output-based service agreements with the Department. A number of participants expressed concern about inconsistent messages regarding how outputs are counted, particularly in relation to direct and indirect activities. These inconsistent messages could have significant unintended consequences in the future. If organisations have been given inconsistent instructions for counting their outputs, it will not be possible for the Department to make reliable output comparisons between service delivery models and outcomes when assessing value for money. Organisations also reported that regional departmental officers were often uncertain if they had the power to negotiate around output targets that are generated centrally in Brisbane, and the time taken to clarify changes to output hours with central office can be extremely time consuming. As output-based service agreements continue to roll out, it is important that departmental officers are given clear instructions regarding the range of outputs that can be negotiated regionally. Following the workshops, a number of opportunities have been identified and are detailed on page 16. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 2 of 21
Introduction The shift from input to output-based funding agreements is a significant reform impacting on all services funded by the (then) Queensland Department of Communities. In recognition of this, QCOSS self-funded the development of a Unit Costing Tool for organisations to understand the relationship between their service delivery capacity and the full cost of delivering programs. Understanding this relationship gives organisations vital information to help assess their long-term sustainability, and inform their service contract negotiations with government. To build the community service industry s capacity to understand the cost of service delivery and begin to consider strategic issues relating to long-term sustainability, QCOSS delivered 21 Unit Costing Tool workshops across Queensland between February and March 2012. This report examines the structure of the workshops, their efficacy for the community services industry and government, and makes recommendations for future action as a result of feedback from participants. About the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool In 2010 the Endeavour Foundation engaged a consultant, David Abbott, to develop a unit costing tool to use internally. Endeavour found developing and applying the tool to be extremely useful for negotiating their first output-based service agreements, and for gaining new insight into the costs of their programs. This insight allowed them to assess the sustainability of their programs and consider long-term strategic directions for responding to client and community need. Endeavour agreed to share their tool with the broader community services sector, and QCOSS engaged David Abbott to further develop the tool to ensure its applicability outside of the disability sector. David Abbott is a former strategic, business, and financial planning expert from PricewaterhouseCoopers. He has worked mainly with government and not-for-profit organisations and has a particular interest in not-for-profit organisations providing community support services, particularly for people with a disability. QCOSS piloted two versions of the tool, one for the output type hours and one for output type places. These were piloted with six organisations of varying sizes across a range of geographic locations. The tool was completed across a number of program types and service models, including outreach, centre-based work, supported accommodation and community access. The programs that tested the tool had incomes ranging from $90,000 to $900,000. Following this testing, both versions of the tool were updated and published on the Community Door website (www.communitydoor.org.au/unit-costing-tool). A number of support materials were also developed for the tool including instruction manuals and information fact sheets on specific issues. These are also available on the Community Door website. The tool can assist organisations to negotiate their output-based service agreements by calculating a baseline number of hours staff are available for direct service delivery. This QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 3 of 21
calculation takes into account current resources, staffing levels, staff leave entitlements, and time frontline workers spend doing indirect activities such as travel, administration, training, and attending team meetings. Indirect activities are defined in the Department of Communities Outputs Catalogue 1. The QCOSS Unit Costing Tool also produces information that organisations can use strategically. The tool calculates the full cost of service delivery and then breaks this down according to income provided by funding bodies and contributions made by the organisation. An organisation s contribution to the full cost of delivering services can either be in-kind through the use of volunteers, or financial. Understanding the nature and level of this contribution is vital for assessing service sustainability and making long-term strategic decisions to ensure service delivery models meet client need. The QCOSS Unit Costing Tool provides a consistent costing methodology for the community services industry. The information the tool produces cannot be used to assess the quality of the service being delivered, or client outcomes and community impact. As we begin to develop tools that measure outcomes and impact, the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool can be used to understand the full cost of the service models that produce the best outcomes and impact. This will give organisations and funders a stronger understanding of a program s value for money. When funding and purchasing services, funding bodies must make a decision based on the principle of value for money. Value for money is not about cheapness : Rather value for money is the optimum combination of whole of life costs, quality (fitness for purpose) and risk that meets the government s requirements... value for money assessments are not limited only to those factors that can be valued in monetary-terms or over short time frames 2 Understanding outputs and cost the bigger picture Organisations in the community services industry produce and enhance positive outcomes for individuals and the community. Currently, Government service contracts do not focus on the delivery of outcomes or social impact. In Queensland, these contracts have traditionally been based on inputs, and following this reform they are now output-based. While QCOSS and the industry support a shift to service contracts based on outcomes and community impact, an understanding of inputs, outputs and cost are still required to deliver high quality services that offer value for money. In their 2010 report, the Productivity Commission proposed a reporting framework for all notfor-profit organisations (including arts organisations) that accounts for inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact 3. Output-based funding and reporting, and the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool are both instruments that assist in understanding the service delivery and social impact picture. 1 Department of Communities 2012, Outputs Catalogue, http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/funding/output-funding-reporting/outputs-catalogue.pdf 2 Productivity Commission 2010, Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Research Report, Canberra p. 330 3 Productivity Commission 2010, pp. 38-45. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 4 of 21
QCOSS uses this framework to support Government and the community services industry to understand the relationships between inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts. (Productivity Commission, 2010, p. 40) QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 5 of 21
Working with the Department of Communities QCOSS has worked closely with the (then) Department of Communities to support the community services industry as output funding and reporting reforms are implemented. Since late 2010, representatives from QCOSS have met regularly with members of the Department s Sector Funding and Performance Support Team who were responsible for implementing the reforms. Through this relationship, QCOSS Project Officers were able to ensure versions of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool existed for common output types, hours and places, and that output counting rules could be accommodated in the tool. QCOSS Project Officers were also able to provide the Department with feedback from the industry as these reforms were being rolled out. Particularly where there was confusion around output definitions, counting rules and reporting expectations. Once the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool had been released, a QCOSS Project Officer presented the tool to more than 30 departmental staff from a variety of different program areas in Brisbane. Information regarding the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool was also distributed through internal departmental networks. This was intended to raise awareness of the tool so that departmental officers who negotiate service agreements with organisations are aware of the industry s methodology. This was made possible due to the strong working relationship between QCOSS and the Sector Funding and Performance Support team. QCOSS Project Officers and representatives from the Department also partnered to deliver a number of joint presentations. These were extremely beneficial as departmental officers were able to answer organisations questions regarding output reporting, and the usefulness of the tool in preparing for the contract negotiation was highlighted. The Department has a methodology for determining output levels to commence contract negotiations. This was not able to be made public. This methodology is likely to use information that organisations have previously reported to the Department, specifically numbers of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff. It is less likely that it will accurately account for the impact of staff time spent on indirect activities such as travel, team meetings and training and development, as these are not reported to the Department. The QCOSS Unit Costing Tool allows organisations to make an estimation of their annual outputs based on a detailed analysis of the time frontline workers spend in direct service delivery, and in the indirect activities that support service delivery. It is therefore important that departmental officers are aware of the methodology to ensure an open and trusted negotiation process. QCOSS was able to run the Unit Costing Workshops at the most optimal and relevant time for organisations due to our strong partnership with the Department. Through this partnership, the Department was able to provide QCOSS with de-identified information about when organisations service agreements expired. This information was used to time the workshops before the majority of organisations transitioned to output-based service agreements. This ensured that the workshops were timely and relevant to the industry. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 6 of 21
Workshop design and delivery The workshops were designed to build the sector s capacity to understand the cost of service delivery and to begin considering strategic issues relating to long-term sustainability. They were also designed to improve the sector s awareness of output funding and reporting, and to increase their confidence in negotiating output-based service agreements with the Department. Workshop structure and content The workshops were designed to demonstrate the tool, and where possible, have participants practice using the tool on a computer at the same time. In Brisbane, the workshops were performed in computer labs, and in regional areas participants were asked to bring their own laptops. Where possible, internet access was arranged for participants so that they could access relevant information and download the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool from the Community Door website during the workshop. Where it was not possible to get internet access, participants were provided able to upload the tools and other documentation to their laptops. During the workshop, the following content was covered: The background and development of the tool. The information needed to complete the tool. The costing framework underlying the tool, including a benchmark of around 15 per cent for organisational costs 4. An introduction to output-based funding and reporting, with specific reference to the Department of Communities Outputs Catalogue. Sharing participants and other organisations experience of negotiating output-based service agreements, and some common counting rule issues they may need clarification around. A detailed run through of the hours tool, followed by a quicker run through of the places tool. Communications and promotional approach The workshops were promoted using QCOSS s networks and publications, including its weekly E-newsletter and FQ Magazine. Workshop locations QCOSS delivered workshops in major centres in each of the Department of Communities geographical regions, these were: 4 Fisher, K.R., Maynard, D. Rajkovic, M. and Abelson, P. (2009), Cost of Providing Specialist Disability Services and Communities Services in Queensland Summary Report, SPRC Report 8/09, report prepared for Disability Services Queensland and Department of Communities, Submitted June 2008. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 7 of 21
Table 1: Workshop locations Region Far North Queensland North Queensland Central Queensland North Coast Brisbane South West South East Place Cairns Mackay Townsville Hervey Bay Murgon Rockhampton Caboolture Nambour Brisbane (8 workshops) Ipswich (2 workshops) Toowoomba Southport Robina Pre-and post workshop evaluation surveys To assess the efficacy of these workshops, two brief surveys were developed. The first survey was a part of the workshop registration form (see Appendix A), and the second was a part of the workshop evaluation form (see Appendix B). Two questions were the same across both surveys to capture a pre and post measure of knowledge of outputs based funding and reporting, and confidence in negotiating agreements. In the post-workshop survey, questions were also included to assess the helpfulness of the tool for determining the full cost of service delivery, and increasing understanding of organisational sustainability. A range of qualitative questions were also asked in the evaluation survey to assess the effectiveness of the tool, workshop and any further support organisations may require. Broadly, the surveys provided data covering the following areas: Knowledge of outputs based funding Confidence around negotiating outputs based service agreements Understanding the full cost of service delivery Confidence using the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Helpfulness of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool in determining the full cost of service delivery Helpfulness of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool in analysing the sustainability of services QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 8 of 21
Workshop outcomes 367 individuals registered for the workshops from 277 organisations, and 249 individuals from 165 organisations attended workshops. Overall, there was a workshop dropout rate of 37 per cent. The highest dropout rates were in the Far North and North Queensland regions. This was likely due to significant weather events that occurred at the time of the workshops. These events prevented access to town centres and in Cairns the workshop was rescheduled. Table 2: Workshop attendance by region Region Registered Attended Dropout Rate Far North Queensland 25 6 76% North Queensland 43 27 37% Central Queensland 45 50-11% North Coast 42 27 36% Brisbane 140 87 38% South West 45 28 38% South East 27 24 11% TOTAL 367 249 32% Given there are approximately 2,200 community organisations in Queensland 5, registrations indicate that approximately 12.5 per cent of these organisations are aware of the tool and were interested in attending workshops. This reach will be extended across the industry through informal networks. All participants were encouraged to share their knowledge and information around the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool. Workshop survey results There were 367 responses to the pre-workshop questionnaire that was attached to the online registration form. Due to the number of withdrawals, 249 people actually attended the workshops. Of this number, 233 completed post-workshop evaluation surveys. For the two questions comparing pre and post workshop responses, organisational names and email addresses were matched to deliver a total of 233 responses for comparison. This ensures the comparison data provides a best estimation while accounting for the workshop dropout rate. Organisational size Across the seven regions, attendees were from a mix of small, medium and large organisations. Small organisations are defined as having between one and 19 employees, medium organisations having between 20 and 99 employees and large organisations having more than 100 employees 6. 5 Norton M., 2010 The Queensland Community Services Sector 2010, Work Futures Australia. 6 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1999, Definition of Business Size, Canberra http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/1321.0main+features12001 QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 9 of 21
Table 3: Workshop attendees by organisational size Organisational Size No. Attended Ratio of total attendees Small 100 43% Medium 78 33% Large 47 20% No Response 8 3% TOTAL 233 100% Knowledge of output-based funding Overall, the workshops increased participants knowledge of output-based funding and reporting. Knowledge of output based funding and reporting (numbers of participants) 122 113 54 63 16 7 3 4 27 37 6 14 N/a Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Pre-Workshop Post-Workshop QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 10 of 21
Confidence negotiating outputs based service agreements Overall, the workshops increased participant s confidence in negotiating their output-based service agreements. Confidence negotiating outputs based service agreements (numbers of participants) 118 104 80 49 21 13 9 2 25 32 4 9 N/a Not very confident Poor Average Good Very good Pre-Workshop Post-Workshop It should be noted that a number of participants expressed concern about the inconsistency of knowledge among departmental officers regarding output funding and reporting. During the workshops, a number of participants reported being told different counting rules for direct and indirect activities across several program areas within the (then) Department of Communities. Workshop presenters consistently recommended that organisations seek further clarification from the Department, using the Outputs Catalogue as their starting point. Inconsistent messages regarding how outputs are counted, particularly variation between direct and indirect activities, could have significant unintended consequences in the future. If organisations have been given inconsistent instructions for counting their outputs, it will not be possible for the Department to make reliable output comparisons between service delivery models and outcomes when assessing value for money. Inconsistent counting rules may also place additional administrative burden on organisations, who may need to implement multiple time sheeting processes for front-line staff to collate outputs across funded services. The process of negotiation itself was frequently described as inconsistent, with some program areas being more flexible and willing to negotiate than others. While centrally there has been a consistent message from the (then) Department of Communities that outputs should be negotiated, there has not been a consistent negotiation process across different program areas and regions. Organisations frequently reported that regional departmental officers were uncertain if they had the power to negotiate around output targets that are generated centrally in Brisbane. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 11 of 21
Anecdotally, there have been reports of organisations signing service contracts with outputs that are unrealistic. This is often due to uncertainty around the ability to negotiate from both parties, and time delays caused by getting approvals from central office. Understanding the full cost of delivering services In 2010, the Productivity Commission found that organisations are generally funded at around 70 per cent of the full cost of delivering services 7. As organisations use the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool they will be able to estimate their contribution to service delivery, and use the information to assess the sustainability of their services. Before attending the workshops, participants were asked three questions to test their understanding of the full cost of service delivery. They were asked to self-rate their knowledge of the full cost of delivering their services and their understanding of the financial and in-kind contributions their organisation makes to full cost. They were also asked to to estimate the portion of full cost of service delivery they are currently provided by funding bodies. These responses provide a baseline for assessing organisation s understanding of the full cost of delivering services after they have implemented the tool. Table 4: Knowledge of the full cost of delivering services (pre-workshop survey) No. of Responses Very good 8 Good 62 Average 184 Poor 76 Very Poor 12 No Response 25 TOTAL 367 Nearly one quarter of respondents rated their knowledge of full cost of delivering services as poor or very poor, and half of the respondents rated their knowledge as average. Table 5: Understanding of the financial and in-kind contributions organisations make to service delivery (pre-workshop survey) No. of Responses Very good 18 Good 104 Average 159 Poor 43 Very Poor 10 No Response 33 TOTAL 367 7 Productivity Commission, 2010 QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 12 of 21
Approximately one third of respondents felt they had a good or very good understanding of the financial and in-kind contributions their organisation makes to the full cost of delivering services. Table 6: Estimated portion of the full cost of service delivery provided by funding bodies (pre-workshop survey) No. of Responses 100% 51 90-100% 112 80-90% 71 70-80% 51 60-70% 21 50-60% 15 <50% 11 No Response 35 TOTAL 367 Nearly one third of respondents feel that they receive between 90 and 100 per cent funding for the full cost of service delivery. One third of respondents estimated the proportion of funding they receive from funding bodies to cover between 70 and 90 per cent of the full cost of service delivery. Only 51 of the 367 respondents estimated that they received full funding for their contracted services. In the post-workshop evaluation, participants were asked to rate what they perceived to be the helpfulness of the tool in determining the full cost of service delivery. Table 7: Helpfulness of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool in determining the full cost of service delivery (post-workshop survey) No. of Responses Very Helpful 68 Helpful 150 Neither Helpful or Unhelpful 2 Unhelpful 10 Very Unhelpful 0 No Response 3 TOTAL 233 Over 90 per cent of the respondents felt that the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool would be helpful or very helpful in determining the full cost of service delivery. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 13 of 21
Helpfulness of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool in analysing the sustainability of services One of the benefits of using the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool is to understand the costs of service delivery and how this impacts on the sustainability of services. To assess the ability of the workshops to communicate this, participants were asked to rate the helpfulness of the tool in analysing the sustainability of services in the post-workshop survey. Table 8: Helpfulness of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool in analysing the sustainability of services (post-workshop survey) No. of Responses Very Helpful 73 Helpful 131 Neither Helpful or Unhelpful 22 Unhelpful 3 Very Unhelpful 0 No Response 4 TOTAL 233 Over 85 per cent of the respondents felt that the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool would be helpful or very helpful when analysing the sustainability of their services. Confidence using the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool It is crucial that workers in the sector feel confident using the tool, so they can use it to understand the cost of service delivery and to begin considering strategic issues relating to long-term sustainability. A question asking participants to rate their confidence using the tool was included in the post-workshop survey. Table 9: Confidence using the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool (post-workshop survey) No. of Responses Very Confident 6 Confident 125 So-so 86 Not very confident 10 Not at all confident 1 No Response 5 TOTAL 233 Following the workshop, over half of the attendees felt confident or very confident about using the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool, and just over one third rated as average. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 14 of 21
Qualitative feedback from workshop participants Qualitative responses in the post-workshop survey indicated that the workshop design was useful for participants. The run down of the tool, being able to follow through on a computer or laptop, and discussion sharing other organisations experiences negotiating service agreements and reporting against outputs were noted as particularly useful. Some of the comments included: Walk through of Costing Tool; opportunity to discuss 'real' scenario with other service providers; relaxed atmosphere - hands on. Hearing experiences of other participants in negotiating their service agreements Identification of all activities involved in delivering an output Going through the tool on our own laptops with guidance Hearing that experiences of other participants are similar to theirs When asked if there was other support that would be helpful, common themes were: being able to access costing and activity benchmarks; and one on one support to work through the tool. Information on current benchmarks (if any) to charge back as legitimate expenses that are delivery related and specific Determining benchmarks, specifically for regional areas as costs vary Access to support person to discuss issues as working through costing tool Without clear definitions, different services may be including or excluding specific costs Generally the workshops were very well received, and the tool was felt to be useful, even if it needed to be adapted for specific organisational use. I like the workshop and awareness around experiences of other NGOs. Being able to communicate and work together through this process, Even though the tool in its entirety might not be a perfect fit for our organisation, it reinforced that tools we currently use are on the right track and provided opportunities for improvement QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 15 of 21
Conclusion Overall, the workshops were successful in building organisations capacity to understand the cost of service delivery and begin considering strategic issues relating to the long-term sustainability of their programs, services and organisations. The workshops also significantly improved organisations awareness of output funding and reporting, and increased their confidence in negotiating output-based service agreements with the Department. As output-based service agreements continue to roll out, it is important that departmental officers are given clear instructions regarding the range of outputs that can be negotiated regionally. It is also important to ensure that consistent messages are being given to the industry regarding output counting rules. The partnership between QCOSS and the (then) Department of Communities significantly enhanced the outcomes of this project. Through this relationship QCOSS Project Officers were able to effectively communicate output funding and reporting information to the industry, increasing their knowledge and awareness of the reforms. This relationship also ensured the workshops were delivered at an optimum time for the industry. Continuing this relationship as output-based service agreements, and any other contracting reforms are rolled out is vital for ensuring the sustainability of the industry. QCOSS will continue to work with Government to ensure departmental officers are aware of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool. Future opportunities Following the workshop a number of opportunities for future work have been identified. Additional functionality, support and scope of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Through participant and user feedback, the following have been identified to improve and expand the scope of the QCOSS Unit Costing Tool: Functionality for services that backfill staff Functionality for services that employ a predominately casual workforce Further information to be provided on the difference between organisational and operational costs Developing a methodology for costing milestone based outputs. These milestones are generally associated with project-based work in community development, social planning and policy development, coordination, training and resource development outputs. Additional resources provided to support organisations to estimate the time spent by front-line workers completing direct and indirect activities. This could include time in motion and time sheet templates. Depending on resources, provide additional workshops and support to networks of organisations as requested. Use the responses to the pre-workshop survey questions regarding knowledge and understanding of full cost as a baseline for future comparison once organisations have begun using the tool. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 16 of 21
Benchmarking the cost of service delivery There is an opportunity to use the tool to begin developing industry-defined costing and productivity benchmarks. While work has been done previously in Queensland 8 to examine the cost of service delivery, organisations have experienced significant increases in expenditure as they have implemented state and federal award increases. There is scope and appetite for establishing benchmarks that accurately reflect the full cost of service delivery, and include a deeper understanding of organisational (back office) costs. Any benchmarking activity should be independent, and industry-led. As QCOSS works with leaders in the sector to investigate the establishment of a community services industry body, we will seek opportunities to progress benchmarking activities. QCOSS will also support costing exercises performed in the industry, and support these activities to link in with other benchmarking activities. 8 Fisher, K.R et al 2009. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 17 of 21
APPENDIX A: Registration form including the pre-workshop survey To register or express your interest in attending a workshop, please complete the following: Name: Organisation: Email Address: Organisational Size: 1 19 20 99 100 + Service Location: Which training session would you like to attend? Brisbane - 27 February - 9:00am - 11:00am Brisbane - 27 February - 11:00am - 1:00pm Brisbane - 27 February - 1:30pm - 3:30pm Brisbane - 28 February - 9:00am - 11:00am Brisbane - 28 February - 11:00am - 1:00pm Brisbane - 28 February - 1:30pm - 3:30pm Brisbane - 29 February - 9:00am - 11:00am - SESSION NO LONGER AVAILABLE Brisbane - 29 February - 11:00am - 1:00pm Brisbane - 29 February - 1:30pm - 3:30pm Caboolture - 21 March - 10:30am - 12:30pm Cairns - 20 March - 11:00am - 1:00pm Harvey Bay - 20 March - 10:00am - 12:00pm Ipswich - 27 March - 10:00am - 12:00noon Ipswich - 27 March - 1:00pm - 3:00pm Mackay - 19 April - 9:30am - 11:30am Murgon - 26 March - 10:00am - 12:00pm Nambour - 12 March - 10:00am - 12:30pm Robina - 6 March - 10:30am - 12:30pm Rockhampton - 22 March - 9:30am - 11:30am Southport - 9 March - 12:30pm - 2:30pm Toowoomba - 15 March - 10:30am - 12:30pm Townsville - 4 April - 9:30am - 11:30am Are you able to bring a laptop to the workshop? (REGIONAL FORUMS ONLY) Yes No How would you rate your knowledge of output funding and reporting? Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor How confident do you feel about negotiating your output-based service agreements? Very confident Confident So-so QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 18 of 21
APPENDIX A: Registration form including the pre-workshop survey Not very confident Not at all confident How would you rate your knowledge of the full cost of delivering your services? Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor How would you rate your understanding of the financial and in-kind contributions your organisation makes to delivering your services? Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor If you had to guess, what percentage of the cost of delivering your services is provided by government funding bodies? 100% 90-99% 80-89% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% Less than 50% How did you hear about this workshop? Invited by QCOSS representative Email Website Word of mouth Other Please advise if you have any accessibility needs: Do you consent to your photo being used in news items related to this event? Yes No QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 19 of 21
APPENDIX B: Post-workshop evaluation survey Unit Costing Tool Workshops 2012 Evaluation Form Workshop Location: Date: How many employees are there in your organisation? 1 19 20 99 100+ What is your organisations total annual income? Is your organisation a member of QCOSS? YES / NO How would you rate your knowledge of output funding and reporting? (please circle) Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor How confident do you feel about negotiating your output based service agreements? (please circle) Not very Not at all Very confident Confident So-so confident confident How confident do you feel about using the Unit Costing Tool? (please circle) Not very Very confident Confident So-so confident Not at all confident How helpful do you think the Unit Costing Tool will be in determining the full-cost of delivering your services? (please circle) Neither Helpful Very Helpful Helpful Unhelpful or Unhelpful Very Unhelpful How helpful do you think the Unit Costing Tool will be in analysing the sustainability of your services? (please circle) Neither Helpful Very Helpful Helpful Unhelpful or Unhelpful Very Unhelpful PTO QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 20 of 21
APPENDIX B: Post-workshop evaluation survey What was the most useful part of the workshop? Is there any other support or information that would be helpful? Any other comments? Thank you for your time in completing this feedback form. QCOSS Unit Costing Tool Workshops Final Report 2012 Page 21 of 21