Statement of Intent 2013 to 2016 - Human Rights Commission

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION | STATEMENT OF INTENT27Outcome area 1: Work and educationOutputs 12 Performance measure Forecast 2012–13 Standard 2013–14Publish case studiesof effective solutions,including solutions fromyoung people, that haveresulted in reducedunemployment for youngpeople with disabilities,young people living ineconomic decile 1-3 areasof South Auckland andin one work-poor ruralcommunityQuantityNew measureNumber of case studies Minimum of 2QualityCase studies meet qualityAt least 75% of respondents reportmeasure of participation andthat they are satisfied that theiraccuracy, as assessed by a surveyinitiatives have been accuratelycirculated to contributorsrepresentedThe case studies are regardedThe impact register records at leastas valuable by duty-bearers, as5 private or public sector agenciesrecorded in the Commission’sprovide feedback that the caseimpact registerstudies are of value or great valueOutputs Performance measure Forecast 2012–13 Standard 2013–14Provide advice andguidance to duty-bearerson good practice inthe education systemto improve inclusionand better educationaloutcomes for students withdisabilitiesQuantityAt least 2 instances of advice andguidance providedQualityValued by education system intheir responsibility to providegood educational outcomes forstudents with disabilitiesNew measureQuantity measure metThe impact register records at least3 agencies in the education systemprovide feedback that advice andguidance is of value or great value12 The scale of the products and services in this output area has been determined by available capacity. The standards for each output have been determined based onhistorical trends. Qualitative feedback and recorded observations triangulated with survey results has indicated that products and services in this output area areconsistently regarded by participants as valuable or very valuable. Inevitably, given the contestable nature of the content and as evidenced through results to date, therewill always be a percentage (0-25%) of participants who will not indicate that a programme has been of value or great value to them, irrespective of the quality of theprogramme. Consequently, standards for this output area are set at a range of 70-80% participants who rate the output of value or great value to them. There are no readilyavailable comparable domestic or international standards and measures.