Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage across the regions: Mapping service expenditure and outcomes in the Pilbara and the Kimberley

Economic, social and cultural conditions in even relatively geographically close areas can differ greatly. National reports on Indigenous disadvantage compare Indigenous outcomes with non-Indigenous outcomes at the national or state level, or by broad geographical classifications, such as major cities versus regional, remote and very remote areas. While this approach provides a good national-level perspective of Indigenous disadvantage, it overlooks how much outcomes and conditions differ from region to region. This report, commissioned by the Government of Western Australia Department of Communities Regional Services Reform Unit, examines Indigenous outcomes and government service provision expenditure at a sub-regional level. The objective of this study undertaken by the Centre for Social Impact University of Western Australia (CSI UWA) is to examine whether there are differences in Indigenous government service provision expenditure and in outcomes between sub-regions of a broader geographical area. To conduct this study, government service provision expenditure on Indigenous people in the Kimberley and the Pilbara in the 2015-16 fiscal year was collected from each government agency by the Regional Services Reform Unit. This was then classified by CSI UWA according to the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage (OID) area that it principally intended to affect, the type of service provider delivering the service, and whether it was Indigenous-specific or mainstream expenditure. The information provided was used to apportion the expenditure to the most relevant service delivery geography that could be ascertained. Outcomes data were collected from various state and federal government agencies and regulatory bodies at the Statistical Area Level 2 (SA2) level of geographic disaggregation and collated into a format useful for comparison and analysis. Key findings: Government expenditure tends to be higher in areas with poorer outcomes. Put another way, expenditure is generally higher in regions of higher need. Sub-regions in the Kimberley tend to have higher per capita expenditure than those in the Pilbara. We attribute this principally to higher need and increased service provision costs associated with remoteness and dispersed communities. The distribution of expenditure by OID area differs in the Kimberley and the Pilbara when compared with the national landscape