RPG 3
Active
Reporting Service Performance Information
Establishes a principles-based framework for reporting service performance information in GPFRs, defining inputs, outputs, outcomes, efficiency, and effectiveness, and requiring display of objectives, indicators, and total service costs.
Active Standard
RPG 3 Reporting Service Performance Information is non-authoritative good-practice guidance issued by the IPSASB to assist public sector entities in reporting on their service delivery objectives, indicators, achievements, efficiency, and effectiveness.
1
Objective, Status & Scope (paras. 1–7)
Objective
Guides reporting SERVICE PERFORMANCE INFORMATION in GPFRs – the services an entity provides, its service performance OBJECTIVES, and the EXTENT of their achievement. Helps users assess service EFFICIENCY and EFFECTIVENESS.
Status – a genuinely different framing from RPG 1/2
Good practice – an entity should AIM TO ACHIEVE the PRINCIPLES here, not comply with binding "requirements" the way RPG 1/2 use that word (see §12 for the deliberate terminology shift). Compliance with THIS RPG is never needed for an IPSAS compliance statement (para. 2). Applies to controlled COMMERCIAL entities' services, even though it doesn't apply to commercial entities directly (para. 3). Where a jurisdiction's own requirements go FURTHER than this RPG, entities are encouraged to present information satisfying BOTH (para. 7).
2
Definitions – the Five-Part Performance Framework (paras. 8–19)
The five core terms
Inputs
Resources used by an entity to provide outputs – human resources, capital assets, cash/financial assets, intangibles.
Outputs
Services provided by an entity to recipients EXTERNAL to the entity.
Outcomes
Impacts on society occurring as a result of, or reasonably attributable to, the entity's outputs.
Efficiency
The relationship between (a) inputs and outputs, or (b) inputs and outcomes.
Effectiveness
The relationship between actual results and service performance objectives.
What outputs and outcomes actually cover
Outputs: direct services (health, education, goods); indirect community-protecting services; TRANSFERS (cash, tax incentives); policy/regulation/legislation; TAX collection (para. 15) External receipt is the deciding factor – internally-consumed services aren't outputs (para. 16) Outcomes may be DIRECT recipient impacts, or INDIRECT benefits to non-recipients; the causal link to the entity's own actions can be strong OR weak, since external factors may hinder/facilitate achievement (paras. 17–19)
3
Performance Indicators & Service Performance Objectives (paras. 20–26)
Three indicator forms
Quantitative measures – number of outputs, cost of services, time taken, numerical outcome targets Qualitative measures – descriptors like poor/good/excellent, satisfactory/unsatisfactory, incl. quality ratings from recipients/citizens/experts Qualitative descriptions – narrative, used where complexity/judgment make quantification genuinely difficult
Service performance objective – SMART-adjacent, flexibly expressed
Expressed using ONE OR MORE of inputs/outputs/outcomes/efficiency indicators, OR as a narrative description of a desired future state. Generally SPECIFIC, MEASURABLE, ACHIEVABLE, REALISTIC, and TIME-BOUND (para. 24). Objectives across an entity NEED NOT all use the same indicator type – some may be outcome-based, others output- or input-based (para. 25). A single SERVICE may serve multiple objectives; multiple SERVICES may serve one objective (para. 26).
4
Reporting Boundary & Period (paras. 27–31)
Same boundary as the financial statements – but NOT a consolidation
Reporting boundary = the SAME as the financial statements – but service performance information is NOT usually a combination of controlled entities' own service reporting, unlike consolidated financial statements
A genuinely important distinction from financial consolidation (IPSAS 35): performance indicators reflect the CONTROLLING entity's OWN service performance objectives – services simply don't "add up" the way cash/assets/liabilities do (paras. 27–28).
Annual reporting, with room for multi-year objectives
Reported AT LEAST ANNUALLY, covering the SAME period as the financial statements – though a different period may be justified by user needs/cost-benefit (e.g. controlled entities with a different reporting period) (paras. 29–30) MULTI-YEAR objectives require interim PROGRESS information – see §8 (para. 31)
5
Principles for Presentation (paras. 32–37)
Usefulness, context, and appropriate aggregation
Presentation should make the RELATIONSHIP between objectives and achievements CLEAR (para. 32); combined with financial statement information, it should let users assess finances IN THE CONTEXT of service achievement, and vice versa (para. 33). Reflects the entity's specific circumstances – services provided, entity nature, regulatory environment (para. 34). Aggregation/disaggregation should be MEANINGFUL – not so aggregated it conceals performance, not so disaggregated it produces obscuring detail lists (para. 36).
The comparability-vs-relevance trade-off – a genuine tension acknowledged directly
Comparability across entities is HARD – even two entities providing the identical service may have different objectives, needing different, non-comparable indicators. Inter-entity comparability may need to be TRADED OFF against relevance to the specific entity's situation – or, where user needs favor comparable indicators, the two characteristics may instead ALIGN (para. 37). This is a rare instance in the IPSASB literature of openly acknowledging that two qualitative characteristics can genuinely conflict, without a fixed resolution rule.
6
Selection of Service Performance Information – Display (paras. 38–42)
The three DISPLAY elements (para. 38)
SERVICE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TOTAL COSTS of the services
For indicators AND total costs: display PLANNED and ACTUAL for the current period, PLUS ACTUAL for the PREVIOUS period (para. 39) – a three-way comparison baked directly into the display requirement.
Cross-references, sources, and adapting to changed objectives
Where display content overlaps with the financial statements, CROSS-REFERENCE to avoid confusion (para. 40) Legislation and planning documents (budgets, mission statements, strategic plans, funding agreements) USUALLY help identify the relevant objectives/indicators (para. 41) Where objectives CHANGE (e.g. re-focusing from increasing outputs to improving efficiency) → the presented information must REFLECT that change (para. 42)
7
Selecting Performance Indicators – Quality Criteria (paras. 43–52)
Relevance, alignment, and avoiding overload
Indicators must link DIRECTLY to one or more service performance objectives; ALIGNMENT between input/output/outcome indicators helps users see how resources relate to results (para. 43) Where budget info is public and IPSAS 24 applies, consider the relationship between budget and service performance information (para. 45) Identify only a FEW KEY indicators – avoid overwhelming users with an exhaustive list (para. 47)
Reliability, neutrality, and appropriate use of narrative
Entities must AVOID bias toward reporting positive results – information should be NEUTRAL, even where trade-offs exist between different performance aspects (para. 49). EASE of measurement is a valid consideration, but SECONDARY to user needs – don't over-emphasize easily-measured dimensions at the expense of what actually matters (para. 50).
Quantified indicators should be RELIABLY measurable – transaction-processing-system-derived indicators support verifiability/timeliness (para. 48). QUALITATIVE descriptions are appropriate where services are genuinely complex, involve interrelated factors, or many possible success indicators requiring judgment about relative importance (para. 51).
8
Multi-Year Objectives & Total/Disaggregated Cost Information (paras. 53–54)
Multi-year objectives – proxy measures bridge the gap
A LONG timeframe should NOT deter reporting multi-year objectives and progress. Where full-outcome data isn't yet available, ALTERNATIVE or PROXY measures can show interim progress – e.g. treating ANNUAL output achievement as indicative of progress toward a longer-term multi-year OUTCOME, with actual outcomes reported less frequently (para. 53).
Disaggregated cost – supporting an efficiency assessment
Beyond the mandatory TOTAL cost display, an entity MAY present disaggregated costs – by service performance objective, outcome, service area, individual service, output, or specific input. Cost-per-output or cost-per-outcome data directly supports users' EFFICIENCY assessments (para. 54).
9
Planned and Actual Service Performance (paras. 55–57)
Consistency enables genuine comparison
Report on the SAME indicators, with the SAME methodology/parameters, as established BEFORE the reporting period began – this enables genuine planned-vs-actual comparison (para. 55). Multi-year CONSISTENCY supports trend analysis, but shouldn't be pursued at the expense of IMPROVING indicator quality, or aligning with genuinely changed stakeholder expectations (para. 56).
Mid-period changes – including a public sector combination scenario
Stakeholder revisions during the period, or a PUBLIC SECTOR COMBINATION transferring service accountability between entities, may require reporting against BOTH the original AND the revised objectives – with narrative discussion explaining the reason for, and impact of, the change, and how actual achievement compares to both the ORIGINAL and the UPDATED objectives (para. 57).
10
Information for Disclosure (paras. 58–67)
The basis behind the displayed information (para. 61)
How service performance OBJECTIVES were established, why they matter, and their relationship to the displayed INDICATORS and the entity's overall objectives The RELATIONSHIP between related indicators (e.g. how inputs/outputs feed a particular outcome) The BASIS for aggregation/disaggregation – the level of detail chosen
If disaggregated COSTS are presented, disclose the determination basis – allocation policies, direct/indirect treatment, or a reconciliation to total expenses (paras. 62–63). A CONTROLLING entity discloses the respective ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES for service performance across the economic entity (para. 64).
Reporting-period mismatches, and standalone-report identification
Where the service reporting period differs from the financial statements: disclose the fact, WHY, and (if financial data is included) either the statements' period plus access information, or the source of that financial data (para. 65). Where presented SEPARATELY from the GPFR containing the financial statements: disclose entity name, controlling-entity group description (or controlling entity identity, if controlled), reporting date/period (para. 67).
11
Location of Service Performance Information (paras. 72–75)
Two placement options, four decision factors
Within the SAME GPFR as the financial statements, OR in a SEPARATELY issued GPFR
How much the information needs review ALONGSIDE the financial statements (incl. budget comparisons) Whether same-GPFR or separate-GPFR placement better serves user needs/qualitative characteristics Cost-benefit – do the benefits of co-location JUSTIFY the additional cost? JURISDICTION-specific location requirements
The resource-allocation vs. policy-strategy test
A key factor: is the PRIMARY purpose informing RESOURCE ALLOCATION decisions (→ value in linking to the financial statements/budget comparisons), or informing POLICY/STRATEGY decisions (→ value in linking to policy/strategy documents instead) (para. 74)? Where issued separately, TIMELINESS matters – usually issued at the SAME time as the financial statements, or very close to it (para. 75).
12
A "Principles" RPG, Not a "Requirements" RPG (Basis for Conclusions BC3–BC7)
A deliberate design choice – decisions and guidance, not minimum standards
The IPSASB weighed TWO possible approaches: establishing MINIMUM CHARACTERISTICS of service performance information (mirroring an RPG's "good practice" role), OR providing a FRAMEWORK identifying the DECISIONS preparers must make, with guidance on making them. Given the sheer DIVERSITY of services and reporting contexts worldwide, the Board chose NOT to standardize – instead focusing on achievement of PRINCIPLES (BC3–BC5).
Even the word "compliance" was deliberately softened
Some respondents flagged an apparent contradiction: RPGs don't establish requirements, yet an early draft spoke of "compliance with all of its requirements." The Board's fix: replace "compliance with requirements" with "COMPLIANCE WITH PRINCIPLES" throughout – entities use these principles to guide their OWN decisions about what to report, and may progressively move toward full compliance rather than facing an all-or-nothing bar (BC7). This RPG involves MORE flexibility of application than IPSAS typically allow – genuinely distinct in tone from RPG 1/2's more requirement-like "shall" language.
13
Worked Example – Program Financed by a Green Bond (Illustrative Example IE5)
Entity A issues a green bond to fund a reforestation program
Target: plant 100 million trees by year-end at CU4/tree, absorbing 997,900 tons of CO2/year for 20 years. Actual: 85 million trees planted at CU4.1/tree, absorbing 578,328 tons of CO2 in year 1
Performance indicatorPlannedActual
Input – cost per tree plantedCU4.0CU4.1
Output – trees planted100 million85 million
Outcome – CO2 absorbed (year 1)997,900 tons578,328 tons
Efficiency – cost per ton CO2 absorbedCU401CU603
The HIGHER cost per ton of CO2 absorbed (CU603 vs. a planned CU401) signals LOWER absorption efficiency than planned – attributable to the gradual planting process, fewer trees planted than targeted, and a lower tree survival rate. This single worked example shows all FIVE indicator types (input, output, outcome, efficiency, effectiveness) operating together on one program.
14
Sustainability Programs – Implementation Guidance (paras. IG1–IG4)
Yes – RPG 3 applies directly, no special model needed
RPG 3's ordinary principles apply wherever an entity establishes service performance objectives for sustainability programs and can measure performance against relevant indicators – set either by the entity itself, or by program-specific metrics (IG1–IG2). Just like RPG 1's own climate/sustainability extension (see that RPG's own poster §10), no NEW framework is created – the existing input/output/outcome/efficiency/effectiveness model is simply APPLIED to this program category.
Four illustrative program types, one shared purpose
Program financed by a GREEN BOND – worked in full in §13 Program financed by a CARBON TAX – EV charging station rollout, ZEV market share targets Investment in INFRASTRUCTURE to mitigate climate change impacts TAX EXPENDITURES for sustainability investments
Decision-makers evaluating GOVERNANCE, STRATEGY, RISK, and PERFORMANCE for sustainability programs benefit from RPG 3's transparency – supporting both accountability and decision-making (IG3–IG4).
15
Statement / Process Mapping
Decision map
- Set the reporting BOUNDARY (same as the financial statements) and PERIOD (at least annual) – remember service information doesn't "consolidate" the way finances do (§4)
- Define service performance OBJECTIVES – expressed via one or more of inputs/outputs/outcomes/efficiency, or narratively (§3)
- Select a FEW KEY performance indicators – relevant, reliable, neutral, appropriately quantitative/qualitative/narrative (§7)
- DISPLAY: objectives, indicators, and total costs – each with planned/actual/prior-period comparatives (§6)
- DISCLOSE the basis behind the displayed information – how objectives were set, indicator relationships, aggregation basis (§10)
- Decide LOCATION – same GPFR as the financial statements, or separate – based on the resource-allocation vs. policy-strategy purpose test (§11)
- Report CONSISTENTLY period to period, addressing any mid-period objective changes transparently (§9)
16
Related Standards – Cross-Reference Map
How RPG 3 connects across the IPSASB body of literature
DocumentNature of the connection
Conceptual FrameworkSource of the qualitative characteristics and pervasive constraints applied throughout, and the Consultation Paper framework-approach philosophy referenced in the Basis for Conclusions (§5, §12)
IPSAS 24Budget-actual comparison information relevant to selecting/relating performance indicators, and to the location decision (§7, §11)
IPSAS 35Defines consolidation/control – explicitly CONTRASTED with here, since service performance reporting does NOT combine controlled entities' information the way financial consolidation does (§4)
IPSAS 40Public sector combinations trigger the service-accountability-transfer scenario addressed in the mid-period-change guidance (§9)
IPSAS 42Conceptual parallel – both address genuinely public-sector, non-commercial-return-driven reporting needs
RPG 1Shares the same sustainability-program implementation guidance structure and philosophy (§14, cross-referenced directly in both RPGs)
RPG 2A companion non-financial-statement GPFR guideline – together, all three RPGs complete the IPSASB's encouraged reporting suite
17
Quick-Reference Glossary
Inputs
Resources used by an entity to provide outputs.
Outputs
Services provided by an entity to recipients external to the entity.
Outcomes
Impacts on society occurring as a result of, or reasonably attributable to, an entity's outputs.
Efficiency
The relationship between inputs and outputs, or inputs and outcomes.
Effectiveness
The relationship between actual results and service performance objectives.
Performance indicators
Quantitative measures, qualitative measures, and/or qualitative descriptions of resource use, service provision, and objective achievement.
Reporting document key
GPFR General Purpose Financial Report
GPFS General Purpose Financial Statements