Sustainability Objectives and Indicators

Transcription

1 Sustainability Objectives and Indicators EVALUATION REPORT DECEMBER 2014 Local Government Division

2 Summary of key findings 1. There is strong support for a performance assessment system for local government in Tasmania. 2. The Sustainability Objectives and Indicators (SOI) report in its current form is a useful tool for some but there are opportunities to improve performance reporting in Tasmania. The indicators measured through the SOI report are valuable but there would be benefits in reconsidering what the indicators currently measure and identify indicators that are meaningful to a wider audience. There is scope to improve the way that performance information is presented a concise summary of selected indicators would be useful as an overview of performance to the community, and detailed analysis would be useful to councils as a planning and decision making tool. 3. The SOI report does not drive continuous improvement. Performance reporting needs to be supported by other tools and mechanisms to promote continuous improvement. 2/10

3 Project background The SOI Project was initiated by the Premier s Local Government Council (PLGC) in The objectives of the project were to: improve performance management at the local council level; develop a culture of continuous improvement across the local government sector; and provide the public with easy-to-understand and meaningful information about the performance of the local government sector. To support these objectives, the PLGC oversaw the development of indicators designed to measure the performance of councils in terms of financial management, asset management, planning and development, and community satisfaction. The indicators have formed the basis of annual performance reports which provide performance data and analysis. Annual reports are endorsed by the PLGC prior to being provided to all councils and published on the Local Government Division s website. 3/10

4 Evaluation design SCOPE In broad terms, the evaluation considered whether the release of annual SOI reports was achieving the original project objectives. The scope of the evaluation was: to evaluate existing indicators and consider the value of additional indicators; to evaluate the format of the report and consider how the report could be more accessible to the community and more useful to councils; to consider how statewide local government performance management can be enhanced. CONSULTATION Stakeholders consulted in the evaluation of the SOI project were council general managers, council officers, and LGAT. As the evaluation period coincided with the local government elections in 2014 only a small amount of feedback was received from elected members. Elected members will be consulted in early 2015 as part of a more detailed process to enhance the current performance management system. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. Should there be a performance assessment system for Tasmanian councils? 2. How useful is the SOI report in its current form? 3. How valuable are the current indicators? 4. How is performance information best communicated? 5. What is needed to promote a culture of continuous improvement across local government? 4/10

5 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE The evaluation was project managed by the Local Government Division. A working group was established to guide the project managers. The working group had representatives from LGAT, and the Burnie, Glenorchy and Launceston City Councils. This evaluation report will be provided to the PLGC for noting. INFORMATION AND COLLECTION The following information was used to evaluate the SOI project: Information Gathered from Feedback received on past reports Received from councils following the release of past reports Input from general managers* Survey Input from council staff Working group *Responses were received from 18 (62%) general managers. 5/10

6 Evaluation findings A performance assessment system for Tasmanian councils There is strong support for a performance assessment system for local government in Tasmania with 80 per cent of survey respondents saying that they believe there should be a performance management system for Tasmanian councils. There are generally consistent views about how a performance assessment system should operate: councils should be compared like for like; there should be 5-20 measures; participation should be mandatory; data must be consistent across councils; benchmarks must be attainable. There are, however, some conflicting opinions on what areas should be measured while some thought that community satisfaction indicators are important, others thought that the focus should be limited to financial, infrastructure and human resource management. Some suggest that there could be a number of compulsory indicators and others that were voluntary. This would allow bigger councils that undertook a wider range of services to be benchmarked without making unfair comparisons between councils whose communities have different needs and expectations. It was noted that councils already provide a wealth of data to the Local Government Division each year and that no further data requests should be made of local government. Current data collections are managed through the consolidated data collection and data is collected on behalf of a number of users including the State Government, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the State Grants Commission. The current system is not expected to change. The SOI report in its current form Over half (59%) of the general managers that responded to the survey indicated that they use the SOI report to assist with decision making. This indicates that the SOI report in its current form is of value to some general managers. It also indicates that there is room to enhance the report: that there were more respondents who believe there should be a 6/10

7 performance management system than respondents who use the SOI report suggests that the SOI report does not adequately meet the needs of general managers. Over half the survey respondents believed that elected members do not use the report to assist with decision making. Only one respondent believed that elected members at their council did use the report. A number of respondents were unsure. This indicates that the report does not meet the needs of elected members. Very few respondents believed community were aware of report. There may be a number of reasons for this but it is acknowledged that the format of the report was not an easy read for the average community member. It was suggested that the community should be engaged in selecting indicators. Indicators There is general support for the indicators used in the SOI report. There were some suggestions around removing indicators, specifically: the community satisfaction indicators; and the percentage of development applications completed within the statutory timeframe. There were also comments around removing the financial and asset management indicators because they are meaningless to members of the community. Most respondents believed that there should be additional indicators across the spectrum of roles fulfilled by councils. The areas that received the highest support for additional indicators were community engagement, strategic leadership and services and assets. Specific examples included: completion of annual plan; budget achievement; customer service standards compliance; and community satisfaction with service delivery. 7/10

8 Communication of performance information The general consensus was that performance information needed to be presented in different ways to meet the needs of different audiences. The preferred approach was a high-level summary of results that would meet the needs of elected members and community members but with detailed information to assist council officers with planning. There is strong demand to compare like councils but there are those who also support the introduction of league tables. Resources permitting, on-line presentation of data, allowing individuals to interrogate the data, would optimise transparency. Continuous improvement The majority of respondents believed that there is a culture of continuous improvement at their council. There were a number of suggestions as to tools and mechanisms that could be established to help promote continuous improvement. These included: education and seminars; council continuous improvement committees; best practice case studies; and the introduction of lead (rather than lag) indicators. It is acknowledged that the SOI report alone does little to drive continuous improvement. While it is a useful tool for some general managers, it is a report that measures change without driving continuous improvement. There are opportunities to enhance the way performance information is reported which may help the SOI report become a driver of continuous improvement. But ideally the report would be complemented by other tools and mechanisms, such as those suggested above, to create a comprehensive continuous improvement framework rather than a stand-alone performance assessment report. 8/10

9 Conclusions The evaluation of the SOI project sought to ascertain whether the release of the annual SOI report was achieving the original objectives of the SOI project. In general, the evaluation found that the SOI report goes some way to achieving the project objectives but there are opportunities to improve performance management in Tasmania. The table below summaries the conclusions for each of the project objectives. Objective To improve performance management at the local council level. To develop a culture of continuous improvement across the local government sector. To provide the public with easy-to-understand and meaningful information about the performance of the local government sector. Conclusion There is strong support among councils for a performance assessment system. The SOI report is used by some general managers to assist with performance management at some councils. Councils undertake performance management with or without the SOI report. There are opportunities to enhance the SOI report so that it becomes a greater influence on council performance management. For the most part, there is a culture of continuous improvement within Tasmanian councils. There are opportunities to further enhance the culture of continuous improvement through the establishment of a continuous improvement framework. The SOI report does not provide the public with easy-tounderstand and meaningful information about the performance of the local government sector. There are opportunities to develop indicators that are relevant to the general public and improve the way that performance information is communicated to the public. 9/10

10 Recommendations It is recommended that: 1. The SOI report be subsumed into a new continuous improvement framework. Options for the framework include: a. An explanation of the continuous improvement framework and how it could be employed by councils. b. An annual performance assessment report or reports as required to meet the differing needs of different audiences.. c. Self-assessment tools to support ongoing assessment of operations and performance. d. Best practice promotion and award. e. Information and education aimed at improving performance in line with needs identified through the performance assessment report. 2. An advisory group be established with representation from local government to guide the development of the new continuous improvement framework. 3. That PLGC Officials report on progress at the next meeting of the PLGC. 10/10