Below are some extracts from the last Auditor General’s report. We highlight these as particularly relevant to Glen Eira and the manner in which service performance is assessed and reported. It is not enough to have a performance measure as simply ‘investigation’ and a satisfactory outcome listed as ‘investigation completed’ as was the case with the ‘investigation’ regarding the location of another site for the Caulfield Park Depot. There are countless similar measures in the Community Plan, and dare we say it, probably in the CEO performance appraisal KPIs.

The Auditor General’s findings are not new, and admittedly, Glen Eira is not the sole culprit. Residents however need to insist that every consultation and policy includes thorough evaluation techniques so that we can have greater confidence as to whether or not we are getting value for money.

“Councils have yet to fully embrace performance reporting and the non-financialindicators of many are of limited relevance to ratepayers and residents. Councilscontinue to adopt a compliance approach to performance reporting. As a result, the performance reporting framework has yet to deliver relevant and appropriate information to the community on the quality of services delivered and achievement of outcomes by local councils.

Our review of a selection of performance statements identified that a large number of indicators related to key strategy areas are activity-based, focusing on whether an activity is completed rather than the impact of the activity. Councils continued to adopt a ‘compliance-centric’ approach to performance information and used the minimum legislative requirement when preparing performance statements as the maximum disclosure standard.

Councils have yet to fully implement previous audit recommendations and to produce performance reports which drive council outcomes and accountability by being relevant and appropriate to stakeholder needs.

  • • KSAs were activity-based with the sole measure being whether the activity was completed. Any effectiveness cannot be determined when it is not possible to determine the extent of progress toward, or achievement of, the councils strategic objectives.
  • • Effectiveness measures are being inconsistently applied by councils. Some measures will be time-based while other measures such as quality, cost and quantity are often not being used thus not providing a balanced approach to the basis of measurement.
  • • When quantity or cost targets were used, there was no information provided on how these targets had been established and no basis for assessing whether the targets were realistic, easily achievable or a ‘stretch’ target.

The measures used by the selected councils to determine effectiveness were often time-based. Other measures such as quality, cost and quantity were not always considered. Councils had not provided a balanced approach to the basis of measurement. When quantity or cost targets were used, there was no information provided on how these targets had been established and no basis for assessing if the target set was realistic, easily achievable or a ‘stretch target

Other areas of weakness identified include:

  • • continued reliance on community satisfaction surveys as the sole basis of measuring activities of the council
  • • use of short-hand descriptors for performance measures, that do not provide users with necessary context and meaning, this means the reporting provides little insight into what is being measured.