The Methodist Mission

SUBMISSIONS

Dunedin City Council's Draft Annual Plan

Council is asked to

consider how the processes of co-production and co-design might be used by Council in leadership with other organisations...

modify the EDU’s first Economic Growth SPM to target a broad distribution in the targeted increase in earnings.

work with the University of Otago Economics department toward a True Cost Benefit analysis tool for use in procurement.

set a minimum satisfaction target of 80% for ALL its services, to be attained no later than 2016.

A NOTE OF THANKS – Economic, Social, Environmental, & Cultural Impact

Since the November 2010 election, there has been a noticeable shift in Council’s willingness to revisit decisions; an increased willingness to work collegially – even to the extent of being able to listen to stakeholders about the nature of the agenda, not just the topic; some sign of an ability to work across silos; Council involvement in the South Dunedin Schools review; and the Council’s leadership of the local response to Christchurch earthquake refugees was particularly impressive.

In 2009 the Institute of Policy Studies at Victoria University was commissioned by the Combined Heads of Government departments to consider how the public service could best meet the needs of the country in the 21^st century. Their paper was published in August 2010 and identified four challenges:

Affordability, which requires the ability to achieve step change in policy design and delivery;
More complex problems, involving many players, which require the capability for leadership of issues, co-design and co-production;
A more diverse and differentiated population which requires the capability for differentiated responses; and
A world of faster, less-predictable change which requires the capability for constant scanning and learning the way forward.

Their paper recommended co-design as a key solution: Government will need to go beyond a ‘delivery of services’ model to an approach that encompasses co-production and co-design. Co-design harnesses the knowledge and creativity of citizens and staff in identifying problems and generating and implementing solutions – it offers the opportunity to uncover the real barriers to, and accelerants of, progress.

There are some promising signs that the DCC can engage successfully in this kind of co-production and co-design, and you are congratulated for this.

CONSULTATION MECHANISMS –
Economic, Social, Environmental, & Cultural Impact

Council consultation on its work and new initiatives is governed by the Local Government Act, and generally follows a well-established, and well-tested process.

It seems however, that consultation is being asked to do double-duty as a market-research process. (The former designed to provide Council with the reaction of the community to proposals, whereas the latter is designed to inform the design, reach, and focus of any proposals.)

This doesn’t matter when Consultation begins prior to the formulation of proposals, is genuinely accessible for all citizens, and when special interest groups (like the Mission) don’t dominate proceedings through having the time, professionalism/chutzpah, and reading age needed to engage.

Unsurprisingly then, Consultation struggles to perform well to this double duty, with the market research function losing out.

Submitters do not help either. Whatever you have been told by we special interest agencies, including the Mission; it is simply not true that we automatically know what the people we work with think on broad-ranging issues as an automatic by-product of our engagement with them. It is only when we have specifically asked, that we would know, and then only on that topic at that time.

So it is not surprising that (as an example) the South Dunedin Review has recommended hanging baskets, when the information from shoppers (who we specifically asked) suggested the best fix would be to widen the doorways of some of the cafes to enable pram and pushchair access. The hanging baskets are the result of Consultation. Wider doorways are the result of market-research.

Council is asked to consider how the processes of co-production and co-design might be used by Council in leadership with other organisations to generate a stronger flow of market research to inform the generating of proposals for consultation.

PROCUREMENT – Economic, Social, & Environmental Impact

· As Council is aware, there are tremendous pressures on our local economy, particularly local businesses, as a result of the 2008 Great Financial Crisis, which has become a prolonged near-recession in New Zealand.

· At the same time, there are considerable future costs facing the economy with the adoption of a 2030 target for greenhouse gas emissions for NZ of half the 1990 level. Transportation costs, particularly for imported goods, will increase considerably in the near future.

· The velocity of money is a figure that describes how many times an average dollar is spent in a year. If the velocity is 2.5 that means for every dollar created, it is spent 2.5 times in a year.

Council is a significant purchaser of goods and services. Not all of these are sourced locally, and tendering is generally on a “best price for quality” measure.

Were Council able to count the benefit to the local economy of spending locally, and the true cost (including greenhouse) of spending outside of Dunedin; it is likely that several things would happen:

1. Local businesses and local employees would benefit.

2. Those businesses and employees would spend that additional income, which with its velocity multiplier, would have a greater than 1 for 1 benefit in the local economy, stimulating further growth.

3. In supporting local infrastructure, Council would be investing in continuity of supply (and price) as an insurance against future transport and carbon costs.

Council is asked to work with the University of Otago Economics department toward a True Cost Benefit analysis tool for use in procurement.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT – Economic & Social Impact

Page 6: Service Performance Measure: Economic Growth

Percentage growth in Dunedin’s average hourly earnings compared with the national average.

The EDU has three KPIs for Economic Growth: average hourly earnings, increase in productivity, and growth in FTEs.

The problem with average hourly earnings is that it doesn’t seek an equitable distribution of that income, and this is important not just for 'bleeding-heart-hug-the-gay-whales' social service agencies, but for retailers and local producers.

There is copious research both domestic and international that shows those on low and middle incomes spend their extra income locally. Those on high incomes, spend any extra overseas, or invest it (also often overseas). There is also copious evidence that once young people have their first job, they are set on an employment pathway. (It is worth noting that Dunedin currently has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the country.)

If we want to stimulate local businesses, we need to ensure that wage growth happens for those on low and medium incomes. This includes ensuring that those on state entitlements are receiving their full entitlement, are getting grants not loans, and all the support they need to become productive members of our community. And it includes a focus on first employment for youth.

To lift the wealth of all of those living in Dunedin, but especially of those working in struggling small and medium sized firms ; the target for average hourly earnings needs an additional component: a measure of the distribution of that increase.

Council is asked to modify the EDU’s first Economic Growth SPM to target a broad distribution in the targeted increase in earnings.

SATISFACTION MEASURES –
Economic, Social, Environmental, & Cultural Impact

Over the last decade the Mission has been required to adopt a variety of satisfaction measures. These are usually set at a level mandated by the funder, and are consistently around an 80% benchmark (generally regarded as the start of the “A” band in marking). Despite frequent refusals by funders to match CPI increases with funding, we have been held to the benchmarks.

It is a way of improving productivity, not without its stressors, but equally not without its successes. Benchmarks provide an aspirational goal which, when staff seek to meet it, raises questions and prompts solutioning that enables improved performance. The greatest part of any satisfaction benchmark is that it provokes the question “Well how on earth are we going to do that?”.

This of course is not an experience exclusive to the Mission. It is common throughout social services, education, Government departments; in fact any organisation with a dose of statutory funding or a TQM programme.

In its Draft Annual Plan, Council is proposing (amongst others):

· Page 8: to lower the target satisfaction for Information about Council’s activities from a B (65%) to a C (55%);

· Page 25: to lower the target satisfaction with ease of pedestrian access throughout the city from a B+ (70%) to a B (65%);

· Page 27: to lower the target satisfaction with availability of parking from a B+ (70%) to a B- (60%);

· Page 27: to lower the target satisfaction with the fairness and attitude of parking officers from an A+ (87%) to an A (80%);

· Page 48: to lower the target satisfaction with the cleanliness of the streets after rubbish collection from a B (65%) to a C (55%);

· Page 48: to lower the target satisfaction with the street litter bins from a B (65%) to a C (55%);

· Page 84: to lower the target satisfaction with DCC tracks from an A+ (88%) to a B+ (78%).

It is noted that there is no consistency to the satisfaction targets – no overarching minimum (e.g. 80%); services employ a range of satisfaction targets, all the way from C+ to A+.

This is confusing, in part because it is hard to see the justification for one service reaching to 90% (Tenant Management page 12) and another to 30% (the Economic Development Unit page 6), and it is pretty hard to see how a 30% target can be aspirational.

But mostly it is confusing because Council has significant ability amongst its staff. You have capable, imaginative people working in the service of the people. Yet you seem sure they can’t reach for better.

Many of this City’s ratepayers work in environments when nothing less than an A is acceptable. Often with restricted budgets. Sometimes with shrinking resources and redundancies. And in that context, these reductions are not a good look.

Council is asked to set a minimum satisfaction target of 80% for ALL its services, to be attained no later than 2016.

— Laura Black, Chief Executive, The Methodist Mission

Resource

> READ Make a Difference - our guide to getting your message heard

> RETURN to Publications page