Local Community Transport Services: the Transport Connections program
Overview
The Transport Connections program (TCP) is an $18 million, four-year initiative (2006–2010) that assists regional and rural communities to work together to improve access to local transport. It seeks to address transport disadvantage by helping communities develop local solutions that make better use of existing public, private and community transport options.
The program is managed by the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD), in partnership with the Department of Transport (DOT), the Department of Human Services, and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. DPCD is the lead agency for the TCP. However, DOT manages $4.19 million of the program budget as a Flexible Fund that all TCP projects can apply to for help in implementing small-scale localised initiatives. The TCP has provided funding and support to 32 projects covering all rural, regional and outer-metropolitan municipalities in Victoria.
The audit examined whether the TCP is being managed effectively by assessing the extent to which effective partnerships between stakeholders were achieved, and appropriate solutions to local community needs were delivered. It examined planning for, and oversight of the TCP, and four projects managed by the City of Greater Geelong, Macedon Ranges Shire Council, UnitingCare Ballarat and Wellington Shire Council.
The audit found that the TCP was designed to build capacity for local communities to work together on overcoming transport disadvantage. However, there is little evidence to demonstrate the extent to which access to local transport has improved because of weaknesses in governance, oversight and monitoring.
Although the program depended on collaboration between government and community agencies, DPCD did not effectively coordinate with DOT and other partnering agencies in managing and overseeing the TCP. Limited community engagement, and weak oversight by local steering committees and by DPCD was evident at three of the four projects examined. DPCD did not resolve emerging issues in a timely manner, nor did it adequately enforce accountability provisions with funded projects. DPCD has acknowledged these issues and has since acted to strengthen its management of the TCP.
Transport Connections projects have implemented actions that have improved local transport options. However, as performance monitoring and evaluation of the program focused on activity rather than impact, DPCD cannot demonstrate the extent to which desired outcomes have been achieved.