Reporting on Local Government Performance: Follow-up
Review snapshot
Have Local Government Victoria and councils implemented all the recommendations from our 2019 audit Reporting on Local Government Performance?
Why we did this review
Effective performance reporting is essential for councils to stay accountable to their communities and improve services. In 2014, the Victorian Government introduced the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) to provide reliable performance data, improve transparency and enhance service efficiency.
Our 2019 audit reviewed how effectively councils used the LGPRF to report performance and improve services. We examined Local Government Victoria (LGV) and 5 councils: Baw Baw Shire Council, City of Casey, Horsham Rural City Council, Moonee Valley City Council and the Borough of Queenscliffe.
We found that the LGPRF’s impact was limited by a lack of outcome measures, inconsistent data and unreliable reporting. It also did not ease councils’ reporting workload. We made 11 recommendations to LGV and audited councils to improve LGPRF performance reporting, which they accepted in part or in full.
This report assesses LGV and councils’ progress in implementing their agreed actions in response to our 2019 recommendations. It notes any changes to their agreed actions and if they addressed our 2019 recommendations.
Key background information
Source: VAGO.
What we concluded
LGV and audited councils have made significant progress in implementing their agreed actions.
LGV completed 4 of its 5 agreed actions. One action to expand the benchmarking capability of the Know Your Council website is incomplete. LGV’s agreed actions partially address 2 of our recommendations: to investigate how LGPRF indicators can better reflect the full costs of council services, and to align LGPRF data collection with state agencies.
Of the 5 audited councils, 3 have completed their agreed actions. Horsham Rural City Council needs to develop measurable performance indicators that show service impact and update its reporting procedure. The Borough of Queenscliffe needs to consistently link actions to strategic indicators and show service outcomes for its community. No council set targets for all LGPRF performance indicators, so their agreed actions only partially address that recommendation.
Only LGV and 2 councils set target dates for their agreed actions. All 3 experienced some delays implementing their agreed actions. Reasons for delays included the impacts of COVID-19, Victorian bushfires, the introduction of the Local Government Act 2020 and organisational changes or constraints.
1. Our key findings
What we examined
Our review followed 2 lines of inquiry:
1. progress in implementing actions agreed in response to our 2019 recommendations
2. causes of delay in implementing recommendations, where applicable.
To assess this, we examined the 6 entities we audited in our 2019 engagement:
- Local Government Victoria (LGV), a division of the Department of Government Services
- Baw Baw Shire Council (Baw Baw)
- City of Casey (Casey)
- Horsham Rural City Council (Horsham)
- Moonee Valley City Council (Moonee Valley)
- Borough of Queenscliffe (Queenscliffe).
Identifying what is working well
In our engagements we look for what is working well – not only areas for improvement.
Sharing positive outcomes allows other public agencies to learn from and adopt good practices. This is an important part of our commitment to better public services for Victorians.
Background information
Why the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework is important
The Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) was introduced in 2014 to improve transparency and accountability in local government reporting. Victorian councils deliver a wide range of services, spending $11 billion annually. A reliable framework is critical for measuring performance at this scale.
The LGPRF standardises performance reporting across councils. It provides consistent, comparable data that helps councils, state agencies and the public assess service effectiveness. This data supports informed decision-making, service improvement and accountability. The LGPRF also helps councils meet statutory reporting requirements and respond to stakeholder needs.
Our 2019 audit
In 2019, we assessed if the LGPRF provided relevant and reliable performance information and if councils used it to improve services. To do this, we focused on performance indicators in maternal and child health, statutory planning and waste collection.
We found that:
- many councils saw reporting as a compliance exercise and not a tool for service improvement
- data consistency and accuracy were issues, and most councils did not have adequate quality assurance
- the LGPRF’s focus on service outputs limited insights into service quality and impact
- performance benchmarking helped show areas for improvement, but inconsistent reporting reduced its effectiveness
- the LGPRF did not reduce reporting workloads, as state agencies still reported separately on council services
- councils would benefit from more LGV guidance on how to use the LGPRF effectively.
We made 11 recommendations to improve LGPRF performance reporting. LGV and councils agreed to actions to address these gaps. This review assesses their progress in implementing those actions. It also notes any changes to their agreed actions and if these did not address our 2019 recommendations.
Annual progress updates on our recommendations
Each year we survey agencies to see how they are progressing with our recommendations.
We publish their responses in our Responses to Performance Engagement Recommendations: Annual Status Update reports. See Appendix D for more information.
In the most recent 2024 survey, LGV and councils reported that they had completed their agreed actions for all recommendations.
What we found
This section focuses on our key findings:
1. LGV has completed 4 of its 5 agreed actions. Its agreed actions fully address 3 of our recommendations, and partially address 2.
2. Three out of 5 councils have completed their agreed actions, and 2 councils have partially completed theirs. No council set targets for all LGPRF performance indicators, so councils’ agreed actions only partially address that recommendation.
Consultation with agencies
When reaching our conclusions, we consulted with the reviewed agencies and considered their views.
You can read their full responses in Appendix A.
Key finding 1: LGV has completed 4 of its 5 agreed actions. Its agreed actions fully address 3 of our recommendations and partially address 2
Actions in response to our 2019 recommendations
LGV accepted 3 of our 2019 recommendations in full and 2 in part. LGV completed 4 of its 5 agreed actions in response to our 2019 recommendations, which focus on:
- developing a target-setting model for the LGPRF
- enhancing support for and guidance about the LGPRF
- increasing community awareness of the LGPRF
- evaluating the LGPRF’s impact on sector-wide performance improvement.
Actions completed but delayed
Three of LGV’s agreed actions were delayed due to the impacts of COVID-19, Victorian bushfires and the introduction of the Local Government Act 2020 (the Act).
LGV completed 2 agreed actions in February 2021, 8 months after its target date of 30 June 2020. These actions relate to our recommendations to:
- investigate how LGPRF indicators can better capture the full costs, quality and outcomes of council services
- increase community awareness of the LGPRF
- enhance reporting guidance
- align LGPRF data collection with processes used by other state agencies.
LGV planned to review the outcomes of actions from its Strategic Directions Paper 2018–21 by the start of December 2021 but completed this action at the end of March 2022. The paper set out 17 key actions to improve the LGPRF, including refining performance indicators, introducing performance targets and promoting the KYC website.
Outstanding actions
LGV has not expanded benchmarking on the KYC website to compare performance data across all councils. Budget and procurement delays have stalled improvements, and planned upgrades in November 2024 will not fully address this issue.
Actions that partially address recommendations
LGV partially accepted 2 recommendations.
One recommendation involved aligning LGPRF data collection with other state agencies. LGV has made progress by:
- exploring technical solutions to reduce reporting duplication, improve data quality and enhance benchmarking
- choosing performance indicators that help consistent reporting
- working with councils and departments through Technical Working Groups to refine performance indictors and improve data alignment
- issuing guidance to clarify reporting standards.
But LGV has provided minimal evidence to show it is aligning reporting and information collection with other state agencies.
The second recommendation involved LGV investigating how LGPRF indicators can better reflect the full costs, quality, appropriateness and outcomes of council services. LGV only partially accepted our recommendation because its agreed action did not propose to make changes to how costs are reported in the LGPRF.
Key finding 2: Three out of 5 councils have completed their agreed actions, and 2 councils have partially completed theirs. No council set targets for all LGPRF performance indicators, so councils’ agreed actions only partially address that recommendation
Actions in response to our recommendations from 2019
Councils accepted 5 of our recommendations from 2019 in full and one in part.
Baw Baw, Casey and Moonee Valley completed all their agreed actions in response to our recommendations from 2019.
Horsham and Queenscliffe completed 4 out of 6 agreed actions and made progress on the remaining 2.
Only 2 councils set target dates for actions and most actions have been completed but delayed
Only Casey and Queenscliffe set target dates for agreed actions:
- Casey set targets for all actions and missed targets for 3 actions
- Queenscliffe set targets for 5 of 6 actions and missed targets for 4 actions.
Alternative actions taken by councils to address recommendations
Casey and Queenscliffe took alternative actions to those initially agreed to address our recommendations from 2019.
- Casey developed a real-time performance dashboard for reporting to leadership, in place of its balanced scorecard reports. This alternative action met the intent of its agreed action.
- Queenscliffe follows LGV’s better practice guide about submitting performance data for its quality assurance, rather than a formal standard operating procedure as initially agreed. It has also implemented a multi-tiered data review. These actions meet the intent of its agreed action.
- Queenscliffe also agreed to develop targets for all performance indicators in its quarterly reports, but it reports on milestones instead. This reporting does not provide detailed performance insights and does not meet the intent of its agreed action.
Outstanding actions
Horsham and Queenscliffe still need to complete agreed actions for 2 recommendations.
- Horsham has not developed measurable performance indicators that show service impact or completed planned updates to its reporting procedure.
- Queenscliffe’s annual reports do not consistently link actions to strategic indicators or clearly show service outcomes for the community. However, it has updated its 2023–24 annual report template to focus more on strategic indicators in its council plan. It also committed to reporting on performance targets quarterly from 2019–20 but reports on milestones instead. As noted above, its milestone reporting does not provide detailed performance insights for the community.
Councils’ agreed actions only partially address our recommendation to set targets for all LGPRF indicators
We recommended that all councils develop targets for each of the LGPRF’s 59 performance indicators, but no council agreed to do this.
However, all councils have set targets for the 8 performance indicators required under the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Amendment Regulations 2022.
Status of our 2019 recommendations
In 2019, we made 11 recommendations: the first 5 to LGV and the remaining 6 to audited councils.
Figure 1: Summary of our 2019 recommendations for LGV and our assessment of their progress against agreed actions
| Recommendation to LGV | Response | LGV's agreed actions | Status of actions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
| LGV should work with councils to:
| Partially accepted
| By 30 June 2020, it would:
| Completed in February 2021
| |
2
| Continue to work with councils and other state departments to align information collected through the LGPRF, which is like that collected by other state agencies.
| Partially accepted
| By 30 June 2020, it would:
| Completed in February 2021
| |
3
| Provide the sector with support and guidance on:
| Accepted
| By 30 June 2020, it would:
| Completed in February 2020
| |
4
| Expand the benchmarking capability of the KYC website to allow the comparison of performance data between all councils.
| Accepted
| By 30 June 2021, it would:
| Partially completed
| |
5
| Evaluate the extent to which the LGPRF has contributed to performance improvement across the sector
| Accepted
| By 1 December 2021, it would:
| Completed in March 2022
| |
Recommendation 6
Councils should develop, monitor and report on performance indicators specific to their own services and community needs.
Figure 2: Council responses and agreed actions for recommendation 6 and our assessment of their progress
| Council | Response | Agreed actions | Status of actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baw Baw | Accepted | Review performance indicators, particularly outcome indicators. | Complete | |
| Casey | Accepted | By 30 December 2019, review and continue to mature existing performance measures. | Completed in October 2021 | |
| Horsham | Accepted | Develop a reporting schedule that identifies output measures for all of council’s services and their reporting frequency. | Partially completed | |
| Moonee Valley | Accepted | Investigate using the service planning process to develop additional indicators. | Complete | |
| Queenscliffe | Accepted | By 31 October 2021, develop indicators beyond the LGPRF as necessary. | Completed in June 2022 | |
Recommendation 7
Ensure strategic indicators in their annual reports communicate the outcomes of services for the community.
Figure 3: Council responses and agreed actions for recommendation 7 and our assessment of their progress
| Council | Response | Agreed actions | Status of actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baw Baw | Accepted | Review performance indicators, particularly outcome indicators. | Complete | |
| Casey | Accepted | By 2 May 2019, review strategic indicators in its council plan at least once annually to ensure they communicate outcomes. | Completed in May 2019 | |
| Horsham | Accepted | Seek to develop indicators that better communicate community outcomes and the impact of council’s activities in the next review of the council plan. | Complete | |
| Moonee Valley | Accepted | Maintain its high standards, as the 2019 report highlighted, developing relevant outcome indicators to measure performance against each strategic objective. | Complete | |
| Queenscliffe | Accepted | By 30 September 2019, consider this in preparation of its 2018–19 Annual Report. | Partially completed | |
Recommendation 8
Regularly report performance information to council decision-makers.
Figure 4: Council responses and agreed actions for recommendation 8 and our assessment of their progress
| Council | Response | Agreed actions | Status of actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baw Baw | Accepted | Identify opportunities for further improvements to its quarterly performance reporting practice. | Complete | |
| Casey | Accepted | By 30 September 2019, continue mid-year and end-of-year LGPRF reporting and review indicators within the balanced scorecard. | Completed with alternative actions in June 2021 | |
| Horsham | Accepted | Address this through the reporting schedule it will develop. | Partially completed | |
| Moonee Valley | Accepted | Return to mid-year reporting against LGPRF indicators from 2019–20 onwards. | Complete | |
| Queenscliffe | Accepted | By 1 July 2019, continue 6-monthly progress reports to council. | Completed in July 2019 | |
Recommendation 9
Develop and report against targets for all performance indicators.
Figure 5: Council responses and agreed actions for recommendation 9 and our assessment of their progress
| Council | Response | Agreed actions | Status of actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baw Baw | Partially accepted | Continue the use of targets against performance indicators. | Complete | |
| Casey | Partially accepted | By 30 September 2019, review targets in line with LGV guidance for 2020–21 and set targets for all LGPRF measures where possible for 2019–20. | Completed in June 2021 | |
| Horsham | Partially accepted | Understand where targets are appropriate. | Complete | |
| Moonee Valley | Partially accepted | Work with LGV to introduce targets from 2020–21. | Complete | |
| Queenscliffe | Partially accepted | By 1 July 2019, develop targets through quarterly financial reports to council from 2019–20. | Partially completed | |
Recommendation 10
Improve the accuracy of LGPRF data by implementing effective quality assurance processes.
Figure 6: Council responses and agreed actions for recommendation 10 and our assessment of their progress
| Council | Response | Agreed actions | Status of actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baw Baw | Accepted | Continue to develop internal processes, guidelines and quality assurance processes to improve the quality of performance reporting. | Complete | |
Casey
| Accepted
| By 30 December 2019:
| Completed in June 2019
| |
| Horsham | Accepted | Put in place systems and processes to ensure high-quality information is supplied to the LGPRF that can be easily and reliably verified. | Complete | |
| Moonee Valley | Accepted | Maintain its high standards, as the 2019 report highlighted, of its consistent and rigorous quality assurance process across all LGPRF service areas. | Complete | |
| Queenscliffe | Accepted | By 31 October 2021, develop a standard operating procedure for program leaders to manage the LGPRF so its financial services team can focus on quality assurance. | Completed with alternative actions in December 2021 | |
Recommendation 11
Promote LGPRF results on the KYC website through various methods, including their own council websites.
Figure 7: Council responses and agreed actions for recommendation 11 and our assessment of their progress
| Council | Response | Agreed actions | Status of actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baw Baw | Accepted | Continue to promote the KYC website and council’s performance results to community. | Complete | |
| Casey | Accepted | By 2 May 2019, maintain a direct link to the KYC website on council website and incorporate reference to the KYC website when reporting annual results, including in associated media releases. | Completed in June 2019 | |
| Horsham | Accepted | Seek to promote the LGPRF in other ways and through council’s website. | Complete | |
| Moonee Valley | Accepted | Promote the KYC website on council website. | Complete | |
| Queenscliffe | Accepted | Include reference to LGPRF results and the KYC website when opportunities present. | Complete | |
2. Local Government Victoria
LGV accepted 3 of our recommendations from 2019 in full and 2 in part. It completed 4 of its 5 agreed actions but missed target dates for 3 agreed actions due to the impacts of COVID-19, Victorian bushfires and the introduction of the Act in 2020. It has not completed its agreed action to expand the benchmarking capability on the KYC website.
LGV’s agreed actions to align LGPRF data with other state agencies and investigate how LGPRF indicators can better reflect the full costs, quality, appropriateness and outcomes of council services only partially address our recommendations.
Our 5 recommendations to LGV were about:
- Enhancing sector alignment and support
- Public transparency and accessibility
- Evaluation and continuous improvement
Background information
LGV’s responsibilities
LGV advises the Minister for Local Government, oversees the Act and supports councils to improve their business and governance practices. LGV works with LGPRF stakeholders to update guidance, publish performance data and improve data quality through the LGPRF Steering Committee.
Enhancing sector alignment and support
What we recommended in 2019
Three of our recommendations to LGV were about improving guidance to councils about the way they collect, use and report performance information.
| In our 2019 audit we found that … | and recommended that LGV … |
|---|---|
| the LGPRF did not have strong outcome measures and LGV could provide more support to councils on using the LGPRF for performance improvement | work with councils to improve LGPRF indicators by better reflecting service costs and outcomes, enhancing guidance for consistent reporting and increasing community awareness of the LGPRF (recommendation 1). |
| the LGPRF did not ease councils’ reporting workload, as state agencies continue using their own processes to collect council data | continue to work with councils and other state agencies to align information collected through the LGPRF, which is like that collected by other state agencies (recommendation 2). |
| councils needed guidance from LGV to use the LGPRF more effectively and set targets for continuous service improvement | provide the sector with support and guidance on:
|
Designing a target-setting model for the LGPRF
LGV completed its agreed action to design a target-setting model for the LGPRF. It also developed guidance to help councils:
- align performance targets with strategic objective
- report on their performance against these targets.
In June 2020, LGV tested the target-setting model with 23 councils before providing it to the sector. It also developed a target-setting tool as part of the trial. In 2021, Technical Working Groups recommended updating performance indicators and expanding target setting.
Technical Working Groups
LGV holds Technical Working Groups for triennial reviews of the LGPRF. These groups, which include representatives from councils, peak bodies, as well as industry experts, work to recommend LGPRF improvements to the LGPRF Steering Committee. In 2024, a Technical Working Group will explore adding targets for more performance indicators.
In 2022, amendments to the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2020 made target setting mandatory for 8 of the 59 LGPRF performance indicators. LGV supported councils by providing a target-setting guide and calculator.
Figure 8 shows the timeline for LGV’s introduction of target setting.
Figure 8: Introduction of target-setting timeline
Source: VAGO, from information provided by LGV.
No change to reporting on services costs
In 2019, we found that performance indicators that measured efficiency or service costs excluded indirect costs such as IT, HR and payroll, and recommended that LGV work with councils to improve LGPRF indicators by better reflecting the full service costs.
LGV only partially accepted our recommendation as it did not propose changes to how these costs are reported in the LGPRF. This limits the ability of decision-makers to fully compare service efficiency costs across councils.
Engaging with the sector to enhance guidance
LGV’s agreed action to review all LGPRF guidance for the 2019–20 reporting period addresses our recommendation.
LGV completed its agreed action in February 2020 by providing updated guidance to help councils use LGPRF targets and actuals to improve performance.
Working well: Guidance
LGV has released several better practice guides to help councils with transparent performance reporting. These guides include practical examples and case studies for using performance data to improve service delivery. They also provide instructions for using performance indicators for strategic and operational decision-making.
LGV collects annual feedback from councils through surveys. These assess the usefulness of its guidance, data usage and reporting. Based on feedback, LGV adapted its target-setting template to pre-fill data from previous reporting years, reducing duplication and making reporting easier.
Increasing awareness of the LGPRF
LGV’s agreed action to release the results of the KYC social media campaign to the sector addresses our recommendation.
LGV has completed its agreed action. In April 2019, LGV ran a 3-week social media campaign to promote the KYC website. It targeted diverse groups across metropolitan and regional areas and specific language communities.
In July 2019, LGV shared the campaign results with councils, reporting:
- an 84 per cent increase in website traffic compared to the same period in 2018
- a rise in average weekly views from around 5,500 to over 12,300 during the campaign period
- a higher proportion of users aged 55 and older.
LGV ran another campaign in 2020, focusing on Punjabi, Vietnamese and Mandarin speakers. But it recommended ending similar campaigns from 2020–21 due to lower-than-expected impact.
Aligning LGPRF information collection with other state agencies
In August 2019, LGV completed its agreed action to report to the LGPRF Steering Committee by June 2020 on using application programming interfaces (APIs) to ease councils’ reporting workload.
It then worked with the Whole of Victorian Government API team to develop an API solution. However, lack of funding prevented further development.
Application programming interfaces
APIs allow software applications to share data and functionality. LGV’s proposed API solution aimed to enable real-time data uploads to a shared IT platform that could be used by multiple state agencies, reducing reporting duplication and improving data accuracy.
LGV has taken additional steps to help ease councils’ reporting workload, including:
- working with Technical Working Groups to refine performance indicators
- simplifying reporting processes based on council feedback
- providing guidance on performance reporting standards
- using performance indicators that councils already report on, where possible.
However, it has only partially addressed our recommendation to align information collected through the LGPRF, which is like that collected by other state agencies. LGV has provided minimal evidence to show it is aligning reporting and information collection with other state agencies.
LGV notes that there are ongoing challenges to aligning reporting across state agencies because councils use different IT systems and have different regulatory requirements.
Public transparency and accessibility
What we recommended in 2019
One of our recommendations to LGV was about improving the transparency and accessibility of council performance information.
| In our 2019 audit we found that … | and recommended that LGV … |
|---|---|
| expand the benchmarking capability of the KYC website to allow performance data to be compared between all councils (recommendation 4).
|
Benchmarking functionality has not improved
LGV’s agreed action addresses our recommendation to expand the benchmarking capability of the KYC website to allow performance data to be compared between all councils. However, it has only partially completed its agreed action.
In 2019, LGV’s budget bid to the government to improve the KYC website benchmarking was unsuccessful, which meant it had to consider other action to support benchmarking upgrades.
In February 2021, LGV started a procurement process to:
- enhance website visuals to make it easier to compare council performance
- include trend analysis to compare performance over time
- include external data for a comprehensive view of council performance.
In April 2021, LGV developed an internal business case to fund updates to the KYC website by June 2022. Due to funding limitations, the KYC website was decommissioned in October 2022 and replaced with a simpler website featuring static council profiles and a basic comparison dashboard.
Key issue: Limited scope for KYC benchmarking improvements
Funding challenges continue to limit benchmarking expansion. The KYC website was reactivated in May 2023, and upgrades are planned for November 2024. These upgrades will bring benchmarking closer to the original KYC website in 2015 but will not enable full performance comparisons across all councils as envisioned in LGV’s Strategic Directions Paper 2018–21.
Evaluation and continuous improvement
What we recommended in 2019
One of our recommendations to LGV was about evaluating the LGPRF’s impact on councils’ performance improvement.
| In our 2019 audit we found that … | and recommended that LGV … |
|---|---|
| evaluate the extent to which the LGPRF has contributed to performance improvement across the sector (recommendation 5).
|
Evaluating the LGPRF
LGV’s agreed action to review the outcomes of actions in the Strategic Directions Paper 2018–21 addresses our recommendation.
LGV completed its agreed action in 2021 by assessing outcomes of the 17 actions in the paper. It concluded that the LGPRF had significantly contributed to improved local government performance reporting.
| LGV’s review found that … | concluding that … |
|---|---|
| by 2021, all councils consistently reported on all LGPRF performance indicators | the LGPRF significantly improved transparency and accountability of local government performance. |
| councils increasingly used LGPRF data to monitor internal performance and help strategic planning | standardised reporting allowed councils to benchmark performance, set targets and communicate results to the community. |
| councils had improved data reliability and used commentary to explain results to their communities | these actions acknowledged the importance of reporting performance data publicly. |
| KYC website users could compare their council against similar councils and access a range of financial and performance data | the KYC website met or exceeded the visitor targets each year. |
LGV’s review noted its ongoing work to mature the LGPRF through working with councils, peak bodies, technology leaders and government agencies. It also noted how councils contributed to the development of performance indicators, target setting and data upload templates.
Key issue: Challenges and future development
The review highlighted the need to improve KYC website functionality and help councils set and achieve performance targets. LGV remains committed to actions in the Strategic Directions Paper 2018–21, and it is focused on continuous improvement opportunities rather than large-scale reviews to improve the LGPRF.
3. Local councils
Audited councils accepted 4 of our recommendations from 2019 in full and one in part.
Baw Baw, Casey and Moonee Valley completed all their agreed actions in response to our recommendations, while Queenscliffe and Horsham completed 4 of their agreed actions and still need to complete 2 of their agreed actions.
Only Casey and Queenscliffe set target dates for their agreed actions. Both experienced some delays due to organisational changes or constraints.
No council set targets for all LGPRF performance indicators, which means that councils’ agreed actions only partially address our recommendation.
Our 6 recommendations to councils were about:
- Reporting on meaningful performance information
- Communicating strategic outcomes
- Data accuracy and quality assurance
Background information
Councils’ responsibilities
Part 4 of the Act requires councils to develop strategic planning, budgeting and annual reporting documents. This includes a council plan that lays out strategic objectives and indicators to monitor progress. Councils must also provide annual reports with LGPRF performance results. Councils must implement systems to collect and report this data.
Reporting on meaningful performance information
What we recommended in 2019
Three of our recommendations to councils were about their reporting against performance indicators and targets.
| In our 2019 audit, we found that … | and recommended that councils … |
|---|---|
| most councils did not fully develop or use service-specific performance indicators beyond the LGPRF | develop, monitor and report on performance indicators specific to their own services and community needs (recommendation 6). |
| the quality and frequency of their performance reporting to decision-makers varied | regularly report performance information to council decision-makers (recommendation 8). |
| most councils did not set performance targets for LGPRF indicators, limiting their ability to assess and improve services | develop and report against targets for all performance indicators (recommendation 9). |
Integrated approach to service planning
The Act introduced the Integrated Strategic Planning and Reporting Framework to promote a transparent and long-term approach to council planning and reporting. LGV’s better practice guides from 2021–22 gave advice to councils on reporting against the framework, including the importance of community engagement in service planning.
Reporting relevant performance information
All councils’ agreed actions address our recommendation to develop, monitor and report on performance indicators specific to their own services and community needs.
Most councils have completed their agreed actions, but Horsham is delayed in updating its reporting schedule.
Baw Baw updated its performance indicators to align with its Baw Baw Shire Council Plan 2021–25, adding new indicators for community mental health and wellbeing, residential development and environmental sustainability. Its quarterly KPI reports include outcome-based indicators related to service efficiency, which aim to provide valuable insights into service outcomes.
Casey adopted an outcomes-based operating model through its Transformation Strategy 2022–26 and is developing strategic service plans for 24 key service areas that link performance measures to future goals. Its Service Excellence Framework prioritises innovation and community-focused service design, and its annual reviews consider alignment of indicators with community needs.
Horsham has developed 50 service plans for over 70 services and aims to add specific performance metrics using an updated template. It is delayed in updating its reporting schedule. But it has a full review planned to add specific output measures for all services, which will take place after 2024 council elections.
Moonee Valley aligns service planning with the MV2040 Strategy and its Community Vision, Council Plan and Health Plan 2021–2025, using long-term integrated strategic indicators and short-term LGPRF indicators to track operational and strategic outcomes. It monitors performance through Service Level Statements and uses the KYC website benchmarking to refine indicators. Moonee Valley is developing an Organisational Outcomes Framework to improve outcome measures for its next council plan.
Queenscliffe added financial and environmental indicators to its Council Plan Borough of Queenscliffe 2021–25 and Climate Emergency Response Plan 2021–2031, focusing on sustainability actions such as renewable energy and waste management. It developed indicators in response to community feedback and it monitors performance against its council plan through quarterly updates.
Regular reporting to decision-makers
All councils’ agreed actions address our recommendation to regularly report performance information to council decision-makers.
Most councils have completed their agreed actions. Casey adopted alternative steps to do so. Horsham has not completed its agreed action to update its reporting schedule.
All councils submit annual reports to LGV which contain an audited performance statement describing performance measures and results for all 59 LGPRF performance indicators. All councils now report quarterly in response to our 2019 suggestion.
Baw Baw carried out a review of its performance reporting practice through a voluntary internal review in 2022 and has completed the recommendations from that review. It now combines updates on its council plan, municipal and LGPRF indicators, capital works and finances into a single quarterly report for its Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and councillors.
Casey prepares half-yearly reports for its ELT and councillors for early trend analysis and service adjustments. In 2023, Casey launched an organisation performance dashboard for real-time data, in place of its balanced scorecard reports. It uses the dashboard in ELT quarterly workshops on organisational performance.
Horsham reports quarterly on financials, service performance, customer engagement and major projects, despite delays in updating its reporting procedure. Its Audit and Risk Committee oversees progress in developing output measures for performance indicators.
Moonee Valley reports monthly, quarterly and annually. In 2019–20, it reintroduced mid-year LGPRF reporting in response to our 2019 findings. These reports provide detailed insights into LGPRF indicators and inform service adjustments.
Queenscliffe provides 6-monthly reports and quarterly updates on financials and council plan initiatives. Its Audit and Risk Committee reviews this data for budget and strategic planning before it is considered by councillors.
Target setting is mandatory for 8 performance indicators
In 2019, we found that target setting makes performance easier to understand, helping councils and communities assess service effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.
As of 2022, councils must set targets for 4 service and 4 financial LGPRF performance indicators. The service indicators are:
- Governance – consultation and engagement
- Statutory planning – service standard
- Roads – condition
- Waste management – waste diversion.
All councils have developed targets for these indicators, which are reported in their 2023–24 performance statements in their annual reports.
Targets set for some non-mandatory performance indicators
No council agreed to set targets for all performance indicators, so their agreed actions only partially address our recommendation.
Most councils have completed their agreed actions to set targets for other LGPRF indicators or council-specific indicators. However, Queenscliffe has not developed targets through quarterly reporting as planned.
At the time of our 2019 audit, Baw Baw set targets for some non-mandatory LGPRF indicators. It continues to do this, including where it identifies a need for performance improvement. As part of its quarterly reporting to councillors, Baw Baw reports on targets for 28 LGPRF indicators and 5 additional service-related measures. It also set targets for services outside the LGPRF such as waste diversion and community satisfaction with council services. It uses trend measures where it has not set a target but still wants visibility of a performance measure, such as for the number of media releases it issues.
Casey set targets for 33 LGPRF indicators for the 2019–20 reporting period, using historical averages and forecasts. COVID-19 impacts delayed a planned review of targets in 2020–21. Beyond the LGPRF, Casey’s Outcomes Operating Model sets targets for community service priorities and its Climate Action Plan 2022–30 sets long-term emissions reduction targets.
Horsham set targets in its Council Plan 2021–2025 across strategic themes such as community, liveability and sustainability. Its quarterly reports compare actual performance to targets, but its annual reports focus on overall trends rather than LGPRF targets.
Moonee Valley has not set targets beyond the 8 mandatory LGPRF indicators, but it has provided updates and target ranges for 35 of 59 LGPRF performance indicators in its 2023–24 mid-year report. It will report annually on the remaining 24 indicators. It has also set interim targets for its integrated strategic indicators to support long-term community goals.
Queenscliffe has set targets for 13 LGPRF indicators. Twelve of these are reported in its 2023–24 draft performance report, including the 8 mandatory ones. But these are not included in quarterly reporting as originally planned. It reports mostly on targets for financial sustainability and its Climate Emergency Response Plan 2021–2031, and it focuses on council plan milestones rather than full LGPRF data. Its milestone reporting does not provide detailed performance insights and does not meet the intent of its original agreed action.
Communicating strategic outcomes
What we recommended in 2019
Two of our recommendations to councils were about improving communication of their performance to the public.
| In our 2019 audit, we found that … | and recommended that councils … |
|---|---|
| to understand how well their services are meeting the needs of their community, councils need to set performance indicators, measures and targets for each service | make sure strategic indicators in their annual reports communicate the outcomes of services for the community (recommendation 7). |
| of the audited councils, only Casey and Baw Baw promote the KYC website on their websites, and Baw Baw also promotes it through social media | promote LGPRF results on the KYC website through various methods, including their own council websites (recommendation 11). |
Communicating service outcomes to the community
All councils’ agreed actions address our recommendation to make sure strategic indicators in their annual reports communicate services outcomes.
Most councils have completed their agreed actions, but Queenscliffe’s annual reports do not clearly show service outcomes for the community.
Baw Baw uses indicators such as CO2 emissions and waste diversion to link performance directly to community outcomes. It tracks these in quarterly updates and planning processes.
Casey and Moonee Valley had implemented this recommendation at the time of the 2019 audit, and they continue to strengthen links between strategic indicators and objectives in their annual reports. Casey aligns indicators with objectives in its council plan, updating these through annual reviews and feedback from the Shape Your City initiative to reflect changing community needs.
Working well: Linking strategic indicators to key planning documents
Moonee Valley’s MV2040 Strategy, Community Vision, Council Plan and Health Plan 2021–25 and Integrated Strategic Indicator Framework measure progress across themes such as environmental sustainability and community engagement. Its ‘Green’ theme highlights carbon reduction efforts, while the ‘Thriving’ theme focuses on community engagement through initiatives such as library services to show how it is achieving its strategic objectives.
Horsham has shifted from project-specific metrics to broader indicators that reflect community impacts. Its annual reports explain how Horsham’s initiatives improve community wellbeing.
Queenscliffe links service delivery with outcomes from its Community Vision Borough of Queenscliffe 2021–2031. Its annual reports have lacked clear connections between actions and community outcomes, but it used an updated reporting template for 2023–24 to better show performance against strategic objectives and move towards outcome-based reporting.
Promoting LGPRF results
All councils’ agreed actions address our recommendation to promote the KYC website.
All councils have completed their agreed actions and link to the KYC website to share LGPRF results.
Baw Baw also promoted LGPRF data in its annual and quarterly reports. Its Community Satisfaction Survey webpage has downloadable reports on satisfaction and performance data linked to LGPRF measures.
Casey used media releases to share its community satisfaction survey results and compare performance with other councils, but it acknowledged that the KYC website decommissioning in 2022 may have limited further promotion.
Horsham promoted LGPRF results through media releases. Moonee Valley referenced the KYC website in its annual report. Queenscliffe promoted LGPRF results sparingly through social media, citing low community engagement.
Data accuracy and quality assurance
What we recommended in 2019
One of our recommendations to councils was about improving the quality of their data.
| In our 2019 audit, we found that … | and recommended that councils … |
|---|---|
| councils’ quality assurance processes needed to improve, except for Moonee Valley | improve the accuracy of LGPRF data by implementing quality assurance (QA) processes (recommendation 10). |
| the LGPRF QA process should include data reviews and regular meetings between service managers who collect data and the officers who report it to LGV | |
| councils should make sure they are collecting supporting documentation for all LGPRF service measures to verify results |
Effective quality assurance processes
All councils’ agreed actions address our recommendation to implement QA processes. All councils have completed their agreed actions, although Queenscliffe has adopted alternative steps to do so.
Baw Baw strengthened its QA process with a detailed Performance Monitoring and Reporting Policy that includes QA controls and risk mitigation strategies (see case study below).
Casey uses the Promapp system to document QA processes, with QA sheets outlining data collection, validation and reporting steps for audited LGPRF measures. Casey is expanding QA sheets to cover all LGPRF measures. Its corporate planning team also verifies data before reporting to executive leadership and councillors.
Horsham does not have a documented QA procedure but has a detailed QA process for LGPRF data coordinated by its governance unit. Staff enter service data for verification by multiple reviewers, including the governance unit and finance leaders.
Moonee Valley exemplifies better practice with fully documented, regular QA across all LGPRF service areas, as highlighted in our 2019 report. This supports high data quality. Its process is formalised in Promapp and, since 2019, includes automated notifications through the Pulse Corporate Planning System. Regular manager meetings address data discrepancies.
Queenscliffe follows LGV’s better practice guide about submitting performance data rather than a formal QA standard operating procedure, as originally agreed. Its financial accountant oversees a multi-tiered review process with data collected by service area owners, reviewed by the financial accounts team and validated by senior management.
Case study 1: Baw Baw’s QA process
Baw Baw’s QA process
Baw Baw’s Performance Monitoring and Reporting Policy sets out QA controls and risk mitigation strategies for performance reporting. To support consistent reporting, Baw Baw uses QA checklists for data collection, validation and reporting. Its ELT reviews draft performance statements and LGPRF data, supported by quarterly reports. Its Audit and Risk Committee also checks the accuracy of Baw Baw’s financial and performance statements.
Appendix A: Submissions and comments
Download a PDF copy of Appendix A: Submissions and comments.
Appendix B: Abbreviations, acronyms and glossary
Download a PDF copy of Appendix B: Abbreviations, acronyms and glossary.
Appendix C: Review scope and method
Download a PDF copy of Appendix C: Review scope and method.
Appendix D: Agency progress updates on our recommendations
Download a PDF copy of Appendix D: Agency progress updates on our recommendations.
Download Appendix D: Agency progress updates on our recommendations