Community Sector Red-tape Reduction Forum –Report
RGO IDMS Project
ACT Registrar-General’s OfficeCommunity Sector Reform Program Red-tape Reduction Project
Contents
Community Sector Red-tape Reduction Forum – Report
1.1Executive Summary
1.1.1Introduction
1.1.2Principle findings
1.1.3Recommendation
1.2Purpose of this Report
1.2.1Document Audience
1.3Red-tape Reduction Forum - Background
1.4Forum Objectives
1.5Forum Methodology
1.5.1Overview
1.5.2Forum Design
1.6Forum Analysis Design
1.6.1Conducting an affinity process
1.6.2Conducting cause and effect analysis
1.7Principle Findings
1.7.1Out of scope issues
1.7.2Strategic issues
1.7.3ACT Government procurement process
1.7.4Reporting requirements – both regulatory and funding agency
1.7.5Contract management and contract compliance
1.7.6Relationship management
1.7.7Regulation by governments
1.7.8Financial management/Auditing and funding issues
1.7.9Any other issues
1.8Recommendations
Appendix A. Community Sector Red-tape Forum – Participating Community Sector Organisations
Community Sector Red-tape Reduction Forum – Report
1.1Executive Summary
1.1.1Introduction
A red-tape reduction forum for 65 of the ACT community sector leaders was conducted on 20 February 2013. The forum applied a ‘world cafe’ approach and collected 346 issues raised by the participants under six table topics that summarise the relationship between the sector and government:
a.ACT Government procurement processes;
b.Reporting requirements – both regulatory and funding agency;
c.Regulation by government regulators;
d.Contract management and contract compliance;
e.Relationship management; and
f.Financial management and funding processes.
The attached report describes the design of the forum and the design of the analysis applied to the forum results and provides a précis of the issues raised by the participants, grouped into fifty four ‘affinity’ groups and analysed further through a cause and effect analysis.
1.1.2Principle findings
The report extracts eight strategic issues that are embedded throughout the fifty four affinity groupings of issues raised. These strategic issues were:
a.Overcome the silos;
b.Understanding of risk;
c.Differences between directorates;
d.Outcomes over outputs;
e.Whole of Government Approach;
f.Change fatigue;
g.Dealing with scale; and
h.Inflexibility of funding arrangements.
Following the conduct of the cause and effect analysis, three priority areas were identified for more concentrated attention. These three areas are:
a)Procurement;
b)Contract management; and
c)Reporting.
A fourth issue, relationship management, was also identified as ‘wrapping around’ the three priority areas above. As there is a significant structural component to relationship management this issue will be managed separately.
1.1.3Recommendation
The CSRAG have recommended the development of an options paper to address the options and issues around procurement, contract management and reporting. The development of an options paper would provide an opportunity for the sector to participate in the development of options and would be expected to form the basis of consideration by the Government into the most effective approach to resolving issues around procurement, contract management and reporting.
1.2Purpose of this Report
The community sector reform program conducted a red-tape reduction forum for members of the ACT community sector on 20 February 2013. This paper provides a report on the scope and methodology of the forum and the principle findings of the forum.
1.3Red-tape Reduction Forum - Background
Red-tape reduction is one of the core components of the overall community sector reform program.
The Red-tape Reduction Forum was conducted to collect as much information as possible on the red-tape issues that impact upon the community sector in the ACT. The forum was agreed in conjunction with the Community Sector Reform Advisory Group in late 2012 for conduct in early 2012.
1.4ForumObjectives
The objective of the community sector red-tape forum was to collect sufficient feedback from the community sector to inform a structured approach to reducing unnecessary red-tape from the relationship between the sector and the ACT Government. The information collected needed to be sufficiently precise and detailed to enable it to be considered against the relevant element of the business process that it pertains to.
Additional objectives of the forum were to confirm, or to create an expectation within the community sector around the intent of the Government with regard to red-tape reduction.
1.5Forum Methodology
1.5.1Overview
The forum was designed as an element in a structured, process improvement, approach to the overall red-tape reduction program. Under this methodology, the key processes that characterise the relationship between the community sector and the ACT Government are identified.
Once identified, each of the key processes is assessed for process objectives, the extent to which the process outputs meet that objective and the potential to modify the process to either improve alignment between process outcomes and objectives, or to improve the efficiency of the process, or both.
Understanding the extent to which a process is delivering on its objectives and understanding its relative efficiency are both enhanced by the views participants in those processes and of the clients of those processes.
1.5.2Forum Design
The success of the forum design is key to achieving results that will flow through to well structured initiatives that are likely to reduce red-tape. Forum design is, in turn, largely dictated by numbers of participants and the available time.
Design criteria were that the forum must be available to all ACT Government funded community sector entities, should they wish to participate; that it provide an open opportunity to address concerns about red-tape; that there be no public servants (other than the two facilitators) present; that it would be advantageous for the members of the Community Sector Reform Advisory Group (CSRAG) to play a role; and that it be completed in a single afternoon.
There are approximately 150 ACT Government funded community sector organisations, of which approximately 30 might be considered to be large entities, another 30 might be considered medium sized, with the remaining 90 organisations ranging from small to smallish. The organisations represented at the red-tape forum are listed at Appendix A.
As this was the initial contact with the sector on red-tape, the decision was to seek breadth of feedback from the participants, rather than depth. This decision was taken on the basis that depth could be added through follow up work in smaller groups, but that issues not picked in the forum ran the risk of being overlooked later.
With acceptances to the forum from approximately 70 organisations, mostly, but not all, in the medium to large category, it was not possible to conduct the forum as a single group, particularly if it was to be completed in a single afternoon.
Alternatives considered were to either conduct the forum as a series of parallel brainstorming exercises, where groups were free to explore red-tape reduction and with each group facilitated by a member of the CSRAG, or to conduct it using the world cafe model, where groups rotate through a series of issues.
The world cafe model was chosen on the basis that it had a lower requirement for group facilitation, and that it provided a starting structure that allowed each sector representative the opportunity to address any aspect of red-tape that concerned them. The alternative model had significantly higher facilitation requirements and ran the risk of either not matching the skills and interests of participants to the issues that concerned them, or of not addressing some areas of concern.
A variation was added to the world cafe model to ensure that, instead of fixed groups rotating past a fixed group of table issues, each table rotation was designed to ensure that participants formed a different group each time, while also never addressing the same table issue twice. This variation maintained a continual turnover of the table participants to encourage new combinations of ideas to emerge for each table.
Under a world cafe model, determining the table issues for each rotation is vital. This was addressed by a discussion among stakeholders to explore the key processes that represent the relationship between the community sector and the government, as described above. The results of this exercise were matched with the results of a separate red-tape reduction brainstorm that was held in 2012 with ACT Government representatives from the Community Services and Health Directorates. Six table issues were selected as representing the span of the relationship, with a seventh, any other issues, being included to provide an opportunity to address any issue that had not been included:
a.ACT Government procurement processes (participants were asked to focus on the current procurement process on the basis that significantly different approaches were explored through a separate process);
b.Reporting requirements – both regulatory and funding agency;
c.Regulation by government regulators, including both the ACT and the Australian Governments;
d.Contract management and contract compliance;
e.Relationship management;
f.Financial management and funding processes; and
g.Any other issue.
There were no limits to the scope of the discussion within these broad areas.
It can be immediately seen that these issues are heavily focused around the more formal and structured aspects of the relationship between the sector and the Government. This reflects both the impact of these processes on the community sector and also their inherent potential for process improvement. There is of course red-tape reduction potential around less structured and less formal aspects of the relationship and this potential has been reflected in many of the comments and issues raised during the forum.
Following an introduction by the Minister for Community Services and an introduction to the task and the methodology, each rotation was allocated 20 minutes, with five minutes allowed for groups to reform for each rotation. The schedule for rotations provided that a member of the CSRAG would be at each table for each rotation and it was the role of the CSRAG member to ensure a steady flow of content from the participants.
Each table had the benefit of seeing the material collected by their predecessors and could add to it. Items were collected on butcher’s paper for later collation and assessment.
1.6Forum Analysis Design
The methodology described above delivered 346 separate items related to red-tape issues. As might be anticipated, these items align well with the key processes that form the relationship between the ACT Government and the ACT community sector.
1.6.1Conducting an affinity process
These 346 items were grouped through an affinity process and it is the results of that affinity process that are described below in the report. In this process all of the 346 issues were transferred to separate pieces of paper and then analysed by a small group according to the ‘affinity’ that each of the issues raised had for any other issue. This process resulted in fifty four affinity groups. While the fifty four groups were constructed from the all of the responses to allow for relationships between table topics to be collected, the fifty four groups are structured in this report under the table topic that best reflects the issues involved.
It should also be noted that, under an affinity process, issues may be represented by multiple items from the brainstorm process, or may be represented by a single item, with the number of items forming a category not necessarily indicating the importance of the issue.
1.6.2Conducting cause and effect analysis
In order to determine the cause and effect relationships between the issues aggregated through the affinity process, an interrelationship analysis process was conducted. This process is designed to determine whether or not cause and effect relationships existed, and the direction of that causality.
The results of the cause and effect analysis will be provided separately.
1.7Principle Findings
The principle findings from the forum are outlined below under a set of strategic issues and under the table issues against which they were collected. Where a particular group crossed the boundary of a table issue and addressed other issues, the points made have been addressed under the relevant heading.
1.7.1Out of scope issues
A small number of issues were raised that pertained to government policy issues or to the delivery of specific services, rather than red-tape. Where the policy issue had a red-tape element it was included. However, where this was not the case these issues were extracted from the total and will be provided separately to the relevant policy or line area.
1.7.2Strategic issues
A considerable number of issues raised related to red-tape reduction but also had connections broader policies or strategies. Most of these issues are embedded within the responses discussed in more detail below, but have been separately drawn out here.
a.Overcome the silos – comments here spread through many separate topics and related to the multiple and overlapping relationships that are necessary for the sector to manage their relationship with the ACT Government. Specific suggestions were to rationalise program silos and to rationalise the multiple strategies which operate to perpetuate the silos;
b.Understanding of risk - A recurring theme, linked with many aspects of the relationship from procurement to reporting and contract/relationship management, was the determination of and response to risk. The specific issues will be addressed below. In summary, the commentary was a call for a more developed approach to risk that limits increasing regulation/reporting/compliance as a reaction. Risk management should be made with reference to the specific underlying risk, with proportional measuresto reduce the risk or ameliorate its potential impact;
c.Differences between directorates - One issue that was raised a number of times was that some directorates were ‘better’ at maintaining/managing a relationship with the community sector than others. In particular, that the processes used by some directorates were simpler, faster, and more effective than those used by others;
d.Outcomes over outputs – A number of suggestions that continuing a shift to measuring outcomes over outputs was necessary;
e.Whole of Government Approach – A related issue raised was the adoption of a whole of Government approach. This was often expressed as ‘implement the Hawke Review’;
f.Change fatigue – The issue of change fatigue was also raised, from a number of perspectives. These included transparency around upcoming changes; a single calendar/reporting tool around change; better co-ordination of change by directorates; and a suggestion for better assessment of the impact of change initiatives on the sector;
g.Dealing with scale – there were many points in the forum where the issue of scale arose, along with the disadvantage that small organisations faced when dealing with systems designed for larger organisations;
h.Inflexibility of funding arrangements – there were suggestions that funding was too inflexible and that an inability to move resources between programs that may be related was too restrictive;
1.7.3ACT Government procurement process
Under this section, the results of the forum will be grouped roughly according to stages in the procurement process. It should be noted that there are overlaps between many of these issues. Issues raised were:
a.Strategic procurement conversations – there were suggestions around better co-production of services and better conversations and communications between policy makers and procurement processes and a better understanding of the costs involved in doing business in order to develop more realistic proposals and better cost services before tendering, thus avoiding inaccurate or deliberately under bidding;
b.Prequalification – many comments were received in relation to prequalification. Comments included increasing the validity period to beyond three years; the use of public and ACNC records where possible; the elimination of tender requirements where they have been addressed in the prequalification process; overcoming the duplication between prequalification processes and other accreditation requirements; extending prequalification to other Directorates. There was call for a post-implementation review of prequalification that addresses the assessment process, changes to processes as a result of prequalification, consistency of process over the implementation and ways of better managing the impact on the sector;
c.Choose the most appropriate procurement process – Issues here ranged from determining when to go to market and when not to; whether procurement should be through a grant or a service funding agreement (SFA) to a better balance between the decision around procurement approach and the inherent risk involved in the procurement/service;
d.Collaborate on the procurement process – Here, the issue is that CSD needs to match talk about collaboration/co-productionwith appropriate processes, with commentary that the NSW Government has been able to achieve this through community sector participation on assessment panels;
e.Match funding terms to desired outcomes– This issue has connections to others in this section, particularly collaboration, and seeks to ensure that the delivery mechanism aligns with the desired outcome;
f.Ensure tendering times are appropriate – A number of comments went to different aspects of this issue. These included avoiding Christmas tenders, providing sufficient time to prepare the tender and ensuring that the decision be arrived at promptly, with a suggestion that it match the time given to preparing the tender;
g.Reduce the burden of tender writing–This issue related to both scale of entity and to the scale of funding;
h.Better links between policy makers and procurement decision making – This was a suggestion to strengthen these links to better align decisions with policies and to overcome one cause of gaps between service delivery and contract requirements;
i.Problems with communication between program and administrative units – This issue was tangentially commented on in a number of ways, as well as being directly addressed.