B.29[15j]

Reflections from our audits: Service delivery

Presented to the House of Representatives under section 20 of the Public Audit Act 2001.

June 2015

ISBN 978-0-478-44217-5

Contents

Auditor-General’s introduction

Part 1 – Service to New Zealanders now and in the future

The service context

Good performance now is no guarantee for the future

Part 2 – Delivering good services

A culture of service

Inspirational leaders

Committed, empathetic, and skilled staff

Good information, systems, and tools

Astute planning for capacity and capability

Part 3 – Connecting services for New Zealanders

Meeting complex needs

Working together

Leading good stewardship

Part 4 – Putting ideas into action

Recognising different and changing needs

Helping people to help themselves

Innovating 29

Taking on challenges

Part 5 – Listening, learning, and communicating

Listening to people’s comments

Learning from information and experience

Communicating about expectations and performance

Part 6 – Questions to consider

Appendix: List of our relevant publications

Auditor-General’s introduction

My Office’s vision is that our work improves the performance of, and the public’s trust in, the public sector. We report independently on how taxes and rates are spent and how public entities perform. Our work on auditing all of New Zealand’s public entities gives us broad knowledge of changes happening throughout the public sector.

Through this report, we hope to use that knowledge to encourage discussion and debate about how the public sector can rise to the challenges and opportunities to deliver better services.

Being in the public service is about serving New Zealanders. Good people and good service delivery go together. Good services that deliver the best results for people and provide value for money come from entities that:

connect with people and connect services with people;

listen to and understand people’s needs and learn from feedback;

respond to changing and different needs, and put ideas into action; and

allow people to use services to help themselves.

The staff providing services are the most important resource in delivering public services. These people deliver the services, and these people can also deliver improvements. Public entities need committed and capable people with the right skills, information, and tools to deliver quality services that adapt and continuously improve to meet changing needs. This requires astute planning for capacity and capability and leaders who inspire quality service delivery through their values, actions, behaviours, and empowerment of people.

In this report, we explore the dynamic context of change in which services are delivered (Part 1). We discuss how to provide high-quality, cost-effective services that meet New Zealanders’ needs better, using examples from our audits (Parts 2 to 5). We then present our conclusions and pose some questions (Part 6). The Appendix lists the work we have drawn on. We cannot practically assess the quality of service delivery for all public services, so we have extrapolated findings from the services we looked at.

This report is the second we have produced by applying a thematic approach to offer reflections from our work on matters of importance to New Zealanders. In May 2014, I published the first report Reflections from our audits: Our future needs – is the public sector ready? The feedback I received indicated that this was useful, and we have explored the observations in that report in discussions and presentations with people throughout New Zealand.

I am keen to continue to explore the observations on Service delivery in this report. I invite your comments online at www.oag.govt.nz or in writing to reports@oag.govt.nz or PO Box 3928, Wellington 6140. If you would like me or one of my staff to visit your organisation or group to talk about this work, please email reports@oag.govt.nz or telephone 04-917 1500.

Our theme for 2015/16 is Governance and accountability, and I will report next year on our reflections about what enables effective governance and proper accountability in the public sector.

Lyn Provost
Controller and Auditor-General

8 June 2015

Part 1 – Service to New Zealanders now and in the future

1.1
In this Part, we look at the context in which public services are delivered and discuss the performance of services now and into the future. To form this view, we have drawn from information that measures New Zealand’s performance internationally, research that we commissioned,¹ and our observations from our work.

The service context

1.2
Change is constant. Global and domestic trends affect how our public services are delivered and, in the end, how they perform. This dynamic context presents significant challenges and opportunities for those delivering public services.

1.3
If services are to remain relevant and support people’s needs, they need to adapt when those needs change. This could mean using advances in technology and innovation to deliver more sophisticated and responsive services in different ways.

1.4
The factors that affect how services are delivered are important. These factors interact and overlap with each other, and we cannot treat them separately. They include:

an ageing population, which increases demand for public services such as health and superannuation;

people leaving provincial towns for cities and uneven patterns of ageing, leading to smaller and older provincial towns and larger cities with relatively young populations;

a more diverse population, with greater concentrations of ethnic groups (particularly in Auckland);

increasing expectations of public services (partly driven by technology making services, and information about their performance, more readily available), including how responsive and personalised they will be; and

financial constraints.

1.5
Together, these factors present challenges and opportunities for public entities, including working out:

what they need to do differently to ensure that public services can be provided successfully in the long term;

what scale and range of public services are needed and where;

how to use effective, efficient, and up-to-date methods to deliver services, embracing advances in technology and other innovations;

how to involve people, families, and communities in designing, planning, and delivering services;

how to use and share data and information to design, plan, and communicate about service delivery;

how to work with others to deliver connected and integrated services;

what capacity and capability public entities need to deliver services;

how best to measure service performance and benchmark services to provide accountability and inform improvements in service delivery;

what they needed to do to maintain clear and proper accountabilities for services delivered jointly; and

how to inspire and lead people to deliver good public services that keep improving.

1.6
In our December 2014 report Central government: Results of the 2013/14 audits, we noted that the Government had reaffirmed its commitment to the Better Public Services programme, which has 10 specific targets that public entities are expected to deliver by 2017. The Government expects public entities to improve how they deliver services and transform the way they work. Major components of Better Public Services include:

a focus on results;

people-centred service design and delivery;

effective spending and efficient delivery; and

building capability to deliver services in the best way.

1.7
Better Public Services was launched in March 2012. The 10 targets cover welfare, vulnerable children, skills and employment, crime, and interaction with government.

Good performance now is no guarantee for the future

1.8
Readily available and broad indicators show that, when compared internationally, most New Zealanders seem to receive good public services. In the dynamic service context, this core of good performance is an encouraging base from which public services can be improved.

1.9
Some improvements are required. Good performance now does not guarantee good performance in the future. When we wrote this report, the Productivity Commission was consulting people about its draft report More effective social services, which looks at ways to improve how public entities commission and buy social services (including health care, social care, education and training, and employment and community services) to achieve better outcomes for New Zealanders.

Most people seem to receive good public services

1.10
New Zealanders hold public services in reasonably high regard. Since 2007, the Kiwis Count Survey² has measured satisfaction with a wide range of public services. Satisfaction improved from a service quality score of 68 (out of 100) in 2007 to 74 in September 2012. It has remained fairly steady since. The average service quality score for the 42 services in the latest quarterly survey in September 2014 was 73.

1.11
Other indicators suggest that public services generally help to boost economic growth and most people’s quality of life. For example, New Zealand ranks ahead of the averages for advanced economies for most pillars in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index.³ In 2014/15, we ranked 17th out of 144 economies for all indicators.

1.12
New Zealand ranks highest for those pillars that are strongly tied to the contribution made by public services. We rank first on the quality of institutions pillar, which is based on indicators such as public trust, extent of waste in government spending, and reliability of public services. We also rank fourth for the primary education pillar.

1.13
New Zealand generally ranks among the best or above the median for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries against a range of general governance and education indicators.

The need to improve services

1.14
To ensure that all people receive good public services that they need, public services need to improve in some important aspects. Although public services perform well overall, some indicators point to pressure points where public services perform worse.

1.15
An important measure of the performance of public services is their ability to improve quality-of-life outcomes for disadvantaged people. New Zealand appears to be about the middle of the OECD rankings for the persistence of disadvantage across generations. Educational achievement is lower for children living in poverty, Māori, Pasifika, and children with special education needs. This is one of the reasons that we are carrying out a five-year programme of performance audits looking at how well our education system supports Māori students to achieve their full potential and contribute to the future prosperity of New Zealand.

1.16
New Zealand slips below the median for OECD countries for some indicators of health outcomes. Health outcomes are also persistently poorer for children in more deprived communities.

1.17
The 2013 National Integrity System Assessment for New Zealand by Transparency International highlighted the strengths of our national integrity system, which underpins good service delivery. The assessment also pointed to some weaknesses, including with how central and local government work together, which affect some services.

How service context affects some public entities and services

1.18
Our October 2013 report Using the United Nations’ Madrid indicators to better understand our ageing population noted that, in 2023, we could have more people aged 65 years or older than we have children under 15. In some regions, the proportion of residents who are over 65 will increase more quickly than in others.

1.19
When an increasing proportion of New Zealanders are on a fixed income, local authorities with the oldest populations are more likely to be the first to find it difficult to pay for community services and maintain, repair, and replace infrastructure. The Government will need to continue work on the effect on superannuation, health care, and social support care (such as home-based support services and aged residential care).

1.20
Our annual audits in the health sector show that financial sustainability is an increasing concern, given the ageing population and the public’s overall increased expectations of services. Our July 2011 report Home-based support services for older people found that the combination of increased demand, more complex support needs, and financial pressure presented significant risks to delivering home-based support services in the future.

1.21
Our annual audits show that local authorities continued to face challenging times in 2013/14. In our February 2015 report Local government: Results of the 2013/14 audits, we noted that elected members, many in office for the first time, are being asked to respond to matters of growing complexity, urgency, and consequence. Many local authorities need to make decisions about significant infrastructure investments and face pressures to “manage down” increasing operational costs and rates demands.

1.22
In our November 2014 report Water and roads: Funding and management challenges, we looked at how local authorities are managing their infrastructure assets for roading and the “three waters”: water supply, wastewater, and storm water services. Good long-term management of these assets, including funding, is vital to providing appropriate service.

1.23
In the rest of this report, we discuss other examples of how these changes affect public services and how public entities respond.

1 The research report, Changes in the delivery of public services, is available on our website at www.oag.govt.nz.

2 Detailed results for the Kiwis Count Survey are provided on the website of the State Services Commission –
www.ssc.govt.nz.

3 The Global Competitiveness Index ranks economies using 110 indicators, organised into 12 pillars.

Part 2 – Delivering good services

2.1
Our report Reflections from our audits: Our future needs – is the public sector ready? included a section “He tāngata – it’s about people”. Good public services are delivered by people who understand the importance of what they do and how they affect the lives of the people they serve. This puts public servants at the heart of delivering good services.

2.2
This Part highlights some of the aspects that allow public servants to do their best each day in delivering, adapting, and continually improving public services.

2.3
Public entities need committed and capable people with the right skills, information, and tools to deliver services. These people need to be valued, inspired, and empowered.

A culture of service

2.4
Being in the public service means serving the needs of the people. Many people join public entities because they share this purpose. In our opinion, there is a culture of service in the public sector. We observe this culture in the organisations that we audit.

Inspirational leaders

2.5
We have regular discussions with leaders in the public sector. Capable leaders are instrumental to a culture that delivers good services. Their values, actions, and behaviours inspire good service delivery. Leaders who provide clear and compelling direction focused on high-quality service delivery allow staff to do their work well. Such leaders value initiative and comments, place confidence in, trust, and energise staff, and give staff incentives.

2.6
The Department of Corrections appears to have recognised this. Although we have not audited it, we are aware that the Visible Leadership Programme in the Department of Corrections seeks to support managers to become strong, capable leaders. The Department of Corrections’ 2014 Annual Report notes that:

Our leaders will work actively with staff to engage them in creating lasting change, and ensure that we truly unify our efforts to reduce re-offending.

2.7
We also note that, in 2014, the New Zealand Police, Ministry of Social Development, New Zealand Defence Force, and Inland Revenue jointly received an Institute of Public Administration New Zealand Excellence Award for developing a leadership programme for large public entities with many branches and substantial operational service delivery requirements.

2.8
Meaningful core values inspire good service delivery. We found that the New Zealand Blood Service was managing the safety and supply of blood products well when we reported on this in February 2012, and is one of a few organisations in the world that provide a full “vein-to-vein” nationally integrated blood service. It was clear that a meaningful core value of “Safety is our cornerstone” guided a strong sense of customer care in the way the Blood Service worked.

2.9
A lack of clear and effective leadership can adversely affect services. For example, when preparing our May 2015 report Whānau Ora: The first four years, we got no consistent explanation of the aims of the Whānau Ora initiatives from the public entities involved (Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Social Development) or anyone else. So far, the objectives have been unclear and confusing to many public entities and whānau.

Committed, empathetic, and skilled staff

2.10
Throughout our work, we see highly committed and capable people working in the public sector to deliver effective and efficient public services. Our work on service delivery has highlighted examples, including:

the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) staff who showed a commitment to customer service and the principles underlying the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights that we observed as part of our work on how ACC deals with complaints;

the case managers at the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) who had made a real difference to the lives of the clients we spoke to as part of our work on how MSD’s case management;

the people helping whānau to take more control of their lives in Whānau Ora;

the staff of the New Zealand Police focusing more on the needs of people who have reported a sexual assault, on being more empathetic and showing greater respect for victims, and on what is right for the victim; and

the staff at Watercare’s customer contact centre providing advice to users of its services. (Watercare is the integrated water and wastewater service provider for the Auckland region.)

Staff able to relate well to customers

2.11
Making a personal connection with the person receiving a service can transform the service experience for that person. Staff skilled in interpersonal relations make these connections with people, and these skills go in tandem with the technical skills required to deliver good services.

2.12
Case management requires such a people-centred approach. In our December 2014 report on how MSD uses work-focused case management, we found that MSD was simplifying its processes and centralising routine transactional work to allow case managers more time with clients. MSD requires case managers to build ongoing relationships with their clients, and MSD was at an early stage in defining how case managers should engage with clients to get the best outcomes.

2.13
We recommended that MSD develop an approach to assessing and supporting case manager performance that reflects the importance of soft skills, such as effective client engagement, as well as technical skills.

2.14
In our October 2014 report on ACC’s case management, we noted that case managers have to use good judgement to make decisions that are appropriate to each person’s needs and circumstances. Technical skills can be taught, but it is also important to have the necessary “softer” skills, such as empathy and the ability to communicate. As one staff member told us, a good case manager is “someone who wants to do the job for the right reasons”.

2.15
ACC knows what skills and experience case managers need. However, specialist training in case management has been limited. ACC has introduced a programme to provide specialist training to case managers.

Training staff well

2.16
Well-trained people deliver more effective services. For example, our November 2013 report Effectiveness and efficiency of arrangements to repair pipes and roads in Christchurch found that the alliance set up to reinstate the pipes and roads the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) used highly trained specialists to develop practical solutions.

2.17
Our May 2014 report Watercare Services Limited: Review of service performance found that Watercare worked to provide its customers with good service in our view, largely successfully. For example, it has a customer contact centre that, despite technology constraints, works well. The centre’s staff are well trained and have access to a knowledge base that is up to date, clear, and concise.

Good information, systems, and tools

2.18
To provide good services, staff need to have good information, systems, and tools. Together, these help staff to deliver good services that can be targeted and tailored to people’s different needs and preferences.

Good information

2.19
Good information helps to ensure that service are delivered well. For example, our November 2014 report Water and roads: Funding and management challenges, which looked at local authorities’ management of infrastructure assets, showed how Wellington City Council uses geospatial information and statistical modelling to forecast the city’s infrastructural asset needs. The Council believes that it can generate efficiency and productivity benefits because it will be better able to choose the best time to carry out capital works and make new investments.

2.20
Poor information undermines service quality. In our report on ACC’s use of case management, we found that a person’s rehabilitation depends on the knowledge a case manager has and the decisions they make supported by ACC’s systems and information.

2.21
We recommended that ACC set out the standard possible treatment and rehabilitation steps for a given injury, based on scientific evidence, in the information systems that its case managers use. This would help ensure that claimants in similar circumstances receive consistent and effective treatment and rehabilitation, based on proven treatment and rehabilitation pathways.

2.22
In our report on MSD’s use of case management, we also found that MSD needed to improve the systems that staff use and consider how to make guidance more accessible to staff. MSD produced case management practice guides in May 2013, but staff awareness of the guides was low. MSD was providing more staff training, guidance, and support to help staff achieve the goals of the new case management approach.

Good systems

2.23
Good systems support quality service delivery. In our October 2013 report Earthquake Commission: Managing the Canterbury Home Repair Programme, we found that the Earthquake Commission had performed well in managing repair costs and setting the home-repair programme up quickly, but had not performed as well in dealing with homeowners. Some important systems, controls, and support functions should have been in place and fully effective sooner, including controls to help manage risks to repair quality. Some homeowners were dissatisfied with the quality of repairs or the time taken to complete the repairs after work had started.

2.24
Introducing new systems can be challenging, and it is important to manage their introduction well. The problems that the Ministry of Education had introducing Novopay affected many employees, including those who were not paid, underpaid, or overpaid. We summarised the main findings from some of the reviews of Novopay’s introduction in our May 2014 report Schools: Results of the 2012 audits. General lessons for introducing systems include the need for:

strong project governance and leadership to manage risks associated with “going live”;

adequate development and testing before “going live”;

good preparation for systems going live, including adequate training and support for staff; and

sound financial management to control costs.

Good tools

2.25
Good tools enable staff to deliver better services. In our August 2014 report on ACC’s handling of complaints, we found that ACC needed to better equip staff with skills, knowledge, and tools to handle complaints. Frontline staff told us that they felt equipped to deal with complaints, but most did not feel that ACC had given them the skills, knowledge, and tools to deal with complaints.

2.26
Many relied on advice and guidance from their peers when dealing with complaints. Peer support was effective, but access to information was difficult. To be effective, staff need training, a supportive network of peers to help them, and easily accessible information. Without all of these, there is a risk that complaints might not be handled consistently or with up-to-date, accurate, and reliable information.

Astute planning for capacity and capability

2.27
The biggest and most important resource in delivering public services is the staff who provide the services. These people deliver the services and can also deliver improvements.

2.28
It is important that public entities ensure that they have the right capability and number of staff to deliver effective and efficient services that meet current and future demands. This means having workforce plans and strategies, including succession planning, that reflect and support how services will be delivered in the future.

2.29
Our annual audits of local authorities show that finding and retaining some specialist staff continues to challenge. Small and medium-sized local authorities generally find this more challenging. Aspects such as location and being unable to offer competitive salaries and opportunities for career advancement can make attracting capable staff difficult.

2.30
Our April 2015 report Auckland Council: How it deals with building consents provided an example of managing capacity and capability well. Auckland Council’s Building Control department is focused on ensuring that it has the capacity and capability to meet the expected increased demand for its services. It is recruiting new graduates to replenish its ageing workforce. The Building Control department is introducing new training initiatives. It is also ensuring that all technical staff have the requisite qualifications in time to meet new regulatory requirements.

Part 3 – Connecting services for New Zealanders

3.1
Many problems that our society faces are pervasive and complex. A single organisation cannot solve them. They require public entities, and the public and private sectors, to work together purposefully to connect services.

3.2
Public entities seek to break through traditional or perceived boundaries between organisations and sectors to work together in better connected, flexible, and innovative ways. We have seen examples of this happening and where it needs to happen more.

3.3
Public sector leaders need to be good stewards of public services, looking ahead to manage and connect services between their organisations to serve people’s interests and needs well.

Meeting complex needs

3.4
People have increasingly complex health needs. Our annual audits in the health sector have shown that there is a continuing push for DHBs to work more collaboratively to connect services and provide the best, most cost-effective healthcare for patients. There is a move towards more preventative action and for patients to be treated in the community more.

3.5
Some complex needs are born out of a crisis, such as the Canterbury earthquakes. The Residential Advisory Service in Canterbury is an example of organisations working together to meet need. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), the Earthquake Commission, and the major insurers, through the Insurance Council of New Zealand, fund the Residential Advisory Service, which provides free and independent advice to Cantabrians who have problems with the Earthquake Commission or insurance claims that prevent them getting their home repaired or rebuilt.

3.6
During our work on service delivery, we found other examples where public entities needed to make better connections in delivering services.

3.7
Every day, MSD’s staff work with people with complex needs. Some of those people have high needs and require co-ordinated health, education, housing, and social services to get the best outcomes for themselves and their families. Our report on MSD’s use of case management highlights the need for MSD and other public entities to work together to help adults with the highest barriers to employment.

3.8
In our report on ACC’s use of case management, we recommended that ACC more actively manage the transfer of clients between it and other public entities to reduce the potential for people to miss out on services they are entitled to and to ensure that people are appropriately prepared for transfer to another public entity.

Working together

3.9
Public entities are working together and with others more and in different ways. This remains challenging for them.

3.10
There are many different approaches that can be taken to working together. In paragraphs 3.13-3.30, we discuss some examples from our work.

3.11
Public entities must choose an approach that fits the circumstances and includes appropriate incentives for working together, that they give adequate attention to managing relationships and risks effectively, and that they monitor and evaluate whether the intended outcomes from working together are being achieved. Having common purpose and clear objectives, being flexible and prepared to make trade-offs, and binding commitment and clear accountabilities are some aspects of working together effectively.

People working in partnerships

3.12
In the education and primary industries sectors, we are seeing partnerships between public entities and the private sector, such as the Primary Growth Partnership initiative (PGP), research partnerships, and Government Industry Agreements. Our work looking at PGP and the maturity of relationships between schools and whānau sheds some light on what makes partnerships effective.

3.13
Our February 2015 report Ministry for Primary Industries: Managing the Primary Growth Partnership looked at how well the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) was managing PGP. The objective of PGP is to encourage partnerships between the public and private sectors to increase overall investment in innovation that will ultimately lead to the economic growth and sustainability of primary sector industries. As at 30 November 2014, the Crown and industry partners had committed $680 million to PGP.

3.14
MPI took a flexible approach to setting up and managing partnerships with industry because of the diverse nature of the work and the people involved. This flexibility is appropriate. In our view, when forming new partnerships, managing new relationships in a way that fosters trust and appropriately manages risk is more important than rigidly following a set formula.

3.15
In the six PGP programmes we looked at, some partnerships appeared to work well from the beginning and others experienced difficulties. Lessons were learned along the way, some positive and some less so. The programmes showed some encouraging results. For example, a prototype fishing net had been tested that aims to harvest high-value fish in a low-fatigue, low-damage way, and seed trials led to increasing production of crops under conditions of high drought and disease stress.

3.16
Effective partnerships are founded on strong, trusting relationships. We have a programme of work to find out how well the education system supports Māori students to achieve their full potential. As part of this programme, our February 2015 report Education for Māori: Relationships between schools and whānau looked at the maturity of relationships between schools and whānau.

3.17
We surveyed 1954 Māori students/whānau and 376 primary and secondary schools to find out what they thought about their relationships. Obviously, people, not institutions, have relationships. School leaders valuing Māori, whānau, and schools working together on purposeful events, open and honest communication, and schools being aware of and considering the circumstances of whānau when contacting them and organising meetings all help to build relationships.

3.18
On the whole, school staff think that they have better relationships with whānau than whānau think they do. Many aspects affect these relationships. What people told us raised many questions – to which we do not have all the answers. Our report is a timely reminder for schools and other public entities to focus sustainably on their relationships with whānau.

People working in alliances

3.19
In our November 2013 report Effectiveness and efficiency of arrangements to repair pipes and roads in Christchurch, part of a series on the Canterbury recovery, we looked at how effectively and efficiently CERA, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and Christchurch City Council were reinstating horizontal infrastructure through SCIRT. This contract to rebuild the roads and underground water, wastewater, and stormwater pipes in Christchurch is one of the most significant and complex contracts in the Canterbury recovery.

3.20
We concluded that the choice of an alliance (a mixed team of public and private organisations working together) to reinstate the horizontal infrastructure in Christchurch was a good fit with the post-earthquake situation in Canterbury and provided a useful way to manage the risks in a suitable way.

3.21
SCIRT’s design showed many of the good practice characteristics of an alliance. It had sound business systems that create operational efficiencies. Highly trained specialists came up with practical solutions, and projects were scoped well.

3.22
However, CERA, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and Christchurch City Council had no common understanding of levels of service. The public entities funding the alliance did not give enough guidance for SCIRT to know what services to deliver and where, for the most effective and efficient rebuilding and repair of infrastructure.

Sharing services

3.23
Sharing services, including “back office” services, is one way public entities seek to be effective and efficient. Some of the drivers for sharing services include sharing and building expertise, removing duplication, increasing efficiency, and reducing costs. Defining the expected benefits and evaluating whether they are achieved is important in sharing services successfully.

3.24
Our annual audits in the health sector have shown a significant increase in collaborative working and shared service arrangements in recent years, reflecting increasing financial pressures and an emphasis on efficiencies. For example, healthAlliance N.Z. Limited (healthAlliance) was originally set up in 2000 by Counties Manukau District Health Board and Waitemata District Health Board to provide back-office functions (including procurement, supply chain, finance, information systems, and payroll processing) to release funding for frontline patient care. The scale of healthAlliance’s operations has now expanded.

3.25
Our November 2013 report Regional services planning in the health sector showed that the health sector needs to work more collaboratively to deliver services. In 2011, changes were introduced to encourage regional services planning. DHBs were expected to plan to deliver services together to reduce service vulnerability, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care. We found some signs of success, but not as much progress as expected. Collaboration in and between district health boards worked best where there was a combination of trust, good leadership, financial incentives, and a strong common cause. Our recommendations included that the Ministry of Health and district health boards work together to prepare an evaluation framework and use it to work out whether regional services planning is having the intended effects.

3.26
In our annual audits of local authorities, we see examples of local authorities sharing services. For example, the various local authorities in Wellington are combining their respective economic development budgets to fund a Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency. The objective is to provide a more consistent and co-ordinated focus on economic development in the region.

3.27
Wellington Water, the council-controlled organisation that maintains the infrastructural assets of Hutt City Council and Wellington City Council, has been reformed and is broadening its role to provide asset management planning services to the local authorities. It has extended its geographical coverage to the Porirua, Upper Hutt, and Greater Wellington councils.

3.28
In June 2014, we issued Setting up Central Agencies Shared Services. Central Agencies Shared Services (CASS) was set up to provide internal human resources, information management, information technology, and financial services to the Treasury, the State Services Commission, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

3.29
Important aspects of the change were not done well. CASS had benefited the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in particular, through some important improvements in services, but CASS was not yet consistently providing services that users expected. CASS needed to work further to provide more effective services and find a balance between standardised services and being flexible enough to appropriately accommodate the differences between the central agencies.

3.30
Not enough baseline data was collected at the outset to inform the change management plans and measure the performance of CASS. This is a useful lesson for public entities.

Leading good stewardship

3.31
Leaders of public entities have an important role in purposefully connecting services together to meet complex needs seamlessly and sustainably. They are the stewards of public services and need to look outward, beyond organisation boundaries, and over the long term to serve people well.

3.32
Some changes to encourage connections between public entities have been introduced throughout government.

3.33
Although we have not audited them, we are aware of examples of stewardship between public entities in the justice sector.

3.34
The Justice Sector Leadership Board, set up in 2011, is responsible for improving performance throughout the justice system, co-ordinating the major change programmes under way, and collectively planning to modernise the sector, to reduce costs, to improve services, and to further enhance public safety. The Secretary for Justice chairs the Justice Sector Leadership Board, which comprises the chief executives of the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Justice, and the Department of Corrections and is supported by a Sector Group in the Ministry of Justice.

3.35
The Hutt Valley Innovation Project is an example of the justice sector working together in an effort to reduce the frequency and effects of crime. Between September 2012 and December 2013, frontline service providers collaborated on 10 initiatives. In its 2013/14 Annual Report, the Ministry of Justice reported that, since June 2011, total recorded crime in the Hutt Valley had dropped, prison sentences had decreased, and the District Courts were managing fewer cases and reducing the time needed to resolve cases.

3.36
The Ministry of Justice also reported that the project has since been rolled out to three locations: the East Coast, Papakura, and Hamilton. Justice sector agencies in each area were working together, and with other social sector public entities, to find local solutions to address problems such as alcohol abuse and family violence.

3.37
We have also reported on examples of stewardship improving in public entities’ planning for long-term management of services and assets. In our November 2014 report Water and roads: Funding and management challenges, which looked at local authorities’ management of infrastructure assets, we were pleased to note a greater focus on long-term planning in central and local government. Examples include the National Infrastructure Unit in the Treasury preparing a National Infrastructure Plan and Local Government New Zealand’s Three Waters project work.

3.38
In our report on MSD’s use of case management, we found that a more outward and cross-agency perspective was needed. We recommended that MSD use its role on the Social Sector Board to encourage the development of an inter-agency response to help working-age adults with the greatest complex needs into work.

3.39
For our part, we have for many years supported Auditors-General from Pacific countries. Recently, they have worked co-operatively to audit environmental problems facing their countries. This work has highlighted the importance of working together to tackle such complex, long-term problems. The most recent co-operative audit looks at strategies for tackling climate change impacts.

3.40
The countries of the Pacific are among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Rising sea-levels, cyclones, tsunamis, food security, and coastal erosion are real threats. Although all countries in the Pacific are exposed to the threats of climate change, their vulnerabilities are not uniform – one size does not fit all.

3.41
The regional overview report from the co-operative audit found that, overall, the audited Pacific Island governments do not have adequately funded or planned responses to adapt to the short-term and long-term negative effects of climate change. Co-ordination between the many public entities responsible for climate change adaptation policies and actions, including funding co-ordination through national financial management systems, is fragmented. Some countries are addressing the findings of the audits. For example, the state of Kosrae in the Federated States of Micronesia has finalised a disaster and preparedness plan.

Part 4 – Putting ideas into action

4.1
Innovative ideas that meet citizens’ expectations and needs, and that have been put into action well, deliver responsive public services. Ideas need to be based on a sound understanding of citizens’ changing and different needs and expectations. Putting ideas into action well includes enabling people to use services to help themselves, innovating, and challenging traditions to do things differently.

Recognising different and changing needs

4.2
People have different needs, and inequalities in service provision and poor outcomes persist for Māori, Pasifika, and low-income households, particularly in education, health, and social development.

4.3
People’s needs are changing. The ageing population and shifts in population away from provincial towns to cities are affecting the need for, and (together with ongoing fiscal constraints) the affordability of, services. These are global trends and not just a New Zealand problem. Effects in New Zealand include more demand for affordable housing in Auckland and populations declining in some towns in rural New Zealand.

4.4
Alongside these different and changing needs, people’s expectations of public services are changing. People expect better services and more choices. Technology enables people to be ever better informed and raises their expectations for responsive and personalised services.

4.5
A one-size-fits-all approach might not be effective. Public entities need to consider whether to provide different services to different people in different locations by:

targeting public services more tightly to people with the greatest need and for whom the benefits will be the greatest; and

tailoring public services to match people’s expectations and preferences.

4.6
In our work, we saw examples of services being targeted and tailored. These examples ranged from Watercare introducing monthly billing that helps customers to manage their expenses to MSD tailoring its case management to support people in a more targeted way. MSD was focusing more intensively on those clients who need more support to achieve greater financial independence. Overall, MSD’s case management was serving most clients well, while reducing its overall case management costs in real terms.

4.7
A one-size-fits-all approach does not consider people’s individual circumstances. Watercare adopted a one-size-fits-all approach in the early stages of its debt recovery process.

4.8
Targeting and tailoring services does not mean being inconsistent. Services should be consistent for those people they are targeted at or tailored for. ACC claimants told us of inconsistencies in ACC’s case management services, and they considered that the quality of service that case managers provided varied significantly. Case managers’ different approaches to accessibility, empathy, and tailored communication significantly influence how people perceive ACC’s case management.

Helping people to help themselves

4.9
Recipients of public services should be placed at the centre of service design and delivery so that services enable people who use them to help themselves. This means moving away from public services designed by the public entity that delivers them, that can mean a one-size-fits-all model, to involving recipients of public services in planning and delivering services. There are big challenges for public entities to provide targeted, tailored and differentiated services that are led and driven by the needs of citizens and communities. Not least because a citizen-directed approach requires public entities to give up some control over how their resources are used and requires relationships based on high trust.

4.10
Whānau Ora is an example of innovation and new thinking in service delivery. Whānau Ora was an opportunity for providers of health and social services in the community to operate differently and to support families in deciding their best way forward.

4.11
Whānau Ora has been a success for many families who now have a plan to improve their lives. For example, some whānau are working towards getting their young people living and working on their ancestral land. The government spending to achieve that has been small, but the importance for the whānau is significant. Bringing whānau members together to prepare plans seems to have led to gains that are wider than the plans themselves.

4.12
Many providers of different health and social services in the community have been supported to form “collectives”, so people can get easier access to a range of services. These providers have also been supported to move from a focus on individuals to a focus on whānau. Some providers have employed people to work intensively with whānau and help them move from crisis to resilience.

4.13
These are positive changes. However, the providers are mainly required by their contracts with government agencies to deliver services to individuals. When we did our work, the Ministries of Health and Social Development had no plans to change to a funding model that would take advantage of the effort and
$68 million paid to providers to help them shift to whānau-centred service delivery. The signals that different parts of government send are, at best, mixed.

4.14
The Department of Corrections provides rehabilitation programmes to offenders that are designed to reduce reoffending. These programmes are another and different kind of example of a public entity putting people at the centre of the design and delivering activities intended to enable them to help themselves. We reported on how well the Department of Corrections was providing these programmes as part of our December 2013 report Department of Corrections: Managing offenders to reduce reoffending.

4.15
We found that the Department assesses offenders to work out how likely they are to reoffend and identify the criminal characteristics that contribute to their offending. This assessing determines how the offenders are managed. All offenders have a numeracy and literacy assessment and are screened for alcohol and drug problems. Also, all adult male offenders receive a mental health assessment. These assessments are used to prepare an offender plan that includes rehabilitation programmes and activities intended to address the offender’s needs.

Innovating

4.16
Innovating is about taking a disciplined and structured approach to putting ideas into action, moving fast to test and adapt ideas so that they are put into action successfully, and acknowledging that some will fail. There are a number of techniques and tools that can be used to help with innovating. Good evaluation, using quick and constant feedback about how successful ideas are in achieving improvements, is a critical part of innovating. In Part 6, we discuss further how feedback and analysing performance offer valuable insights into what is working well for people and what can be changed to improve service.

4.17
Through our work, we are aware of some examples of innovation.

4.18
MSD’s Service Delivery Learning Initiative ran from May to November 2014 at the Ministry’s Durham Street site in Christchurch and tested new and innovative ideas and strategies to improve how people access the services and support they need from MSD, regardless of how they make initial contact. Staff from different services worked together to provide integrated solutions. MSD is now working to incorporate the lessons it learned from the initiative into a new operating model and the design of future service delivery.

4.19
Lincoln University is working with DairyNZ, AgResearch, Landcare Research, Plant and Food Research, and others to set up an agricultural research and innovation hub in Lincoln. The hub is expected to bring together public research and agribusiness organisations to share information and ideas that drive education, science, and innovation.

Creating an environment where innovation can take place

4.20
To promote innovation, public entities need to develop a culture that supports new approaches to how services are delivered. Many of the best ideas to improve service delivery come from the staff who deliver those services. Although risks need to be managed, public entities have to ensure that staff are not afraid of failing.

4.21
In our February 2015 report Ministry for Primary Industries: Managing the Primary Growth Partnership, we noted that innovation cannot be a “paint by numbers” exercise. Our audit took this into account.

4.22
Taking a reasonable risk and picking up lessons quickly requires an entrepreneurship skill set – a characteristic more often ascribed to the private rather than the public sector. In particular, it demands people who can see opportunity and make it happen. It also requires mechanisms that help break down barriers to innovation caused by siloed and hierarchical organisations, such as by building effective networks for innovators.

4.23
Traditionally, larger organisations can move into a siloed approach or structure to carry out their business. Breaking down these potential barriers will help inter-organisational learning and innovation. Organisations need to learn from their own good practices and share what they learn not only internally but also more widely in the public sector.

4.24
In our report on MSD’s use of case management, we found that many clients miss their appointments with case managers. MSD needs to find ways to minimise missed appointments, because the opportunity cost is high. It could learn from other organisations that have appointment systems and look to innovate in the way it engages with clients.

Innovation using technology

4.25
One way to innovate and adapt services is by using technology, including social media. Our June 2013 report Learning from public entities’ use of social media showed that leadership was important in getting organisations to innovate using social media. We found that senior leaders who responded to our survey who were active in social media for personal purposes also tended to be active in social media for business purposes. Good risk management, integrating social media with current ways of delivering services, and measuring achievements were also important success factors.

4.26
Our report highlighted examples where organisations were using social media to innovate in delivering services.

4.27
The Ministry of Health met a specific need for breastfeeding mothers who needed advice by providing an interactive Facebook page and supporting an online community group.

4.28
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust took an innovative approach to updating its online register of historic places, which had few images of historic places. By using images submitted by an online community, images on the register were increased to cover about 90% of historic places.

4.29
We have reported on, and are aware of, other examples of innovation using technology.

4.30
In our November 2013 report Effectiveness and efficiency of arrangements to repair pipes and roads in Christchurch, we found that SCIRT was delivering more than construction work. It was aiming to lift the capability of the construction sector workforce, improve the resilience of infrastructure, and foster innovation. The Pipe Damage Assessment Tool is an example of an innovation SCIRT developed. This tool provided a reliable and accurate desktop method for predicting the condition of earthquake-damaged pipes, saving time and money. SCIRT also achieved efficiencies by customising the software application it uses for computer-aided design and drafting.

4.31
The health sector is increasingly sharing information to provide better services for patients. For example, technological developments in DHBs have included patient portals for patients to access their health information, book appointments, or communicate directly with their general practitioner. The disruption to health services by the Canterbury earthquakes accelerated the introduction of a secure, online patient record system, which enables health professionals in Canterbury to share patient information.

4.32
The Police use mobile technology and data analytics to enable more effective and efficient policing. For example, the Police are using more than 10,000 smartphones and tablets. These help with tasking of police officers, record completion, and communication with victims.

4.33
Inland Revenue has developed an app to help small businesses more easily comply with their GST obligations.

4.34
Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited (the State-owned air navigation service provider), the Civil Aviation Authority, Callaghan Innovation, and UAVNZ (a Division of the Aviation Industry Association of New Zealand) have collaborated to create the airshare website (www.airshare.co.nz), where people can find information about how to operate Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (drones) safely, including how to plan drone flights and request access to controlled airspace.

4.35
Selwyn District Council has set up an end-to-end, web-based building consent system.

Taking on challenges

4.36
New ways of working do not change the core values and principles that trusted, high-integrity public services must have. However, changes in public service delivery can challenge how we think about accountability, transparency, privacy, equity, and trust. It is important that these are not forgotten or compromised. Equally, they should not impede change.

4.37
Some of the challenges that need to be understood and resolved are:

ensuring that there is clear accountability when public entities working together share or deliver services; and

opening up access to information to meet citizens’ demands for greater openness and transparency from government and enable organisations to work together better.

Part 5 – Listening, learning, and communicating

5.1
Understanding how services are experienced and performing is important for identifying how they can be continuously improved. Listening to, and learning from, feedback from people receiving services and analysing performance offers valuable insights into what is working well for people and what can be changed to improve service. Public entities also need to provide information to people about what they can expect from services and how well services are performing to manage expectations and help to understand service performance.

Listening to people’s comments

5.2
People’s views are important, and listening to people about their service experiences, both positive and negative, is vital to understanding people’s needs and expectations, and, where appropriate, adapting services to meet them. Public services are about serving the public, and public entities need to regularly “check in” to ensure that they are providing services that are effective and of the quality people can reasonably expect.

5.3
How an organisation manages complaints is a useful barometer of its commitment to service delivery that meets people’s needs. Public entities that welcome complaints signal to citizens that someone is listening to them and that they can influence public services. For the entities, complaints are a free source of advice. Complaints can provide valuable insight into poor service, systemic errors, or problems with specific processes. Complaints also give public entities an opportunity to understand the motives, feelings, and expectations of the people using their services.

5.4
Organisations committed to delivering excellent services that meet people’s needs embrace complaints. Complaints must be easy to make, consistently recorded, thoughtfully analysed, openly reported, and acted on.

5.5
As part of our work on ACC’s and MSD’s handling of complaints and use of case management, we sought views from many people about their experiences through face-to-face interviews. For our work on ACC’s and MSD’s handling of complaints we also sought complainant views through telephone surveys. We got a real sense of how important ACC’s and MSD’s services were to those people and what a significant effect the services have on their lives.

5.6
Our August 2014 report on ACC’s handling of complaints found room for improvement in ACC’s complaints system. Organisational learning from complaints was limited and some significant problems with ACC’s complaints system had to be addressed, including a need for ACC to do more to understand how people experienced the complaints system and why some people do not complain.

5.7
Our August 2014 report on MSD’s handling of complaints found many positive features to how MSD manages complaints, such as making it reasonably easy for people to complain and changing some practices as a result of complaints. For example, MSD used information from complaints and other analysis to prepare materials to help train and coach staff and to change the design of an office to make things more comfortable for people receiving services.

5.8
We are aware of other examples of organisations seeking feedback about their services.

5.9
The Tax Simplification Panel is an example of how Inland Revenue is seeking to engage with its customers. We have not audited the Panel but are aware that it first met in August 2014. It seeks to give individual taxpayers, small businesses, and the tax advisory community a voice in simplifying, modernising, and transforming the way tax is paid.

5.10
Another Inland Revenue initiative we are aware of is the pilot Save Time campaign in the Hawkes Bay in May 2014. In response to this campaign, Inland Revenue received more than 1400 submissions and about 300 individual suggestions for improvement from small business owners, which were to be used to prioritise, develop, and deliver changes.

Learning from information and experience

5.11
Analysing data and using information effectively are powerful ways of learning and improving service, organisation, and system performance.

Using and learning from information at service and organisation level

5.12
Our report on MSD’s use of case management found that MSD had some innovative methods for assessing whether its spending gets the best return for taxpayers by getting the best outcomes.

5.13
MSD is still developing these methods of assessment, but they provide useful information. Good information is important because MSD wants to continue making evidence-based decisions about further changes to its case management approach to improve cost-effectiveness.

5.14
Our report looking at local authorities’ approaches to managing infrastructure assets found that councillors and communities need good information so they can understand and make choices about the services that are important for their future. Information to enable understanding and choices is not consistently available.

5.15
Our February 2015 report Education for Māori: Relationships between schools and whānau found that schools should periodically assess the quality of their relationships with all families, not only whānau. Doing so is one way to show schools where they are doing well and where they can improve.

Using information to improve system performance

5.16
Although public entities can measure their performance at an organisational level, it is less common for organisations to work together to understand and act on performance at a sector or system level. We are aware of examples where this is starting to happen, such as New Zealand’s border agencies working together and with others at Auckland Airport to manage security, reduce queues, and save travel time for passengers, including through using technology. Sharing information between public entities can give help to clarify service needs and performance.

5.17
As public entities collaborate more, measuring performance between public entities will become more relevant. Sharing, using and making data and information available will enable public entities to collectively understand and improve service performance, and deliver the best services – for example, delivering more joined-up and citizen-centred services that are appropriately targeted and tailored so that they meet citizens’ needs and expectations. There is also the opportunity to gain efficiencies with a more joined-up approach to gathering and using research and performance data, within the constraints of preserving privacy and complying with legislation.

5.18
At the centre of a government’s ability to learn and know when to change course is the ability to understand the “big picture”. Recent evaluation mechanisms that are harnessing information to help system-level learning include:

the State Sector Policy and Performance Hub set up to provide system oversight and enhance central agencies’ ability to identify improvements needed to make the state sector system work better; and

the Performance Improvement Framework reviews, co-ordinated by the State Services Commission, which provide an evaluation mechanism for public entities to understand how they are performing.

Communicating about expectations and performance

5.19
People should know what to expect from services and also how well services are performing so they can judge whether they are being served well. Public entities should provide people with timely and appropriate information.

5.20
We have observed examples of public entities providing improved information and where communication has not been as good as it could be and needs to be improved.

5.21
Our work with education entities has shown some areas of improved performance reporting. Improving performance reporting takes resources and expertise. However, if done well, it can greatly enhance governance and management practice to deliver better services as well as inform people better. In October 2014, we sent all Tertiary Education Institutions (TEIs) our summary findings on their non-financial performance reporting. We found that:

the quality of TEIs’ performance reporting is improving each year, although there is some significant variation between individual institutions;

people in the TEI sector are looking beyond compulsory reporting to thinking about, and reporting on, how service performance reporting can represent the comprehensive effects that TEIs aim to have on their students, in their research, and on wider society;

annual reports increasingly contain narrative and explanations about TEIs’ performance; and

some of the “basics” of good performance reporting have yet to be used consistently.

5.22
Examples where communication has not been as good as it could be and needs to be improved include:

Our October 2013 report Earthquake Commission: Managing the Canterbury Home Repair Programme noted that homeowners have experienced inconsistency in information and processes, and long periods without specific information from the Earthquake Commission about their claim, leading to a lack of certainty while waiting for repairs. The Commission has made some improvements to its communication since our report.

Our May 2014 report Watercare Services Limited: Review of service performance noted that Watercare should provide its customers with better information about how it operates, particularly in relation to its water usage estimation process and water restriction policy and practices, and what customers can expect so that customers have all the information they need to understand their rights and obligations, and what they can expect from Watercare.

Our April 2015 report Auckland Council: How it deals with building consents noted a large gap between what the Council’s Building Control department expects and what customers believe is expected of them, suggesting that communication with customers is not as good as it should be.

Our February 2015 report Ministry for Primary Industries: Managing the Primary Growth Partnership noted that more is required to achieve clear, simple, and understandable public reporting on individual programmes and the PGP portfolio.

Part 6 – Questions to consider

6.1
Although the public sector delivers reasonably good public services for most people, there is no room for complacency in the face of people’s rising expectations and rapidly changing and increasingly complex needs. To serve everyone well, the public sector needs to build on its strengths and embrace the opportunities presented by the information-rich, technology-driven, and joined-up modern environment, enabling services to be delivered in varied, innovative, and more cost-effective ways.

6.2
Our public sector has many strengths to build on. The committed people who work in it are one of its biggest advantages. As a country, we are often viewed by others as innovative and resourceful, with a great willingness to do things differently.

6.3
The personal connections between people make the difference between a mediocre service experience and an exceptional service experience. Public entities need committed and capable people with the right skills, training, information, and tools to deliver good services. These people need to be inspired and empowered by leaders who value initiative, place trust and confidence in them, and listen to, and learn from, the experiences of those they provide services to.

6.4
There are always challenges. The strengths of public entities mean that they are prepared to meet these challenges and to work together and with others in different ways to deliver the highest quality of public services possible into the future. We hope that these questions for public sector leaders and people working in and with public entities will encourage discussion about how the public sector can rise to the challenges and opportunities of the future. These 12 questions are not exhaustive and might prompt others:

What can you do differently to ensure long-term successful delivery of public services?

What scale and range of services are needed in different places across New Zealand?

How can public entities transform delivery of services through digital working, to bring a “step change” in services?

How can you involve and empower people, families, and communities in designing, planning, and delivering services?

How can you use and share data and information to design, plan, and communicate about service delivery?

How can public entities share, use, and make available information that enables their people to deliver the best services?

How should public entities work together and with others to deliver connected and integrated services?

How can public entities work successfully with the private and voluntary sector to meet changing public service needs, collectively making best use of their capacity and capability to deliver value for money?

What is needed to maintain clear and proper accountabilities for services delivered jointly?

What are the best measures of service performance and how should services be benchmarked to provide accountability and inform improvements in service delivery?

What future capacity and capability do public entities need to deliver really good services?

How can public sector leaders inspire and lead people to deliver high-performing and continuously improving public services?

6.5
Delivering public services also relies on good governance and proper accountability, which is the focus of our theme for 2015/16. There are important principles to governance and accountability that public entities should act on consistently. We will report our reflections on these principles next year.

Appendix: List of our relevant publications

We list here the reports relevant to our Service delivery theme. In writing this report, we also used information gained through our regular discussions with public entities and through review of material published by public entities.

Performance audits and special studies

Whānau Ora: The first four years (May 2015)

Education for Māori: Relationships between schools and whānau (February 2015)

Response of the New Zealand Police to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct: Fourth monitoring report (February 2015)

Ministry for Primary Industries: Managing the Primary Growth Partnership (February 2015)

Ministry of Social Development: Using a case management approach to service delivery (December 2014)

Water and roads: Funding and management challenges (November 2014)

Accident Compensation Corporation: Using a case management approach to rehabilitation (October 2014)

Accident Compensation Corporation: How it deals with complaints (August 2014)

Ministry of Social Development: How it deals with complaints (August 2014)

Setting up Central Agencies Shared Services (June 2014)

Department of Corrections: Managing offenders to reduce reoffending (December 2013)

Regional services planning in the health sector (November 2013)

Effectiveness and efficiency of arrangements to repair pipes and roads in Christchurch (November 2013)

Earthquake Commission: Managing the Canterbury Home Repair Programme (October 2013)

Using the United Nations’ Madrid indicators to better understand our ageing population (October 2013)

Learning from public entities’ use of social media (June 2013)

New Zealand Blood Service: Managing the safety and supply of blood products (February 2012)

Home-based support services for older people (July 2011)

Results of our annual audits and reviews of service performance

Auckland Council: How it deals with building consents (April 2015)

Local government: Results of the 2013/14 audits (February 2015)

Central government: Results of the 2013/14 audits (December 2014)

Challenges facing licensing trusts (October 2014)

Continuing to improve how you report on your TEI’s service performance (October 2014)

Watercare Services Limited: Review of service performance (May 2014)

Health sector: Results of the 2012/13 audits (May 2014)

Schools: Results of the 2012 audits (May 2014)