Report Template

Report to/Rapport au :

Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique

and Council / et au Conseil

16 January 2007 / le 16 janvier 2007

Submitted by/Soumis par : Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager/

Directeur des services municipaux

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Bob Hertzog, Chief Corporate Planning & Performance Reporting Officer

Corporate Planning/Planification d’ensemble

(613) 580-2424 x23971, Bob.Hertzog@ottawa.ca

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2006-CMR-OCM-0014

SUBJECT:	2005 OMBI PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING

OBJET :	ANALYSE COMPARATIVE DU RENDEMENT DE L’IACSM DE 2005

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee at its meeting on January 16 and Council at its meeting on January 24 receive the attached report and refer it for further review and discussion at individual standing committee meetings beginning the week of January 29.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des services organisationnels et du développement économique, à sa réunion du 16 janvier, et le Conseil municipal, à sa réunion du 24 janvier, reçoivent le rapport ci-joint et le renvoient pour examen approfondi et discussion à leurs réunions respectives à partir de la semaine du 29 janvier.

BACKGROUND

In March 2006 Council approved a City of Ottawa Performance Measurement and Reporting Framework (ACS2005-CMR-OCM-0003). The Performance Measurement and Reporting Framework focuses Council, citizens, and City management and staff on outcomes and results. It will provide stakeholders with information about how well the City is doing compared to approved plans and on performance trends over time.

Implementation of this framework is now underway. The first reporting component to be implemented was the Annual Report. In June 2006 the City of Ottawa issued its 2005 Annual Report, Making it Clear (ACS2006-CMR-OCM-0007), which provided a description of the City’s progress in meeting its goals. Council has also started to receive Quarterly Performance Reports, which include key measures for a cross section of branches that deliver services to the public of high interest to Councillors. The Report on Q3 2006 is being presented to Council in January 2007.

The City’s participation in the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) is a significant part of the Performance Measurement and Reporting Framework, and the focus of this report. OMBI is a collaboration of 15 municipalities, including Ottawa, representing 72% of Ontario’s population. Its purpose is to measure and report on the performance of selected services for each participating municipality, and encourage/support further analysis to determine potential service improvements and share best practices.

CONTEXTE

En mars 2006, le Conseil adoptait le Plan de mesure et d’évaluation du rendement de la Ville d’Ottawa (ACS2005-CMR-OCM-0003). Ce plan permet d’attirer l’attention du Conseil, des citoyens, des gestionnaires et du personnel de la Ville sur les résultats. Il fournira aux intervenants de l’information sur les réalisations de la Ville par rapport aux plans approuvés et sur l’évolution du rendement avec le temps.

Ce plan est actuellement en cours d’implantation. La première composante à être implantée a été le rapport annuel. En juin 2006, la Ville d’Ottawa publiait son rapport annuel pour 2005, intitulé « Clarifier nos objectifs » (ACS2006-CMR-OCM-0007), dans lequel elle décrivait les progrès réalisés par la Ville dans l’atteinte de ses objectifs. Le Conseil a également commencé à recevoir des rapports trimestriels sur le rendement, lesquels comportent les principales mesures pour un échantillon représentatif de directions qui assurent la prestation de services au public et qui intéressent particulièrement les conseillers. Le Rapport trimestriel sur le rendement du troisième trimestre de 2006 sera présenté au Conseil en janvier 2007.

La participation de la Ville à l’Initiative d’analyse comparative des services municipaux (IACSM) est une importante partie du Plan de mesure et d’évaluation du rendement, ainsi que le centre d’intérêt de ce rapport. L’IACSM est une collaboration de 15 municipalités, y compris Ottawa, représentant 72 % de la population de l’Ontario. Elle a pour but de mesurer et d’évaluer le rendement de certains services pour chaque municipalité participante, ainsi que d’encourager/ appuyer d’autres analyses en vue de déterminer les améliorations possibles aux services et d’échanger les meilleures pratiques.

DISCUSSION

Two separate but related OMBI documents are being presented via this report – the OMBI 2005 Benchmarking Report issued by the OMBI project office and a City of Ottawa report on its 2005 OMBI results entitled “Where We Stand”. Both these reports include OMBI performance measures for the year 2005. The data was collected in the spring of 2006 and analyzed during the summer and fall. Of all the OMBI measures on which municipalities reported, the OMBI project office selected a relatively limited number to be included in its common public report. However, each participating OMBI municipality has the option to report on additional measures, to create its own municipal OMBI report containing those measures of most relevance to the individual municipality. This is what Ottawa has done.

Another reason for a separate Ottawa report is to provide additional insight and commentary to enhance the understanding of Ottawa’s results, and more specifically to add context regarding any special factors affecting Ottawa’s data.

The two documents are:

2005 Performance Benchmarking Report

This is the OMBI project office common report on 2005 OMBI results, with 69 measures covering 12 service areas.

Where We Stand

This is the City of Ottawa’s first OMBI report. It contains 61 performance measures from the OMBI common report, plus an additional 51 measures of particular relevance to the City. Twenty-one City services are covered.

DISCUSSION

Deux types de documents de l’IACSM qui sont tout de même reliés sont présentés par l’intermédiaire de ce rapport : le Rapport de 2005 sur l’analyse comparative de l’IACSM, publié par le bureau de projet de l’IACSM, et un rapport de la Ville d’Ottawa sur les résultats de l’IACSM de 2005 intitulé « Où nous en sommes ». Ces deux rapports incluent les mesures du rendement de l’IACSM pour l’année 2005. Les données ont été recueillies au printemps 2006 et ont été analysées au cours de l’été et de l’automne. De toutes les mesures de l’IACSM sur lesquelles les municipalités ont fait rapport, le bureau de projet de l’IACSM en a choisi un nombre assez restreint à inclure dans son rapport public courant. Toutefois, chaque municipalité de l’IACSM participante a le choix de faire rapport sur d’autres mesures dans le but de créer son propre rapport municipal sur l’IACSM qui contiendra les mesures les plus pertinentes pour la municipalité en particulier. C’est ce qu’a fait la Ville d’Ottawa.

Donner un meilleur aperçu et apporter d’autres commentaires dans le but d’améliorer la compréhension des résultats de la Ville d’Ottawa et, plus particulièrement, contextualiser davantage tout facteur particulier ayant une incidence sur les données de la Ville sont d’autres raisons qui ont justifié la rédaction d’un rapport distinct pour Ottawa.

Voici les deux documents :

Rapport de 2005 sur l’analyse comparative du rendement

Il s’agit du rapport courant du bureau de projet de l’IACSM sur les résultats 2005 de l’IACSM. Il contient 69 mesures couvrant 12 secteurs de service.

Où nous en sommes

Il s’agit du premier rapport de la Ville d’Ottawa sur l’IACSM. Il contient les 61 mesures du rendement découlant du rapport courant sur l’IACSM et 51 autres mesures particulièrement pertinentes pour la Ville. Vingt-et-un services de la Ville sont couverts.

CONSULTATION

No specific public consultations were undertaken for the preparation of this report and the two documents reporting on 2005 OMBI results.

CONSULTATION

Il n’y a eu aucune consultation publique particulière pour la préparation de ce rapport et des deux documents évaluant les résultats 2005 de l’IACSM.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications.

RÉPERCUSSIONS FINANCIÈRES

Il n’y a pas de répercussions financières.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1: Where We Stand–OMBI–City of Ottawa–2005 Performance Benchmarking Report

Document 2: OMBI 2005 Performance Benchmarking Report

DOCUMENTATION À L’APPUI

Document 1 : Où nous en sommes – IACSM – Rapport d’analyse comparative sur le rendement 2005 de la Ville d'Ottawa

Document 2 : Rapport sur l’analyse comparative du rendement de l’IACSM de 2005 (disponible en anglais seulement)

DISPOSITION

Document 1 will be available to citizens electronically in PDF format (currently) and HTML format (later in January 2007) from our website (Ottawa.ca). Document 2 is available using the “OMBI” link on the Ottawa.ca website but is available only in English, and in PDF format. Both documents are available in printed format upon request.

DÉCISION

Le Document 1 sera mis à la disposition des citoyens par voie électronique en format PDF (actuellement) et HTML (plus tard en janvier 2007) sur notre site Web (Ottawa.ca). Le Document 2 est disponible en utilisant le lien de « l’IACSM » sur le site web Ottawa.ca, mais il est disponible seulement en anglais, et en format « PDF ». Les deux documents sont disponibles en format papier sur demande.

2005 ombi performance benchmarking

ANALYSE COMPARATIVE DU RENDEMENT DE L’IACSM DE 2005

ACS2006-CMR-OCM-0014 city-wide / À l’Échelle de la ville

Mr. K. Kirkpatrick, City Manager, provided some introductory comments, noting that staff had been working on the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) for the past 12 months and that it was one of the planks of the City’s accountability platform and framework. He touched on the next steps with respect to the OMBI initiative and the timing of the report in terms of the upcoming budget process. He then introduced Mr. B. Hertzog, Chief Corporate Planning & Performance Reporting Officer, Corporate Planning and Performance Reporting Branch, City Manager’s Office, who spoke to a PowerPoint slide presentation that served to provide the Committee with an overview of the Quarterly Performance Report for July to September 2006 as well as the 2005 Ombi Performance Benchmarking report. A copy of his presentation is held on file.

Councillor McRae thanked staff for the “Where We Stand” report and the companion OMBI document, which she felt were very helpful, and she inquired as to staff’s ability to respond to questions today. Mr. Hertzog offered to respond to any questions pertaining to over-all results or trends. However, he suggested questions with respect to specific measures should be directed to the various Branch Directors at the Standing Committee meetings.

Responding to questions and comments from Councillor McRae with respect to specific service areas, he suggested there was a story behind many of the measures highlighted in the report and that it was difficult to look at them in isolation. He indicated each section within the report contained an explanation of the factors influencing the results and that, in making their presentations to Standing Committees, each Branch director would speak to each area where performance is below the median and respond to specific questions on same.

Councillor Deans indicated she was very keen on these reports. She felt the key would be to learn from other municipalities in order to improve in those areas where the City of Ottawa does not measure up. She wondered if there would be a corporate interpretation of what the report means and if so, who would undertake that task and tell Council where other municipalities were doing things better and what the City of Ottawa could learn from them. Mr. Kirkpatrick suggested it was important to spend time understanding what the measures say and what’s behind them. He noted that explanations and information were included in each of the report’s sections and he believed these would be very helpful and he indicated he felt strongly about the idea of each Standing Committee having more in-depth discussions about the various service measures and their influencing factors. For example, he believed Ottawa responded to more by-law complaints than other municipalities because Ottawa responded to them with by-law officers as opposed to police officers. With respect to outcomes and moving forward with the information contained in the report, Mr. Kirkpatrick indicated he had given it some thought and discussed it briefly with the Mayor. He advised he would be bringing forward a proposal for Council’s consideration in that regard, possibly recommending another committee process to work with senior staff on a regular basis to help shape future direction management on an on-going basis using the various reporting mechanisms and studies available.

The following information was provided in response to further questions from Councillor Deans:

• Mr. Kirkpatrick recalled the origins of the OMBI initiative and how it had evolved since 2004. He confirmed that one of the benefits municipalities sought from OMBI was the ability to identify best practice municipalities and to learn from each other and he explained that such information is shared through the various expert groups. As an example, he noted that the City of Ottawa had been recognized as a best practice municipality in terms of water and wastewater management, energy conservation and energy management.

• Mr. Hertzog referenced the 4 different types of indicators, one of which is efficiency, which typically relates to cost per output provided. Therefore, he confirmed that efficiency measures were one of the areas in which OMBI is particularly strong.

• Mr. Kirkpatrick suggested pages 4 to 6 of the “Where We Stand” report provided a thumbnail sketch of where the City of Ottawa stands in terms of its performance results in comparison to the other participating municipalities. He noted there were some areas in which the City was not doing as well and he suggested those be discussed in greater length with Branch Directors at the various Standing Committee meetings.

Responding to a question from Mayor O’Brien with respect to effectiveness measures, Mr. Hertzog indicated another of the 4 types of measures relates to community impact; the results of programs. These are intended to be effectiveness measures. He acknowledged that to date, OMBI had not been particularly strong in this area because typically, it was easier to generate efficiency type measures. He suggested it was more difficult to look at effectiveness measures, though some measures in the report speak to effectiveness.

Mr. Hertzog responded to questions from Councillor Bloess. He explained the relationship between the Quarterly Performance Report and the OMBI reports, noting that the former included more timely updates on areas of particular interest and measures on which staff could report quarterly whereas the latter was reported annually and was somewhat after the fact. Although both reports included similar types of measures, the OMBI report’s focus tended to be move on efficiency and service levels as opposed to customer service and trends. With respect to questions about OC Transpo measures, the ability to link those to resources, and more detailed information with respect to scheduling, he suggested having the discussion with the Director at Standing Committee.

Councillor Desroches recognized the importance of the reports being presented and inquired as to their public availability. Mr. Hertzog indicated the reports would be posted to the City’s website and hard-copies would be available through the public library’s various branches.

Responding to further questions from Councillor Desroches, Mr. Hertzog indicated that median results were used in the OMBI report instead of averages because averages could be distorted by the extremes at both ends of the spectrum. Therefore, median values are reported, which represents the middle value; the value at which half of the municipalities are below and half are above. He then provided an explanation of how “worse” and “significantly worse” values were determined, as outlined on page 3 of the report.

Councillor Desroches asked if there were plans to use out of province comparisons. Mr. Hertzog explained that OMBI worked well because significant time had been invested to develop consistent definitions and because Ontario municipalities generally provided similar types of services under the same legislative framework so comparisons were relatively easy. However he indicated there had been some discussion about extending OMBI membership to some municipalities in other provinces. Mr. Kirkpatrick added that was a particular interest of his and he would be pursuing it with his counterparts in municipalities such as Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. He noted OMBI was the best effort to date in terms of identifying indicators and developing data definitions around them. He felt this provided an opportunity for other cities to take part in something where all the legwork as already been done.

Mayor O’Brien wondered how long it would take to evolve this report to include more outcome-based analysis. Mr. Hertzog noted that OMBI reported annually and he foresaw 2 potential improvements to the next series of report; that there would be considerably more information with respect to support services and performance measures in that regard; and that there would be more outcome type measures included.

Councillor Hume thought it was great to know how many calls came in through 3-1-1 and how many By-law complaints were received. However, he felt it was more important to have some analysis of how calls or complaints were handled; whether they were handled in a timely fashion; whether they were resolved to the residents’ satisfaction; whether they were escalated; whether they were unresolvable. He believed that would require a discussion with respect to the levels of service and he wondered whether staff expected those discussions to take place at the various Standing Committees. Mr. Kirkpatrick felt the Councillor’s comments really got to the heart of the matter. He noted that quarterly performance reports and OMBI reports presented information on which staff reported corporately and publicly. He believed that in order to shift the public perspective on the City’s value as a service provider, the City would have to move into performance reporting on an individual basis. He described his vision for the City, indicating he would like to get to a point where, if a resident called in with a complaint or a service request, the person taking the call could tell provide the City’s standard for that service and a case number. That case number would then enable the caller to track the status of their service request through the City’s portal and it would enable staff to determine whether service standards were being met and perhaps even to call that resident back to ask if they were satisfied with the resolution. He indicated this would not be possible in 2007, but it was his vision for the City. He advised that staff would begin to develop such service standards and to have discussions with Committee and Council on them. He maintained that was the heart of performance reporting.

As a follow-up, Councillor Hume submitted that in order for staff to be able to report on service standards, Council first had to set those standards. Although he hoped these first discussions with Standing Committees would focus on actual results reported, Mr. Hertzog acknowledged that in going forward, discussions would take place with respect to service standards, either to establish or to confirm them.

Councillor Hume pursued the idea, noting that service standards would ultimately drive resourcing requirements, which would drive the budget. Mr. Geddes advised that staff would be coming forward to Committee and Council with proposed service standards and that, once those standards were approved by Council, they would be made publicly available and used by 3-1-1 operators when dealing with service requests. He submitted that the ultimate goal was to report regularly to Council on performance measures vis-à-vis those service standards. He referenced American jurisdictions where service standards had been set and a 3-1-1 service implemented, noting they were able to report on a ward by ward basis.

Adding to that, Mayor O’Brien noted many American cities’ budget processes were driven by service level expectations rather than focusing on money. He stated that was his vision for the City of Ottawa; to focus on the levels of service citizens expected instead of arguing over nickels and dimes.

Responding to a question from Councillor Jellett, Mr. Hertzog acknowledged that the measure with respect to the condition of paved roads seemed subjective. However, he indicated the subject matter expert working group felt sufficiently confident in the integrity of the data and were willing to have it published.

Councillor Jellett was disappointed to see that Ottawa had not provided data in key categories with respect to fire services, noting that information had previously been provided at the Emergency and Protective Services Committee. Although he provided possible explanations, Mr. Hertzog could not speak to the reasons for the data not being included and he encouraged the Councillor to raise the issue with the Chief at Standing Committee.

Councillor Wilkinson indicated she did not care how many calls were received. She felt it was more important to know whether service requests were addressed in a timely fashion and to the satisfaction of the resident making the request. She talked about the importance of the corporate culture, suggesting it should be client-centred. She referenced the idea of having more in-depth, detailed discussions at Standing Committees and noted that members of Council don’t sit on all Standing Committees, though they may have an interest in the service areas to be discussed. Therefore, she hoped the proposed Standing Committee meetings would be held in a venue large enough to include all members of Council who may want to participate in the discussions and ask questions of staff. Mr. Kirkpatrick noted all Councillors could participate in Standing Committee meetings, regardless of whether or not they were members of a particular Committee. He acknowledged the importance of the corporate culture, discussed his experience in that regard since amalgamation and he suggested that the City was now ready to move forward with what is the culture of the new City of Ottawa. He discussed the National Quality Initiative (NQI) and advised that staff would be weaving together a variety of initiatives and reporting frameworks. He referenced the City’s strong mission statement and the need to start promoting it as the reason behind the aforementioned initiatives and reporting frameworks. In closing, he indicated he would be bringing forward a proposal in the spring, as part of Council’s priority discussions, with respect to an internal agenda, an external agenda, and priorities for this term of Council.

Responding to questions from Councillor El-Chantiry, Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed that the various Standing Committees would have opportunities to have policy discussions surrounding the various service areas and informed by the performance metrics.

Councillor El-Chantiry recalled that in the past, the Client Services and Public Information Branch provided reports for each ward with respect to calls for service and their resolution. He asked if that would continue to be available. Mr. P. Clarke, Director of Client Services and Public Information indicated such reports had not been produced on a regular basis but that he intended to start producing them on a ward-by-ward basis in 2007.

Responding to a question from Councillor Brooks, Mr. Hertzog explained that OMBI had a data warehouse, that staff had access to the raw data that went into the report, but that there were protocols around the sharing of such information.

Councillor Brooks referenced Ottawa’s uniqueness in terms of its rural, urban and suburban composition and its size and he indicated that, in order to be able to make accurate and fair comparisons, he would like access to the raw data.

Mayor O’Brien suggested this was a process and that there was continuous improvement in terms of the analysis. He felt the discussion had been important because there seemed to be growing consensus with respect to the need to move towards outcome based performance measures and budgeting. He believed that kind of transformation would take up to 3 or 4 years, however he recognized everyone’s efforts thus far.

The Committee then heard from the following public delegations.

Mr. K. Holmes, Community Budget Advisory Team (CBAT), indicated his group had consistently advocated the need for the City to incorporate a comprehensive set of performance measurement metrics in its decision-making and routine management. He felt the provincial government’s approach in this area had been very disappointing over the last couple of years but that CBAT had been encouraged by Ottawa’s progress in placing more emphasis on the use of performance measurement metrics. He commended the OMBI initiative and lauded its progress. He suggested if there remained a weakness, it was the need to accelerate the rate at which the use of performance measurement pervaded throughout the staff and Council. He believed performance measurement must be an integral and a routine part of all management and of all decision making, particularly at budget time. On behalf of CBAT, Mr. Holmes concluded by making the following recommendations:

• Continue to expand the implementation of performance measurement throughout City management;

• For budget 2007, make absolute maximum use of the available PM metrics so that both Council and the public understands what performance or what service level is being sought;

• Ensure that performance measurement is an essential component of all management and decision making in the long-term;

• Consider requesting that the Province either place a higher priority in their municipal performance measurement program or abandon that initiative and allow OMBI to have the lead;

• Consider conducting a focus group to see where performance measurement can assist the public in understanding what the city aims to accomplish; and

• Consider more use of performance measurement in the City’s annual report.

Responding to a question from Councillor Bloess, Mr. Hertzog confirmed that staff is looking to include more performance measures in the next annual report.

Mr. T. Robinson advised he was currently working on a project funded by the World Bank to develop global city performance indicators to enable cities to compare their core performance in any particular sector or uniqueness. He explained this was a pilot project involving 9 cities in 4 countries and the fundamental premise of the proposal is to use existing indicators to take advantage of what has already been done and what is particularly useful for cities. The feeling is that the indicators have to be useful, first of all to cities themselves, to be able to compare their performance year over year, as well as to enable the cities to compare themselves with alike situations internationally. He noted there was tremendous interest in this and that Ottawa was leading the curve. He indicated the intent was to roll the project out to 100 cities after the current pilot project phase and he hoped Ottawa would be among those cities. He felt Ontario was leading in this area because of OMBI and that Ottawa was a leader within OMBI. Therefore, he suggested the City was getting some great work in terms of breadth and depth of performance measurements. In closing, he complimented City Council for supporting staff on this.

Mayor O’Brien asked whether the project looked at social programs, such as housing, in various cities around the world. Mr. Robinson explained one of the project’s challenges was finding indicators that were generic enough to be compared between cities and cultures. He submitted that within Canada, housing issues were vastly different because of the different provincial jurisdictions and he noted those differences were even more significant when comparing Canada to Brazil, for example, because social program indicators are not necessarily shared by other countries.

The Committee then voted on the report recommendation.

CARRIED