by Matte Bocci

Public managers nowadays use of a wide variety of analytical tools and methods to measure their performance, assess it, and evaluate it. Nonetheless, they often still struggle in the most essential, and fundamental, aspects of their task: explaining, in a clear and simple way, how they have contributed to a better daily life of housewives, entrepreneurs, students, retired persons, etc.

What we suggest with this article is the need, for public managers, to introduce well thought social reporting mechanisms, which are clearly accessible to, and understandable by, different segments of local stakeholders. Such processes must be effectively integrated with the wide variety of reporting tools, processes and mechanisms used for policy and programme assessment.

We suggest that a Social Reporting System that is well designed and adequately introduced in one (or more) public bodies, would allow local administration to better engage with local stakeholders: before, throughout, and after the implementation of projects, programmes and broader policies.

We therefore introduce, step by step, the main features of a Social Reporting System that the public manager can implement, in order to improve their communication with local stakeholders. In doing so, we suggest possible synergies with other existing evaluation and assessment tools. Social Reporting Systems can in fact serve as meta-systems that integrate various tools and clearly link aims, goals, objectives and outputs of the main policy areas for a public body.

The present article is a preliminary introduction to the subject, and as such further thoughts and requests for clarification are welcomed. The aim of this introductory article is to draft a model which could be immediately applicable to each public body at the local, regional or even national levels. Any feedback and/or request to further develop the presented model, is therefore welcome.

Every experienced public manager knows how important it is to demonstrate their department’s benefit to the local community. Still, s/he is also aware of the fact that doing so is extremely difficult. Surely, being concise and to the point might be an unsolvable dilemma when it comes to public goods.

What level of generalisation can we make? How much am I losing in terms of understanding, if I don’t get the level of details which reflects the daily problems of citizens? These are typical questions that have no easy answers. Possibly, public managers envy their private sector colleagues and the elegance of measuring a performance by profit.

There are a number of difficulties in assessing policy performance:

Firstly, “performance responsibilities” are not necessarily clear. When an achievement for citizens in terms of health, for example, is a result of a good - or bad - performance of a regional administration? How much of this performance is to be linked with the good performance of local hospitals, local administrations, public health?

Secondly, the “information available” to assess the performance of each individual public body, might be largely placed outside each single organisation. If I represent a regional body with competence on health, how can I collect performance data that do not belong to my organisation? How do I avoid duplication and proliferation of data amongst different organisation, whilst maintaining consistency in the use of data over time?

Thirdly, although most importantly, the “assessment capacity” essential for the measurement of each public body performance largely relies on external actors: citizens, whose daily lives got better or worse due to the results of implemented public policies and services. Reaching out to such actors in a thoughtful way, so to ensure a balanced participation of different segments amongst local citizens, requires a great deal of effort.

This brief article highlights the main features of a Social Accounting System, and Social Accounting Reporting System, that could enable local policy-makers and public managers to illustrate more clearly what their value is, in terms of social achievements for the local communities. Particularly, we are suggesting that a) social accounting tools should become more widely used amongst public bodies in Europe, and b) such tools should focus on citizens’ needs and assess the performance of the “administration chain” – or clusters, in a defined geographical area, beyond various aspects of citizens’ daily life.

We implicitly assume, to put it clearly, that programme evaluations are a valuable tool for internal assessments, but they are not the most adequate instrument for public bodies to engage with citizens. We suggest, instead, that Social Accounting tools and processes are suited for this aim, due to i) a clear focus on policy demand-side, and ii) a citizen-orientated description of their needs have been fulfilled.

 “Social Reporting: a tool for assessing the actual value of public policy for citizens”

Social Accounting techniques reverse the programme evaluation approach, by focussing on the end users as ultimate targets of the reporting process. As such, Social Reporting Systems serve as basic elements of the broader process of Social Accountability of public – and private – bodies towards local citizens.

Social Accounting reports therefore focus on the real priorities of the selected audiences, by using a clear an comprehensible language, and identifying the most adequate “communication mix” for reaching out and engaging with a variety of segments amongst local citizens (i.e. young poorly educated individuals accessing to the job market in a rural area, elderly people living in suburbs with lack of parental support, etc.).

Social Accounting reports can make the best use of information available from other assessment tools such as Impact Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Evaluations, as input data that inform concrete stories that citizens can easily understand. They “reframe” technical information and present key data and facts that can be understood by specific segments of a local population. For example, by avoiding complex functions and matrices that tells about the increased propensity to attend non-formal training, whilst using clear numbers and percentages of children receiving support for extra curricular courses.

To be effective, any Social Reporting process must consider four main “steps”, taking into consideration the main challenges illustrated in the previous section.

First step: identify the most adequate “scope” of analysis. “What are the dimensions we want to focus on in terms of duration, geographical areas and policy sectors?”  Do we want to demonstrate to the inhabitants of a big city what we have done throughout a political mandate, to improve their physical security? Do we want to report to young entrepreneurs how we boosted innovation in rural areas, over the past six months? Do we want to show to the most vulnerable families in a region, how we intend to ensure access to quality education in the next 24 months?

It is important to be able to answer some pivotal questions: “What are the most important issues for the selected audience(s), in the policy domain we are focusing on?” Do we have specific data, or surveys done in the recent past, that enable us to clearly understand our audience’s priorities in the selected region? Do we need a fresh view on these matters? Shall we implement focus groups with selected stakeholders? Can we imagine a broader survey to be implemented for different segments, if the selected audience is too broad?

Second step: identify the needed information and therefore the most relevant organisations to be involved. “What are the organisations, both public and private, we need – or want – to involve in the reporting process?” Do we have direct access to the information to be used throughout the process? Or instead some relevant data are managed by other external bodies? Do we need to involve private organisations that represent a relevant share of the policy domain to be investigated – i.e. considering private clinics, if we want to report on health performance for aged citizens in a region? At what stage of the process do we consult them? Do we want to bring them on board in the project team, due to the relevance of their role and/or the information gathered? How do we interact?

Third step: identify the most appropriate approach(es) to engage with the selected audience(s). “How do we select and reach out a representative group, for the segments of local population we aim at interacting with?” How do we differentiate our strategy – a mix of tools and processes – on the basis of the accessibility of various segments? How do we ensure an ongoing communication with those most difficult to reach? How and when, throughout the reporting process, do we involve them? How can we ensure to have our audience on board since the very early stage of the process? How do we present them the information available in a way that is clearly understandable and manageable? How do we incorporate their feedback at every stage of the reporting process?

Sustainability of the process: benefits and difficulties in implementing Social Reporting

The implementation of Social Reporting processes, as it happens for all kind of reporting, has some benefits and some difficulties. The main risks refer to the fact that i) the process typically involves different organisations, which might not naturally hang along well in the absence of continuous efforts, and ii) the process has an external resonance, that might cause problems if not adequately managed.

The main benefits of introducing a Social Reporting process are as follows:

• Introduce and implement an ongoing communication process with key local stakeholders
• Valuable starting point for introducing more accessible and participative policy-making processes
• Effective tool to be linked to impact assessments and other internal/external reporting processes
• A good starting point for a “territorial governance” system which is clearly outcome-driven.

The most evident difficulties, to be adequately addressed, are:

• Rising high external expectations that need to be properly managed to avoid political backlashes
• Problems in “taking on far too much”, by focussing on a too wide and too complex scope
• Difficulties in the implementation due to different political factions, as well as cultural or organisational obstacles, amongst the involved organisations
• Lack of coherence amongst the data gathered from different organisations.

There is definitely a lot at stake... it is up to local public managers to play a fair game!

Matteo Bocci is Senior Consultant for Ecorys in Brussels

Back to the newsletter indexpage