Executive Summary Workshop.docx · Web viewThis Information Paper has been prepared by the Local Government Association of SA (LGA) with the assistance of AECOM Australia Pty Ltd,

Regional Public Health Planning Workshop - Shared Learnings from Working Regionally

Insert month year

Regional Public Health Planning Workshop- Shared Learnings from Working Regionally

ECM 639839

AcknowledgmentsThis Information Paper has been prepared by the Local Government Association of SA (LGA) with the assistance of AECOM Australia Pty Ltd, for the guidance of and use by member Councils. The LGA is the statutory peak body for Local Government in South Australia, representing all 68 Councils in the State.

This project has been assisted by the Department for Health and Ageing (SA Health).

This Paper was first issued in June 2016.

Enquiries regarding this publication should be directed to the LGA on 8224 2000

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3Background 3

LGA of SA Page 2 of 20


ECM 639839


ECM 639839

Findings 4Recommendations 5

1.0 Introduction 62.0 Workshop Summary 7

2.1 Governance 72.2 Communication 102.3 Implementation 122.4 Monitoring and reporting 14

3.0 Key Findings 174.0 Recommendations 19

Attachment A List of participating Councils (and subsidaries) 20

Executive Summary

BackgroundSouth Australian Councils commenced preparing for their first Regional Public Health Plans (RPHPs) in 2012 and having completed them, are now working toward implementation. The



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

majority of the 68 Councils in South Australia have chosen to work in groups to develop a Public Health Plan for their combined communities.

The decision by Councils to jointly prepare RPHPs was intended to create efficiencies, reduce duplication of effort and lead to greater cooperation between Councils in areas of public health priority. For some Councils it was also a practical decision to share the costs associated with developing the RPHP.

A Regional Public Health Planning Workshop held on 9 May 2016 brought together representatives from Councils that have prepared a joint RPHP, and are now focused on developing effective mechanisms to address public health priorities and report on their progress. The purpose of the workshop was to share the experiences of the various regional groups and explore the successes and challenges they have faced. The learnings from this workshop are relevant for all Councils for the implementation of Regional Public Health Plans.

FindingsThe feedback from this workshop highlights the importance of Councils taking a proactive and organised approach to public health planning. The groups of Councils that have established formal organisational governance structures, involving senior managers and staff representatives from a range of different disciplines have generally experienced greater success in their public health planning and implementation.

Other experiences reported in the workshop suggest that some groups of Councils have not established the organisational capacity to effectively implement their RPHPs. In some cases, the initial structures that were used to develop the plans need to evolve in order effectively support their implementation.

The engagement with and endorsement of the Plan by Elected Members and senior managers has been highlighted as a critical factor for successful implementation of RPHPs.

Councils that have reported the greatest success in implementing and monitoring their RPHPs have developed an action plan, with reporting mechanisms and actions embedded in a performance monitoring system to build in accountability.

It is important to acknowledge that most Councils are still in the early days of implementing their Plans, and there is plenty of scope to address the barriers and challenges that have been identified during the workshop.

All Councils reported that individually they continue to undertake activities which support health and wellbeing through public infrastructure, community services, and other core local government business.

Councils have highlighted the need for ongoing support from the Local Government Association (LGA) and SA Health to engage Council leadership and strengthen their support for the RPHP. Some Councils also require assistance to understand their reporting responsibilities and potentially refine the range of issues they collect data and report on.



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

The important role of public health partner authorities to support Councils to deliver results in areas of regional public health priority was also highlighted. Some Councils would like to engage directly with partners to jointly progress some of the actions identified in their Plans.

Recommendations from participating CouncilsThe following recommendations are based on the key findings arising from the workshop discussion.

Recommendations for Councils: Assign a senior manager to be responsible for implementing and reporting on the

RPHP;

Identify staff from various Council departments to be RPHP ‘champions’ and provide them with training and support for fulfil this role;

Develop priorities and an action plan, ideally for each Council;

Integrate RPHP into formal communications and governance structures such as Council meeting agendas;

Identify whether implementation actions are within existing resources or if additional resources are required; and

To improve the monitoring of implementation of RPHPs, increase regularity of internal reporting, or include implementation actions on quarterly reports.

Recommendations for the LGA Ongoing partnership with SA Health to show Council leadership the benefits of public

health planning and to lift the profile of RPHP within Councils; and

Continue to work with SA Health to support Councils to streamline reporting processes in regional groupings in relation to RPHP reporting and environmental health reporting.

Provide training and support for RPHP ‘champions’ within Councils

Recommendations for SA Health Profile the role of public health partner authorities and benefits to local government to

address public health priority areas;

To continue to provide Councils with information about state-wide trends and public health issues, key themes, and the status of public health partnerships; and

In partnership with the LGA provide further information about reporting expectations on RPHPs with the aim of streamlining the process so that reports can be readily prepared.



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

1.0 IntroductionSouth Australian Councils commenced preparing their first Regional Public Health Plans (RPHPs) in 2012 and having completed them, are now working toward implementation. The majority of the 68 Councils in South Australia have chosen to work in groups to develop a public health plan for their combined communities. Twenty Councils have individually developed their initial RPHP.

The decision by Councils to jointly prepare RPHPs was intended to create efficiencies, reduce duplication of effort and lead to greater cooperation between Councils in areas of public health priority. For some Councils it was also a practical decision to share the costs associated with developing the RPHP.

A Regional Public Health Planning Workshop held on 9 May 2016 brought together representatives from Councils that have prepared a joint RPHP, and are now focused on developing effective mechanisms to address public health priorities and report on their progress. The purpose of the workshop was to share the experiences of the various regional groups and explore the successes and challenges they have faced. The learnings from this workshop are relevant for all Councils for the implementation of Regional Public Health Plans.

This report summarises the workshop discussion under the key headings of:

Governance;

Communication;

Implementation; and

Monitoring and reporting.

Under each heading the main discussion points are summarised in relation to:

What are Councils doing in the area;

What has worked well;

What hasn’t worked;

Barriers to achieving better outcomes; and

Opportunities to overcome the barriers and improve outcomes overall.

A list of participant Councils are included in Attachment A.



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

2.0 Workshop Summary

2.1 Governance

What are Councils doing?Governance of public health planning includes compliance with the legislative and policy frameworks, organisational structures, and monitoring and reporting of Public Health Plans and their proper implementation.

For further information regarding Regional Public Health Plans Governance Options for Partnership / Cooperative Arrangements, please go to www.lga.sa.gov.au/publichealth.

There is considerable variation in the governance arrangements groups of Councils have put in place when jointly preparing RPHPs, as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 – Examples of RPHP Governance Structures

Structure CouncilsRegional Subsidiaryunder existing Local Government Association (LGA) framework

Southern and Hills LGA

Advisory CommitteeAdvisory Committee (one staff and elected member from each Council), Terms of Reference

Eastern Health Authority

Working groupGovernance model involving standing committees, stakeholder reference group and staff advisory group.

Unley & MitchamBarossa, Light and Lower Northern Region

Some groups have utilised existing regional subsidiaries as part of their local government organisational structures, which workshop participants indicated have been most effective during the implementation of their plans. Others have created joint Council committees during the development phase of their plans but, note these structures have been less effective during the implementation phase.

It is important to note that not all joint RPHPs have the aim of working jointly, some Councils have acknowledged that whist there were efficiencies in jointly developing their plan, the implementation may be better undertaken at the individual Council level.

A common theme arising from the workshop was the importance of having at least one person from each Council who is an advocate for the RPHP within their own organisation to ensure it remains relevant to Council business.

What has worked well?Participants provided feedback that successful governance arrangements have involved managers and staff with a strategic role in the development and implementation of the RPHP. Having the support and ‘buy in’ from Elected Members and CEOs is a critical success factor. Councils reported that having a person whose role is to ‘champion’ the RPHP ensured it isn’t forgotten once completed. Overall, this has led more successful implementation of their Plan.


http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/publichealth

http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/governance%20project%20report%20%20FINAL.pdf



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

Groups of Councils with a more formal organisational governance structure appear to have achieved better outcomes consistently through the planning and implementation phases.

Key success factors:

Support from decision makers in each Council;

Having a ‘Champion’ within each Council;

Formal organisational governance structures; and

Budget allocation for projects.

What hasn’t worked?Councils reported that not assigning someone with responsibility for the RPHP has reduced the momentum for putting the RPHP into action and developing monitoring and reporting mechanisms.

Using a regional LGA structure involving a larger number of Councils can mean that the size of the region is potentially too challenging to plan across.

Participants noted the role of consultants in assisting Councils to prepare RPHPs has often left groups of Councils unprepared to take over the implementation phase of the plan. In these cases, the use of consultants in the development phase has not enabled sufficient capacity to be built within Councils to oversee their implementation. In particular, it was reported that there tends to be a loss of momentum where a formal arrangement has not been established to guide the implementation of the RPHP.

Some participants reported that the mechanisms established for planning the RPHP have not been as effective for its implementation. For example, some RPHPs were developed by Environmental Health Officer (EHO) representatives from each Council. This proved effective in developing the Plan but has meant that staff from the other disciplines within Council does not share a sense of ownership over it.

Key learnings:

Where possible, assign a person to take responsibility and be accountable for the RPHP;

When using consultants, Councils need to build capacity internally to implement the RPHP; and

An action plan is required for each Council to guide their role in the implementation of the RPHP.

What are the barriers?The barriers to effective governance identified by workshop participants can be grouped into several broad areas: political will, competing priorities, addressing public health through core business and staff resourcing.

There may be a lack of political will on behalf of a Council to hand over decision making (for RPHP) to subsidiaries. This means that even where groups of Councils have strong governance arrangements such as the use of an existing regional LGA structure, without delegated powers under Section 44 of the Local Government Act 1999, this group cannot make decisions on behalf of individual Councils. The result is that new initiatives must be



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

formally agreed by each individual Council. This requirement slows decision-making as the timing of Council meetings varies and creates delays in putting the RPHP into action. An ability to delegate decisions and potentially funding this would create a more effective governance structure. Further advice on Regional Subsidiaries and the ability to delegate powers or functions can be found at Regional Public Health Plans Governance Options for Partnership / Cooperative Arrangements, located at www.lga.sa.gov.au/publichealth.

Regional Public Health Plans compete with other Council plans for resources and priority within broader Council strategies. In some cases, the RPHP is one of a number of plans or strategies for which a council is responsible. Many of the directions in the RPHP may be addressed through other strategies, but the documents have not been specifically prepared with reference to each other. In some cases, other regional priorities take precedence over health and wellbeing which may not be seen as core Council business

Public health planning is more likely to be prioritised by Councils where staff resources are allocated to implementing the RPHP and there is someone to ‘champion’ the Plan against other competing priorities.

Other barriers that were identified include staff changes, staff being committed to other work, and ongoing perceptions that EHOs are responsible for preparing and implementing RPHPs.

Some participants commented that the initial governance structure that was established with their Council partners to develop the RPHP is not working as well during the implementation phase and will need to be reviewed.

How could the barriers be overcome, and how can we improve overall?Participants identified that, for those planning under a regional subsidiary, delegation of powers and functions to a Regional Subsidiaries (for RPHP) is likely to create greater efficiencies in the administration of RPHPs, and would also create a basis for ongoing and better collaboration between Councils to provide other services and initiatives.

There is opportunity to create greater awareness by Council leadership of the role of public health planning in local government and opportunities to gain outside resources through the implementation of RPHPs. Involving senior managers, and ideally engaging a person in a senior management role to champion the RPHP was seen as a key way to implement more effective governance of RPHPs.

Key opportunities:

Continue to promote public health planning as whole of Council business rather than a ‘stand-alone’ issue or an extension of the current EHO role;

Involve senior managers, CEOs and Elected Members from the development phase of the RPHP and continue to involve them in a formal governance structure that will exist through the implementation of the Plan;

Assign a senior manager role to be accountable for reporting on the implementation of the Plan;

Develop a governance structure that will be enduring and ensure the Plan is embedded into Council activities even when there is a change in key staff; and

Review the governance structure on an annual basis to determine whether it needs to change.






ECM 639839


ECM 639839

2.2 Communication

What are Councils doing?This area of discussion addressed communication internally within Council, and externally with Councils that are party to each joint RPHP and with partner agencies and SA Health. Communication is closely aligned with governance and accountability, and many of the communication issues identified are associated with the organisational structures that are in place.

Some groups of Councils have formal communication and regular internal reporting arrangements that provide updates on the status of their RPHP. These groups tend to involve Council leadership in communication through those reporting arrangements. Other groups have less formal arrangements, and reported less effective communication about the status of their RPHPs.

What has worked well?Feedback indicated that since 2012, the public health planning process is becoming clearer to Councils, as are the implications of working together across a region.

In some cases, consultants assisted in communication between partner Councils during the development phase of the RPHP by playing a mediator role, facilitating conversation, and bringing issues together.

Internally, the role of formal communication channels is important to ensure regular reports on decisions and progress. The Southern & Hills LGA board has the RPHP as a standing agenda item which ensures regular status reports are provided. In addition, holding regular meetings every 3 to 6 months with adequate representation from multi-disciplinary roles within organisations was reported to be successful.

Externally, health promotion events such as Public Health Week provide an opportunity to raise the profile of public health within council.


Establishment of formal internal communication arrangements when setting up governance structures;

Regular meetings (monthly to quarterly) of the representative group;

Including the RPHP as a standing item on Council agendas; and

Using strategic opportunities, such as Public Health Week, to educate staff about the role of public health in local government.

What hasn’t worked?

Some participants reported that the communication structures set up to develop the RPHP are proving to be less effective during the implementation phase than they were in the planning phase.

Workshop participants generally indicated that internal communication about the RPHP has been inadequate where it hasn’t been supported by formal structures and reporting



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

mechanisms. Unstructured communication has meant that Council staff doesn't know what actions to focus on and what the status of the RPHP is. Some participants also reported that there was a lack of communication with Elected Members and executive leadership.

Some groups have unique communication problems, for instance one planning group has a good internal communication structure, but less effective communication back into each member Council.

Key learnings:

Planning and implementation may have different communication requirements; and

Formal structures and reporting mechanisms support effective communication.

What are the barriers?

Participants noted that within Councils, the barriers to effective communication are related to the broader challenge of integrating public health into local government business. The greatest barrier is a lack of understanding about what public health means (in the broadest sense), and this has inhibited effective communication within the Councils. This is exacerbated where the representative staff are mostly from the Environmental Health discipline and not the broader range of Council business that impacts upon public health.

Some participants report that meetings are difficult to arrange despite best intentions. These barriers may reflect general difficulties with communication within a Council, not just public health. Participants reported that a lack of existing communication systems is a barrier to communication about public health planning and communication about the Plan is less effective when the role of leading communication is not assigned.

There are additional barriers where the Councils have jointly prepared a RPHP but do not share a collaborative relationship in other areas of Council business. This means that there are no existing structures for the Plan to fit into, and new working relationships must be established. A number of participants reported that one Council took the lead in developing the Plan with other Councils making a lesser contribution in staff time and commitment.

There was a strong view that engaging with external parties and public health partners to the RPHP was needed in order to bring resources to areas of public health priority.

How could the barriers be overcome, and how can we improve overall?

There was general agreement from participants that within Councils, the executive needs to be engaged to drive the Public Health Plan agenda across the organisation. Involving executives from each Council in the Plan is the most effective way to achieve this.

Utilising existing communication channels within Councils to raise awareness of the RPHP is also seen as being effective. The role of champions was highlighted as crucial to better internal communication to drive the implementation of the RPHP, and the potential of including a champion from within each relevant department of Council was also highlighted. Providing guidance and support for RPHP champions was identified as a way of optimising the effectiveness of their role.



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

Internally, communications can improve by creating formal communication structures such as regular meetings that will ensure there is a focus on the RPHP. There was a suggestion that a sub-committee of Council could focus on the Plan.

The use of ICT to create a chat room was proposed as a good means of communication about public health between the Councils that are party to the RPHP.

A joint administration and senior management workshop was suggested, as was the use of a public health project office shared between Councils.

It was suggested there is a role for SA Health and possibly through the Chief Public Health Officer's report, to provide Councils with information about state-wide trends and public health issues, key themes, and the status of public health partnerships.

It was suggested a potential improvement would be for public health partner organisations, such as Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (DCSI), to communicate and provide reports on how they are contributing to the implementation of the State or Regional Public Health Plans. The LGA was identified as a potential dissemination point for this information, in partnership with SA Health.

Key opportunities:

Use existing communication and reporting mechanisms, or create new ones;

Identify someone to be a public health champion from each discipline within Council;

Create representative structures that include staff from a range of disciplines; and

Increased provision of information from the state government on Public Health Partner Authorities (including what they are and how councils can utilise them),to improve communication between public health partner organisations and Councils.

2.3 Implementation

What are Councils doing?

Councils are at varying stages of implementing their RPHPs. Some Councils report that do not have the organisational governance structures in place to support the implementation of their Plan. One group, for example, report that implementation of their Plan has stalled due to a lack of clear direction. Another group has allocated a budget towards public health projects but are still developing the organisational structure to identify and bring those projects into effect. An additional group of Councils have developed a formal structure with regular meetings led by a senior manager.

All Councils reported that individually they continue to undertake activities which support health and wellbeing through public infrastructure, community services, and other core local government business.

What has worked well?

Participants identified a number of factors as contributing to the successful implementation of their RPHP. A key message was that due to the breadth of the RPHP, the implementation needs to be driven by a member of the executive with oversight for a number of areas of



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

Council business. Ideally the Plan needs to be backed by the CEO so that it is seen as a legitimate priority within the organisation.

An established working relationship between Councils in the regional group prior to the commencement of public health planning is beneficial as it provides a sound basis for collaboration on the RPHP. For example, the Southern and Hills LGA incorporate the RPHP as a standing item on their meeting agenda.

Having a specific budget to allocate to the RPHP supports successful implementation, for example one group of Councils each contribute $5000 per annum which is put towards local projects.

The role of a RPHP ‘champion’ who is a senior manager with accountability for implementing the Plan and able to allocate actions to appropriate officers has been successful for the Northern Region Councils.

Education about public health planning has also been successful where roles other than EHOs have promoted and advocated for the RPHP.


Implementation led by executive management;

Implementation leveraged off existing regional structures between Councils;

Advocacy for the Plan from across Council departments, not solely from Environmental Health;

An action plan in place for each individual Council; and

Allocation of budget to public health projects and activities.


Councils reported limited success where they have not had a clear implementation plan accompanied by a reporting framework. Some participants said that that a lack of formal structures incorporating senior managers have hindered the implementation of their Plan.

Key factors:

A clear implementation plan is required; and

Accountability for delivering the Plan at senior management level is required.


The barriers to implementation include competing priorities within Councils, a perception that public health planning is the responsibility of EHOs rather than council-wide, and not having a framework for action and accountability to address the public health priorities in the Plan.

How could the barriers be overcome, and how can we improve overall?

Participants identified a number of steps that groups of Councils can take to improve the implementation of their Plans, including identifying priorities, developing action plans, tracking progress, and assigning responsibility:



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

The importance of linking state government Public Health Partner Authorities (PHPAs) to the implementation of the RHPHs was also highlighted. There was a view that there needs to be greater advocacy, and assistance with linkages in this area so that regions see greater benefits from their Plan.

Participants also identified a role for SA Health and the LGA to assist groups of Councils to implement their Plans.

Key opportunities:

Develop agreed regional priorities and action plans to support implementation;

Regularly brief and engage Elected Members on the RPHP through a formal mechanism such as a standing item on Council agendas;

Engage with newer Elected Members who may not have been part of earlier public health information sessions

Appoint and support staff across Councils to ‘champion’ the RPHP and track its progress;

Create accountability by assigning responsibility to Council management;

Allocate resources to implementation of action plans;

Promote public health planning in regional areas, for example through a ‘roadshow’ communications initiative;

Address the restrictions on joint decision making through expanded delegations to joint Council committees.

2.4 Monitoring and reporting

What are Councils doing?

Monitoring and reporting on the progress of the RPHP has proved to be a challenge for many Councils who report they are unprepared and concerned about meeting their reporting obligations to the CPHO.

Participants generally reported low levels of monitoring the implementation of their RPHPs. The complexity of preparing a report on the activities of a number of Councils was highlighted by a number of participants, as was the resourcing required to prepare a report on behalf of the group of Councils.

What has worked well?

Some participants reported that the established strategic monitoring systems within Council have provided a sound basis for reporting on the RPHP including preparing monthly reports. Others indicated they are only reporting on priorities rather than everything in their RPHP.

Key success factor:

Monitoring the implementation of the RPHP and providing regular internal reports



ECM 639839


ECM 639839


Allocating insufficient resources for preparing reports and confusion about how to report were the most significant factors raised by participants. Some indicated they had created too many items to report on and are looking to reduce the number of outcomes they report against.

Key learnings:

Reporting frameworks must consider and allocate resources;

If a council develops Indicators, they should be manageable, useful, and achievable in number.


The barriers to reporting identified by participants include not having a clear reporting framework or clear idea of what to report on, poor communication between Councils, and not having ICT systems to capture data. Some Councils have not yet decided whether to report individually or as a single group.

Further information and Guidance for reporting can be found within the Guidelines for Reporting of Regional Public Health Plans found at www.lga.sa.gov.au/publichealth.

How could the barriers be overcome and how can we improve overall?

Participants reported a need for additional support from the LGA and within their own Councils to streamline the reporting process, and have identified a need to allocate resources to preparing their reports.

Preparing action plans for individual Councils with a single consolidated report was highlighted as an efficient structure, but will still require someone to complete the report.

Participants identified a need for improved communication between Councils, and development of a list of projects that that are measurable against the RPHP.

Targeted reporting on areas of public health priority can assist. Participants encouraged SA Health to assign areas of focus, for reports for example: “This year, SA Health in interested in hearing about XYZ”.

Key opportunities:

Collaborate within groups to identify shared, measurable reporting frameworks;

Seek guidance from LGA and SA Health to improve and consolidate reporting mechanisms;

Allocate appropriate resources to meet agreed reporting responsibilities.

3.0 Key FindingsTable 3.1 below summarises the key success factors, learnings, and opportunities identified by workshop participants in the key areas of governance, communication, implementation, and monitoring and reporting.



http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Public%20Health%20report%20Guidelines%20and%20template%202016-1.pdf

http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Public%20Health%20report%20Guidelines%20and%20template%202016-1.pdf


ECM 639839


ECM 639839

Table 3.1 – Summary of key findingsArea Success factors Learnings OpportunitiesGovernance Support from decision

makers in each Council‘Champions’ within each CouncilFormal organisational structuresBudget allocation for projects

Where possible, assign a person to take responsibility and be accountableWhen using consultants, Councils need to build capacity internally to implement the RPHPAn action plan is required for each Council to guide their role

Continue to promote public health planning as a whole of Council businessFormally involve senior managers, CEOs and Elected Members from the development phase through the implementationAssign a senior manager role to be accountable for reporting on the implementation of the PlanDevelop a governance structure that will be enduring and embedded into Council activities even when there is a change in key staffReview the governance structure on an annual basis to determine whether it needs to change

Communication Establishment of formal communication arrangements when setting up governance structuresRegular meetings (monthly to quarterly) of the representative group;Inclusion of RPHP as a standing item on Council agendasUsing opportunities, such as Public Health Week to educate Council staff

Planning and implementation may have different communication requirementsFormal structures and reporting mechanisms support effective communication

Use existing communication and reporting mechanisms, or create new onesSupport public health ‘champions’ from each discipline within CouncilCreate representative structures that include staff from a range of disciplinesPublic Health Partners to communicate and provide information on how they are contributing to the implementation of the State or Regional Public Health Plans.

Implementation Implementation led by executive managementImplementation leveraged off existing regional structures between CouncilsAdvocacy from across Council departmentsAn action plan in place for each individual CouncilAllocation of budget to public health projects and activities

A clear implementation plan is requiredAccountability for delivering the plan at senior management level is required

Develop agreed regional priorities and action plans to support implementationRegularly brief and engage Elected Members through a formal mechanismEngage with newer Elected MembersAppoint and support staff as ‘champions’ across CouncilsCreate accountability by assigning responsibility to Council managementAllocate resources to implementation



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

Promote public health planning in regional areasAddress restrictions on joint decision making through better delegations to joint Council committees

Monitoring and reporting

Monitoring the implementation of the RPHP and providing regular internal reports

Reporting frameworks must consider and allocate resourcesIndicators should be manageable, useful, and achievable in number

Collaborate within groups to identify shared, measurable reporting frameworksSeek guidance from LGA and SA Health to improve and consolidate reporting mechanismsAllocate appropriate resources to meet agreed reporting responsibilities



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

4.0 Recommendations from participating CouncilsThe following recommendations are based on the key findings arising from the workshop discussion.

Recommendations for Councils:

Assign a senior manager to be responsible for implementing and reporting on the RPHP;

Identify staff from various Council departments to be RPHP ‘champions’ and provide them with training and support for fulfil this role;

Develop priorities and an action plan, ideally for each Council;

Integrate RPHP into formal communications and governance structures such as Council meeting agendas;

Identify whether implementation actions are within existing resources or if additional resources are required; and

To improve the monitoring of implementation of RPHPs, increase regularity of internal reporting, or include implementation actions on quarterly reports.

Recommendations for the LGA Ongoing partnership with SA Health to show Council leadership the benefits of public

health planning and to lift the profile of RPHP within Councils; and

Continue to work with SA Health to support Councils to streamline reporting processes in regional groupings in relation to RPHP reporting and environmental health reporting.

Provide training and support for RPHP ‘champions’ within Councils

Recommendations for SA Health Profile the role of public health partner authorities and benefits to local government to

address public health priority areas;

To continue to provide Councils with information about state-wide trends and public health issues, key themes, and the status of public health partnerships; and

In partnership with the LGA provide further information about reporting expectations on RPHPs with the aim of streamlining the process so that reports can be readily prepared.



ECM 639839


ECM 639839

5.0 Attachment AList of participating Councils (and subsidiaries)

City of Mitcham Eastern Health Authority

Town of Walkerville Town of Gawler

Berri Barmera Council City of Burnside

City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Light Regional Council

Rural City of Murray Bridge Wakefield Regional Council

Regional Council of Goyder Kangaroo Island Council

Cambelltown City Council City of Prospect

City of Unley Southern & Hills LGA

The Barossa Council Wudinna District Council

City of Port Lincoln Alexandrina Council

District Council of Mount Barker District Council of Yankalilla

Southern Mallee District Council



ECM 639839

148 Frome StAdelaide SA 5000

GPO Box 2693Adelaide SA 5001

T (08) 8224 2000F (08) 8232 6336

E [email protected]

Documents

Executive Summary Workshop.docx · Web viewThis Information Paper has been prepared by the Local Government Association of SA (LGA) with the assistance of AECOM Australia Pty Ltd,