Ontario’s Municipal Government Reforms: What Have We Learned?

1. Ontario’s Municipal Government Reforms: What Have We Learned? By Alicia Schatteman Doctoral Student School of Public Affairs and Administration Presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for the Society of Public Administration March 27, 2007 Washington, DC

2. Research Question What can we learn about collaboration from Ontario’s municipal reforms?

3. Ontario, Canada • Population 12.7 million out of 32 million people (38.9%) in all of Canada (largest province by population and second to Quebec in area) • Capital of Ontario is Toronto, which is Canada’s largest city (5.3 million); and the capital of Canada, Ottawa, is also located in Ontario

4. Municipal Landscape of Ontario 445 municipalities 77.5% of all municipalities have less than 20,000 residents

5. Types of Municipal Government Reform • Changes to structure of local governments (amalgamation, consolidation, annexation) • Change in the relationship to other governments • Privatization of municipal government programs and services • Local government cost sharing for provision of government programs and services (shared services) • Regional tax-sharing

6. How did they do it in Ontario? • 1997: Local Services Realignment • 1995-2000: Consolidation of local • 2000: Ontario Municipal Performance Measurement Program (MPMP) in 2000. • 2007: updated Municipal Act of Ontario

7. What defines the Municipal-Provincial Relationship? • Legislative control through the Municipal Act • Establishes types of municipal taxation allowed and how taxes are levied • Municipal deficits not allowed, only modest and temporary surpluses allowed • Annual financial returns submitted to province • Annual performance measurement data submitted to province

8. Ontario’s Municipal Performance Measurement Program [MPMP] Goals: to improve delivery of municipal services, strengthen accountability to citizens and enhance the capacity of municipalities to improve and benchmark performance

9. “Ajax Mayor Steve Parish says the whole exercise [of performance measurement] is a waste of staff’s time and serves no useful purpose. Since the program started in 1999, he says he has never received a call from a resident regarding the published information” Mike Ruta Durham Region Regional News September 13, 2005

10. Component #1: MPMP, data collection • Data collection began with 40 different measures in 10 service areas in 2001 • For 2006, 54 measures in 12 service areas

11. MPMP: Data Analysis • Data submitted electronically to the Province via Financial Information Return [FIR]

12. MPMP: Data Reporting • Deadline to report • Method to report

13. MPMP Component #2: Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative [OMBI] • Partnership with Province and Regional CAOs, 15 municipalities • OMBI is developing a complementary performance measurement program www.ombi.ca. • 2005: Core Framework Data Collection process • Annual Conference

14. MPMP Component #3: Ontario Centre for Municipal Best Practices • Volunteer steering committee • Best practices are focused on four key areas of municipal services • Website www.municipalbestpractices.ca. • Best Practice Reports

15. No or Low citizen awareness Time lag Weak reporting requirements Difficulties for small municipalities Focus on efficiency and effectiveness and not on outcomes/ benefits Positives of MPMP Negatives of MPMP • Standardization of measures • Management Integration • System evolution • Ability to customize • Use of technology

16. Implications for Citizen Participation • Bigger is not necessarily better • We still don’t know what citizens really care about • Doesn’t create a public-minded citizenry or promote civic engagement • Doesn’t improve trust in government • Don’t know the type or size of governments that citizens want

17. Why aren’t citizens involved in PM? • Goal of efficiency first • Not required by Province • Financial and time constraints • Public manager’s reluctance to involve citizenry • Citizen’s perception they can’t make a difference (decreasing voter turnout, lowest at the municipal level) • Citizens aren’t aware of measurement program, don’t see value to them or use in local decision-making • Media apathy: don’t report on it locally

18. Implications for Efficiency • Efficiency of municipal size: cost savings and reduced property taxes has not occurred • Continued shifting/downloading of provincial services to municipalities • Measuring efficiency doesn’t make you efficient, not tested • No studies that examine whether performance measurement results inform decision making by managers or elected officials

19. Implications for Accountability • Inability to respond to local problems • Dilution of urban issues into suburban interests through amalgamation • No/low citizen awareness of performance measurement program by citizens, so

20. Barrier to Municipal Reform: “Home Rule” • Each municipality bears the costs of maintaining their individual identity, they may not be able to achieve efficiencies in the delivery of goods and services, and the individual taxpayers may face larger property taxes as a result. • Independence has its price. • Home rule also impacts regional planning initiatives, which cross boundaries. • New Jersey definitely is a “home rule” state, where the municipalities have relative autonomy from other forms of government.

21. Recommendations • Data Collection: outcomes • Data Analysis: frequency, customization • Data Reporting: what gets reported, how and when tailored to stakeholder needs

22. Future Research • How are communities reporting and is this meeting the needs of citizens? How are communities using the results and is this dependent on community size/form of government/management ability/public interest? • Any performance measurement program should assist government with improving the delivery of high-quality, efficient and effective services. The Ontario program is currently falling short. Any jurisdiction considering a performance measurement program must be more open to local context issues, sharing results and involving the citizens. • Ultimately it is citizens who should decide what they want from their government, and if the value they receive from their government is worth it in terms of taxes they pay. • It is now the challenge to make these reforms as relevant to the citizens of Ontario as possible by showing how they have improved government performance, created cost savings and therefore reduced tax burdens on citizens.