Dr Vanda Rounsefell - Productivity Commission

3.23: Re social accounting. For an organisation that is not beholden to external sources for
funding, resources such as DGR status, GST exemption etc are too blunt as instruments of
feedback signal control or retribution (for continuous improvement or accountability). In these
cases the accountability is to the ‘customer’, in AA’s case for example, to the ‘alcoholic who still
suffers’, or with the Natural Earth Burial Society, to ‘the planet’ in the course of pursuing a
necessary human activity (disposal of human remains). This is not dissimilar to the case of
contracted services, but where funding is involved, there are additional modes for leveraging
outcomes or measuring effectiveness (‘bang for the community buck’).
With self-funding organisations, constraints are provided by the legal and regulatory framework
and social mores. Any metrics need to take account of the ‘customer’ side, including if possible
those who are not helped, not just the organisation. It should be mentioned, with any type of
service organisation, the client must be ready and willing to be helped and forcing is ineffective.
This can make metrics a depressing affair.
However if the stories are traced over a long enough period, one often finds that seeds have been
sown years before in the course of the ‘failed’ approaches. The habit of assessing effectiveness at
short term is misleading. For example, alcoholics are often assessed for sobriety at 6 months , a
year or two years. Yet sober alcoholics usually refer to the many years it took for them to regain full
health, often with many relapses in between. By the same token, cancer may appear to be cured
but reappear 15 years later.
Therefore 10-year or more spans are needed for accurate assessment of real progress in
interventions involving of human health and behaviour. But how many NPOs survive for 10 years
themselves? And how many have funding for that period? We are all too impatient and silver bullet
seeking, and continuity and a common language are lacking.
13.35: Please would you consider integrating a concept of community rated Public Liability
Insurance here somewhere appropriate?
Adelaide
24 th November 2009
6