Framework for performance reporting and driving wellbeing outcomes in NSW.

Alison Holloway and Michelle Tjondro recently addressed the Public Accounts Committee as part of their inquiry into establishing a framework for driving wellbeing outcomes in NSW. SGS has a proven history of interpreting data and trends related to places, people and economies. Using a broad range of evidence, we support informed investment and policy decisions to benefit the public. This commitment led to developing the SGS Cities and Regions Wellbeing Index (CRWI), which offers key advantages like making evidence more accessible, providing detailed geographic reporting, aligning with government priorities, and supporting better decision-making.

SGS's submission to the inquiry drew on over a decade of experience analysing the economic performance of Australia’s cities and regions and developing our SGS CRWI framework. The framework includes seven dimensions and 24 indicators at the local government level, providing a thorough national wellbeing model. Our research highlights that traditional metrics, like Gross Domestic Product (GDP), often miss crucial aspects of wellbeing.

Traditional metrics like GDP often miss crucial aspects of wellbeing, such as human capital, environmental health, and social progress. The SGS CRWI is designed to address this gap by incorporating six additional dimensions of wellbeing. It is the only comprehensive framework available at the local government scale across Australia, offering detailed insights into how public policies impact different communities. This approach avoids the limitations of one-size-fits-all solutions and supports more tailored interventions, making it a crucial tool for the NSW Government's wellbeing initiatives.

SGS supports the NSW Government’s efforts to develop a robust framework for wellbeing outcomes and commends the Government for initiating this important discussion.

Features of an effective NSW government wellbeing framework

Based on learnings from developing the SGS CRWI, Alison and Michelle outlined eight key considerations for the committee.

1. Data should be available and accessible to community members, local and state government decision-makers, businesses, and other service providers. This promotes transparency and builds community trust.

The SGS CRWI compiles and presents data in an interactive dashboard that is publicly available and easy to use. Anyone can explore wellbeing in their local neighbourhood and compare it with other areas across Australia. This approach supports informed decision-making while promoting ongoing engagement and transparency across sectors, governments, and citizens.

2. Wellbeing themes, indicators and metrics should reflect government values and priorities and be meaningful to how communities think about and experience wellbeing.

The SGS CRWI’s dimensions align with the NSW Government's Performance and Wellbeing Framework and the Australian Government’s Measuring What Matters Framework. Indicator frameworks can differ in the hierarchy of themes and indicators, and the number of indicators. What is appropriate for a given context depends on data availability, the capacity to source and track data at a suitable frequency, and how key stakeholders will use the framework. The structure of a wellbeing framework can also be refined over time as lessons are learned from integrating it into policy and practice.

3. Aim for spatial detail in the wellbeing metrics. Indicators at the NSW level hide the range of outcomes and the impact of place on wellbeing. Indicators should be reported at a more detailed geography, such as local government area, and over time to inform policy and investment decision-making.

Where people live matters significantly to their life outcomes. The SGS CRWI reports wellbeing outcomes at the local government level, highlighting the diversity of cities and regions. This provides a more nuanced understanding of how place shapes people’s lives, supporting better-targeted policy and investment decisions. Local government should be seen as a key partner in achieving community wellbeing outcomes and in developing and applying a wellbeing framework.

4. Measure outcomes, not just activity or service levels. While ensuring adequate service provision is important, service levels alone do not guarantee the achievement of policy objectives. For example, a focus on providing training and education programs may not result in higher levels of educational attainment if there are broader barriers, such as high costs, limited accessibility, or low demand for the available courses.

The SGS CRWI focuses on measuring objective outcomes such as higher educational attainment, health outcomes, rental affordability, and levels of income and gender inequality.

5. Be relevant to all stages of the policy life cycle. Indicators and frameworks do not create change but shape insights that inform decision-making. The framework would benefit from clear links to governance, policy and investment decision-making, and an understanding of the relationships between outcomes. The framework has a role in removing silos and embedding priorities.

The SGS CRWI is designed to be relevant at all stages of the policy life cycle, from issue identification to monitoring and evaluation. It provides indicators shaping insights and guiding decision-making by linking wellbeing outcomes to governance, policy, and investment strategies. By highlighting interconnections between different outcomes, the framework helps break down silos and embed priorities across sectors, ensuring a more integrated and informed approach to policy development and implementation.

Embedding strategic planning, indicators and targets into planning