United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

The Scandinavian Local Municipal Compass – An evaluation tool for development, knowledge exchange, comparing performance and results

In Scandinavian countries local governments has the responsibility over a very extensive welfare mission.
Sweden for instance is divided into 290 municipalities which are responsible for providing a significant proportion of all public services to their citizens. They have a considerable degree of autonomy and have independent powers of taxation. Local self-government and the right to levy taxes are stipulated in the Instrument of Government, one of the four pillars of the Swedish Constitution. Also the municipalities determine their own local performance targets and level of local taxes in order to achieve targets. They also have a great deal of freedom to organize their activities as they see fit. This freedom is based on a historical tradition in which the government and the local authorities see common interest in a high level of autonomy and still work in the same direction for maintaining a stable welfare state.
This broad providing of service and a high level of local responsibility to the citizens is therefore characteristic for all the Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
Today the democratic institutions are facing a number of dilemmas in their effort to combine democracy and efficiency. What affect will the global economic crises have on the welfare mission in the future? How do we handle the demographic growth and the high public expectations? What will it take to retain the confidence for the local democracy and the high level of service excellence with less money to spend?
To face this challenge partnership between countries with similar task is of great value. In the past the Scandinavian countries have not been so good in learning from each other in the field of public service and performance management. Our countries have also been missing an evaluation tool which could provide the central government with strategic information and knowledge concerning development of management and control. A tool who also can contribute to development for the individual local municipality as well as build a foundation for benchmarking nationwide and cross border.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
In more than ten years Norway and Sweden has used the municipality compass. In the process of alter and develop the instrument Denmark connected to the work in 2009. Research institutes as well as representatives from municipalities was also involved in the alter process. During the process it became obvious that we had so much common, the same challenges and experience that we could share. From 2011 we use a common instrument, share experiences and compare results. There is a unique formal agreement which stipulate the three countries collaboration with the same evaluation tool and a benchmarking procedure. We do this with the help of an open database, with networking and with direct support to the local governments in the municipalities. Sweden has performed more than 130 evaluations since they started in 2002. Norway more than 50 and Denmark started evaluating first in 2010 and had reach approx ten municipalities. Criteria’s and headlines The criteria chosen in the municipality compass portray the municipality as a service producer under democratic control. Citizen participation and citizen satisfaction are therefore overarching criteria against which the municipality is assessed. Another general set of criteria reflects the value placed on the service production and the learning capacity of the municipality. In order to serve the citizens effectively, the municipality must know what the needs and demands of the citizens are, and it must be able to determine whether actions and policies adopted actually contribute to the satisfaction of those needs. And that systems and processes are well functional. A third value is placed on if the organization is a good place to work in. A good place of work is, of course, primarily an instrument for realizing the two sets of values mentioned above. But it is of such vital importance in this respect that it deserves special mention. The fourth criteria focus on the municipality as a community development agent or community partner. This criteria focus on partnerships with civic society/voluntary associations, cultural groups, local business/industry and international partnerships. The criteria in the municipality compass are those that were applied for the Bertelsmann Prize 1993 that was awarded to municipalities for outstanding performance (Bertelsmann Foundation 1993). The criteria and methods were developed by a cross national group of experts and scholars. The methods have been somewhat modified for a Nordic setting but the data are, on the whole, comparable with those produced in 1993. The questions we ask are sorted beneath eight headlines which all are reviewed and valued. The headlines are: 1. Public accountability and democracy 2. Accessibility and customer orientation 3. Political governance and control 4. Leadership, responsibility and delegation 5. Results and effectiveness 6. The municipality as an employer 7. Quality systems 8. The municipality as community builder Each headline can give 100 points so the total score can be 800.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
In no more than 500 words, specify who contributed to the design and/or implementation of the initiative, including relevant civil servants, public institutions, organizations, citizens, NGOs, private sector, etc. The initiative was taken by the three central member organizations Danish KL, Norwegian KS and Swedish SALAR. Together with research institutes as well as representatives from local municipalities in the three countries we contributed with the design of the instrument. The initiative to cooperate was broadly welcomed by our members the local authorities, who represent the citizens our primary stakeholder.

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
The member has a free option to choose if they want to order an evaluation or not. It is not coercive. It is a support that for example Sweden has offered their local municipalities since 2002 for a minor cost. And there is no similar instrument or support on the market. The interest has increased over the years without promotion in Norway and Sweden. The instrument has pretty much sold itself by recommendations from evaluated municipalities. Denmark who started 2010 is in a process of implementation and establishment.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
In order to compare performance across municipalities the Norwegian Associations of Local Authorities and Regions (KS) developed the evaluation tool The Municipal Compass in 1997. The evaluation tool had an international background and is an adaptation of the method and criteria’s developed for the Bertelsmann Prize 1993 that was awarded to municipalities for outstanding performance. The criteria and methods were developed by a cross-national group of experts and scholars. The methods have been somewhat modified for a Nordic setting (Prof. Harald Baldersheim & Prof. Morten Øgård: Kommune¬kompasset. Evaluering i kommunal organisasjonsutvikling, Oslo: Kommuneforlaget 1997). The Swedish Associations of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) started to use The Municipal Compass in 2002. In the process of alter and modify the criteria’s, and questions in 2010, Denmark joined the cooperation. Finland is going to try out the instrument in some municipalities during 2012. The size of the municipalities who has been evaluated vary from less than 10 000 citizens to over 800 000. Some statistics from Sweden 2002-2011 • 130 assessments - 82 municipalities (from large cities to small cities in the countryside) The two biggest cities in Sweden, Stockholm and Gothenburg have been evaluated) - 7 districts in big cities (Goteborg, Malmo and Stockholm) • More than 30 % of the municipalities have done more than one evaluation and 10 % three or more.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
The main obstacle in the beginning was to form a concept built on common ideas and notions. This was important to secure that we had the same focus and mutual understanding regarding the task. We succeeded with this. Denmark was the only country who had to promote the instrument. In Norway and Sweden it´s already well established.

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The evaluation procedure A team of two persons is visiting the municipality for three days. Two days with interviews and one day for analyze and rating. The interviews are conducted with leading politicians, official civil servants, directors from different levels and employee organisations. The interviews are performed in 5-6 groups with approx 35-40 persons totally. The criteria focus on the processes, procedures, structures of management of municipalities and development and outcome. The scoring system awards points according to the degree to which municipalities have adopted procedures and processes that are deemed to be in accordance with “the best practice” of good municipal governance. Before the visit the team has study strategic documents and the municipal Internet site to get information and preparing for the interviews. After the evaluation the team analyzes the results, makes an assessment and produces a written report. The municipality gets verbal feedback and the report after about 20-30 days. The verbal feedback embraces all persons that had been interviewed. All reports are public in a Scandinavian searchable database http://www.stratsys.se/skl2/. The input of human resources during an evaluation is totally 8-10 full working days. The cost for the evaluation is in Sweden 70 000 Swedish crowns which is approx 7 000 euro. It covers the costs for the human resources, travel and accommodation during the evaluation. So it is a non profit activity.

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The evaluation tool has an international background and is an adaptation of the method and criteria’s developed for the Bertelsmann Prize 1993 that was awarded to municipalities for outstanding performance. The city of Phoenix in USA and the city of Christchurch New Zealand was then rewarded. The criteria and methods were developed by a cross-national group of experts and scholars. The evaluation has also been used in Russia and Namibia so it is transferable. As long as local governments have the responsibility of produce welfare there will be a need of a support in that task. The municipality compass is a support and it can be adapted to the time we live in which make it sustainable.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
Some of the benefits The instrument has helped us to contribute to development for the individual local municipality as well as build a foundation for benchmarking nationwide and cross border. It has also given us an overall understanding of the situation and the development in the fields of local democracy, performance management and the produce of welfare. All results from an evaluation are presented in a transparent way on a common website for de citizens, the politicians and the profession. The database makes it possible to compare results, way of working and the construction make it easy to find best practise and contact information from all countries. The website is very well used and the application number increases from year to year. Database at http://www.stratsys.se/skl2/ 75 % of the municipalities choose to repeat the evaluation within 2-4 years to follow up if their efforts have improved the result. Denmark joined the cooperation 2010 and Finland is going to try out the instrument in some municipalities during 2012. The medium score has increase over the years which indicates that the evaluation contribute to the development. In Sweden for instance the medium score increased from 396 points 2002 to 510 points in 2009. This indicates that the municipalities use the result to develop the quality their performance. At least seven major Swedish nationwide development projects has started because of problems identified from analyzes of the results. More than 250 municipalities have participated in these overall strategic projects. Since 2003 the instrument is used to choose the Quality municipality of Sweden every second year. The winner 2011 was the municipality of Kungsbacka.


Institution Name:		Denmark, Norway and Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions
Institution Type:		Professional Association
Contact Person:		Leif Eldas
Title:		Senor officer
Telephone/ Fax:		+46702030104
Institution's / Project's Website:		www.skl.se
E-mail:		leif.eldas@skl.se
Address:		Hornsgatan 20
Postal Code:		11882
City:		Stockholm
State/Province:		Stockholm
Country:		Sweden

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information