Category Archives: Governance Sector Support Project

For further information contact:
Janine Milera
NACCHO Manager Projects and Innovation
02 6246 9327
janine@naccho.org.au

Mar 12 2013

NACCHO political alert: Review of capacity building in Aboriginal organisations will be broadcast live

NAC-31-35-B

 The adequacy of the Federal Government’s efforts to build capacity in Indigenous organisations will be discussed at a public hearing in Canberra on Wednesday.

The hearing will be broadcast live at: http://www.aph.gov.au/live

 This second hearing conducted by Parliament’s Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is part of its review of Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reports on Indigenous programs released over the past year.

 The ANAO’s audit (No.26 2011–12) on Capacity Development for Indigenous Service Delivery called for more attention to be given to support capacity in Indigenous organisations, including reforms to funding arrangements and the development of a whole-of-government strategy.

 There are around 9000 Indigenous organisations across Australia which together received an estimated $1.34 billion in grant funding in 2010–11 from the three government departments under audit: the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; and the Department of Health and Ageing.

 Committee chair Rob Oakeshott MP said funding to Indigenous organisations is used to deliver crucial services including child care, aged care, family services, and employment services—all of which are particularly important in remote areas.

 “The need to support the capacity of Indigenous organisations has been identified time and time again in many government reviews and reports,” Mr Oakeshott said.

 “This inquiry is about making sure the Government’s efforts in capacity development are as effective as possible to help improve outcomes for Indigenous people.”

 The three departments will appear at the hearing alongside the ANAO on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 from 12.15 to 1 pm in Committee Room 2R1, Parliament House, Canberra.

 More information about the hearing can be found at the committee’s website www.aph.gov.au/jcpaa under ‘Review of Auditor-General’s Reports’.

The hearing will be broadcast live at: http://www.aph.gov.au/live

 

For media comment: please contact Committee Chair, Rob Oakeshott MP, on
(02) 6584 2911.

For information about the hearing: please contact the committee secretariat by telephone (02) 6277 4615, e-mail jcpaa@aph.gov.au, or visit the committee website http://www.aph.gov.au/jcpaa.

Dec 10 2012

NACCHO’s National Governance Project Officer wins a prestigious Board Diversity Scholarship

Donisha DuFf

Jody-Currie-1-180x229

 

The Australian Institute of Company Directors today joined with the Federal Minister for the Status of Women, Julie Collins, to announce the recipients of the coveted Board Diversity Scholarships.

 NACCHO’s  National Governance Project Officer Donisha Duff along with  Jody Currie from  Queensland’s  Institute for Urban Indigenous Health (IUIH) were two of these recipients.

For further information on NACCHO Governance and Member Support Initiative

Jointly funded by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Australian Government, the Board Diversity Scholarship program has awarded 70 scholarships to high performing women such as Donisha nd Jodie across Australia to attend the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ highly regarded Company Directors Course or Mastering the Boardroom program. Recipients also receive a free 12 month membership of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

 The 2012 round of the program attracted more than 1600 applications, with recipients selected based on their experience and readiness for the boardroom by a committee of representatives of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the Australian Government’s Office for Women.

 “Successful applicants were able to demonstrate their significant experience and a high degree of leadership potential and capacity,” said John Colvin, Chief Executive and Managing Director, Australian Institute of Company Directors.

 “Nationally, the 70 recipients represent a diverse range of qualifications and experience ranging from the more traditional directorships pathways of banking, finance, accounting and law to the less traditional pathways of communications, human resources, small business, marketing, science and academia,” said Mr Colvin.

 The scholarship program is one of the initiatives by the Australian Institute of Company Directors to support board diversity that includes the Chairmen’s Mentoring Program, Public Sector Mentoring Program, Board Ready program and the Victorian Women’s Governance Scholarship program, for women in the Victorian NFP and community sector.

 Real time statistics compiled by the Australian Institute of Company Directors show that in recent years the number of women on our top boards has grown from around 8 per cent (2008) to 15.2 per cent today. This figure rises to almost 20 per cent when looking at the ASX 20 and ASX 50.

 “The growing numbers of women on our most elite boards prove that companies recognise that a gender-diverse board is good for business and that they are actively seeking out female talent,” said John Colvin.

 “We hope that over time, initiatives like this scholarship program will be extremely valuable and help women to achieve their career goals, as well as further lifting the number of women on our boards,” he said. We are pleased to work with the Australian Government on this important project.”

Background

 The Australian Institute of Company Directors provides education, information and advocacy for company directors Australia wide, with offices in each state to cater for 26,700 members. Our members work in diverse corporations such as small-to-medium enterprises, the ASX200 corporations, public sector organisations, not-for-profit companies, large private companies and smaller private family concerns

Background

 NACCHO  Governance and Member Support Initiative

 Good governance is the foundation for sustainability in all organisations.

  The Aboriginal Community Controlled Health (ACCH) Sector is unique and requires good governance principals and practices that are suitable and adaptive to local diversity, while still upholding quality standards and compliance with legislative frameworks.

 The goal of the NACCHO Governance and Member Support Initiative is to support, enhance and extend the implementation and maintenance of good practice in governance on a coordinated and consistent basis across the ACCH Sector.

 The GMS Initiative will establish Affiliate Member Support Units in each State and Territory to ensure a proactive environment that supports and strengthens ACCH organisations.

 Objectives

  •To create effective and culturally informed National Guiding Principles and Guidelines on Good Governance for the ACCH Sector.

 •To establish a sustainable model for the provision of capacity-strengthening and crisis intervention governance support, mentoring and advice to ACCH organisations in all jurisdictions.

 For further INFORMATION

Nov 30 2012

Mick Gooda-Effective Aboriginal governance must start with us

Mick Gooda,Social Justice Commissioner

“Give us a chance to take control – effective Aboriginal governance must start with us, with our peoples and our communities”

 

Mick Gooda, Social Justice Commissioner with the Australian Human Rights Commission, today  launched his 2012 Social Justice and Native Title Reports in Sydney

 In the Social Justice and Native Title Reports looks at a range of development that have occurred during the reporting period (1 July 2011 – 30 June 2012).

A key theme of both reports is what constitutes effective governance in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Note for NACCHO Governance project “Our Business , Our way” click here

Commissioner Gooda acknowledges that over past decades there has been a failure to appropriately support governance in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

In his reports, Commissioner Gooda calls for a new approach; an approach that supports, enables and empowers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to determine their own futures.

“In order for a community to achieve its aims, the governance structures of that community must be culturally relevant and meaningful.”

“For Indigenous governance to be effective it is not enough to import foreign governance structures into communities and expect that those communities will be able to function effectively within those structures,” said Commissioner Gooda.

Commissioner Gooda looks closely at the Northern Territory and the damage caused by ill-conceived government action. The Northern Territory is a poignant illustration of how government action diminishes the capacity of communities to determine and address their specific needs.

“The period since 2007 has been one of great upheaval in remote Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. Local government reforms coincided with the Northern Territory intervention and together were felt by communities as one assault.”

“The extent and regularity of imposed change faced by remote Northern Territory Aboriginal communities has unsettled the governance structures and shifted decision-making responsibility from communities to centralised government institutions.”

“The Local Government reforms removed Community Council structures while the intervention also dismantled existing structures and organisations in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities,” said Commissioner Gooda.

“To leave people feeling like they have no control over their lives has a real human impact as highlighted in the Northern Territory in the last 5 years. We know from national and international research that disempowerment results in ill health and even increased suicide rates.”

Drawing on the extensive existing research, Commissioner Gooda articulates a three pronged framework for the effective governance in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

First, the foundation of the framework is community governance and self-determination.

“Effective Indigenous governance must start with us – with our peoples and our communities

We need to take control of the running of our own communities.”

The second aspect is effective organisational governance. The third aspect of the framework is the importance of government and other external influences.

“We know from decades of research, that government can and often does have a determinative impact on communities’ ability to achieve their aims,” said Commissioner Gooda.

“Government typically does not have the necessary skills and cultural competency to engage effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There have been many reports detailing the impacts of this lack of capacity. Further, funding is often provided on a short-term basis and the requirements of government agencies are often onerous in proportion to the amounts of funding available or provided.”

“Where government plays the right role in the governance framework, that is, supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to govern themselves, great things happen.”

“I am constantly impressed by the creativeness and commitment of our communities and groups within communities to finding solutions to the range of complex challenges we face. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities achieve these success stories all the time, often in the face of significant obstacles, and I have included a number of these in my reports,” said Commissioner Gooda.

Full reports available online at:

Social Justice Report http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/sj_report/sjreport12/index.html

Native Title Report http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/nt_report/ntreport12/index.html

 

Media contact: Emily Barker  0419 258 597

Nov 29 2012

If the Federal Government really wants to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health

Pictured above Selwyn Button, CEO of the Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council (QAIHC),one of the key speakers at the NACCHO AGM members meeting 2012 in Brisbane where the theme was  “Our business,Our way- Governance”

In the article below, Selwyn  argues that the focus of government reporting requirements should shift to looking at outcomes rather than inputs He also argues that real health service improvement will be driven by communities themselves, rather than by government contracts.

The priority should be to build and develop “the capacity of our communities to ask the hard questions of their local organisations,” he says.

We acknowledge the continued support of Melissa Sweet CROAKEY

***

Our communities will drive health service reform better than input-focused government contracts

Selwyn Button writes:

Over the past 12 months, community controlled services across the country have entered into new contractual relationships with major funding bodies, predominantly the Federal Health Department, to support the improvement of health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the country.

Through this process we have seen significant new investment in community controlled service delivery, which is a welcome move, whilst also ensuring that organisations remain accountable to government for the resources they received through a range of new reporting measures, streamlined into a single agreement.

This was a major recommendation from the Overburden Report, compiled by Professor Judith Dwyer and her colleagues in 2009, that sought to make sense of complexities in funding arrangements for community controlled organisations, to support greater focus on service delivery as opposed to administration and compliance.

Finally, governments had started to listen to what their funded research was telling them.

What this new contract relationship should have created was an environment where community controlled health services could focus on doing what they do best – providing quality health care to our people. It would have been an ideal opportunity to also right the service-provider relationship – where Governments purchased quality health care outcomes not administrative outcomes.

Only months before the commencement of the 2011/2012 financial year, representatives from the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (OATSIH), which happens to be the major funder of primary health services across the country for our people, undertook a road show across the country to highlight and discuss impending changes to the contractual relationship between governments and community controlled services.

Workshops were held in every State and Territory capital city, with a view to ensuring that all stakeholders were aware of impending changes and outline how new contracts and explanatory handbooks would support improved understanding of demands on services and expectations from government. When establishing solid relationships between purchasers of services and providers of health care, it is important for both parties to understand each other’s needs and how to address concerns throughout the contract period.

Many of these workshops left participants more confused than before commencing, although left some glimmer of hope that there would be some joint work around the ongoing development and updating of the Funding Agreement Handbook, which would be used as a guide for both OATSIH and community controlled service staff.

Unfortunately, at this point and still today, there is no clear indication from OATSIH what they are seeking to purchase from community controlled services.

The contracts outline priority areas for program delivery, with a focus on inputs such as primary health care, social and emotional well-being, child and maternal health etc, without providing clear indication of what OATSIH want to achieve across all areas, other than to say it all contributes to the six Close the Gap National targets.

They don’t however provide solid links between health service outcomes and their known impact on clients’ health outcomes.

Consequently, we can only draw one conclusion from this confused contractual state: that governments do not yet truly understand what it is they want to purchase in terms of Indigenous health outcomes.

A focus on inputs rather than outputs

Community controlled services have and will continue to preach that comprehensive primary health care is needed for the health of our people.

Community controlled health service delivery commenced on the premise that to achieve the best health outcomes for our people, we need to provide comprehensive services, not just your average primary care services, and consequently there has been much attention across the sector to build and strengthen this approach over time, with great outcomes.

Furthermore, we can assume that the fundamental notion of a formidable purchaser/provider relationship is not a priority, as governments want to continue the notion of providing grant monies to community controlled organisations tied to a range of preventative measures that are not necessarily related to performance in health service provision.

Perhaps Governments are simply not ready to move to purchaser provider relationships where outcomes and not inputs are the contractual foundations.

How do we draw these conclusions?

Firstly, I am yet to hear complaints from any community controlled service across the country that is ever questioned by OATSIH in relation to a lack of health assessments completed over a quarterly reporting period.

Rather, much of these contractual discussions centre around questions concerning governance models, constitutional changes, budget expenditure against unreported items, employee fractions on projects and other related things. Is it that Government believes such matters are a better indication of performance by each service?

Again Government remain focussed on inputs and monitoring administrative functions of service providers rather than focussing on health outcomes delivered.

Don’t get me wrong, all of the aforementioned items are important in the broader scheme of running successful businesses, although these fundamental questions should be resolved at the time of developing and endorsing relevant annual Action Plans and related project budgets.

Building capacity of community controlled organisations to do this consistently will enable and inform successful new business models to support health outcomes, and we are already starting to see this happen in many areas.

This process is being developed and led by the sector itself, which is a clear demonstration of organisational maturity and growth to support outcomes for our people. The sector must and should continue to be responsible for internal reform and improvements, whilst also setting higher expectations for itself, rather than be dictated to by governments.

What I am advocating, though, is that quarterly discussions are better spent on performance outputs and outcomes that can lead to improved health benefits for clients.

This process is not what a purchaser/provider relationship should look like when governments are attempting to purchase quality health services to support outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Government push for control

The current contractual relationship enables and supports ongoing government manipulation of community controlled organisations in a manner they believe will benefit communities the most. Admittedly, there are circumstances across the country where this is required, although experiences tell us that community controlled services are already delivering the best health outcomes for their own people and this is not being supported to continue and strengthen.

More concerning with the current contractual arrangement is Government seeking to ensure they can run community controlled organisations from within their departments, again evidenced in the contractual focus on day-to-day operations and inputs.

What we need at this point is not for governments to assume and attempt to maintain total control over community organisations, nor do we wish for community controlled organisations to think that they can do as they please with no accountabilities to anyone, as this is not community controlled either.

Given the growth in organisational maturity and experience in health service delivery, community controlled services are seeking to assume responsibility as the major provider of health care to our own people.

Although with this responsibility comes greater accountability, but not just to government but our accountability must be to the communities we serve, through robust reporting and monitoring mechanisms that are designed to provide clients and community with relevant information and data to meet their needs.

Governments will continue to seek improved accountability through contractual relationships, although this needs to improve and give recognition to existing processes, like those already compulsory for organisations through clinical and organisational accreditation processes.

The development of relevant Action Plans and budgets for government and community are and still should be essential, although ongoing monitoring of performance can be better achieved through focussing upon health outputs and outcomes that will lead to fundamental change.

Reporting to communities

Additionally ensuring that all organisations are regularly reporting to their local communities will further drive transparency in organisations, consequently leading to improved outcomes that can be measured competently by both community and government.

This is the relationship we need to start building and developing: the capacity of our communities to ask the hard questions of their local organisations, which demands far greater weight and attention than that of governments.

In Queensland, these reforms have commenced and we are starting to see a dramatic shift in community interactions with their local community controlled service because of it.

We now need to see this spread across the country so that the people who need high quality health services the most, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, are demanding it from their local service and seeking to ensure it continues to improve and grow.

The challenge for governments in all of this is to determine what role they are seeking to play in supporting this reform process.

Are they still wanting to remain in an old grant provision mentality of providing resources to our services that are restricted by a range of reporting and compliance requirements?

Or do they seek to see fundamental change in health outcomes through new relationships that pay tribute to services that are providing high quality health care for our people and achieving relevant outcomes?

This shift requires significant attitudinal change by governments, reflected in the language they use, and demonstrated in contractual relationships that support and enable services to do their jobs, rather than restrict them into long-winded reporting regimes.

Then we will see real improvements and communities openly demanding further improvements from their local service.

• You can follow Selwyn Button on Twitter

 
Oct 17 2012

NACCHO member CEO Johanna Cowdrey wins a Telstra Business Women’s Awards.

NACCHO and all its 150+ member Australia wide congratulates Johanna Cowdrey – Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council, Broome

Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council chief executive Johanna Cowdrey has been awarded White Pages® Community & Government Award  in the Telstra Western Australian Business Women’s Awards.

This is the 18th year the national awards have recognised outstanding achievements of businesswomen.

Ms Cowdrey said she was surprised when she found out she had been nominated by her human resources manager and was even more astonished to discover she had been shortlisted in the White Pages Community and Government Award category.

“I’d heard of the Telstra Business Women’s Awards, but never thought I would be involved,” she said.

“It’s fantastic and a real privilege – there are a lot of unsung heroes in the community, but for me it’s really good to reflect on what I’ve done throughout my life and career.”

Appointed chief executive of KAHMS last year, Ms Cowdrey said the organisation continued from strength to strength, rolling out service delivery and vital programs in indigenous communities.

Johanna Cowdrey moved from gold prospecting to a rewarding career in Aboriginal Health, rising to become CEO of the Yura Yungi Aboriginal Medical Services in Halls Creek.

Back in Broome, she was appointed to management roles within Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council (KAMSC) and ultimately CEO.

Telstra judges described her as a pragmatic person and successful negotiator who demonstrated sound business acumen in her own small business and across KAMSC where she leads 200 staff with a $40 million budget across a massive remote geographical area with significant cultural and political challenges.

Jul 13 2012

NACCHO:EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST INVITED-Governance project

 

For the preferred provision of

Training and development/expertise support services

NOTE: This ad appeared in The Australian Tenders 15 July 2012

 

National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) is the national peak Aboriginal health body representing over 150 members and eight affiliate bodies throughout Australia and is responsible for project managing the sector Governance Enhancement Working Group (GEWG).

 NACCHO is inviting expressions of interest by individuals, businesses or professional bodies that wish to be included as panel preferred provider/suppliers to these NACCHO affiliates and members for the following services:

 1. Training and development services

To provide governance training and development to our affiliates and members across Australia.

 2. Expertise support services

To provide support services in the following range of business function areas such as financial management, planning and performance, business management, human resources development, legal support/constitutional, accreditation/CQI,health service management ,ICT/IM and governance.

 How to Apply:

Please provide a brief letter of application including the following information:

  • Trading name and ABN,
  • address and contact details,
  • type of program/ services you can offer,
  • qualifications of individuals who provide these services (including any accreditation),
  • experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Following a review of your letter of application, you may be invited to provide more detailed and specific information for the final assessment process and inclusion on a register of preferred providers.

 Due date for all applications is: Friday 27 July 2012.

Contact Person:

For further information contact: Ms Janine Milera T: (02) 6246 9300

E: janine@naccho.org.au

Jul 2 2012

Governance:Urgent remedy needed for Aboriginal community healthcare

This opinion article is reproduced from The Australian

28 June 2012 for the information of NACCHO members

Selwyn Button is chief executive of the Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council.

 Morgan Brigg is a senior lecturer at the University of Queensland.

THE community-controlled health sector can close the gap and deliver health improvements for Aboriginal people in ways that mainstream health services never have and never can. But the sector is in a crisis brought about by a failure of governance. This failure is not of the type popularly imagined and the solutions require urgent sector-led reform that will make many of the key players uncomfortable.

The mantra of “community control” has driven the Aboriginal community-controlled health sector for approximately 40 years, but insiders know that it needs a major overhaul. As services have grown to become complex multi-million dollar operations, they have not updated their governance models. Many organisations have become compromised as particular individuals and families come to exercise too much power. This is better described as “controlled community” than “community control”, with many Aboriginal people locked out of organisational membership by a powerful few.

In these circumstances it is impossible to keep organisations accountable, leading to systemic failures of governance. Without effective governance, funds are mismanaged and problems remain undetected until it’s too late.

 For several decades, governments have responded by attempting to improve corporate governance. Funders provide training on principles and mechanics of good governance and leadership and have tightened reporting requirements and increased monitoring and oversight. The efforts help, but they fail to address the problem. This is technical work, often undertaken by consulting firms with no expertise in Aboriginal health. They detect failure too late, displace local people by working only with the organisation, and divert resources and time from the core business of successfully delivering high quality healthcare to the country’s most disadvantaged populations.

The core of the problem is that corporate governance is in a battle with a compromised version of community control. Reform is necessary to prevent families from dominating boards and to avoid the conflicts of interest that plague the sector.

There is also a need for more expert and independent directors on boards. But such reform cannot be easily mandated by governments or technically administered. The answer, then, does not lie solely with corporate governance, although the highest of standards must continually be demanded in this area.

The sector needs to boldly reconfigure its approach to community governance as a key driver of good corporate governance. And there are already success stories. There are recent cases, following a crisis of corporate governance, where the community has stepped in and said enough is enough. As a result, governance has become more transparent and service provision and attendance have lifted.

Powerful individuals and families have been brought to heel by community pressure where they have not responded to consultancy firms and pressure from government funders. Unfortunately, though, this story is all too rare. Often crises lead to the closure of services or rolling problems.

Rethinking and reinvigorating community control can address the issues, but is not easy work. There is a need to explore and clarify where the values, principles and practices of community and corporate governance come from, and how they relate to the model of healthcare to be delivered. There is also a need to carefully think through the appropriate mix of Aboriginal and mainstream ideas and values that should be drawn upon. This type of work generates conflict, but it is necessary and can be transformative and valuable.

The upsides to rethinking governance in the sector and moving through conflict are big. One winner is Aboriginal control – Aboriginal people and Aboriginal values driving change on their terms. But equally important are the opportunities to better deliver the demonstrably effective health outcomes that are provided by community-controlled health services. This is crucial for closing the gap for an in-need population and for the responsible use of public funds.

Morgan Brigg is a senior lecturer at the University of Queensland. Selwyn Button is chief executive of the Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council.

May 11 2012

Governance and Member Support Initiative in the ACCH Sector

The Sector Governance Network

The network met in Adelaide on 18-19 April and over the two days considered;

1. The history of establishing this initiative

2. Overview of the proposed work plan

3. A presentation from Linda Powell, OATSIH first assistant Secretary

4. Affiliate Governance Member Support

5. Governance Training and development

6. National Principles and Guidelines on Good Governance

The following key National Principles and Guidelines on Good Governance are currently under consideration by the network and will be the platform on which this project is built;

Principle 1.
An effective Board will provide good governance and leadership by formally recognising the principles of community control over the supply of services delivered by the organisation to the community.

Principle 2.

An effective Board will provide good governance and leadership by understanding their role – what they are responsible for and what they have to do.

Principle 3.
An effective Board will provide good governance and leadership by making sure the organisation does what it has been set up to do.

Principle 4.
An effective Board will provide good governance and leadership by working effectively both as individuals and as a team.

Principle 5.
An effective Board will provide good governance and leadership by exercising effective control.

Principle 6.
An effective Board will provide good governance and leadership by behaving with integrity – showing their honesty and having strong ethical principles.

Principle 7.
An effective Board will provide good governance and leadership by being open and accountable.

 Future communiqués

Over the next few months we will be bringing NACCHO members up to date with this initiative.

NACCHO has advertised for a National Governance Project Officer and hopefully have that person on board by the end of May

Download Job Description

Background to project

The Minister for Indigenous Health, Warren Snowdon, requested that the Capacity Development Branch of the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (OATSIH) establish a Governance Enhancement Working Group in late 2010.

At the first meeting in December 2010, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health (ACCH) representatives proposed that NACCHO undertake a governance Scoping Study to guide future Working Group discussions. They suggested that the study could be the initial phase of an overall ACCH sector-wide and led Governance Enhancement Initiative.

NACCHO submitted a proposal for the Governance Scoping Study in late December and were commissioned to proceed with it by the Capacity Development Branch of OATSIH in January 2011. The aim of the study was to identify existing “models” of good practice in governance within the ACCH Sector.

The final report was submitted to OATISIH on February 22, 2011, having gained ACCH Sector endorsement. It was subsequently presented and discussed at the second Governance Enhancement Working Group meeting on February 28, 2011 in Brisbane.

The study identified clear and multiple examples of good practice in governance in ACCH organisations.

They were organised into overarching elements of good practice and components of good practice in relation to seven specific Board operation

 It also outlined what contributed to and detracted from the implementation and maintenance of good practice in governance in the ACCH Sector.

 It was clear that enhancing good governance in the ACCH Sector needs to occur within a more conducive and supportive environment to ensure that existing good practice occurs more consistently within and across ACCH organisations.

This environment would be characterised by sector-wide coordination of a proactive approach that was core-funded, and based on collaboration, early identification of concerns and sector-determined intervention strategies to support and strengthen organisations.

The report outlined the following five recommendations that would ensure this occurred :

Recommendation 1 – Policy, legal and funding reform: Policy flexibility is required to enable legal and funding reform at the highest level that creates a more conducive and supportive environment for enhancing good practice in governance.

Recommendation 2 – Core funding for Governance and Member Support: OATSIH needs to commit funding to establish and maintain Governance and Member Support  in each NACCHO Affiliate that:

-          Offers within Sector specialist expertise in governance

-          Has a discretionary budget that enables Affiliates to engage relevant and high quality external support on a needs-basis

-          Can negotiate access to OATSIH panel, but have exemption regarding procurement.

Recommendation 3 – The role of NACCHO: NACCHO’s role is to lobby and negotiate for policy reform, facilitate partnerships that contribute to governance enhancement in the Sector and coordinate a Sector Governance Network involving all Affiliates; this work needs to be appropriately resourced.

Recommendation 4 – Good governance guiding principles for the ACCH Sector: The ACCH Sector needs to be resourced to create a national set of guiding principles for good governance in the Sector.

Recommendation 5 – An ACCH Sector governance training unit: The ACCH Sector needs to be resourced to establish an ACCH Sector governance training unit that strengthens the governance capacity of local communities.

.

Mar 7 2012

Feb 2012 CEO report-Governance Sector Support Project

Proposal: NACCHO submitted a proposal for the Governance Scoping Study in late December 2010 and were commissioned to proceed with it by the Capacity Development Branch of OATSIH in January 2011. The aim of the study was to identify existing ‘models’ of good practice in governance within the ACCH Sector.

 Support: The Governance Enhancement Working Group confirmed their support for the recommendations outlined in the scoping study at the February 28, 2011 Brisbane meeting and OATSIH gave a commitment to support the implementation of the recommendations.

 Priorities: The priority for NACCHO is to employ the national project manager.

 Given some of the complex governance issues our member services have and in light of the current risk assessments being conducted ,its important  adequate resourcing is provided to the Affiliates to ensure they are able to maintain the necessary support to our member services

 The inaugural meeting of the Sector Governance network (SGN) will be held in Adelaide on 19-20th April 2012.  The SGN is made up of CEOs and Chairs of each NACCHO Affiliate and NACCHO.