Every now and then a government decides to step back and take stock in the programs and services they offer. They call this process many names, but for now let’s use the term core review. A core review differs from other forms of service reviews in that it really focuses on assessing which activities are “core” or required, and which activities can be seen as discretionary.

There are many driving factors for these core reviews. Sometimes governments face a budget shortfall and “holy heck, we gotta find some way to cut our budget” or sometimes newly elected representatives have a desire to get rid of the perceived government waste. More than that, the overriding driver is that most communities are growing in some capacity and the demands for services at all levels of government are growing at a pace that exceeds tax revenues. As the common, but hated, saying goes, governments are being asked to do more with less.

Now here is the great kicker of it all. From my experience, governments generally find that only 1% to 10% of their expenditures can be described as discretionary. Everything else (over 90% of the budget) goes to services that are essential to the modern government. And even within that last 10%, many services are perceived as politically critical or important to the community.

From one perspective this is fantastic news, and a great re-assurance to those responsible for their communities. If you and those around you have harboured suspicions about the wastefulness of government operations, good news, the core review shows that your government is not wasting money on frivolous services.

Yet, despite all this, communities are growing, service expectations are increasing, and the core review shows that there is not much room in the budget to address those needs.

So, how did it get to be this way? As I have seen, local governments have been dealing with budget limitations and shortfalls for years. Furthermore, governments are staffed with good, smart people who are invested in finding new ways of doing things. So, each year they discover new ways of offering customer service and addressing the myriad of challenges and demands placed on them from above and below. The end result is that governments often run fairly lean these days, with employees taking on multiple roles and responsibilities.

The problem is that this evolution has come in a piecemeal fashion with individual groups coming up with their own individual improvements. The end result is that local governments now:

• Have multiple overlapping tools and processes such as different information systems and databases
• Offer different customer experiences to citizens depending on the program
• Implement redundant activities from group to group

In short, cities spend their money on the right services, which individually are well run. Yet, as a whole, cities have many opportunities for efficiency improvements, and that is where the great benefit for these reviews can be found.

Core reviews tend to focus on whether government has the right set of services, which is an important step. But if they want to achieve real value and real costs savings from it, governments should use the platform of core reviews (or service reviews) to develop and launch government wide efficiency and effectiveness improvements.

 This is part 1 of a multi-week post. In next week’s post, I will address the approaches that governments can take to create more value in their service reviews. In the meantime, if you have any questions or would like more information, please e-mail me at info@maisonblanche.co