Better scrutiny

Ken Clarke (second left) at the Matchbox Cafe, run by Birmingham service users

• Increase image
• View all images

Effective reviews are vital to make sure services are performing properly.

Inform councillors

The complexity of public finance is daunting, but Cambridgeshire CC has created a more informed and better thought-out scrutiny process for its annual budget.

Three years ago it introduced initiatives to ensure alignment between the council's priorities, performance and resources. And using an integrated process makes sure that there are sufficient funds to achieve these priorities.

Each autumn, 'pairings' are arranged between scrutiny councillors and directors of services to give all parties an understanding of the issues facing Cambridgeshire, the pressures on each of its services and officers' proposals to address them.

"The pairings provide councillors with an opportunity to increase their knowledge, so that the final bit of scrutiny is less of a challenge," says Helen Maneuf, head of audit, scrutiny and information. "If councillors understand what is going on, it is easier for them to make constructive criticism."

In November and January, councillor seminars are held on the budget and there is a special meeting to consider the opposition's budget, which provides an alternative perspective on the choices facing the council. In advance of all meetings, elected members are given training and support, so that they know what the key lines of enquiry will be.

"We have drawn heavily on the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy's guidance on scrutiny, and the experience of other councils," says Ms Maneuf.

The initiatives have enabled the scrutiny committee to have an earlier and greater input to the council's budget.

The results have included highlighting the need for increased investment in adult and social care. They also showed that feedback from public consultations calling for more investment in highways was not reflected in the budget.

It has also meant better tracking of recommendations and ensuring that they are built into future plans. Ms Maneuf says the overall process has required a lot of planning and support from officers, and time needs to be allowed for this.

Each year, she adds, Cambridgeshire hopes to improve the process, drawing on lessons learnt. This year it hopes to start the scrutiny process earlier, so that councillors can look at the priorities that set the budgets, rather than just the budgets overall.

Systematically review services

The chair of Birmingham City Council's adults and communities scrutiny committee has been highly praised for his systematic review of underperforming social services.

"When our administration was elected in 2004, the cabinet member and I decided we needed to take a look at all the council's adult care services, all of which were poorly performing," says Len Clark (Con), winner of the award for scrutiny chair of the year.

First, the scrutiny committee examined the council's 31 residential homes. Most of the homes were expected to fail an audit by the Commission for Social Care Inspection and faced closure. A previous administration had delayed making a decision, but the committee decided to close 29 failing homes over a phased period.

The committee then moved on to examine the council's daycare services, and is currently completing a review of home care.

"We examine things in depth," says Cllr Clark. "We look at government regulations, developments in the care sector, and what other local authorities are doing. We are not afraid to make critical comments and we don't just look at where the council is now, but where we want Birmingham to be in 10-15 years."

Under Cllr Clark's leadership, committee members have visited care homes and other premises and heard directly from front-line staff. Consultation meetings have been held away from council headquarters in accessible locations, with transport provided so that service users and care workers can attend.

"I have tried to take committee colleagues with me, to get them to 'buy into' the evidence," says Cllr Clarke. "It means that when the final report and recommendations are produced there isn't a party political debate."

He continues: "You have to invest in scrutiny. You have to resource it sufficiently, with good quality staff who are equal to senior officers. And you have to do the job thoroughly, and come up with recommendations that can be implemented within a reasonable time scale.

"It takes longer to consult with staff, users and the rest of council, but it is worth it if you can carry them with you."

Cllr Clark admits to being not being "overly keen" on scrutiny when it was first introduced. "But now I realise that you can take an in-depth look at things, and check the council is delivering the right services, efficiently and effectively," he says. "It's a place where you can make a difference to the way the council operates."

Work with other local authorities

In South Wales, four councils have overcome political differences and resource issues to conduct joint scrutiny of waste management that will lead to significant savings.

The project began in 2005, when Newport City Council approached Cardiff Council's scrutiny committee, hoping to learn from its experiences.

As discussions progressed it became obvious — because of landfill tax and other legislation — that the councils were facing the same issues and that a joint scrutiny investigation made sense. Two other councils, Vale of Glamorgan Council and Monmouthshire CC, joined the exercise in 2007.

The councils conducted a study which was as much about whether joint working was a good idea and the issues that would arise from it as it was about waste, according to Hazel Ilett, scrutiny co-ordinator at Monmouthshire. To make it manageable, the more complicated technical details were discussed by a separate working group of officers.

Evidence was collected from nearly 50 witnesses and four visits were made to waste management projects in different councils.

Working across the authorities posed many challenges, says Ms Ilett. For example, the councils' resources for scrutiny were very different: Cardiff had a £1m budget with 20 staff available, while some councils had none.

There were political differences as well. "Trying to get councillors to work together could be a nightmare," says Ms Ilett. "But once we gave them the facts — that something needed to be done about waste management — they agreed to work together."

She adds: "It took a lot of time and effort, but building member/member relations was really important. We got them to travel together, organised get-togethers, and had an informal workshop atmosphere to the meetings. It does not seem important, but it was the most important factor."

Organising all of this was a challenge. Some of the information that needed to be viewed was sensitive, and co-ordinating visits could be difficult.
 
However, measures such as appointing councillors as champions help ensure they 'take ownership' of the results of study visits and that the process survives any changes in councillors, staff and administration.

Last year a joint report went to each council's scrutiny committee and their executives. All the councils agreed that something needed to be done, and going ahead in partnership was the only option.

Ms Ilett says: "The joint scrutiny investigation means that most councillors are already on board and there is the political will to go ahead."