[Jonathon Partridge [2]]

Good morning all,

Following on from some recent Member training I am trying to 'track' (pardon the pun) some practical examples of tracking methods that are used by local authorities to monitor the outcomes of OSC meetings or Task Forces.

At CBC we currently maintain a table of recommendations that are considered to be 'for action' and then follow them up at the end of the year when we put together the annual report to see what progress has been made. The result of this being that we get very little feedback throughout the year and there is no real scope for Members to challenge progress on an ongoing basis. I appreciate there are complications with assessing the outcomes of meetings on a short or medium term basis as many benefits may take a longer period of time to appear but wonder if any authorities have some kind of monitoring system that they use on a more regular basis that you would be willing to share. I am thinking simples such as tables in Excel or word that you just update after meetings. Feedback from some recent Member training suggests that we should be doing more of this so I would like to be proactive and get some practical examples in case we move forward with a 'recommendation tracker' of our own. Any comments on how you manage this tracker and how it is reviewed/owned would also be very gratefully received.

Similarly I would be interested to see any examples of work programmes that identify potential outcomes and the purpose of items being considered by OSCs, the purpose being to be clear from the outset why an item is on an agenda. I know there are some authorities around who do this as a means of driving an outcomes focused approach so any practical examples or thoughts on how you do this would be gratefully received.

Thank you

Jon Partridge
Scrutiny Policy Adviser - Central Beds Council
(jonathon.partridge@centralbedfordshire.gov.uk)

[ben craddock [2]]

(03-04-2012 10:29 AM)Jonathon Partridge [2] Wrote:  Good morning all,

Following on from some recent Member training I am trying to 'track' (pardon the pun) some practical examples of tracking methods that are used by local authorities to monitor the outcomes of OSC meetings or Task Forces.

At CBC we currently maintain a table of recommendations that are considered to be 'for action' and then follow them up at the end of the year when we put together the annual report to see what progress has been made. The result of this being that we get very little feedback throughout the year and there is no real scope for Members to challenge progress on an ongoing basis. I appreciate there are complications with assessing the outcomes of meetings on a short or medium term basis as many benefits may take a longer period of time to appear but wonder if any authorities have some kind of monitoring system that they use on a more regular basis that you would be willing to share. I am thinking simples such as tables in Excel or word that you just update after meetings. Feedback from some recent Member training suggests that we should be doing more of this so I would like to be proactive and get some practical examples in case we move forward with a 'recommendation tracker' of our own. Any comments on how you manage this tracker and how it is reviewed/owned would also be very gratefully received.

Similarly I would be interested to see any examples of work programmes that identify potential outcomes and the purpose of items being considered by OSCs, the purpose being to be clear from the outset why an item is on an agenda. I know there are some authorities around who do this as a means of driving an outcomes focused approach so any practical examples or thoughts on how you do this would be gratefully received.

Thank you

Jon Partridge
Scrutiny Policy Adviser - Central Beds Council
(jonathon.partridge@centralbedfordshire.gov.uk)

Hi Jon,


I suppose there is tracking on a simplistic level for immediate actions, and then following on from that there is more detailed outcome analysis, which you might want to target at specific pieces of work say 6 to 12 months after carrying out a piece of work.

As you suggest, you could just bring the recommendation tracker to each meeting as a procedural item to keep tabs on whether things are being done. As long as you keep it concise and delete completed actions as appropriate, it might work ok!

Ben Craddock
Scrutiny Officer
Surrey County Council

[M Ewbank]

We have action-trackers, as standard, as procedural sheets within Papers. Good way to track both immediate actions "please provide X" and longer-term recommendations "the committee recommends that officers do Y"

Examples are on our system (Westminster)

[Tom Barrett]

Similar to Mark here in Lambeth.

See this example or drop me a line and I'll send you the spreadsheet (tpbarrett@lambeth.gov.uk).

The Scrutiny Team manage the trackers and in this example particularly the Chair was keen to go back over the various recs at the end of the year to see what progress had been made (see the final pages). They are considered at each meeting so members can keep track.

We use a similar format for our commission/task-and-finish tracking.

[Suzanne O'Leary]

My thoughts for what they're worth: it is the Executive's role to make sure that recommendations that they have accepted are implemented, so in tracking the progress of recommendations I don't think scrutiny should get drawn in to managing them/making them happen.

[Josh Mynott]

It is interesting how much time scrutiny spends monitoring, tracking and following up. The question we need to ask is simple - Why?
I completely accept that recommendations should get a response from the Executive or whoever. Beyond that, I would agree with Suzanne that it is the job of the executive, and perhaps go further by suggesting that tracking recommendations is an inappropriate use of scrutiny's limited time and resources and may encourage poor quality scrutiny in the first place.
I could write an essay on this, and I really should be getting on with other things, but just a few thoughts:
• Sometimes, the process of examining a person, policy or practice closely is a good thing in itself. You don't always need to make recommendations to be followed up. You've put someone through the wringer. Move on.
• Consider how much time is spent rehashing old arguments that could be spent on properly scrutinising something else. Scrutiny should be about seeing a problem, getting stuck into it quickly, making suggestions to make it better and moving on to the next problem. Why revisit it? There's a law of diminishing returns here – you'll get stuck having the same debate again and again on a decreasing number of essentially insoluble points
• Monitoring outcomes is often justified as "demonstrating the value of scrutiny". But it actually demonstrates the weakness of scrutiny. A strong scrutiny function would simply assume that its recommendations were being properly considered, and the outcomes would be obvious to all
• It encourages recommendations that can be ticked off, rather than ones which make a difference. This leads to poor scrutiny in the first place, seeking easy platitudes rather than complex solutions. The argument about performance monitoring everything in a noughties style is lost (hooray). Many forms of "tracking" or "monitoring" are simply that old fashioned performance monitoring in disguise.
• Finally (thankfully), there is a real danger that it becomes self indulgent, that scrutiny exists to demonstrate how good scrutiny is. The point is surely for us to contribute to making our areas better places, not to haggle about who gets the credit for it (I accept this is not an easy point for politicians to act upon).
Maybe I exaggerate a little, but I think there is always a danger of scrutiny being sidelined, and I wonder if we sometimes inadvertently encourage that by doing the amount of self examination and internal monitoring we do.

[ben craddock [2]]

(12-04-2012 10:38 AM)Josh Mynott Wrote:  It is interesting how much time scrutiny spends monitoring, tracking and following up. The question we need to ask is simple - Why?
I completely accept that recommendations should get a response from the Executive or whoever. Beyond that, I would agree with Suzanne that it is the job of the executive, and perhaps go further by suggesting that tracking recommendations is an inappropriate use of scrutiny's limited time and resources and may encourage poor quality scrutiny in the first place.
I could write an essay on this, and I really should be getting on with other things, but just a few thoughts:
• Sometimes, the process of examining a person, policy or practice closely is a good thing in itself. You don't always need to make recommendations to be followed up. You've put someone through the wringer. Move on.
• Consider how much time is spent rehashing old arguments that could be spent on properly scrutinising something else. Scrutiny should be about seeing a problem, getting stuck into it quickly, making suggestions to make it better and moving on to the next problem. Why revisit it? There's a law of diminishing returns here – you'll get stuck having the same debate again and again on a decreasing number of essentially insoluble points
• Monitoring outcomes is often justified as "demonstrating the value of scrutiny". But it actually demonstrates the weakness of scrutiny. A strong scrutiny function would simply assume that its recommendations were being properly considered, and the outcomes would be obvious to all
• It encourages recommendations that can be ticked off, rather than ones which make a difference. This leads to poor scrutiny in the first place, seeking easy platitudes rather than complex solutions. The argument about performance monitoring everything in a noughties style is lost (hooray). Many forms of "tracking" or "monitoring" are simply that old fashioned performance monitoring in disguise.
• Finally (thankfully), there is a real danger that it becomes self indulgent, that scrutiny exists to demonstrate how good scrutiny is. The point is surely for us to contribute to making our areas better places, not to haggle about who gets the credit for it (I accept this is not an easy point for politicians to act upon).
Maybe I exaggerate a little, but I think there is always a danger of scrutiny being sidelined, and I wonder if we sometimes inadvertently encourage that by doing the amount of self examination and internal monitoring we do.

Josh, I agree that Scrutiny can have positive outcomes without necessarily always making recommendations, but I think it is important to keep track of recommendations, in order to see whether they have been implemented ( and if not, why? ) and also to see whether they have had an impact.

Re: Self indulgence, do you not think that there is a danger of this being more the case if Scrutiny does not apply its own standards of critical analysis to the value of its own work?

Having done some analysis on the impact of a task group which we recently carried out, it has shown a real improvement in the service delivered and a reduction in the level of complaints received, and an increase in compliments. Rather than being self indulgent I think that this has reinforced the value of scrutiny and shown that it can add value.

I will add the caveat that I fully accept all Councils differ massively and that I don't think there is a one size fits all approach to good scrutiny.

[Josh Mynott]

[/quote]

Re: Self indulgence, do you not think that there is a danger of this being more the case if Scrutiny does not apply its own standards of critical analysis to the value of its own work?

[/quote]

No. But there is an interesting point behind that - quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that. A job for Audit?

"Having done some analysis on the impact of a task group which we recently carried out, it has shown a real improvement in the service delivered and a reduction in the level of complaints received, and an increase in compliments. Rather than being self indulgent I think that this has reinforced the value of scrutiny and shown that it can add value."

OK, but I would have three answers to that.

1. You would say that wouldn't you; or
2. That's Audit's job too; or
3. Why the need to show that scrutiny can add value? Why not just... add value? That's where the self indulgence can come in.

However, please ignore all of the above and my original post. I don't mean any of it really (well, maybe a bit). I'm just putting forward some alternative views, mainly just to make trouble. Obviously there needs to be a degree of monitoring and tracking and so on. But it must not be allowed to take the place of actual scrutiny and accountability, and I fear in some places it does.