[Ed Hammond]

For some reason every time I try to type a reply to this post it gets rejected for containing banned words!

In short, don't do it. I wouldn't recommend it. There are better ways to assess performance and the impact of scrutiny than through an approach based on performance indicators. Use the six month / 1 year monitoring of scrutiny reviews for impact and outcomes instead. It's more immediate and relevant to your stakeholders, particularly the public.

[Howard Boots]

Hi Tracey,

I would tend to agreed with Ed on the subject of Performance Indicators for scrutiny. Here in Tameside we were proudly one of the first scrutiny units to introduce Performance Indicators, but they have gradually fallen somewhat into disuse.

By far the most meaningful judgement of the effectiveness of the performance of scrutiny is the difference it has made and the outcomes of recommendations contained in review reports, etc.

A system of monitoring or "following up" scrutiny reviews to ascertain whether recommendations have been implemented and the outcomes really means much more not only to the communities that we serve, the councillors both executive and non executive but also to the Audit Commission.

Howard

[Tracey Tiff]

Hi

Thanks for your response - I will relay this information.

PS I too could not originally post - I had to change P I to performance indicator (not sure how/why that could be banned!)

Thanks again
Tracy

[Tracey Tiff]

Hi

Thanks for your response - I will relay this information.

PS I too could not originally post - I had to change P I to performance indicator (not sure how/why that could be banned!)

Thanks again
Tracy

[Nick Beale]

Howard Boots Wrote:A system of monitoring or "following up" scrutiny reviews to ascertain whether recommendations have been implemented and the outcomes really means much more ...

Does lack of follow-up tell you that scrutiny is ineffective or that the Executive is? As the system stands, the latter are at liberty to reject Scrutiny's recommendations, however well-argued and supported by evidence. (Endless forms of words for this can be found in Hansard, should anyone wish to draw on best practice).

Scrutiny can however set itself some standards: have we seen all the relevant witnesses, identified the salient issues and made clear recommendations about them, have we got the evidence to back it all up, what are the lessons for the next review etc?

Another question that can be asked is whether members found the investigation itself rewarding to carry out - did they learn something useful from it?

[Mark Farmer]

We used outcome based indicators- let me know if you want me to email them across.

Hope all is well in Northampton!

[Howard Boots]

The lack of a system of "follow up reviews" tells us that scrutiny is either unwilling or unable to monitor or "follow up" the outcome and effectiveness of its recommendations.

Standards are very important but they are different from Performance Indicators which tend to be number crunching and pretty meaningless for the scrutiny function.

I agree that many lessons and good practice can be learned from considering how effectively a review was undertaken. It's also important that scrutiny members find scrutiny reviews rewarding and interesting. I find however, that they tend to find reviews most rewarding when during a "follow up" review they find that their recommendations have been implemented with effective and successful outcomes.

[Nick Beale]

Howard Boots Wrote:The lack of a system of "follow up reviews" tells us that scrutiny is either unwilling or unable to monitor or "follow up" the outcome and effectiveness of its recommendations.

Either that or it tells us that Scrutiny is moving on to new work rather than dwelling on the past. The inherent problem with follow-ups is that unless you draw a line, they come to dominate your agenda.

[Howard Boots]

I totally agree that if one is so obsessive that all a scrutiny committee does is follow up work that it can prevent moving forward but in a well managed scrutiny function these things can be sensibly managed.

[Ed Hammond]

I agree, Howard. Follow-up is an integral part of the work you're doing and should be built into project plans, and work programmes, right at the beginning.

It would be perverse to spend huge amounts of time and resources completing a review, only to forget about it as soon as it's gone to cabinet. The theory is that once cabinet agrees something its implementation should be handled and monitored by executive-side management process - but... really? Inevitably things need to be checked on.

Follow-up work can often lead to entirely new projects; it has done in my experience. In this way you can maintain an ongoing relationship with the department/partner in question rather than parachuting in and out all the time. It also gives the work programme an element of coherence.