I’ve become particularly interested recently in the increasing number of cases where the outcome of inspection does not seem to bear out what happens in practice. Here are some examples of what I mean:
- The case of Children’s Services In Haringey where inspection ratings prior to the Baby P case had been positive
- The case of Basildon Hospital where the inspection report does not appear to have identified some real problems and reflected what was really happening on the ground
- The increasing concern about OFSTED reports by the local government association (LGA) and by Directors of Childrens Services
- Inspections of local councils under the comprehensive performance assessment regime that resulted in ratings that “poor’ or ‘weak’ councils with examples of good and excellent performance and good practice and vice versa
- Increasing signs of concern about the Audit Commission approach being voiced within the LGA
What do we think is going on here?
I wonder whether it is something to do with the methodology and the way that inspections are carried out? The difficulties seem to me to arise from the fact that inspections focus on the ‘professional’ and “organisational” end of the service and not enough on real examples of delivery – what actually happens on the ground.
So what we see often in inspection reports is critiquing and comment about policy, strategy, systems, processes and performance targets and indicators. What we see little of is real commentary about how services are delivered and what it feels like to users and citizens.
Maybe this is at the root of the current problems and concerns? A noticeable policy shift in the way that government, the major political parties and the public sector see the role and involvement of communities in the design and delivery of our public services. Total Place and the comprehensive area assessment (CAA) represent a move away from top down approaches to target setting to a world where partnership, collaboration, the community and the citizen play a pivotal part in designing, procuring and delivering local services within a place.
This signals a real paradigm shift.
So it not just about the policies, strategies, targets and processes. It is what is really happening on the ground, in the streets, in the wards and in families and communities that really matters.
Perhaps the inspection regime has some catching up to do? Unless it is to fall into disrepute, it will need to make that paradigm shift too.
