LONDON SCRUTINY NETWORK Action Learning Sets: final report 23 September 2009 London Scrutiny Network action learning sets CONTENTS I Introduction ................................................................................... i The Action Learning Set and the LSN programme .................................. i Purpose of this report ........................................................................ i Summary of the outcomes .................................................................. i What happened at each meeting .........................................................ii 2. Roles: supporting versus doing ..................................................... 1 3. Roles: working with elected Members ........................................... 3 4. Political environment: maintaining impartiality ............................. 4 5. Reputation: low awareness and in some cases resistance ............. 6 6. Reputation: scrutinising partners .................................................. 7 7. Skills for scrutiny .......................................................................... 8 8. The scrutiny career ...................................................................... 10 9. Impact of the action learning sessions ........................................ 11 10. What next? .................................................................................. 12 London Scrutiny Network action learning sets I INTRODUCTION The Action Learning Set and the LSN programme 1.1. During the Autumn of 2008 and Spring 2009 eight Overview and Scrutiny officers took part in a series of five action learning set sessions sponsored by Capital Ambition and the London Scrutiny Network. 1.2. A similar learning set ran for Elected Members though that set was still running at the time of this report – and this report focuses on learning from the officer learning set only. A short report on the Elected Member learning set will also be produced. Purpose of this report 1.3. This report’s purpose is to provide the London Scrutiny Network and Capital Ambition with a summary of the officer action learning set meetings, what they achieved, what issues they raised, and how effective they have been. It has been written by the two facilitators from Shared Intelligence and the Centre for Public Scrutiny who led the action learning sets. It picks out the main learning points from the programme, including the skills needs highlighted, and draws attention to wider issues around the development of overview and scrutiny in local government. 1.4. The objectives of the action learning sets were to enable participants to: discuss challenges facing Overview & Scrutiny in their authority, and with the help of their colleagues from other Councils implement solutions to improve the function; regularly interact and develop significant expertise in Overview & Scrutiny that will enable them to become Overview & Scrutiny ‘champions’ able to offer support to peers who do not participate in the learning group; and gain experience of action learning sets and be able to use this potentially to deliver action learning sets within their authority, thereby extending the benefits of the funding beyond Overview & Scrutiny. Summary of the outcomes 1.5. In the course of the action learning discussions four inter-connected themes were recurrent and these have been used to structure this report: The role of the individual scrutiny officer including the difficulty and dilemmas in balancing “supporting” scrutiny with “doing” Scrutiny and the practicalities of working with senior politicians; -i- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets The challenges of operating in a political environment but at the same time maintaining the neutral position of Scrutiny in relation to the ruling group and opposition groups; Developing the reputation of scrutiny in the wider organisational context – in particular the still patchy understanding of the purpose of scrutiny among many service managers, and the tensions which arise in the scrutiny of other agencies; The skills needed for scrutiny, the links with the wider skills sets needed in local government, and where scrutiny fits in a local government career. What happened at each meeting 1.6. Each meeting lasted 4 hours. The first meeting began with a briefing on the objectives of action learning. Following that each meeting followed a fixed structure. Much of our approach was based on the model of action learning described in Action learning for managers1. At the beginning each member of the set would update their colleagues on “what happened next” in relation to the issues they had raised at the previous meeting. Then the set members would be invited by the facilitators to “bid for time” in the current meeting. Two to three issues would be chosen for detailed discussion – they had to be issues, problems, or dilemmas faced by the person presenting the issue personally, and where there was a possibility of personal action by them to resolve the issue. For each selected issue the discussion was structured as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 1.7. Explanation of the issue by the issue presenter Questions of clarification by other set members (answered by the presenter) Suggestions by the other set members Response to suggestions by the presenter At the third meeting a guest speaker was invited to present a different perspective on scrutiny. The presenter was Bruce Gill, a senior government advisor on Race Equality, who had been closely involved in two very different forms of public scrutiny. He had led the public inquiry to the death of Zahid Mubarek in Feltham Young Offenders Institution, and had also led the UK delegation to the UN Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination. 1 Action learning for managers, Mike Pedler (latest edition 2008) London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 2. ROLES: SUPPORTING VERSUS DOING “As a scrutiny officer should I be drafting ‘killer questions’ for scrutiny Members to put to witnesses, though this goes against the established culture?” “How do I know when I am over-stepping my role when helping Members in planning questions?” Skills and knowledge issues raised: Understanding the scrutiny officer role, Balance between “supporting” and “doing” 2.1. In a perfect world most scrutiny officers would see Elected Members “doing” scrutiny; driving the process from the setting of terms of reference, to the planning of questions for evidence sessions, to the structure and recommendations of the final report. Officers’ own role would be to “support” scrutiny dispassionately, gathering facts and expert advice, designing evidence gathering sessions and offering advice about how to structure the findings and recommendations. 2.2. In reality this is not possible for a variety of reasons familiar to those who work closely with elected members. Much of this stems from the fact that scrutiny Members are backbench councillors with full time jobs or other commitments and their time to plan meetings and author reports is tightly constrained. Furthermore they do not always have detailed technical knowledge, even when they are on a permanent thematic committee, of the services or organisational structures which are the subjects of their inquiry. 2.3. The role of the Scrutiny officer is therefore a mix of “supporting” and “doing” and this poses a number of challenges in terms of role definition and ensuring Scrutiny retains its democratic accountability. These issues have been explored in much greater detail in Dr Rod Dacombe’s research for the Centre for Public Scrutiny Supporting Public Scrutiny2. The Centre for Public Scrutiny’s series of guidance pamphlets “10 questions to ask if you’re scrutinising…”3 are a practical acknowledgement of this issue. 2.4. The most common manifestation of this in the learning sets was around establishing a clear officer role more generally – in particular around planning questioning strategies and scripts for public meetings. Several officers felt 2 Supporting Public Scrutiny: Understanding and developing the role of the professional scrutiny officer, CfPS (2008) 3 For instance 10 questions to ask if you are scrutinising local eye health provision and similar CfPS publications -1- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets there was a difficult balance to be struck when it came to supporting Chairs and their committee members in preparing questions for witnesses. Finding that balance in practice raised a number of questions. When is it appropriate for officers to help draft questions or turn soft questions into sharper questions? How should Scrutiny Members be supported to demonstrate strong questioning skills themselves – and is it counter-productive for officers to do it for them? 2.5. The suggestions offered by set members focused on supporting members to take substantive decisions about the direction of the inquiry, as well as regularly re-inforcing the distinction between officers’ and members’ roles. They included Always holding pre-meetings with the committee to plan lines of questioning. Encouraging Members to go on CfPS’ training visits to parliamentary select committees to see how roles are performed, and how questions are asked there. Using short adjournments if unexpected issue arise mid-meeting. Holding quick de-briefs with the Chair to see how they thought the meeting went. Not taking any important action or decision without the backing of the Chair. -2- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 3. ROLES: WORKING WITH ELECTED MEMBERS “I know the Chair reads and digests the emails I send but rarely fulfils the actions needed” “The Chair was unhappy that I circulated the previous meeting’s notes and action points while they were away” Skills and knowledge issues raised: Practical issues around working with senior figures, Drafting role and job descriptions 3.1. A number of issues discussed by the learning set were practical questions about how to work best with Scrutiny members in particular with Scrutiny Chairs. While these issues were practical and about working routines with elected Members, the ‘supporting versus doing’ tension formed the context to many these issues. 3.2. Members of the set discussed the best modes of communication with elected Members and how they differ from communication with other officers – faceto-face, email, by phone, or hard copy memos. Some of the issues were both about role definition and levels of trust, such as when to seek a Chair’s input into a draft report. Should an initial draft be prepared first or should the officer sketch the outline with the Chair (and if so – how best to get the diary space to do that). This also led to questions about how much original thinking is it right for officers to do and how much of their own conclusions and analyses be included in reports and recommendations. And what happens if a Chair does not respond to requests to comment on a draft – does that mean they are happy, or simply have not read it, and is it acceptable to take silence as consent? 3.3. These areas of discussion highlighted the difference between the role of scrutiny officers and other democratic services roles. Unlike other democratic services roles (which are about co-ordinating information from senior managers in service departments), scrutiny officers, even at a relatively junior level, are substantively involved in the creation of reports and background information for Members and in the decisions which follow. 3.4. There were two main suggestions around choosing the right practical methods for working with Chairs: Job/role descriptions for scrutiny Chairs Investing real time in building a personal rapport and close communication with the Chair the officer supports – meeting regularly face-to-face, holding de-briefs, being open about things which have not gone well from either perspective -3- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 4. POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT: IMPARTIALITY MAINTAINING “Should I be personally pushing for an item on child protection to be taken under Part 1 [in public] when the service director and Leader want it to be taken in private?” “This O&S report is going to be used as the first salvo of the election campaign – so how do I ensure scrutiny doesn’t get tainted?” Skills and knowledge issues raised: Principles of openness and public interest council context, Operating as an effective critical friend, Media handling and media strategy, Managing and identifying political risks, Investigating the professional competence of individuals in the workplace 4.1. The twin pressures of maintaining impartiality while at the same time conducting robust and open scrutiny can easily lead to conflicting tensions. One officer raised an issue about the Leader wanting scrutiny to take an item of children’s social services on the “Part Two” section of the agenda. The item had already been considered by the Cabinet, under Part Two, but the initial view of the scrutiny officer and the chair of O&S was that there was insufficient justification for taking the item in private. At the learning set the officer sought advice on how hard to push for the item to be taken in public against the wishes of the Cabinet and the chief officer – the leadership were arguing this could embarrass them. 4.2. The role of scrutiny is to champion openness, challenge decisions, but always remain an impartial critical friend and not an oppositional force. But with the Leader claiming this could be embarrassing to the administration, how could O&S balance being a critical friend with the duty to challenge? 4.3. The learning set agreed it was difficult to find a balance in this case and offered a range of possible ways forward. The set members tended to argue for openness and agreed that ideally the item should be discussed in public. One set member pragmatically suggested not pushing any further “now the point has been made” while others thought the officer should carry on pushing, in the knowledge that the risk of embarrassment to the council was in reality low. Set members also suggested that, whatever the officer chose to do, they should ask for a clear re-statement by the borough solicitor of when the Council is justified to use Part Two. 4.4. At the following set meeting the officer reported back that he and his O&S chair had gone ahead and tabled the item in public and this had been done with the support of the borough solicitor. There were no major ramifications, but the episode had highlighted the fine balance between public interest, trust and co-operation within the council, and the pressure on scrutiny officers to advise their chairs on those judgements. -4- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 4.5. Another officer raised similar issues about the impartiality of O&S in relation to the imminent publication (the day after that particular action learning set meeting) of a scrutiny report into a high profile case of overspending in the local authority. The inquiry had been carried out by a bipartisan special Commission which included the Chair and Vice Chair of the Finance Scrutiny Committee (the Vice Chair coming from the opposition group) and they had been advised throughout by the council’s Monitoring Officer. 4.6. There was clearly a risk of Scrutiny becoming politicised by issuing a report which the opposition would seize on as evidence of weak administration. The officer was also concerned about how much he and his team should get involved in attempting to influence the local press coverage of the report. 4.7. Set members suggested the officer should try to influence media coverage and should also quickly agree with the council’s communications team some positive messages about the independence and bipartisan membership of the Commission. They also suggested circulating a clearly set out script about the actual findings so those got reported accurately. -5- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 5. REPUTATION: LOW AWARENESS AND IN SOME CASES RESISTANCE “There is still a lot of misunderstanding about O&S right up to heads of services” Skills and knowledge issues raised: Designing staff development and awareness-raising activities, Working with and influencing senior staff, Delivering an internal challenge 5.1. The effectiveness of scrutiny depends greatly on how well its aims and objectives are understood by others. Even eight years after the introduction of Overview and Scrutiny though, many officers including senior managers still do not fully understand how scrutiny works. In particular the notion of democratic ‘holding to account’ can get confused with more familiar notions within local government of ‘external inspection’ or ‘political opposition’. 5.2. Several officers in the learning set raised this as a concern on different occasions. One example was where the officer had to explain repeatedly to assistant directors and heads of service the review’s terms of reference despite having been agreed at director level. The officer saw this partly a result of directors not cascading that the review was a legitimate process which the department had signed up to co-operate with. But it was also seen as a consequence of a low awareness remaining among some officers about the wider political environment in which they operate; in particular scrutiny, how it works, and its role in holding to account. This is rather worrying especially given the 2009 Place Survey findings that only 29% of citizens believe they can influence local services4. 5.3. The group identified a number of short and longer term strategies to raise awareness of and reduce resistance to scrutiny. The suggestions focused on: Finding ways to get sessions on scrutiny included in council-wide staff training, and internal communications In relation to Terms of Reference for individual reviews there was also thought to be mileage in ensuring these were disseminated to all staff likely to be involved, not just senior managers In terms of longer term strategies, getting a slot for Scrutiny on councils’ routine induction courses for new staff and arranging topic-based scrutiny sessions for a variety of staff 4 Place Survey 2008 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/placesurvey2008 -6- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 6. REPUTATION: SCRUTINISING PARTNERS “We had a one-off ‘challenge meeting’ where members were meant to ask the Police about Safer Neighbourhoods – but members attacked the Police and it became a slanging match” Skills and knowledge issues raised: Planning and managing high-level meetings and workshops, Drafting protocols for partnership scrutiny 6.1. In 2001 Overview and Scrutiny Committees in top-tier local authorities (including the London Boroughs) had their powers extended. In addition to the activities of their own authority they gained powers to scrutinise health services. With the recent implementation of the Police & Justice Act 2006 councils now have powers to scrutinise crime and disorder partnerships. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 also gives powers to review and scrutinise Local Area Agreements and the work of partner organisations signed up to targets within them. 6.2. The primary interface between scrutiny and those partner agencies being held to account are scrutiny officers. It is they who take the majority of the decisions about how scrutiny of partner agencies will be conducted. In effect they negotiate the terms of the relationship and take decisions which determine the quality of scrutiny which takes place. For instance, it is scrutiny officers who brief representatives form partner agencies on what information and data is required for an inquiry or evidence session. They also handle the stage-management, deciding when and how scrutiny Members and partners meet, and preparing their own committee for key meetings with representatives of other agencies. 6.3. This can be a difficult role to perform. One officer described how the committee had wanted him to arrange a one-off challenge session with the Police – the Police response was positive and they agreed to take part. However, the session became confrontational with committee members using it as an opportunity to criticise the police without hearing what they had to say. This was a major set-back in the relationships between Scrutiny and the Police who, not surprisingly were unable to agree on the written outcomes and recommendations of the meeting. 6.4. In the learning set discussion set members suggested a number of ways in which the officer could take action himself to help improve relationships between scrutiny (and possibly by extension, other elected members) and the Police. These included: Brokering an informal meeting between the Borough Commander and the Scrutiny Chair Drafting clear and agreed protocols for any future challenge sessions with partner agencies Scheduling regular consultation meetings with the Police on future inquiries in the Committee’s forward work programme -7- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 7. SKILLS FOR SCRUTINY 7.1. Identifying skills needs was not an objective of the learning sets but it is a core issue for scrutiny. Not least because there is relatively little evidence available about what the skills needs are for scrutiny officer and Member functions - something the London Scrutiny Network may wish to consider further. It is also relevant to the wider discussions about developing a new national professional body for scrutiny. 7.2. For Elected Members several scrutiny specific training courses have been developed – on subjects such as questioning and chairing meetings. This provides a form of needs assessment by proxy. When it comes to officers however, only a few professional development resources (such as the INLOGOV and CfPS courses5) have been developed with content aimed at developing delivery skills for the role. 7.3. The CfPS report Supporting Public Scrutiny (referred to in paragraph 2.3) attempted to identify skills needs from interviews with scrutiny officers and found it a difficult task. From interviews with officers the authors identified areas such as “working with members, research skills, writing and communication and the legislative environment” – but because of conflicting views among those interviewed, the authors place heavy caveats on even these broad suggestions. 7.4. The same authors also attempted to define the role of a scrutiny officer. Again this is far from conclusive and their strongest message was what scrutiny officers are not – and that was procedural clerks. A view we wholeheartedly agree with. Attempts to describe the role have highlighted skills around: research, negotiation, diplomacy, project management, relationship building, communication, and public engagement. Given the lack of documented skills needs we attempted to extrapolate what we could from the learning set discussions about the skills necessary for the role – these are shown at the top of each section of this report. 7.5. In some cases these are skills the set members probably possessed, and in other cases they were probably unmet needs – though it was not possible to test which. It was also apparent that alongside role-specific skills, generic line management skills were essential – around planning and organising people and projects. The skills which we identified as being necessary to the role were: Planning and managing high-level meetings and workshops Designing staff development and awareness-raising activities 5 The Institute of Local Government Studies offers an accredited 5-day programme covering scrutiny theory and skills, and the Centre for Public Scrutiny run an occasional series of skills development days -8- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 7.6. Drafting role and job descriptions Engaging and working with partners Working with and influencing senior staff Working with senior politicians (including basics such as using the right communication methods) Delivering an internal challenge role – possibly similar to training for auditors Media handling and media strategy Managing and identifying political risks Investigating the professional competence of individuals in the workplace Applying principles of openness and being aware of the public interest context Operating as an effective critical friend We have not considered the implications of this set of skills apart from noting similarities with future skills needs of local government, where ‘soft’ or political skills such as brokering, collaboration and persuasion6 are more important than the ability to manage or operate in conventional bureaucratic ‘processes’. 6 For example All our futures: the challenges for local governance in 2015, ODPM (2006) argues leaders will need skills for “brokering, collaboration and persuasion” as much as for “steering the operation of a major service delivery organisation”. -9- SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 8. THE SCRUTINY CAREER 8.1. Career progression was also discussed by the officer set members in terms of “where does one go after scrutiny?”. Scrutiny teams tend to be quite flat in structure, but they are often staffed by ambitious officers in the early stages of their careers. Inevitably this means most scrutiny officers most of the time have few opportunities to seek promotion within their team, and proportionately there are very few Heads of Scrutiny posts for every Scrutiny officer post. 8.2. Set members therefore felt they had to think creatively about their career development in order to maintain their long-term prospects and their job satisfaction. 8.3. In one discussion focused on a particular officer set member, the other set members offered practical suggestions such as: 8.4. Seeking a move to a frontline post or secondment into a service they have built knowledge of through scrutiny Using knowledge of governance and getting satisfaction by becoming a school governor Registering on one of the market-leading jobfinder websites to see what job suggestions come up based on existing skills and experience greater job It does seem that the size and structure of scrutiny teams, and the nature of the role make the choosing of a career route out of scrutiny more complicated than for other council employees. But at the same time, the skills gained as a scrutiny officer are the complex, high-value skills which local government will increasingly need at the senior level. There may therefore be an opportunity for local authorities to actively encourage officers with leadership potential to take posts in scrutiny as an important stage on their career path – perhaps as part of talent and graduate development programmes. Then once they have been schooled in some of the political, communication, and judgement skills which future leaders will need, they could be moved on into more senior roles elsewhere which would benefit from those skills. - 10 - SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 9. IMPACT OF THE ACTION LEARNING SESSIONS “The opportunity to discuss and share experience with colleagues who actually understood what scrutiny was” “Realising you’re not alone with issues… being a scrutiny officer, even in a team, can feel quite lonely” “Greater confidence arising from making suggestions to other participants… recognising one’s own knowledge and expertise” 9.1. At the end of the fifth meeting, members of the officers set were asked what they thought of the action learning process and what impact it had made on their work. This was followed up with an online questionnaire. 9.2. The overall view of the set members was that it had been good, and had brought benefits which they valued highly. 9.3. Several members of the set said they had been prompted to take action leading to a positive outcome as a direct result of discussions within the learning set. In particular it provided the impetus to act - even though the action itself might have already been considered prior to the set meeting. 9.4. As with other action learning sets most set members said it had been a good experience though quite different from what they had expected and this had provoked some initial reservations. Only one set member said he still had reservations about action learning at the end of the programme. In particular the set members had been unprepared for the focus on individual challenges owned by themselves and the other set members. One set member also said he had expected the set to tackle the ‘big scrutiny issues’ and was concerned the issues discussed in practice were often quite prosaic. 9.5. What set members said they found most useful was the chance to focus on their own day-to-day challenges away from the distractions of the office, and explore issues with colleagues who were neutral and had no vested interest. More generally they said they valued the opportunity to network and share good practice with other people in similar roles, from other boroughs. 9.6. Some set members also felt their self-confidence benefited when they saw how their own insight and expertise was valued by other set members – and when they heard that others in similar roles faced similarly tough challenges. The regulated nature of the discussion was also felt to enable both quiet and talkative personalities to have a fair share. 9.7. In terms of potential improvements, set members felt the facilitators should have pushed harder for set members to prepare issues they were going to raise in advance of meetings. They also found the one guest speaker, though relevant and engaging, ‘broke up the tight structure’ of the learning sets. Also, despite a focused facilitation style, some set members said they would have preferred an even stricter style of facilitation. - 11 - SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 10. WHAT NEXT? 10.1. The aim of the action learning set was to deliver a programme of immediate and ongoing benefit and enable participants to lead action learning sets of their own. In particular it was to enable participants to: discuss challenges facing Overview & Scrutiny in their authority, and with the help of their colleagues from other Councils implement solutions to improve the function; regularly interact and develop significant expertise in Overview & Scrutiny that will enable them to become Overview & Scrutiny ‘champions’ able to offer support to peers who do not participate in the learning group; and gain experience of action learning sets and be able to use this potentially to deliver action learning sets within their authority, thereby extending the benefits of the funding beyond Overview & Scrutiny. 10.2. The view of the two facilitators is that all three of these objectives were met to different degrees. The views of the set members also suggest they found this a good experience in particular the opportunity to share common problems and obtain a ‘reality check’ on issues of concern in a confidential environment. In addition we have highlighted the gaps in knowledge about the delivery skills needs of scrutineers, and the relatively limited professional development or training opportunities to enable officers to develop their skills for scrutiny. 10.3. In terms of ongoing benefits the officer participants have identified three ways in which the programme could bring ongoing benefits: They plan to continue meeting without external facilitation and have set up their own web forum on the IDeA Communities of Practice website They wish to make an open offer to be a sounding board for the London Scrutiny Network – as they can bring different borough perspectives and are also familiar with working with each other as a team The officers also suggest that LSN could establish new subregional learning sets which they would be willing to be involved in 10.4. One officer is also about to take part in an internal learning set in his council. 10.5. We therefore suggest London Scrutiny Network and Capital Ambition consider the following three recommendations: To support the officers and Elected Members who participated in this programme to continue, if they wish, their involvement in action learning as a self-facilitated activity or some other form. - 12 - SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets To consider in due course whether to provide the same opportunity for another cohort of officer and Elected Members. To investigate further the skills needs of scrutiny officers and Elected Members with a view to providing others forms of skills development and support. - 13 - SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS London Scrutiny Network action learning sets 1 FITZROY SQUARE, LONDON W1T 5HE 020 7756 7600 TOWER HOUSE, FISHERGATE, YORK YO10 4UA 01904 567 381 www.sharedintelligence.net [email protected] - 14 - SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
© Copyright 2025 Paperzz