The Impact Of Inspection And Audit Regimes In Local Government In England

MORI's latest research for the Local Government Association shows local government sees inspection and audit as drivers of council performance. However they also want to see inspection massively reduced and reshaped: most councils feel inspection does not provide value for money and lacks a strategic orientation. Focusing on outcomes and targets instead of processes, and on fewer, more strategic areas, is considered the way forward.

MORI's latest research for the Local Government Association shows local government sees inspection and audit as drivers of council performance. However they also want to see inspection massively reduced and reshaped: most councils feel inspection does not provide value for money and lacks a strategic orientation. Focusing on outcomes and targets instead of processes, and on fewer, more strategic areas, is considered the way forward.

Local government believes in the benefits of inspection:

  • four in five councils agree that inspections and audits do drive improvement (80%);
  • three in five agree that they give their Authority a clearer sense of focus (62%).

However the number of inspections and audits, and the time spent in preparing for them, are seen as overly onerous, and need to be streamlined and made more useful:

  • the average council underwent seven inspections and audits in the past two years;
  • during the financial year 2003/4, preparing for and undergoing inspections and audits took an average of 597 staff days for every council.

Due to the amount of time and the cost involved, and a focus on process, not outcomes, most feel the current regime does not provide value for money and councils are keen to see inspection reshaped:

  • three in five councils (63%) agree that the cost of inspection massively outweighs the benefits they gain;
  • just over half (53%) believe that the current inspection regimes need to be completely rethought.

The Corporate Assessment element of the CPA is seen the most useful inspection regime by chief executives, followed by OFSTED and CSCI inspections. Local government sees the most useful inspections as those that:

  • highlight important issues for improvement (35% of councils);
  • are comprehensive (29%); and
  • are undertaken by experienced and knowledgeable practitioners (16%).

Performance audit and the BFI are seen as the least useful to councils. Criticisms focus on:

  • not taking into account the local context, or being too narrow minded (24% of councils);
  • not telling councils anything that they already knew (18%); and
  • inconsistent or poor quality of inspectors (17%).

Local government wants to see a much more streamlined, strategic inspection regime, focusing more on outcomes than process:

  • Four in five councils would like future inspection and audit regimes to put more emphasis on assessment against outcomes and on targets, not process;
  • More than nine in 10 councils think there should be fewer inspections (94%), and that they should focus on fewer more strategic areas (95%);
  • The vast majority of councils (80%) feel that inspections and audits regimes are not well co-ordinated.

Technical Details

The fieldwork took place in October 2004. Results are derived from the following:

  • 155 telephone interviews with chief executives and assistant chief executives from a cross section of councils in England. Data were weighted to reflect the known profile of councils in England (for political control, CPA scores, types of councils, and geographical areas).
  • An e-mail survey asking these councils for figures on the financial cost and staff time involved in preparing and undergoing inspections in the financial year 2003-04.
  • Nine depth interviews with chief executives and assistant chief executives.

Related news