Audit Commission's joint inspections are seen to work

A general thumbs up for the Audit Commission's new joint inspection framework for local services, Comprehensive Area Assessment, has been overshadowed by a row over the cost of inspection. The Audit Commission says independent research published today shows that the overall cost to councils of the new inspection regime has come down by at least 15%, but acknowledges that the new approach is cutting costs more in large councils than in smaller authorities. The cost of inspection has gone up by approximately 5% for district councils. But the report on costs, by consultancy company OPM, also says that the cost of the new joint inspection framework of local public services was higher in this first year than it will be subsequently. The Local Government Association, which represents councils in England and Wales, says the amount of money being spent on assessing local government needs to be "dramatically reduced". It has published case studies of just five individual councils, and says costs increased for one metropolitan district council by 186% from the previous regime. But it also says that the cost of inspecting a London borough was 36% less than the previous regime. 'Widespread support' for the new assessment system Weighing into the debate, the department for communities and local government says the LGA study "fails to recognise" the full findings of the two independent reports on CAA, which demonstrate "widespread support" for the new assessment system, described by the department as a powerful tool for the public to get more information than ever before about the standard of services in their area. In addition to the report on costs, a separate independent report on CAA by consultancy Shared Intelligence says there is widespread support for the principles of CAA, particularly the focus on outcomes and the joint inspection regime. In practice, experiences of the process have been mixed, with some teething troubles, including inspectorate staff having to adjust to new roles in a short timescale and a "perception" of higher than expected costs. "This is absolutely the right way for assessment to go," says Carol Hayden, director of research and evaluation at Shared Intelligence, whose report recommends better integration of the different approaches to inspection by the six inspectorates involved in CAA and reducing the burden of inspection further through less frequent, risk-based assessment, based on assessment of services, rather than individual organisations. Professor Steve Martin, professor of public policy and management at Cardiff University, who worked on the report, says there has been a lot of adverse publicity about inspection in general and CAA in particular, but this should not overshadow a serious discussion of the role of external inspection. "On the surface, a lot of the assessed bodies say that inspection is still onerous, but the public feel external inspection is important and people want that inspection to be joined up," he comments.