Introduction
This practice guide is designed to walk through the steps in undertaking a scrutiny review. Since there is no prescriptive way of undertaking a review, this guide will walk through the key stages to help practitioners have impact. But do not be limited by the suggestions here, creativity and ambition in scrutiny is to be welcomed and celebrated!
Councils tell us that undertaking task groups is one of the most meaningful and enjoyable pursuits in scrutiny. When planning your review consider how to best respond to the challenges of the topic that you are looking at, including how to draw inspiration from outside the council in your evidence gathering and hear the voice of residents. Developing your questioning skills is key here.
In planning your review start with intentionally designing the approach you will take, evidence you will hear, and length of time that the review will take. Upon completion, the findings and recommendations of the review are usually presented to the scrutiny committee in a comprehensive report.
It is essential that all recommendations and conclusions drawn from the review are firmly grounded in evidence and usually cross-party consensus. Scrutiny reviews contribute to improved decision-making by providing a mechanism to explore innovation, different approaches and bring new thinking to issues of local importance.
What's in a name?
Scrutiny reviews are known by different names in different local authorities; commonly they are called task groups or task and finish groups. But we have also heard them called working groups or commissions or inquiries. In some councils there is a differentiation in the term used depending upon the duration of a review and one that takes place in a day is called a spotlight review or an inquiry day, challenge panel or even ‘scrutiny in a day.’
For the purpose of this guide, we will use ‘review’ or ‘task group’ and ‘spotlight review’ when this is necessary.
Process for running your review
Inception
Types of review
When embarking upon a review it is important to be clear about the intention behind the work. The scrutiny committee that establishes the work is likely to guide the direction, but it is often for the task group itself to agree its Terms of Reference.
There are three broad approaches to issues which are suitable to be considered through a scrutiny review:
For example, looking at how SEND services are provided by the local authority in an area.
Undertaking a service review is a common approach for scrutiny. This is likely to necessitate an understanding of the legislative context, performance benchmarking of the service against nearest neighbours, process review, as well as speaking to front line staff and service users and senior leaders. There is scope to look for innovative approaches beyond the council.
For example, either reviewing a current policy like the application of 20mph speed limits outside schools, or the potential for introducing a new policy, like considering whether to apply for enforcement powers for moving traffic offences.
There needs to be a clear driver to undertake a policy review; this could be that a policy is not delivering the results that are expected, or that residents are concerned about the outcomes of a specific policy. To review a policy the task group is likely to need to look again at the legislative requirements if they exist, and match those with the intention behind the policy. Looking at policy direction may benefit from speaking to other areas with similar challenges and looking at approaches that have already been taken. Additional considerations around developing policy are also likely to need reference to the Executive’s position.
For example, looking at the cost of living in an area, or problem gambling.
This is potentially the broadest approach to a scrutiny review and is likely to cover areas which are beyond the direct control of the council. Thought should be given to the levers which the council has to influence change, and how this sits with planned and existing policies. Witnesses are likely to come from organisations outside of the council and reviews of this kind can have a convening approach and wide discussion with stakeholders. However, consideration of impact should be balanced against resource commitments.
At the start of the review
Who sits on the task group? Many Authorities take a wide approach to enlisting members, including inviting those who are not on a scrutiny committee, but are not Executive or Cabinet. This may be done in a wide call-out for membership or it might be set at the committee meeting that established the task group. Consider those members who have professional or lived experience of an issue and whether it is better to have them as expert witnesses, rather than task group members.
Assess existing knowledge: Evaluate how much is already known about the issue at hand. Has the issue been considered by scrutiny before? Understanding the existing evidence base can help you identify gaps and focus your investigation effectively. Looking at service or policy reviews it may well be useful to begin by receiving a briefing from senior service officers.
Service officer support for the work: In many cases, particularly for policy or service reviews the work may be supported by a named officer from the service in question. This officer can give immediate information, answer contextual questions and support the progress of the review in immediate ways that the scrutiny officer is unlikely to be able to do.
Understand your bias: It is good practice for the group members to reflect upon existing perspectives and to consider factors that already influence why members of the group might think a certain way. Taking steps to sense-check assumptions can help to ensure that they do not unduly influence the work.
Planning the review
The infographic below demonstrates the considerations when planning the duration of the review. At the inception stage you will wish to consider how substantial a review is needed and possible with existing constraints. A task group here is used as a placeholder term for a number of meetings, over several months, compared to a spotlight review which would take place in a day or part of a day. Decisions over depth and duration need to be made at the planning stage.
When undertaking a review, it is crucial to approach the process thoughtfully and systematically. Below are key considerations to guide the scale and approach of the work. Scrutiny can be creative in the approach taken in the informal meetings of review groups. For example, it is common practice to hear from witnesses in timed semi-structured interview sessions, but this approach may not be always appropriate. Conversely a discussion might be warranted where witnesses are invited to a round table thematic discussion of an issue. Scrutiny can be creative in how it facilitates its sessions.
The most important element to consider before embarking upon the work is whether scrutiny can have impact. The work will require resource and commitment, and this will mean that a choice over priorities must be made to determine why the review in question should be undertaken. Councillors should not embark upon work where there is no ability to make recommendations. For example, if a service has just been commissioned, running a scrutiny task group is unlikely to add value, although scrutiny may wish, in time, to have an assurance role. Likewise, if a decision has already been taken, or an inspection reached a judgement (CQC, Ofsted etc) scrutiny looking at the same issue is unlikely to add value.
Infographic to help you think about your review
Terms of reference
The first meeting of the task group should establish the terms of reference (ToR) document. This focuses the review by identifying key aspects of the investigation and helps to manage resources by setting a timeframe. This is to ensure that the investment of officer and councillor time is used in the most effective way.
The ToR would usually be produced by the Scrutiny Officer following the information that the committee have indicated. A model template is available below. For those familiar with Prince II methodology the terms of reference are an amalgamation of the Project Initiation Document (PID) and the more detailed Project Brief. It can help to conceptualise the ToR as the PID before it has been agreed by the Task Group and the Project Brief afterwards.
Clarity of purpose
A theme of this guide is being clear in the planning and set up of the review to ensure success. Being clear about the central question, assumption or area to investigate will help to guide the future work. Start by asking – what the group hopes to achieve?
Background research
To produce the terms of reference and focus the project there will need to be research and fact finding which may include:
- Desk research – what is the current legislative framework, have there been any recent announcements by Cabinet ministers, are there any research reports on the subject?
- Information from directorate officers, health officers or other professionals – to get an overview of the service.
- Review of reports that have already been considered on the issue by the council.
Identify Your ‘Witnesses’
Use this research to inform who your key ‘witnesses’ will be. While council officers are an important resource, aim to engage with a broader range of stakeholders, including external experts, community representatives, and service users, to gain diverse insights.
Thought should be given as to how involved service officers may be in the whole review. This should be determined by councillors but is likely to vary according to the subject matter and the nature of the review. A service review, for example, is likely to lean on the expertise and knowledge of service leads and the Portfolio holder Consideration should be given as to whether it is appropriate to have service officer representation for all the witness sessions. Attendance of an officer might inhibit those giving evidence.
As the review progresses it is useful to refer back to the terms of reference to make sure that the review keeps generally to the initial scope and picks up all the questions initially posed.
Timeframe
The length of a review can vary significantly, ranging from a single day for simpler issues to much longer periods for more complex topics. External pressure, or the need to respond quickly may also have a bearing on duration.
'Terms of Reference' template
Responsibilities in a review. Who does what?
A fundamental principle of scrutiny is that it is member-led. However, the review process often involves a close working relationship between the scrutiny officer and the chair and members of the review. In simple terms this can be conceptualized by the Councillors setting the direction and leading the findings and recommendations and the officer supporting with the research, project management, conceptualisation of the issues and the writing of the report. In practice the most impactful reviews are done working in partnership between Councillors and scrutiny support staff.
First order of business at the first meeting will be to establish the chair of the group. This may already have been set up by the parent committee, or it may need to be nominated and voted upon at the first meeting. This position should not automatically be given to the chair of the scrutiny committee. Sharing chair-ship more widely can be a useful means to develop skills amongst the committee, and also recognise and capture the enthusiasm and interest of other members of the committee.
The Chair of the task group
The Chair should have a loose enough hold on the task group to pursue avenues of interest as they arise within the scope and a tight enough hold to ensure progress and timely reporting.
Review meetings
Task Group meetings are generally held in private session, in the absence of press and members of the public. This is because they are not treated as formal meetings, and often discuss sensitive or private information that would not be appropriate in a public arena. It also gives the opportunity for members to focus upon the evidence shared, rather than the public perception of the meeting.
There is no specific number of meetings that a Task Group should hold. The number and duration of meetings will depend on the subject, the amount of evidence and the number of witnesses identified.
Evidence
The strength of Task Group recommendations is based on the robustness of the evidence. In order to draw strong conclusions, the evidence that is considered needs to be triangulated from different sources. This stage of the review calls for more in depth research activities, drawing on those already carried out for the production of the ToR.
Decide if you will conduct primary research, such as surveys, focus groups, or interviews. These methods can provide valuable firsthand data to support your conclusions.
Explore whether there are any relevant reports, studies, or publications that can inform your work. Leveraging existing resources can save time and add depth to your analysis.
Plan how you will corroborate your findings by comparing evidence from multiple sources. Triangulation is essential for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of your conclusions. Members may wish to consider reports, local and national, media stories, written submission from witnesses and any other pertinent material.
Undertake a SWOT to gain an overview into a service area or issue. Identifying Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats as an exercise provides insight to inform the recommendations.
Process and roles for running a review
Evidence and asking the right questions
Review meetings
Task Group meetings are generally held in private session, in the absence of press and members of the public. This is because they are not treated as formal meetings and often discuss sensitive or private information that would not be appropriate in a public arena. It also gives the opportunity for members to focus upon the evidence shared, rather than the public perception of the meeting.
There is no specific number of meetings that a Task Group should hold. The number and duration of meetings will depend on the subject, the amount of evidence and the number of witnesses identified.
Evidence
The strength of Task Group recommendations is based on the robustness of the evidence. In order to draw strong conclusions, the evidence that is considered needs to be triangulated from different sources. This stage of the review calls for more in depth research activities, drawing on those already carried out for the production of the ToR.
- Consider Primary Research: Decide if you will conduct primary research, such as surveys, focus groups, or interviews. These methods can provide valuable firsthand data to support your conclusions.
- Utilise Existing Publications: Explore whether there are any relevant reports, studies, or publications that can inform your work. Leveraging existing resources can save time and add depth to your analysis.
- Triangulate Your Data: Plan how you will corroborate your findings by comparing evidence from multiple sources. Triangulation is essential for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of your conclusions. Members may wish to consider reports, local and national, media stories, written submission from witnesses and any other pertinent material.
- Undertake a SWOT analysis, to gain an overview into a service area or issue. Identifying Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, and use this insight to inform the recommendations.
Witness Sessions
In–depth interviews with structured and unstructured questions are a key tenet of most scrutiny reviews. In Select Committee style the Task Group will host a series of witness sessions. This serves to add colour to the overview provided by data and for the review to gain a more detailed insight into the area for review.
Witness session length, in turn, depends on the subject matter, the number of witnesses and the agreed parameters of the Task Group. Successful sessions can vary from 15 minutes to an hour and a half. Task Group meetings should be conducted in such a way as to put witnesses at ease and encourage open discussion and debate of the issues under review. Service users, front line staff, external partners and members of the public will be more candid and open in informal, relaxed settings. This might lead to consideration of where your meetings are held, including online, as well as pre-work to manage expectations, and consideration of behaviour and address when in the session.
The nature of these sessions is likely to vary depending upon the subject matter and the witnesses themselves. Experience has demonstrated that having an open, encouraging approach is likely to be more fruitful than hostile interrogation. It is useful to have witnesses in person, but this is not always possible and remote meetings should be considered if individuals are not otherwise available.
The scrutiny officer will take notes in this session and may also ask questions to further understanding and gain greater clarity. It should be stressed that these notes are not formal minutes, and their production is designed to inform the final report only. Witnesses should be invited to comment on the notes of their specific session within a reasonable time.
In the case of service users and members of the public the notes, unless otherwise agreed, should be confidential. This should be highlighted before, and at the beginning of the witness session. For representatives of professional bodies or other organisations, it should be made clear what the destination of the notes will be, and who they will be shared with. Notes from one witness session will not be shared with other witnesses, unless agreed by all parties.
It will often be necessary for a Task Group to undertake site visits as part of the evidence gathering process. Councillors may agree to carry these out as a whole group, in pairs, or as individuals depending on the nature of the review in question. Councillors can undertake these on their own and feedback to the task group. In any of these sessions, the remit of the Task Group and the councillors’ role within that group needs to be made apparent to witnesses concerned.
Asking effective questions
A key part of conducting a successful review is being clear about the right questions to ask. Questions serve as the foundation for any investigation or evaluation, guiding the review group’s focus and ensuring the process is both thorough and insightful. The diagram below gives a framework from which to design key lines of enquiry for the review.
To begin, consider the broader environment or situational factors. This “zooming out” allows the review group to contextualize the issue within its wider setting. This involves asking questions about the external forces shaping the current situation, as well as exploring historical, cultural, or systemic factors that may influence the topic under review. Addressing these macro-level considerations ensures the group’s understanding isn’t constrained by existing assumptions or readily available information.
Once the broader context is established, the group can refine their focus by developing detailed, specific questions. These may target particular stakeholders, witnesses, or data points. For instance, the group may want to explore insights witnesses can provide based on their unique experiences or scrutinise specific processes or outcomes that are central to the review.
The group should not be limited to exploring what is already known but should instead consider innovative approaches that push beyond current norms. This might involve asking what alternative perspectives have not yet been considered or identifying novel methods or tools that could offer fresh insights. This phase of questioning encourages creativity and helps uncover hidden opportunities or barriers.
Your questions are likely to evolve as you undertake the review, particularly if it has many meetings. Do revisit the terms of reference document and update it if necessary. New priorities or issues may surface that require attention, and the scope of the review may need refinement based on initial findings. Equally, the group may make reference to areas that it has not been able to pursue when concluding and presenting its report.
Reporting
Once the evidence has been collated and the review run its course – as defined in the terms of reference document – it will be time to present the findings. The report should set the context for the findings of the Task Group and detail the evidence upon which the recommendations are based. The final report is not a collation of notes that have been taken through the Task Group meetings, although these will inform its production. The report is a public document that publishes the Task Group’s findings and their recommendations.
Reaching recommendations is a subjective process. It is the Chair and scrutiny officer’s role to identify recommendations as they come up during the Task Group, and in reviewing the evidence to write the report it is possible that other recommendations will come to light. Recommendations should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time linked) to enable robust measurement of whether they have been achieved or not. All Members on the task group should agree the recommendations before they go forward.
Members of the Review Group have ownership of the report and whilst officers and Cabinet can make suggestions it is the Task Group’s decision whether to reflect these comments or not. The draft report will not necessarily be sent out to witnesses for comment. However it is usually necessary to share the report in advance of publication with the Cabinet/Exec Member with responsibility for the portfolio as well as senior officers. This is to enable discussion on the realism of recommendations and for advance notice.
Scrutiny of sensitive and controversial matters
While Scrutiny will want to work with the administration it must be recognised that the function operates in a political environment; this means that there will be times when there may be opposition to recommendations and even to holding a Task Group in a specific area. Asking questions can mean asking difficult questions. Scrutiny will often be looking at decisions and services with sensitive and often confidential matters.
If the situation arises where the Task Group cannot agree on the final report, and a compromise cannot be reached it is possible to submit the final report and a minority report representing the views of some Councillors of the group. However, this should be used as a last resort as it is likely to impede the progress of the recommendations and their acceptance in the council.
Taking the recommendations forward
At the point of publication, the task group will take the report to the parent committee that commissioned the work. Here the Chair of the task group will present the report with support from task group members. Members of the Scrutiny Committee can discuss and debate the report and particularly the recommendations. If the committee are satisfied with the work and the supporting evidence with the recommendations, they will refer the recommendations to Cabinet (in some Authorities these reports go to Full Council). However, there may be occasions where additional evidence, or amendments are requested by the whole committee. In this case the Task Group may undertake additional or supplementary work to gain agreement from the committee and commend to Cabinet. Decision making for acting against the recommendations lies with the Cabinet/Executive. The task group will need to communicate with witnesses to the review on the reception of the report and recommendations.
Process for concluding the task group and review
Post review action
The work does not end with the submission of the report. Monitoring the progress and implementation of recommendations is an important part of any Review. This activity is likely to revert to the committee, as the task group usually concludes with the presentation of the report.
It is good practice to have a systematic approach to track agreement, or not, and progress of recommendations made by Scrutiny, and schedule those made by task groups. Some councils do this by having a progress report against recommendations in an appropriate timeframe.
The first question to ask is if the recommendations were accepted, and some or all were not then seeking to understand why? At this stage there should be an exploration of why recommendations were not accepted – if this is the case. Is the intention behind the recommendations possible, if not the specific wording of the recommendations themselves? Is Scrutiny comfortable making minor amendments to change recommendations wording, but maintain their intent?
In the case where the recommendations have been accepted the scrutiny committee will wish to be satisfied of progress of implementation at an appropriate interval after submission. This interval will depend upon the scope of the recommendations, some might be able to be implemented immediately, while some might take up to a year. At this stage the Committee can have a report updating progress or undertake a more in depth look at recommendation progress; either by tasking an individual member or holding a one-off Task Group meeting.
When Scrutiny has heard the impact of their work, the committee could decide to continue further work, or to close the issue and focus resources on a different area. The narrative of impact is important to share with everyone who took part in the review, and also with the public and the Members and senior officers of the authority.
Scrutiny as a committee, or as a review group should also consider how to capture the learning gained on conducting the review process. What went well? How could that be replicated? What wasn’t as successful, and could a different approach yield a better result in a future review?
Process for following up after the review
All resources