Peer Reviews in Local Government

Between 1999 and 2005, I was the Scottish columnist for the Local Government Chronicle, writing a monthly piece on whatever was burning me up. I came across this article I wrote about Peer Reviews on the internet while preparing to act as an external assessor for some Best Value Audits. It made me think about what we had forsaken in setting up Best Value Audits. Having been on the receiving end of a Best Value Audit, and now being engaged as an assessor, I am convinced that Peer Reviews were so much more insightful, speedier and helpful than Best Value Reviews that have become more an examination than a constructive dialogue that assists the Council to address its weaknesses and share its successes. I would really have liked to work on Peer Reviews rather than Best Value Reviews after retirement. Particularly since Best Value Reviews have never been extended to the growing phalanx of public sector organisations that have flourished since the creation of the Scottish Parliament.

The Improvement and Development Agency (I&DeA) was set up by the Local Government Association for England in 1999. It was led by Mel Usher, a radical thinker who had been the Chief Executive of South Somerset Council and someone I knew through our involvement at the Local Government Research Centre at the University of Warwick. He devised a system of whole Council reviews for English local government that were carried out by a team of half a dozen people drawn from other councils, involving two Councillors, two Directors,  a facilitator from the I&DeA and chaired by a serving Chief Executive from another Council. The theory was that, as insiders, we would be more likely to gain the trust of councillors and staff in a council than outside-led inspections that were seeking to grade councils. I was impressed by the concept and was asked to chair such a review for Poole in Dorset. The article below was published in the Local Government Chronicle on 30 March 2001.

"Some months ago, Steve Bundred, (the then CEO of Camden Council) writing in this column, extolled the benefits of the Improvement & Development Agency’s local government improvement programme. It was fresh in my mind when I received a phone call asking me to participate in a peer review team.

Apart from the tribulations of travelling the length of the country on Virgin Trains, it was as transforming as Steve had suggested. I arrived at the hotel on Sunday to meet the review team, which consisted of two councillors, two directors, and our I&DeA review manager. Team-building was facilitated by alcohol.

Spending a week with this council allowed us to collect layers of evidence through more than 50 meetings with 230 people – staff, partners, citizens and councillors. We were awestruck by how much had been achieved by a unitary council in just four years. But we also recognised areas for improvement that could not be easily identified or acknowledged from within the council.

We were privileged to witness the energy, commitment and public service ethos that was alive and flourishing across the 25 professions found in the authority. What other organisation has two-thirds of its staff qualified to degree level or equivalent, and the majority of staff are also customers and citizens? The quality of staff and commitment of councillors was a testament to the effectiveness of democratic accountability as a mechanism for the management of sustainable public services.

Innovation and change were evident throughout the complex organisation. It also coped with the constant visits from the various inspection agencies, some of whom overlapped with our visit. But we had the advantage of being local government insiders, and things were said that would not have been shared with government inspectors.

Scotland did seem to have an advantage here – we have an acknowledgement of diversity by the Scottish Executive, and we are allowed to diverge from the template without prosecution. This applies to best value as well, a recognition that this must extend over the public services if we are going to get better outcomes. 

The power of community initiative in England seemed toothless. Had it encouraged active citizenship or the community to be engaged in defining a vision and keeping the council and its partners under scrutiny? Extending democracy to the governance of all public agencies is surely one of the touchstones of community leadership.

But one thing is, unfortunately, the same across the UK. Where are the youngsters in local government? We have spent the past five years downsizing, retiring older staff and failing to provide opportunities for the next generation. It would appear that this is typical of most councils.

How do we raise our game and image to make local governance a career for the 21st century? If I&DeA’s peer reviews have a single message, it is that we are engaged in a remarkable industry which constantly learns, innovates and changes.

Sustainable local government needs to be refreshed with younger workers. How are we collectively going to do this? LGC could start by creating an award for the council with the highest proportion of under-25s – perhaps New Deal could sponsor it."

After my experience of a peer review, I argued for the remit of the I&DeA to be extended to Scotland. The I&DeA were keen, and one such review was carried out for the Highland Council. However, COSLA decided to set up its own Improvement Agency. At the same time, Best Value Audits were introduced by the Scottish Executive. It was a shift towards a top-down inspection regime led by the Accounts Commission. It was also a departure from the earlier recognition that diversity of policies and priorities amongst councils was necessary in a healthy democracy. The Scottish Improvement Service decided, in discussion with COSLA, not to focus on peer reviews. Best Value Audits took far longer, generated much work in preparation for the audits and as a result failed to impart the insider knowledge and goodwill that were such important components of peer reviews. It was just another step in the way the Scottish Government was misusing devolution to centralise policies through the prism of Holyrood and emasculating local government.