The lack of an opportunity for Inspectors at the grass roots to be able to make an input to changes generally and to IBL in particular.
The changes to IRR are part of the response to the wider issues affecting Inspectorates and Government I referred to in my October 2006 letter to staff. But they also recognize our strong belief that we can serve the interests of people who use services even better by becoming a more consistent, efficient and effective organization. The process by which we implement changes will be the subject of discussions at national level with trades union and staff side representatives. These meetings are being set up. This will be supported by regional meetings to discuss local or regional implications.
IBL is the most radical shift in regulatory practice for 25 years. Inevitably, it has been challenging for staff and providers alike. The changes being introduced through IBL have been subject to widespread consultation with internal and external stakeholders. Staff have been involved in shaping and designing new methodologies and tools, through workshops and pilots. The regional change managers were introduced specifically to support local implementation and provide a conduit between the QPM and front line staff. Regional staff have been at the forefront of 'championing' and testing 'people focussed' inspection practice e.g. SOFI, accessible reporting, person centred planning, etc. Regions led the national projects on involving people who use services in our work e.g. The West Midlands' work with Sandwell People First. Where changes have begun to bed in e.g. the new report format, we are getting positive feedback from providers and people who use services.
Very strong concern has been expressed about the removal of Lead Inspector role with a specific case-load (to be replaced by Link Inspectors and a substantial shift upwards in case-load numbers?). Have CSCI consulted service users and providers about this move?
This issue is about the way that the Commission manages its staff resources. Our goal is to move to a workload management model, supported by ICAP, because this will ensure the most flexible and efficient use of resources. The link inspector role is currently being evaluated as a way of ensuring that we have a sound oversight of provider services and the capacity to identify any change in performance which might trigger additional inspection or other activity.
Concern about the lack of consultation with Inspectors by Management on designated Homeworking.
As you know, we have been in consultation with trade unions, representing inspectors and other staff about homeworking for several months. In the course of this dialogue, we have worked together on addressing issues of concern and are now close to agreement about the implementation of an interim policy that will be open to regulatory inspectors and regulatory managers affected by office closures. Throughout this period, we have been communicating with staff generally and inspectors specifically about this being our direction of travel. We have, however, been clear that such a move requires the management and technical infrastructure to support staff and managers if homeworking arrangements are to work well. We have been making good progress on these, including putting in place broadband connections for the great majority of inspectors, which provide a better service than the previous dial-up connections.
A lack of consultation with Inspectors about IRR policy management . Resulting in constant re-adjustments in working patterns and lack of consistency across regions.
One of the key drivers of our restructuring plans is the need to work more consistently across regions. Our workload planning assumptions have been based on a common approach and the introduction of regional registration teams, regional enforcement teams and regional scanning and printing will all help achieve a more consistent approach to our work.
We also want to improve our workflows, but this is unrelated to whether we adopt a workload or a caseload management system. As you know our planning for the current year is based on top quartile performance - ie that which is already being achieved by 25% of IRR.
Proposals to change core working times / advent of new Duty system and resulting variations across regions
The proposals on removing the ‘rules' around core hours are designed to provide greater flexibility for arrangements to be agreed locally that meet the needs of customers and staff, while providing a quality service to the public. This is linked to developing our customer care centre concept, as a replacement for each office running its own duty system, and having a single regional contact centre. We need to do more work on this, but again this will deliver a more consistent approach - not less - across the regions.
A recent CSCI survey highlighted the lack of communication and consultation with Inspectors. This has culminated in low morale and frustration at not being involved and enabled.
We place great importance on communication and have provided updates through eConnect on plans for restructuring IRR. It is now some time since the 2006 staff survey, and in the meantime we have established the Organisational Change and Transitions Programme Board and the regular communications I referred to earlier.
Has CSCI carried out research into the impact of different styles of Regulation and Inspection and can this be shared with Inspecting officers?
CSCI has not carried out specifically commissioned research into different styles of regulation and inspection. However, IBL was based on a thorough understanding of contemporary policy and practice both in the United Kingdom and abroad, as well as widespread consultation with people who use services, the sector, staff and other stakeholders. It is also consistent with the principles of better regulation set out by Government.
What evidence is there for the changes in IBL 2 and how will it be better?
We are in the early stages of implementing IBL. The changes in year 2 are a consistent part of developing the approach. We believe that IBL provides for a more efficient and effective approach to regulation because it:
- shifts the focus to better outcomes for people who use services first
- is proportionate to risk - good services are rewarded, poor services are targeted
- makes better use of all of the information available to us e.g. through the forthcoming annual service review
- encourages providers to focus on their own systems for assuring quality e.g. through the AQAA
