The Emergence Of Multi‐Inspectorate Inspections: ’Going It Alone Is Not An Option’
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00229 |
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| Author | Enid Mordaunt |
THE EMERGENCE OF MULTI-INSPECTORATE
INSPECTIONS: ‘GOING IT ALONE IS NOT AN
OPTION’
ENID MORDAUNT
Drawing on data from HM Inspectorate of Prisons, HM Inspectorate of Probation,
the Office for Standards in Education and the Social Services Inspectorate, this paper
develops a typology of inspection, classified according to the focus of inspection.
Five basic inspection types emerge, namely single institutional, multi-service, the-
matic, survey and monitoring review. The typology is further categorized by a
range of characteristics, resulting in a series of variants. The paper then focuses on
the particular characteristic of the multi-inspectorate approach to inspection,
because this is seen to offer a significant development in inspection practice that is
set to expand and develop in the future. By examining operational examples of this
approach it becomes clear that inspectorates are affecting the working practices of
one another as they use the multi-inspectorate approach as an exercise in bench-
marking.
INTRODUCTION
Following in the tradition of Rhodes (1981), Day and Klein (1987, 1990) and
Henkel (1991), the research on which this paper is based forms a compara-
tive study of four English inspectorates (Mordaunt 1999), namely the Office
for Standards in Education (OFSTED), HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI
Prisons), HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) and the Social Services
Inspectorate (SSI). Of these inspectorates, OFSTED and HMI Prisons have
the highest public profile: it is easy, therefore, to assume that since these
particular inspectorates are most noted for carrying out single institutional
inspections that public service inspection consists solely of that type. How-
ever, the research has shown that the range of inspection types is much
greater; indicating that inspection is a multi-formed rather than a mono-
lithic process of a single type. This paper develops this range of inspections
into a typology, which not only crosses inspections but also inspectorates.
The typology is categorized according to the focus of the inspection and
then further developed by means of a range of characteristics. One such
characteristic, that of the multi-inspectorate approach, is then considered
in detail because it demonstrates a current development that is likely to
have a great impact on inspection procedures in the future. Not only is this
approach producing new inspection manuals (SSI and AC 1996; OHMCIS
Enid Mordaunt is a Research Fellow in the Department of Social Policy at the University of Edin-
burgh
Public Administration Vol. 78 No. 4, 2000 (751–769)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
752 ENID MORDAUNT
and AC 1997) but it is also furthering the development of new styles of
working as different inspectorates learn from the working practices and
approaches of each other.
The four inspectorates do not always share the same terminology; so,
throughout this paper the term ‘inspection manual’ is used when referring
to what OFSTED would call a framework and the SSI a methodology. A
manual sets out, with varying degrees of detail and regulatory specificity,
the standards and criteria by which to gather evidence on which to base
judgements. Each inspectorate has at least one generic manual (HMI Pri-
sons 1996a; HMIP 1994, 1995; OFSTED 1995a/b/c; SSI 1996a/b/c/d/e/f).
Inspections are carried out either according to these generic manuals or
more specialized manuals (HMIP 1996; SSI 1996g), developed from the gen-
eric.
METHOD
This paper draws from 37 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with rep-
resentatives from the four inspectorates including lay inspectors, visiting
and seconded inspectors, tenured inspectors, Assistant and Deputy Chief
Inspectors and the four Chief Inspectors. A wide range of documentary
evidence from inspectorates was examined, including: inspection manuals
(OFSTED 1995a/b/c); chief inspectors’ annual reports (HMI Prisons 1996b);
inspection reports (OFSTED 1995d;), guidance to field practitioners (HMIP
undated); literature related to Joint Reviews (eg. SSI and AC 1998); explana-
tory information (eg. CSCS et al. undated); and reviews of the work of
inspectorates (Coopers and Lybrand 1994). Finally, ideas were drawn from
more than twenty direct observation sessions as the courses of specific
inspections from each of the inspectorates were followed.
RESULTS: A TYPOLOGY OF INSPECTIONS
Formerly, descriptions of inspection types have mainly focused on school
inspections. Pearce (1986), for example, described the advisory and inspec-
toral functions of both national HMI and LEA inspectors, while reflecting
the importance, at that time, of institutional self-assessment. Stillman and
Grant (1989) described the work of LEA advisers, shedding light on the
link between inspection and advisory functions. Wilcox (1992) classified
school inspections into four categories, ‘informal visits’, ‘full inspections’,
‘short secondary inspections’ and ‘surveys’ (p. 28). Maychell and Keys
(1993) surveyed LEAs, indicating a range of inspection types in operation
as the new OFSTED arrangements were beginning. It is an opportune time
to develop further an inspection typology, because not only is OFSTED
now well established but also, more generally, public service inspectorates
hold a higher public profile than previously.
There are various ways in which a typology of inspection could be
devised; for example, inspections could be categorized according to the
style of working of the inspectorates, that is how far they operate in the
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
To continue reading
Request your trial