The use of evidence in the audit, inspection and scrutiny of government
The role of audit, inspection and scrutiny agencies in the UK has been the subject of contentious debate. High profile failures in public services produce calls by some for more oversight, while at the same time others call for professionals to be set free to get on with their jobs. But critics and defenders alike are often poorly informed about how these agencies actually operate. Research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and led by Professor Sandra Nutley, has examined in detail how evidence is collected, analysed and interpreted in making judgments about the performance of public services.
In the research eight audit, inspection and scrutiny projects from across England, Scotland and Wales were studied. In each case the researchers reviewed documents, attended public meetings, interviewed key players and observed private meetings of the audit, inspection and scrutiny teams. The research identified eight principles for the effective use of evidence in audit, inspection and scrutiny organisations.
The principles, along with details of the research evidence underpinning them, are explained in the briefing paper, Evidence for accountability: using evidence in the audit, inspection and scrutiny of government, by Dr Ruth Levitt, Professor Sandra Nutley, Professor Steve Martin, and William Solesbury. This paper is available for free download at: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/go/news/news_1966.html.
The Nuffield Foundation describes the briefing paper as ‘essential reading for anyone working in the audit, inspection and scrutiny field’.