Alan Barker

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #10: Does it look good?

After all that effort, don’t spoil everything by making the report look bad.

Good formatting makes the text look easy on the eye.  A few simple rules will help you succeed where all too many scrutiny reports are failing.

 

Never use full justification.  Creating rectangular blocks of text makes life harder for the reader’s eye: it cannot cope easily with the different gaps between words on different lines; and it cannot easily find the end of the line of text.  Result: ‘vertical drift’, in which the eye drifts up or down, away from the line it should be reading.

 

Widen your margins.  The left margin, in particular, will benefit from widening, almost to double the size of the right margin.  This ‘scholars’ margin’ is a useful space for making notes.

Raise your point size.  Use nothing smaller than 11 point. 12 point is a good standard size.

 

 

 

Choose your typeface carefully.  Serif typefaces – such as Times, Baskerville or Century – tend to be easier to read on paper; sanserif typefaces – such as Verdana, Tahoma, Gill or Trebuchet – tend to be easier to read on screen. 

 

 

 

 

Use all the useful apparatus.  Think about the way you display title, headings, page numbers and graphics.  Everything should contribute to a professional, easy-to-scan document.

And finally:

Don't use Arial.  Please!

 

 

 

Good examples of scrutiny reports are available from the London Assembly website. 

 

 

 

 

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #9: is your language reader-friendly?

Scrutiny reports are aimed at the public – the communities who use local services.  We should always seek to use words that the public will understand.

We all know that we should avoid jargon. Indeed, in 2009 the Local Government Association published a list of words they would prefer local authorities to avoid. (How good is the list?  It's up to you to decide...)

But I suspect the real problem is not the use of in-house language.  Very few scrutiny reports actually indulge in impenetrable jargon.  The real issue is that the writer is not thinking about how to make the text easier to read.

Making ourselves understood is not easy.  Of course we should prefer short words to long words; but we shall not greatly improve the quality of our reports by simply substituting one word for another. 

 

We need to think about how the words fit together.  What ideas are we trying to convey?  How can we express those ideas clearly to members of the public who pay for our services?

If you were to submit your report to the Plain English Campaign to be assessed, these are the principles they would use. 

• Make your average sentence length 15 to 20 words.
• Use only the words that your reader is most likely to understand.
• Use only as many words as you need.
• Use the strongest, clearest and most specific verbs you can.
• Say what you mean. Be positive; avoid standard expressions and tired formulas.
• Punctuate clearly and simply.

(Here's the Plain English Campaign's price list.)

At the word level, two problems contribute more than anything else to incomprehensibility.

• Passive verbs
• Abstract nouns

Both are particularly common in scrutiny reports.  If we can ration our use of both, we shall do a lot to make our text more readable.

 

Passive verbs

 Verbs can be either active or passive. An active verb expresses what its subject does; a passive verb expresses what its subject suffers. Sentences with active verbs are shorter, stronger and more dynamic than those with passive ones.

The service has been improved by the department.

The department has improved the service.

 

Readers understand sentences in the active voice more quickly and easily because it follows how we think and process information. The passive voice forces readers to take extra mental steps as they convert the passive into the active.

 

 

To turn a passive verb into an active one, ask: “By whom?” or “By what?”  Place the ‘actor’ at the start of the sentence and build the rest of the sentence on.

There are planning policies and funding issues to resolve before the final approach is agreed. These are currently being pursued with the council. The existing scope of the scheme will also be considered, and particularly whether any adjacent properties with high investment needs should be considered for redevelopment.

We need to resolve planning policies and funding issues; we are currently discussing these issues with the council before we agree a final approach.  We shall also review the existing scope of the scheme, and particularly whether we should consider redeveloping any adjacent properties with high investment needs.

 

Abstract nouns

Nouns name things, people, times, places or qualities.  

 Concrete nouns name things physically present in the world (table, woman, pen, car, tree).

 

 

Abstract nouns name ideas, concepts or qualities that cannot be sensed physically (growth, awareness, training,  marketing, possibility).

 

 

Try to cut down your use of abstract nouns. Replace them, if you can, with verbs or adjectives. If you can only replace an abstract noun with a group of shorter, more concrete words, consider keeping it.

• We shall make our decision on Friday.
• We shall decide on Friday.

•   There is little effective management in the department.
• The department is not well managed.
  

• We are expecting cooperation between committee members and the Mayor.
• We expect committee members and the Mayor to cooperate.
  

• Maintenance of playing fields is not regular.
• The playing fields are not regularly maintained.
  

• I have responsibility for writing the minutes of the meeting.
• I am responsible for writing the minutes of the meeting.
  

• Please confirm your availability.
• Please confirm whether you are available.

• There is a degree of flexibility in the arrangements.
• The arrangements are quite flexible.

 

Bringing it alive

 

Good writing comes alive in the reader's mind. When we read something well written, we hardly feel that we are reading at all.  We sense the writer 'speaking' to us.

That's the kind of writing we should be aiming to produce.

 

 

Bringing your own writing to life is a long-term project. Here are some guidelines to point you in the right direction.

• Say what you mean.
• Be specific.
• Be positive.
• Remove blockages.

 Style is personal. Choosing how to write is like choosing how to dress. Improving your style is not unlike improving your dress sense. Look around; imitate what you admire; aim for functional elegance rather than excessive flamboyance.

 

Say what you mean.

Concentrate on what you want to say, not how to say it. Imagine the reader’s response. If you only had a few seconds to get your point across, what would you say?

• Write down your key messages as boldly as possible.
• Imagine speaking what you have written. Could you say it more simply?
• Be sincere. Don’t wrap your meaning up in fancy language.
• Don’t use ‘scaffolding’. Avoid describing what you are doing in the document: "In this chapter, we shall examine..." Avoid referring to the fact that the reader is reading: "It is important to understand here that..."

 

Be specific.

Aim to be precise rather than vague. Avoid generalising.

• Use numbers carefully. Ration them, so that you don’t blind the reader with statistics. Avoid words that convey a general sense of number (several, lots, few) or that are value-loaded (excessive, insufficient, unacceptable, gigantic) – unless you can support the judgement with numbers.
• Write personally. Use names. Allocate responsibility for actions. Use personal pronouns wherever appropriate, but take care not to overuse them.
• Use verbs with a specific meaning. Avoid verbs that don’t mean much (get, carry out, perform, give, conduct, implement, move do). In particular, try to find crisper alternatives to the verbs to have and to be.
• Make it concrete. Give real examples.
• Use jargon carefully. If your reader will understand an idea better in jargon, use it. Very often, however, we use jargon to cover our own lack of clear understanding. Don’t use jargon as an excuse for not knowing quite what you mean.

 

 Be positive.

The best scrutiny writing is forward-looking and action-centred. Avoid writing too much about what has happened, what hasn’t happened, what should have happened or what’s wrong.

• Write about proposals, future action, how to put things right, what should happen.
• Make definite demands.
• Generate in your reader the feeling appropriate to the message. Avoid emotive language.

 

Remove blockages.

Good writing flows like water in a pipe. The words should be under pressure. Remove blockages so that the meaning flows freely.

• Transform passive verbs into active ones.
• Replace abstract nouns with concrete ones.
• Remove unnecessary words or groups of words.
• Exterminate clichés.
• Puncture inflated language. You can easily tell if a word is inflated. If you remove it, would you need a group of words to say the same thing? If so, the word is not inflated. If not, find a shorter alternative or remove the word completely.

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #8: How do we bring our sentences under control?

Sentences express ideas. They will express your ideas more strongly if they are constructed sturdily.

Sentences become weak when they are too long or poorly built. Such sentences are, unfortunately, easy to find in scrutiny reports.  Here's just one example.

In conclusion the Chair, Councillor John Breathless, acknowledged that the prioritisation of targets would help to ensure the best use of resources and would also assist in addressing health inequalities throughout the City and the Board requested that Frances Clueless and Andy Broughtforth, the Chief Executive of the Chesterford North Primary Care Trust provide further information with regard to data trends and health inequalities in order to provide members with an indication of how the compilation assessment of statistical information is reflective of demographics, particularly in relation to age, race and sex and also recognised that many of the initiatives encompassed within the Chesterford First for Health Partnership’s six point action plan were in the early stages but nevertheless requested Frances Cunning to provide further information in order to demonstrate how the Plan was assisting in health improvements throughout the City.

141 words.  Astonishing.

Sentence length is probably the single most important problem afflicting scrutiny reports.    

Be kind to your reader.  Keep your sentence length under control.  Reduce the number of ideas in your sentences.  Aim to say what you mean and no more.

We can strengthen sentences in six main ways.      

• Cut long sentences into separate sentences
• Separate multiple sentences
• Cut down long sentences
• Rebuild complicated sentences
• Make non-sentences grammatically correct
• Find strong subjects and verbs

 

Hot tip

 Follow the ‘15-25’ rule.

Message sentences, topic sentences and other sentences expressing big ideas should never exceed 15 words. All other sentences should contain no more than 25 words.

 

Here are some worked examples.

Cut long sentences into separate sentences

Parents have told us that distance is a crucial issue for them, because if their baby is in a unit far from home, this can limit the amounts of visits they can make, can cause them to incur huge travelling costs, and can cause real problems with childcare if they have other children.

Parents have told us that distance is a crucial issue for them in three ways.  If their baby is in a unit far from home, they can visit less often; they may incur huge travelling costs; and they may have real problems with childcare if they have other children.

 

Separate multiple sentences

Central government and the European Union are relied upon to tackle this, however, the group feels that the Council does hold a responsibility to encourage the businesses in the area to reach a certain standard for green credentials and should use its sway as a business and community leader to this effect.

Central government and the European Union are relied upon to tackle this. However, the group feels that the council does hold a responsibility to encourage the businesses in the area to reach a certain standard for green credentials.  It should use its sway as a business and community leader to this effect.

 

Cut down long sentences

We heard from Councillor Monaghan, the Chief Highways Officer, the Acting Head of Highways Services and the Transport Strategy Manager and accept that there had been a clear misunderstanding and miscommunication between highways officers and members as to the depth of feeling and objections being made on the proposals for phase 1 of this scheme.

Highways officers and members have clearly misunderstood the depth of feeling aroused by phase 1 of this  scheme.  Objections to the scheme have not been clearly communicated.  We heard evidence about these problems from Councillor Monaghan, the Chief Highways Officer, the Acting Head of Highways Services and the Transport Strategy Manager.

 

Rebuild complicated sentences

At the 17^th June meeting of the Board, the Head of Leisure Services reported on issues to be resolved prior to the opening of the English Institute of Sport and the completion of the Institute's Business Plan which included the finalisation of the terms of the Head Lease for the Institute upon which discussions were still being held with Sport England, the need for any such lease to recognise that there would be a sufficient element of community use of facilities so as to qualify for mandatory rate relief and that the exposure of financial risk to the City Council in terms of operating the facility had not changed since his last report to the Scrutiny Board. 

At the 17^th June meeting of the board, the Head of Leisure Services reported on issues to be resolved prior to opening the English Institute of Sport and completing the Institute's business plan.  Leisure Services needs to complete negotiations with Sport England about the terms of the Head Lease for the Institute.  The lease needs to recognise that the institute will qualify for mandatory rate relief, because there will be sufficient use of the facilities by the local community.  The city council’s exposure to financial risk in operating the facility has not changed since the Head of Leisure Services last reported to the scrutiny board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Make non-sentences grammatically correct

Qualitative research will help us to understand what children and young people actually mean when they say something about their school is good or bad.  We will be able to probe issues such as why children like or dislike elements of school life, and what that means. For example, that bullying can go undetected or that the playground is better because it has specific areas for younger and older children.

[My italics indicate a non-sentence.]

Qualitative research will help us to understand what children and young people actually mean when they say something about their school is good or bad.  We will be able to probe issues such as why children like or dislike elements of school life, and what that means. For example, children may dislike an open playground because bullying can go undetected; they may prefer a playground because it has separate areas for younger and older children.

 

Find strong subjects and verbs 

There should be a clear and transparent process for considering the use of sites and there should be an opportunity in that process for the officers responsible for the housing strategy to make the case for housing use and explain the implications for the housing strategy of the different options being considered.

The process for considering the use of sites should be clear. Officers responsible for the housing strategy should be able, within the process, to make the case for housing use .  They should also be able to explain the implications for the housing strategy of the different options being considered.

 

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.

 

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #7: how do we build paragraphs?

What is a paragraph?  It’s a collection of sentences, all relating to one idea.  Get the paragraphs right and all sorts of other writing problems will begin to fade away.

For example, take a look at this paragraph.

    The Board also considered improvements in the performance of the City’s Libraries, identifying immediate     concerns relating to the suitability of the premises used for the Archives Service and future considerations such     as the condition of the Central Library and potential changes to procurement processes.

One-sentence paragraphs are generally not very helpful – especially when the sentence is 44 words long. 

Interestingly, the key to improving this paragraph is in the text itself.  The paragraph’s main idea is at the start.  All we need to do is separate it into its own sentence.  This is called a topic sentence.

The board also considered improvements in the performance of the city’s libraries.  We identified immediate concerns relating to the suitability of the premises used for the Archives Service.  We also considered more long-term concerns, such as the condition of the Central Library and potential changes to procurement processes.

 

As well as creating a topic sentence, the rewrite also improves the coherence of the paragraph.  The board were looking at two sets of concerns: some immediate and long-term.  By placing those two sets of concerns in two separate sentences, the paragraph becomes more coherent.

(I've also removed the capital letter from the word 'board'.  Unlike 'Central Library' or 'Archives Service', the word 'board' is not the name of the board and so should be lower case.)

A paragraph, then, should be about a single topic. 

■    The best place to deliver the topic is at the start of the paragraph, in a topic sentence. 

■    The other sentences in the paragraph should develop the topic coherently.

We can make our paragraphs more coherent in two ways.

First, we can create patterns of meaning within the paragraph, by echoing, repeating or distinguishing words across sentences.  In the example above, the word ‘concerns’ is repeated, to link the two supporting sentences; the words ‘immediate’ and ‘long-term’ clearly distinguish between the two sets of concerns.

Secondly, we can use transitional devices to indicate the connections between sentences.  Transitional devices are words and phrases that indicate how one sentence relates to the sentence before it. (With thanks to the OWL at Purdue.)

Here is a short paragraph in which the transitional devices (marked in italics) show how the sentences link to each other.

The absence of changing facilities on playing fields can also be a problem.  For example, Richmond Park has three full size grass rugby pitches but there are no facilities for changing or showering on site.  As a result, the pitches are well used on the weekends but little used during the week.

 

Hot tip

Use topic sentences to organize the sequences of paragraphs.

Underline the first sentence of each paragraph in a section.  Read the underlined sentences in order. They should be a summary of the section.  If they make sense when read in order, your paragraphs are probably well ordered.

In the next posting, I'll ask:how do we bring our sentences under control?

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.

 

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #6: How do we argue and explain?

Your report will be made up of arguments and explanations.  It will read more effectively and convincingly if you argue and explain well.

Luckily, there are clear patterns of argument and explanation. They make the task of assembling our ideas much easier. 

 

 

 

■    Arguments come in two patterns.

■    Explanations come in six patterns.

 

 

 

 

In this section, we look at these patterns.

What is an argument?

An argument is made up of three key elements.

■    A case that you are arguing for

■    Reasons to support that case

■    Logic to connect the reasons to the case

In very simple terms, the two forms of argument derive from the form of the logic connecting the reasons connect to the case.

If the reasons are more general than the case, we can say that the argument is deductive. 

If the reasons are specific examples of a general case, then we can call the argument inductive. 

A deductive argument works from general statements (usually called premisses) to a specific conclusion or recommendation.

 

 

 

 

Deductive reasoning is regarded as the invention of Aristotle in 4th-century Athens.  Aristotle taught Alexander the Great, though whether he helped Alexander compose eloquent scrutiny reports as he conquered half the world is not recorded.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is an example of a deductive argument drawn from a scrutiny in London.

More people could survice cardiac arrest on the way to hospital if more Londoners were trained in emergency life support skills.

Every year, 12,000 Londoners die from a cardiac arrest before they reach hospital.

Therefore,we should train members of the public in the skills of dealing with cardiac arrest.

Here is the argument as it appeared in the final report.  It has been supported with one piece of highly relevant evidence and brought to life with a powerful quotation drawn from a witness.

 

Every year, 12,000 Londoners die from a cardiac arrest before they reach hospital. This figure could be significantly reduced if more Londoners were trained in emergency life support skills. In fact, evidence shows that someone experiencing a cardiac arrest outside hospital is twice as likely to survive if a bystander trained in emergency life support skills intervenes. Since almost three-quarters of cardiac arrests in London happen in the home, training members of the public in these skills really can make the difference between life and death.

“The importance of these skills is that bystander life support can double the chances of survival for patients who have collapsed in cardiac arrest, and extend the time available for us, as the emergency services, to reach the patient and get a successful outcome.”

Dr Fionna Moore, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

 

An inductive argument works from specific statements (usually based on observation or research) to a general conclusion or recommendation.

 

 

 

Inductive reasoning is principally associated with Sir Francis Bacon, prime mover in the early seventeenth century in establishing the research methods of modern science.

 

 

 

 

Here is an example of an inductive argument drawn from a scrutiny about neo-natal health services.

Case

  Neonatal Care Services must be effectively coordinated with maternity services and health visitor services.

Supporting reasons

1.   If services shared information better, health visitors would always know when mums were being discharged.

2.   If neo-natal units worked better with maternity services, in-utero transfers would be easier to manage.

And here is the argument as it appeared in the report. 

Neonatal Care Services must be effectively coordinated with maternity services and health visitor services to ensure that mothers and babies receive a seamless, high quality service.  If the different services involved had clear and effective protocols on sharing information about mother and baby’s health and support needs, health visitors would always be informed when mothers are being discharged.  If neonatal units worked closely with maternity services to review and plan capacity, in-utero transfers would be easier to manage: currently, because of the lack of coordination, expectant mothers whose babies will probably need neonatal care when born can find it hard to find both facilities at the same hospital.

 

Six forms of explanation

Explanation tells us about something in more detail.  We can structure explanation broadly in six different ways.

Listing examples

Categorising

Cause and effect

Outlining a process

Comparing and contrasting

Defining

Here is a brief example of each type of explanation, drawn from scrutiny reports. (Some names and other details have been altered.)

 

Examples

Journey times for passengers are just about keeping to expected levels. The Metropolitan, East London, Northern and Piccadilly all report additional excess journey time averages. The Bakerloo, Victoria and District Lines showed the most marked improvement during the Christmas period. 

 

Categorising

Playing fields may be owned by private or public landholders. Private owners include companies, banks, sports clubs, developers, or individual land owners not necessarily associated with any commercial enterprise. Public owners include local authorities, schools, colleges or other public sector bodies such as the Civil Service or National Health Service.

 

Cause and effect

The breakdown in communications within the Littleford Ambulance service had an impact on the service’s ability effectively to deploy the necessary vehicles, personnel, equipment and supplies to accidents.  Accident victims told us repeatedly of their surprise at the apparent lack of ambulances at the scenes, even an hour or more after the accident. 

 

Process

The proposed timetable is as follows:

• Scoping brief to Chair on 7 April
• Project Initiation meeting at 10am on 11 April
• Scoping brief to Members on 12 April
• Despatch call for evidence letters by 21 April
• Written evidence received by 26 May
• Evidence analysed and briefing prepared for Members by 5 July
• Evidentiary Hearing 13 July
• Formal approval of scrutiny report at 12 October Committee meeting

 

Comparing and contrasting

The variance in availability of playing fields between inner and outer London is marked. In theory, there are 227 playing fields available to residents in inner London boroughs, as opposed to 1,202 available to residents in outer London.  

 

Defining

ROI for tourism is the amount of additional visitor expenditure that campaigns generate compared with the amount of public money invested in these campaigns.  The calculation of additional spend is based on an estimate from survey questionnaires on the number of nights spent in Littleford as a result of a campaign. Visitor expenditure is calculated by applying this to the International Passenger Survey data on average spend per day per visitor. 

 

Hot tip

Don’t mix up types of writing.

Be clear what kind of writing you are doing in each section and each paragraph.  Trying to write in more than one way in the same section or paragraph will result in confusion.

In the next posting, I'll ask: How do we build paragraphs?

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #5: How do we structure the report?

An effective scrutiny report is not just written.  It needs to be planned.  How do we plan the document?

 

The simple answer is: top down.  Your aim must be to make the report as easy to use and read as possible.  That’s not just a matter of writing well; it’s also a question of how you assemble and display the information and ideas in the report. 

 

Planning is essential.  And the output of good planning is – well, a plan.  We’ll call it an outline.  

Your readers are unlikely to read your report from start to finish.  It makes little sense, therefore, to create a report that proceeds from an introduction to a conclusion and set of recommendations.  Better to create a structure that the reader can navigate, so that they can pick out the bits that interest them. 

Assemble your structure around your recommendations.  You are producing the report to recommend; put the recommendations at the heart of your structure (or rather, towards the top), rather than tacking them on at the end. 

Your report will be made up of sections.  Create the sections around your recommendations.  Allocate one or more recommendations to a section, then find the ideas that you need to support those recommendations.

Write everything in sentences.  The key planning question is: “What do we want to say?”  We can only say anything by uttering a sentence.  Your outline should consist of sentences – ideas – that logically support your recommendations. Summarise all the recommendations in a single message sentence and place that at the head of the outline.

What you are building is a pyramid.  At the head of the pyramid is your main idea: your message, the single most important idea in the report.  At the next level down are your recommendations, generating the main sections of the report.  Supporting those recommendations are key points that you have derived from your investigations.  Once you know what key points to make, you can marshal the evidence that will support them.

It's hard to find a good visual example of such a pyramid on the web.  Here's one, with thanks to Hyunwoo Park.  You'll find it here. As you can see, it's written in American rather than UK English. 

The person who is most often associated with this method of planning is Barbara Minto.  Her book The Pyramid Principle has been a source of inspiration to me for years.  You can find a potted version of her ideas here.

To find the key points that support a recommendation, try this simple process.

Imagine speaking your key point to the reader.  What question will it provoke in their mind?

The question should be one of three.

• “Why?”
• “How?”
• “Which ones?”

You must have at least two answers to the question.  Try to have no more than about six.  Write your answers to that question as minor points.

Number your key points.  These numbers could become the numbers of the sections and sub-sections in your report.

Once you have the core structure in place, you can begin to fill it out with other kinds of material: case studies, stories, illustrations.  Detailed statistical information should be consigned to appendices. 

Create an introduction by telling the story of how the report came to be written.  Here's a good structure for an introduction .

Construct a story about how the need for the document arose.

Situation

 “Once upon a time…”  What is the first thing you can say about the matter that you and your reader will agree is true?  The starting point is completely uncontroversial.

Problem

What happened to complicate the situation?  Perhaps something went wrong.  Maybe improvements are necessary.  Often the problem is that the reader is ignorant of something.

Question

What question does the problem trigger in the reader’s mind?

Response

The answer to that question should be your message of your report.

Put all this work together and you create an outline.  Here's an outline of a typical scrutiny report.  (It's entirely fictional.)

Download Outline

Use the outline to generate your first draft.  The draft expands the outline by adding:

■    text;

■    illustrations;

■    case studies;

■    page numbers;

■    headings; and

■    appendices.

Use the outline itself as the summary of the report.  Readers can then use the summary to find their way around the report.

When complete, the draft should look like this.

■    Title page

■    Summary [your outline, inserted unchanged and complete]

■    Contents page

■    Introduction [SPQR, with other elements as necessary: scope, methodology, background issues]

■    Section 1

- and so on, through to Section x.

Hot tip

Give your report a summary!

Even if you ignore all the advice in this section, don’t ignore this tip.  A summary is essential to help the reader understand and use your report.  A good summary is the report in miniature.  Don’t confuse the summary with the introduction, which should tell the story of how the report came to be written.

In the next posting, I'll deal with the question: 'How do we argue and explain?'

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #4: What's the evidence?

It’s a big word in scrutiny.  We all know that our recommendations should be evidence-based.  But what does that phrase actually mean?

 ■   What is evidence?

Evidence is the facts or sources that support an argument. In a write-up of a scientific experiment, evidence would be the data you collected in your experiment that prove or disprove a thesis. In a scrutiny report, evidence is whatever allows you to prove or disprove your hypothesis. 

 

 

■   Why do we need evidence?

Evidence is central to any argument. Without evidence, an argument is merely an opinion. Evidence is the critical link that helps you prove your points.

■   Can evidence speak for itself?

No. Evidence can only speak in support of a point you’re making. It’s never enough to drop a quotation into a report and expect the reader to be convinced of a point.

■   So how can we use evidence effectively?

When you use evidence, you have to show the reader that the evidence supports your argument.  Explain what the evidence means.  How does the evidence support the larger ideas in the report?  Make the connections clear.

You can’t even begin to look for evidence until you have a hypothesis.  What are you looking for evidence of?  Look at the hypothesis and ask:

■   What would prove or disprove this?

■   Where would we look to find evidence of the proof?

■   How would we argue that the evidence supports our argument?

It’s well known that evidence can be quantitative or qualitative.

■   Quantitative evidence is based on numerical data or data that can be converted into numbers.  Quantitative evidence usually seeks to answer questions like:

‘How many?’, ‘how much?’, ‘How often?’ or ‘To what extent?’  

 

■   Qualitative evidence is based on non-numerical data.  We gather such evidence to see the processes which lie behind patterns of behaviour, people’s emotions or their responses to certain situations.  Qualitative evidence helps us to understand the experiences of service users (or those who don’t use services). 

Typically, it shows us ‘what it’s like’: we can use it to indicate what something means – what impact it has on people – rather than how much it measures.

One way of structuring the search for evidence is to categorise it by source (internal/external) and by type (quantitative/qualitative).  Ideally, scrutiny should be able to draw evidence of all four types:

Internal/quantitative    Internal/qualitative

External/quantitative    External/qualitative

The source of the evidence is of course as critical to your argument as the nature of the evidence.  No evidence is ever truly objective; how could it be, when all evidence by definition is in support of an argument?

Many different individuals and groups will provide evidence for your reviews.  These will include:

■   politicians;

■   council officers;

■   managers;

■   non-executive directors;

■   professionals;

■   members of the public; and

■   academics.

Most of these people are likely to be submitting evidence as part of their professional work.  They will (probably) try to be as factual and objective as possible, while representing the interests of their organisations. 

You’ll sometimes become aware of political or personal motivations in the people offering evidence to you.  A personal or political motivation may be entirely legitimate: a patient may wish to pass on their own experiences to improve the experiences of others; a politician may have made an election commitment to promote the needs of a particular group. 

Ask whether a witness’s position might be inappropriately biasing their evidence.  How might their position influence the presentation of evidence?  Is there any conflict of interest?  A representative of a commercial company, for example,  might be using evidence to support the sales of the company’s products. An opposition politician may deliberately seek out and emphasise negative service users’ experiences in an attempt to embarrass the ruling group on a council. 

Dr Fiona Campbell has written an excellent booklet exploring the questions surrounding evidence.  Download ‘Ten questions to ask if you’re assessing evidence’ to find out more.

Hot tip

Keep asking: “What point are we arguing?”

 Evidence is only evidence if it supports an argument.  It’s up to you to decide whether evidence fairly supports an argument. 

In the next posting, I'll address the question: 'How do we structure the report?'

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #3: What are our recommendations?

Your recommendations should be at the heart of your report.  The document should be designed around them.

Very few scrutiny reports are structured to support recommendations. In many reports, the recommendations are attached, almost as an afterthought, at the end. In others, recommendations are hard to find.  Indeed, it’s possible to find reports that contain no recommendations at all.

Confusion still surrounds the whole question of recommending.  We all recite the SMART mantra, but how many of the recommendations in our reports truly meet the criteria?

Let’s remind ourselves that our recommendations should be:

Specific – not vague or general

Measurable – how will we know whether the recommendation has been carried out, or how successful it has been?

Agreed – what’s the point of recommending an action that nobody will agree to implement?

Realistic – are the resources available?  Is the willingness available?

Time-bound – when is anyone going to check that the recommendation has been carried out?

Take a look at some of these recommendations, drawn from a random sample of reports.  How many of these are truly smart?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Panel recommends empowerment of communities to participate in the regeneration of their own areas.

The Panel recommends a preference towards regeneration as opposed to demolition.

The review group recommends that active consideration be given to whether the Council should (a) extend its direct delivery of adult and community learning (b) develop its co-ordinating role as a partnership ‘hub’.

Continued emphasis on cross-agency working needs to be ensured through the Community Safety Partnership.

More encouragement is needed within the community to try and improve environmental education, particularly within the schools.

Stronger links should be made with the Safer Neighbourhood Teams to try and get them to put more emphasis on some of the environmental enforcement issues.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From our point of view - writing the report, rather than doing the scrutiny – the wording of the recommendations is critical.  If we think carefully about the way we express the recommendation, we are probably going to create a ‘smarter’ recommendation.  All of these words and phrases betray recommendations that are not specific or measurable.

empowerment

a preference towards…

…active consideration should be given…

…continued emphasis…

…needs to be ensured…

…more encouragement is needed…

…to improve environmental education…

…stronger links should be made…

…get them to put more emphasis…

 

Key questions for our recommendations must include the following.

■   Does your recommendation answer the question you have asked?

■   Does it align with your hypothesis?

■   How would you know that the recommendation has been carried out?

■   How will you monitor or check implementation or progress of your recommendation?

 

Hot tip

Limit the number of recommendations you make.

More is not necessarily better.  A few sound recommendations are more likely to be carried out than a long list of vague, well-meaning intentions.

In the next posting, I'll address the question: 'What's the evidence?'

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #2: What questions did we ask?

'Our initial scoping document included aims to "Identify gaps in current services, making recommendations as appropriate". This was the most successful element of the review, as a gap analysis led directly to several recommendations.'

Dean Gillon - Scrutiny Officer, North Lincolnshire Council

Scrutineers emphasise again and again the value of asking powerful questions.  If you don’t ask the right questions – and if you fail to brief council members to ask them – you may never get the evidence you need to support your arguments.

 

 

 

Having a clear hypothesis, of course, makes it much easier to find the appropriate questions.  Among all the questions you could ask, these four are perhaps the most important in most scrutinies.

 

 

 

 ■   Where are the gaps?  Are they measurable?

■   What should be done?

■   Is existing policy effective?

■   What is possible?

'Looking at the scope questions I would say the most successful was identifying [the] services/

activities/initiatives in Warwickshire that could contribute in reducing childhood obesity [as the]

panel were not at first aware of all the services available in Warwickshire.'

Alwin McGibbon - Health Scrutiny Officer, Warwickshire County Council

 

At a more detailed level, questions like these will help you elicit the concrete evidence you need to support or refute your hypothesis.

■   What factors influence the issue locally?

■   What is currently being done to tackle the issue at the national, regional, and local level?

■   Are there any gaps in information relating to the issue in our authority?

■   How well does our authority fare in relation to neighbouring authorities in terms of statistics, trends and local initiatives to tackle the problem?

■   What partners, services or initiatives are best placed to be able to contribute in tackling the issue?

■   How well are existing partnerships and other structures functioning?

■   What needs to be done to ensure local authority commitments relating to the issue?

■   What is being done, or should be done, to educate stakeholders about the issue?

■   What is being done, or should be done, to promote public awareness or action to address the issue?

■   How can we consult stakeholders – or consult them more effectively – about the issue?

 

Hot tip

Think about all the different things questions can do.

Questions are not just for seeking information.  They can also help us think creatively.  They can help direct the course of a conversation.  They can encourage someone to offer more information.  The power of your investigation lies in the quality of the questions you ask.

 

The CfPS booklet,   Putting it into practice – the questioning technique, has lots of useful guidance about effective questioning. 

In the next posting, I'll ask the question: 'What are our recommendations?'

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.

 

Ten questions to ask if you're writing a scrutiny report #1: What is the scope of the report?

“Be clear about what it is you are seeking to achieve and narrow the scope as far as possible.”

Salena Whatford - Scrutiny Manager, London Borough of Lewisham

A scrutiny exercise can be triggered by a number of events.  An external initiative may put pressure on an authority to look into one area of its services.  Public pressure may have led councillors to ask for scrutiny.  A member may have simply got a bee in their bonnet about something.

 

(with thanks to Eddy Crosby, http://www.eddycrosby.com/)

 

Define the scope of your report as clearly as possible, as soon as possible.  The great danger is that your range of concerns will expand out of control: in terms of time (“How many years of statistics will we look at?”), geography (“Will we examine one ward or borough, or all of them?”) or social dimensions (“Are we interested in all users of a service or only one key target group?”).

The key is to ask yourself what outcomes you’re looking for.  All too often, scrutiny gets no further than ‘looking into something’.  It’s not enough merely to ask whether a service is adequate, or how some aspect of community life has developed over the past ten years.  Scrutiny should be forward-looking.

One way to focus the scope of your scrutiny is to create a hypothesis. 

 

What is a hypothesis? 

It’s a statement predicting the outcome of proposed actions.  It’s probably best expressed as a statement in the form:  ‘If…, then…’

Why do we need a hypothesis? 

The aim of producing a hypothesis is to focus the review on creating specific outcomes.

What does a hypothesis look like? 

Think of a hypothesis as a recommendation that you haven’t yet proved.  By creating a hypothesis, you set yourself a clear challenge: you now have a clear idea what questions to ask, what evidence to look for, and how you might go about arguing your case. 

(You may find that you have to argue against your hypothesis, of course; that’s one of the options a hypothesis must offer, if it is to be a genuine hypothesis and not merely a statement of faith.)

A hypothesis will probably have the following key features.

■   It’s written in the form of a concise statement.

■   It reflects a position being taken by you, the scrutiny team.

■   It’s arguable, and a contrary position can be taken.

■   It requires research to determine whether or not it is valid.

■   It’s a significant matter for your community.

■   It deals in variables: actions that can be taken, effects that will result from such actions.

■   It’s not written in the first person.

■   It can be tested: the relationship between actions taken and effects can be measured.

 

How do we create a hypothesis? 

 One way is to conduct a focussing exercise. 

Draw a sequence of three boxes.  In the first box, write down the subject of the scrutiny: what you are looking at, as clearly expressed as possible.  Think of the subject as something like a title.

Now, ‘pull focus’ to create a topic for the scrutiny.  Write your topic in a second box.  The topic is the ‘angle’ from which you are looking at the subject.  The simplest way to create a topic is to write a phrase beginning with the word ‘how’ or ‘why’.

 Finally, draw a third box and refine your topic into a true hypothesis: a statement that you will be seeking to prove or disprove in the scrutiny.

 

 

Can you give me an example?

Sure.

You might be seeking new ways to address health inequalities in your area.  Recent government policy may have been to commission health services from the voluntary sector.  Such initiatives may have already begun to affect the provision of services in your authority. 

In this case, the subject box might say:

Subject:

Addressing health inequalities

The topic box might say:

Topic:

How commissioning services from the voluntary sector can affect health inequalities

And your hypothesis box might say:

Hypothesis:

If voluntary health organisations were to address health inequalities more explicitly in their work, health inequalities would decrease.

Now you have an idea you can test.  You can look for evidence to support or refute it; you can ask expert witnesses for testimony for or against it; you can construct an argument one way or the other.   

Planning is the process of answering the question: 'What do we want to say in our report?'  The hypothesis is a statement that will guide you in answering that question.

In the next posting, we shall look at the second of our ten questions:  'What questions did we ask?'

If you like what you see here, you might like to contact me to discuss working with you.  I am currently working with one of the scrutiny team of a major local assembly in the UK.  I run training courses, and coach individual writers.  I can even give you some feedback on the reports your team is producing, if you want nothing more.  Go to my website to take a look at a sample training programme.