Supplementary Notes

1.0 Introduction
1.1 The ‘vision’ or overall aim
1.2 CJI’s specific mission
1.3 What we mean by ‘inspection’
1.4 How we go about it
1.5 The distinctive CJI approach
1.6 The ethos of CJI
1.7 The independence of CJI
1.8 Confidentiality and Freedom of Information
2.0 Inspection of a single agency
2.1 Leading an inspection
2.2 Data collection and benchmarking
2.3 Preparing for the fieldwork
2.4 Interviewing
2.5 Recording the findings
2.6 Accounting for the use of resources
2.7 The Action Plan
2.8 Writing the report
2.9 Publication
3.0 Thematic inspections
3.1 Choice of a thematic
3.2 Scoping the review
3.3 Consultation with stakeholders
3.4 Project initiation document
3.5 Project management: the Steering Committee
Annex A The Common Core
Annex B Typical timetable for an inspection
Annex C Corporate ethos and values of CJI
Annex D Report drafting
Annex E Inspecting any organisation: 30 basic questions

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The ‘vision’ or overall aim

CJI’s vision is summed up as ‘A better justice system for all’. By that we mean a criminal justice system that works smoothly and efficiently, protecting everyone, working to reduce crime and helping to put offenders back on the right track so that they will not offend again; and a system that does all that with absolute fairness, promotes equality and human rights and is responsive to the real concerns of the community.

A justice system that can do those things is the foundation for a peaceful and cohesive community, and a prerequisite for health and prosperity.

1.2 CJI’s specific mission

That vision requires the collaboration of all the agencies of the criminal justice system and of voluntary sector, political and community-based organisations to bring it about. The specific mission of the CJI is to contribute to it by conducting inspections of individual agencies and cross-cutting thematic reviews of aspects of the criminal justice system. Basic information about the law under which CJI was set up -the Justice(NI)Act 2002 – and the statutory remit of CJI can be found in the Prospectus published in January 2004 see (www.cjsni.gov.uk/chiefinspector)

1.3 What we mean by ‘inspection’

The aim of all CJI’s activities is improvement. Inspection is different from audit, although the boundaries have become blurred as auditors have broadened their scope in recent years. Audit is essentially a process of checking that control systems are in place and reporting deficiencies. Inspection goes further and examines the strengths and weaknesses of organisations with a view to identifying the scope for improvement. It may make recommendations designed to help an organisation to improve in any aspect of its performance. ‘Improvement’ covers all the dimensions of the ‘common core’: not just efficiency and effectiveness, but learning, responsiveness, direction, values and accountability too. ‘Improvement’ means getting closer to the vision.

1.4 How we go about it

Inspection is not a mechanical process. The collection of data is essential and there will be factual observations to be made in the course of an inspection. But the most crucial part of the inspection is not the collection phase but the process of analyzing the findings and identifying the scope for improvement. CJI will take that in two stages:

1.The initial process of data collection in advance of the inspection will be followed by a meeting to formulate ‘hypotheses’ or provisional judgments as to the strengths. and weaknesses of the organisation.
2. After those hypotheses have been put to the test in the inspection itself there will be a further meeting to revise and finalise the judgments and turn them, where appropriate, into recommendations.

It is essential to observe at first hand. Inspection is not a desk exercise. It is also essential to talk to people at all levels in an organisation. Almost invariably there will be different perspectives on the work, and ideas for how things can be done better are as likely to come from the shop floor as from the management suite. Staff need to be given the reassurance that they can speak in confidence and that nothing that they tell us will be attributed to them by name. We shall refer in reports to what we heard from, for example,‘middle management’,‘first line supervisors’ or ‘operational staff’. The only exceptions may be the Chief Executive or other senior staff whose functions cannot be disguised.

The CJI does not believe that the most productive way to promote improvement is by ‘naming and shaming’ agencies that are under-performing or their staff. There may be occasions, when the work of an agency is of such a poor standard and when it shows neither the will nor the capacity to improve, when the Inspectorate will have no option but to
state publicly that the position is unacceptable. But most of the time the CJI will proceed by working in partnership with the agencies, taking it as a working assumption (until proved otherwise) that the agency managements share with CJI the common aim of improvement. You will want to refer to the CJI statement of Corporate Ethos and Values at
Annex C.

1.5 The distinctive CJI approach

There are three distinctive features of the CJI’s method of inspection:

1. It is founded on the so-called ‘common core’ (reflecting the CJI’s vision, above) of:

• Openness and accountability
• Partnership with other agencies in the criminal justice system
• Promotion of equality and human rights
• Being a learning organisation, responsive to customers and the community
• Delivering results in relation to the Government’s objectives

These criteria constitute the basic framework underlying every inspection
conducted by the CJI.

1. Each inspection starts by asking the agency’s partners in the criminal justice system what they think about the agency’s performance, and how it could better assist them in their work.
2. Each inspection also starts by inviting the agency itself to self-assess against the common core framework, identifying as honestly as possible its own strengths and weaknesses – not to be used against it, but as a token of its commitment to inspection as an aid to improvement.

1.6 The ethos of the CJI

CJI has the benefit of genuinely being a team. The nature of an Inspectorate is such that team-working is of the essence. An Inspectorate has to be a disciplined organisation, in that every report (and indeed every public action of the Inspectorate) is the responsibility of the Chief Inspector, who has to be accountable for it. But the disciplined formal structure has to go hand in hand with an easy way
of working, in which colleagues will constantly have to support one another and help one another out.

Hierarchical demarcation lines will be untenable. Lead responsibility for particular pieces of work will be delegated to individuals, who will then have to call on other members of staff – who may be their peers or even their seniors – for assistance. The aim is to combine disciplined working with the informal, creative ethos of a modern, knowledgebased enterprise like a consulting firm.

Because the CJI is in the position of judging others it has to be careful to observe the highest standards itself. It must aim to be exemplary in all its internal management practices, but particularly in respect of ethics, equal opportunities and economy in the use of resources. See again Annex
C. No alcohol is to be consumed during the working day, apart from official entertaining, and no gifts or hospitality are to be accepted, except for official lunches and dinners. Other guidance and policy notes are available for reference on the CJI system’s common drive.

1.7 The independence of CJI

Parliament has deliberately established CJI outside the civil service and specified that it is not a Crown body. The intention is plainly that it should report independently and that the public should be able to have confidence in its independence. It is however paid for by the Secretary of State, who appoints the Chief Inspector and approves the terms and
conditions of other staff.

CJI’s annual Corporate and Business Plans are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State (and, in relation to the Public Prosecution Service, of the Attorney General) and their approval is necessary before any report can be published. CJI is asked to propose its own programme of work, but that programme is subject to approval, and the Secretary of State can ask CJI to undertake particular pieces of work for him. Moreover CJI is expected to inspect against the policies of the Government of the day, not to invent or advocate alternative policies, though it can comment (on the basis of evidence) on the effectiveness of Government policies.

CJI’s ‘independence’ is therefore limited in important ways. But the essential independence is to report as we find, without fear or favour. Although the Secretary of State has the power to remove material from a CJI report prior to publication on the grounds of its sensitivity it would be out of order for him to suppress a report for any other reason, or to seek to influence CJI’s findings and recommendations except by way of reasoned argument as to their correctness and practicability

1.8 Confidentiality and Freedom of Information

As CJI is not a Government organisation it will seldom if ever hold officially classified information. Its own papers will not receive official
classifications, and the spirit of CJI will be to make all its papers available to inspection, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, unless there are specific reasons not to. Some papers and electronic files will, however, be kept ‘in confidence’: particularly personnel files, drafts of reports pending publication and the records of
conversations with individuals who could be identified from them. It would be contrary to our assurance that people can talk to us freely without
fear of being identified as the source of our information for us to release our interview notes.

There are contexts, however, where such notes may need to be produced in evidence, though normally it should be possible to do that in a form which would protect anonymity. CJI will also need to respect and protect the confidentiality of documents supplied by other organisations on that basis, and will refer any requests for disclosure of
them to the originating organisation.

2.0 Inspection of a single agency

We now turn to the mechanics of how a CJI inspection is done. The scheme outlined here is summarised in the ‘typical timetable’ attached at
Annex A, which will need to be adjusted to suit the very different requirements of different inspections. CJI differs from most Inspectorates in that their inspections are usually one of a series of 42 – or in the case of HMI Prisons, more than 150 – similar ones. Since we cover a small area, with (usually) only one example of each kind of agency, all our
inspections need to be made to order. These notes start by considering the management of a single-agency inspection and then go on to discuss thematic inspections or reviews.

2.1 Leading an inspection

You may be assigned to an inspection either in a leading or in a supporting role. Who is chosen to lead will be a function of (a) relevant expertise; and (b) availability, not of rank or seniority. It is possible
for an Inspector to support one inspection while leading another, but we shall try to avoid asking an inspector to lead two inspections, especially
through the period between the hypothesis meeting and the first draft of the report, at the same time.

When you are asked to lead an inspection you will be given a suggested timescale and an indication of the staff and other resources which will be available to you. The scope of the inspection (i.e. how many rows of the ‘common core’ it is to cover) and any special issues that are known to need examination will be made clear to you. These should, however, be regarded as provisional pending your own assessment of the project. The time allocated will reflect the amount that CJI feels able to budget for the project, taking account of its relative importance and complexity. In principle you are being asked to produce the best report you can with the specified resources. If, however, having read the available papers and perhaps had an initial informal meeting with the agency you judge that the suggested timescale and resourcing are unrealistic or that the agenda needs to be modified you should come back within one week to the Deputy Chief Inspector with a revised proposal, which should be copied to the other members of the CJI Management Team.

By the time you are asked to lead an inspection it may already have been notified to the agency, so the room for manoeuvre may be to some extent limited. Letters may already have been sent out to request information from partner agencies and voluntary organisations. If not, that will be one of your first tasks. You will want to discuss with the agency the best people to contact to obtain an informed outside view of the working of the agency and then to write out to them inviting their views. It is suggested that around twelve letters should be sent out: the aim is to obtain a limited number of informed views, rather than to canvas opinion at large. You will want to offer interviews, either faceto- face or over the phone where people would find that most convenient, and that points to restricting the number of letters sent out.

2.2 Data collection and benchmarking

The first phase of the inspection consists of obtaining information from external organisations, analysing the data supplied by the agency or
otherwise obtained about it, and studying the agency’s own self-assessment. That phase will conclude with the hypotheses meeting, at which the inspection team will meet with the Deputy Chief Inspector and Chief Inspector to review the material so far obtained and to formulate
hypothesis based upon it. The lead Inspector will prepare a paper for the hypothesis meeting, which will be circulated at least three working days before it, summarising the information that has been received and setting out his or her provisional judgements as to the organisation’s strengths and weaknesses under each element of the common
core, with a brief reference to the evidence that supports that judgement.

Benchmarking will be a key feature of most inspections. It presents special difficulty in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland agencies are always liable to claim that their situation is not comparable to that of their counterparts in England and Wales, either because of the history of the Troubles or because of the different legislation under which they
operate. These are valid considerations and CJI must not appear dismissive of them. Nevertheless it is important to refer to carefully researched comparators in other parts of the UK (and possible
elsewhere) as a starting point for considering what the scope for improvement might be. CJI then needs to be realistic about the rate at which ‘normalisation’ can be expected to be achieved.

2.3 Preparing for the fieldwork

Following the hypothesis meeting, the lead Inspector will revise the provisional judgements and use them to inform the planning of the fieldwork period. The lead Inspector will now finalise the programme
of interviews to be held and establish the detailed timetable of interviews with the Liaison Officer in the agency. The lead Inspector will prepare a set of checklists of questions for different categories of interviewees, based on the questions in the expanded common core, but tailored to fit the agency and the agenda which has emerged from the hypothesis
meeting. Annex E contains a checklist of basic questions which an Inspector might ask about virtually any organisation, even before going into the detail of the ‘common core’ inspection framework.

2.4 Interviewing

Inspectors will always wear CJI identification when working in the field. Interviews will start with the Inspector introducing him or herself and explaining that the purpose of the inspection is not to find fault but to assist the agency to improve its operations. The Inspector will want to assure the interviewee that, though the interview will be ‘on the record’, except in the case of a few very senior individuals such as the Chairman and Chief Executive nothing that is said will be attributed to the interviewee in a way that would enable them to be identified.

The Inspector may wish to start by asking about the interviewee’s career experience and their experience in the current job in particular, partly to put them at ease but also to assess the weight to be given to their
evidence. After asking the questions on the checklist, the Inspector will want to leave time at the end of the interview for some open-ended questions about the interviewee’s view of the business and what he or
she would do to improve things.

It is important, as the interviewing proceeds, not to stop asking questions on the checklist when you think you know the answer, but to use them as “easy” questions to relax the interviewee between more difficult questions. You should always be alert to the possibility that a new interviewee may disturb what appears to be the emerging consensus. You will want all the time to ask for examples of the things the nterviewees are saying to you, stressing that not only they themselves as the source, but also the individuals referred to in their examples, will be protected by anonymity in the report.At the end of each interview the Inspector will hand over a short feedback form and envelope addressed to CJI, to enable the interviewee to comment on their perceptions of the process.When completed, the interviewee will seal the completed form in the envelope, before handing it back to the Inspector, who will then pass it to the CJI research department for analysis.

2.5 Recording the findings

It is important to create a framework for the eventual report at the earliest stage, i.e. following the hypothesis meeting if not before it, so that you can progressively build the report out of the answers that are coming in in response to the questions. The lead Inspector will want to arrange for team members to feed back their findings regularly, probably by e-mail
on a daily basis, so that he or she can add their evidence into the report framework and if necessary adjust the questioning to address any new issues that have emerged.

Inspectors are asked to keep a record of each interview by writing notes at the time in a notebook which can be preserved as evidence. The notes, however, do not need to be comprehensive, nor do they need to be terribly legible, and shorthand is quite permissible. It is not necessary to type up the general run of interviews. Inspectors should only put effort into typing up significant points arising from the interviews and sharing them by e-mail with their colleagues. The principle should be to minimise mechanical effort and to maximise thinking time.

The exception to this will be a small number of interviews with the most senior members of the organisation – especially the Chairman and Chief
Executive – where it will be worth preparing a proper record of the interview (not necessarily verbatim, but recording all the main points that have been made). These notes can usefully be cleared with the interviewee to check their accuracy. For these major interviews it will be useful for two Inspectors to attend and either for one of them to take notes or for them to take turns in asking the questions and taking notes.

2.6 Accounting for the use of resources

Whether as a lead or as a supporting Inspector, you will have other commitments, so the recording of time spent on the inspection will not always be straightforward. For simplicity, to save the need for complex time recording,we treat any day the major part of which is spent on the inspection as a chargeable “inspector day”. Amounts of less than half a day are disregarded. Lead Inspectors are responsible for identifying the days that they and support Inspectors propose to spend on the inspection and for confirming that those days were so utilised.

Lead Inspectors are also responsible for keeping track of any significant non-staff expenditure associated with the inspection, so that at the end of the inspection they can quote an approximate, but realistic, figure for the total cost. Staff related costs will be based on an average cost per inspector day, which will be calculated by the Business Manager. The
average cost will include fractions of the daily cost of the Chief Inspector and Deputy Chief Inspector, reflecting the proportion of their time that they devote to actual inspection, as opposed to corporate management. For some purposes the overhead (fixed) costs of the Inspectorate (corporate management, support staff, other administration and IT costs, rent of premises) may need to be allocated to inspector days to give a full cost of the inspection.

After the fieldwork, the lead Inspector should arrange to meet the Chief Executive on the final day to thank him or her for their co-operation and to share their main conclusions and findings informally and off-therecord.
The lead Inspector will then, over the following weekend, prepare a set of slides to convey their main findings and recommendations formally to
the Management Board of the organisation. That feedback meeting will be attended by the Chief Inspector and/or Deputy Chief Inspector, who may present some or all of the findings. However it will be the responsibility of the lead Inspector to answer questions which are raised by the Management Board and to present the evidence that supports CJI’s conclusions.

At the end of the inspection the agency will be invited to feedback to CJI on its corporate experience of the inspection.A proforma will be made available for this, which, when completed will be passed to CJI research department for analysis.

2.7 The Action Plan

The agency will be invited to prepare an Action Plan responding to the recommendations and to submit it to the Chief Inspector within one month with a view to its being printed together with the report. The lead Inspector will need to liaise with the agency to ensure that the eventual Action Plan is acceptable.

2.8 Writing the report

Each inspection report will begin by describing the organisation very briefly. It will describe its main functions and its objectives to the extent that those are relevant to the report. Key statistics will be presented in an Annex. The report will then set out the coverage of the inspection, and will summarise its main findings by core elements.

It will go on to explain the findings and the evidence for them, and will assess the scope for improvement. This discussion will lead to the recommendations which flow from the findings.

The report will mention how thoroughly the organisation undertook its self-assessment prior to the inspection. It will specifically identify any elements of good practice which can be commended. An account of the methodology of the inspection and all supporting statistics and reference documents should go into annexes. The methodology annex should
include the cost of the inspection (variable rather than full cost).

A note on the drafting of inspection reports is attached at Annex D. The lead Inspector will have the prime responsibility for the entire report. If asking a supporting Inspector to contribute, he or she should be clear about the length and content of the contribution required, and will reserve the right to put that contribution into his or her own words.

Once the lead Inspector is satisfied with the draft it will be submitted to the Chief Inspector for approval and will then go to the organisation to check its factual accuracy. All reports are in the name of the Chief Inspector, so it is essential that the Chief Inspector approves:

• The hypotheses;
• The judgements;
• The feedback slides;
• The draft report before it goes to the agency for the factual accuracy check;
• The final draft report;
• The briefing to be sent to the Secretary of State and his officials;
• The press release and related briefing.

2.9 Publication

The lead Inspector’s responsibility does not end when the report has been written. He or she is responsible, in consultation with the Head of
Research and Communication, for arranging for its publication and for all the briefing that needs to precede and accompany publication.

3.0 Thematic inspections

An Inspector may be assigned to lead an inspection at the stage when it is already planned and ready to start. But, particularly with thematic inspections, an Inspector may be asked to undertake the preliminary work of scoping the inspection, usually (but not necessarily) with the intention that he or she will then go on to lead it.

3.1 Choice of a thematic

The idea for a thematic inspection may have arisen within the Inspectorate or may have been suggested by one of CJI’s stakeholders. The first question is whether the subject is of sufficient importance to
justify the considerable resources that a thematic would absorb. The factors that are relevant in deciding on priority are primarily:

1. Crime: the potential impact on crime, reoffending, public safety and the protection of children and other vulnerable groups;
2. Confidence: the potential impact on public confidence in the effectiveness and perceived fairness of the criminal justice system;
3. Policy: the contribution which the study may be able to make towards informing public policies in relation to criminal justice;
4. Resources: the amount of public money or other resources at stake.

The cost of any study needs to be seen to be proportionate to the contribution which it can be expected to make in relation to these factors.

Thematic reviews are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, if the Public Prosecution service is to be involved, of the Attorney General. It will therefore be the aim normally to include the short title of any proposed review in the coming year in the CJI’s Business Plan, but if necessary approval could be sought at other
times of the year.

3.2 Scoping the review

The first stage in scoping a study should be for the Chief Inspector or Deputy CI to test out the idea for it informally by means of a few telephone conversations with key contacts in the agencies primarily concerned. Once there is a rough consensus about the value of the exercise and about how it should be defined the Inspector will prepare a paper for the CJI Management Team setting out the proposal and recommending (if that is the conclusion) that it should now be put out to
more formal consultation with interested stakeholders. That consultation needs to be carefully planned, with reasoned decisions about who is and who is not to be consulted. Agencies and voluntary organizations can be very sensitive about not being consulted at the appropriate stage.

3.3 Consulting the stakeholders

The Chief Inspector will then write to stakeholders inviting views on the proposed terms of reference, and will sound out possible members to serve on a Steering Committee (normally at Chief Executive level). The Deputy CI will at the same time explore with any partner Inspectorates that are likely to be involved their possible contribution to the study
and their availability at the time it is likely to be undertaken.

3.4 Project initiation document

In the light of that consultation, which may take a month, the Inspector will prepare a further paper for the Management Team which will cover:

1. The proposed terms of reference for the inspection;
2. The proposed timetable, with confirmation that both internal and external resources will be available at the times proposed;
3. The proposed Steering Committee for the inspection;
4. An outline work programme, indicating the number of Inspector days, Assistant Inspector days and Consultant days that may
   be required for each stage of the project;
5. A description of the product which the project is designed to deliver, and its potential value in relation to the criteria of
   importance listed above;
6. An overall costing for the exercise, including the likely cost of printing the eventual report.

It will be useful to consult the NIO’s Statistics and Research Unit in Massey House at this stage to check whether they have work planned in the same area, or whether they might be able to contribute to the statistical underpinning of the project.

3.5 Project management: the Steering Committee

On the strength of that paper the CJI Management Team will approve the project, confirm the terms of reference and set the budget which the Inspector will be required to observe. Budgeting for thematics will be handled in the same way as for single agency inspections (see para. 20 above). The Chief Inspector will then formally invite those proposed to serve on the Steering Committee and will convene a first meeting of the Committee. The Inspector will prepare for the Steering Committee
a revised version of the paper approved by the CJI Management Team, which will now become the Project Initiation Document (PID).

Once the Steering Committee has approved the PID the Inspector will proceed to undertake detailed planning with the agencies and other
stakeholders concerned, as in the preparation for a single-agency inspection. It is essential to ensure that the agencies understand the importance of timetabling, and that they appoint a link person in each agency, so that everything can flow through a single point of contact. The link person must have access to, and credibility with, operational managers who may be asked to provide background reading and source materials such as files. When planning the timetable allowance needs to be made for the summer leave period, in particular.

The Steering Committee will meet at least three times, and possibly more:

1. To approve the PID;
2. About two months later, to receive an ‘emerging findings’ report;
3. A month later to receive a final draft report.

3.6 Finalising the report

The Steering Committee performs for a cross-cutting thematic a similar function to the ‘check for factual accuracy’ in a single service inspection. SC Members are invited to circulate the emerging findings and the
draft report widely within their agencies, so that any errors can be picked up. It may need to meet more than once on the final report and perhaps again to discuss its handling when it goes into the public domain. As with a single-agency inspection, the Lead Inspector will be responsible for seeing the report through its final stages, including briefing Departmental officials and Ministers for publication.

Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland
14 Great Victoria Street
Belfast
BT2 7BA
February 2005

Annex A

Common Core Matrix

Annex B

TYPICAL TIMETABLE FOR AN INSPECTION
(to be modified as necessary)

The numbers refer to working days from the date of notification of the inspection.

1. CJI notifies Agency of planned inspection and requests advance material.
3. Lead Inspector has informal discussions with the Agency to scope the inspection.
4. CJI writes out to partner organisations inviting their input.
10. Deputy Chief Inspector and Lead Inspector hold formal Preliminary Meeting with the
Agency to explain and answer questions on the methodology.
11. Lead Inspector prepares detailed plan of inspection, including programme of interviews. Negotiates timing with Agency’s Liaison Officer. Agency takes steps to brief
its staff.
26. Agency submits advance material to CJI.
32. Lead Inspector makes any final adjustments to programme of interviews, in consultation with Agency’s Liaison Officer.
37. Fieldwork commences (interviews and observations).
42. Lead Inspector provides informal feedback to Chief Executive.
45. Chief Inspector or Deputy presents findings to Agency’s Management Board.
46. Agency begins preparation of Action Plan.
61. Agency sends draft Action Plan to Lead Inspector.
64. Lead Inspector sends draft report to Agency to check for factual accuracy, together with
any comments on the draft Action Plan.
74. Agency sends Lead Inspector any corrections. Lead Inspector revises draft report.
88. Lead Inspector prepares Press Release and clears it with the Agency.
100. Publication date: Chief Inspector and Agency each prepare to handle media enquiries.

Annex C

Corporate ethos and values

Extract from the Prospectus for the CJI, published in January 2004:

The CJI will aim to manage itself according to the best current principles and to serve as an example of the good management practices which it will foster. It will aim to be a good employer, but a disciplined one. Although the terms and conditions of staff will be basically those of the NI Civil Service, the culture will be modelled on a modern knowledge-based business, not on a conventional bureaucracy. The health and well-being of staff will be a paramount concern. As in other Inspectorates, staff will be expected to work beyond conditioned hours when the need arises, but that will be matched by time off in lieu and flexibility in working practices to meet the needs of those with caring responsibilities.

The CJI will:

• Conduct inspections and report with honesty and impartiality, basing its findings upon evidence;
• Be open about its practices and procedures, and about the expectations against which judgments are made;
• Publish all its reports and make all its papers freely available, subject to the normal exceptions for security and personal information;
• Encourage self-assessment, and make improvement the main purpose of all its inspections;
• Work in a non-adversarial, consultative and interactive way, collaborating wherever possible with other agencies and Inspectorates;
• Aim to minimise the demands it makes on those inspected;
• Treat people courteously, fairly and without discrimination, valuing diversity and promoting equality in accordance with s.75;
• Monitor and evaluate its own performance from the perspective of value for money;
• Welcome and be responsive to any complaints or other feedback from the agencies inspected.

ANNEX D

Report drafting

MCSI has kindly allowed CJI to adopt its internal guide to report writing,Writing for MCSI, which can be found on the CJI G: drive.

There are three levels at which a written report needs to be assessed:

1. Grammar and style, with which the MCSI guide is mainly concerned;
2. The design and structure of the report, and
3. Emotional intelligence, or what I call ‘the voice of the report’.

Level one: grammar and conventions

• Write clearly and correctly in accordance with the MCSI guide.
• Use short sentences and short to medium-sized paragraphs.
• Keep the style simple and accessible to ordinary people.
• Avoid difficult or ‘colourful’ words, and of course avoid slang or jargon.
• Use as few abbreviations as possible and always explain them.
• Avoid ‘we’. Write mostly in the third person: ‘Inspectors observed’.
• Never say, ‘it appeared that’ or ‘Inspectors formed the impression that’. Check it out or leave it out.
• Be careful to protect the anonymity of witnesses.

Level two: design and structure

• Keep reports short: what ‘short’ means varies depending on the subject matter, but say 20 pages for a small inspection, 30 pages for a big one and up to 50 pages for a major thematic. You can have as many annexes as you like, within reason, to hold background and detailed material, but the main report has to be kept tight.
• Start (in structure, not in the chronology of drafting) with a Chief Inspector’s foreword. Then an Executive Summary of not more than two pages. Then the Report. Start straight in on the report, rather than starting with background. Put all the background and methodology in an annex.
• Structure the report around the ‘common core’, or in the case of a thematic, around the terms of reference. Think of it as though you are answering an exam paper. Set out in reply to each question (a) your findings, and (b) your recommendations, if any.
• Be sparing with formal recommendations. You can include a number of ‘should’s in the text without making them formal recommendations. Aim to end up with about half a dozen important recommendations – and do not worry if the number is fewer than that.Try to avoid recommendations that people should ‘review’ or ‘consider’ something: make all the formal recommendations concrete ones.

Level three: the voice of the report

• Be kind to all concerned.
• Thank everyone for their help and their contributions.
• Be generous in expressing respect and appreciation wherever it is remotely deserved. But think carefully about the words used, whether it should be ‘good’, ‘excellent’, ‘outstanding’ or ‘exemplary’. CJI has to establish a standard value for its currency of approval.
• Be careful about expressing disapproval. Let the facts speak for themselves as far as possible, without adding emotive adjectives. When necessary use terms like ‘disappointing’, ‘below standard’, ‘less good than might have been expected’,‘compares unfavourably with’ and sometimes ‘poor’,‘inadequate’ or ‘unacceptable’. But avoid ‘failure’, ‘dire’, ‘dreadful’, ‘appalling’ and even ‘bad’.

Finally:

• Make sure that your reports are always evidence-based. The style may be slightly boring, because you are using a limited vocabulary, but the report will still be a gripping read and have ‘punch’ if it is full of factual information.
• Don’t be afraid to discard information: you will end up with far more material than can be condensed into the optimum length of report.

Tests of a good report

• Is it concise and well structured?
• Is there a really short executive summary?
• Is it interesting (a good read)?
• Is it authoritative, full of facts?
• Does it use numbers, where possible, to substantiate its key arguments?
• Does it make clear, realistic recommendations?
• Is it set out attractively, with plenty of white space around the text, and the text broken up with, for example, diagrams and highlighted direct quotations.

But above all:

• Will it make everyone who has contributed feel that they have been listened to?
• Will it tend to motivate those responsible to act on the recommendations?

ANNEX E

Inspecting any organisation:
30 basic questions

CJI uses the common core as its inspection framework. The common core is tailored to the specific task of CJI in relation to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. But it needs to be read together with the basic, common sense questions which anyone would ask if they were inspecting virtually any organisation. There needs to be a basic understanding of the criteria for a healthy, well-functioning organisation, on to which CJI can superimpose its own specific criteria.

Many people and organisations have attempted to capture their idea of what constitutes a wellfunctioning or ‘excellent’ organisation – the Business Excellence Model, for example. Here are CJI’s suggestions of what to look for at the most basic level, confined to just three sets of ten questions, under the headings of workers, management and performance.

The workers and the workplace

1. How many people work here? Are they appropriately graded and structured?
2. What are they paid? How does it relate to the marketplace?
3. Are they kept busy (but not run ragged)?
4. Do they feel that they are doing a useful job?
5. Do they think the organisation values them?
6. Do they know what the organisation is trying to achieve?
7. What is their attitude to customers or callers – are they keen to help?
8. Are they proud of their skills and keen to develop them?
9. Is the working environment businesslike, modern, efficient, with IT in evidence?
10. Is the workplace ethos non-discriminatory, non-sexist, non-bureaucratic, not overly
    hierarchical?

The management (focus these questions on the CEO in a small organisation, but think more widely in terms of the corporate executive board in a larger one)

1. Does the Chief communicate a sense of specific purpose for the organisation?
2. Does the Chief convey a sense that staff are valued?
3. How well does the Chief understand the business processes?
4. Does the Chief have a grip on what is happening right now?
5. Is the Chief really in control of the organisation? Does his or her writ run?
6. What management information does the Chief receive on a regular basis?
7. Does the Chief walk the floor and talk to front line staff regularly?
8. Does the Chief delegate effectively, and keep time for forward thinking and benchmarking?
9. Does the Chief understand the potential of IT for the business?
10. If there is a non-executive Board, does it stick to its proper role of holding the Chief to account, or does it involve itself in what are really executive matters?

Performance

1. Does the organisation have appropriate measures of output?
2. Does it have appropriate measures of quality of service?
3. What is the trend of quality or customer satisfaction?
4. What is the trend of labour productivity and/or unit costs?
5. What is the level and trend of sick absence?
6. How does the cost structure of the organisation compare with benchmarks?
7. Is finance tightly managed, with proper economy in pay and procurement?
8. Are the key performance indicators (KPIs) the right indicators, the right number of indicators, and set at the right levels?
9. Do staff at all levels know about the KPIs and how the organisation is doing against them?
10. Is the organisation able to assess its contribution to final outcomes in relation to
    Government policies?