Is public money doing the best that it can? In an era of serious fiscal retrenchment for local authorities, this question is more important than ever.

At CfPS, we think that both scrutiny and a focus on social return on investment (SROI) can work together to answer this vital question. Ensuring that we have a clear idea of what the projected outcomes are from a decision can make sure that limited public resources are being spent in the right way and on the right things. This month we released a paper with Grant Thornton promoting this very view.

To mark the release of the paper, on February 10th, CfPS, in partnership with Grant Thornton, held a roundtable discussion about the opportunities that SROI and council scrutiny can provide to local authorities. The discussion, chaired by Rob Whiteman (Chief Executive, CIPFA) was between fourteen people - from Directors of Finance to non-executive councillors; from accredited SROI practitioners to independent consultants,.

First up for discussion was whether the principles of SROI could help embed a good culture of scrutiny within a local authority. Participants saw a circularity to the question - not only would the principles of SROI help embed a healthy culture of scrutiny within a local authority, but a healthy culture of scrutiny within a local authority might encourage a focus on SROI and social value in general. Coupled with "ruthless prioritisation" and SROI, scrutiny can work to add real social value to executive decisions.

"Not enough people are asking the question - are we creating as much value as we can? And this is the question we need to be asking"

At the same time there was a scepticism about the prospect of scrutiny being able to fill this role.

"45% of local authorities are one party states, with a strong power of patronage. Scrutiny cannot work in this system - a good council culture needs an elected, independent scrutiny."

The question of resourcing was vital. While some councils have several officers dedicated to scrutiny, others simply don't - and it is tough to dedicate the funds to undertake a proper SROI review to officers who don't specialise in the task. "Local authorities don't have the funds to hire in consultants - we have to do it all ourselves".

"Although we have to have a scrutiny function, we don't have to have an adequately resourced scrutiny function. And when you're faced with £25m of cuts in adult social care, the fact that it would be really good to have a robust and adequately resourced scrutiny function just won't cut it".

Does a return on investment approach support the delivery of political aspiration, or does it harm it?

" Well harms it probably - if you've got a flagship policy, and SROI proves it to be a waste of time, then it hinders the political process."

Others thought that there's always going to be a political debate - but the more transparent and information-led decision making becomes, the better this political debate will be. Understanding what outcomes are trying to be achieved by political leaders is also important for post-decision appraisal. But it starts from the top - leaders and chief executives have to show that scrutiny and challenge are to be embraced.

"Leaders and chief execs have to buy in - if they don't, then nothing can happen."

"One of the biggest problems in the public sector are silos. How can we know if what works there can work here? An intelligent use of data powered by SROI can destroy these silos."

Scrutiny chairs are encouraged to use council officers to carry out their job.

"As an officer, I am not a civil servant. I don't work for the administration, I work for the council. If a scrutiny chair comes up to me, I will help them."

Scrutiny needs to get in there earlier. It needs to look at the Forward Plan, and ask key questions pre-decision. It can be involved both in procurement and commissioning.

"Local authorities are still learning about commissioning. There are social workers who move up the professional ladder where all of a sudden they're commissioners, but they've never been taught about SROI or business planning. What we're talking about here fundamentally is good decision making."

Officers can't live in "splendid isolation" - to do their job, they need to be in contact with all other officers in the council and have access to more information. They also need to ruthlessly prioritise where they decide to expend their efforts - to add social value to the community itself.

The questions of what form scrutiny should take and the principles it should follow are becoming more important given fiscal austerity - revenue and capital is tight, so local authorities need to make every pound count. This is especially so now that new forms of governance are being drawn up under devolution deals.

From whom should combined authorities learn when it comes to governance and scrutiny? Local councils? The devolved administrations? The Greater London Authority? Or even Westminster? Does devolution even offer central government itself a good social return on investment?

Scrutiny needs to show its value through outcomes, not simply because it's a "nice-to-have". CfPS is committed to the view that scrutiny can tease out crucial questions about social value that otherwise would have been forgotten. Scrutiny can ensure that decision-makers consider communities and service users when making key decisions. We believe that embedding scrutiny and social value at the heart of the political process can improve social outcomes for local people.