Discretion used to be considered a feature of individuals, but growing literature shows that it has collective features as well. To develop an understanding of the individual and cooperative work of inspectors in using discretion and the discretionary room granted to them, we compared two inspectorates: the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in England and the Joint Inspectorate for Youth (JIY) in the Netherlands. Our analysis reveals that inspectors engage with colleagues, managers, and stakeholders to include other perspectives, gain mandate, and broaden their repertoire. At the CQC, inspectors use their discretion collectively; on their own initiative, they involve others in balancing and interpreting rules to reach judgments. At the JIY, teamwork is central and regulatory teams are granted collective discretionary room. We argue that collective work permits both responsiveness and consistency. In studying the judgments of inspectors and other street-level bureaucrats, it is vital to look at collective work and how it combines consistency and responsiveness.

BackgroundUsers of care services are increasingly participating in inspections of the quality of care. In practice, incorporating service users’ views is difficult, as users may have other views on good care than inspectors and thus give information that does not fit the inspectors’ assessment criteria. This study compared the views on good care of young care users (adolescents) and inspectors, seeking to understand what the differences and similarities mean to incorporating the users’ views in inspections.MethodsWe conducted a single-case study combining document analysis with a meeting with inspectors. The selected case came from a Dutch inspectorate and involved a thematic inspection of care for children growing up poor.ResultsInspectors and adolescents agree on the importance of timely care, creating opportunities for personal development, and a respectful relationship. The views on quality of care differ with regard to sharing information, creating solutions, and the right moment to offer help. We identified three ways inspectors deal with the differences: 1) prioritize their own views, 2) pass the problem onto others to solve, and 3) separate the differing perspectives. With similar viewpoints, inspectors use the adolescents’ views to support their assessments. When viewpoints conflict, information from adolescents does not affect the inspectors’ judgments. Explanations are related to the vulnerability of the adolescents involved, the inspectorate’s organizational rules and routines and the external regulatory context.ConclusionsService user involvement in inspections potentially impacts the quality of care. Yet, conflicts between the views of service users and inspectors are not easily overcome in the regulatory context.