Page 1 of 5
ITEM No
TITLE OF REPORT
Meeting of
7
Peer Challenge Review Improvement Plan
Salford Strategic Partnership Executive
Meeting Date
26 March 2008
Contact Officer
Sheila Murtagh
Contact Details
Tel: 0161 603 6802; email [email protected]
1.1 Recommendations
1.1 Salford Strategic Partnership Executive are requested to:
 Consider the comments made by SSP Board Members regarding the Peer Review
Improvement Plan
 Confirm whether any amendments should be made with respect to the actions and
timetable proposed in the Peer Review Improvement Plan
 Agree that an independent and systematic review of Partnership structures be
carried out as recommended in the Improvement Plan and that consultants be
invited to tender for this work.
 Agree that the selection process for appointment of these consultants includes
members of the SSP Board.
2. Purpose of this Report
2.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Executive of the feedback from the recent
consultation with the Board regarding the Peer Review Improvement Plan and
recommend that the Action Plan and timetable be amended to reflect these comments.
2.2 The report also recommends the appointment of a consultant to carry out a systematic
review of current Partnership structures.
3. Feedback from the Peer Review Improvement Plan Consultation
3.1 At the SSP Executive meeting on the 26/3/08, Members requested that the SSP Board
be consulted regarding the recommendations in the Peer Review Improvement Plan.
3.2 The following partners responded: Age Concern Salford, Greater Manchester Chamber
of Commerce, Salford Primary Care Trust, Pendleton College, Salford Community
Leisure, Job Centre Plus, Cultural Partnership, University of Salford, Claremont
Weaste Community Committee Chair, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport
Executive and Government Office North West.
LSP/SSP Business/Meetings/2008/SSP Executive/07.05.08/Peer Review Update
Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5
3.3 The comments from Board Members were positive and in general they agreed with the
recommendations improvement actions from the Peer Review. However the following
comments need to be considered by the Executive; each action point is numbered in
relation to the actions in the improvement plan. The recommended response is shown
in italics.
General
 Are the current timescales for delivery of some of the improvement actions feasible?
Given current capacity, timescales need to be substantially reviewed
 Has the partnership thought, other than in the context of the MAA, of joint work with
other LSP’s? Some cross boundary work goes on at officer level but the potential for
joint working at Executive or Board level should be investigated
 Action points should be prioritised in terms of the impact they will have. Improvement
Plan to be re-drafted accordingly to take account of Executive’s comments.
Action Point 1 – articulate Salford City in its regional and sub-regional context
 Would expect the narrative to reflect Salford’s transport links to the wider region. This
can be incorporated in the narrative
 As the LAA is signed off in June, hopefully July would be the timescale
Action Point 2 – Salford Identity
 Essential that the ‘Salford Vision’ gives the priorities for all partners. This will be
incorporated via the Sustainable Community Strategy.
Action Point 3 – MAA
 The MAA focus on Economic Prosperity and Enterprise, Worklessness and Skills
should be approached in its widest sense. Ageing workforce, changing demographics,
high levels of chronic ill health/premature mortality etc need to be considered and
factored in. These factors are already being considered at MAA level and their
importance can be re-emphasised.
 Not sure there will be much to progress to report back in May 08. Further updates will
be provided to Board and Executive on regular basis.
 Transport needs to be included i.e. congestion and public transport, closely aligned to
the existing local Transport plan. MAA to include congestion issues.
Action Point 4 – Commissioning
 Commissioning only seems to focus on Area Based Grant (ABG) – should the focus
also be on mainstream budgets as well? The Council is already undertaking a review of
how mainstream budgets contribute to LAA outcomes. Other partners should be asked
to consider this.
 Existing commissioning, planning and delivery related to Health and Social Care in
Salford may offer some pointers as a staring point for the future. This workstream
includes investigation of current local good practice. Partners from the Third Sector
should be part of the development of the commissioning process. This is intended
 How will the SSP balance the role of commissioners and providers as part of its
structure? This will be considered as part of the workstream.
 Third sector needs to be better engaged. Commissioning needs to take into
consideration how and what mainstream partner services are commissioned across the
City so that duplication is avoided. This can be considered as part of the workstream.
LSP/SSP Business/Meetings/2008/SSP Executive/07.05.08/Peer Review Update
Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5
 EDLSP needs to review its structure and priorities so hopefully will be in a position to
review lessons learned from Spotlighting Commissioning by the Autumn 2008. The
proposed review of partnerships needs to be fed in to any recommendations.
 Spotlight seems to be the most productive way forward for commissioning. Is being fed
into the process under development.
 It would be useful to depict annual budget and how funding is broken down with clarity
on how WNF is allocated. This request to be fed back to the ABG Project Team.
 We would anticipate that Salford Community transport would be included in
consultations. Consultation currently limited to Strategic Partnership members.
Action Point 7 – Review of the Partnership Structure
 Can proposed Thematic partnerships review revisit how Social inclusion/exclusion
issues are addressed in Salford and how this vital area of work can be integrated and
driven forward? This will be part of the review.
 Clear, shared understanding of approach to the new areas of work will facilitate
constructive future relationship/ensure effectiveness of process
 The Role of the partnership should include holding a mirror to each other to ensure
their contribution is maximised and making a difference. This can be included in the
amended partnership protocols following the review.
 The review should provide clarity about accountability and governance arrangements.
This can be included in the review.
 The new structure should state clearly how the Partnership will deal with partners who
do not co-operate / deliver. This can be included in the review.
 Thematic partnerships need to review structures and roles to ensure that they are
effective and not seen to be demanding of partners and that structures need to be lined
up to SCS and LAA targets. This can be included in the review.
 Need to rationalise meeting for executive and management groups and for some
thematic group when it is the same people who go to the meetings. This can be
included in the review.
 Need to ensure that the review doesn’t impact on current service delivery. It should be
an underpinning principle of the review that any impact should be beneficial.
Action Point 9 – Partnership Structure
 Transport underpins aspirations across the themes. GMPTE is keen to be involved in
the most effective way, as we have limited staffing resources. Acknowledged.
Action Point 10 – Governance Review Toolkit
 This is important, a fundamental building block. Possibly bring forward its timescale.
Will aim to do this if resources allow.
 Need to consider that some partners will be national agencies and business plans will
reflect the national direction with little scope for local flexibilities. Revised Partnership
protocols should explicitly reflect accountabilities of partner agencies and their role
within the Partnership. Should willingness to be able to challenge government thinking
in the light of local experience be expected?
Action Point 11 – Performance Management Framework
 Some partners will have their own Performance Management Framework in place
which will need to be considered when looking at refinements to current systems.
Officers involved in this workstream are well aware of this
LSP/SSP Business/Meetings/2008/SSP Executive/07.05.08/Peer Review Update
Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5
Action Point 12 – Overview and Scrutiny role
 This is very important. Is their profile high enough? The City Council will consider this
aspect in its wider context.
Action Point 16 – Ethnicity Monitoring Framework
 An effective ethnicity monitoring framework should be a long term aspiration of the
Partnership. Currently looking at potential of expanding this to diversity monitoring
Action Point 17 – LAA Risk Assessment
 Need to include contingency planning. This will be incorporated.
Action Point 19 – LAA Delivery Programme
 An effective LAA Delivery Programme should be a long term aspiration of the
Partnership. LAA will become the cornerstone of the Partnership’s work
 Confirmation and clarity of who is driving LAA delivery is needed so as to ensure
authentic signup and commitment by Partners. LAA governance and management to
be considered by 7 May Executive.
 Need to clearly identify what is the role of statutory partners who in turn need to
establish within their own organisations what role they can take on. i.e. can they be
accountable body/person for specific LAA targets. This needs to be confirmed as part
of the LAA Governance and delivery workstream.
Action Point 21 – Capacity
 Will SSP Team be adequately resourced? Questionnaire of partners’ expectations of
Team to be circulated to inform further consideration.
Action Point 22 – Partnership Induction and Training programme
 Development of induction and partnership skills training programme, to help partners
understand partnership vision, policies and processes and others partners’ agendas
considered a great idea, especially for private sector partners and new members of
staff. Capacity to be identified to develop and carry out this programme.
 Is the timescale for developing this programme-May 2008- realistic? Not with current
capacity; to be rescheduled.
 There is a good basis to work from in terms of the current induction process.
Action Point 23 – Communication Strategy
 This is a crucial part of the process. Could be wise to wait to update the
Communications Strategy until other changes taken place as there is the need to get
‘buy in’ from the broader community. Agreed that should await outcomes of review.
 Very important that Thematic partnerships and neighbourhood management structures
adapt their own communications strategies to ensure closer ties, co-ordination and
more effective information sharing- this would be of great benefit to partnership
working. Agreed; will require capacity to be identified.
 Communicating, reporting and consulting the public is one of the most difficult tasks.
This highlights the important contribution made by the Communities of Identity
Forums/Networks and other community partners
Action Point 25 – ‘IN SALFORD’ branding
 Should the proposed “Salford City College” be included in the list of partners?
Recommend that they should.
LSP/SSP Business/Meetings/2008/SSP Executive/07.05.08/Peer Review Update
Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5
 Whilst enormous, gratifying progress has been made in promoting a positive, cohesive
PR/marketing image for the city of Salford in recent years, the ‘brand’ suffers from
inadequacies. This comment to be followed up for more detail.
 Partners should be fully involved in the development process of branding and not just
receive a finished protocol. City Marketing Group to be asked to take account of this.
4. Appointment of a Consultant to carry out a Review of the Partnership
4.1 Some of the main findings of the Peer Review team related to their perceptions that the
current partnership structure is overly complex, does not provide a clear delivery
framework for the Sustainable Community Strategy and includes thematic partnerships
which have inconsistent approaches to managing delivery and relating to the Strategic
Partnership and neighbourhood structures.
4.2In order to progress the related actions highlighted in the Improvement Plan, it is
recommended that a consultant be appointed to carry out a systematic and
independent review of current Partnership structures and propose amendments. The
task would focus on the following key improvement areas:
4.3 Reviewing the current partnership framework to simplify the current complexities,
address gaps and respond to the new challenges posed by the Sustainable Community
Strategy and new LAA. To include:
o Governance
o Performance/effectiveness
o Membership including elected Members and links with named Partners
o Links to neighbourhood working
o Links to Scrutiny agenda
o Reviewing readiness to be aligned to new commissioning approach
Products of the review should
o Recommend a simplified structure for partnership working in the city
o Clarify how the different levels- neighbourhood, thematic, city-wide- would
communicate with and influence each other so that bottom-up messages
influence top-down commissioning.
o Determining the medium-term (eg 3 year) strategic support requirements of the
Partnership and the funding of them.
o Recommend amendments to the Partnership protocols to reflect proposed
changes.
4.4 To embed partnership working it is recommended that the interview panel for
appointment of these consultants include Strategic Partnership Board Members.
5 Conclusions
5.1 The consultation with Partnership Board members has produced some positive
feedback and posed a number of questions that the Executive will need to consider. The
Executive will need to decide whether the Improvement Plan can be endorsed with minor
amendments to take account of these comments. This will then enable the actions to be
progressed, including the appointment of consultants to review the partnership structures.
LSP/SSP Business/Meetings/2008/SSP Executive/07.05.08/Peer Review Update
Page 5 of 5