Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
taking a closer look at leadership in the voluntary and private social care sectors
guide to LEADERSHIP
March 2011
guide to LEADERSHIPtaking a closer look at leadership in the voluntary and private social care sectors
© Crown copyright 2011
ISBN: 978-0-9567630-4-4
Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA)Ladywell HouseLadywell RoadEdinburghEH12 7TB
Produced for the Social Work Inspection Agency by APS Group 149322 (03/11)
Published by the Social Work Inspection Agency, March 2011
Further copies and alternative formats may be available on request from the Social Work Inspection Agency.An electronic version is available along with our contact details on the SWIA website at swia.gov.uk
The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable
CoNTENTS
Page
Section 1: Introduction 2
Section 2: Overview 4
Section 3: How to use the self-evaluation material 10
Section 4: Producing an improvement action plan 13
Section 5: Evaluating performance 15
Appendix 1: The Performance Improvement Model 33
Appendix 2: Links to source material used in producing the guide 34
Appendix 3: The six-point evaluation scale 35
Appendix 4: Self-evaluation record 37
01IntRoDuctIon
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
3
1.1 This guide is designed to be used by voluntary and private sector social care providers. It is directed mainly towards chief executives, senior managers, board members/trustees, directors and owners. It will assist board members/directors and senior management teams to assess the quality of strategic leadership in their organisations.
1.2 The social work inspection agency (SWIA) has produced a range of self-evaluation material, including a general guide on supported evaluation, a guide to leadership for use in council social work services, and guides on commissioning and performance management.
1.3 The importance of strategic leadership of social work services was prominent in SWIA’s performance inspection reports and findings. organisations will find a copy of the Performance Improvement Model (PIM) used by SWIA in performance inspections in Appendix 1. Leadership was closely associated with the quality of individual outcomes for people. Many of the issues we identified are relevant to leadership in voluntary and private sector organisations and this is an adapted version of the leadership self-evaluation material for use in these sectors. It should also be seen as complementing the SWIA self-evaluation guide on assessing governance in voluntary organisations who provide social care in Scotland.
1.4 The guide is primarily about strategic leadership at an organisational level. In Scotland, work on leadership development is being taken forward by the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) and the Scottish Social Services Learning Networks.
1.5 The quality of leadership and management of care services is graded in Care Commission inspections. organisations may find some parts of the guide helpful when they are evaluating the leadership and management of the individual services they provide, although the guide is intended to assist with the self-evaluation of organisational and strategic leadership.
1.6 The guide should be viewed as complementing existing frameworks which organisations may use for self-evaluation purposes, including adapted versions of the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model.
1.7 The guide is not prescriptive – it is for organisations using it to decide how best to use the material. However, the guide contains key questions to be asked when evaluating leadership, whatever approach to self-evaluation is adopted.
1.8 In the preparation of the guide we have used leadership material produced by a number of other agencies. Appendix 2 contains a list of these references.
1.9 We worked closely with the workforce units based in Scottish Care and the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland (CCPS) in the production of this guide.
02oVERVIEW
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
5
CoNTExT2.1 The importance of leadership in organisational performance is well recognised and is
supported by a body of evidence from research in the UK and internationally.
2.2 Leadership was one of the main themes highlighted in the Changing Lives review of social work in Scotland. The review identified significant issues for the quality of leadership and management. Two of the main products of Changing Lives were a leadership development toolkit (underpinned by a framework known as the ‘4Ps model’)1 and the Continuous Learning Framework (CLF). This focuses on:
• the qualifications and training that are needed in social services;
• the knowledge, skills, values and understanding required;
• personal capabilities that describe the way people manage themselves and their relationships with others; and
• organisational capabilities which describe the culture and conditions in the workplace that enable social service workers to be the best they can be.
2.3 In evaluating leadership, SWIA looks at three dimensions, vision and values, leadership of people and leadership of change and improvement.
2.4 SWIA has published its findings on leadership of council social work services in Improving Social Work in Scotland (2010). There is no parallel source of information on strategic leadership of voluntary and private sector organisations involved in the delivery of social care in Scotland, although the Care Commission published Making the Grade (2010), which provides results from the first year of grading registered services – 2008/09.
LEAdERSHIP QUALITIES2.5 The resource materials in Appendix 2 provide a range of information about leadership
models and toolkits used by public sector and other organisations in Scotland and the rest of the UK. There is widespread acceptance that effective leadership includes:
• scanning the horizon, planning ahead and anticipating future demands;
• communicating a powerful vision. This provides a sense of direction, inspiring and uniting people with a shared sense of commitment;
• adapting leadership styles to suit particular circumstances, and developing a high-performing senior management team; and
• driving change and managing communication effectively during periods of change.
2.6 There is no clear research evidence on the personal qualities which constitute effective leadership. However, it is generally accepted that desirable characteristics include self-awareness, leading change through people and collaborative working.
1 The 4Ps stand for Purpose, People, Performance and Process
6
SEC
TIO
N 2
:O
verv
iew
oRGANISATIoNAL LEAdERSHIP IN voLUNTARy ANd PRIvATE oRGANISATIoNS2.7 Leading voluntary and private sector social care organisations involves some service
specific issues. These include:
• establishing a vision for your organisation that is person-centred and promotes dignity, respect, equality and inclusion;
• balancing complex and divergent responsibilities. These include working with statutory agencies on the delivery of care and protection to some of the most vulnerable children and adults, as well as public protection risks in the management and supervision of high-risk offenders;
• assessing and managing risk in ways that are responsible but do not undermine individuals’ rights;
• demonstrating efficient and effective delivery of services where outcomes for individuals are not always easily identified or measured;
• giving professional leadership to staff; and
• working with the local authority and other relevant agencies to provide high quality commissioned services.
LEAdING CHANGE ANd IMPRovEMENT2.8 Public services are currently facing a unique set of circumstances, including significant
reductions in real terms public spending with major financial, service and workforce implications for all sectors.
2.9 In recent years, voluntary and private organisations working in social care have faced a number of challenges and opportunities linked to rapidly growing demand, funding constraints and a clear consensus for re-design and personalisation. These include:
• competitive tendering of existing and new social care provision2;
• the implementation of revised guidance to councils on commissioning and procurement of social care services;
• reduced funding for social care services, requiring organisations to manage down the level of service they provide, and the staff they employ;
• transfers of staff under TUPE rules, and staff redundancies;
• supporting and motivating staff who remain with the organisation;
• development of social enterprise models with an emphasis on local service provision;
• promotion of community engagement and involvement in local service planning;
• growing emphasis on co-production, where people who use services actively collaborate with staff in service improvement;
• maintaining the confidence of people who use services, staff, board members/directors and strategic partners through job and service cuts;
• maximising community, family and volunteer resources.
2 Competitive tendering in social care and support services: A position statement and Guidance on Social Care Procurement in Scotland (SCPS)
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
7
2.10 Many of the sources in Appendix 2 contain information relevant to leaders adapting to new circumstances and challenges. Some of the main points are summarised in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Leading improvement and change in social work services
TERMS USEd IN THE GUIdE2.11 In this guide, we use definitions from other SWIA publications and the sources given in
Appendix 2.
2.12 ‘Outcomes’ is the term we use for the impact or end results that receiving support and/or services has on a person’s life. An outcomes approach involves focusing on achieving the aspirations, goals and priorities identified by the person and creating choices about the different support options the person may have. A person’s needs are not defined solely in terms of what services can offer.
2.13 detailed discussion of the different types of private and voluntary sector agencies is beyond the scope of this report. Broadly, we follow the Scottish Council of voluntary organisations’ definition of voluntary organisations as ‘non-profit distributing, non-statutory, autonomous, may be charitable’. The definition of companies in the private sector is governed by the Companies Act 1985.
2.14 We use the term ‘leaders’ to refer to board members/directors, and paid senior managers who are directly responsible for delivering social care services. We use the term ‘senior managers’ when we mean the chief executive and members of the senior management team.
•Reinforceacultureofperformanceimprovement
•Strengthenstaffmotivationandmorale
•Activelymanagemajorchangeprojects
•Implementeffectivefinancialandriskmanagement
•Encouragenewideasanddifferentwaysofachievingoutcomes
•Benchmarkserviceactivitiesandeffectiveness
•Identifynewwaysofworkingwithpartners
•Investinworkforcedevelopmentandcapacitybuilding
Build capacity to change and
improve
Agree strategic direction
Engage and
communicate
Adapt leadership to suit new
environments
•Analysecurrentandfuturetrends,opportunitiesandrisks
•Identifyandappraisestrategicoptions
•Focusonessentialservicesandsupports,showinghowoutcomeswillbeachievedandsustained
•Understandfundingscenariosandplanforcontingencies
•Seekviewsonprioritiesandoptions
•Consultonwhatchangesareneededandwhy
•Createtwowayflowsofinformation
•Involveallinternalandexternalstakeholders
•Communicatewellwiththosedirectlyaffectedbychanges
8
SEC
TIO
N 2
:O
verv
iew
2.15 Generally, we use ‘management’ to mean overseeing the operation of the service, accomplishing goals and achieving tasks. The term ‘leadership’ spans a wider remit that includes influencing and inspiring others, generating ideas and defining a strategy and vision, and making sure that good management systems are in place.
2.16 Leadership and management can be considered as distinctive tasks, although in practice there is likely to be some overlap – at times leaders may need to manage tasks and projects, while managers need to influence and inspire others. What matters is getting the right balance for the particular circumstances. Skilled and capable people are required for both.
2.17 We use the term ‘statutory partners’ to mean:
• all relevant council services, including social work, education and housing;
• NHS Boards and primary care services delivered through Community Health Partnerships (in some areas, Community Health and Care Partnerships);
• other local statutory agencies, such as the Police, the Reporter to the children’s panel, the Scottish Prison Service and other parts of the criminal justice system;
• the care regulator, and other regulatory and scrutiny bodies; and
• relevant central government organisations and agencies.
2.18 By ‘strategic partners’, we mean
• all relevant statutory partners with responsibility for, or an interest in, the servicesbeing examined;
• people who use services, their carers and representative organisations;
• advocacy organisations;
• community and voluntary organisations; and
• existing and potential service providers across all sectors.
2.19 By ‘whole systems approaches’ we mean taking a broad view across the full range of responsibilities of all strategic partners. A whole systems approach considers the impact of decisions taken by one partner on the demand and supply of services provided by other partners.
2.20 We use the term ‘people who use services’ to mean adults, young people or children who receive care services and/or wider supports, or who may use these in the future.
2.21 The term ‘carer’ means a relative or friend who provides unpaid care and support.
2.22 We use the term ‘personalised approaches’ to mean approaches which focus on the individual in a person centred way, giving them the greatest possible choice and control over how they are cared for and supported. We emphasise that services can and should adopt personalised approaches in all settings.
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
9
THEMES FoR SELF-EvALUATIoN2.23 In this guide, we examine four themes for self-evaluation of leadership. All four themes
link directly with two areas for evaluation in the SWIA performance improvement model (PIM). These are area 9 (leadership and direction) and area 10 (capacity for improvement).
Theme. Description
Theme 1: Direction
This theme is about vision and strategic direction. It includes leadership of change and improvement.
Theme 2: Empowering staff
This theme is about leaders motivating and empowering staff, valuing their contribution and leading them effectively. It covers managing and developing staff.
Theme 3: Resources
This theme looks at whether leaders in social care services manage finance and other resources effectively and efficiently to achieve best value.
Theme 4: Governance arrangements and partnership working
This theme is about governance of the organisation and the roles of board members/directors and how well the organisation works in partnership.
HoW to uSE tHE SELf-EVALuAtIon mAtERIAL
03
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
11
3.1 In self-evaluating leadership, senior managers have the opportunity to model positive approaches and can show that self-evaluation should be an open and rigorous process.
3.2 When taking a closer look at leadership, some of the key points from SWIA’s guide to supported self-evaluation are:
• reliable self-evaluation uses a range of evidence to support conclusions;
• reliable self-evaluation involves benchmarking;
• use of the key features and self-evaluation prompts will guide your evidence gathering and the analysis of your performance;
• use of the illustrations will help you decide where your performance sits on the six point scale; and
• the essential features, and the themes as a whole, will not have identical weight and will contribute differently to the overall rating. you will need to use your judgement here to weigh up their relative importance.
dECIdING To TAKE A CLoSER LooK AT LEAdERSHIP3.3 There are a number of possible starting points for your self-evaluation of leadership. It
may be part of regular learning and improvement activity. you may wish to benchmark to improve your performance. you may feel that your leadership is working well and wish to check this out. or possibly an inspection or internal review may have highlighted this as an area for improvement.
3.4 When you are carrying out your self-evaluation you may find it helpful if you think in terms of a cycle of improvement. you will have the opportunity to revise and refine your approach next time round.
3.5 you do not have to evaluate all four themes at once, or in a particular order. you can decide the most useful place to start to suit your organisation and your particular circumstances.
3.6 your self-evaluation should have a strong element of external challenge. Without this, it will not be sufficiently rigorous. It is good practice to involve your staff and strategic partners, including other similar agencies, as well as representatives of people who use services in your self-evaluation. options include 360 degree appraisal to obtain the views of staff and other stakeholders, involving internal or external peer reviewers and representatives of people who use services to assist with the evaluation.
3.7 you should brief all those involved in the self-evaluation, including board members/directors, about the importance of making sure that external peer reviewers have the capacity to bring objectivity and challenge to the evaluation process.
12
SEC
TIO
N 3
:H
ow to
use
the
self-
eval
uatio
n m
ater
ial
SELF-EvALUATIoN TooLS3.8 Section 5 presents four themes to assist your self-evaluation. For each theme we provide:
• a short overview;
• a list of recommended features;
• a series of self-evaluation prompts. As noted earlier, these are informed suggestions.you are encouraged to adapt the questions. you may decide to ask other questions that you think are relevant; and
• illustrations of evidence that would indicate a rating of very good (level 5) and weak (level 2) performance. These are not a checklist – they are examples to assist you in making judgements about your level of performance.
3.9 For each of the recommended features, you should:
• give a short summary of current practice;
• record your assessment of strengths and areas for improvement; and
• rate your performance on the six-point evaluation scale.
The Six Point Evaluation Scale:
Level Definition Description
Level 6 Excellent Excellent or outstanding
Level 5 Very good Major strengths
Level 4 Good Major strengths with some areas for improvement
Level 3 Adequate Strengths just outweigh weaknesses
Level 2 Weak Important weaknesses
Level 1 Unsatisfactory Major weaknesses
3.10 A more detailed description of each level of performance in SWIA’s guide to supported self-evaluation is attached at Appendix 3.
3.11 As well as rating performance on each of the recommended features, you should rate your summary performance on each of the four themes.
RECoRdING yoUR SELF-EvALUATIoN3.12 you can record your self-evaluation on an electronic or paper record. We suggest you
use the format in Appendix 4 for your self-evaluation record.
3.13 When rating your overall performance on each theme, you should record the rationale for the conclusions you have reached, the evidence you have used to support this, and any evidence gaps you will fill at a later stage. you should also record any initial priorities for action. you can review and refine these when you reach the stage of developing an improvement action plan.
04PRoDucIng An ImPRoVEmEnt ActIon PLAn
14
SEC
TIO
N 4
:Pr
oduc
ing
an im
prov
emen
t act
ion
plan
4.1 The information you have gathered should allow you to undertake some further analysis and discussion, and come to conclusions about:
• strengths and weaknesses for each theme;
• your overall performance on leadership of social care services; and
• whether you have identified good practice, which should be recognised celebrated and shared more widely.
4.2 If you have identified a need to improve leadership in parts of your organisation, you will need to consider what approaches are appropriate in your particular circumstances and most likely to succeed. The sources in Appendix 2 will assist you to identify methods that have successfully brought about change in other organisations. Examples include mentoring, learning sets and regular events such as informal business breakfasts.
4.3 It is important to be realistic about the timescales for improvement, recognising that issues such as low staff morale may take sustained efforts before improvements can be seen.
4.4 Actions should be written up in a SMART3 improvement action plan that can be submitted to the organisation’s chief executive and board members/directors. The final action plan should integrate as closely as possible with the organisation’s strategic and business plans.
3 Specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time limited
05EVALuAtIng PERfoRmAncE
SEC
TIO
N 5
:Ev
alua
ting
perf
orm
ance
16
TH
EME
1: d
IREC
TIo
NT
his
them
e is
abou
t ho
w le
ader
s se
t th
e m
issio
n, s
trat
egic
dire
ctio
n an
d cu
lture
of t
he o
rgan
isatio
n. It
con
sider
s w
heth
er le
ader
s lo
ok t
o th
e m
ediu
m-
and
long
-ter
m fu
ture
. It
asks
if t
he c
ultu
re is
per
form
ance
orie
nted
and
if t
here
is e
ffect
ive
lead
ersh
ip o
f cha
nge
and
impr
ovem
ent.
It lo
oks
at t
he o
pera
tion
and
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
sen
ior
man
agem
ent
team
. Thi
s th
eme
also
em
phas
ises
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f lea
ders
mak
ing
sure
tha
t th
e or
gani
satio
n m
eets
its
resp
onsib
ilitie
s fo
r as
sess
ing
and
man
agin
g ris
ks t
o pe
ople
who
use
ser
vice
s, st
aff,
and
the
wid
er p
ublic
. T
hem
e 4
(pag
e 29
) co
vers
the
con
trib
utio
n of
boa
rd m
embe
rs/d
irect
ors
in g
reat
er d
etai
l.
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(a)
Lead
ers
are
effe
ctiv
e in
se
ttin
g an
d co
mm
unic
atin
g a
visio
n an
d st
rate
gic
dire
ctio
n fo
r th
e or
gani
satio
n.
• W
hat
are
the
mai
n el
emen
ts o
f our
visi
on fo
r th
e se
rvic
es w
e de
liver
? doe
s it
incl
ude
the
valu
es o
f pe
rson
-cen
tred
ser
vice
s an
d ch
oice
as
wel
l as
equa
lity,
dive
rsity
and
fairn
ess?
• d
o le
ader
s ac
tivel
y ra
ise t
he p
ublic
pro
file
of t
he o
rgan
isatio
n in
ord
er t
o pr
omot
e its
visi
on fo
r th
e fu
ture
?
• W
hat
inte
rnal
and
ext
erna
l fac
tors
sha
pe o
ur v
ision
for
the
futu
re? I
n pa
rtic
ular
, can
we
show
tha
t th
e ou
tcom
es p
eopl
e w
ant
have
influ
ence
d ou
r vi
sion
and
stra
tegi
c di
rect
ion?
• W
hat
oppo
rtun
ities
are
the
re fo
r pe
ople
who
use
ser
vice
s, st
aff a
nd s
trat
egic
par
tner
s to
influ
ence
our
vi
sion
and
stra
tegi
c di
rect
ion?
• C
an w
e de
mon
stra
te t
hat
we
take
a lo
ng-t
erm
vie
w in
set
ting
our
stra
tegi
c di
rect
ion
and
how
we
inte
nd t
o ac
hiev
e it?
• H
ow w
idel
y ha
ve w
e co
nsul
ted,
inte
rnal
ly a
nd e
xter
nally
, abo
ut fu
ture
opt
ions
and
risk
s, an
d th
e be
st
way
forw
ard
for
our
serv
ices
?
• d
o w
e ne
ed t
o im
prov
e ho
w w
e co
mm
unic
ate
and
invo
lve
key
grou
ps o
f sta
keho
lder
s in
set
ting
out
futu
re d
irect
ion?
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
17
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(b)
our
org
anisa
tion
has
an
open
and
per
form
ance
or
ient
ed c
ultu
re.
• A
re w
e as
lead
ers
pers
onal
ly a
nd a
ctiv
ely
invo
lved
in im
prov
emen
t ac
tiviti
es?
• H
ave
we
cons
ulte
d w
ith p
eopl
e w
ho u
se s
ervi
ces
abou
t w
hat
is w
orki
ng w
ell a
nd w
hat
need
s to
ch
ange
?
• A
s an
org
anisa
tion,
are
we
succ
essf
ul in
driv
ing
chan
ge? d
o w
e ha
ve s
yste
ms
for
iden
tifyi
ng s
igni
fican
t ch
ange
s th
at o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n ne
eds
to m
ake?
• C
an w
e de
mon
stra
te w
ays
in w
hich
we
enco
urag
e in
nova
tion
and
a co
mm
itmen
t to
lead
ing
edge
se
rvic
es a
cros
s di
ffere
nt p
arts
of o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n?
• d
o w
e ha
ve a
per
form
ance
-orie
nted
cul
ture
, bas
ed o
n:
• cu
stom
er fo
cus
– a
focu
s on
the
end
-res
ult
for
peop
le w
ho u
se s
ervi
ces
and
the
wid
er c
omm
unity
;
• a
can-
do a
ttitu
de –
our
man
ager
s an
d st
aff f
eel e
mpo
wer
ed a
nd s
uppo
rted
to
inno
vate
and
co
ntrib
ute
to s
ervi
ce im
prov
emen
t;
• le
arni
ng –
feed
back
from
peo
ple
who
use
ser
vice
s, ou
r st
aff,
our
stra
tegi
c pa
rtne
rs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
info
rmat
ion
syst
ems
are
all u
sed
to im
prov
e w
hat
we
do; a
nd
• le
ader
s, m
anag
ers
and
staf
f tak
ing
a ve
ry p
ositi
ve a
ppro
ach
to p
erfo
rman
ce m
anag
emen
t as
a t
ool
for
impr
ovem
ent,
not
mer
ely
a fo
rm-fi
lling
exer
cise
?
• d
o w
e ha
ve a
com
preh
ensiv
e pe
rfor
man
ce fr
amew
ork,
impl
emen
ted
in a
ll pa
rts
of t
he o
rgan
isatio
n?
Can
we
show
thi
s is
effe
ctiv
e in
driv
ing
up p
erfo
rman
ce?
• d
o w
e re
gula
rly p
ublis
h pe
rfor
man
ce in
form
atio
n in
acc
essib
le fo
rmat
s?
• d
o w
e m
eet
all r
elev
ant
natio
nal s
tand
ards
and
impr
ove
serv
ices
in li
ne w
ith r
ecom
men
datio
ns m
ade
by t
he r
egul
ator
?
SEC
TIO
N 5
:Ev
alua
ting
perf
orm
ance
18
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(c)
We
have
effe
ctiv
e sy
stem
s in
pla
ce fo
r pl
anni
ng a
nd
deliv
erin
g ou
r se
rvic
es.
• C
an w
e de
mon
stra
te t
hat
our
chie
f exe
cutiv
e an
d se
nior
man
ager
s w
ork
effe
ctiv
ely
as a
tea
m? d
o th
ey
prom
ote
colla
bora
tion
betw
een
diffe
rent
par
ts o
f the
org
anisa
tion
and
with
ext
erna
l par
tner
s.
• H
ave
we
syst
ems
in p
lace
for
regu
lar
dial
ogue
bet
wee
n bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s an
d se
nior
man
ager
s, an
d do
we
revi
ew t
hese
to
chec
k th
ey a
re w
orki
ng e
ffect
ivel
y?
• C
an w
e sh
ow t
hat
we
have
a s
trat
egic
com
mitm
ent
to e
qual
ity t
hat
is im
plem
ente
d ef
fect
ivel
y th
roug
hout
all
aspe
cts
of s
ervi
ce p
lann
ing
and
deliv
ery,
with
sys
tem
s in
pla
ce fo
r m
onito
ring
and
repo
rtin
g pe
rfor
man
ce o
n eq
ualit
y iss
ues?
• H
ow w
ell d
o w
e as
an
orga
nisa
tion
cont
ribut
e to
nat
iona
l/ lo
cal s
trat
egic
pla
ns fo
r gr
oups
for
who
m w
e pr
ovid
e se
rvic
es? C
an w
e sh
ow t
hat
our
busin
ess
plan
s ar
e al
igne
d to
rel
evan
t st
rate
gic
plan
s? A
re t
here
an
y m
ajor
gap
s?
• d
o w
e ha
ve s
ound
impl
emen
tatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
arra
ngem
ents
for
our
stra
tegi
c/bu
sines
s pl
ans?
• A
s an
org
anisa
tion,
do
we
have
a c
ompr
ehen
sive
fram
ewor
k of
ope
ratio
nal p
olic
ies
and
proc
edur
es?
Wha
t sy
stem
s ha
ve b
een
put
in p
lace
to
mak
e su
re t
here
is e
ffect
ive
com
mun
icat
ion
and
impl
emen
tatio
n of
pol
icy
and
proc
edur
es t
hrou
ghou
t ou
r or
gani
satio
n? A
re t
here
any
maj
or g
aps?
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
19
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(d)
Lead
ers
mak
e su
re t
hat
the
orga
nisa
tion
has
effe
ctiv
e ar
rang
emen
ts fo
r as
sess
ing
and
man
agin
g ris
k to
indi
vidu
als
in t
he a
reas
of
chi
ld, a
dult
and
publ
ic
prot
ectio
n.
• C
an w
e sh
ow t
hat
as a
n or
gani
satio
n w
e ha
ve e
ffect
ive
syst
ems
for
man
agin
g ris
k to
indi
vidu
als
and
deal
ing
with
pub
lic p
rote
ctio
n iss
ues?
• W
hat
syst
ems
are
in p
lace
to
mak
e su
re t
here
is e
ffect
ive
lear
ning
from
inci
dent
s, in
quiri
es a
nd
signi
fican
t ca
se r
evie
ws
whi
ch h
ave
take
n pl
ace
loca
lly a
nd e
lsew
here
?
• Is
ther
e ev
iden
ce fr
om s
enio
r m
anag
emen
t an
d bo
ard
mee
tings
tha
t se
nior
man
ager
s an
d bo
ard
mem
bers
reg
ular
ly s
crut
inise
per
form
ance
in r
elat
ion
to k
ey a
reas
of r
isk?
• d
oes
our
orga
nisa
tion
take
a b
alan
ced
appr
oach
to
risk
that
avo
ids
bein
g ris
k av
erse
and
whe
reve
r po
ssib
le p
rom
otin
g th
e rig
hts
of in
divi
dual
s to
mak
e th
eir
own
deci
sions
and
cho
ices
?
• H
ow d
o w
e ra
te o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n’s
perf
orm
ance
in r
elat
ion
to t
he a
reas
of c
hild
, adu
lt an
d pu
blic
pr
otec
tion,
whe
re t
hese
are
rel
evan
t to
our
act
iviti
es a
nd t
he s
ervi
ces
we
prov
ide?
• C
an w
e de
mon
stra
te t
hat
our
appr
oach
to
asse
ssin
g an
d m
anag
ing
risk
in t
he a
reas
of c
hild
, adu
lt an
d pu
blic
pro
tect
ion
is cr
oss
cutt
ing
and
colla
bora
tive?
Hav
e w
e sy
stem
s an
d pr
oced
ures
in p
lace
to
mak
e su
re o
ur s
ervi
ces
liaise
with
all
rele
vant
loca
l age
ncie
s?
• W
hat
actio
n ha
ve w
e ta
ken
to m
ake
sure
tha
t st
aff i
n ou
r ow
n an
d ot
her
agen
cies
, as
appr
opria
te h
ave
a co
mm
on u
nder
stan
ding
and
app
roac
h to
ass
essin
g an
d m
anag
ing
risk?
• Is
ther
e a
shar
ed a
nd r
espo
nsib
le a
ppro
ach
to s
taff
safe
ty a
nd p
ublic
pro
tect
ion?
Is t
here
the
ap
prop
riate
invo
lvem
ent
of e
xter
nal p
artn
ers?
Hav
e w
e ch
ecke
d th
at s
tatu
tory
age
ncie
s an
d ot
her
stra
tegi
c pa
rtne
rs a
re s
atisfi
ed w
ith o
ur o
rgan
isatio
nal a
rran
gem
ents
for
iden
tifyi
ng a
nd m
anag
ing
risk,
an
d sh
arin
g of
info
rmat
ion?
SEC
TIO
N 5
:Ev
alua
ting
perf
orm
ance
20
Illu
stra
tio
ns
for
th
em
e 1
Ve
ry g
oo
d (
Leve
l 5
)W
eak
(L
eve
l 2)
• Le
ader
s of
the
org
anisa
tion
look
ahe
ad a
nd p
lan
a st
rate
gy fo
r its
fu
ture
. The
y ha
ve a
hig
h le
vel o
f aw
aren
ess
of fu
ture
tre
nds,
risks
an
d pa
rtne
rshi
p op
port
uniti
es.
• Pl
ans
prod
uced
by
the
orga
nisa
tion
are
com
preh
ensiv
e, e
asy
to
read
, suc
cess
fully
impl
emen
ted
and
regu
larly
upd
ated
.
• Le
ader
s co
mm
unic
ate
the
orga
nisa
tion’
s m
issio
n an
d vi
sion
with
co
nvic
tion
and
confi
denc
e.
• St
aff a
nd s
trat
egic
par
tner
s ar
e co
nfide
nt t
hat
the
cultu
re is
one
of
sta
ff em
pow
erm
ent
and
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t.
• Le
ader
s m
odel
pos
itive
beh
avio
urs
in c
omm
unic
atin
g w
ith p
eopl
e w
ho u
se s
ervi
ces
and
enga
ging
with
str
ateg
ic p
artn
ers.
• Se
nior
man
ager
s pu
t in
pla
ce a
ran
ge o
f met
hods
to
asse
ss
wha
t in
divi
dual
out
com
es a
re b
eing
ach
ieve
d an
d w
hat
need
s to
impr
ove.
The
se in
clud
e re
view
s of
indi
vidu
al p
lans
as
wel
l as
surv
eys,
focu
s gr
oups
and
cas
e fil
e au
dits
.
• Pe
ople
who
use
ser
vice
s, st
aff a
nd s
trat
egic
par
tner
s ar
e co
nfide
nt a
bout
the
ach
ieve
men
t of
goo
d ou
tcom
es fo
r pe
ople
.
• o
rgan
isatio
nal p
olic
ies
and
proc
edur
es a
re fi
t fo
r pu
rpos
e an
d co
mpl
y w
ith r
elev
ant
natio
nal s
tand
ards
.
• T
here
is c
onsis
tent
goo
d pr
actic
e in
the
are
as o
f adu
lt, c
hild
and
pu
blic
pro
tect
ion
and
the
orga
nisa
tion
cont
ribut
es e
ffect
ivel
y to
in
ter
agen
cy p
rote
ctio
n pr
oces
ses.
• St
aff a
nd s
trat
egic
par
tner
s la
ck c
onfid
ence
tha
t th
e or
gani
satio
n is
clea
r ab
out
its m
issio
n or
str
ateg
ic d
irect
ion.
• Le
ader
s fo
cus
mai
nly
on im
med
iate
issu
es a
t th
e ex
pens
e of
tak
ing
a lo
ng t
erm
, str
ateg
ic v
iew
. dec
ision
s te
nd t
o be
cr
isis-
driv
en.
• T
he o
rgan
isatio
n is
mor
e fo
cuse
d on
inte
rnal
pro
cess
es t
han
outc
omes
for
peop
le.
• T
he o
rgan
isatio
n do
es n
ot h
ave
effe
ctiv
e sy
stem
s to
ens
ure
that
al
l the
ser
vice
s it
prov
ides
com
ply
fully
with
nat
iona
l sta
ndar
ds.
The
re is
litt
le e
vide
nce
of s
hare
d le
arni
ng fr
om g
ood
or w
eak
prac
tice
acro
ss t
he s
ervi
ces
it pr
ovid
es.
• Se
rvic
es p
rovi
ded
by t
he o
rgan
isatio
n do
not
/are
una
ble
to
prom
ptly
impl
emen
t re
com
men
datio
ns m
ade
by t
he r
egul
ator
ab
out
serv
ice
impr
ovem
ents
. Lea
ders
and
sen
ior
man
ager
s fa
il to
tak
e ef
fect
ive
actio
n to
dea
l with
thi
s.
• Bu
sines
s pl
anni
ng is
not
wel
l dev
elop
ed o
r co
mm
unic
ated
. Sta
ff ar
e no
t aw
are
of b
usin
ess
plan
s or
con
sulte
d on
the
ir co
nten
t.
• Le
ader
s ta
ke a
frag
men
ted
appr
oach
to
perf
orm
ance
m
anag
emen
t. St
aff f
eel t
here
is a
bla
me
cultu
re.
• G
ood
perf
orm
ance
is n
ot r
ecog
nise
d an
d po
or p
erfo
rman
ce
goes
unc
halle
nged
.
• T
he o
rgan
isatio
n do
es n
ot d
eal e
ffect
ivel
y w
ith c
hild
, adu
lt or
pu
blic
pro
tect
ion
issue
s.
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
21
TH
EME
2: E
MPo
WER
ING
STA
FFT
his
them
e is
abou
t m
otiv
atin
g an
d em
pow
erin
g st
aff.
It in
volv
es le
ader
s sh
owin
g th
at s
taff
are
valu
ed, c
omm
unic
atin
g ef
fect
ivel
y w
ith t
hem
an
d ge
ttin
g th
e be
st fr
om t
hem
. It
asks
if le
ader
s ha
ve t
aken
the
act
ion
need
ed t
o bu
ild a
con
fiden
t an
d su
cces
sful
wor
kfor
ce. I
t co
nsid
ers
whe
ther
indi
vidu
als
and
team
s ar
e en
cour
aged
to
take
res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r de
velo
ping
new
idea
s, an
d po
sitiv
ely
chal
leng
ed t
o do
bet
ter.
It em
phas
ises
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f rec
ogni
sing
achi
evem
ents
, and
con
sider
s st
aff m
oral
e an
d co
nfide
nce
in le
ader
ship
. Thi
s th
eme
also
cov
ers
staf
f dev
elop
men
t an
d w
orkf
orce
pla
nnin
g. It
ask
s w
heth
er t
here
is e
ffect
ive
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t an
d w
heth
er t
he o
rgan
isatio
n de
velo
ps
and
supp
orts
evi
denc
e-ba
sed
lear
ning
and
pra
ctic
e.
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(a)
Lead
ers
com
mun
icat
e w
ell
with
sta
ff w
ho fe
el v
alue
d an
d su
ppor
ted.
• A
re t
here
reg
ular
eve
nts
whi
ch b
oard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s at
tend
and
giv
e st
aff f
eedb
ack
abou
t th
e va
lue
they
att
ach
to t
he o
rgan
isatio
n’s
serv
ices
and
the
con
trib
utio
ns s
taff
mak
e to
thi
s?
• W
hat
syst
ems
are
in p
lace
for
reco
gnisi
ng s
taff
for
doin
g w
ell?
(e.g
. sup
ervi
sion/
appr
aisa
l sys
tem
s, em
ploy
ee o
f the
mon
th, a
nnua
l aw
ards
cer
emon
y et
c.)
• d
oes
the
orga
nisa
tion
have
a s
taff
com
mun
icat
ion
stra
tegy
? Wha
t ap
proa
ches
do
seni
or m
anag
ers
use
to c
omm
unic
ate
with
sta
ff at
diff
eren
t le
vels
(e.g
. opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r fa
ce-t
o-fa
ce/t
elep
hone
con
tact
, in
tran
et, u
se o
f soc
ial m
edia
suc
h as
blo
gs, C
hief
Exe
cutiv
e’s
colu
mn
in t
he s
taff
new
slett
er, r
egul
ar s
taff/
fron
t lin
e m
anag
er b
riefin
gs)?
• C
an w
e gi
ve e
xam
ples
of u
sing
feed
back
from
sta
ff to
impr
ove
com
mun
icat
ion?
• C
an w
e sh
ow t
hat
we
have
iden
tified
any
sig
nific
ant
exte
rnal
and
inte
rnal
issu
es a
ffect
ing
staf
f mor
ale
and
put
syst
ems
in p
lace
to
deal
with
the
se if
it is
pos
sible
to
do s
o?
• d
urin
g se
rvic
e ch
ange
and
red
esig
n do
we
effe
ctiv
ely
com
mun
icat
e w
ith s
taff
dire
ctly
affe
cted
by
chan
ges?
do
we
invo
lve
staf
f at
an e
arly
sta
ge a
nd c
reat
e op
port
uniti
es fo
r th
em t
o co
ntrib
ute
thei
r id
eas?
• d
o w
e ha
ve u
p-to
-dat
e po
licie
s on
equ
ality
issu
es a
s th
ey im
pact
on
our
staf
f, as
wel
l as
pers
onal
saf
ety,
heal
th a
nd w
ell-b
eing
, and
pre
vent
ion
of v
iole
nce
and
hara
ssm
ent?
do
thes
e ex
plic
itly
take
acc
ount
of
issue
s re
leva
nt t
o th
e de
liver
y of
the
ser
vice
s ou
r or
gani
satio
n pr
ovid
es (e
.g. s
yste
ms
to id
entif
y ris
ks
pose
d by
indi
vidu
als,
lone
wor
ker
polic
ies)
? Can
we
show
the
se a
re o
pera
ting
effe
ctiv
ely
to p
rom
ote
the
wel
l-bei
ng o
f our
sta
ff?
SEC
TIO
N 5
:Ev
alua
ting
perf
orm
ance
22
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(b)
The
re is
a s
trat
egic
ap
proa
ch t
o em
ploy
ee
deve
lopm
ent.
• d
o w
e ha
ve c
ompr
ehen
sive
wor
kfor
ce p
lann
ing
and
deve
lopm
ent
stra
tegi
es in
pla
ce fo
r al
l par
ts o
f our
or
gani
satio
n an
d fo
r al
l sta
ff gr
oups
/tea
ms?
Wha
t sy
stem
s ha
ve w
e pu
t in
pla
ce fo
r m
onito
ring
thei
r ef
fect
iven
ess?
• d
o w
e ex
plor
e an
d im
plem
ent
new
app
roac
hes
to e
mpl
oyee
dev
elop
men
t, in
clud
ing
reci
proc
al
arra
ngem
ents
with
oth
er a
genc
ies?
• C
an w
e de
mon
stra
te a
n in
tegr
ated
app
roac
h to
em
ploy
ee d
evel
opm
ent,
whi
ch m
akes
link
s be
twee
n ou
r br
oad
stra
tegi
c di
rect
ion
and:
• ou
r eq
ualit
y st
rate
gy;
• tr
aini
ng p
lans
;
• th
e re
crui
tmen
t an
d in
duct
ion
of n
ew s
taff;
• su
perv
ision
pol
icie
s an
d pr
actic
e;
• co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith r
elev
ant
code
s of
pra
ctic
e;
• co
ntin
uous
pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t; an
d
• pe
rfor
man
ce a
ppra
isal s
yste
ms?
• C
an w
e sh
ow t
hat
we
man
age
know
ledg
e ef
fect
ivel
y, an
d de
velo
p an
d su
ppor
t ev
iden
ce-b
ased
pra
ctic
e at
diff
eren
t le
vels
acro
ss o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n?
• W
hat
stra
tegi
es d
o w
e ha
ve in
pla
ce t
o ad
dres
s an
y re
crui
tmen
t an
d/or
ret
entio
n iss
ues
with
in o
ur
wor
kfor
ce? I
s fu
rthe
r ac
tion
need
ed?
• d
o ou
r tr
aini
ng s
trat
egie
s st
rike
an a
ppro
pria
te b
alan
ce b
etw
een
pers
onal
dev
elop
men
t an
d in
vest
men
t in
tra
inin
g to
mee
t th
e cu
rren
t an
d fu
ture
nee
ds o
f our
org
anisa
tion?
• W
hat
appr
oach
es h
ave
we
adop
ted
to m
anag
emen
t tr
aini
ng, l
eade
rshi
p de
velo
pmen
t an
d su
cces
sion
plan
ning
? Wha
t be
nefit
s ar
e be
ing
deliv
ered
in t
erm
s of
em
ploy
ee d
evel
opm
ent?
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
23
Illu
stra
tio
ns
for
th
em
e 2
Ve
ry g
oo
d (
Leve
l 5
)W
eak
(L
eve
l 2)
• Le
ader
s ha
ve e
ffect
ive
syst
ems
to r
outin
ely
shar
e im
port
ant
info
rmat
ion
with
all
staf
f.
• A
com
mun
icat
ion
stra
tegy
is in
pla
ce a
nd s
taff
repo
rt t
hat
they
fe
el in
form
ed a
nd c
onsu
lted.
• St
aff m
oral
e is
high
and
sen
ior
man
ager
s ar
e vi
ewed
as
acce
ssib
le.
Boar
d m
embe
rs/d
irect
ors
are
seen
to
valu
e an
d su
ppor
t st
aff.
• Se
nior
man
ager
s em
ploy
a r
ange
of m
etho
ds (s
uch
as r
egul
ar
phon
e in
tim
es, w
alk-
abou
ts a
nd s
taff
brie
fings
) to
hav
e di
rect
fa
ce-t
o-fa
ce c
onta
ct w
ith s
taff
and
man
ager
s.
• In
nova
tion,
lear
ning
and
evi
denc
e-ba
sed
prac
tice
are
prom
oted
th
roug
hout
the
org
anisa
tion.
Sta
ff ar
e en
cour
aged
to
com
e fo
rwar
d w
ith id
eas
abou
t im
prov
emen
ts.
• Se
nior
man
ager
s ar
e sy
stem
atic
in g
ivin
g po
sitiv
e fe
edba
ck t
o st
aff
thro
ugh
initi
ativ
es s
uch
as y
early
aw
ards
cer
emon
ies,
long
ser
vice
aw
ards
, and
oth
er c
eleb
ratio
ns o
f em
ploy
ee a
chie
vem
ents
.
• Le
ader
s gi
ve h
igh
prio
rity
to d
evel
opin
g th
e sk
ills a
nd c
ompe
tenc
e of
man
ager
s an
d th
e w
ider
wor
kfor
ce.
• T
here
are
cle
ar li
nks
betw
een
wor
kfor
ce p
lann
ing
and
deve
lopm
ent,
trai
ning
and
sup
ervi
sion,
as
wel
l as
man
agem
ent
and
lead
ersh
ip d
evel
opm
ent.
• A
t tim
es o
f cris
is or
maj
or in
cide
nt, a
ll st
aff g
ive
max
imum
co
mm
itmen
t to
dea
ling
with
the
pro
blem
.
• T
he s
ervi
ce h
as u
p to
dat
e eq
ualit
y an
d he
alth
and
saf
ety
polic
ies
and
proc
edur
es w
hich
are
rel
evan
t to
the
org
anisa
tion’
s ro
le a
nd
the
serv
ices
it d
eliv
ers.
• Se
nior
man
ager
s co
mm
unic
ate
som
e in
form
atio
n to
sta
ff bu
t do
th
is in
an
unsy
stem
atic
way
.
• A
sig
nific
ant
num
ber
of s
taff
do n
ot k
now
abo
ut im
port
ant
chan
ges
in p
olic
ies
and
proc
edur
es t
hat
are
rele
vant
to
thei
r re
spon
sibili
ties.
• St
aff f
eel c
ut o
ff fr
om im
port
ant
deci
sions
and
new
dev
elop
men
ts
and
are
not
awar
e of
rel
evan
t pl
ans.
• T
here
are
few
opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r em
ploy
ee o
r te
am a
chie
vem
ents
to
be
reco
gnise
d or
cel
ebra
ted.
• T
here
is lo
w s
taff
mor
ale
in s
ome
or a
ll pa
rts
of t
he s
ervi
ce, w
ith
surv
eys
show
ing
poor
con
fiden
ce in
lead
ersh
ip. L
eade
rs h
ave
not
take
n ac
tion
to a
ddre
ss t
hese
issu
es.
• St
aff w
elfa
re is
not
giv
en h
igh
prio
rity,
and
the
serv
ice
does
not
ha
ve h
ealth
and
saf
ety
polic
ies
whi
ch a
ddre
ss r
isks
expe
rienc
ed
by s
taff.
• T
here
is li
ttle
evi
denc
e th
at s
enio
r m
anag
ers
enco
urag
e st
aff a
nd
team
s to
find
new
way
s to
impr
ove
serv
ices
.
• N
ew id
eas
tend
not
to
be t
ried
out
and
this
adve
rsel
y af
fect
s st
aff m
otiv
atio
n.
• M
anag
ers
and
staf
f lac
k co
nfide
nce
that
the
y ha
ve r
ecei
ved
suffi
cien
t tr
aini
ng t
o do
the
ir jo
b w
ell.
SEC
TIO
N 5
:Ev
alua
ting
perf
orm
ance
24
TH
EME
3: R
ESo
URC
EST
his
them
e is
abou
t ho
w w
ell l
eade
rs p
lan
and
man
age
the
orga
nisa
tion’
s re
sour
ces,
othe
r th
an t
hose
asp
ects
of h
uman
res
ourc
es w
hich
are
co
vere
d un
der
The
me
2. It
focu
ses
mai
nly
on fi
nanc
ial p
lann
ing
and
the
man
agem
ent
of b
udge
ts a
s ke
y re
spon
sibili
ties
for
lead
ers.
It as
ks
abou
t in
form
atio
n sy
stem
s an
d th
e m
anag
emen
t of
the
org
anisa
tion’
s as
sets
. It
also
con
sider
s w
heth
er s
ocia
l wor
k se
rvic
es t
ake
actio
n to
ac
hiev
e be
st v
alue
, and
whe
ther
str
ateg
ic r
isks
are
wel
l ide
ntifi
ed a
nd m
anag
ed.
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(a)
The
org
anisa
tion
is su
ppor
ted
by s
ound
fin
anci
al p
lann
ing.
• A
re fi
nanc
ial p
lans
pro
duce
d an
d up
date
d on
a r
egul
ar (a
t le
ast
annu
al)
basis
? Are
the
y fo
rmal
ly
appr
oved
and
ado
pted
by
the
boar
d/di
rect
ors?
Is t
here
reg
ular
mon
itorin
g an
d re
port
ing
of t
hese
pla
ns?
• A
re m
anag
ers
at d
iffer
ent
leve
ls co
nsul
ted,
and
ena
bled
to
cont
ribut
e to
fina
ncia
l pla
ns?
• d
o fin
anci
al p
lans
incl
ude
a re
leva
nt fo
cus
on, a
s a
min
imum
, the
med
ium
ter
m a
s w
ell a
s m
akin
g re
fere
nce
to lo
nger
ter
m t
rend
s?
• d
o w
e fo
cus
on im
med
iate
and
long
er-t
erm
fina
ncia
l unc
erta
intie
s an
d ris
ks fa
cing
our
org
anisa
tion,
gi
ving
suf
ficie
nt a
tten
tion
to m
odel
ling
diffe
rent
fina
ncia
l sce
nario
s, se
rvic
e de
liver
y op
tions
and
co
ntin
genc
y pl
anni
ng.
• A
re p
lann
ed c
omm
itmen
ts r
elia
bly
cost
ed? C
an w
e de
mon
stra
te t
hat
curr
ent
and
futu
re c
omm
itmen
ts
(e.g
. as
docu
men
ted
in b
usin
ess
plan
s) a
re r
ealis
tic a
nd t
ake
acco
unt
of a
ny fu
ndin
g un
cert
aint
ies?
do
we
have
con
tinge
ncy
plan
s w
hich
are
bas
ed o
n a
soun
d an
alys
is of
opp
ortu
nitie
s an
d ris
ks?
• H
ave
busin
ess
plan
s be
en u
pdat
ed t
o ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f cha
lleng
ing
finan
cial
red
uctio
ns t
akin
g pl
ace
in
publ
ic s
ecto
r fu
ndin
g an
d ha
ve w
e an
alys
ed t
heir
likel
y/po
ssib
le im
pact
on
the
serv
ices
we
prov
ide?
• W
hat
appr
oach
es h
ave
we
take
n to
the
mea
sure
men
t an
d as
sess
men
t of
bes
t va
lue?
do
we
have
acc
urat
e an
d re
leva
nt in
form
atio
n to
mak
e w
ell j
udge
d as
sess
men
ts o
n va
lue
for
mon
ey, a
nd
proc
urem
ent
of g
oods
and
ser
vice
s? d
o w
e be
nchm
ark
our
finan
cial p
erfo
rman
ce, i
nclu
ding
uni
t cos
ts,
agai
nst h
igh
perf
orm
ing
orga
nisa
tions
in o
ur o
wn
and
othe
r se
ctor
s?
• A
re t
here
join
t fin
anci
al p
lans
for
any
part
ners
hip
vent
ures
we
are
invo
lved
in? A
re t
hese
sup
port
ed b
y de
taile
d w
ritte
n ag
reem
ents
reg
ardi
ng r
esou
rce
cont
ribut
ions
, and
gov
erna
nce
arra
ngem
ents
? Hav
e w
e ca
rrie
d ou
t jo
int
anal
yses
of fi
nanc
ial r
isks,
and
have
the
se b
een
reco
rded
and
act
ivel
y m
anag
ed? I
s th
ere
finan
cial
mon
itorin
g an
d re
gula
r re
port
ing
to a
ll ag
enci
es in
volv
ed in
par
tner
ship
s?
• C
an w
e de
mon
stra
te a
reas
of p
artn
ersh
ip w
orki
ng w
here
sha
ring
info
rmat
ion
and
reso
urce
s ha
s im
prov
ed e
ffici
ency
and
ach
ieve
d ag
reed
prio
ritie
s?
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
25
TH
EME
3: R
ESo
URC
EST
his
them
e is
abou
t ho
w w
ell l
eade
rs p
lan
and
man
age
the
orga
nisa
tion’
s re
sour
ces,
othe
r th
an t
hose
asp
ects
of h
uman
res
ourc
es w
hich
are
co
vere
d un
der
The
me
2. It
focu
ses
mai
nly
on fi
nanc
ial p
lann
ing
and
the
man
agem
ent
of b
udge
ts a
s ke
y re
spon
sibili
ties
for
lead
ers.
It as
ks
abou
t in
form
atio
n sy
stem
s an
d th
e m
anag
emen
t of
the
org
anisa
tion’
s as
sets
. It
also
con
sider
s w
heth
er s
ocia
l wor
k se
rvic
es t
ake
actio
n to
ac
hiev
e be
st v
alue
, and
whe
ther
str
ateg
ic r
isks
are
wel
l ide
ntifi
ed a
nd m
anag
ed.
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(a)
The
org
anisa
tion
is su
ppor
ted
by s
ound
fin
anci
al p
lann
ing.
• A
re fi
nanc
ial p
lans
pro
duce
d an
d up
date
d on
a r
egul
ar (a
t le
ast
annu
al)
basis
? Are
the
y fo
rmal
ly
appr
oved
and
ado
pted
by
the
boar
d/di
rect
ors?
Is t
here
reg
ular
mon
itorin
g an
d re
port
ing
of t
hese
pla
ns?
• A
re m
anag
ers
at d
iffer
ent
leve
ls co
nsul
ted,
and
ena
bled
to
cont
ribut
e to
fina
ncia
l pla
ns?
• d
o fin
anci
al p
lans
incl
ude
a re
leva
nt fo
cus
on, a
s a
min
imum
, the
med
ium
ter
m a
s w
ell a
s m
akin
g re
fere
nce
to lo
nger
ter
m t
rend
s?
• d
o w
e fo
cus
on im
med
iate
and
long
er-t
erm
fina
ncia
l unc
erta
intie
s an
d ris
ks fa
cing
our
org
anisa
tion,
gi
ving
suf
ficie
nt a
tten
tion
to m
odel
ling
diffe
rent
fina
ncia
l sce
nario
s, se
rvic
e de
liver
y op
tions
and
co
ntin
genc
y pl
anni
ng.
• A
re p
lann
ed c
omm
itmen
ts r
elia
bly
cost
ed? C
an w
e de
mon
stra
te t
hat
curr
ent
and
futu
re c
omm
itmen
ts
(e.g
. as
docu
men
ted
in b
usin
ess
plan
s) a
re r
ealis
tic a
nd t
ake
acco
unt
of a
ny fu
ndin
g un
cert
aint
ies?
do
we
have
con
tinge
ncy
plan
s w
hich
are
bas
ed o
n a
soun
d an
alys
is of
opp
ortu
nitie
s an
d ris
ks?
• H
ave
busin
ess
plan
s be
en u
pdat
ed t
o ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f cha
lleng
ing
finan
cial
red
uctio
ns t
akin
g pl
ace
in
publ
ic s
ecto
r fu
ndin
g an
d ha
ve w
e an
alys
ed t
heir
likel
y/po
ssib
le im
pact
on
the
serv
ices
we
prov
ide?
• W
hat
appr
oach
es h
ave
we
take
n to
the
mea
sure
men
t an
d as
sess
men
t of
bes
t va
lue?
do
we
have
acc
urat
e an
d re
leva
nt in
form
atio
n to
mak
e w
ell j
udge
d as
sess
men
ts o
n va
lue
for
mon
ey, a
nd
proc
urem
ent
of g
oods
and
ser
vice
s? d
o w
e be
nchm
ark
our
finan
cial p
erfo
rman
ce, i
nclu
ding
uni
t cos
ts,
agai
nst h
igh
perf
orm
ing
orga
nisa
tions
in o
ur o
wn
and
othe
r se
ctor
s?
• A
re t
here
join
t fin
anci
al p
lans
for
any
part
ners
hip
vent
ures
we
are
invo
lved
in? A
re t
hese
sup
port
ed b
y de
taile
d w
ritte
n ag
reem
ents
reg
ardi
ng r
esou
rce
cont
ribut
ions
, and
gov
erna
nce
arra
ngem
ents
? Hav
e w
e ca
rrie
d ou
t jo
int
anal
yses
of fi
nanc
ial r
isks,
and
have
the
se b
een
reco
rded
and
act
ivel
y m
anag
ed? I
s th
ere
finan
cial
mon
itorin
g an
d re
gula
r re
port
ing
to a
ll ag
enci
es in
volv
ed in
par
tner
ship
s?
• C
an w
e de
mon
stra
te a
reas
of p
artn
ersh
ip w
orki
ng w
here
sha
ring
info
rmat
ion
and
reso
urce
s ha
s im
prov
ed e
ffici
ency
and
ach
ieve
d ag
reed
prio
ritie
s?
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(b)
The
org
anisa
tion
has
effe
ctiv
e sy
stem
s fo
r bu
dget
ary
man
agem
ent.
• A
re fi
nanc
ial p
roce
dure
s co
mpr
ehen
sive
and
effe
ctiv
e? A
re o
ur p
roce
dure
s re
gula
rly r
evie
wed
to
mak
e su
re t
hey
are
fully
com
plia
nt w
ith le
gal r
equi
rem
ents
as
wel
l as
the
finan
cial
reg
ulat
ions
of f
undi
ng
bodi
es a
nd o
ur o
wn
orga
nisa
tion?
• H
as a
ctio
n be
en t
aken
, whe
re n
eces
sary
, to
alig
n al
l bud
gets
with
act
ual a
nd p
lann
ed s
pend
? Are
the
re
signi
fican
t ar
eas
of m
ismat
ch t
hat
requ
ire a
ctio
n?
• d
o w
e ha
ve e
ffect
ive
syst
ems
for
man
agin
g an
d re
port
ing
signi
fican
t bu
dget
var
ianc
es, b
ased
on
soun
d fin
anci
al in
form
atio
n?
• d
o w
e an
alys
e th
e un
derly
ing
reas
ons
for
varia
nces
(fo
r ex
ampl
e, lo
okin
g at
dem
and,
ser
vice
qua
lity
and
patt
erns
of s
pend
) in
ord
er t
o id
entif
y op
port
uniti
es t
o im
prov
e ef
ficie
ncy
and
serv
ice
qual
ity?
• A
re b
udge
ts a
ppro
pria
tely
dev
olve
d to
man
ager
s w
ith o
pera
tiona
l res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r th
e se
rvic
es, w
ithin
a
fram
ewor
k of
fina
ncia
l con
trol
s? Is
the
re a
ppro
pria
te in
duct
ion,
tra
inin
g an
d su
perv
ision
of a
ll bu
dget
ho
lder
s an
d st
aff w
ith fi
nanc
ial m
anag
emen
t re
spon
sibili
ties?
• d
oes
our
orga
nisa
tion
have
a g
ood
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
cos
ts o
f diff
eren
t se
rvic
es, i
nclu
ding
uni
t co
sts,
and
the
cost
s of
diff
eren
t ty
pes
of c
are
and
supp
ort
pack
ages
? do
man
ager
s us
e th
is in
form
atio
n to
co
nsid
er o
ptio
ns fo
r im
prov
ing
serv
ice
qual
ity a
nd e
ffici
ency
?
• d
o w
e ha
ve a
pro
gram
me
for
benc
hmar
king
and
impr
ovem
ent
of o
vera
ll or
gani
satio
nal e
ffici
ency
as
wel
l the
indi
vidu
al s
ervi
ces
we
prov
ide?
Are
the
re a
ny s
igni
fican
t ar
eas
of s
pend
whi
ch h
ave
not
been
th
e su
bjec
t of
ben
chm
arki
ng a
nd b
est
valu
e re
view
? How
do
we
plan
to
addr
ess
thes
e?
• C
an w
e sh
ow t
hat
we
have
ado
pted
str
ateg
ic a
ppro
ache
s to
ach
ievi
ng e
ffici
enci
es w
hilst
mai
ntai
ning
/im
prov
ing
outc
omes
for
peop
le?
• d
o w
e ha
ve s
yste
ms
in p
lace
to
mee
t th
e di
ffere
nt r
equi
rem
ents
of c
omm
issio
ning
bod
ies
for
budg
etar
y in
form
atio
n?
SEC
TIO
N 5
:Ev
alua
ting
perf
orm
ance
26
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(c)
Man
agem
ent
of a
sset
s an
d st
rate
gic
risks
effe
ctiv
ely
supp
ort
serv
ice
deliv
ery.
• d
o w
e ha
ve s
ound
pro
cess
es fo
r m
anag
ing
our
orga
nisa
tion’
s as
sets
? In
part
icul
ar, d
oes
the
orga
nisa
tion
mai
ntai
n an
ass
et r
egist
er t
hat
is ap
prop
riate
ly d
etai
led
and
regu
larly
upd
ated
?
• A
re o
ur s
ervi
ces
deliv
ered
from
ple
asan
t, cl
ean,
sui
tabl
e bu
ildin
gs w
hich
com
ply
with
rel
evan
t le
gisla
tion,
in
clud
ing
heal
th a
nd s
afet
y an
d di
sabl
ed a
cces
s?
• A
s ap
prop
riate
, are
we
invo
lved
in lo
cal i
nitia
tives
to
prom
ote
publ
ic a
cces
s to
loca
l ser
vice
s, fo
r ex
ampl
e th
roug
h sh
ared
acc
ess
poin
ts a
nd c
omm
unity
use
of b
uild
ings
?
• d
o w
e ha
ve a
com
preh
ensiv
e an
d up
-to-
date
str
ateg
ic r
isk r
egist
er a
nd e
ffect
ive
arra
ngem
ents
for
man
agin
g an
d re
port
ing
risks
to
our
Boar
d/d
irect
ors?
• H
ow d
oes
the
serv
ice
iden
tify
emer
ging
risk
s, an
d ta
ke a
ctio
n to
res
pond
app
ropr
iate
ly to
thes
e?
• H
ave
we
carr
ied
out s
crut
iny
and
audi
t of p
erfo
rman
ce in
key
are
as o
f risk
acr
oss
all o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n’s
activ
ities
and
the
serv
ices
we
prov
ide?
Are
ther
e an
y sig
nific
ant g
aps
or a
reas
whi
ch h
ave
been
iden
tified
fo
r im
prov
emen
t? C
an w
e sh
ow th
at w
e be
nchm
ark
our
perfo
rman
ce in
tern
ally
and
ext
erna
lly a
nd ta
ke a
co
nsist
ent a
ppro
ach
to m
anag
ing
risk?
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
27
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(d)
The
re is
effe
ctiv
e us
e of
in
form
atio
n an
d te
chno
logy
an
d th
is re
sults
in im
prov
ed
serv
ice
deliv
ery.
• d
o w
e ha
ve r
elia
ble
info
rmat
ion
syst
ems
that
mee
t th
e ne
eds
of t
he o
rgan
isatio
n as
a w
hole
, as
wel
l ea
ch o
f the
ser
vice
s w
e pr
ovid
e? d
o w
e re
view
the
ir ef
fect
iven
ess
and
prog
ram
me
impr
ovem
ents
whe
re
need
ed?
• H
ave
we
asse
ssed
whe
ther
our
info
rmat
ion
syst
ems
are
usef
ul t
o ou
r st
aff i
n th
eir
day-
to-d
ay w
ork?
• A
re o
ur in
form
atio
n sy
stem
s ef
fect
ive
in d
eliv
erin
g ta
ngib
le b
enefi
ts in
ter
ms
of s
afe
and
effe
ctiv
e pr
actic
e as
wel
l as
prod
ucin
g ag
greg
ate
info
rmat
ion
for
our
plan
ning
pur
pose
s?
• d
o w
e m
eet
lega
l req
uire
men
ts a
nd g
ood
prac
tice
stan
dard
s w
hen
colle
ctin
g, s
torin
g an
d re
trie
ving
pe
rson
al d
ata
abou
t pe
ople
who
use
ser
vice
s an
d ou
r st
aff?
Are
the
se a
rran
gem
ents
rev
iew
ed r
egul
arly
an
d su
bjec
ted
to q
ualit
y as
sura
nce
chec
ks?
• W
hat
rang
e an
d qu
ality
of i
nfor
mat
ion
do o
ur s
yste
ms
rout
inel
y ge
nera
te fo
r m
anag
emen
t pu
rpos
es? I
s in
form
atio
n us
ed e
ffect
ivel
y by
man
ager
s?
• d
o w
e ha
ve s
yste
ms
and
prot
ocol
s to
faci
litat
e el
ectr
onic
info
rmat
ion
shar
ing
acro
ss t
he o
rgan
isatio
n an
d w
ith p
artn
er a
genc
ies?
do
thes
e ef
fect
ivel
y su
ppor
t sh
ared
ass
essm
ents
and
out
-of-h
ours
ser
vice
de
liver
y, as
app
ropr
iate
?
• H
ave
we
take
n ac
tion
to m
axim
ise t
he b
enefi
ts o
f ass
istiv
e te
chno
logy
thr
ough
the
dev
elop
men
t of
te
leca
re a
nd t
eleh
ealth
, in
part
ners
hip
with
oth
er r
elev
ant
agen
cies
?
• A
re w
e in
volv
ed in
iden
tifyi
ng a
nd e
valu
atin
g al
tern
ativ
e an
d em
ergi
ng t
echn
olog
ies,
in o
rder
to
impr
ove
the
qual
ity a
nd e
ffici
ency
of s
ervi
ces?
• H
ave
we
deve
lope
d w
eb-b
ased
opt
ions
to
prov
ide
the
publ
ic a
nd p
rosp
ectiv
e se
rvic
e us
ers
and
care
rs
with
info
rmat
ion
abou
t ou
r or
gani
satio
n an
d th
e se
rvic
es w
e pr
ovid
e?
SEC
TIO
N 5
:Ev
alua
ting
perf
orm
ance
28
Illu
stra
tio
ns
for
th
em
e 3
Ve
ry g
oo
d (
Leve
l 5
)W
eak
(L
eve
l 2)
• o
rgan
isatio
nal p
lans
are
bas
ed o
n re
alist
ic fi
nanc
ial a
ssum
ptio
ns
and
com
mitm
ents
.
• Se
nior
man
ager
s de
mon
stra
te e
ffect
ive
finan
cial
man
agem
ent
and
max
imise
the
ava
ilabi
lity
and
use
of r
esou
rces
.
• Se
nior
man
ager
s an
d bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s ta
ke a
str
ateg
ic
appr
oach
to
man
agin
g fin
anci
al u
ncer
tain
ties
and
iden
tifyi
ng
effic
ienc
ies.
• Sp
end
to s
ave
oppo
rtun
ities
are
sou
ght
out.
The
re is
inno
vatio
n in
the
use
of t
echn
olog
y re
sulti
ng in
mor
e ef
ficie
nt u
se
of r
esou
rces
.
• Bu
dget
s ar
e re
view
ed a
nd a
ligne
d w
ith s
trat
egic
obj
ectiv
es.
• Re
gula
r be
nchm
arki
ng t
akes
pla
ce a
nd le
ads
to s
ervi
ce
impr
ovem
ents
and
effi
cien
cies
.
• T
here
is g
ood
finan
cial
rep
ortin
g, w
hich
incl
udes
par
tner
ship
ac
tivity
. Boa
rd m
embe
rs/d
irect
ors
scru
tinise
rep
orts
.
• Fi
nanc
ial t
rain
ing
resu
lts in
a g
ood
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
cos
ts b
y re
leva
nt s
taff
at a
ll le
vels.
The
cos
ts o
f car
e an
d su
ppor
t pa
ckag
es
are
wel
l qua
ntifi
ed a
nd s
crut
inise
d
• M
anag
ers
activ
ely
seek
way
s of
impr
ovin
g th
e qu
ality
and
ef
ficie
ncy
of t
he s
ervi
ce t
he o
rgan
isatio
n pr
ovid
es.
• In
form
atio
n sy
stem
s ar
e w
ell i
mpl
emen
ted
and
used
, with
the
re
sult
that
ser
vice
del
iver
y an
d im
prov
emen
t ar
e w
ell s
uppo
rted
.
• Bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s an
d se
nior
man
ager
s ta
ke a
sho
rt-t
erm
vi
ew o
f res
ourc
e m
anag
emen
t.
• Bu
sines
s pl
anni
ng is
not
link
ed t
o so
und
finan
cial
pla
ns.
• Se
rvic
es a
re d
eliv
ered
in in
effic
ient
way
s an
d th
ere
is lit
tle
benc
hmar
king
to
supp
ort
impr
ovem
ent.
• Bu
dget
hol
ders
’ do
not
rout
inel
y m
onito
r fin
anci
al d
ata.
• Fi
nanc
ial r
epor
ts t
o bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s ar
e irr
egul
ar,
uncl
ear
and
inco
mpl
ete.
Rep
orts
att
ract
a lo
w le
vel o
f scr
utin
y.
• M
anag
ers
do n
ot in
vest
igat
e th
e un
derly
ing
reas
ons
for
maj
or
area
s of
ove
rspe
nd a
nd d
o no
t ta
ke c
orre
ctiv
e ac
tion.
• Pa
rtne
rshi
p ag
reem
ents
are
ent
ered
into
with
out
a cl
ear
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
cos
ts a
nd fi
nanc
ial r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s.
• Lo
w p
riorit
y is
give
n to
the
str
ateg
ic m
anag
emen
t of
risk
s.
• In
form
atio
n sy
stem
s ar
e no
t fit
for
purp
ose
and
not
prop
erly
ut
ilised
by
staf
f. M
anag
ers
lack
acc
urat
e in
form
atio
n fo
r de
liver
ing
and
plan
ning
ser
vice
s an
d ne
gotia
ting
cont
ract
s w
ith fu
ndin
g ag
enci
es.
• T
he o
rgan
isatio
n de
liver
s its
ser
vice
s fr
om b
uild
ings
tha
t ar
e in
poo
r re
pair
and
unfit
for
purp
ose,
with
no
clea
r pl
ans
for
impr
ovin
g th
em. T
his
has
a ne
gativ
e im
pact
on
peop
le w
ho u
se
serv
ices
as
wel
l as
on s
taff
mor
ale.
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
29
TH
EME
4: G
ov
ERN
AN
CE
AR
RA
NG
EMEN
TS
AN
d P
ART
NER
SHIP
Wo
RKI
NG
Thi
s th
eme
look
s at
whe
ther
the
org
anisa
tion
has
effe
ctiv
e go
vern
ance
arr
ange
men
ts. I
t co
nsid
ers
the
role
of b
oard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s in
lead
ing
and
scru
tinisi
ng p
erfo
rman
ce. I
t lo
oks
for
evid
ence
of t
he o
rgan
isatio
n ad
optin
g cr
oss
cutt
ing
appr
oach
es. T
he t
hem
e al
so
cons
ider
s th
e ef
fect
iven
ess
of p
artn
ersh
ip w
orki
ng w
ith r
elev
ant
agen
cies
at
stra
tegi
c an
d lo
cal l
evel
s. It
asks
whe
ther
the
org
anisa
tion
mak
es
appr
opria
te li
nks
with
loca
l com
mun
ities
so
that
peo
ple
usin
g se
rvic
es a
re e
ncou
rage
d an
d su
ppor
ted
to p
artic
ipat
e in
com
mun
ity a
ctiv
ities
.
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(a)
Boar
d m
embe
rs/d
irect
ors
exer
cise
effe
ctiv
e le
ader
ship
and
gov
erna
nce.
• W
hat
evid
ence
do
we
have
tha
t bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s ha
ve a
goo
d un
ders
tand
ing
of o
ur
orga
nisa
tion’
s ac
tiviti
es a
nd r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s?
• W
hat
actio
n ha
ve w
e ta
ken
(e.g
. ind
uctio
n an
d tr
aini
ng fo
r ne
w b
oard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s) t
o m
ake
sure
tha
t th
ey a
re k
now
ledg
eabl
e ab
out
thei
r re
spon
sibili
ties?
• d
o ou
r bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s ha
ve t
he r
ange
of s
kills
nec
essa
ry t
o ru
n ou
r bu
sines
s?
• C
an w
e sh
ow t
hat
recr
uitm
ent
proc
edur
es fo
r bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s co
mpl
y w
ith g
ood
prac
tice
in
our
sect
or? d
o w
e ha
ve s
ucce
ssio
n pl
anni
ng fo
r bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s?
• Is
ther
e a
code
of c
ondu
ct fo
r bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s su
ppor
ted
by w
ritte
n pr
otoc
ols
and
guid
ance
ab
out
thei
r ro
les
and
resp
onsib
ilitie
s?
• d
o w
e ha
ve s
yste
ms
to a
ppra
ise t
he p
erfo
rman
ce o
f boa
rd m
embe
rs/d
irect
ors?
• A
re b
oard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s ac
tive
in le
adin
g ch
ange
in o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n? d
o th
ey t
ake
a le
ad in
m
akin
g su
re w
e ha
ve a
goo
d re
puta
tion
base
d on
ser
vice
qua
lity
and
impr
ovem
ent?
• H
ave
we
crea
ted
oppo
rtun
ities
for
peop
le w
ho u
se s
ervi
ces
and
care
rs t
o ha
ve a
dire
ct in
volv
emen
t in
th
e le
ader
ship
and
gov
erna
nce
of o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n?
• d
o bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s ex
erci
se r
egul
ar s
crut
iny
of p
erfo
rman
ce b
y re
ceiv
ing
accu
rate
and
tim
ely
repo
rts?
do
they
rec
ogni
se g
ood
perf
orm
ance
and
cha
lleng
e m
anag
ers
whe
n ap
prop
riate
?
• d
o w
e ha
ve t
he r
ight
sys
tem
s in
pla
ce t
o en
sure
eth
ical
beh
avio
ur in
all
tran
sact
ions
and
act
iviti
es.
• d
o w
e ha
ve s
yste
ms
in p
lace
to
mak
e su
re t
o m
ake
sure
tha
t th
e or
gani
satio
n m
eets
its
equa
lity
and
dive
rsity
obl
igat
ions
and
pro
mot
es b
est
prac
tice
in r
elat
ion
to e
qual
ity a
nd d
iver
sity?
SEC
TIO
N 5
:Ev
alua
ting
perf
orm
ance
30
Re
com
me
nd
ed
fe
atu
res
th
e e
xte
nt
to w
hic
h:
Se
lf-e
valu
atio
n p
rom
pts
(b)
The
org
anisa
tion
has
enga
ged
with
str
ateg
ic
part
ners
and
form
ed
effe
ctiv
e pa
rtne
rshi
ps w
ith
them
.
• W
hat
are
our
key
part
ners
hips
? do
thes
e in
clud
e ot
her
orga
nisa
tions
in t
he v
olun
tary
and
priv
ate
sect
ors,
and
com
mun
ity o
rgan
isatio
ns a
s w
ell a
s al
l rel
evan
t st
atut
ory
part
ners
?
• Is
ther
e cl
arity
abo
ut t
he le
gal s
tatu
s of
par
tner
ship
s, if
rele
vant
? Can
we
dem
onst
rate
tha
t th
ese
have
ap
prop
riate
gov
erna
nce
arra
ngem
ents
?
• d
o se
nior
man
ager
s m
ake
sure
tha
t th
ere
is a
clea
r ra
tiona
le fo
r pa
rtne
rshi
p ac
tivity
?
• A
re p
artn
ersh
ips
regu
larly
eva
luat
ed a
nd a
djus
ted
to m
ake
them
fit
for
our
orga
nisa
tion’
s pu
rpos
e?
• A
re n
ew o
ppor
tuni
ties
soug
ht t
o fo
rm s
trat
egic
par
tner
ship
s th
at w
ill de
liver
ben
efits
for
peop
le w
ho
use
our
serv
ices
and
sup
port
s?
• C
an w
e sh
ow t
hat
as a
n or
gani
satio
n, w
e re
gula
rly c
onsu
lt ou
r st
rate
gic
part
ners
abo
ut w
hat
is w
orki
ng
wel
l in
the
serv
ices
we
prov
ide,
and
wha
t ne
eds
to c
hang
e?
(c)
The
org
anisa
tion
mak
es
a po
sitiv
e co
ntrib
utio
n to
bu
ildin
g lo
cal p
artn
ersh
ips
and
the
capa
city
of l
ocal
co
mm
uniti
es in
whi
ch
it is
activ
e.
• A
re le
ader
s in
the
org
anisa
tion
pro-
activ
e in
link
ing
with
the
loca
l com
mun
ities
with
in w
hich
it o
pera
tes.
So t
hat
peop
le u
sing
serv
ices
are
enc
oura
ged
and
supp
orte
d to
par
ticip
ate
in c
omm
unity
act
iviti
es.
• d
o w
e ha
ve e
xam
ples
of o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n ac
tivel
y se
ekin
g ou
t op
port
uniti
es t
o de
velo
p pa
rtne
rshi
p w
orki
ng w
here
thi
s w
ill be
nefit
peo
ple
rece
ivin
g ou
r se
rvic
es, o
r im
prov
e th
e ef
ficie
ncy
of t
he
orga
nisa
tion?
• C
an w
e sh
ow t
hat
lead
ers
in o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n m
ake
an a
ppro
pria
te c
ontr
ibut
ion
to p
ublic
eng
agem
ent
in k
eepi
ng w
ith t
he s
cale
of o
ur o
rgan
isatio
n, t
he n
atur
e of
the
ser
vice
s w
e pr
ovid
e an
d ou
r im
pact
on
loca
l com
mun
ities
?
• d
o w
e pr
omot
e pu
blic
aw
aren
ess
and
build
sup
port
in lo
cal c
omm
uniti
es fo
r pe
ople
who
use
our
se
rvic
es a
nd r
equi
re s
uppo
rt w
ithin
the
ir lo
cal a
rea?
• Is
our
orga
nisa
tion
activ
e in
bui
ldin
g co
mm
unity
cap
acity
and
mak
ing
good
use
of l
ocal
com
mun
ity
reso
urce
s (s
uch
as v
olun
teer
s, ca
rers
, bef
riend
ers
etc.)
?
• d
o w
e pr
omot
e st
aff i
nvol
vem
ent
in t
he lo
cal c
omm
uniti
es in
whi
ch w
e op
erat
e?
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
31
Illu
stra
tio
ns
for
th
em
e 4
Ve
ry g
oo
d (
Leve
l 5
)W
eak
(L
eve
l 2)
• T
he o
rgan
isatio
n ha
s so
und
gove
rnan
ce a
rran
gem
ents
in p
lace
an
d fo
llow
s be
st p
ract
ice
whe
n re
crui
ting
boar
d m
embe
rs/
dire
ctor
s.
• Bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s re
ceiv
e in
duct
ion
and
trai
ning
and
ha
ve t
he k
now
ledg
e an
d sk
ills n
eces
sary
to
disc
harg
e th
eir
resp
onsib
ilitie
s
• T
he o
rgan
isatio
n is
outw
ard
look
ing
and
activ
ely
seek
s to
mak
e lin
ks w
ith lo
cal c
omm
uniti
es a
nd o
rgan
isatio
ns.
• Bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s m
ake
a po
sitiv
e co
ntrib
utio
n to
co
ntin
uous
impr
ovem
ent
thro
ugh
scru
tiny
and
chal
leng
e.
• Se
nior
man
ager
s ar
e pr
oact
ive
in e
ngag
ing
with
str
ateg
ic p
artn
ers,
incl
udin
g lo
cal a
utho
ritie
s, th
e N
HS
and
othe
r st
atut
ory
serv
ices
.
• T
here
is e
vide
nce
of in
nova
tion
in p
artn
ersh
ip w
orki
ng t
o m
axim
ise r
esou
rces
and
impr
ove
outc
omes
for
peop
le.
• T
here
are
agr
eed
stra
tegi
c an
d op
erat
iona
l fra
mew
orks
for
all
part
ners
hips
the
org
anisa
tion
ente
rs in
to.
• Bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s an
d se
nior
man
ager
s ar
e ac
tive
in
enco
urag
ing
the
cont
ribut
ion
of lo
cal c
omm
uniti
es a
nd t
his
resu
lts in
goo
d lin
ks w
ith o
ther
loca
l org
anisa
tions
, car
ers,
volu
ntee
rs a
nd b
efrie
nder
s.
• T
he g
over
nanc
e ar
rang
emen
ts o
f the
org
anisa
tion
are
outd
ated
or
not
fit
for
purp
ose.
As
a re
sult,
the
inte
grity
of t
he o
rgan
isatio
n is
com
prom
ised
at b
oard
/dire
ctor
or
seni
or m
anag
emen
t le
vel.
• Bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s ar
e no
t w
ell i
nfor
med
abo
ut t
he
activ
ities
of t
he o
rgan
isatio
n, a
nd c
ritic
al d
ecisi
ons
are
take
n w
ithou
t th
eir
impl
icat
ions
bei
ng a
naly
sed
or u
nder
stoo
d.
• T
he o
rgan
isatio
n la
cks
syst
ems
to m
ake
sure
sen
ior
man
ager
s an
d Bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s ar
e ac
coun
tabl
e fo
r de
cisio
ns t
hey
take
.
• Bo
ard
mem
bers
/dire
ctor
s in
terv
ene
at in
divi
dual
cas
e le
vel a
nd
this
unde
rmin
es a
ppro
ved
polic
ies
and
proc
edur
es a
nd e
rode
s st
aff c
onfid
ence
.
• Se
nior
man
ager
s ar
e no
t w
ell s
ight
ed o
n pa
rtne
rshi
ps a
nd d
o no
t in
vest
tim
e an
d ef
fort
to
mak
e th
em w
ork
wel
l. Pa
rtne
rshi
p op
port
uniti
es a
re m
issed
.
• T
he o
rgan
isatio
n do
es n
ot c
onsis
tent
ly p
ut b
est
inte
rest
s of
pe
ople
who
use
ser
vice
s as
the
par
amou
nt c
onsid
erat
ion
in
deci
sions
tha
t af
fect
ser
vice
pro
visio
n an
d qu
ality
.
• Pa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
ts a
re n
ot w
ell d
efine
d or
agr
eed.
• Se
nior
man
ager
s fo
cus
excl
usiv
ely
on fo
rmal
/pai
d su
ppor
ts a
nd
unde
rest
imat
e th
e po
tent
ial c
ontr
ibut
ion
of lo
cal p
eopl
e an
d co
mm
uniti
es t
o su
ppor
ting
peop
le w
ho r
ecei
ve s
ervi
ces.
APPEnDIcES
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
33
APPENdIx 1W
hat k
ey o
utco
mes
ha
ve w
e ac
hiev
ed?
1. K
ey o
utco
mes
Out
com
es fo
r ad
ults
, ca
rers
, chi
ldre
n an
d fa
mili
es
Perf
orm
ance
aga
inst
na
tiona
l and
loca
l tar
gets
2. Im
pact
on
peop
le
who
use
our
ser
vice
s
Expe
rien
ce o
f ind
ivid
uals
, ch
ildre
n an
d th
eir
pare
nts
and
care
rs
who
use
our
ser
vice
s
3. Im
pact
on
empl
oyee
s
Mot
ivat
ion
and
satis
fact
ion
Empl
oyee
s’ o
wne
rshi
p of
vi
sion
, pol
icy
and
stra
tegy
4. Im
pact
on
the
com
mun
ity
Com
mun
ity p
erce
ptio
n,
unde
rsta
ndin
g an
d in
volv
emen
tIm
pact
on
othe
r st
akeh
olde
rsC
omm
unity
cap
acity
5. D
eliv
ery
of k
ey
proc
esse
s
Acc
ess
to s
ervi
ces
Day
-to-
day
plan
ning
and
re
sour
ce a
lloca
tion
Ass
essm
ent,
care
m
anag
emen
t an
d st
atut
ory
supe
rvis
ion
Ris
k m
anag
emen
t an
d ac
coun
tabi
lity
Pers
onal
ised
app
roac
hes
Incl
usio
n, e
qual
ity a
nd
fair
ness
in s
ervi
ce
deliv
ery
Join
t an
d in
tegr
ated
de
liver
y of
ser
vice
s
6. P
olic
y an
d se
rvic
e de
velo
pmen
t, pl
anni
ng a
nd
perf
orm
ance
man
agem
ent
Dev
elop
men
t of
pol
icy
and
proc
edur
esO
pera
tiona
l and
ser
vice
pl
anni
ngSt
rate
gic
plan
ning
incl
udin
g pa
rtne
rshi
p pl
anni
ngIn
volv
emen
t of
use
rs, c
arer
s an
d ot
her
stak
ehol
ders
Ran
ge a
nd q
ualit
y of
ser
vice
sQ
ualit
y as
sura
nce
and
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t
9. L
eade
rshi
p an
d di
rect
ion
Vis
ion,
val
ues
and
aim
sLe
ader
ship
of p
eopl
eLe
ader
ship
of c
hang
e an
d im
prov
emen
t
10. C
apac
ity fo
r im
prov
emen
t
Glo
bal j
udge
men
t ba
sed
on e
vide
nce
of a
ll ke
y ar
eas,
in p
artic
ular
, ou
tcom
es, i
mpa
cts
and
lead
ersh
ip d
irec
tion
7. M
anag
emen
t an
d su
ppor
t of
em
ploy
ees
Rec
ruitm
ent a
nd r
eten
tion
Empl
oyee
dep
loym
ent
and
team
wor
kD
evel
opm
ent
of e
mpl
oyee
s
8. R
esou
rces
and
cap
acity
bu
ildin
g
Fina
ncia
l man
agem
ent
Res
ourc
e m
anag
emen
tSo
cial
wor
k in
form
atio
n sy
stem
sPa
rtne
rshi
p ar
rang
emen
tsC
omm
issio
ning
arr
ange
men
ts
Wha
t im
pact
hav
e w
e ha
d on
peo
ple
who
use
ou
r ser
vices
and
oth
er
stak
ehol
ders
?H
ow g
ood
is ou
r del
ivery
of
key
pro
cess
es?
How
goo
d is
our
man
agem
ent?
How
goo
d is
our
lead
ersh
ip?
Wha
t is
our c
apac
ity
for i
mpr
ovem
ent?
KEy
6 ke
y qu
estio
ns
10 a
reas
for
eval
uatio
n
Qua
lity
indi
cato
rs
TH
E PE
RFo
RM
AN
CE
IMPR
ov
EMEN
T M
od
EL (
PIM
)
34
APP
END
IX 2
:Li
nks
to s
ourc
e m
ater
ial u
sed
in p
rodu
cing
the
guid
e
LINKS To SoURCE MATERIAL USEd IN PRodUCING THE GUIdE1. The Role of the Chief Social Work Officer (Scottish Government 2009); http://www.
socialworkscotland.org.uk/resources/pub/GuidanceRoleCSWODocMarch2009.pdf
2. Public Service Improvement Framework (PSIF operational Board 2008) & other leadership material and tools (The Improvement Service); http://www.improvementservice.org.uk/public-service-improvement-framework-psif/
3. Social Services Leadership and Management Framework (Scottish Government 2009); http://http://member.goodpractice.net/SS-LIC/Welcome.gp
4. The Future of Public Services in Scotland – Solace (Scotland) Strategy Paper (Solace 2010);http://www.solacescotland.org.uk/webdocuments/SOLACE%20_Scotland_%20Strategy%20Paper%20FINAL%20220210.pdf
5. Leading Improvement – Personal and organisational development (NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement 2005); http://www.clahrc-northwestlondon.nihr.ac.uk/inc/files/documents/improvement-methodology-resources-section/ilg_3.4_leading_improvement.pdf
6. The Leadership Journey & other leadership and governance material and tools(The Improvement Network); http://www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/imp/core/page.do?pageId=1074228
7. Leadership at all levels – leading public sector organisations in an age of austerity. A Deloitte Research paper (deloitte LLP 2010); http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/government-public-sector/index.htm
8. Leading Change in the Public Sector 2010 (Institute of Leadership and Management 2010); http://www.i-l-m.com/downloads/ILM_PS_REP.pdf
9. Inside Top Teams – the research report & other leadership materials and tools(The Improvement and development Agency); http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=1
APPENdIx 2
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
35
APPENdIx 3
THE SIx-PoINT EvALUATIoN SCALE:
Level Definition Description
Level 6 Excellent Excellent or outstanding
Level 5 Very good Major strengths
Level 4 Good Major strengths with some areas for improvement
Level 3 Adequate Strengths just outweigh weaknesses
Level 2 Weak Important weaknesses
Level 1 Unsatisfactory Major weaknesses
An evaluation of ‘excellent’ will apply to provision that is a model of its type:
• Service user outcomes and experiences will be of a very high level.
• An evaluation of ‘excellent’ will represent an outstanding standard of leadership, management, and service delivery that others will aspire to equal and emulate.
• It will imply these very high levels of performance are sustainable and sustained.
An evaluation of ‘very good’ will apply to provision characterised by major strengths:
• There will be very few areas for improvement and any that do exist will not significantly diminish service user outcomes and experiences.
• Evaluations of ‘very good’ will represent a high standard of leadership, management,and service delivery.
• Strengths will completely outweigh weakness, but there will be clear areas where things can get better.
• It is a highly achievable standard that all should attain.
• Services may continue ‘as are’. However, there should be an intention to improve further and aim for excellent services.
An evaluation of ‘good’ will apply to provision characterised by important strengths which, taken together, clearly outweigh any areas for improvement.
• An evaluation of ‘good’ represents a standard of provision in which the strengths have a significant positive impact. Strengths will significantly outweigh weaknesses.
• An evaluation of ‘good’ will apply to performance where significant improvement is possible and where there are important strengths to build upon.
An evaluation of ‘adequate’ will apply to provision characterised by strengths that just outweigh weaknesses:
• An evaluation of ‘adequate’ will indicate that service users have access to a basic levelof provision.
• It represents a standard where the strengths have a positive impact on service users’ outcomes and experiences.
36
APP
END
IX 3
:Th
e six
poi
nt e
valu
atio
n sc
ale
• Most users will experience a competent and professional service, but obvious weaknesses will constrain the overall quality of outcomes and experiences.
• It will indicate that the local authority should take robust action to fix weaknesses while building on its strengths.
An evaluation of ‘weak’ will apply to provision that has some strength, but where there will be important weaknesses:
• In general, an evaluation of ‘weak’ will mean that while there may be some strength, the important weaknesses will diminish the capacity to deliver good outcomes for users.
• It will indicate the need for structured and planned action on the part of the local authority.
An evaluation of ‘unsatisfactory’ will apply when there are major weaknesses in provision in critical aspects:
• This will require urgent investigation of the practices behind this performance and immediate remedial action – particularly where there are clear risks to users or the public arising from the unsatisfactory practice.
taking a closer look atLEA
DER
SHIP
in the voluntary and private social care sectors
37
APPENdIx 4
Self-evaluation Record
Theme 1 Direction
(a) Brief description of current practice
Summary of strengths Areas for improvement
How do you rate performance in this area? 1 2 3 4 5 6
(b)
(c) etc
Overall rating for Theme 1
Rationale for Rating(You should include some comment on how you have weighed strengths and weaknesses in reaching your conclusions about performance on this theme)
Note of evidence available used to support your evaluation (if not already listed above) and any evidence gaps you need to fill at a later stage
Priorities for Action(Include areas of strong performance to be recognised and shared, as well as action needed to improve performance)
SELF-EvALUATIoN RECoRd
© Crown copyright 2011
Alternative formats are available on request from the Social Work Inspection Agency. An electronic version is available along with our contact details on the SWIA website at www.swia.gov.uk and www.scswis.com
APS Group Scotland 149322 (03/11)
