NATIONAL EVALUATION OF THE SUPPORT FOR EXCELLENCE (SfE) PROGRAMME HOST Policy Research, PO Box 144, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1YS Telephone: ; Early findings and success factors Presentation from HOST Policy Research Professor David J Parsons

Early findings and success factors What is it looking at? What is it looking at? Where is the programme at? A state of play review Where is the programme at? A state of play review Where are PRD Groups now (self- assessed maturity)? Where are PRD Groups now (self- assessed maturity)? What helps PRD Groups to work well? What helps PRD Groups to work well?

What is the evaluation looking at? PRD is new, challenging and (for some) radical … it needs a constructively critical review of the lessons emerging to guide better practice through: Reviewing the peer review process, including for: Reviewing the peer review process, including for: –Use as a quality improvement tool –Critical success factors –Effectiveness in validating self-assessment –Integrating FFE into self-assessment Considering the potential to contribute to raised standards as the sector moves towards self-regulation Considering the potential to contribute to raised standards as the sector moves towards self-regulation Assess the impact, sustainability and resource (and skills) needs of PRD Groups Assess the impact, sustainability and resource (and skills) needs of PRD Groups Consider the scope for scaling up PRD activity into a second and third year Consider the scope for scaling up PRD activity into a second and third year Establishing areas for improvement in programme structure and delivery Establishing areas for improvement in programme structure and delivery

Where is the programme at? I: Whats worked well? Just what is the current state of play of the programme – and what has the first year of funding and group formation achieved? Above target recruitment of PRD Groups (129 groups) Above target recruitment of PRD Groups (129 groups) Cross-sector participation mix: Cross-sector participation mix: –45% as FE groups (including VI Form College) –20% as AL groups –18% as private and voluntary sector Building on much of pre-SfE PR activity (31%) Building on much of pre-SfE PR activity (31%) Tapping new provider demand (590 providers) via brokerage Tapping new provider demand (590 providers) via brokerage Wide in-programme commitments to PRD as improvement tool Wide in-programme commitments to PRD as improvement tool Latent overlap with FFE (69 providers) Latent overlap with FFE (69 providers) Significant ongoing investments by providers Significant ongoing investments by providers Capacity building by participant providers (85% self-assessed as effective) Capacity building by participant providers (85% self-assessed as effective)

Where is the programme at? II: Whats worked less well? Consistency of programme co-ordination and communications Consistency of programme co-ordination and communications Funder–provider communications on evolving nature of programme Funder–provider communications on evolving nature of programme Start-up programme bureaucracy and funding release Start-up programme bureaucracy and funding release Resource demands of brokerage model Resource demands of brokerage model Early integration of programme (other stakeholders/QI agendas) Early integration of programme (other stakeholders/QI agendas) Unproven support model for meeting differentiated needs Unproven support model for meeting differentiated needs Lack (as yet) of clear developmental PRD model Lack (as yet) of clear developmental PRD model Lack of clarity on the D agenda Lack of clarity on the D agenda Lack of clarity (yet) on benefits and impact Lack of clarity (yet) on benefits and impact

Where are PRD Groups at?: Achieved capacity SfE providers (% of responding providers) where the group self-assesses what it has in place – mid April 2008

Where are PRD Groups at?: Part II Providers participating in approved groups (% of responding providers) who see group as …

What helps PRD Groups to work well? – Part I What are some of the key success factors for group formation and development which help PRD Groups (and the providers and practitioners that make them up)? Appropriate and committed partners (and reps in them) Appropriate and committed partners (and reps in them) Tangible commitment of executive managers in all partners Tangible commitment of executive managers in all partners Past positive track record of collaborative working Past positive track record of collaborative working Realising centrality of trusted/co-operative group working Realising centrality of trusted/co-operative group working Motivation of PRD manager practitioner members at all levels Motivation of PRD manager practitioner members at all levels Robust, well-resourced, open and trusted group leadership Robust, well-resourced, open and trusted group leadership Integrated action planning of all stages of the PRD process Integrated action planning of all stages of the PRD process Reflective practice at the heart of practice (and structures) Reflective practice at the heart of practice (and structures) Willingness to evaluate and adapt existing processes Willingness to evaluate and adapt existing processes

What helps PRD Groups to work well? - Part II What are some of the key success factors for PRD implementation and operation which help PRD Groups (and the providers and practitioners that make them up?) Effective and appropriate selection and resourcing of managers/reviewers Effective and appropriate selection and resourcing of managers/reviewers Recognising actual or perceived conflicts of interest Recognising actual or perceived conflicts of interest Effective mix of managers/senior practitioners in review teams Effective mix of managers/senior practitioners in review teams Agreed protocols for operation of review and feedback process Agreed protocols for operation of review and feedback process Effective, timely and practical training for reviewers Effective, timely and practical training for reviewers Systematic development of review agendas/briefs/outcomes Systematic development of review agendas/briefs/outcomes Clearly understood review timetables integrating reflection and feedback Clearly understood review timetables integrating reflection and feedback Allocation of time and resources for review hosts Allocation of time and resources for review hosts Clarity and resourcing of an agreed and appropriate dissemination strategy Clarity and resourcing of an agreed and appropriate dissemination strategy