Agenda item

The Future of Sector Led Improvement: background paper

Minutes:

Councillor Peter Fleming, Chair of the Improvement and Innovation Board, welcomed and thanked the lead member representatives of other LGA boards in attendance. He said he hoped the day would be an important step in the greater collaboration between the boards on sector-led improvement.

 

 

Michael Coughlin, Executive Director of the LGA, provided an overview of the development of sector-led improvement and highlighted some of the key headlines and findings from the evaluation report. Michael asked members to note the background paper provided to support their discussion on the future of sector led improvement.

 

The Heads of the political group offices were invited to give their feedback on sector led improvement. Their statements revealed contrasting viewpoints on how successful the current voluntary form of sector led improvement exemplified by peer challenges have been or whether firmer, tougher measures were required.

 

Phil Swann reiterated the key principles of sector led improvement; Councils are responsible for their own performance and improvement; Councils are primarily accountable to local communities; councils have a collective responsibility for the performance of the sector as a whole and the LGA is to maintain an overview of the performance of the sector in order to identify potential performance challenges and opportunities. With these in mind he asked tables 1-3 to consider;

 

What do we want the improvement landscape to look like?

 

The key themes Members discussed;

·         Improvement as a journey- with the LGA acting as the Bus company

·         Sector led Improvement to ‘Toughen-up’ its approach.

·         The Draughts analogy[JC1]  . Connecting Central Government and citizens??

 

 

Tables 4-6 were asked;

 

-       What support do councils need?

 

The key ideas discussed included;

·         Greater awareness for councils.

·         Increased shared services across sectors.

·         What kind of toolkit is required.

 

Stemming from this, the groups formulated recommended actions on what is required for these suggestions to be realised and voted on their favourite recommendations.

 

Top actions included…..

 


 [JC1]No sure what this tried to express?

Supporting documents: