Working in Partnership

NPQEL

1

This resource provides summaries of relevant articles, research and policy documents which relate to the core elements of the NPQ Executive Leaders ‘Working in Partnership’ module, along with hyperlinks so that colleagues can further explore the content if they wish to do so.

Sustainable improvement in multi-school groups (Department for Education, December 2018)

This recent research from the DfE considers how school improvement providers with strategic responsibility for multiple schools are able to facilitate sustainable school improvement. The research included Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), Teaching School Alliances (TSAs), Federations and Local Authorities (LAs) and aimed to identify what these providers do to facilitate continuous, sustainable school improvement across the schools they work with. The main findings from the research are summarised below:

• The research identified a series of contextual factors which influence how MATs structure and undertake their work on school improvement. These factors include:

• age – in particular, whether the MAT was initiated before or after 2010 (i.e. the year the Academies Act was passed)

• size and growth model – in particular, geographical footprint

Research and policy digest

• context and composition – for example, whether the MAT is made up of primarily sponsored or converter academies

• the phase of the MAT’s schools: while most of the case study MATs included a mix of primary and secondary schools, some were focussed on a single phase

• the beliefs and values of the MAT’s founding leader(s).

• The researchers identified a series of high-level practices across the sample of MATs and federations which they consider to be necessary for sustainable improvement at scale. These practices are not consistently associated with MATs in particular performance bands, although the authors do identify differences in the quality and rigour of different approaches across the sample.

• The report describes two sets of high-level practices: the five school improvement ‘fundamentals’, and the five strategic areas for sustainability.

• The five areas for sustainability are:

• Vision, values, strategy and culture - MAT and federation vision statements are invariably aspirational, but tend to be grounded in quite specific missions aimed at enhancing outcomes for children and schools and at making a reality of social mobility. Central and school-based staff in the majority of MATs and federations could articulate the group’s vision and values. MATs and federations used different approaches to ensure that the vision, mission and values were embedded within their schools. Where the vision and values were understood and subscribed to by staff, there was a sense that this helped to support the development of a shared and high-trust culture. Senior leaders were key to ensuring that the vision and values were communicated and modelled in the daily life of the MAT or federation. MATs and federations were continually reflecting on and developing their approach to school improvement. Most MATs and federations have an explicit school improvement strategy. The majority of MATs and federations standardise or align practices in relation to pupil assessment and data reporting. The majority of MATs and federations are not adopting a standardised approach to curriculum and pedagogy between schools in the group, although many are working to align or standardise practice in some areas.

• People, learning and capacity - Most MATs employ staff on central contracts and many have developed a group-wide approach to performance management. Very few of the case study MATs or federations had an explicit strategy for monitoring or reducing staff workloads, although several argued that the use of common systems and approaches could help save time and reduce workload. Most MATs and federations have developed a strategic approach to the recruitment and development of new teachers. School-based leaders reported that professional learning and development was a significant strength in most MATs and federations. Approaches to identifying and developing leadership potential are broadly similar between different MATs and federations. While many MATs and federations ran their own leadership development programmes, these were always augmented by more personalised approaches that included mentoring, coaching and secondments. Several of the CEOs interviewed were clear that they continued to see themselves as leaders of school improvement, although many found this difficult due to the need to focus on back office, efficiency and growth issues.

• Assessment, curriculum and pedagogy - Assessment practices were mostly standardised or aligned in MATs and federations, with curriculum and pedagogy more likely to be autonomous. Developing a common approach to assessment was somewhat different between phases. In primary schools, the starting point was to develop common Age-Related Expectations (ARE), in particular for English and Maths. In Key Stage 4, the focus was more firmly on assessment, in particular the choice of a single exam board for all schools to follow. In practice, the researchers saw relatively few examples of MATs and federations using

2

3

their scale to offer curriculum enrichment opportunities or to develop all-through approaches to the curriculum. Curriculum standardisation or alignment was more common in secondary than primary.

• Quality assurance and accountability - MAT survey respondents were extremely positive about their use of data, seeing this as an area of strength. In most MATs and federations, it was common for data to be used on a routine basis by central teams and schools to inform their improvement work. This was supported by a culture of transparency, with school performance on different metrics openly compared as a spur to conversations around how to improve. Most of the case study MATs and federations were looking for ways to streamline data collection and reporting processes where appropriate. Most of the case study MATs and federations produced ‘school on a page’-style reports that combined pupil assessment and other data to track performance, monitor risks and hold schools accountable in comparable ways. MAT and federation leaders gathered soft intelligence on their schools, for example through regular visits, which they used to triangulate with other sources of data. MAT core team members and headteachers who responded to the survey were strongly positive about the challenge and support they receive from their trust.

• A sustainable learning organisation – The research evidence indicates that MATs and federations must operate as Learning Organisations as they seek to grow and respond to a rapidly changing external environment. Several MATs had created a ‘standards committee’ below the main board in order to scrutinise school improvement activity, but this picture was not consistent. Related to this was how to get the roles and relationships right between the main board, the executive and Local Governing Bodies. The researchers did encounter examples of MATs and federations using research and evidence to inform improvement work, but such practices were far from common or consistent.

• The five school improvement ‘fundamentals’ are:

• Establish sufficient capacity - MATs and federations emphasised the need to have sufficient internal capacity to support underperforming schools. This capacity might be based in the central team or in schools, but always included credible, experienced leaders who could diagnose a school’s needs and co-ordinate the improvement efforts of the team. Several MATs had applied a rule-of-thumb ratio (such as 3:1 or 4:1) between the schools in their group that were able to offer school improvement capacity and the schools that needed support.

• Analysis of needs - MATs and federations emphasised the need for thorough and precise due diligence of new schools that joined the group, which focussed as much on school improvement as other aspects. This forensic diagnosis provided an initial map for the school improvement support that then needed to be put in place.

• Deploy and support leadership - MATs and federations recognised the need for continuity of leadership at school level in order to lead the process of change, secure baseline expectations, co-ordinate the integration of additional sources of support, and build relationships with staff, parents and pupils in the school. Some used heads of school with executive leadership support, while others appointed experienced leaders to substantive roles.

• Access to effective practice and expertise - The starting point was to focus on pupil progress and raising expectations, particularly in key year groups (i.e. Years 6 and 11). MATs and federations would monitor pupil progress for these groups regularly to determine whether additional targeted interventions were required for particular pupils. Experienced middle leaders would often be deployed to support staff in the new school, providing a range of support, such as teaching, modelling practice and coaching.

• Monitor improvements in outcome - MATs and federations undertook regular reviews of progress in the schools they were supporting. These included reviews of pupil assessment data; informal visits and

periodic formal reviews. These mechanisms informed the allocation of central resources to schools that required additional support.

• TSAs adopt broadly the same five school improvement ‘fundamentals’ in their school-to-school support work as MATs, but they apply them in different ways. The most immediate way in which TSAs support school improvement is through their school-to-school support work and their work to designate and deploy SLEs. However, the wider TSA remit for capacity building, for example in relation to ITT, can also be seen to contribute to sustainable improvement.

Further information can be found: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainable-improvement-in-multi-school-groups

Educating for the modern world (Confederation of British Industry / Pearson, November 2018)

This report from the CBI and Pearson provides a unique insight into employers’ perceptions of our education system. The report shows that employers expect to recruit more people over the coming years but worry there aren’t enough skilled people to fill the vacancies. Four in five businesses plan to maintain or increase their spending on training, but there has been a sharp drop in apprenticeship programmes because of the Apprenticeship Levy. In addition, the number of businesses engaged with schools or colleges is down by almost 10% - something that must be reversed if the education system is to prepare young people for the modern world and work. Some of the key findings from the report of most relevance to schools, MATs and other school collaborations, are summarised below:

• Over two-thirds of employers (70%), rate Literacy and numeracy skills as one of their three most important considerations when recruiting school and college leavers, but almost half (45%) of businesses ranked aptitude and readiness for work as the single most important factor.

• Broader skills such as resilience, communication and problem-solving are also highly important when recruiting, with over half (60%) rating these skills as among their top three priorities.

• While half of businesses (51%) view the qualifications secured by young people as among the top three considerations when recruiting, a large proportion (40%) also value the importance of digital and IT skills.

• The majority of businesses reported that they are satisfied with the academic results and/or qualifications of young people who have applied for jobs during the past 12 months, with fewer than one in ten (9%) reporting dissatisfaction.

• Standards of literacy and numeracy are a cause for concern, with one in four employers (25%) not satisfied, while around two in five businesses are not satisfied with the aptitude and readiness for work of young applicants (44%) and/or broader skills such as communicating and problem-solving (38%).

• In the primary school phase of education, up to age 11, the majority of businesses want to see schools developing pupils’ STEM skills (82% rank this among the top three most important areas for action), together with digital and IT skills and broader skills such as teamwork, creativity and listening (72% and 70% respectively).

• Businesses continue to see these subjects and skills as of central importance during secondary education, but more than half (55%) see raising awareness of career options as among the leading priorities.

4

• To achieve the government’s ambition for a ‘Global Britain’, we have to get language teaching in our schools right, with the major European languages of French (54%), German (51%) and Spanish (50%) most commonly in demand among businesses.

• Links between businesses and schools and colleges are widespread, reported by close to three quarters of participants (72%).

• Those schools and businesses with established links are strengthening them as they gain more experience of their value: the balance of firms increasing their links with primary schools over those reducing them stands at +24%, rising to +43% for those linked with secondary schools and sixth-form colleges and +44% for those linked with FE colleges.

• The leading areas of activity by businesses are providing work experience/site visits (83%), offering information about apprenticeships and traineeships (70%), and giving careers advice and talks (68%).

• Two thirds of respondents (65%) are willing to play a greater role in supporting schools and/or colleges, but they report barriers including inadequate guidance on how to make work experience and other encounters worthwhile for young people (48%) and the difficult, time consuming processes involved around for example health and safety and DBS checks (47%).

The report makes a number of recommendations in relation to schools:

• The government should set up an independent commission or taskforce to engage educators, industry and government in creating a vision for UK education, which would equip learners with the knowledge and skills required for success in work and life.

• The Department for Education should place greater emphasis on “work readiness” behaviours and attributes both in and outside the classroom.

• The Careers and Enterprise Company, in partnership with business organisations, should deliver a high-profile campaign to increase the number of employers engaging in both primary and secondary schools and colleges.

• Education for pupils aged between 14 and 16 should be broad and balanced and provide students with the opportunity to study quality vocational options, as well as gaining core academic knowledge through formal assessment. This should be reflected through the KS4 (non-GCSE) qualification review. This will ensure that young people are able to make better informed decisions at 16, about whether to continue in education, take up an apprenticeship, or go in to full time meaningful employment.

• School accountability measures should reflect the wider benefits to young people of a rich curriculum, and the development of broader behaviours and skills; these should be fully aligned to the new Ofsted Inspection Framework from September 2019.

• Business organisations, like the CBI, must produce more detailed guidance for employers to support their encounters with young people to ensure teachers and employers alike are aware of all the types of business support to schools.

• Given that most business-school connections are made at a local level, government must ensure the Careers and Enterprise Company develops local networks and the infrastructure to support this.

5

• Ofsted should recognise and reward schools which meet the Gatsby Benchmarks to improve career advice given to pupils.

• The government should introduce dedicated careers leaders on the senior team in every school by 2020.

• Make sure that young people have a better understanding of industry by ensuring they have at least one interaction each year with business as they progress through the education system.

Further information can be found: http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/educating-for-the-modern-world/

Setting up school partnerships (Department for Education, November 2018)

This guidance from the DfE aims to encourage schools, MATs and other school groups to build sustainable and reciprocal partnerships with universities, independent schools and selective schools. The guidance aims to help potential partners to set up, formalise and evaluate their partnerships, and includes: a guide to setting up partnerships; a partnership models guide; guidance on how to write a memorandum of understanding; templates; and school partnership case studies.

Further information can be found: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-up-school-partnerships

‘Building external relationships and generating social and professional capital’ (Forum Strategy, October 2018)

This article by Forum Strategy’s CEO, Michael Pain, looks specifically at the importance of building external relationships and generating social and professional capital. Michael suggests that MAT CEOs and leaders need to work towards developing the networks and social capital that can help them develop a generation of confident, happy and successful young people, including by drawing on the time, expertise and resources of others beyond the education system. The reality is biting that in the age of austerity and ever-growing complexity, leadership is about getting along with people, not about money, position or traditional levers. The most successful leaders of the next decade will recognise their role in fostering social capital. This requires school and academy trust leaders (and those in governance positions) to build relationships with communities, businesses, charities and higher education framed within a broad vision for giving their pupils the very best start. Michael suggests, for example, that every MAT should have a ‘living’ list of key stakeholders, and a clear view of why that organisation or person is a key stakeholder and what it is that the relationship should try to achieve. The article provides the following tips for CEOs (and heads) looking to develop new partnerships and ensure their organisations benefit from high social capital:

• Engage your trust board on the importance of external relationships. Make external relationships and how they benefit children and young people’s lives a KPI for organisational success.

• Be clear on the vision and ensure it is compelling enough to bring people with you. This is about securing the health and prosperity of the next generation – everyone cares about that!

6

• Get out there and tell the story! Make a list – with your board and team – of organisations that can help to enhance children’s learning and development; either through broader opportunities, professional expertise, resource and money, or otherwise. Use the media, local networking events, and the internet to make those important links.

• Make it a reality for staff too. You must tell the story and foster the relationships, but staff must deliver on it. The CEO is the champion and the prime networker – but you’ll be overwhelmed if it’s your responsibility to manage the relationships. CEOs that invest time and energy building social capital also risk collaborative overload. Distribute responsibility to your staff (or board members) to manage the day to day relationships. This generation of graduates are particularly inspired to join organisations that are well connected and purposefully collaborate with others around a vision for change.

• Measure success. Be clear about the impact that the relationship is having and if it is contributing to your vision for giving children that healthy and inspiring start to their lives. Survey stakeholders, pupils and staff for their views. Spend time on the relationships that add value, don’t waste time on those that don’t!

• Involve stakeholders in your visioning and strategic planning. When Forum Strategy undertakes visioning sessions with MATs, they are actively encouraged to invite local stakeholders – including business and community groups. The potential for galvanising social capital often proves to be enormous. When that’s done, create an advisory group for those external stakeholders who can add real value to your strategic development, and maybe recruit some of them to the trust board in the process!

Further information can be found: http://www.forumstrategy.org/building-external-relationships-generating-social-and-professional-capital/

‘Collaboration overload is a symptom of a deeper organisational problem’ (Harvard Business Review, March 2017)

This article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) warns against the risks of what the author terms “collaboration overload” – such that the many benefits of collaborative working start to be outweighed by the costs to time and workload. The article suggests that there shouldn’t be a culture of “collaboration for collaboration’s sake” in any organisation, as this can undermine productivity, but that collaborative activity should always be undertaken with its core purpose in mind – so that it benefits rather than hinders the organisation.

Further details can be found: https://hbr.org/2017/03/collaboration-overload-is-a-symptom-of-a-deeper-organizational-problem

Capacity for collaboration? Analysis of school-to-school support in England (National Foundation for Educational Research, July 2017)

This report from the NFER looked at the potential capacity available for collaboration within the maintained school system by identifying and matching underperforming schools and high-performing schools within a set radius. The key findings from the report are summarised below:

• NFER’s analysis shows that there is significant capacity for collaboration available in the system as most

7

schools in need are geographically close to one or more high-performing schools.

• The report identifies 5,677 high-performing schools and 2,511 schools in need across all regions and phases of education.

• There are wide variations in the available capacity for collaboration across phases.

• Primary schools in need have, on average, a much higher number of high-performing schools nearby (9), compared to schools in need in the secondary phase (2).

• There are wide variations in the level of potential support available across the different regions of England, with London having the greatest capacity to collaborate.

• London has the greatest proportion of high-performing schools and the lowest proportion of schools in need across all regions and phases.

• Outside London, the capacity for in-phase support remains positive, although a divide does start to become apparent between the north and south of England.

• Yorkshire and the Humber has the lowest capacity of all regions, with each primary school in need in this region having on average 6 high-performing schools nearby (compared to London’s 18) and each secondary school having on average 1 high-performing school nearby (compared to London’s 5).

• A small number of local authorities have more schools in need than high-performing schools.

• However, in the self-improving system, support need not be limited to within LA boundaries and in a growing number of cases support is provided across them, including via MATs, teaching school alliances, and national and local leaders of education.

• Overall, in nearly a fifth of LAs, each primary school in need has more than 20 high-performing primary schools in close proximity. Conversely, just under one in ten has the same number of primary schools in need as high-performing primaries nearby.

• One in six LAs have secondary schools in need with more than 10 high-performing secondary schools in close proximity. However, almost a third of LAs have at least as many secondary schools in need as high- performing secondary schools nearby.

• Overall, only 1 per cent of all schools (eight per cent of schools in need) do not have any high-performing schools within the distance parameters set by NFER’s analysis.

• The NFER analysis looked at the capacity of the system to pair up schools in need with high-performing schools, but points out that many schools, such as teaching schools and national support schools, are capable of collaborating effectively beyond a one-to-one relationship, and good schools may also prove to be effective sources of support.

• There is potential capacity across the country at all phases except for secondary schools in North-East England, where a few schools in need might remain unpaired (four in NFER’s calculations).

8

The report drew the following conclusions:

• This evidence suggests that there is potential capacity within the self-improving system to support improvement. The number of high-performing schools significantly exceeds the number of schools in need.

• Recommend that this evidence be used to support heads, governing bodies and LAs, highlighting the amount of capacity already within the system.

• The future success of the self-improving system will depend upon governors, trustees and school leaders embracing the opportunities offered by working with colleagues at neighbouring institutions to raise attainment for all young people.

Further information can be found: https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/GRAM01/

Effective school partnerships and collaboration for school improvement: a review of the evidence (Department for Education, October 2015)

This research report considers the evidence as to how developing effective school partnerships and collaboration can contribute to and underpin school improvement. The key findings from the research are summarised below:

• The landscape of inter-school collaboration is complex, encompassing a wide range of different types of collaborative activity both formal and informal (sometimes a combination of both) and involving schools of different phases and types.

• Schools collaborate for a multitude of reasons over different timelines and with varying degrees of success in terms of impact and sustainability.

• The leadership models employed within inter-school collaboration can depend on the nature of the collaborative agreement, and whether it is formal (such as through a multi-academy trust), or informal.

• Much in the same way as leadership, models of shared governance are emerging to accommodate inter- school collaborative arrangements.

• The evidence for direct impact of inter-school collaboration on student outcomes is limited.

• The evidence for indirect impacts of inter-school collaboration on school improvement is more widespread. Many studies report improvements in areas such as staff professional development and career opportunities; sharing good practice and innovation; reductions and realignments in headteacher workload; and organisational and financial efficiency as a consequence of inter-school collaboration.

• Research points to the positive influence of inter-school collaboration on teachers and teaching, with practitioners reporting an increased motivation to engage in professional dialogue with their colleagues, knowledge mobilisation and a general shift towards more learning-oriented and enquiry-based cultures in schools that have been collaborating. There is also evidence of inter-school collaboration facilitating curriculum development and problem-solving.

9

• There are a number of commonalities within the literature with regards to the conditions that foster effective inter-school collaboration, with strong leadership, well-defined and robust structures and processes, a history of collaboration, clear communication, and a sensitivity to context amongst the most commonly cited.

Further information can be found: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/467855/DFE-RR466_-_School_improvement_effective_school_partnerships.pdf

Collaboration: the school leaders’ journey (National Association of Head Teachers, 2016)

This report by the NAHT discusses recent changes to the educational landscape, which have made it more important than ever before for schools to collaborate and develop successful partnerships, including those which go beyond the multi-academy trust model. The report states that, whilst the decision to enter into a formal collaboration of any kind rests with a school’s governing body, it is school leaders who will often be tasked with investigating and taking forward such decisions. The report draws on (anonymised) case studies of six very different collaborations, and presents a literature review of evidence on school collaboration and partnerships. It highlights to schools considering collaboration what works well, along with the potential difficulties that can occur. The review of evidence within the report identified a number of key stages at which important decisions must be made in the move towards a collaborative structure, with some associated questions (summarised below) which school leaders may wish to consider:

• Finding your cluster: • How can you build on your existing relationships with other schools? • How will the location of the schools (local or further afield) affect the way you work together? • Is your cluster big enough to produce economies of scale, but organised in a way to maintain close relationships? • How will you ensure all schools have something to gain? • Could the community benefit from stronger ties across school phases or school types?

• Agreeing your goals: • What expertise will each partner bring and what do you all hope to gain? • Which goals will you prioritise? • What are the parameters of the activity you will undertake to achieve them? • Within what time frame do you want to achieve these goals and how will you measure your success?

• Beginning informally: • Do you have common goals and values? • Do you work well together? • How will you make sure the staff, pupils, governors and community are on board? • What pace of change is right for you? • Who will co-ordinate the day-to-day work of setting up the group?

• Deciding on a partnership structure: • Which collaborative structure will allow you to keep what works well, while benefiting from new advantages? • If joining a trust, do they share your goals and values, both for learners and for staff? • How will you maintain your school’s individual identity? • What will be the scheme of delegation of responsibilities between the accountable body and each member of the trust?

10

• Does the leadership structure need to change, and how will this impact on the way that decisions are made in your school? • To what extent will you combine governance structures? • To what extent will you share finances, and who will oversee this? • What other policies and procedures will you share?

• Ways of working: • How will you structure the collaborative work, e.g. will you have working groups, and how often will they meet? • How will you monitor the performance of schools in the groups? • What will you do if weaknesses are identified?

The report also puts forward the following checklist for collaborative success:

• Do everything at a manageable pace; consider every decision carefully and leave time to consult those impacted such as staff, parents and the wider community.

• Work with schools, individuals and organisations that share your values and vision, both as educators and employers.• Ensure the leadership structure allows strategic leadership and oversight of the group as a whole, as well as strong empowered leadership in each school.

• Identify someone to co-ordinate the partnership, who has the time and resources to invest in the day-to-day work.

• Have a formal agreement about the things you share (like data and finances).

• Get staff, parents and the community on board by sharing information about the new structure early on, in an open and transparent way.

• Agree clear goals and monitor your progress towards them.

• Ensure all schools have parity of esteem within the partnership. Although schools will have differing capacities and expertise, all schools should be expected to contribute something and have something to gain.

• Implement a method of monitoring the progress of the cluster as a whole.

And suggests the following that may be potential barriers:

• The past relationship with the other schools can affect the balance of the group, so be sure to address any perceived inequalities.

• Staff may be worried about changes to terms and conditions; address these concerns early on.

• Changes to the leadership structure may affect the autonomy of the school and your own role. Be clear about who makes the decisions in your school, as well as how decisions are made about the work of the group as a whole.

11

• Relationships outside of the group can easily be neglected. Try to maintain external relationships and remember to look outside of the cluster for best practice too. The cluster should not set itself off from the rest of the world or from other relationships.

• Limiting the collaboration to a narrow goal (like sharing resources) may limit the effectiveness of the relationship. Start with your biggest priority, but aim to work together across a range of goals (some of these can be smaller projects than others).

Further information can be found: https://www.naht.org.uk/_resources/assets/attachment/full/0/82069.pdf

12 steps towards successful cross-sector partnerships (The Partnering Initiative)

This is a really helpful tool (and there are several more which may also be of interest on The Partnership Initiative’s website) which colleagues may wish to make use of when developing not only partnerships within the education sector, but also to guide their thinking on how to approach cross-sector partnership working, in particular to help prepare pupils and students for a rapidly changing society and world of work. The ’12 steps’ are summarised below:

1. Understand the issue to ensure the programme is relevant and sensitive to the problem and the context: What are the major needs? Who are the key stakeholders? How might the partnership fit with existing activities?

2. Know and respect your partners: understand the resources and value they bring, their culture, their specific drivers for engagement, as well as their limitations and internal challenges. And be open and transparent about your own drivers, value and limitations to help build trust.

3. Ensure that all partners have the knowledge and skills around the process of partnering in order to agree principles and co-create the partnership. Specialist, independent partnership facilitators may help take partners more efficiently through the process of building a robust, effective partnership.

4. Identify clear partnership objectives that deliver results and add value to each of the partners. Objectives should have specific measurable goals to allow the partnership to track progress and demonstrate success and value-add to each partner.

5. Start small and scale up to allow partners to develop effective relationships, build up trust, and test and adjust the partnership’s operational and governance arrangements before moving to more ambitious plans.

6. Co-create a partnering agreement that sets out clear roles and responsibilities along with objectives and a governance/decision-making structure that ensures proper accountability and efficient delivery.

7. Build strong institutional commitment to the partnership by identifying the clear value of the partnership to each partner’s priorities, engaging senior champions, and integrating where possible with other partner activities.

8. Ensure the highest standard of project management to support a task-focused approach, with all partners actively engaged in delivering tangible and practical results.

12

9. Embed the highest standards of relationship management to ensure that partners are kept fully engaged and valued, the principles of partnership –equity, transparency, and mutual benefit – are achieved, and that any challenges or issues can be recognised early.

10. Ensure strong communication both within the partnership – contributing to the project and the relationship management – and externally to celebrate success and continue to build buy-in with other stakeholders.

11. Build in ongoing review, including ‘health checks’ to assess the partnership and determine and implement changes that would improve its effectiveness.

12. Plan for the longer term by understanding how the programme (as opposed to the partnership) may be made sustainable or, if designed to be temporary, that the outcomes of the programme are sustained.

Further information can be found: https://thepartneringinitiative.org/tpi-tools/12-steps-towards-successful-cross-sector-partnerships/

13