« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 4
Accountability
We found performance in this area to be very good, with major strengths.
The board operated under clear terms of reference and levels of authority. They were aware
of their levels of responsibility to the organisation and there was a clear separation of roles between paid staff and board members. Board members showed a good knowledge of the range of TPS policies and procedures.
Staff and the board were firmly committed to upholding the TPS core mission of delivering person centred services. Service users and external stakeholders we met during this review gave examples of this commitment. We were provided with strong evidence of how TPS served public benefit through its projects.
Quality management and continuous improvement were high on the board and senior management's agenda. Quality assurance processes were well developed, although elements were yet to be fully embedded into practice in some areas.
The role of the board and its committees
A board is responsible for effectively managing an organisation's resources. The TPS board must ensure that the organisation can meet its charitable objectives through monitoring and approving spending, minimising risk and ensuring legal compliance. We found that all TPS board members took these responsibilities very seriously.
Recruitment to the board sought to ensure a balance of skills and experience between board members. Recruitment was targeted to fill identified gaps. Professional associates were also recruited to fill gaps not filled by general recruitment to the board. Succession planning was part of a comprehensive process both for attracting new members and for office bearers. The board had a chair and vice chair. The chair served for two years and the vice chair would then take over the role and a new vice chair would be appointed. If a chair is unable to complete his or her term, the vice chair would become chair and a new vice chair would be appointed. The treasurer was appointed to serve for a set period and planned successors were trained throughout this.
Clear guidance on the expectations of board members was included in the directors' information packs, along with comprehensive information about the organisation. Information and training on governance had been provided to all board members and financial training was available as appropriate. The induction process was valued by newer members and the recently introduced training on good governance had been appreciated by all board members.
Most (93%) of respondents to our stakeholder questionnaire agreed that TPS annual reports reflected its aims, values and operations and a similar number agreed that they reflected clear financial and governance arrangements. TPS produced comprehensive annual accounts, which were signed off by the chair and vice chair. These were sent to Companies House by the company secretary, after being approved at annual general meetings. We were told by the company secretary that TPS accounts were consistently well presented and accurate.
We were told by the finance manager that financial reporting from services was improving with a more streamlined approach to all aspects of income and expenditure. This process also highlighted any increased funding required to sustain services. Operational managers told us that local authorities were not generally making inflationary increases and it was incumbent on services to meet increasing costs within a relatively static budget. This was challenging for the organisation. Most external stakeholders spoke of good financial controls within the organisation and the ability to discuss and agree finances and service levels.
TPS was considered by external auditors to be more advanced than some other organisations in how they monitored services operating at a deficit and management of risk in this regard. We think that the risk management plan was clear and managed risk at appropriate levels. However, some board members had thought that the budget process could be tighter, particularly in relation to contracts and getting clear financial commitments from local authorities. To address this concern, a new process was introduced whereby any budgets not agreed with the local authority commissioner were reported to the board with updates on how negotiations had been progressing. We comment in a number of SWIA performance inspection reports on gaps in this area and the need to develop positive partnerships between local authorities and the voluntary sector. We think this level of board scrutiny is important.
Purchasers we met told us how they, along with TPS staff, regularly monitored contracts to ensure both that services were delivered in line with service specifications and that they provided good value for money. This also provided TPS with the opportunity to identify good practice and define areas for improvement. Staff held regular meetings with purchasers at different levels. Operational staff met with their equivalents as did managers. The purpose of all these meetings was to keep the partnership under regular review and ensure openness in the relationship.
The chief executive was also proactive in ensuring that local authorities were satisfied with services delivered in their area. Annual meetings had been introduced at a senior level with local authorities to ensure that the CE was aware of any issues in relation to services and future options for commissioning. This was then reported to the board in the CE's written and verbal report. We found that board members appropriately scrutinised these reports and other service reports.
Good practice example |
Annual meetings with purchasers and the chief executive The chief executive proposes to hold annual meetings with senior counterparts in purchasing local authorities. The purpose of these meetings is to provide a strategic review of the service and partnership working. New initiatives and service ideas have emerged from these meetings and have led to positive developments. |
Boards are accountable for the performance of the chief executive ( CE). The CE of TPS was directly supervised by the chair of the board. The CE underwent annual appraisals conducted by the chair and overseen by the vice chair. Two meetings were held annually as part of this process. The CE was expected to demonstrate evidence of achievements over the past year based on set goals. The final meeting would also be used to set out a clear performance plan for the year to come. We think the chief executive was held to account for ensuring goals were achieved. Furthermore and uniquely for the voluntary sector, the CE's salary was performance related and determined by the chair and vice chair, informed by the annual appraisal.
The board members actively participated in the development of policies, for example the absence management policy had been subject to considerable discussion and debate at board level. The introduction of this policy had created some discontent amongst staff. Although many recognised that the increased levels of absence needed to be managed, the process for consultation and implementation had created unhappiness, particularly in areas where sickness was not a problem. Managers needed to be sure that there was a consistent approach to absence management and ensuring board awareness of the issues was important to the policies successful implementation.
A staff conference was held annually to provide organisational training. The chair and vice chair, along with a cross section of staff attended staff conferences. Different staff were given the opportunity to attend each year. Staff were generally very positive about the annual staff conference although some commented that actions identified were not always carried through to completion or changes communicated. The development of the intranet and eBulletin should support improved communication.
Staff and board members we met were clear about the values of the organisation and these were well embedded into practice. We were particularly impressed by the importance given to the involvement of service users and saw how staff members treated service users with respect while supporting them to take on new things. In some areas we heard how service users were involved in open days and staff recruitment. However some services identified difficulties in meaningful involvement of some groups of service users, particularly those who abused substances. The organisation had developed other ways of ensuring their views were heard through new stakeholder processes.
Good practice example |
Involvement of service users We met several service users as part of this review. They told us how helpful TPS had been for them. Many told us about how they had not always been confident speaking in meetings about their service, but with the support of staff they had now been able to do this. They felt they were listened to and respected. |
There was a clear investment in staff development and training. The organisation was accredited by Investors in People and had achieved a Bronze SHAW award. And, the IMPAQT assessment tool had been developed to enable services to report on the service and identify areas for improvement. The tool was a bespoke tool designed for TPS services. We spoke to staff in a range of services, the majority of whom were aware of the tool but many had not taken an active part in completing it.
Board members were encouraged to read about the services before board visits in order to bring them up to date with the emerging issues for that service. Within services they were used to inform the service plan for the forthcoming year. Staff understood the tool and its link to service improvement which was reflected in the planning and training within their service. The areas for improvement informed the agenda for staff and strategy days.
« Previous | Contents | Next »