EMRA published ‘ SSPs – Delivering on their Potential?’ (1MB PDF) in September 2004. This Scrutiny Panel review examined emda’s relationship with the then recently established Strategic Sub-Regional Partnerships (or SSPs).

The Panel consisted of;

Chair Pat Zadora, East Midlands Business Forum

Terry King, Rutland County Council

Ivan Annibal, Lincolnshire Development

Wynne Garnett, Engage East Midlands

Roy Barsley, Nottinghamshire County Council

Hilary Patterson, EMRLGA

The review made 13 recommendations, which are;

RECOMMENDATION 1:

It is an appropriate time for emda to review the SSP model. This is acknowledged by emda. This review should inform the appropriate further development of SSPs and improve effectiveness through a consideration of:

• The form and function of SSPs.
• The best operational model for SSPs.
• The most appropriate geographic coverage of SSPs.
• How to secure appropriate buy-in from partners.

A review should additionally take into account:

• The conclusions and recommendations of this scrutiny review.
• Good practice elsewhere in the regions.
• The results of the emda commissioned review into SSP processes and mechanisms.
• Any changes to the nature of the framework of targets set by central government that emda are responsible for delivering.
• The priorities identified by sub-regional partners.

RECOMMENDATION 2:

emda should review the geographic coverage of SSPs, through a wide consultation with stakeholders, to ensure that the sub-regions that they cover are appropriate to ensuring the recognition and buy-in of key sub-regional partners and the effective discharge of their function. SSPs should be of a sufficient size to enable them to address strategic economic issues.

RECOMMENDATION 3:

emda should develop a plan in consultation with SSPs and sub-regional partners to:

• Establish a mutually supportive relationship between the revision of the RES and the revision or development of Sub Regional Economic Strategies.
• Clarify the roles, responsibilities and time-scales for development of the RES and SRES.
• Build the capacity for SSPs to act as advocates for their sub-region by improving the engagement of sub-regional stakeholders, including LSPs, in the development of sub-regional economic development priorities. To reflect common ownership of sub-regional priorities, the ‘sign-up’ of partners should be secured prior to their adoption by SSPs.
• Formalise SSP consultation with their key stakeholders, particularly LSPs, through the development of a consultative network that, for example, includes an obligation for formal bi-annual consultation.
• In conjunction with SSPs, develop a set of protocols setting down how SSPs should engage in the revision of the RES. Where the RES specifically refers to sub-regional issues, emda should look for these to be endorsed by the SSPs. This relies upon SSPs being representative of their sub-region.

RECOMMENDATION 4:

To support SSPs in developing a better strategic focus and an effective partnership base, emda should develop and publish revised written guidance to assist SSPs to provide sub-regional strategic direction through their role as ‘wholesalers’, rather than ‘retailers’, of economic development.

RECOMMENDATION 5:

To clarify, in partnership with SSPs, and publish a clear method for determining what is a sub-regional project and what is a regional project, based on criteria of strategic impact.

RECOMMENDATION 6:

emda should develop a plan to devolve greater strategic freedom and responsibility to SSPs that includes:

• Greater discretion in setting strategic objectives, according to sub-regional priorities
• Greater discretion about the projects SSPs choose to support
• Less frequent and rigid reporting procedures
• More encouragement for innovative approaches
• More significant delegation of funds
• Longer and more realistic programme timescales in accordance with:
• The scope of emda’s contract with government.
• The capability and capacity of each SSP, in particular the extent of partnership ‘buy-in’ to the SSP.
• The SSP’s commitment to address sustainable development issues.
• The implementation of more robust corporate governance procedures (see below).

RECOMMENDATION 7:

In order to build the confidence of partners in the robustness of SSPs’ decision making, emda should develop and publish clear guidance on:

• Criteria for the selection of Board directors, including the provision of clear ‘job and person’ specifications’ for the appointment of directors.
• Length of tenure for Board Membership.
• Declaration of interest by Board Members.
• Evidencing decisions, especially over funding.
• Developing a single corporate model, informed by a risk assessment.

RECOMMENDATION 8:

Recognising the steps already taken by emda, and linked to Recommendation 6 above, emda should develop and publish a plan to give SSPs greater financial freedoms and flexibilities, including longer term planning/project delivery horizons, to encourage greater partner buy-in and bending of mainstream programmes and other funding. To address capacity limitations, it should also identify resources, financial or otherwise, that may arise from efficiency savings made by the alignment or transfer of activities.

RECOMMENDATION 9:

To improve the effectiveness of SSPs, emda should lead a process of negotiation with key sub-regional partners to develop, publish and implement a model for SSPs that enables partners to have greater buy-in and strategic ownership whilst providing targeted capacity building to improve the engagement of partners that find it difficult to fully represent their sub-regional sector. emda should also support each SSP to jointly develop and agree with sub-regional partners a holistic annual sub-regional business plan that covers not just their funded activities but also the interests and economic development activities of other partners. The business plan should further consider the core costs of each SSP, including levels of partner funding, as a key issue.

RECOMMENDATION 10:

SSPs and all LSPs should be supported to improve their engagement and the effectiveness of joint working. There is a clear role for their ‘sponsoring organisations’, emda and GOEM, to develop and publish clear guidance and operational support on how they may better work together in addition to that already provided to date. This should be based around principles which acknowledge a diverse approach to activities, local discretion and the need for an equal relationship around joint working. Following the completion of draft guidance, detailed consultation should be undertaken. GOEM could lead this work as an ‘honest’ broker.

RECOMMENDATION 11:

SSPs need to be able to communicate more effectively with their sub-region, as well as with each other, in order to share good practice and resolve common issues. It is recommended that communication relating to SSP activity is improved through the development of networks and the systematic development of communication strategies.

RECOMMENDATION 12:

emda should develop learning mechanisms, both between and within SSPs, and between Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), to enable the sharing of good practice within a structured framework. emda should consult on and publish proposals to support the development of a formal programme of induction and training for SSP Board members and staff. This could ideally be developed in partnership with Regeneration East Midlands (REM).

RECOMMENDATION 13:

emda should lead a process of negotiation with key sub-regional partners to develop and publish a vision for the future of SSPs based on enhanced partnership and greater effectiveness. Such a process should look to facilitate a structured and co-ordinated input from Local Authorities whilst ensuring balanced ‘ownership’ of SSPs by all key partners.

At the time that the SSP Review was published, in September 2004, the Regional Scrutiny Protocol did not clarify how emda and EMRA should work together to monitor the implementation of review findings. The Regional Scrutiny Board therefore undertook to review the extent to which emda and partners are acting upon the recommendations of its scrutiny review after a period of nine months. Consequently, Pat Zadora led a ‘mini review’ that evaluated emda’s implementation of the findings of the original review. The follow-up review was published in July 2005. It was agreed that this would be sufficient time to allow for emda, SSPs and other partners, to act upon the recommendations. The follow-up review (220KB PDF) recommended a number of key steps that emda should take to implement the findings of the original review.

emda shared an updated response to the SSP Scrutiny Review with the Assembly in July 2005.

emda shared a final report progress (50KB PDF) in implementing the recommendations of the SSP Scrutiny Review with the RSB in June 2006.