SAR Subgroup: Feedback to help develop the CIoS SAB existing ways of working

Sent on behalf of Fiona Field; CIoS SAB Independent Chair

Dear Safeguarding Adults Review Subgroup member

I am writing to ask for your feedback as a member of the SAR subgroup about your experience of the Subgroup meetings and your views on how SAB activity is delegated and discharged.

The aim of the survey is to review the effectiveness of the CIoS SAB meeting structure and subgroup Terms of Reference, with a view to developing our existing ways of working. Board members will consider the returns at the Board Development session in January 2023 and consider any changes that will support the effectively planning, development and delivery of strategic priorities and effective multi-agency safeguarding practice in response to local themes and needs. This will enable partners to effectively prioritise and resource Board statutory duties and multi-agency activity across the partnership.

Please complete by Friday 6^th January 2023.

Subgroup Name

Maximum 255 characters

0/255

First and last name (not compulsory)

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

What do you see as the significant value of the group?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

Who leads the work of the group?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

How do you think the work of this group informs or discharges the functions of the wider SAB?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

On a scale of 1-10 (1 very poor, 10 – excellent), how well do the Terms of Reference reflect the activity of the group?

1 (Very Poor)

10 (Excellent)

What themes are you aware that the group has identified or reviewed within the last 12 months?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

To what extent do you feel that the group has achieved the goals set out in the SAB 2019-2024 Business Plan?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

Do you feel the group has the right remit and focus? What would you change?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

10.

What does good look like – how does the group successfully achieve its aims?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

11.

What do you perceive are the main successes and outcomes of the work undertaken in the last 12 months?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

12.

Are the right agencies represented – is membership at the right level?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

13.

Are there any gaps in skills and expertise to progress that activity of the group?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

14.

What do you perceive as the challenges and barriers to subgroup activity?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

15.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 very poor, 10 – excellent), how well do you feel your voice is represented?

1 (Very Poor)

10 (Excellent)

16.

Do you feel all members are clear on their role as representatives of their agency and on behalf of the SAB?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

17.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 very poor, 10 – excellent), how equipped do you feel to fulfil your duties as a member?

1 (Very Poor)

10 (Excellent)

18.

What learning, activity and assurance has your agency progressed or provided as a direct result of the work of this group?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

19.

Do you feel the meetings are the right frequency and duration?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

20.

How would you rate involvement in the groups activity as a positive use of your time on a scale of 1-10 (1 very poor, 10 – excellent)

1 (Very Poor)

10 (Excellent)

21.

Do you have any suggestions about how any of the following elements could work differently to be effective? Chairing arrangements, b) members involvement, c) meeting structure or d) anything else

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

22.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 very poor, 10 – excellent) – how well do the SAB team members (Steph, Martin, Jess) support you as a member?

1 (Very Poor)

10 (Excellent)

23.

Is there anything the team can do differently?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

24.

Do you feel the group works effectively with and informs the other SAB subgroups? How would you structure or administrate the Board subgroups to work more effectively?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

25.

What policies/procedures/guidance do you feel is most relevant to the group? Are they fit for purpose? Are they used consistently and effectively?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

26.

On a scale of 1-10 (1 very poor, 10 – excellent), how effective is the group at making decisions and recommendations?

1 (Very Poor)

10 (Excellent)

27.

What are your thoughts on how effectively key messages, findings, themes and concerns are shared/escalated and responded to?

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000

28.

Any other comments

Maximum 20,000 characters

0/20,000