Alcohol and drugs: partnership delivery framework - 2026

5. Planning, Reporting, and Scrutiny

5.1 Principles for Transparency in Planning and Pro-Active Reporting

To provide truly person-centred care, services must respond promptly and effectively when individuals raise concerns or feel their needs are not being met. It is imperative that those with influence and decision-making power across public service, not only act consistently to compassionately deliver services and rectify such situations, but also proactively and conspicuously demonstrate their leadership in doing so. A human rights-based approach, as articulated in the Charter of Rights for People Affected by Substance Use, requires that services uphold the principles of dignity, participation, and accountability. Those using services must have confidence and trust that, at all levels, decisions are taken in absence of stigma and with their rights, interests, and concerns in mind.

Further, being in receipt of public monies, all partners commissioned to provide such services must be able to demonstrate their reasoned and prudent decisions, delivery, and outcomes, in undertaking their respective statutory or commissioned duties. Accountability for, and the opportunity for scrutiny of, their activity should, as far as possible, be open to the public, as well as those individuals and bodies otherwise enabled or tasked to monitor their activity by statutory means.

With this in mind, the signatories to this Partnership Delivery Framework (PDF) affirm their commitment to improving openness and transparency at all levels of decision making in relation to the delivery of alcohol and drugs treatment, recovery, and wrap-around services. We encourage all partners, at all levels, to engage in the proactive disclosure of:

• Who is responsible for decision-making and planning;
• How they have reached decisions, including evidence considered and deliberated;
• How those decisions will be implemented;
• Who will implement those decisions, and why they have been selected to do so;
• The projected and actual costs of that implementation;
• Who will evaluate that implementation, and why they have been selected to do so; and
• The evaluated evidence, outcomes, and efficacy of that implementation.

The service delivery landscape is complex and multi-layered and this chapter will outline the expectations for reporting, scrutiny, and constructive challenge at each level.

Future Commitment : Establishing a Single Point for Sign-Posting Key Information:

The Scottish Government (SG) will investigate the feasibility of maintaining a single online directory of planning documents and reports, from national and local partners, to better facilitate improved public scrutiny of partners at all levels.

5.2 National Transparency and Scrutiny

The Scottish Government (SG) is responsible for setting the national direction of policy and service delivery in relation to alcohol and drugs and commits to the continued provision of published high-level strategy.

The formulation of that strategy will take place in consultation with service users, service providers, and other relevant partners in the spirit of meaningful, collaborative, co-production and partnership working. The evidence and rationale for that strategy will be made clear and accessible as an integral part of its publication.

The SG will provide specific funding to selected delivery partners to allow national and local implementation of the strategy. These partners may be statutory public services, or third-sector providers, dependent on specific strategic aims and providers’ capacity to deliver against those. The rationale for selecting specific partners will be made clear by the SG and be in accordance with procurement practices and procedures as detailed in the Scottish Public Finance Manual.

Budget decisions of the SG are communicated to the Scottish Parliament and general public at least twice annually, through the standard budget process. Details of allocations and grants to service providers will continue to be formally communicated to recipients and proactively published on the SG website.

The outcomes and priorities of the strategy will inform the primary performance indicators adopted for progress and performance monitoring.

The SG and COSLA will establish and maintain a robust structure for continuous monitoring and reporting on activity and delivery of the strategy through joint governance structures aligned with the wider health and social care reform agenda. Independent scrutiny will continue to be provided by external bodies such as the Scottish Parliament and Audit Scotland.

Self-Assessment Checklist: National Transparency and Scrutiny

The Scottish Government (SG) has consulted upon and published a current high-level national strategy for the delivery of alcohol and drugs services.

The SG has observed proper regulations and procedures in commissioning and funding delivery partners in the implementation of that strategy.

The SG has proactively reported on national progress against the strategy.

The SG has submitted, and responded to, the scrutiny and evaluation of relevant individuals and bodies in respect of any national strategy on alcohol and drugs.

The SG has embedded a human rights-based approach, as articulated in the Charter of Rights for People Affected by Substance Use, including the PANEL Principles of Participation, Accountability, Non-Discrimination and Equality, Empowerment into any national strategy.

5.3 Local Transparency and Scrutiny

The ADP is the vehicle for the formulation of an overarching and holistic local ADP Strategic Plan for the collaborative and connected delivery of alcohol and drugs services. The ADP allows a range of key partners to come together, share their collective intelligence, experience, expertise, and resource, and consequently produce considered and realistic local planning that takes account of national direction, local circumstance and needs assessment, and institutional capacity.

The minimum suggested content of an ADP Strategic Plan is detailed in Annex D of this PDF and the rationale for that content is annotated and explained there.

The ADP is not a legal entity. The ADP Strategic Plan must therefore be finalised and collectively agreed in the first instance by the ADP, and then formally approved severally by those contributing partners with statutory responsibility for delivery and/or commissioning of services – as a minimum, but not limited to:

• The local IA (in its delegated capacity to coordinate and commission alcohol and drugs services on behalf of the NHS Board and LA);
• The local Police Scotland Division; and
• The local Scottish Prison Service Representative (usually a Governor) (where appropriate).

This ensures that accountable partners fully acknowledge, understand, and agree, the commitments that their representatives to the ADP have made as part of the ADP Strategic Plan.

The frequency at which such planning is conducted and published should ideally reflect the duration of any National Strategy. However, to account for local resource planning, potential changes in national or local circumstances, or unforeseen events, the ADP may collectively elect to review or revise their ADP Strategic Plan more frequently, as they see fit.

The IA (usually via the ADP Support Team) will monitor, collate, and contextualise local data in relation to:

• Performance against any national indicators, as defined by the SG;
• Performance against local objectives and proposed outcomes, as detailed in their ADP Strategic Plan.
• Disclosure of associated spend and financial forecasting against both of the above.

ADPs are expected to report formally to their local Chief Officers’ Group (COG) (or equivalent senior governance forum) and to engage with Community Planning Partnerships (CPP) as part of wider public protection and community planning arrangements. This includes providing assurance on delivery risks; escalating unresolved concerns; and supporting collective leadership, strategic planning, workforce development, and data sharing for improvement where alcohol and drug harms intersect with other local priorities. Links with Child Protection Committees and Adult Support and Protection Committees should be established to foster collaborative, multi-agency and multidisciplinary working, and strategic planning on shared concerns, priorities, and improvements.

To reiterate, the ADP is not a legal entity. ADP reporting clearance should therefore mirror that described in the paragraph(s) above detailing accountability for planning.

This ensures that accountable partners fully acknowledge and understand the quality, efficacy, and costs of delivery of commitments that their institutions (and other services that they may have commissioned) have fulfilled under the ADP Strategic Plan.

The frequency at which such reporting is conducted and published should be no less than annual (and in the case of financial reporting, should ideally be compiled quarterly).

Having been approved, the ADP Strategic Plan and any associated reporting should be published and communicated to ADP Members, to any other relevant scrutiny body to which partners are generally accountable, and – as far as possible – to the public for broader scrutiny.

The SG allocates alcohol and drugs services funding, with the expectation that IAs (via ADPs and their Support Teams) integrate these conditions of transparency and reporting, to ensure a degree of compliance and consistency in the capacity to scrutinise delivery at the local/ADP level.

Self-Assessment Checklist: Local Transparency and Scrutiny

The Alcohol and Drug Partnership (ADP) has a Strategic Plan for delivery of identified outcomes which ensures adequate alignment with other aligned strategic plans.

Where local Strategic Plans consciously deviate from national strategy, such decisions, the rationale for them, and the projected outcomes thereof must be explicitly accounted for within the local Strategic Plan(s).

The ADP has embedded a human rights-based approach, as articulated in the Charter of Rights for People Affected by Substance Use, including the PANEL Principles of Participation, Accountability, Non-Discrimination and Equality, and Empowerment into local strategic planning.

The ADP can demonstrate appropriate Governance and Oversight in delivery of the Strategic Plan.

The work of the Integration Authority (IA) and the ADP is aligned, and the Integration Authority (IA) is able to provide formal direction or assurance through its statutory governance routes.

The ADP can demonstrate public money is used to maximum benefit to deliver measurable outcomes for the local population in delivery of the Strategic Plans.

The ADP regularly (at least annually) reports, and publishes reports, in relation to implementation of the strategic plan and associated finances, and shares these with accountable officers.

5.4 Service Level Transparency and Scrutiny

The expectations set out in this section apply equally to statutory services and to commissioned or grant-funded providers. This PDF does not intend to create differential accountability between sectors. Transparency and scrutiny arrangements should be proportionate to public funding, risk, and impact, regardless of organisational form.

Where individual delivery partners have been commissioned to provide certain services, in accordance with their local ADP Strategic Plan, there is an expectation that those partners will consciously adopt a position of proactive transparent accountability for those services.

If the partner institution publishes its own comprehensive strategy (short, medium, or long term), then that strategy should reference the specific commission or contribution that the organisation provides, under any ADP Strategic Plan(s), including:

• The objectives and proposed outcomes from that commissioned work.
• The strategic connections with other aspects of delivery within their remit.
• The disclosure of any associated funding and its origins.

The frequency at which such planning is conducted and published should match either the commissioning period of the overarching ADP Strategic Plan, or the planning cycle of the partner institution, whichever is more frequent.

This ensures that the profile and priority of drug and alcohol services within the commissioned organisation is clear and apparent.

If the partner institution publishes its own reports monitoring or evaluating performance against their comprehensive strategy, then those reports should detail:

• Progress against delivery of any specific commission that the organisation fulfils, under any ADP Strategic Plan(s);
• Any measured outcomes that have been monitored as a result of the commissioned work; and
• Disclosure of associated spend and financial forecasting.

The frequency at which such reporting is conducted and published should be no less than annual (and in the case of financial reporting, should ideally be compiled quarterly).

These plans and reports should proactively be made available to the commissioning IA (ADP Support Team), to any other relevant scrutiny body to which the partner is generally accountable, and, as far as possible, to the public for broader scrutiny.

IAs, ADP Support Teams, and/or relevant commissioning personnel should integrate these conditions of transparency and reporting for commissioned service delivery partners into contract/grant agreements to ensure a degree of compliance and consistency in the capacity to scrutinise delivery at service level.

Self-Assessment Checklist: Service Level Transparency and Scrutiny

The service has a delivery plan for identified commissioned outcomes which ensures adequate alignment with other aligned strategic plans.

Where service delivery plans consciously deviate from national strategy or local Strategic Plan(s), such decisions, the rationale for them, and the projected outcomes thereof must be explicitly accounted for within the local Strategic Plan(s).

The service can demonstrate appropriate governance and oversight in delivery of commissioned outcomes.

The work of the Alcohol and Drug Partnership (ADP) and the service is aligned, and the ADP is able to provide coordinated strategic leadership, challenge and escalation to partners in support of the ADP Strategic Plan.

The service can demonstrate public money is used to maximum benefit to deliver measurable outcomes for the local population in delivery of the commissioned outcomes.

The service proactively publishes or otherwise makes accessible clear information on commissioned activity, outcomes achieved, and associated public spend, proportionate to risk and scale.

5.5 Feedback, Complaints, and Accountable Means of Learning and Improvement

5.5.1 Flagging, Learning, and Improving from Experience

Scottish Learning and Improvement Framework:

Performance and improvement are important components of a well-functioning system; the draft Scottish Learning and Improvement Framework for Adult Social Care Support and Community Health (SLIF) has been developed to provide a robust approach to using data for learning and improvement that moves away from targets and measurement alone.

The SLIF sets out a vision and priorities for improvement that have been agreed across the system based on the outcomes that matter to people. It aims to embed learning and improvement and quality management across the adult social care support, social work and community health system.

Recent work has concentrated on the operationalisation of the SLIF, to move it from a strategic document to a digital tool that can be used in an operational setting. This digital tool will support all professionals and organisations working in adult social care support, social work, and community health to capture intelligence around their improvement activities, and to inform decisions in a way that drives improvements for people.

Initial testing of the operationalised SLIF is due to commence. Once tested and implemented the SLIF will be a way that Alcohol and Drug Partnerships (ADPs) and services can track their improvement journeys.

At a national level, learning should be supported through collaboration between partners and ADPs, drawing on aggregated intelligence, thematic analysis, and shared challenges across areas. This collective learning can inform policy refinement, guidance, and improvement support, and help ensure that systemic issues are identified and addressed consistently rather than repeatedly at local level.

At a local level, ADPs should support partners to use learning from performance information, service user feedback, adverse events, and improvement activity to understand what is working well and where change is needed. This includes facilitating shared reflection across statutory, third sector and community partners, recognising different governance arrangements and organisational remits, while promoting a common improvement ethos.

At the service delivery level, learning should be embedded in day-to-day practice, with providers encouraged and supported to identify issues early, test improvements, and share learning through the ADP. ADPs should help connect this frontline insight to wider local and national learning, ensuring that experience at service level informs improvement activity across the system.

5.5.2 Queries and complaints from service users or the public

A human rights-based approach, as articulated in the Charter of Rights for People Affected by Substance Use, places accountability at its core. This means that individuals should be able to challenge decisions, seek redress, and expect transparency from services and systems. Ensuring clear, accessible complaints procedures is essential to upholding the rights of people affected by substance use and fostering trust in public services.

Clarity in where to direct queries and complaints is key to ensuring that service users’ voices are heard and that appropriate action is taken to prevent or mitigate further harm or detriment. The following outlines the high-level responsibilities, approach, and escalation that may be applied in instances where a query or complaint is submitted.

Queries or complaints directed to a specific service:

• Any commissioned service should have in place a feedback and/or complaints and associated improvements procedure as part of their working practices.
• Any commissioned service should report, at least annually, to IAs, ADP Support Teams, and/or relevant commissioning personnel, on the numbers and general nature of complaints received and processed by their service. This allows the identification of trends and/or need for specific improvement or intervention.
• In instances where the service is unable to satisfy the complainant, the service must signpost the complainant to the relevant commissioning organisations or personnel, to provide a reasonable avenue for escalation and further consideration.
• Complainants should be informed of any alternative complaint routes that may be available to them, such as complaining to inspection bodies where applicable.
• Services delivered by statutory bodies should be processed through the statutory bodies’ existing complaint procedure. Complainants should be informed of the Model Complaint Handling Procedure relevant to their complaint and any escalation routes available to them, including the option to escalate their complaint to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman if they are dissatisfied with the statutory bodies final response.
• IAs, ADP Support Teams, and/or relevant commissioning personnel should integrate these terms as a condition of contract/grant agreements, to ensure a degree of compliance, consistency, and assurance, at the service level.
• Where correspondents or complainants approach individuals or institutions outside of the hierarchy described here to advocate or influence on their behalf (including elected representatives), consideration should be given to whether the relevant correspondence or complaints process is ongoing, and premature intervention and escalation should be avoided where possible.

Queries or complaints directed to the ADP:

• ADPs do not investigate or determine complaints. Responsibility for receiving, handling and responding to complaints rests with the relevant service provider through its established organisational procedures. ADPs may support coordination and signposting to appropriate complaints or advocacy routes, including the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, the Independent National Whistleblowing Officer, the Care Inspectorate, or relevant professional regulators, as appropriate, including where queries or complaints are initially raised with an ADP.
• This section refers to handling correspondence and learning at a system level, not the investigation or determination of service-level complaints.
• ADPs should have in place a feedback and/or complaints and associated improvements procedure as part of their working practices that reflects this.
• ADPs should ensure that information about their feedback and/or complaints procedure is clearly explained, well publicised, and accessible to all service users.
• Where a query or complaint is received in relation to a specific commissioned service, ADPs should investigate whether service level correspondence and complaints procedures have been exhausted before referring to any other body.
• ADPs should incorporate information on the numbers and general nature of complaints escalated to, or directly received, and processed by them, within their published reporting. This allows the identification of trends and/or need for specific improvement or intervention.
• Where correspondents or complainants approach individuals or institutions outside of the hierarchy described here to advocate or influence on their behalf (including elected representatives), consideration should be given to whether the relevant correspondence or complaints process is ongoing and premature intervention and escalation should be avoided where possible.

Queries or complaints directed to the SG:

• The SG will handle correspondence or complaints in accordance with published procedures.
• It should be noted that the SG will not normally intervene in individual complaint cases against a local service, unless their complaint describes or demonstrates a significant or systemic failure.
• The SG will respond to feedback or complaints in relation to national strategy or policy.
• Where a query or complaint is received in relation to a specific commissioned service or ADP, SG officials should investigate whether service and ADP-level correspondence and complaints procedures have been exhausted before proceeding with their own processes or intervention.
• The SG incorporate information on the numbers and general nature of complaints escalated to, or directly received, and processed by them, within their published reporting. This allows the identification of trends and/or need for specific improvement or intervention.

The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman:

• The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) is the final stage for unsatisfied complaints about local authorities, the National Health Service, housing associations, colleges and universities, prisons, most water providers, the SG and its agencies and departments.

Self-Assessment Checklist: Queries and Complaints

There is clarity from all partners in where to direct queries and complaints and the criteria and means for escalation, should remedy prove unsatisfactory.

Trends, themes and learning from complaints and queries are periodically analysed and reported through appropriate governance routes.

Evidence of learning from complaints and queries is used to inform service or system improvement.

5.5.3 Intervention and Escalation Within a Support and Improvement Culture

5.5.3.1 Deviation from The Partnership Delivery Framework (PDF)

This PDF has been written with the intention of providing clarity on the fundamental governance requirements that any organisation engaged in the delivery of services for people affected by problematic use of alcohol and drugs should have in place. With that in mind, care has been taken to ensure that it does not detract from, or restrict, the autonomy and flexibility afforded to partners to put into effect services in ways that best reflect and respond to the evidenced circumstances and needs of those partners and the individuals they serve.

Where local circumstances and subsequent practices in any instance necessarily significantly deviate or differ from the provisions set out in this PDF, it will be for the partner who made the decision to differ or deviate to evidence and justify their reasoning for doing so, and to report on the efficacy and outcomes of their alternative provision for the sake of robust scrutiny and accountability.

5.5.3.2 Deviation from Agreed Strategies

The hierarchy of strategic planning, commissioning, monitoring, and reporting, from the national level, through the local level, to the service level, may allow for a degree of flexibility and autonomy in the application of higher level strategies.

For example, should a local ADP conclude, through needs and resource assessment, and/or other deliberation, that a specific policy initiative or intervention proposed at the national level is not applicable or effective at the local level, then:

• It is for that ADP to make a reasoned and evidenced case to deviate from the national strategy in their proposed ADP Strategic Plan.
• It is for the local IA and other statutory partners to consider that reasoned evidence and either approve or reject the proposed ADP Strategic Plan accordingly.
• It is for that ADP to establish how best to monitor, evaluate, and present for scrutiny the effects and outcomes of the decision to deviate from national strategy.

Further, should a commissioned local Service Delivery Partner, or their commissioning ADP, conclude, through continuing monitoring, and assessment of uptake and outcomes, that the provision of said commissioned initiative or intervention is not having the intended effect, then:

• It is for that Service Delivery Partner, and/or the ADP to make a reasoned and evidenced case to review that commission and alter the ADP Strategic Plan accordingly.
• It is for the local IA and other statutory partners to consider that reasoned evidence and either approve or reject any necessary revisions to the ADP Strategic Plan accordingly.
• It is for that Service Delivery Partner to account for their performance against the original commission and to ensure transparency covering their tenure.
• It is for the ADP to record any decision to recommission and to establish how best to monitor, evaluate, and present for scrutiny the effects and outcomes of the decision to do so.

5.5.3.3 Highlighting/Sharing Good Practice

The SG and COSLA commit to facilitating improved communication and engagement between ADPs as the local coordinating bodies for practical implementation of strategy and delivery. This framework will not prescribe the methods for this in a way that may limit the flexibility or range of solutions that may be applied, but, as a minimum, we will:

• Maintain a contact and liaison function with the ADP Chairs and Coordinators cohorts;
• Maintain a schedule of appropriate engagement events for those cohorts, either facilitated by us, or other partners;
• Continue to examine ways to allow local ADP representatives to better communicate with their counterparts in other localities.

Through facilitating this communication and engagement, the intention is to provide a space that allows for:

• Reciprocal feedback between national and local partners on efficacy and improvement of strategic and operational approaches;
• Open dialogue and facilitated learning on emerging knowledge and understanding of the field; and
• General networking and mutual support amongst the cohorts.

5.5.3.4 Emergency Measures / Enhanced/Collaborative Support

Alcohol-Related Death Reviews should be initiated periodically and overseen by ADPs, working closely with NHS Public Health teams and other statutory and third-sector partners. Reviews should be commissioned using an agreed local approach and resourced appropriately.

Alcohol-related death reviews are expected to follow a public-health, systems-based approach, drawing on both quantitative data and qualitative insight. In the absence of statutory national guidance, local areas should align with expectations set by the SG and refer to practical guidance developed by national partners, including Alcohol Focus Scotland, supported by Public Health Scotland (PHS).

Outputs from reviews should be reported through ADP governance and shared with relevant strategic and planning forums. Findings should inform local alcohol strategies, prevention activity, service design and partnership priorities, supporting continuous improvement and population-level harm reduction.

Drug-Related Death Reviews should be undertaken by ADPs, with arrangements in place to support systematic and timely consideration of each death for learning and improvement. ADPs should have clear local arrangements to invoke reviews in a timely or regular fashion, working with statutory partners including NHS Boards, IAs, Police Scotland and relevant third-sector providers.

There is not currently a single statutory national framework governing the conduct of drug-related death reviews. Local areas are expected to align with relevant expectations set by the SG, alongside analytical and improvement support from PHS and locally agreed multi-agency protocols. Reviews should be conducted on a learning-focused, non-blaming basis, considering system factors, service access, pathways, transitions and missed opportunities for intervention.

Findings and recommendations from alcohol-related and drug-related death reviews should be documented and reported through ADP governance and to Chief Officers Groups or equivalent. Learning must be translated into clear, time-bound improvement actions, informing local planning, commissioning and service improvement, with thematic learning shared where appropriate to support wider system improvement.

Future Commitment : Enhanced National Guidance on Alcohol-Related and Drug Related Death Reviews:

The Scottish Government (SG) commits to provide enhanced national guidance on the consistent and effective conduct of alcohol-related and drug-related deaths reviews. This work is currently being led by Public Health Scotland (PHS) and is being undertaken in parallel with efforts to enhance consistency in learning review practice across those disciplines falling under the remit and consideration of the National Public Protection Leadership Group (NPPLG).

Incident Management Teams (IMTs) are a means of investigating, responding to, and learning from significant adverse events. Responsibility for managing adverse alcohol and/or drug-related events sits primarily with NHS Public Health teams and health protection functions, working in partnership with ADPs, LAs, Police Scotland and relevant third-sector services. NHS Boards are responsible for leading initial assessment and response, with escalation to national partners where incidents are significant, cross-boundary, or present wider population-level risk. The SG and PHS provide strategic oversight, coordination and analytical support where required.

Potential incidents may be identified through routine surveillance, early-warning systems, or intelligence from services and communities. Where there is evidence of a cluster, spike or other unusual pattern of harm, local public health leads may convene a Problem Assessment Group (PAG) or IMT in line with established public-health incident management arrangements. IMTs coordinate information-sharing, risk assessment, communications, harm-reduction responses, and operational actions to mitigate further harm, drawing on national or local partners as required.

For drug-related harms, national arrangements exist to support coordination where incidents exceed local capacity or have national implications. There is no dedicated alcohol-specific national IMT; alcohol-related adverse events are managed through the same mainstream public-health incident management processes.

Incident decisions, actions and outcomes should be recorded and reported through NHS and ADP governance routes, including Chief Officers Groups (COGs) or equivalent. Learning from incidents should inform local improvement activity, service planning and prevention measures, and be shared where appropriate to support regional or national learning.

5.6 Agreement on Public Comms

Complementing the expectations on transparency already described, signatories and partners should, as a priority, collaborate to ensure the free flow of pertinent information on the status and efficacy of service delivery at all times, to ensure accurate and consistent communications to service users and the general public.

At times where there may be burgeoning situations that may affect proper service delivery, partners should work together to ensure timely and effective joint-resolution, and provide clear and consistent messaging via the most effective agreed channels.

Future Commitment : Alcohol and Drug Partnership (ADP) Support Communications and Engagement:

The Scottish Government (SG) and COSLA commit to facilitating improved communication and engagement between ADPs as the local coordinating bodies for practical implementation of strategy and delivery, whilst protecting the autonomy and flexibility of local planning and decision-making.

Self-Assessment Checklist: Flagging, Learning, and Improving From Experience

Mechanisms are in place to identify, flag and share learning from adverse events, near misses, reviews, or emerging risks related to alcohol and drugs harm.

Learning from experience is considered through appropriate Alcohol and Drug Partnership (ADP) or partner governance forums and informs improvement actions.

Where learning has system-wide relevance, it is shared with relevant partners and, where appropriate, nationally.

The ADP can demonstrate Quality Improvement in delivery of outcomes.

Deviation from the terms of this Partnership Delivery Framework (PDF) at a local level is rationalised, agreed, accounted for, and its efficacy reported on.

Deviation from national strategy at a local level is rationalised, agreed, accounted for, and its efficacy reported on.

There is a well-communicated mechanism and timetable for regular and effective engagement between national and local partners.

There is proactive communication between partners to avoid the unnecessary escalation of issues, queries, and complaints and to ensure most effective remedy is achieved either individually or in collaboration.