SALFORD’S STRATEGIC DIRECTION OF NEIGHBOURHOODS, PHASE 2
CONNECTING PEOPLE TO OPPORTUNITIES IN NEIGHBOURHOODS
Why is this review important?
The Strategic Direction of Neighbourhoods Review has real potential to place Salford in an exciting position at the cutting edge of the national
debate on several key agendas. This includes the opportunity to combine our approach to narrowing the gap, revitalising democracy and
achieving community cohesion into a single, joined-up approach with the maximum opportunity for success.
It is vital therefore to recognise that answering the question “What’s next for neighbourhood working in Salford?” is not something which affects
only the neighbourhood management service within the council’s Community Health and Social Care Directorate. Nor is it an issue which is
only about “backroom” issues with little relevance to improving the lives of our citizens and the communities in which they live.
Rather, this review must allow us to get to the very heart of understanding the wants and needs of our citizens, customers and communities.
From there, it must allow us to resolve how all departments of the city council and our partners from all sectors can better work together to
improve efficiency and achieve transformational outcomes towards our shared aims of a vibrant city which is welcoming, safe, attractive,
prosperous, healthy and sustainable.
Furthermore, if we can better align our Partnership with the talents, energies and resources of our citizens from all walks of life, and work more
closely with a well-supported third sector, then we should significantly improve the Partnership’s achievement of our LAA delivery targets and
our collective rating under CAA.
These are partnership targets and partnership assessments which will require us to take the city’s partnership and neighbourhood working
arrangements to the next level. In order to achieve this therefore, our “Strategic Direction of Neighbourhoods” review needs to be at the very
heart of our collective way forward, strategically aligned with other key pieces of work including the Salford Strategic Partnership’s Collaborative
Working initiative and the city council’s emerging One Council Action Plan. In essence, we have the opportunity and responsibility here to align
this work towards achieving a true One City approach.
Where are we now? Where are we trying to get to?
The Neighbourhoods Summit report from December 2008 provides a detailed assessment of where we are now, i.e. what the LSP does well
and what we need to improve. But as we make progress together towards a shared set of outcomes, we must ensure that there is clarity and
purpose, anchored around clear objectives in order to avoid abortive effort or conflicting priorities.
In order to achieve these firm foundations, the following toolkit therefore aligns key messages from the Summit with three pieces of recent
national best practice research in order to best inform the key strategic questions




“Where are we trying to get to?”
What does “good” look like? “
“How can we get there?”
“Who needs to do what?”
The three nationally recognised pieces work, which were approved at Leader’s Briefing on August 3rd and are combined here to inform our
emerging vision, are as follows:
1. THE (NANM) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD MANAGEMENT’S “SEVEN KEY INGREDIENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL
NEIGHBOURHOOD WORKING”
2. THE (NEA) NETWORK OF EMPOWERING AUTHORITIES “FRAMEWORK FOR AN IDEAL EMPOWERING AUTHORITY.”
3. THE YOUNG FOUNDATION’S NATIONAL ANALYSIS OF FIFTEEN NEIGHBOURHOOD MANAGEMENT PATHFINDERS.
The following toolkit therefore:

Takes the NANM’s seven Key Ingredients as its section headings,

is populated with many points from the Network of Empowering Authorities Framework,

all considered in relation to the Young Foundation’s recommendations

plus some points which are specific to Salford, arising from the Summit and referencing the One Council Action Plan and other strategic
reviews and programmes.
A series of briefing sessions have been organised for colleagues who have been asked to complete this exercise. It is hoped that you have
been able to attend one of these in order to:



Understand the context of this wide-ranging piece of work
Understand what this exercise is trying to achieve
Understand the “do’s and don’t” around completing the exercise.
If you have been unable to attend the briefing sessions then the speaker’s notes and powerpoint slides are available. The guidance notes to
completing the exercise are included below.
Your contribution is much appreciated. Thank you.
USING THE EVALUATION TOOLKIT – A USERS’ GUIDE

You will see a series of positive statements beneath each of the seven section headings. Each of these statements represents an ideal
scenario. Several of the statements are specific to Salford and the findings of the Neighbourhoods Summit.

There is then a box for you to indicate your assessment of how you think the partnership (not individual agencies) currently performs
against that ideal scenario. In other words, to what extent is that statement currently true in Salford?

In order to ensure consistency and to enable shared “reading” of our collated views, please use the 1-5 scoring system as explained
below.
5
4
3
2
1
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Or
The Partnership does
this very widely and
consistently well.
Or
The Partnership does
this to a good extent
but we could get
better or more
consistent at it.
Neither agree nor
disagree
Or
The Partnership has
some positive
examples but our
record on this is
inconsistent.
Or
The Partnership does
this rarely or poorly.
Or
The Partnership
doesn’t do this at all
or very rarely/very
poorly.

Please provide just one score where several related points are incorporated in the same box.

Please make a definite decision on your chosen score, avoiding non-standard scores such as “3.5” “3/4” “3+” etc.

Whilst the form does ask for your name and role, please be as honest as possible, the exercise is weakened otherwise. Your name is
requested because it is important to see how people’s perceptions relate to where they sit in the structure. Eg what does it tell us if
community reps score low and officers high? Or vice versa?

NB If you do not feel well placed to score or comment on a question or a section, please leave it blank rather than guessing at scores
which would skew the collated picture. Few people will be well placed to comment on everything. Again this is where names are useful.

There is then a box available to add any comments which you may wish to make against each scenario or in relation to your score.

It should not take you very long to complete the exercise with just numbered scores. The exercise gains value however if you could
also add brief written comments. Clearly this will take longer, however it is hoped that colleagues will recognise the importance and
breadth of this review and set aside sufficient time to give us an accurate record of their perspectives as possible. This will be really
useful and much appreciated.
BENCHMARKING - WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT?

We will be asking a wide range of key stakeholders to complete this exercise. This should give us a broad and fair analysis and a sense
of the extent to which we have shared or wide-ranging views. It should also give us a greater degree of collective ownership of the
findings from the exercise.

The separate responses from different parts of the partnership will then be collated into a single document.

We will then consider each of the “ideal scenario” statements according to the score which they achieved. We will pay particular
attention to those points which have been scored at the low levels - 1, 2 or 3.

We will examine those low-scoring points in more detail and consider each in terms of both their “importance” and their “impact”.

The priorities for our developing action plan will then start to emerge from those points which are considered to be of both high
importance and high impact.
Many thanks for your help with this exercise – your contribution is really valuable. For any further discussion of the process or the
issues raised, please feel free to contact Tony Walsh on 0161 793 2804, or Dizy Martin on 0161 2575.
NAME:
ROLE:
ORGANISATION:
1.0
KEY INGREDIENT 1:
A CLEARLY DEFINED NEIGHBOURHOOD
1.1
Councils and LSP partners use common structures, processes and boundaries.
Communities can engage through these at local, area and strategic level, about
things that matter and in ways that make sense to them.
The boundary bears the maximum relationship to local “sense of place”.
Investment is made in enhancing a sense of place and local common goals.
All residents and partner agencies are clear of the geographic boundary and why
it is where it is.
The boundary is of a size best suited to delivering to meet the area’s needs.
All partners are strategically focused, staffed, resourced and able to plan,
consult, engage and deliver to this boundary. (Or to a sub-area for targeted
work, where necessary.)
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
(Although some services will be located outside the area, some will deliver to
areas larger than the defined neighbourhood and some may be delivered from
outside the neighbourhood.)
The area has a name which is widely and consistently used by the public and all
partners.
Investment is made in building relationships between all who live and deliver
services in the area.
We have clarity, agreement and support across the Partnership for:
 A universal neighbourhood management service
 A Community Committee for every area
 The current patch boundaries and sizes
 A “core entitlement” of service levels for all areas
 Enhanced service levels for targeted areas based on need.
SCORE
SCORING: ISSUES, COMMENTS,
RATIONALE
2.0
KEY INGREDIENT 2:
THE INVOLVEMENT OF RESIDENTS
2.1
There is a single, clear and widely shared partnership vision for community
empowerment and its relationship to neighbourhood working and improving
services. Community empowerment policies and strategies are known and
understood by all staff.
Within the overall vision, all partners share standards and clear definitions of
terms such as governance, empowerment, involvement, engagement,
consultation, etc
All stakeholders are clear of the benefits of community empowerment and
neighbourhood working and about what these approaches can deliver.
2,2
2.3
The Partnership recognises that, on the big agendas of health, worklessness,
skills, clean/green/safe etc we cannot achieve transformational outcomes
without, despite or against our communities, only with them. Our communities
and neighbourhoods are therefore seen not as “the problem” but as a big part of
“the solution.”
All partners agree that a whole-partnership, strategic approach to community
engagement and empowerment is therefore actually a key delivery issue.
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Frontline councillors’ community empowerment role is clearly defined and
understood. There is clear understanding that participative democracy can
strengthen representative democracy.
Induction and ongoing development programmes for staff and elected members
have strong neighbourhood and community empowerment themes. These are
accredited and appraised.
There is strong community and third sector involvement at all levels of
partnership working. This is facilitated by well-supported and effective
infrastructure organisations.
All agencies are focused and resourced to lead and/or take part in a joined-up
approach to neighbourhood level community engagement and empowerment
The council and LSP partners have changed their working practices across their
organisation in order to engage effectively with communities, and new working
patterns and behaviours are embedded.
SCORE
SCORING: ISSUES, COMMENTS,
RATIONALE
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
Agencies and communities work together to address problems and make
decisions. These processes are timely, dynamic, creative and inclusive, and not
just passive responses to consultation.
The contributions which community members can make are valued, invited and
supported. Activists and volunteers are provided with the additional skills and
support to allow them to contribute to an appropriate extent and to a level that
they are comfortable within.
The community drives bottom-up community empowerment. Authorities get
involved with community concerns and actions, as well as the other way round –
there is mutual engagement.
Relationships between community committee, other community groups and
statutory agencies are mature enough to deal with the inevitable local
disagreements without these damaging ongoing relationships or wider shared
priorities. There is a culture, supported by terms of reference, behaviours,
relationships, skills etc which anticipates and/or works through these periodic
difficulties in a positive manner.
Communities actively participate in producing and delivering neighbourhood
plans, based on their priorities. Communities are involved in defining priority
outcomes, and the needs and aspirations of citizens are known and acted on.
Ward councillors are actively involved in local engagement structures and
activities. They facilitate dialogue between residents, the council and partners,
and make use of the ‘call for action’ powers.
There is a more vibrant local democracy with communities keen to discuss
issues with councillors and others. Community involvement encourages more
people to take on governance roles and stand for office. Councillors and officers
proactively promote democracy - raising understanding and awareness among
citizens and young people.
Staff and councillors are valued. They are supported to develop relevant
competencies for empowerment, and are encouraged to work with communities.
Frontline staff are empowered to take action to deliver community-defined
outcomes, and have channels to feed back information into their organisation.
There are sufficient, dedicated staff with appropriate skills to support the delivery
of community empowerment and neighbourhood working. These staff may be in
a variety of agencies, co-located or co-managed, but they are working closely
together.
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
All stakeholders understand that communities have different needs, that one-size
does not fit all, and some communities will require more support than others.
People know about the range of opportunities to engage and are encouraged to
take them up.
An increasing and diverse number of residents – including older people and
children and young people – are building their skills, knowledge and confidence
to actively participate and volunteer in their community. They feel that their views
matter and are listened to.
Councillors are adequately resourced to undertake their community
empowerment role and have time to engage with their communities, because the
balance of council work is manageable. Officers help broker relationships
between elected members and communities.
A large proportion of councillors and staff have a high level of community
engagement skills.
Structures allow residents to be consulted and informed at all levels – from the
strategic to the local and specific. Communities co-design policies and services,
are involved in budget decisions and co-produce aspects of services.
Community empowerment is at the heart of decision-making. It informs
strategies, policies, delivery plans and commissioning processes with clear and
understood definitions of what it means.
The council and partners manage risks and change – including structural change
– in relation to community empowerment while encouraging learning and
innovation to flourish.
There is a thriving and well-supported voluntary and community sector –
including infrastructure and anchor organisations, and social enterprises – that
empowers communities.
There are positive examples of community ownership of assets and work in
place to sustain these examples and widen the approach.
There is some devolution of decisions and budgets to enable councillors to play
an active role in local decisions, with strong accountability to local residents.
There are plenty of relevant and accessible events and a range of engagement
activities where people can influence decisions or become actively involved in
shaping and improving their area.
2.30
2.31
2.32
2.33
2.34
2.35
2.36
2.37
2.38
2.39
2.40
2.41
There is proactive community capacity building, based on community
development practice that builds skills, community organisations and networks,
involvement and equality.
Communities are assessing whether priority outcomes for the area have been
delivered. Agencies are transparent about performance and are open and
responsive to a strong degree of local community scrutiny and accountability.
Investment is made in developing the capacity for this.
There is an agreed 'basket of indicators' to measure community empowerment
activity, such as levels of involvement and voter turnout.
There is strong leadership for the principles of cohesion, equality, ‘visible
fairness’ and social justice.
Community empowerment, community cohesion, equalities and human rights
form a ‘golden thread’ through all work with communities, from the sustainable
community strategy right down to sub-ward level.
There is a range of coordinated specific mechanisms for involving diverse
communities. These complement neighbourhood or area-based mechanisms,
using a facilitative approach that does not overburden them.
There is increased involvement of, and influence by, diverse communities –
including new communities and vulnerable and marginalized groups.
The council and partners support a range of community events and activities
which involve people who don’t normally come together. This increases
awareness, understanding and positive interaction.
Agencies are proactive in understanding and dealing constructively with
community tensions and competing demands. They challenge stereotyping
within and between communities.
The council and partners invest in community development support and outreach
to support voluntary and community groups that are led by or represent
vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised groups. These groups are
supported to influence decisions, and are confident to challenge and discuss
difficult issues.
Diverse communities are increasing their access to and take-up of services.
The council, partners and communities are actively learning from good and bad
experiences of community empowerment and through trying out new
approaches.
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
KEY INGREDIENT 3: THE COMMITMENT OF SERVICE PROVIDERS
NB Many points in this section are closely related to those under Key Ingredient
6.
There is a consistent and widely shared approach to neighbourhood working
between all local authority directorates and LSP partners. All partners are clear
at all levels of the importance and benefits of neighbourhood working and
community engagement/empowerment. This is widely demonstrated and reinforced, open to scrutiny and responsive to challenge. Commitment, leadership
and drive for neighbourhood working is evidenced from within service provider
agencies, clearly and firmly aligned with neighbourhood level and Salford
Partnership level governance.
All partners are strategically focused, staffed, resourced and committed to
planning, consulting, engaging and delivering at neighbourhood level. There is
clear alignment between agencies, One Council, the LSP and neighbourhoods –
in terms of priorities, communications, data, training, accountability, etc.
Neighbourhood structures, posts and initiatives are co-funded between LSP
partners – both through their mainstream resources and through pro-active and
imaginative pursuit of external funding. Budgets are matched, pooled and
devolved to neighbourhood level to the optimum degree.
Neighbourhood working – its resources, targets, performance management etc –
is a priority for all the Partnership’s management teams which have built a good
network “from frontline to boardroom” and between organisations at all levels.
Community engagement and empowerment is at the heart of decision making.
See Section 2.
All partners have trained and managed staff to deliver the optimum degree of
neighbourhood working. Roles and job descriptions have been changed where
necessary. Staff are performance managed to deliver at neighbourhood level in
the context of a clear relationship between organisational and neighbourhood
priorities. The optimum levels of resources and decision making are devolved to
neighbourhood staff and structures. There is a commitment to co-locate staff
and to designate local tasking or management to a neighbourhood manager,
where appropriate. See Section 4.
The above approach encourages staff from all partners and disciplines to
develop partnership working skills and to apply for inter-agency posts and
secondments. Inter-agency and cross-sector training and relationship building is
pursued as appropriate. Progression routes for local residents into good quality
SCORE
SCORING: ISSUES, COMMENTS,
RATIONALE
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
partnership training and jobs are clear, well-established and actively promoted
and pursued.
The Partnership’s many priorities and objectives are organised in the best
achievable way in terms of both clarity and effectiveness. This is then reflected
consistently, from the strategic to neighbourhood levels, in the way that action
plans are written, services are structured, governance is arranged, resources are
managed and progress is reported.
There is clarity and shared action regarding the differentiation of service levels
between neighbourhoods and between sub-areas in order to meet partnership
targets around “narrowing the gap.”
Integrated working is at the best achievable level across the partnership.
Shared objectives, consistent approaches, shared intelligence, pooled resources
and joint commissioning are improving both efficiency and outcomes on all
themes.
The Partnership works well to align the priorities of local people with corporate
priorities (LAA, CAA, etc) into a “neighbourhood plan” which can be understood,
led, performance managed and scrutinized locally.
There is however clarity and transparency where, for demonstrable reasons,
some decisions cannot be made or services devolved locally.
4.0
KEY INGREDIENT 4: A DYNAMIC NEIGHBOURHOOD MANAGER WITH
INFLUENCE *
* The NANM guidance on this states: “Crucially someone must be vested with
the authority to take an overview of service delivery, to co-ordinate the activities
of service providers and negotiate for change both locally and at a senior level
on behalf of the neighbourhood. The Neighbourhood Manager will need a team,
whose size and composition should be dictated by local needs…..”
In Salford, debates around this issue also relate to our “Area Co-ordinator” role,
the roles of neighbourhood service leads plus issues, covered in section 5
below, about how local governance - leadership, drive, decision making and
accountability should all be structured.
(NB. Any decision around the future role of neighbourhood managers is
inextricably linked to the buy-in and remit of a wide range of partnership officers.)
SCORE
SCORING: ISSUES, COMMENTS,
RATIONALE
4.2
There is a demonstrable, clear and consistent commitment from all directorates
and partners to structure, resource and manage empowered officers to work at
neighbourhood level.
That is, we have empowered staff to manage any locally held budgets, to be
empowered to make local decisions, to take a lead on thematic pieces of work,
to attend all necessary forums as active partners and to engage effectively with
the community.
4.3
There is a clear and effective role for Area Co-ordinators which both supports
neighbourhood working but also, crucially, takes lessons learned back to senior,
action focused Partnership and One Council forums which can take the
necessary strategic actions around resourcing, commissioning, re-structuring,
aligning, un-blocking, managing political dimensions, etc. Effective feedback is
provided and challenge is encouraged at neighbourhood level.
4.4
For the future role of Neighbourhood Managers we have:
 A clear vision for the role to which all partners are committed.
 The correct level of seniority and/or structural positioning for the posts in
order to deliver the vision.
 A decision on whether the post should be remunerated the same in all
neighbourhoods according to need, experience, staffing levels, targets,
finances, complexity etc.
 A decision on the degree of influence and/or management responsibility
which the Neighbourhood Manager has over neighbourhood-focused
staff from a range of directorates and agencies.
 Clarity around the NM’s responsibility for driving local performance,
leading and/or challenging partners, managing devolved finances, etc.
 Clarity around the NM’s role in relation to that of the Area Co-ordinator.
 Clarity of the NM’s role in relation to specific themes eg Working
Neighbourhoods Teams and in relation to the results of current reviews
including Children’s Services, Environment Directorate, etc.
5.0
KEY INGREDIENT 5: A NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE
5.1
There is trust between communities, third sector organisations and agencies.
This is because they have built relationships, they understand each other’s
perspectives and differences, they have agreed acceptable behaviours, and their
expectations are managed.
Councillors work with the community sector to build strong working relationships.
Citizens know who their local councillors are.
Councillors carry into the council the views of the public and explain the
decisions of the council to the public. Their knowledge of their ward is positively
valued by the council, partners and communities.
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Elected members, residents and third sector partners are actively involved in
scrutinising and driving improvements in service delivery, community
engagement, empowerment and governance.
The following arrangements are all securely in place, well-understood and wellsupported:






The role of Community Committee is clear, as is the role of Chair.
The role of Neighbourhood Partnership Board is clear, functioning well
with consistent attendance by the right level of officers from all
appropriate agencies.
The role of elected councillors is clear in relationship to local leadership
and decision making.
The role of councillors and political executive is therefore clear in relation
to Community Committee and Neighbourhood Partnership Board.
Councillors are skilled in community engagement and empowerment,
understand why this is important and prioritise this. See above.
There is a “golden thread” from neighbourhood structures through Area
Co-ordinators and all partnership staff back into agencies, One Council,
Think Neighbourhoods Board and Salford Strategic Partnership. This is
evidenced by the alignment of job descriptions and roles, plans, priorities,
data, commissioning, reporting, governance, etc.
See also Section 6, below.
SCORE
SCORING: ISSUES, COMMENTS,
RATIONALE
6.0
KEY INGREDIENT 6: SUPPORT FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE
LSP
NB Many points in this section are closely related to those under Key Ingredient
3.
6.1
The local strategic partnership (LSP) is driving the agenda. It is involving the
community to develop the sustainable community strategy and deliver local area
agreement (LAA) priority outcomes.
The principles of neighbourhood working are embedded and address deprivation
and gaps in outcomes, with services bending to meet local needs.
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
Elected Members and partners from all sectors are involved in developing and
implementing the neighbourhoods and community empowerment visions.
There is cross-party support for neighbourhood working and community
empowerment, ensuring sustainability.
Our Strategic Direction of Neighbourhood Working review is fully aligned with the
current Salford Strategic Partnership’s governance review. These combine to
give us a “golden thread” from the top to bottom of the partnership, through
agencies, staff and councillors, into neighbourhoods and back.
Within Salford City Council the Strategic Direction of Neighbourhoods review is
supported by the robust and widely understood implementation of the One
Council Action Plan.
Within Salford City Council we have achieved the optimum structural positioning,
strategic drive and clarity of tasking and decision-making on the neighbourhoods
agenda between currently overlapping roles within the CHSC/Community
Services management structure, Strategic Director of Sustainable
Regeneration, Director of Community Regeneration, Chief Execs Policy and
Improvement team, SSP team in Regeneration and Improvement, Area Coordinator role, Think Neighbourhoods Board, etc.
SCORE
SCORING: ISSUES, COMMENTS,
RATIONALE
7.0
KEY INGREDIENT 7: QUALITY INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE
7.1
There is a good understanding of local communities, based on detailed
community profiles that measure gaps in outcomes, and informed by residents,
members and frontline staff. Important information is gained from engaging with
communities, not just from statistics.
The council and LSP partners use and share good up-to-date information from
and about local communities to inform strategic planning. Partners work
together to share indicator definitions. They collect data in comparable ways –
for example, using coterminous boundaries – and then share it.
Council services and LSP partners join together to share learning and to work in
a coordinated way with their communities. Silo-working is minimised and there is
little duplication.
There is good baseline of qualitative and quantitative data, including national
indicators and bottom-up information. This is then tracked over time to evidence
the impact of neighbourhood working and community involvement activity and
whether outcomes are achieved. Evaluation then feeds back into the business
planning cycle.
Leaders are using consultation, research, intelligence, data and evidence to
drive policy and improvement. There is a strong culture of evaluation and
evidence is used to improve practice. Evaluation takes note of small changes
and softer outcomes, as indicators of direction of travel.
The council and partners can demonstrate service improvements and LAA
delivery successes that have resulted from neighbourhood working and
engaging with communities.
Partners work together to deliver efficiencies in service delivery and community
empowerment activity – for example, a joint engagement database, pooled or
aligned budgets, or a common performance management system.
There is excellent, clear communication between communities and agencies,
using a range of mechanisms including an effective, modern approach to IT.
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
Cost-benefit analysis of neighbourhood working and community engagement
activity is undertaken where appropriate.
There is good, up-to-date information about diverse communities, including new
communities, and differentiated data on their levels of involvement.
SCORE
SCORING: ISSUES, COMMENTS,
RATIONALE
7.11
7.12
There is good, targeted communication with diverse communities. This includes
things such as welcome packs, service information and information on how to
get involved.
Communities receive feedback on service delivery and the impact of their
involvement. They know what has and hasn’t changed or been delivered as a
result and why.
Strategic Director