Responsibility-based models of decision-making, funding and commissioning for alternative provision

The authors undertook research with school, Alternative Provision and local authority leaders in 12 local areas to explore further the different approaches local areas have taken to develop systems of decision-making, funding and commissioning of Alternative Provision, and to explore how these systems work in practice.

  • Theme: Strategic partnership working/leadership and governance
  • Strength: Promising
  • Breadth of Impact: Robust
  • Status: Quality Assured
View & Download Resources

The authors undertook research with school, Alternative Provision and local authority leaders in 12 local areas to explore further the different approaches local areas have taken to develop systems of decision-making, funding and commissioning of Alternative Provision, and to explore how these systems work in practice.

They found that local authority and Alternative Provision leaders found that devolved funding arrangements had the following impacts: a clear vision and purpose for the Alternative Provision system that underpinned day-to-day processes; greater confidence that their Alternative Provision system was fair; appropriate planning and arrangement of placements; transparency about resources; spending in line with available resources; and a broader range of pathways for students.

This grey literature was appraised using a validated checklist. The AACODS checklist provides guidance when dealing with diverse formats of grey literature (Tyndall, 2010). AACODS includes the following items: Authority (who is responsible for the intellectual content) – Accuracy – Coverage (parameters which define the content coverage i.e., reference to a particular population group, or certain type of publication) – Objectivity (identify bias, if it is unstated or unacknowledged) – Date (that confirms relevance of information)- Significance (value judgment in the context of the relevant research area). The checklist can be used for any discipline area and prioritises expert opinion and expertise over source format (Tyndall, 2010).