Financial health of sixth form colleges holds up with belt-tightening

An initial review of the newly published spreadsheet of sixth form college accounts for 2011/12 suggests a sector bracing itself for the storm ahead. Its financial health is bearing up in spite of a funding squeeze. The sector is managing this by reducing its pay bill relative to income.

The median average operating surplus for sixth form colleges has risen to 2.9% of income from 2.8% in the previous two years. Masked by this average there appears to some polarisation – the weak colleges getting weaker and the stronger more than holding their own.  The median operating deficit for the poorest quartile worsened from 0.2% to 0.6%. Meanwhile the median operating surplus for the financially strongest quartile improved from 7.2% to 7.7%.

In 2009/10 staff costs as percentage of income (including contract tuition services) stood at 70.4% for the sixth form college sector. Then in 2010/11 it reduced to 68.8%. By 2011/12 it had fallen to 67.3%. This is well below the regularly quoted benchmark of a pay:income ratio of 70%.

The reduction in the pay:income ratio is partly from pay restraint: pay freezes restrain pay costs even though many staff derive some benefit from increments. In 2011/12 the average pay costs per staff full-time equivalents (FTE) rose by only 1%.

Moreover, the total staff count for the sixth form college sector (as measured by FTEs) reduced by 3%. In 2011/12 the staff count was15,301 – down from 15,766 in the previous year. Part of this reduction was at a cost of £5.4m in staff restructuring costs.

Last week the unions in the higher education sector rejected a 0.5% offer from the employers' side. Maintaining industrial peace in the sixth form sector may be increasingly difficult. This will doubtless complicate the challenge of the funding squeeze.

Academies in the news – or not

It isn’t exactly news that academies have been in the news recently. But it is worth reviewing some of the stories and their significance.

The opponents of the academisation of education will have seized on the financial Notice to Improve issued by the Education Funding Agency to the academy chain E-Act. In the past E-Act had plans to become a "super-chain" running 250academies by 2016. It is no blocked by the EFA from taking on any more – for now. Days after the financial Notice to Improve, E-Act announced that its chief executive Sir Bruce Liddington would be leaving. Liddington was a former leading civil servant at the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

The financial Notice to Improve should be a wake-up call for academies whether standalone or chains. They must take governance and financial management seriously.

Meanwhile the spring has seen interviews for free school projects. A few sixth form academies will probably have been among them. There have been applications from Burnley to Salisbury.

Further down the line is the new Connell Sixth Form College – an academy sponsored by Manchester City as part of an ambitious regeneration project. The Connell academy is intended to meet a demand for new sixth form places but it is located close to well-established and successful sixth form colleges. In the output of the Connell academy’s consultation (pdf available) the complaints of other post-16 providers (who do not benefit from the VAT funding of academies) can be discerned.

What has not been in the news has been the debate among sixth form colleges about seeking academy conversion. Since discussion at the Sixth Form College Forum in the autumn there has not been much talk of this. While conversion appeared to promise the VAT funding enjoyed by academies, it also posed questions about the implications of academy status in terms of loan agreements penalties and formula protection funding. Having said that, some sixth form colleges will have fewer financial problems with academy status and may well succumb to the call of the sirens.

Sixth form colleges at 20

Everyone loves anniversaries. This month it is the golden anniversary of the Beaching Report which shrunk the rail network. Next month it is twenty years since colleges were given their independence.

For colleges these are challenging times. Things are perhaps even more confusing for sixth form college sector.

Even though sixth form colleges have proven themselves to deliver qualityoutcomes and excellent value-for-money, the sector feels unloved. Last autumn the Sixth Form Colleges Forum debated the possibility of a mass conversion toacademy status. (This will never happen – there are too many financial obstacles.) The sector feels that academies get all the limelight while many schools now want to trespass on 16-18 landscape. In the case of sixth form free schools, the two developments combine.

Over the years there has been a steady shrinkage of the sixth form college sector. In 2001 there were over 100. In 2011 there were 95. The numbers carry on going down. On 1 August this year one of the oldestcolleges in the country, Ludlow College, merges into a local General FurtherEducation college.

Financial headwinds will affect sixth form colleges – both the funding squeeze and the competitive environment. While the sector as a whole starts of in fairly robust health some colleges start with greater challenges.

In 2010/11 five sixth form colleges had negative “performance ratios”. This is a measure of financial health which takes operating surplus and adds back the non-cash cost of depreciation. You would expect this always to be comfortably positive although there can be exceptional circumstances. (In one case the college appears to fit in that category.)

Surplus-based measures of financial health do fluctuate. One-off costs and lucky windfalls can distort the picture. A key measure of financial viability is a sustainable relationship between income and pay.

In 2010/11 there were nine sixth form colleges with a pay:income ratio of 75% compared with an average of about 69%. In 2000/1 there were fourteen colleges with such a high ratio – but three of those colleges are no longer around.

All these measures will suffer some turbulence over the next few years – not least with the effects of the 2013/14 funding changes and then the end of the Formula Protection (probably) three years later.

It should be remembered that operating losses and high pay costs can be shouldered for some time where sixth form colleges have been salting away cash-backed reserves.

When, hopefully, the 2011/12 college accounts are published in the next few months, we will see the readiness of sixth form colleges for the next decade.

 

 

Academies and audit committees: where to start with terms of reference

The Academies Financial Handbook issued last week by the Department for Education nudges Academy Trusts (ATs) towards audit committees but allows other committees to incorporate the role of an audit committee into their remits.

The Handbook states:

All ATs must establish either an audit committee or a committee which fulfils the functions of an audit committee (ie it could be an addition to the terms of reference to an existing committee, other than the finance committee, and have an overlapping or fully integrated membership).

The apparent block on combined finance and audit committees may pose a challenge to some ATs. It will not be a surprise who are familiar with audit codes of practice in the college sector.

The audit code of practice introduced for colleges in 2004 (pdf) offers a useful template for setting out the role of an audit committee. Below I have modified its terms of reference to suit an AT:

The Audit Committee will consider matters relating to internal control and auditors. In particular the Committee is to:

• advise the governing body on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Academy Trust’s systems of internal control and its arrangements for risk management, control and governance processes, and securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness (value for money) ;
• review the statement on internal control and make appropriate recommendations to the governing body;
• advise the governing body on the appointment, reappointment, dismissal and remuneration of auditors (both external auditors and internal audit);
• monitor the effectiveness of auditors, including the use of auditor performance indicators;
• ensure effective coordination between auditors;
• ensure that additional services undertaken by the auditors is compatible with the audit independence and objectivity;
• agree the work programme of internal audit including the checking of financial controls, systems, transactions and risks;
• consider the reports of the auditors and, when appropriate, advise the governing body of material controls issues;
• monitor the implementation of agreed audit recommendations;
• ensure that all allegations of fraud and irregularity are appropriately investigated and controls weaknesses addressed;
• recommend the annual financial statements to the governing body for approval
• review the committee’s membership and effectiveness on a annual basis to ensure that it has appropriate skills and relevant experience.

This wording assumes that the Academy Trust refers to its assurance function as internal audit rather than a Responsible Officer. The wording can be tweaked on this and other Academy Trust specifics. Otherwise it can be adopted for a standalone committee or inserted into the terms of reference for another committee.

Internal control and audit committees - the new Academies Financial Handbook

In the past there was a degree of ambiguity about whether academies had to have an audit committee. The 2006 Academies Financial Handbook itself did not require one but it included, as an appendix, a document which did. The 2012 Academies Financial Handbook (AFH) clarifies the situation.

The AFH states the role of the audit committee:

The committee must review the risks to internal financial control at the [academy trust] and must agree a programme of work that will address these risks, inform the statement of internal control and, so far as is possible, provide assurance to the external auditors.

 
The AFH clearly requires that academy trusts (which, of course, includes free schools) must establish “either an audit committee or a committee which fulfils the functions of an audit committee”. Some trusts by virtue of size or nature are expected to have a separately constituted audit committee (i.e. one which does not also function as a finance committee).

Every [academy trust] must have in place a process for independent checking of financial controls, systems, transactions and risks.

Ideally this process should be driven by an audit committee appointed by Governors, but EFA recognises that this may not be a practical position for every [academy trust], especially the smaller ones or ones where there is a limited pool of potential governors to provide the necessary direction. So, EFA has provided for a system which allows some flexibility as to how any particular [academy trust] discharges these requirements.

 All [academy trusts] must establish either an audit committee or a committee which fulfils the functions of an audit committee (i.e. it could be an addition to the terms of reference to an existing committee and have an overlapping or fully integrated membership). The decision will be for Governors and should reflect the size and complexity of the organisation.

EFA's expectations are that that:

All [academy trusts] that are a multi-academy federation must have a dedicated audit committee;

All [academy trusts] with an income of over £10m or capitalised asset value of over £30m should consider having a dedicated audit committee;

All other [academy trusts] may have a dedicated audit committee.

The new Academies Financial Handbook (AFH) moves beyond internal financial controls and risks to internal control more broadly. This makes sense: while financial viability is vital so are other objectives –

The AFH states:

The [academy trust] should have in place sound internal control and risk management processes.

While the AFH talks of internal control and risk, strangely the AFH section on internal control is narrowly focused on matters such as producing annual accounts, preparing contingency plans, obtaining insurance etc.

These things all matter. But tinternal financial control falls short of the concept of internal control developed by the Turnbull Committee for listed companies and adopted by the Treasury for the public sector over a decade ago. "Turnbull" required:

An internal control system encompasses the policies, processes, tasks, behaviours and other aspects of a company that, taken together:

facilitate its effective and efficient operation by enabling it to respond appropriately to significant business, operational, financial, compliance and other risks to achieving the company's objectives. This includes the safeguarding of assets from inappropriate use or from loss and fraud, and ensuring that liabilities are identified and managed;

help ensure the quality of internal and external reporting. This requires the maintenance of proper records and processes that generate a flow of timely, relevant and reliable information from within and outside the organisation;

help ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and also with internal policies with respect to the conduct of business.

If you plug in academy in place of company, that is highly relevant to good governance and management. It is also far more wide-ranging than contingency plans and insurance policies. It is about staff and pupil safety, academic performance, inspection grades, legal compliance, equality and diversity, and many other objectives.

So what should academies be doing if they should be thinking about controls and risks beyond the financial?

Academies need to ensure that audit committee review not only the risks to internal financial control but also the risks to delivery of all critical objectives. In performing that review, they should be directing the Responsible Officer or the internal auditor (or whatever the assurance function is called) to evaluate controls and test controls in those critical areas. At new academies with immature financial processes, much of the work will be around payroll and purchasing. As academies get better established, non-financial systems will get more attention and financial ones less.

The path from local authority control to independence has been trod before. In the 1990s over 400 further education colleges went that way. Many survived. Some lived on within merged institutions. A few merged or closed after failure – sometimes in scandal. For those of us working with colleges then and now, there were lots of interesting case studies and good practice and not-so-good practice.

Audit committees and internal audit contributing (or not) to internal control were part of the reason why colleges succeeded (or not).

"Turnbull" was an issue for colleges then. Now it should be a challenge for academies. Taking the AFH and going further – rigorous review of both financial and non-financial risks with audit committees pushing that agenda.

Academies, Responsible Officers and risks: getting the basics right

Tomorrow is the last working day of August. So the long-promised revised Academies Financial Handbook must be quite imminent as it is due this month for the new financial year. When it does arrive on the DfE website, academies and free schools will need to do some thinking about their assurance arrangements.

In the past academies were given somewhat ambiguous and vague advice on who could be appointed as the Responsible Officer (RO) to give assurance to Governing Bodies on internal financial control. That led to a range of approaches – good practice and not-so-good. Given the rhetoric around freedom as well as common sense, the new Handbook will doubtless formalise that flexibility.

In terms of what ROs did, there was more direction if not prescription. The RO was given a list of Suggested System Control Checks to be done on a quarterly basis (in practice for many academies, termly basis). These will, I suspect, go out the window. What will be in their place?

If the RO is to evolve into something resembling internal audit, the RO’s work will be driven by the risk register. That makes sense - the assurance function for control and risk should be informed by the risk register.

But maybe there is a hitch? Many academies – not only new ones – have in place risk registers that look remarkably like the one in the 2006 Academies Financial Handbook. Using a template is a useful aid but organisations have to think about their own specific risks – not simply the generic ones. They need to rigorously review and objectively assess risks. How many do that?

ROs need to start their work with some attention to risk registers. If ROs have knowledge, understanding and experience when it comes to risk management – as well as common sense – they will add real value as well as ensure that their own testing driven by the risk register addresses real risks.

If academies and their ROs can get their risk registers in shape, they can then progress onto assurance mapping. But that will have to be another blog post.

 

Audits and risks: the new Funding Agreement for sixth form colleges

The Education Funding Agency’s new Funding Agreement for sixth form colleges is a strange beast. It is clearly a slimmed down version of the 2006 Learning and Skills Council’s variant. But in slopping parts off, there seem to be some strange and perhaps unintended consequences.
In the 2006 Financial Memorandum colleges were instructed:

The College must ensure that it has an effective policy of risk management (including appropriate insurance arrangements). The College’s risk management arrangements should consider the key principles given in LSC guidance.

In a far more uncertain and hazardous environment, the 2012 Agreement does not utter a word to sixth form colleges on risk management. As established and largely mature organisations, I would hope they will carry on managing risks and enhance their arrangements.

While the words on risk management are omitted from the 2012 Agreement, oddly the wording on internal remains unchanged. So where the 2006 Memorandum states:

The governing body shall appoint an audit committee and arrange to provide for internal and financial statements audit, including regularity audit, in accordance with the LSC’s Audit Code of Practice and any other directions drawn up and published by the LSC in consultation with colleges. Any mandatory requirements under the LSC Audit Code of Practice shall be a condition of funding under this financial memorandum.

The 2012 Agreement states:

The Governing Body shall appoint an audit committee and arrange to provide for internal and financial statements audit, including regularity audit, in accordance with the Joint Audit Code of Practice and any other directions drawn up and published by the EFA in consultation with SFC. Any mandatory requirements under the Joint Audit Code of Practice shall be a condition of funding under this Funding Agreement.

Some mistake surely?

Only today, the Education Funding Agency reminded sixth form colleges that they did not have to make provisions for internal audit from August 2012. (Of course, any sensible college will await the Agency’s guidance before making use of this new flexibility.)