EFA tweaks fraud reporting requirements for academies

In the New Year academies may not have noticed a subtle change in the Education Funding Agency’s requirements for fraud reporting.

The Academies Financial Handbook in para 3.9.2 still states:

All instances of fraud or theft committed against the trust, whether by employees or trustees or third parties, above £5,000 must be reported by the trust to the EFA. Any unusual or systematic fraud, regardless of value, must also be reported.

But in January the EFA decided to change the requirements for fraud as they affecting the 16-19 bursary fund and noted on its website:

We have reviewed the advice given to institutions on the threshold for reporting cases of significant fraud to the EFA. The threshold has now been reduced from £5000 to £1200 to reflect the amounts of funds that institutions typically pay to students. Institutions must now report any suspected 16 to 19 bursary frauds of £1200+ to the EFA.

All academies should have fraud policies (as well as whistleblowing policies and fraud response plans). They (and other 16-19 provider) need to make sure their next update of their fraud policies reflects this lower threshold.

More than invoices: the investigation report at the King’s Science Academy should raise more questions

The free schools programme was again in the news on Friday with the Newsnight report into the Kings Science Academy in Bradford. Likewise Saturday’s newspapers asked whether there had been a “cover-up” of the findings of an Education Funding Agency audit report (pdf of the report available here).

While most of the media coverage was about allegedly misclaimed funding (so-called “false invoices”) and the repayment of about £70,000 by the project to the Department for Education, the Education Funding Agency audit report was far more wide-ranging in its scrutiny of governance and financial management at the free school.

The report identified that business interests did not appear to be declared when they should have been:

•  [redacted] (a Director) is the brother of the Principal, [redacted] ;
•  [redacted] and [redacted], the former FD, have links with the company [redacted] , used by the Academy to engage [redacted];
• [redacted] has a number of family members working for the Academy and a brother who is a member of the GB;
• The links with the [redacted] – who leased the land and [redacted]  role as [redacted].

Maybe these connections were not evidence of cronyism. But transparency becomes especially vital when situations are complicated.

There were also significant blurring of roles. A former Chair was acting as a “benefactor/advisor” which had no legal standing and effectively duplicated the Chair’s role of overseeing governance. The Companies House entries for the company were out-of-date with year old changes in directorships not being shown.

In the fields of personnel and procurement, there appeared to be weaknesses.

The report goes beyond matters of compliance and procedure. More generally, it found that the directors were failing to perform key elements of their governance role:

The lack of understanding of responsibilities and the experience of running a school resulted in an acceptance of the way the GB was being run (e.g. no notice of meetings, lack of adequate minutes etc. already raised by the [redacted] review and the FMGE validation). In relation to the finance area in particular there was no challenge where the lack of expected reports such as management accounts and balance sheets was not being presented to the GB, which are important for understanding the Academy’s finances and for monitoring financial health.

These are serious failings. Let us hope that this was a unique failure of governance at an academy. Perhaps it isn’t.

The National Audit Office on risks in academies

Over the summer the National Audit Office published guidance to the external auditors of academies. The guidance, NAO Communication with academy auditors 2013, has been issued as the academies are consolidated into the “group accounts” of the Department for Education – so academy auditors are auditing parts of the DfE.

The guidance will be fascinating for audit anoraks. It will also be of interest to anyone many others including principals, senior managers, governors and ROs/internal auditors. The short guide highlights what the auditors at the NAO worry about.

We … consider, because of the number and variety of providers, there is an inherent risk that across the academies sector there could be material or systemic irregularity, which may be heightened in newly converted academies. Particular areas of concern include:

• Approval from the Secretary of State not being sought for certain transactions above delegated authorities, outlined in the academies financial handbook;
• Fraud or misappropriation of funds, especially at the Trust level in a multi academy trust; and
• The increasing risk that academies with long standing deficits may become insolvent.

Fraud and insolvency are of wider public interest too.

In terms of regularity (i.e. income and expenditure being applied, in all material respects, for the purposes intended by Parliament), the NAO advise:

• There are a number of themes which the auditor should consider when identifying the risk of irregularity. These themes include:
• Misuse of funds by head teachers (i.e. using academy funds for personal gain);
• Governance at multi academy trusts (i.e. oversight of activities of individual academies, or weak controls at the trust level)
• Weaknesses in procurement (i.e. non-compliance with EU procurement rules, or employment/contracting with related parties)

Clearly audit and assurance are vital to keeping academies on the right track – and spotting problems if they do start to go off the rails.

Hope for sixth form colleges on VAT? Or just a little more honesty?

Today’s Guardian online and tomorrow’s paper carries an article about sixth form colleges: overachieving but underfunded by Harry White. The piece highlighted the funding inequities suffered by SFCs.

The article included a quote from a Department for Education spokesperson:

Colleges are treated differently to schools when it comes to VAT because of their legal status. We are looking into whether funding arrangements should be reviewed to take this into account.

Basically that recognises that SFC bear VAT on their purchases whereas schools do not.

This contrasts with the Treasury minister David Gauke in Parliament in May this year:

There are no plans to allow sixth form colleges to waive VAT on purchases. They ar required to pay VAT on their purchases, in common with everyone else. The basic funding principle for sixth form colleges is that these VAT costs are taken into account as part of the up-front funding allocation.

I am not expecting any U-turn but there is now a more honest appraisal of the situation coming out of the Department for Education.

A revised Academies Financial Handbook from September 2013

The Education Funding Agency at the Department for Education have published a revised version of the Academies Financial Handbook (pdf here). These Handbooks are like buses: you wait patiently for six year then two come along in less than 12 months.

The Handbook applies from September. As with the previous version, it applies to free schools and UTCs - which are both types of school constituted as academies.The DfE have usefully issued a companion At A Glance guide (the pdf is tricky to find but it is here). The Handbook is largely unchanged from the 2012. The At A Glance guide highlights the following changes:

• improved information relating to the interlocking roles of trustees, directors and governors;
• additional information on the role of the accounting officer;
• clarification of the delegated limit for academy trusts to make staff severance payments;
• clarification and relaxation of the delegated limits for trusts to dispose of fixed assets;
• clarification and relaxation of the delegated limits for trusts to take up and grant leases;
• additional information about Financial Notices to Improve;
• emphasis of academy trusts’ duties in relation to payments to trustees;
• decoupling of the annual value for money statement (announced in the 2012 Handbook) from academy trusts’ annual accounts, and replacement with a separate return;
• introduction of the option for a multi-academy trust to pool its GAG to meet costs at any of its academies;
• emphasis of academy trusts’ duties in relation to services provided by sponsors;
• a change to the criteria for establishing an audit committee so that it focuses on the size, rather than the type, of academy trust;
• confirmation that the appointment of a responsible officer is not mandatory;
• the introduction of an annex summarising the requirements in the Handbook;
• changes to formatting and cross-referencing, and the use of a navigation pane so that it is easier to move between key topics.

Interesting the U-turn on finance committees not acting as audit committees is formally incorporated into the Handbook. This is not highlighted in the At A Glance guide.

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.

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.)

The Public Accounts Committee report on the oversight of schools – and changes in the regulation of academies

It has been good to see that Friday’s report on oversight and accountability for the schools sector by the House of Common’s Public Accounts Committee got some media coverage even if it was a little under-analysed.

For those who did not see the reports on the BBC or elsewhere, these were the main findings:

1.  The Department for Education's draft Accountability System Statement (the Statement) describes arrangements for providing assurance on regularity and propriety, but does not provide us with assurances that the systems being established will achieve value for money across the sector.

2.  Much of the Department's assurance on regularity, propriety and value for money comes through oversight by other bodies which are subject to major resource pressures.

3.  The Department is relying on the availability of transparent, comparable information to drive value for money across the schools sector. However, incomplete and inconsistent data currently make it difficult to compare all schools on their academic performance, funding received, and use of resources.

4.  Governing bodies are central to effective oversight of all schools, but the quality of governance varies. We are concerned that weak governance in some schools is leading to inadequate scrutiny of, and challenge to, school leadership.

5.  We are concerned about the Department's ability to pick up warning signs of improper spending or poor value for money for the taxpayer. It is not clear whether existing monitoring and accountability mechanisms do enough to flag up concerns that should be investigated.

6.  The Department has only a limited understanding of why some local authority maintained schools are persistently in deficit or surplus.

It is inevitable after the Priory report that the regulation of academies will draw attention – as seen in BBC coverage.

By 2015 almost all secondaries and many primaries will be academies. Will the DFE have the resources to regulate this sector?

The report noted:

the YPLA [sic] will have to oversee growing numbers of academies in the coming years, and we have early warning signs which raise concerns about whether it has enough capacity and skilled staff to do so effectively.

The DfE is staffing up with accountants. It will need to.

Unless the DfE via the YPLA’s successor, the Education Funding Agency, is able to detect weaknesses in academy chains and individual academies before they fail, there could be a lot of parents and children left in a bad place. This could be a ticking time-bomb under Michael Gove.

On the “major issue” of recruiting and training of governors with relevant financial expertise, the report notes:

The Department and the YPLA consider the main incentive for schools and academies to improve governors' skills to be through their aspiration to score well in the Schools Financial Value Standard and Financial Management and Governance Evaluation assessments.

It is ironic that there is now talk that the requirement of a FMGE self-assessment will be dropped for all academies apart from new ones. (The EFA is proposing that the parallel  Financial Management and Control Evaluation is abolished for sixth form colleges.)

While schools may have suffered in the past from excessive control, the baby of effective regulation should not be thrown out with the bath water of red tape.

Academies - converters in need of a hand?

Today’s Financial Times carries any article reporting that eight academies have had to be bailed out by the Department for Education in the last 18 months alone.

The article is not clear whether the eight academies were “converters” or longer established academies. What is likely is that many more of the 1500 plus academies will suffer financial problems in the next few years. Primaries without critical mass will be especially vulnerable unless they team up with larger secondaries or with the emerging schools chains.

While I personally believe in greater schools autonomy and choice, there needs to be a framework of greater support for academies. The Young People’s Learning Agency (and the soon to-be-Education Funding Agency under the wing of the DfE) is not set up provide the kind of support that the DfE’s old Academies Finance Unit aspired to provide. There are consultancies, accountancy firms and other service providers able and willing to help – normally for a fee. There is also self-help: academy finance directors and managers can get support at the academy finance directors' google group from their peers (many of whom have been in academyland for several years). Guidance can also be found in CIPFA’s new Effective Governance and Financial Management in Academies although a handbook can only take you so far however comprehensive and useful. CIPFA is also now offering a Certificate in Financial Reporting for Academies.

If local school commissioners were appointed – as suggested by the new head of OFSTED and Chris Cook of the FT – this “middle tier” between Whitehall and academies might offer some support. However, I suspect any such institutions be more a regulatory watchdog than a helping hand.

This all sounds very negative. Sorry. One thing that academies can do is seek out professional (legal, financial etc) with experience of coping with independence in a public or third sector setting. Last year I wrote to a local converter academy offering pro bona support – I did not even get an acknowledgement back.