60 Virtual Brochure – February 2024 Gaining assurance through existing governance Our research of a mixture of Russell Group, Post-92 and small specialist universities shows that most institutions use their existing governance frameworks to obtain assurance on compliance with the OfS’ conditions, i.e., their senate or academic board provides assurance on academic governance and quality and standards, while the finance committee scrutinises the financial accounts and five-year forecasts, and the audit, or audit and risk committee, brings the whole suite of activity together, providing assurance on the compliance process. This approach makes the most effective use of existing governance structures and processes, mainstreaming the management of regulatory compliance alongside the institution’s other regulatory, compliance and risk management activities. However, as compliance activities evolve, we also observe an enhanced role for the audit committee and some institutions setting up additional governing body sub-committees. The requirement in the conditions that the governing body must “test assurance that academic governance is adequate and effective” has been a source of much debate and this is reflected in the diversity of practice observed. We note that an annual academic assurance report from the senate or academic board has become the norm, and in many cases the governing body also receives the minutes and/or an annual report from the senate or academic board. We note that a joint meeting annually between the governing body and the senate or academic board to facilitate a nuanced discussion of academic governance is becoming increasingly common. This may be more effective than what is often a limited consideration of annual reports or sight of senate or academic board minutes. Some institutions have identified independent governors to observe senate or academic board meetings, or to lead on academic issues. While this may be beneficial for the individual, it is harder to demonstrate how effective this is in providing assurance around compliance. Compliance and assurance maps Alongside reports and papers on individual or groups of conditions, the majority of governing bodies and their audit committees consider an annual report on ongoing compliance with the OfS’ conditions of registration. These reports map out each of the conditions, who is responsible for them, and to varying degrees of detail, how the institution meets the condition and how it evidences this. A small number of institutions have taken this further with the development of assurance maps. Assurance mapping can help to provide governing bodies and their committees with a simple overview of where and how assurance is secured across multiple activities (e.g., internal controls, governance and internal reviews, internal and external audit, and external reviews). While RAG compliance with individual conditions is of little value, RAG rating the strength of assurance in place can be a useful way of helping to explore the relationships between risk management and assurance and identify areas for additional scrutiny.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=