By the public sector, for the public sector
Finance Seminar
Autumn 2015
Presented by
Cathryn Walker
By the public sector, for the public sector
Agenda
• FIRST SESSION
Schools Finance Team
2016-17 Budget Consultations
2016-17 Budget
Pupil Premium
EYSFF 2016-17
High Needs Funding 2016-17
Schools Forum
• SECOND SESSION
School Balances 2014-15
Universal Infant FSM (UIFSM)
CFR
Budget Monitoring
2016-17 LGSS SLAs
Audit - SFVS
Audit – Personnel & Payroll
Electronic Reporting including
Journals and Virements
Housekeeping
Other
By the public sector, for the public sector
LGSS Schools Finance Staffing
SSTM
Cathryn Walker
SAA
Charlotte Dennison
SATs
Charlotte Allford
Julia Miller
Tier Abbass (Long Term sickness)
Vacancy
By the public sector, for the public sector
Primary & Secondary Funding
for 2016-17
•
The funding formula consultation took place in
September 2015 .
•
77 attended the 15th September briefing sessions.
•
187 responses were received by the 1st October
deadline.
•
The proposals were revised in response to the
consultation feedback and these were discussed at
the 13th October Forum meeting.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Primary & Secondary Funding
for 2016-17
•
The proposals created considerable debate and
challenge regarding the recommendation to reduce
the Secondary deprivation funding.
•
Forum voted by a small majority, with abstentions,
to approve the proposals including moving the
savings from reducing Secondary deprivation funding
into the Primary AWPU.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Primary & Secondary Funding
for 2016-17
•
Alex Hopkins has delegated power for The County Council
final decision on the schools funding formula.
•
Alex decided at this stage, given the pressures that exist, NOT
to reduce Secondary funding.
•
The following however should apply -
By the public sector, for the public sector
1. The existing formula funding factors will be continued
in 2016-17.
2. The existing primary deprivation funding of £30.6m
will be capped in 2016-17 by reducing the FSMever6
rate.
3. The existing secondary deprivation funding of £27.7m
will also be capped in 2016-17 by reducing the
FSMever6 rate.
By the public sector, for the public sector
4. Move towards a primary to secondary funding ratio
of 1:1.30 (currently 1:1.34 in Northants and a
national and statistical neighbours average of
1:1.28.).
5. Additional DSG schools block funding or ‘headroom’
from the DSG settlement will be applied towards this
where possible.
By the public sector, for the public sector
2015-16 factors – no changes
proposed in 2016-17
Description
Used in 2015-16
Basic per pupil entitlement (AWPU)
Yes (mandatory)
Deprivation (based on ever 6 FSM
numbers)
Yes (mandatory)
Private Finance Initiative
Yes
Split site
Yes
Rates
Yes
Lump sum
Yes
By the public sector, for the public sector
Q4: Split Site and Pupil Growth
Question 4 - split site funding
This had a varied response with schools not receiving this funding
currently feeling no increase was necessary or questioning the
amounts paid to some schools.
The feedback shows that further work is required on this area.
This will take place with an aim that specific proposals are brought
to either the December or January Forum meetings.
Questions 5 and 6 (Pupil growth fund)
Proposals were supported
Agreed to increase the staffing elements of the Pupil growth rates
by 5% – at a cost of £75k to be funded from the 2016-17 schools
block DSG settlement.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Q3: £1m Increased AP Cost
Q3 – funding the increased cost of £1million in AP.
The briefings and feedback identified concerns with this proposal
from the majority of schools.
This proposal had the largest number of comments/feedback
including proposals on how practicable improvements could be
made in supporting schools with challenging pupils in the future.
The feedback has been shared with service colleagues so that the
feedback can be utilised in order to support improvements in this
area in the future.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Q3: £1m Increased AP Cost
Q3 – funding the increased cost of £1million in AP.
Discussions and responses also identified a need for schools to
have better information on the cost implications and VFM of the
current arrangements.
It was agreed by Forum that the additional £1 million cost of AP in
2016-17 is funded from previous years DSG carry forwards to
allow both further work to be undertaken on this proposal
including making schools better informed e.g. the funding of CE AP
places (@ £10k) includes dual registered pupil places meaning an
overall cost of approx £20k p.a. per Secondary pupil.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Increasing numbers of Permanent
Exclusions
Proposals for utilising DSG carryforwards of £1.7 million in relation
to addressing the number of permanent exclusions in the county
were agreed by Schools Forum in July.
It was also agreed following requests for this information that
data about fixed term and permanent exclusions would be
collated and circulated for use as a baseline.
Permanent and fixed term exclusions figures from 2014 –15 were
sent out to all schools on Friday 16th October. Data about fixed
term and permanent exclusions in the current academic year will
now be presented to Schools Forum at each meeting from 1st
December 2015 identifying schools and growth across the
year. This information will also be available for all schools.
By the public sector, for the public sector
School Budgets 2016-17
•Indicative budgets will be issued November
15 (based on Oct 14 numbers for the majority
of schools).
•February 2016 final individual school
formula budget information will be placed
onto the website updated with October 15
numbers.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Indicative School Budgets 2016-17
The following indicative elements will either be added to the website in
March 2016 or confirmed/allocated during 2016-17:
- High Needs Place funding – Special Schools & Units / Resourced
Provisions
a. Mainstream 6th form allocations - from the EFA
b. Devolved Formula Capital (DFC)
c. Allocations from the High Needs Panel
d. Early Years Single Funding Formula (EYSFF) – 3 and 4, and 2 year olds
formulae
e. Pupil Premium – Main FSM Based on January 16 census
f. High needs top ups
g. High needs element 3 top ups for pupils in SEN units or resourced
provision
h. Special school high needs allocations
i. UIFSM
j. Pupil Growth funding
By the public sector, for the public sector
School Budget 2016-17 Overview
•
The DfE arrangements on 2016-17 schools funding were
announced in July 2015.
•
What we know from Government announcements is that:
1. DSG funding is ‘protected’ i.e. flat cash funding per school
pupil; and
2. Additional funding will be passported to reflect increases
in pupil numbers between October 2014 and October
2015.
•
NCC have joined the f40 group of the lowest funded
authorities. This lobby group is meeting with the Government
and pushing for Education funding changes to be made.
Schools have been sent information on this.
By the public sector, for the public sector
School Cost pressures Overview
•
Although in comparison to LAs, schools funding is deemed to
be ‘protected’, schools are expected/required to make
efficiency savings in a period when they are expected by
stakeholders to deliver more.
•
Schools are experiencing unfunded cost pressures including:
1.
Increased Employer contributions to the Teachers pension scheme
from April 15 +2.4% (to 16.5%).
2.
Teachers and Local Government pay awards.
3.
General inflation/price increases.
4.
Employers National Insurance increase of up to 3.7% (to 13.8%) from
April 2016.
By the public sector, for the public sector
School Pressures Overview
•
As agreed with Forum schools will receive additional one-off
funding over 3 years starting in 2014-15. This means that in
2017-18 schools will experience the joint impact of the oneoff funding ceasing and the impact of cost pressures.
•
The Institute of Fiscal Studies* recently stated that over a 5
year period, unless any funding changes were made, schools
were likely to experience real terms cuts in spending per pupil
of between 9% and 12%.
•
Respectively we need to plan for this and ensure sometimes
difficult decisions are not delayed unnecessarily.
(Note - * - Source - presentation at Fair Funding Conference Bristol – June 2015)
By the public sector, for the public sector
Schools Budgets 2016-17
• Minimum Funding Guarantee of minus 1.5% on
Schools Block funding. Note – one off funding is
outside the MFG/Cap.
• Cap level to be finalised in January 2016
• Basis for funding:
– October 2015 Pupil Census for per pupil allocations
– January 2016 Pupil Census for Pupil Premium grant
By the public sector, for the public sector
Additional One Off Allocation
The one off impact on the funding formula for 2016-17 only
is as follows.
Primary
Secondary
£3.4m
£2.0m
£13,400
£50,000
Addition to the lump
sum value per school
(£15k 15-16)
Addition to the lump
sum value per school
(maximum) as 15-16
No allocation through
the AWPU
No allocation through
the AWPU
(£23 in 15-16)
(£30 in15-16)
By the public sector, for the public sector
Changes to Unit Rates
2015/16
base
value
(£)
2015/16 One off
increase
Total 2015/16
2016/17 One
off increase
(£)
(£)
(£)
Primary AWPU
2,661
23
2,684
0
Sec KS3 AWPU
3,849
30
3,879
0
Sec KS4 AWPU
4,348
30
4,378
0
Primary lump
sum
125,000
15,000
140,000
13,400
Secondary lump
sum
125,000
50,000
175,000
50,000
By the public sector, for the public sector
De-Delegation of Services
•
De-delegation applies only to maintained schools.
•
Where services are able to be de-delegated:
o The budget is delegated to all schools and academies;
o Services for de-delegation have to be approved by
Schools Forum (by maintained school representatives
only and separately by phase); and
o If approved the funding will be de-delegated
(removed) from maintained school budgets by phase
before the final budgets are set.
By the public sector, for the public sector
De-delegation 2015-16 & 2016-17
In 2015-16 two areas for Primary de-delegation were
approved by Schools Forum and applied as set out below.
1
School Improvement – SIG
£10 per pupil
2
Trade Union Officials
£2.10 per pupil
These were also approved by Schools Forum on the 13th
October 2015 for 2016-17. This will be reflected in the
indicative school budgets published in November 2015.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Additional One Off Allocation –
Nursery and Special schools
•
Special and Nursery schools also to receive
relevant share of final one-off allocation (£60k in
total) in 2016-17
•
Nursery schools – £2,100 to be included in 201617 EYSFF lump sum
•
Special schools - £3,300 payment to be made in
October 2016 transfers
By the public sector, for the public sector
Additional One Off Allocation
•
Importantly this additional delegation is outside of the MFG /
Cap meaning schools and Northamptonshire academies will
get the full benefit of this additional one off funding.
•
2016-17 is the third and FINAL year of the agreed 3 year
release of reserves. Therefore, schools should note 2016-17
will be the final year when one-off funding will be released on
a similar scale and should plan their budget accordingly.
•
PLEASE MAKE ALL PEERS/COLLEAGUES AWARE OF THIS FINAL
DISTRIBUTION. At every opportunity we are emphasising that
2016-17 is the last year of the one-off funding distribution and
that schools need to plan ahead, please help us pass on the
information.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Pupil Premium
•
Pupil Premium values are still to be announced
for 2016-17
Pupil Premium Category
Primary
Secondary
Looked After Children (Pupil
Premium Plus)
Service Child
2015/16
£
2016/17
£
Change
£
1,320
?
?
935
?
?
1,900
?
?
300
?
?
By the public sector, for the public sector
Pupil premium
•
Schools will receive £1,320? per primary pupil who is currently
eligible for free school meals (FSM) or has been eligible for FSM
in the past 6 years (FSM ‘Ever 6’) and £935 for secondary FSM
‘Ever 6’ pupils. Note this will be based on the January 2016 school
census return.
•
An estimated amount (2015-16 allocation adjusted for any
change in the pupil premium rate per eligible pupil) will be shown
in schools 2016-17 indicative budgets.
•
If schools are aware of changes in eligible numbers and therefore
likely pupil premium funding they should reflect this in their
2016-17 budget submission.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Pupil premium – Falling numbers?
•
A number of Infant and primary schools have seen the impact of
falling registration of new UIFSM from reception onwards
•
This impacts on schools allocation of pupil premium funding.
•
Schools need to be pro-active in ensuring parents do register for
FSM and are taking up a FSM for the January census.
•
Some schools are more successful than others at this so schools
are advised to liaise with other schools in their cluster to see
what approaches have been taken and to decide what
approaches would work best with their school’s parents and
pupils.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Pupil premium (cont)
•
Rate of £1,900? for looked-after children (LAC). The eligibility
criteria includes those pupils who have been in care for one day
or more.
•
The LAC funding is allocated to schools through the budget top
ups on a termly basis via the Virtual Schools team. The allocation
to a school is dependent on the school having an agreed PEP for
the LAC child they are supporting.
•
Schools will also receive £1,900 for eligible pupils who have been
registered on the January school census as having been adopted
from care or leaving care under a special guardianship or
residence order.
•
Note - The above is NOT reflected in schools indicative budget
information.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Primary PE and Sports Grant
The EFA have published funding allocations for the PE and
sport premium which primary schools will receive in the
academic year 2015 to 2016.
Local authorities are required to pass the PE and Sports
Grant funding onto participating maintained schools within
one month of receipt.
They have revised the grant conditions this year. The most
significant changes include:
ways in which the premium should not be spent
website reporting requirements
By the public sector, for the public sector
Primary PE and Sports Grant
The premium must be spent by schools on making additional and
sustainable improvements to the provision of PE and sport for the
benefit of all pupils to encourage the development of healthy, active
lifestyles. The Secretary of State does not consider the following
expenditure as falling within the scope of additional or sustainable
improvement:
•employing coaches or specialist teachers to cover planning
preparation and assessment (PPA) arrangements - these should
come out of schools’ core staffing budgets
•teaching the minimum requirements of the national curriculum
PE programmes of study - including those specified for swimming.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Primary PE and Sports Grant
Schools must use the funding to make additional and sustainable improvements to the
quality of PE and sport they offer.
This means that you should use the premium to:
develop or add to the PE and sport activities that your school already offers
make improvements now that will benefit pupils joining the school in future years
For example, you can use your funding to:
•hire qualified sports coaches to work with teachers
•provide existing staff with training or resources to help them teach PE and sport more
effectively
•introduce new sports or activities and encourage more pupils to take up sport
•support and involve the least active children by running or extending school sports
clubs, holiday clubs and Change4Life clubs
•run sport competitions
•increase pupils’ participation in the School Games
•run sports activities with other schools
By the public sector, for the public sector
Primary PE and Sports Grant
Maintained schools, including those that convert to academies,
must publish information about their use of the premium on
their website by 4 April 2016. Schools should publish the
amount of premium received; a full breakdown of how it has
been spent (or will be spent); what impact the school has seen
on pupils’ PE and sport participation and attainment and how
the improvements will be sustainable in the future
Schools will receive the funding across 2 financial years
•7/12 of the funding allocation in November 2015
•5/12 of the funding allocation in May 2016
By the public sector, for the public sector
EYSFF 2016/17
•
3-4 year olds EYSFF includes EY pupil premium
(53p per hour per eligible child = £300 p.a)
•
Main EYSFF being reviewed for 2016-17.
Consultation started in October 2015
•
Discussed at Forum Oct and Dec 15, Jan and
March 2016.
•
http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/council
services/educationandlearning/services/schlfin/p
ages/schoolsforum.aspx
By the public sector, for the public sector
EYSFF 2016/17
•
EYSFF rates and elements decided and published,
including indicative budgets (excl 2 year olds) ,
March 2016.
•
The initial data from the Autumn 2015
headcount indicates current take up at around
1,940 2 year olds
•
The Northants rate paid to providers is £4.85 per
hour.
•
This means there is £0.05 or 1% of the £4.90
DSG funding contribution to central costs
By the public sector, for the public sector
Early Years future funding – DfE
announcements
• The early years block per pupil unit of funding in 2016 to 2017
will be confirmed after the spending review and will continue
to be based on participation.
• The Government are committed to making schools and early
education funding fairer and will put forward proposals in due
course.
• The Government recognise the links between funding for early
education, schools and pupils with high cost Special Educational
Needs. These are complex issues to consider, and they will
consult extensively with the sector and the public on them.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Calls for Evidence – Cost of Providing
Childcare
• The Government has committed to give working parents, of
three and four-year-olds, 30 hours of free childcare a week.
• The government is carrying out a review of the cost of
providing childcare. It has committed to increasing the average
childcare funding rates paid to providers.
• The announced increase in entitlement from September 2017
has major implications and the call for evidence, looking at the
costs of provision, is just one element of this.
By the public sector, for the public sector
High Needs Funding 2016/17
•
High Needs EFA DSG 2016-17 funding announcement in
December
•
Schools Forum January and March 2016 discussion on
high needs pressures, funding and high needs funding
rates
•
Working with FACE to create a new RAS (Resource
Allocation System) to use across all of high needs
including Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans and
reviewing existing statements. An update report will be
taken to the 1st December Schools Forum meeting.
By the public sector, for the public sector
High Needs Funding 2016-17
• Arrangements for High Needs funding were announced on the
24th September 2015 (follow the link below):
arrangements for high needs funding in 2016 to 2017
• Headlines are as follows:
• Anticipate no additional high needs DSG funding for 201617 (unlike previous years when additional funding was
provided).
• High needs place change request form to be submitted by
16th November 2015.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Schools Forum
Below is a link to the link to the website to see the
latest information.
• Schools Forum - Northamptonshire County Council
Schools are recommended to read Forum Matters
when published to keep up to date with latest
developments.
By the public sector, for the public sector
School Balances 2014-15
• Information on maintained schools
balances presented and discussed with
schools forum.
• Summarised information on maintained
school balances by sector included in
Schools Outturn report to Cabinet in June.
By the public sector, for the public sector
DSG 2014-15 School balances
•
CAPITAL BALANCES
School sector
Nursery
Primary
Secondary
Special
Total
2013-14 (£m)
0.15
2.12
0.65
0.42
3.34
2014-15 (£m)
0.20
2.98
0.06
0.52
3.75
Movement (£m)
0.05
0.86
-0.59
0.10
0.41
By the public sector, for the public sector
DSG 2014-15 School balances
•
COMMUNITY FOCUSSED RESERVES
2013-14
School
Children’s
Sector
Centres
(£m)
Nursery
Primary
Secondary
Special
Total
0.48
0.31
0
0
0.79
2013-14
Other
(£m)
0.46
0.17
0
0
0.63
2014-15
Children’s
Centres
(£m)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2014-15
(£m)
Total Movement
(£m)
0.81
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.89
-0.13
-0.40
0.00
0.00
-0.53
Other
By the public sector, for the public sector
DSG 2014-15 School balances
•
COMMITTED REVENUE BALANCES
School sector
Nursery
Primary
Secondary
Special
Total
2013-14
(£m)
2014-15
(£m)
0.98
4.59
1.02
1.08
7.67
0.34
6.51
0.55
0.98
8.38
Movement
(£m)
-0.64
1.92
-0.47
-0.10
0.71
By the public sector, for the public sector
DSG 2014-15 School balances
•
UNCOMMITTED REVENUE BALANCES
School sector
Nursery
Primary
Secondary
Special
Total
2013-14
(£m)
0.18
7.53
0.26
0.58
8.55
2014-15
(£m)
0.18
9.32
-0.09
0.47
9.88
Movement
(£m)
0.00
1.79
-0.35
-0.11
1.33
By the public sector, for the public sector
Balances
•
Schools need to be thinking about year end
carryforwards and Committed / Uncommitted
revenue balances.
•
To calculate the 8% or 5% Uncommitted balance
permitted take the current Oracle Report (total
Revised Budget column) minus previous years
carryforward (column 1 “Balances”) then multiply
by the relevant percentage.
By the public sector, for the public sector
By the public sector, for the public sector
School Balances 2015-16
•
A number of changes to the balances scheme were
made for 2014-15.
•
Currently no major changes are planned for 2015-16.
•
All UIFSM schools will be able to identify if they owe
or are owed UIFSM grant funding for the period
September 2015 to March 2016 which can then be
reflected on the SB1 form.
•
Where possible the maximum figure allowed will be
shown on each relevant row on the SB1 form.
Schools must take account of this information.
By the public sector, for the public sector
School Balances 2015-16
By the public sector, for the public sector
School Balances 2015-16
By the public sector, for the public sector
School Balances 2015-16
By the public sector, for the public sector
Universal FSM for Infants
•Funding information and guidance on NCC website
•http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/educationandlearn
ing/services/schlfin/pages/budget_funding.aspx
In the 2015 to 2016 academic year schools will be paid funding at a flat rate
of £2.30 for each meal taken by newly eligible pupils. Schools will be expected
to fund existing free school meals under the existing criteria that they do
currently.
For the academic year 2015 to 2016, a provisional allocation of UIFSM grant
to schools will be based on the final allocation for academic year 2014 to
2015. A final allocation for academic year 2015 to 2016 will be calculated in
June 2016, based on take-up recorded in the October 2015 and January 2016
school censuses.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Universal FSM for Infants
• From September 2015 all schools including those whose meals are provided
by Nourish are being charged for FSM, UIFSM and other meals based on
actual volumes.
•This means that schools will need to monitor this area carefully as there will
be differences between budget and actual costs
•FSM – if spending more than budget this is a pressure that needs to be
covered from elsewhere in the school budget.
•UIFSM – actual volumes will differ to the indicative funding/numbers
allocated by the EFA. This ‘difference’ needs to be identified and recorded by
the school as it should be picked up when the EFA update the allocation for
the 2015-16 academic year (in June 2016) to reflect actual UIFSM numbers
in each school. (see SB1 slides)
By the public sector, for the public sector
CFR Reporting 2014-15
• Errors on submission
– Schools still not entering an e-mail address.
– Opening Balances differed from previous years
closing balances.
– Notes not entered against Yellow warning
triangles.
– Positive amounts on income codes and negatives on
expenditure
By the public sector, for the public sector
CFR Reporting 2015-16
• Schools should be checking the current report is correct when
compared to Oracle and the Cumulative Expense Analysis report.
• Schools should be checking that the CFR apportionment has been
actioned correctly – Warning messages when going into the report.
• School should check the Validation report for codes not mapped
and missing expenditure / PFI Charges / Bad Debt.
• Schools should check that income codes are in credit and
expenditure codes are positive. Usually due to accruals.
• Schools will have a red X against Insurance due to the schools not
yet being invoiced for this but will correct itself in due course if
applicable.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Budget Monitoring
• Schools should be checking the current Oracle report and
comparing to the Cumulative Expense Analysis report.
• There has been issues with differences between the
budget top up file and where the budget was loaded
onto SIMS/Oracle. So we would suggest the school
completes a virement form to amend Oracle.
• Don’t forget to vire Pupil Premium as per the budget
proposal form if appropriate. This process will need to
be repeated when the 7/12ths funding is devolved in
January.
By the public sector, for the public sector
LGSS 16-17
The 2016/17 schools and academies brochures
•
We understand plan is to publish 1st week December 2015.
•
The brochures will be available through:
o the new schools and academies enewsletter which will be emailed to all
Northamptonshire schools and academies.
o www.lgss.co.uk
o www.northamptonshire.gov.uk - the traded services to schools page
•
•
There will be no prices in the brochure for 2016/17 .
Bespoke charges will be sent to schools/academies who purchased LGSS services
in 2015/16.
New customers: please contact LGSS for a bespoke charge info@lgss.co.uk
•
By the public sector, for the public sector
Governance and Financial Management and Compliance with
the Schools Financial Value Standard (SFVS) –2015/2016
Recently a thematic audit was carried out on the above areas and the main strategic
recommendations relevant to governors are below.
The prosecution of a school bursar in 2012 and a second one in 2014, together with a number of
school related special investigations have highlighted the need to ensure that appropriate
management controls are in place in schools.
There needs to be sufficient evidence of these being implemented by Headteachers and appropriate
checks completed by Governing Bodies.
It is recommended that your finance committee reviews these recommendations against your
governance procedures in financial management.
Governance documents and procedures
Schools should be reminded of the following:
• The Governing Body should review any powers and duties it is delegating to a committee annually
i.e. Terms of Reference.
• Where a review has been completed by the committee the terms of reference must then be
presented to the Governing Body for approval i.e. a committee cannot approve its own terms of
reference.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Medium Term Planning
Schools should be reminded of the need to make medium term development plans and for these to be approved by
their Governing Body.
•
Schools should be reminded that the Governing Body have a statutory duty to monitor the school development
plan and to do this there should be a formal agreement of the plan against which performance is to be
measured. School Development Plans will evolve over time and any subsequent agreed revisions of the plan
should be approved and minuted.
•
Schools should be reminded to prepare premises plans that can be linked to their three year financial
projections.
Financial Management
•
•
•
•
In 20% of schools there was insufficient evidence that the Headteacher had checked that the budget and
expenditure on the school’s local accounting system had been reconciled to the NCC records on Oracle
The reconciliation of the budget and expenditure each month is fundamental to good budget management and
monitoring. Headteachers are responsible for completing a management check to ensure that this task has been
completed by the Bursar/Business Manager.
In 13% of the schools they had not checked that staff travelling on school business e.g. to courses and meetings,
had appropriate cover on their motor insurance policies. Schools should be reminded to ensure that these
checks undertaken.
In 15% of the schools that hired out their premises checks had not been completed to confirm
that the hirers of the premises had third party indemnity in place to meet any claims that could
arise. In some cases policies were on file but they were out of date. Schools should be reminded
of the requirement to check that appropriate insurance is in place prior to allowing access to the
premises.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Protecting the school against theft and fraud
•
•
The Schools Financial Management Handbook states that the audited accounts of the school fund
should be presented to Governors.
Schools should be reminded that in addition to reporting to Governors that the Private Fund
accounts have been audited, evidence of this should be provided to the Governors and that the
accounts should be presented for review and discussion.
Business Continuity
•
The Governing Body should review and challenge the Business Continuity Plan and when satisfied
that it is fit for purpose its approval should be minuted.
Thematic Audits
•
Schools should be reminded of the value in completing self assessments by using the thematic
audit templates which are updated as and when regulations change.
•
The results of the thematic audits should be reported to governors i.e. good practice identified
and areas where controls need to be improved.
•
An action plan should be prepared to address any weaknesses and its implementation should be
monitored by the Finance Committee or Governing Body
By the public sector, for the public sector
Personnel and Payroll Thematic Audit of Primary
Schools – 2014/15
Limited assurance was given for the personnel and payroll processes carried out in the
Primary Schools within the sample. Whilst being able to provide substantial assurance
with regards to the governance processes and moderate assurance for some aspects of
payroll, the overall system of control is weak and there is evidence of non-compliance with
the controls that do exist which may result in the relevant risks not being managed.
•
The table below provides a breakdown on the level of assurance for the fifteen schools
audited.
Personnel and Payroll Level of Assurance
Limited
Moderate
Substantial
7
5
3
By the public sector, for the public sector
Employment of Relatives
• Seven of the fifteen schools audited employed staff who were related.
Two of these schools could not demonstrate that an appropriate
segregation of duties was in place for the payment of staff who were
related.
• An appropriate segregation of duties is critical to effective internal control;
it reduces the risk of both fraud and inappropriate activity.
Recommendations
In order to comply with Financial Regulations, schools should be strongly
advised that:
• an appropriate segregation of duties must be in place for all financial
processes; and
• no individual should authorise any payments relating to themselves or a
relative.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Employees – Payroll Checking and Monitoring
• In two of the fifteen schools audited, there was a lack of documentary
evidence to confirm that the Bursar / School Business Manager checked
the payroll reports to confirm if new starters, staff whose contracts had
changed and additional hours had been paid correctly.
• Ten of the fifteen schools audited had purchased LGSS Payroll Services.
Appropriate checks were not evidenced on the payroll validation reports
in three of the ten schools. In addition, an appropriate management
check was not evidenced on the payroll validation reports in seven of the
ten schools.
• In seven of the fifteen schools there was no evidence that the payroll
reports had been presented to the Headteacher for a management check
to be completed.
• There was a lack of documentary evidence that the salaries on SIMS and
Oracle were reconciled each month in two of the fifteen schools.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Appropriate preventative and detective controls must be in place if School
Management are to reduce the risk of fraud, budget overspends and
reputational damage to the school.
Such controls include a segregation of duties and appropriate management
checks on financial reports.
Recommendations
In order to comply with Financial Regulations and the Schools Financial Value
Standard, schools should be strongly advised to:
• carry out appropriate checks on all of the payroll reports;
• present the payroll reports to the Headteacher who should complete a
management check and sign the reports to confirm this has been done;
• ensure that a segregation of duties is in place for all financial activities; and
• ensure that the salaries on SIMS and Oracle are reconciled each month.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Audit Points
Areas of Good Practice:
GOVERNANCE
•
The committee that dealt with personnel issues had appropriate Terms of Reference in place (93%);
•
The responsibility for appointing staff, creating new posts and re-grading of staff had been appropriately
delegated (93%);
•
Headteachers reported regularly to Governors on staffing changes and issues (93%);
•
Governors had agreed a Pay policy for the school (100%);
•
Governors had adopted the NCC Whistle Blowing policy (100%);
•
Staff had been made aware of the Whistle Blowing policy (93%);
•
At least one member of the Recruitment Panel had attended Safer Recruitment training (93%); and
•
Personnel records were retained for the appropriate time (100%).
EMPLOYEES – STAFF RECRUITMENT
•
Personnel files were stored in a secure area (100%);
•
Qualifications were checked / held on file for qualified staff (100%);
•
The SENCO Coordinator was a qualified Teacher who had either achieved, or was working towards achieving the
SENCO qualification (where applicable – 100%);
•
Schools maintained a central log of pre-employment checks (100%);
•
The identity of new employees was checked (100%); and
•
DBS clearance was confirmed for agency staff (where applicable - 100%).
By the public sector, for the public sector
Audit Points
Areas of Good Practice:
EMPLOYEES – PAYROLL
• Payroll records were held securely and access to the payroll provider was appropriately controlled
(93%); and
• Safeguarding checks were carried out for self employed individuals who provided services to the
school (100%).
EMPLOYEES – VARIATIONS TO CONTRACT
• Additional payments such as SIP work and Honarariums were approved by the Governors (100%).
EMPLOYEES – PAYROLL CHECKING AND MONITORING AND OWN PAYROLL SCHOOLS
• Salary costs were checked for accuracy each month (93%); and
• Adequate controls were in place in the two schools where they processed their own payroll
(100%).
By the public sector, for the public sector
Journals & Virements
Please be aware that there are new forms to complete
when submitting the above.
These can be found on the Schools Finance website under
the forms library.
These should then be returned to Finance as attachments
to e-mails.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Journals
By the public sector, for the public sector
Journals
By the public sector, for the public sector
Virements
By the public sector, for the public sector
Housekeeping
Salary Scales on FMS
 The Teacher pay scales are now available from our website.
Attached to the Personnel 7 update notes and how to action
this on SIMS with effect from 1st September.
Teachers Pension
 The actual rate applicable from 1 September 2015 is 16.48%
not 16.4% as already notified. This can be amended in
SIMS.Net via Tools/Staff/Superannuation thereby removing
the couple of pound variation in FMS.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Housekeeping Contd
• Submittals via email attachments as 1 pdf file not individual
documents. Checking that the file does contain all the
required information and is readable and has not slipped
when scanning – Also we will not accept FMS reports
exported to Excel. Please note that with regards to the
journal/virement templates these stay in the Excel format.
• LB26 – schools responsibility to identify errors and correct the
problem. We can advise how to correct on FMS but should
not be undertaking this work on the schools behalf.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Top Tips
• Now is the time to be checking to see if you are able to
streamline the structure. You will not be able to do this if you
have used the Cost Centre in this financial year. De-link the
ledger code and then delete the Cost Centre.
• Within FMS you have the ability to pay a supplier normally
paid by BACS by cheque. This is of benefit if your “inputter” is
absent and to prevent late payments charges.
Example on next slide
By the public sector, for the public sector
By the public sector, for the public sector
FMS Upgrade
Ability to Hide and Unhide Cost Centre Ledger Code
Combinations
•
•
•
Tools | General Ledger Setup | Tab 6: C/Centre Ledger Code Links
It is now possible to hide or unhide cost centre, ledger and fund code combinations that are
no longer required.
Once hidden, these combinations will not be available when processing new transactions in
Accounts Payable, Petty Cash or Service Term Mappings. The combinations will still appear on
reports, but where there is no balance on the combination, zero balances can be hidden
when running the report. This applies to EX and ES codes.
Modification to Default Bank Code in Cash Book Journal and
VAT Reimbursement Entry
•
•
Focus | General Ledger | Manual Journal Processing - Cash Book Journal Entry
When entering a cash book journal or VAT reimbursement, the Bank Ledger Code field now
defaults to a bank account if only one bank account exists. If more than one bank account
exists, the field remains blank, ensuring the wrong bank account cannot be selected
accidentally.
By the public sector, for the public sector
FMS Upgrade
Reports Produced in New Reporting Engine
•
•
•
•
Reports | New Reports | General Ledger | Audit | Audit Trail
Reports | New Reports | General Ledger | Audit | Journal Audit Trail
Reports | New Reports | General Ledger Setup | Chart of Account Listing
The Audit Trail, Journal Audit Trail and Chart of Account Listing reports have been produced
in the new reporting engine and will replace the existing reports in the FMS 2016 Summer
Release.
Retirement of Old Format Reports
•
•
•
Focus | General Ledger | Chart of Accounts Review
Focus | Personnel Links | Salary Projection
The reports that can be produced from the Chart of Accounts Review and Salary Projection
areas can now be produced using the new reporting engine only.
By the public sector, for the public sector
Questions?