Hefce auditors demand changes after slatin QAA over governance and accountability

March 24, 2000

Funding council auditors demanded urgent improvements to management and governance at the Quality Assurance Agency after its first audit.

The Higher Education Funding Council demanded immediate action to strengthen the agency's strategic planning process and called for reforms to improve accountability.

This will strengthen universities' concerns that the QAA is not fully accountable for the Pounds 3.24 million it receives annually from the institutions it inspects and the Pounds 4.4 million it receives from the funding councils. The QAA is considering increasing its contributions from universities.

The QAA was audited by Hefce's audit service in October 1998. In May 1999, the QAA confirmed the audit had led to 22 recommendations for improvements.

It has emerged that after a Hefce-approved action plan to develop the agency's business to 2002, the QAA is still to develop several areas of management practice. Among plans for further improvement the QAA lists developing "supporting resource strategies to allow the agency to deliver its business plan; embedding progress monitoring and reporting systems; and strengthening the links between planning and budgeting."

It has also emerged that "in light of the Hefce audit" the QAA reviewed its code of best practice for board members and improved the register of members' interests.

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October


Featured jobs