Work based learning eng Follow up.doc

22 October 2009
www.wao.gov.uk
Work Based Learning Follow-up Report

Work Based Learning Follow-up Report
I have prepared this report for presentation to the National Assembly under the
Government of Wales Act 2006.
The Wales Audit Office study team that assisted me in preparing this report comprised
Helen Goddard, Mark Jeffs and Mike Usher.
Jeremy Colman
Auditor General for Wales
Wales Audit Office
24 Cathedral Road
Cardiff
CF11 9LJ
The Auditor General is totally independent of the National Assembly and Government. He examines
and certifies the accounts of the Assembly Government and its sponsored and related public bodies,
including NHS bodies in Wales. He also has the statutory power to report to the National Assembly on
the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which those organisations have used, and may improve
the use of, their resources in discharging their functions.
The Auditor General also appoints auditors to local government bodies in Wales, conducts and
promotes value for money studies in the local government sector and inspects for compliance with best
value requirements under the Wales Programme for Improvement. However, in order to protect the
constitutional position of local government, he does not report to the National Assembly specifically on
such local government work, except where required to do so by statute.
The Auditor General and his staff together comprise the Wales Audit Office. For further information
about the Wales Audit Office please write to the Auditor General at the address above, telephone
029 2032 0500, email: wales@wao.gov.uk, or see web site http://www.wao.gov.uk
© Auditor General for Wales 2009
You may re-use this publication (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must
re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Auditor
General for Wales copyright and you must give the title of this publication.
Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the
copyright holders concerned before re-use.

Report presented by the Auditor General to
the National Assembly on 22 October 2009

Contents
Summary 6
Recommendations 10
1 Financial control at Work Based Learning providers
has improved considerably as a result of the Assembly
Government’s strengthened arrangements 12
Financial control at providers is vastly improved and recent weaknesses arising
from changes to funding arrangements are being addressed 12
The Assembly Government has clearly set out the controls that all providers
must have in place and taken steps to explain them although there were
initially weaknesses in new guidance around guided contact hours 17
The Assembly Government has strengthened its approach to financial controls 18
2 The Assembly Government has used the retendering
process and its Provider Performance Reviews to drive
up the quality of Work Based Learning, and plans to
address concerns about perverse incentives through
new quality arrangements 21
The quality of Work Based Learning provision has improved 21
The Assembly Government made use of the retendering process in 2007 to drive
up standards and to terminate funding to the worst providers in terms of quality
and financial management 22
The Assembly Government has used performance management and inspection
arrangements to drive up the quality of learning and plans to address some
providers’ concerns about perverse incentives through a new Quality and
Effectiveness Framework 23
4 Work Based Learning Follow-up Report

3 The Assembly Government has not systematically applied
the lessons learnt from earlier problems with Work Based
Learning across the organisation but new management
arrangements are intended to enable better shared
learning in future 27
DCELLS officials identified the lessons from the problems with Work
Based Learning, but they were not systematically applied across the
Assembly Government 27
The Assembly Government intends that its new Director General Operations
Teams should support better learning of lessons and sharing of good practice
across its departments 28
Appendices 30
Appendix 1 - Methods 30
Work Based Learning Follow-up Report 5

Summary
1 In 2006, the Auditor General reported on 3 We concluded that financial control and
serious weaknesses in the controls over learning quality have improved significantly
funding for Work Based Learning by the among Work Based Learning providers
National Council for Education and Training in thanks in large part to the Assembly
Wales (otherwise known as ELWa) in Government’s strengthened audit and
2004-05. On the basis of the Auditor performance management arrangements, but
General’s report, the Audit Committee of the that the lessons learnt have not been
National Assembly for Wales (the Audit systematically applied across its organisation.
Committee) took evidence from senior We reached this conclusion because:
officials from the Assembly Government
financial control at Work Based Learning
(which had taken over the functions of ELWa a
providers has improved considerably as a
following a merger in April 2006). The Audit
result of the Assembly Government’s
Committee made nine recommendations,
strengthened arrangements;
aimed at:
a strengthening controls and audit b the Assembly Government has made use
of a retendering process and reviews of
arrangements;
the performance of its providers to improve
b improving future contracting arrangements the quality of Work Based Learning, and
with training providers to drive up quality; plans to address concerns about perverse
and incentives through new quality
c incorporating lessons from Work Based
arrangements; and
Learning into other Assembly Government c the Assembly Government has not
projects. systematically applied the lessons learnt
The Assembly Government accepted all nine
from earlier problems with Work Based
2 Learning across the organisation, but new
of the Audit Committee’s recommendations in management arrangements are intended
full. Sufficient time has now passed for the to enable better shared learning in the
Assembly Government to implement the future.
recommendations and for the benefits to have
started to materialise. We therefore examined
whether the Assembly Government has
effectively implemented the recommendations
of the Audit Committee to improve the
financial management and administration of
Work Based Learning and the disseminate
lessons learnt.

Financial control at Work Based Learning
providers has improved considerably as a result
of the Assembly Government’s strengthened
arrangements
4 Financial controls at Work Based Learning
providers have improved considerably over
the past seven years, as demonstrated by the
findings of the Assembly Government
Provider Audit and Governance Service
(PAGS). The PAGS examines the underlying
systems of control to check whether providers
can demonstrate that their systems for
recording and entering data are sound. It also
examines whether public funding has been
used for its intended purpose, in line with the
terms and conditions of the providers’
contract. The PAGS issues two audit
opinions: one on the systems of control and
the other covering the use of funds. These
can be:
a an ‘unqualified’ opinion, in which case the
PAGS is satisfied with the robustness of
the data or system;
b an ‘except for’ opinion, where the PAGS is
largely satisfied but has identified single
areas of concern that need to be
addressed; or
c a ‘qualified’ opinion, where the PAGS is not
satisfied with the robustness of the data or
the system.
5 Qualified audit opinions regarding systems of
financial control at Work Based Learning
providers have fallen from 98 per cent of all
providers audited in 2002/03 to just one per
cent in 2008/091
. Qualified opinions on the
use of funds have also fallen from 68 per cent
of all providers audited to just one per cent
over the same period. Nevertheless, between
2007/08 and 2008/09, the number of ‘except
for’ opinions rose from five to sixteen, partly
as a result of providers not updating their
systems to reflect changes to the Work Based
Learning programme.
6 There were some problems in 2007/08 and
2008/09 as a result of changes to the basis on
which the Assembly Government pays Work
Based Learning providers. When it issued
new contracts from 1 August 2007, the
Assembly Government introduced the
National Planning and Funding System (the
NPFS), which was already used in other parts
of the post-16 education sector. The NPFS
introduced a formula, whereby the amount the
Assembly Government paid providers would
be based on the number of hours of guided
learning they delivered. Many providers
struggled with the requirement to provide
evidence of guided contact hours. The
Assembly Government worked with providers
to develop a temporary solution, whereby
providers could opt out of the requirement to
evidence guided contact hours and receive at
least 90 per cent of their previous funding
under a new formula. Providers would still
have to provide evidence of ongoing learning
through regular reviews.
7 Although the Assembly Government had
developed the formula-based option, by July
2008 only 35 per cent of providers had taken
this option. The PAGS identified three
providers that had failed to record guided
contact hours properly and a further 38
providers who may have overstated the
number of guided contact hours. The PAGS
was concerned that weaknesses in the
original programme guidance might
complicate the Assembly Government’s ability
to recover any overpayments and estimated
that as much as £2 million funding was at risk.
The PAGS subsequently worked with
providers to address the issues and many
more providers transferred to the formula-
1 In general, dates in this report refer to academic years running from 1 August to 31 July. Academic years are indicated by the use of ‘/’, for example: 2008/09.

based option. By 2008/09 the problems had
been largely addressed although. The PAGS
still recorded ‘except for’ opinions in respect of
four providers because of weaknesses in
recording guided contact hours.
8 The Assembly Government has taken steps to
better communicate its requirements in
respect of audit and financial controls. It has
put guidance online to make it more
accessible, which some of the providers in our
survey sample welcomed. Some providers in
our survey also commented positively on the
increased efforts that the PAGS has made to
directly communicate its expectations to
providers and respond to queries about the
programme guidance.
9 Over the past four years, the Assembly
Government has strengthened its approach to
financial controls. As financial controls have
improved, the PAGS has been able to refocus
its efforts on drilling down in detail to work out
the root cause of problems, rather than just
issue qualified audit opinions. The Assembly
Government has also recently introduced pre-
payment checks on providers’ data that are
intended to prevent incorrect payments being
made in the first instance. The PAGS has
made good use of self-audits by providers as
a tool to deter poor practice and also as an
opportunity for providers to better understand
and make improvements to their systems.
Providers in our survey sample that have
been through self-audits were positive about
the results and the help received from the
PAGS.
10 The PAGS places providers on what is known
as audit escalation if they fail to make
adequate progress to address weaknesses
identified by the PAGS. It has used audit
escalation procedures with 10 providers since
2005. Providers placed on audit escalation
have their funding frozen and are unable to
bid for additional work beyond their contract.
If providers on audit escalation fail to make
adequate progress, the Assembly
Government can terminate the contract,
although it has not yet needed to do so.
11 From the 2008/09 academic year, the PAGS
has taken responsibility for auditing the data
of large providers (those providers with
contracts valued at more than £1 million).
These providers were previously audited by
independent external auditors appointed by
the provider. The PAGS will continue to use
the risk-based audit approach it already uses
for small providers. This approach reflects
good practice and will mean that those
providers the PAGS assesses as high risk will
get the most frequent and detailed attention
from the PAGS, while those who have
demonstrated consistently that they have
sound systems can benefit from a more light-
touch audit regime.
The Assembly Government has made use of the
retendering process and its Provider
Performance Reviews to drive up the quality of
Work Based Learning, and plans to address
concerns about perverse incentives through
new quality arrangements
12 The quality of Work Based Learning has
improved significantly over the past four
years. The Assembly Government’s Provider
Performance Reviews (PPRs) show that in
2005 just two per cent of providers scored
‘excellent’ for learners’ experience and
achievement, whereas 43 per cent had ‘some
concerns’ and 15 per cent ‘serious concerns’.
By 2009, 30 per cent had an ‘excellent’ score,
with four per cent having ‘some concerns’ and
none with ‘serious concerns’. Inspections by
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education and
Training in Wales (Estyn) provide independent
evidence of improvement: in 2004/05 Estyn
assessed just 14 per cent of providers as

having ‘good or better standards of learning
achieved’ but in 2007/08 this rose to
85 per cent.
13 In line with the Audit Committee’s
recommendations, the Assembly Government
used evidence regarding learning quality and
financial management in making decisions
during the retendering of contracts in 2007.
The Assembly Government required all
bidders to bid for work on the basis of PPR
scores and categories, which at that time
included financial management. The
Assembly Government did not renew the
contracts of 13 of the poorest performing
providers, and required some other providers
to implement an action plan to address known
weaknesses. Although most of the providers
in our survey sample told us that the
retendering process had helped to drive up
quality, some of the providers thought that the
Assembly Government had not gone far
enough in not renewing the contracts of some
of the weaker providers.
14 The Assembly Government has made use of
PPR and inspection to manage providers that
need to improve the quality of provision.
Where providers do not have ‘satisfactory’
scores their funding is frozen, as with audit
escalation, and they are required to develop
an action plan to address weaknesses. If the
provider does not make acceptable
improvements, the Assembly Government can
put them on escalation on grounds of poor
performance. If progress remains
unsatisfactory the contract can be terminated.
The Assembly Government has terminated
one provider’s contract on these grounds. The
Assembly Government also terminates the
contracts of providers that fail an Estyn
reinspection. So far, two have failed: one did
not have its contract renewed in 2007 and the
Assembly Government terminated the
contract of the other.
15 The Assembly Government has not yet made
full use of PPR to address common
weaknesses and share good practice,
although it is developing benchmarking to
encourage shared learning. At present, PPR
is focused largely on providing feedback to
individual providers and although there is a
general analysis, this does not pick out
common weaknesses and success factors.
However, the Assembly Government is
developing benchmarking: giving providers a
detailed breakdown of the data that underpins
the PPR scores for their institution, and
showing anonymised scores from other
providers, so that they can compare
performance. The Assembly Government
intends that in future this benchmarking will
encourage providers to work together to
understand success factors and share
learning and good practice. To encourage
this, it has funded the National Training
Federation for Wales to host regional
benchmarking groups.
16 A PPR rightly focuses on outcomes for
learners: achieving qualifications and moving
on to employment. But some providers in our
survey sample told us that they had concerns
that the focus on outcomes in PPR creates an
incentive to cherry pick learners most likely to
succeed, possibly at the expense of more
disadvantaged and needier applicants. The
Assembly Government told us that it is aware
of providers’ concerns. It has taken some
steps to mitigate risks through a guarantee to
learners on the Skillbuild programme, and
intends to further address concerns through
its new Quality and Effectiveness Framework
which will replace PPR in phases from
autumn 2009. The Assembly Government
intends that the new framework will take
account of the ‘distance travelled’ by learners
even if they do not succeed in getting a
qualification or employment.

The Assembly Government has not
systematically applied the lessons learnt from
earlier problems with Work Based Learning
across the organisation, but new management
arrangements are intended to enable better
shared learning in future
17 The Audit Committee’s report made two
recommendations aimed at applying the
lessons learnt from earlier problems with
Work Based Learning more widely to other
Assembly Government projects. We found
that although the Assembly Government had
identified the key lessons in a paper put to
senior managers, that those lessons had not
been systematically shared and applied more
widely. We found evidence that DCELLS itself
had applied some of the lessons to Work
Based Learning, particularly in the example of
providers’ difficulties recording and
evidencing guided contact hours (paragraph 5
above) where officials worked with providers
to develop a solution and to address existing
weaknesses in financial controls.
18 When the Audit Committee made its
recommendations in 2007, the Assembly
Government had no formal process for
applying lessons from audit across its whole
business. The Assembly Government is
currently going through organisational
change, with a streamlined management
structure, which is intended to ensure a more
joined-up approach than in the past. The
Assembly Government intends that new
arrangements to support Departments in key
areas like audit, governance and
management processes will facilitate
improved shared learning across the
organisation, including lessons learned from
audit reports.
Recommendations
1 Financial controls at Work Based Learning
providers have improved significantly.
Nonetheless, in 2008/09 there has been a
rise in the number of ‘except for’ opinions
recorded by the PAGS. Many of these were
due to providers not updating their systems to
reflect changes to the Work Based Learning
programme specification. Providers in our
survey were generally positive about the
Assembly Government’s communications
regarding the programme specification, but
clearly some have not responded
appropriately to recent changes. The
Assembly Government should conduct a brief
review of how it communicates changes to
the programme specification to providers, in
order to identify opportunities for further
improvement.
2 The Assembly Government experienced
difficulties applying aspects of a new
payments framework to Work Based
Learning, specifically the evidencing and
recording of guided contact hours, and
developed a temporary solution by working
with providers. The Assembly Government
told us that a new solution will be required
when the contracts are renewed in 2011. The
Assembly Government should develop a
practicable basis for payments in Work Based
Learning in good time for the new basis to be
tested before they are needed in 2011.
3 The Assembly Government’s performance
measurement framework rightly focuses on
delivering outcomes for learners. But there is
a risk that such a focus may encourage
providers to pick the most able learners who
are most likely to succeed, at the expense of
those who may have a greater need for
training. The Assembly Government has
recently commissioned a toolkit to measure

‘distance travelled’ by learners, which could
provide more detailed evidence on learners’
progress in addition to formal outcomes such
as achieving qualifications and moving into
employment. The Assembly Government
should encourage providers to adopt the
toolkit and further develop measures of
‘distance travelled’ by learners. These
measures should then be incorporated into
performance measurement reports, to assure
providers that they will not be unduly
penalised for taking on learners from more
disadvantaged backgrounds.
4 In 2007, the Assembly Government had no
formal process for sharing lessons from audit
and other evaluations across the Assembly
Government. The Assembly Government is
introducing new arrangements for supporting
the management of its business that are
intended to enable greater cross-departmental
working. The Assembly Government should
ensure that the new Director General
Operations Teams:
a capture key lessons from audit and other
evaluation work and disseminate them
across departments; and
b help apply lessons learned from audit
through changes to organisational plans,
guidance and management processes.

Part 1 - Financial control at Work Based Learning providers
has improved considerably as a result of the Assembly
Government’s strengthened arrangements
1.1 The Assembly Government has contracts with
86 providers to deliver Work Based Learning
programmes, with a total contract value of
around £121 million a year (see Box 1).
In 2006, the Audit Committee expressed
serious concerns about the poor financial
controls at many Work Based Learning
providers and made five recommendations
aimed at improving control and audit
arrangements. This part of the report
examines whether the Assembly Government
has responded effectively to those
recommendations. It concludes that financial
control at providers has improved
considerably as a result of the Assembly
Government’s strengthened arrangements.
Financial control at providers
is vastly improved and recent
weaknesses arising from
changes to funding
arrangements are being
addressed
The number of qualified audit opinions has
fallen significantly, particularly since 2005/06
1.2 The Assembly Government pays Work Based
Learning providers on the basis of data that
providers enter onto the Lifelong Learning
Wales Record. The PAGS carries out audits
of the financial controls at providers, focused
on the accuracy of the data entered onto the
Lifelong Learning Wales Record. The first
stage undertaken by PAGS is an examination
Box 1 - Some key features of Work Based
Learning in Wales
The Assembly Government funds 86 providers to deliver
Work Based Learning. There are two key strands to the
Work Based Learning programme in Wales:
a Modern Apprenticeships, which combine a range of
different component courses within a ‘Framework’.
There are two main types: Foundation Modern
Apprenticeships which last up to two years and lead to
an NVQ level 2 qualification; and Modern
Apprenticeships which last up to four years and lead to
an NVQ level 3 qualification. The Assembly
Government also funds Modern Skills Diplomas which
lead to an NVQ level 4 qualification.
b Skillbuild, which aims to help learners develop the skills
and confidence needed to move on to further training,
such as a modern apprenticeship, or to gain
employment.
Contracts for Work Based Learning are let through a
competitive procurement process. The last round of
tendering took place in 2007, and the next round will be in
2011. Current Work Based Learning providers include
public bodies, such as further education colleges, and
private training companies.
Around 20 per cent of the expenditure on Work Based
Learning comes from European Union structural funds.
The Assembly Government has a single database – the
Lifelong Learning Wales Record, which holds all
information on Work Based Learning, and other post-16
education (apart from sixth-form and Higher Education).
All providers have direct access to the Lifelong Learning
Wales Record. The Assembly Government pays providers
on the basis of data entered onto the Lifelong Learning
Wales Record.

of the underlying systems of control to check
whether providers can demonstrate that their
systems for recording and entering data are
sound. The second stage of PAGS’ audit
examines whether public funding has been
used for its intended purpose, in line with the
terms and conditions of the provider’s
contract, through detailed testing of the data
entered on to the Lifelong Learning Wales
Record. Once the data checks are complete
the PAGS issues two audit opinions covering
the systems of control and the use of funds.
These can be:
a an ‘unqualified’ opinion, in which case it is
system;
b an ‘except for’ opinion, where the PAGS is
largely satisfied but has identified single
areas of concern that need to be
addressed; or
c a ‘qualified’ opinion, where the PAGS is not
the system.
1.4 The Audit Committee’s 2006 report expressed
concern about the poor state of financial
control at many Work Based Learning
providers, as evidenced by the high level of
qualified opinions. It was also concerned that
many providers had failed to address the
fundamental weaknesses that led to qualified
opinions, despite those weaknesses being
known for many years.
1.5 Figure 1 shows that there has been a
significant and welcome reduction in the rate
of qualified systems of control since 2002/03.
By 2007/08 just one provider had a qualified
opinion from the PAGS on the system of
control. This is a significant achievement and
clearly demonstrates that there has been a
dramatic improvement over the past six years.
Figure 1 - Qualified systems 2002/03 to 2008/09
100% 98%
90%
83%
syst
ems
80%
70% 65%
qual
ified
60%
46%
w
i
t
h
50%
40%
provi
ders
30%
o
f
20%
%
10% 6%
1% 1%
0%
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Year
Source: Wales Audit Office’s review of PAGS Annual Reports

It is notable that major progress was made in
the academic year 2006/07; the year following
the publication of the reports of the Audit
Committee and the Auditor General.
1.5 Figure 2 shows that there has been a
similarly positive reduction in the rate of
qualified use of funds. This is a significant
achievement and provides assurance that
funding is being properly applied to support
the Assembly Government’s objectives and
requirements for Work Based Learning.
Again, it is clear that significant progress was
made in 2006/07.
1.6 Although the total number of qualified
opinions has been falling, there has been a
recent increase in the number of ‘except for’
opinions that the PAGS issued (Figure 3). In
2007/08 PAGS issued ‘except for’ opinions in
respect of five providers; in 2008/09 this had
risen to 16. The most common problems that
the PAGS identified were due to providers not
updating their systems to reflect changes to
the programme specification, including failure
to satisfactorily evidence and record the
number of guided contact hours (paragraphs
1.7 to 1.13) and not updating the system to
reflect changes to travel costs.
Widespread weaknesses in 2007/08 around the
evidencing and recording of guided contact
hours as part of a new funding mechanism
were quickly addressed
The Assembly Government introduced the NPFS
for sound reasons but without anticipating the
difficulties that providers would have in
evidencing and recording guided contact hours in
the workplace
1.7 Through the introduction of the National
Planning and Funding System (the NPFS) in
2007, the Assembly Government changed the
way in which it funds Work Based Learning.
The NPFS was already used as a basis for
Figure 2 - Qualified Use of Funds 2002/03 to 2008/09
100%
fund
s
90%
80%
o
f
u
s
e
68%
70%
qualif
ied
60%
50% 45%
w
it
h
42%
40% 36%
provid
ers
30%
20%
o
f
%
10% 5%
1% 1%
0%
2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Year
Source: Wales Audit Office’s review of PAGS Annual Reports

Figure 3 - Number of ‘except for’ opinions recorded by PAGS
18
16
16
14
12
10
8
6 5 5
4
2
0
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Note
Prior to 2006/07 the PAGS did not issue any ‘Except for’ opinions because where providers had weaknesses they tended to be multiple and the PAGS therefore
issued a qualified opinion
Source: Wales Audit Office’s review of PAGS data
funding post-16 education. The Assembly
Government chose to roll out NPFS across
Work Based Learning providers for sound
reasons:
a to address regional variations in the level
of funding to providers for delivering the
same courses;
b to put Work Based Learning on an equal
footing with other post-16 education
sectors;
c to ensure that funding better reflected the
actual costs of delivering Work Based
Learning; and
d to provide more regular and predictable
income for providers.
1.8 Although the Assembly Government
consulted with providers on the introduction of
the NPFS, it did not anticipate the problems
that some providers would experience with a
new requirement to evidence and record
‘guided contact hours’ (Box 2).
1.9 Once the system was introduced, providers
quickly told the Assembly Government that
there were difficulties applying the NPFS,
which had been designed for classroom
based learning, to Work Based Learning:
a most Work Based Learning is done on a
one-to-one basis, which is more resource
intensive for the provider than classroom
learning where many learners can be
taught at the same time by one instructor;

Box 2 - Key changes introduced by
the NPFS
Credit Equivalent Units and Guided Contact Hours
The NPFS introduced a common contract currency, known
as Credit Equivalent Units (CEU), across all post 16
learning. Each CEU has a set financial value (£23.81 in
2007/08). The total number of CEUs for each Work Based
Learning course is calculated on the basis of a formula that
takes account of several factors, including the number of
learning hours, as well as ‘uplifts’ for specific elements,
such as: whether it is a priority subject where there are skill
shortages; provision through the Welsh language; and
whether the learner is from a deprived area.
Each Work Based Learning qualification has a set number
of learning hours that the learner is expected to complete.
Under the NPFS, the learning hours are converted into
CEUs through a formula. Every 10 learning hours is
equivalent to one CEU. So, for example, if a course
requires 100 learning hours it is worth 10 CEUs, plus any
further ‘uplifts’. Each 10 hours of learning is split, with six
hours of ‘guided contact hours’ delivered by the provider
and four hours of other learning in the learner’s own time.
For example, if the course involves 100 learning hours, the
provider has to show that it has delivered 60 ‘guided
contact hours’.
b one-to-one guided learning is more
intensive for the learner than classroom
learning, which means that they are able to
progress further from each hour of learning
than they would in a classroom setting; and
c providers expressed concern that the
NPFS encouraged them to focus on
individual components of programmes in
order to evidence the required guided
contact hours for each, rather than take a
more holistic approach to delivering the
overall framework.
After some initial problems, the Assembly
Government is addressing the difficulties with
evidencing and recording guided contact hours
under the NPFS
1.10 Providers’ concerns about the applicability of
the NPFS were reflected in practical
difficulties in updating the Lifelong Learning
Wales Record and claiming payments. One
provider in our survey told us that it had
initially been under-recording guided contact
hours and that this had resulted in lower than
expected payments. On the other hand,
PAGS’ investigations (paragraph 1.12 below)
identified the risk that many providers had
actually overstated the number of guided
contact hours. Providers told the Assembly
Government that action was needed to
resolve the difficulties around recording and
evidencing guided contact hours.
1.11 In response to the emerging problems with
the guided contact hours element of the NPFS
in Work Based Learning, the Assembly
Government set up a working group, which
included providers, to develop a solution. With
the working group, the Assembly Government
agreed to introduce an option that would allow
providers to opt out of the requirement to
provide evidence of guided contact hours.
Instead, they would be paid on the basis of a
formula, which guaranteed that they would
receive at least 90 per cent of the income that
they would have received under the previous
funding arrangements. This approach was
implemented by adding an additional data
field to the Lifelong Learning Wales Record.
Although providers would not have to
evidence guided contact hours, they would
still be required to demonstrate ongoing
learning through existing requirements for
evidence of regular learner progress reviews.

1.12 The Assembly Government expected that
most providers would take up the formula
based option. However, by June 2008, 10
months into the contract year, only 35 per
cent of providers adopted this approach. The
PAGS identified the risk that some providers
might overstate the number of guided contact
hours that they had delivered. It carried out a
preliminary assessment, and in July 2008
identified three providers that had failed to
record guided contact hours properly and a
further 38 providers who may
have overstated the number of guided contact
hours. The PAGS estimated that as much as
£2 million of funding was at risk.
1.13 The PAGS subsequently worked with
suppliers to rectify and resolve problems
within the contract year. The PAGS wrote to
each of the providers it identified as being at
risk, requesting that they revisit data to ensure
that the guided contact hours recorded were
accurate and requesting them to transfer to
the alternative option if they are unable to
evidence guided contact hours. Following this
work, many more transferred to the alternative
option, which meant that any overpayments
were recovered through adjustments to the
Lifelong Learning Wales Record.
Nonetheless, some problems remain: in its
2008/09 annual report, the PAGS has
recorded ‘except for’ opinions in respect of
four providers because of weaknesses in
recording guided contact hours.
1.14 The Assembly Government told us that the
formula based option is a temporary solution
to the problem of guided contact hours.
It intends to develop a new basis for
payments for the next round of contracting
in 2011.
The Assembly Government has
clearly set out the controls that
all providers must have in place
and taken steps to explain them
although there were initially
weaknesses in new guidance
around guided contact hours
All controls are set out in programme guidance,
which is now more accessible to providers
through online provision
1.15 In order to receive payments, providers must
demonstrate that they meet certain criteria.
There is extensive guidance available to
providers on the Assembly Government’s
dedicated Work Based Learning site. The
main requirements and criteria for Work
Based Learning are set out in the programme
specification. The contract between the
Assembly Government and providers clearly
refers to the programme specification. The
financial controls over the programme derive
from the programme specification and
contract, including learner induction and
eligibility, learning delivery and attainment, as
well as other aspects such as travel costs.
The PAGS has produced additional guidance
clearly setting out the evidence that providers
must produce in order to show that they are
conforming to the programme specification
and have appropriate controls. The providers
we spoke to in our survey were generally
happy with the quality of the guidance, and
some commented positively on the improved
accessibility through the internet site.

There were initially weaknesses in guidance on
evidencing and recording guided contact hours
which the Assembly Government subsequently
addressed
1.16 When the PAGS identified some providers’
problems in evidencing and recording guided
contact hours (paragraph 1.10) it reported that
weaknesses in the programme specification
had increased the risk that providers would
fail to record the guided contact hours
correctly. In June 2008, the Assembly
Government issued revised guidance to
providers, clarifying the expectation that
providers would need to provide evidence of
guided contact hours. However, the PAGS
remained concerned that because the
guidance was issued 10 months into the
contract year, providers might dispute any
funding recovery that resulted as a
consequence of audit work. This risk did not
materialise, and most errors were managed
through adjustments to the Lifelong Learning
Wales Record.
The PAGS has provided training and support to
some smaller providers and external auditors of
larger providers
1.17 The PAGS has provided further training and
advice in support of the general guidance that
is available. The PAGS has provided formal
and informal training to providers, particularly
the smaller providers. In 2008 the PAGS ran
two workshops on the audit process, focusing
in particular on the evidence requirements to
support payments. The PAGS told us that it
was pleased that around 85 per cent of
providers attended these workshops.
1.18 Several of the providers we surveyed
reported that in recent years PAGS had made
greater efforts to explain the audit process,
what evidence would be expected, and to
clarify any queries about the guidance.
One provider reported that although it had not
received formal training on the audit
requirements, it had received softer coaching
and support from the PAGS.
1.19 The PAGS has also provided training for the
independent external auditors that, prior to
2008-09 academic year, audited the Lifelong
Learning Wales Record data for large
providers (those providers with an annual
contract valued at £1 million or more). PAGS
has provided annual training sessions
for external auditors in north and south Wales.
The PAGS reported that in some instances,
providers themselves attended these training
sessions so that they could familiarise
themselves with the audit requirements.
The Assembly Government
has strengthened its approach
to financial controls
The PAGS’ risk based approach to Work Based
Learning audit reflects good practice and will
now be rolled out across all providers
The PAGS has a sound risk-based approach to the
level of Work Based Learning audit work it carries
out at each provider
1.20 The PAGS adopts a sound risk-based
approach to the level of work it carries out at
Work Based Learning providers. Firstly, the
PAGS assesses the level of risk with each
provider, taking account of issues such as
previous audit findings at that institution and
its general financial health, and ascribes a
rating: low; medium or high. The PAGS then
takes account of the financial value of the
contract to determine the frequency of
systems and data audits, and the degree of
work to be carried out by the PAGS. This risk
based approach is recognised as good
practice, as set out for example, in HM
Treasury guidance2
.
2 HM Treasury 2005, Good Practice Guidance ‒ Delivering Audit Assignments: A Risk-based Approach

New arrangements for larger providers are intended
to reward good performance, while managing risks
to public money
1.21 Prior to the 2008/09 contract year, large
providers were required to have their Work
Based Learning data audited by an
independent external auditor. From 2008/09
onwards this audit work has been carried out
by the PAGS on the risk basis outlined above.
The PAGS introduced this change for a
number of reasons:
a New audit requirements for the EU funded
elements of Work Based Learning place a
greater emphasis on auditing systems of
control, where PAGS has particular
expertise and experience.
b The PAGS told us that the revised
approach is more cost effective for
providers.
c The PAGS told us that it can reduce the
work that providers have to carry out to
support the external audit. The issue of
workload to support the audit was a
concern for some of the large providers
we surveyed.
1.23 The Assembly Government also intends that
the revised approach will reflect broader
policy goals of rewarding good performance
through greater freedom. Providers that the
PAGS assesses to be lower risk because they
have demonstrated good financial
management and sound systems of control
will have less frequent and less intensive audit
work. As a result, providers that have
performed well can benefit from a more light
touch audit regime. Although the new regime
will be more light touch for low risk providers,
the PAGS will still carry out regular audit work
to verify that systems remain satisfactory and
that risks to public money are being managed.
PAGS has developed a more proactive
approach to supporting providers in
improving their systems
1.23 PAGS told us that the improvement in
financial control at providers means that they
can refocus their efforts on getting to the
bottom of problems at providers, rather than
simply issuing a qualified opinion. Through its
audits, the PAGS will now spend more time
drilling down to the root of problems, and
helping providers to develop solutions. One of
the providers we surveyed referred to PAGS’
more detailed auditing as ‘unravelling things
right back to the end of the string’. Another
provider reported that the PAGS had used the
audit process to help them to improve their
systems and made suggestions for making
better use of the Lifelong Learning Wales
Record to simplify processes.
The PAGS makes effective use of self-audits
undertaken by providers to directly manage risk
and incentivise improvements
1.24 Where the PAGS identifies any recurrent
problems with providers’ systems or data, it
requires the provider to undertake a ‘self-
audit’. These audits require the provider to
fully review the data related to a particular
area of concern going back in time to the start
of the problem. The self-audits are onerous;
the PAGS intends that they should incentivise
providers to get things right in the first
instance. Providers in our survey who had
been through a self-audit were positive about
the process. One told us that although it had
‘grumbled’ at the time, the process had in fact
been very helpful. Another told us that the
self-audit had helped them to better
understand the Assembly Government’s
expectations in terms of financial controls and
provided an opportunity for managers to
better understand their system and to address
the weaknesses.

The PAGS has used the escalation process to
manage risk more effectively
1.25 Where the PAGS identifies risks to public
money because of weaknesses in the
financial controls, providers are expected to
respond by improving their systems. If the
PAGS decides that providers have not made
acceptable progress, or are failing to carry out
the self-audits on time, it will place providers
on audit escalation. Where providers are
placed on audit escalation the PAGS’ Head of
Governance and Assurance will hold a
meeting with the providers’ Chief Executive
and Finance Director and agree an action
plan to address the weaknesses. Also, the
provider’s funding is frozen, so it cannot bid
for any additional funding. Since 2005,
10 providers have been placed on audit
escalation. The PAGS told us that it is willing
to terminate the contract of any provider that
fails to improve after being placed on
escalation. To date, all providers have met
the PAGS’ requirements following audit
escalation, and the Assembly Government
has not had to terminate any contracts on
these specific grounds.
Improved pre-payment data testing on the
Lifelong Learning Wales Record helps to detect
and prevent errors that would otherwise lead to
incorrect payments
1.26 In 2007/08, the Assembly Government
introduced new pre-payment data testing.
Before payments are made, the Assembly
Government runs a series of checks to
identify any anomalies in the data entered on
to the Lifelong Learning Wales Record, and to
ensure that learners are eligible within the
programme specification. These checks
identify, for example, whether learners are
registered on more than one course or with
more than one provider, which they should
not be, or whether learners for Skillbuild are
registered unemployed, as required. Without
identifying such anomalies, there is a risk that
providers will be paid for ineligible activity.
Each provider is sent a report setting out the
discrepancies in the data, which they are
required to resolve and update through the
Lifelong Learning Wales Record.

Part 2 - The Assembly Government has used the re-
tendering process and its Provider Performance Reviews to
drive up the quality of Work Based Learning, and plans to
address concerns about perverse incentives through new
quality arrangements
2.1 In its 2006 report, the Audit Committee was
concerned at the risk that weaknesses in
financial controls were symptomatic of wider
problems with the quality of Work Based
Learning provision. It made two
recommendations aimed at using the contract
arrangements and performance management
to drive up the quality of Work Based
Learning. This part of the report examines
whether the Assembly Government has
responded effectively to those
recommendations. It concludes that the
Assembly Government made good use of the
retendering of contracts and performance
management to drive up the quality of Work
Based Learning. The Assembly Government
intends that future arrangements will deliver
further improvements and address concerns
about perverse incentives within the current
performance management framework.
The quality of Work Based
Learning provision has improved
PPR reports show a continuous improvement
2.2 The Assembly Government carries out an
annual review of performance, through its
Provider Performance Review (PPR) process.
The PPR forms part of the contractual
arrangement between the Assembly
Government and the providers, and the
review looks at three performance areas:
a participation and responsiveness, which
covers providersʼ responsiveness to
learner, employer and community needs;
and their strategic approach to equality and
diversity issues;
b learners’ experiences and achievements,
which focuses particularly on achieving
outcomes for learners – completion of
frameworks for Modern Apprenticeships
and movement into employment or learning
for Skillbuild; and
c planning and management, which covers
the extent to which providers have
embedded quality management processes
within their organisation.
2.4 The PPR scores have improved significantly
across all three performance areas over the
past four years. Figure 4 shows that there has
been a sustained improvement for learners. In
2005 PPR revealed ‘some’ or ‘serious’
concerns at 58 per cent of providers but by
2009 this had fallen to just four per cent.
Estyn reports provide independent evidence of
continuous improvement
2.4 Estyn inspects providers once every six years.
Estyn’s annual reports provide independent
evidence of continuous improvement at
providers. In 2004/05 Estyn found that just 14
per cent of providers had good or better
standards of learning achieved, while 28 per

Figure 4 - PPR scores for learners’ experiences and achievements show significant improvement
2009 30% 53% 14% 4%
2008 5% 22% 57% 14% 3%
2006 13% 29% 25% 28% 6%
2005 2% 16% 25% 43% 15%
Excellent Good Satisfactory Some Concerns Serious Concerns
Note
The Assembly Government did not carry out a PPR in 2007 because of a detailed evaluation of the PPR process itself.
Source: Wales Audit Office’s review of PPR scores
cent had shortcomings in important areas or
many shortcomings. By 2007/08 the situation
had improved considerably: Estyn found that
85 per cent of providers had good or better
standards of learning achieved, with 34 per
cent classed as having outstanding features.
In 2007/08 Estyn found that no providers had
shortcomings in the standards of learning
achieved.
The Assembly Government made
use of the retendering process in
2007 to drive up standards and
to terminate funding to the worst
providers in terms of quality and
financial management
2.5 In 2007, the Assembly Government
retendered for all of the Work Based Learning
provision contracts. In line with the
recommendation of the Audit Committee, the
Assembly Government used the information it
had gathered from audit, Lifelong Learning
Wales Record and PPR to inform its
decisions. The Assembly Government
required all bidders to submit detailed bids,

based on the PPR categories and scores,
which included financial management at that
time. The Assembly Government required all
new bidders to provide evidence of how they
would meet the standards required by the
PPR.
2.6 The Assembly Government required existing
providers with poor PPR scores to produce an
action plan demonstrating how they would
improve their performance. The regional
teams within the Department for Children,
Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills
(DCELLS) worked with providers to develop
and monitor the action plans after the tender
process. The Assembly Government
introduced a six-month probation period for all
successful providers.
2.7 The Assembly Government did not renew the
contract of 13 existing providers based on
either the quality of learning provision or
financial management. However, five of these
providers continued to provide Work Based
Learning as subcontractors to successful
bidders. The Assembly Government told us
that it is content with these arrangements,
arguing that the key weaknesses have been
addressed by the more effective performance
and financial management regimes in the
providers overseeing the subcontractors.
2.8 Our survey of a sample of providers found
that almost all thought that the Assembly
Government had used the retendering
process to drive up quality. Many providers
reported that the tender specification made
clear that the Assembly Government was
prioritising quality and that if the provider
could not meet those standards it would not
get the contract. However, some providers
told us that the Assembly Government had
not gone far enough in 2007; they thought
that too many providers had their contracts
renewed despite poor performance.
The Assembly Government has
used performance management
and inspection arrangements to
drive up the quality of learning
and plans to address some
providers’ concerns about
perverse incentives through a
new Quality and Effectiveness
Framework
The Assembly Government makes good use of
PPR and inspection to drive up quality
2.9 The Assembly Government makes good use
of the PPR process. The existence of a clear
performance framework sends a clear signal
to providers that the Assembly Government
expects certain quality standards to be met.
Almost all of the providers in our survey
sample thought that PPR had driven up
quality standards. Some specifically
mentioned their own organisation’s progress
and improving scores, which they attributed to
PPR providing a clear framework around
which to base improvement.
2.10 The Assembly Government has taken steps to
improve the PPR process in recent years. In
particular it has provided clearer guidance to
providers about what they can expect from
PPR, and how to produce the self-assessment
that forms the starting point for the PPR.
Some of the providers in our sample survey
told us that the PPR process had improved in
recent years. Some providers thought that the
Assembly Government was less clear about
what it expected from the PPR process and
providers in the first few years, but that it was
now much clearer in its guidance and
communications.

2.11 Regional DCELLS teams follow up PPR with
tailored support for individual providers. Each
organisation receives its PPR scores and a
report. Where there are areas requiring further
improvement, the regional teams work with
the providers to develop an action plan, and
monitor progress against that plan. If
providers do not achieve a ‘satisfactory’ score
for ‘learners’ experiences and achievements’
their funding is frozen, which means that they
cannot bid for additional work, over and above
their contract. Some of the providers told us
that this had provided a hard edge and a ‘fear
factor’ which focused providers’ minds. The
Assembly Government has warned providers
that in future ‘satisfactory’ scores will no
longer be acceptable – providers will have to
achieve ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ if they are to
avoid having their funding frozen.
2.12 Where providers fail to make acceptable
progress against the action plan to address
poor PPR scores, the Assembly Government
can place the provider on escalation, in which
case they receive a warning and additional
monitoring. If progress continues to be
unsatisfactory the contract can be terminated.
The Assembly Government told us that
escalation is used very rarely because
providers generally make progress once
informed of poor PPR scores. Nevertheless,
the Assembly Government has made use of
escalation on the grounds of poor
performance and one provider has had its
contract terminated on this basis.
2.13 The Assembly Government also makes use of
Estyn inspections to inform its performance
management. The Assembly Government told
us that providers that fail an Esytyn inspection
are subjected to more rigorous monitoring by
the regional team. Where a provider fails an
Estyn re-inspection it will terminate its
contract. To date, two providers have failed
Estyn re-inspections, in one case the
Assembly Government did not renew the
provider’s contract in the 2007 re-tendering
round, and in the other it terminated the
provider’s contract.
The Assembly Government is not yet making
full use of PPR to identify and address common
problems and share good practice
2.14 Through the PPR reviews and contacts with
providers, the Assembly Government will
have developed a good understanding of the
good practice that exists among providers.
The Audit Committee recommended that the
Assembly Government should make use of
the PPR reviews in particular to identify
common weaknesses and share good
practice. The Assembly Government told us
that it has not yet made full use of the
opportunities to share good practice. At
present, PPR reports and the follow-up work
by the regional teams have focused on
individual organisations. Although the
Assembly Government produces a summary
of PPR after every round, the analysis is
generally quite broad and does not identify
and disseminate specific examples of good
practice that help improve quality.
The Assembly Government is using
benchmarking to provide a more detailed
analysis of provider performance and to
encourage shared learning
2.15 The Assembly Government carries out
benchmarking, with the support of a
consultancy firm, which it intends will support
shared learning. This benchmarking work
involves a detailed analysis of Lifelong
Learning Wales Record data, combined with
the underlying data that goes into the overall
PPR scores. Each provider gets a detailed
breakdown of their own performance, along
with anonymised data about other providers,

so that they can compare performance. The
benchmarking data includes a value for
money element, which looks at the results
delivered compared to income and costs.
2.16 The Assembly Government intends that the
benchmarking work will provide a basis for
shared learning between providers. The
Assembly Government told us that this is not
yet happening on a large scale. It has been
doing some work with providers in the Further
Education sector to share learning. Through
our audit work, the Wales Audit Office has
uncovered local examples of shared learning,
where providers in north Wales have
collaborated to produce streamlined
documentation for Work Based Learning.
2.17 Also, the Assembly Government has
commissioned the National Training
Federation for Wales (NTFW) to host regional
benchmarking clubs, which are currently
being developed. Working with the NTFW, the
Assembly Government has promoted some
examples of good practice through case
studies at training forums. The Assembly
Government told us that it faces a challenge
in getting private providers in a competitive
market for Work Based Learning to share the
good practice that gives them a competitive
advantage. However, the Assembly
Government told us that the Work Based
Learning providers’ network is now sufficiently
stable and mature to make shared learning a
realistic objective.
Some providers we surveyed have concerns
about perverse incentives that the Assembly
Government intends to address through its
Quality and Effectiveness Framework
2.18 The PPR rightly emphasises the importance
of delivering outcomes for learners –
completing qualifications and moving into
employment. However, some providers in the
Wales Audit Office survey told us that the
strong focus on outcomes could create a
perverse incentive to ‘cherry pick’ learners.
Providers expressed similar views in the
Assembly Government’s 2007 evaluation of
PPR. Providers argued that PPR incentivised
them to choose those learners that were most
likely to complete the qualification or move on
to employment. In some cases, that might
mean turning down more high risk learners,
even though they have the greatest need for
the training.
2.19 The Assembly Government told us that it
understood providers’ concerns, and that
these risks were mitigated to some extent. In
the case of modern apprenticeships, the
Assembly Government told us that it believes
it is right that providers select people with the
skills and abilities needed to complete the
course, which can be quite demanding. The
Assembly Government told us that it
recognises the concerns in respect of
Skillbuild, and has put in place some
measures to mitigate this risk through a
guarantee that all learners referred through
Careers Wales or JobCentre Plus should get a
place. But providers are constrained by their
contract value and some provide specialist
training, so they cannot accept all learners.
The Assembly Government told us that these
factors might mean some providers may
cherry pick those likely to achieve outcomes
and contribute to good PPR scores, but it
does not have evidence of specific examples.

2.20 The Assembly Government is introducing a
new Quality and Effectiveness Framework to
replace PPR, which will be rolled out in
phases from autumn 2009. The Assembly
Government intends that the new framework
will continue to have a focus on delivering
outcomes for learners. However, in
recognition of the concerns of providers, the
Assembly Government plans to introduce
‘soft’ measures of the ‘distance travelled’ by
learners, which will enable providers to
capture the progress that learners have
made, particularly in Skillbuild, even if they do
not progress into employment or further
education. The Assembly Government has
commissioned a toolkit identifying ways of
measuring the ‘distance travelled’ by learners.

Part 3 - The Assembly Government has not systematically
applied the lessons learnt from earlier problems with Work
Based Learning across the organisation but new
management arrangements are intended to enable better
shared learning in the future
3.1 Some of the key lessons from the historical
weaknesses in Work Based Learning,
particularly those associated with the roll out
of the Lifelong Learning Wales Record, have
resonance for other parts of the Assembly
Government. In its report in 2006, the Audit
Committee made two recommendations
aimed at applying lessons learnt across the
Assembly Government, in order to try to avoid
similar such problems in future projects.
This part of the report examines whether the
Assembly Government has responded
effectively to those recommendations.
It concludes that the Assembly Government
has not systematically applied the lessons
learnt from earlier problems with Work Based
Learning across the organisation, but new
management arrangements are intended to
enable better shared learning in the future.
DCELLS officials identified the
lessons from the problems with
Work Based Learning, but they
were not systematically applied
across the Assembly
Government
3.2 In its response to the Audit Committee’s
report, the Assembly Government reported
that it would put a paper to its Senior
Business Team, comprising the Permanent
Secretary and Senior Managers, outlining the
key lessons learnt. In February 2007, officials
from DCELLS submitted the paper to that
team. The paper set out the rationale for the
Audit Committee’s recommendation to ensure
providers participate in implementation
arrangements and incorporate compulsory
training into projects similar to the rollout of
the Lifelong Learning Wales Record. In line
with the Audit Committee’s recommendation,
the paper also correctly identified the key
lessons that could be applied to other similar
projects:
a comprehensive data ‘exception’ reports;
b a robust regime of validation checks;

c regular feedback and structured
communication with providers prior to and
during the implementation phase;
d clear communication of the standards to
which providers are expected to perform
(preferably within contract documents);
e targeted support and assistance to
‘problem’ providers;
f adequate parallel running of the new
system alongside the existing system; and
g robust probationary arrangements for new
providers.
payment on the basis of guided contact hours
under the new funding regime (see Part 2),
DCELLS was able to resolve problems
relatively quickly because it worked closely
with providers to ensure they could participate
in developing an appropriate solution.
Similarly PAGS was able to resolve
widespread problems with the actual
recording of guided contact hours by
engaging with providers to ensure that they
reviewed their data and systems.
The Assembly Government
intends that its new Director
General Operations Teams
3.3 However, the Agenda for the meeting shows
that the paper was submitted for the Senior should support better learning of
Business Team to note the contents, rather
than as a paper for decision or action. The
Assembly Government was unable to provide
evidence that the lessons had been applied
more widely. DCELLS officials told us that,
from their perspective, the Audit Committee’s
recommendation had been discharged
because they had disseminated the lessons
to senior managers. Nevertheless, the Audit
Committee clearly recommended more than
disseminating lessons; they should be applied
and incorporated into project plans for
projects of a comparable size or nature.
The Assembly Government was unable to
trace whether its general approach to project
planning was amended, or whether any
specific project plans were developed to
specifically reflect the Audit Committee’s
recommendation.
3.4 There is evidence from developments in Work
Based Learning that DCELLS itself has learnt
lessons around training and engaging
providers. The PAGS has provided ongoing
training on audit requirements, which most,
though not all, providers have attended. And
when providers identified concerns about
lessons and sharing of good
practice across its departments
3.5 Assembly Government officials told us that
when the Audit Committee made its
recommendations in 2006 there were no
formal arrangements in place for sharing audit
lessons across the Assembly Government.
When the Audit Committee made
recommendations aimed at learning lessons,
the Assembly Government would respond in a
variety of ways. Generally the response would
be taken forward by one part of the
organisation. The Assembly Government’s
Corporate Governance Unit monitored and
reported against any outstanding
recommendations through working individually
with each of the 18 Business Units that
supported the various Departments and
Divisions.
3.6 The Assembly Government is currently going
through significant organisational change. The
Permanent Secretary has created a
streamlined management structure with a new
Strategic Delivery and Performance Board,

new Director General (DG) roles and a new
Operations Group appointed to drive
improvement and efficiency in the
management of the organisation’s business.
One of the key goals of the changes is to
encourage greater collaboration and shared
learning across the organisation.
3.7 To support the streamlined management
structure, the Assembly Government is
introducing a more streamlined approach to
its arrangements for supporting the
management of its business. The 18 Business
Units will be reconfigured into six DG
Operations Teams: one for each of the four
Directors General with Additional Accounting
Officer responsibilities; one for the Chief
Executive of the NHS; and one for corporate
services. The new teams will provide support
in key areas, including:
a financial management and corporate
governance;
b programme and project management;
c business planning;
d human resource management; and
e change management.
3.8 One of the key features of the new
arrangements is the introduction of a single
knowledge base. The Assembly Government
intends to bring together key sources of
information and knowledge that were
previously held by different parts of the
organisation. The single knowledge base will
include financial and performance
management information, as well as
information relating to audit and controls. The
Assembly Government thereby intends that its
DG Operations Teams will have access to a
common data set that includes lessons learnt
from audit.
3.9 The Operations Group, supported by the new
DG Operations Teams will have a role in
developing and supporting key organisational
processes. There is therefore scope for the
DG Operations Teams to help implement
audit recommendations and lessons learned
by making changes to processes and to
guidance. Assembly Government officials told
us that in future, the DG Operations Teams
are intended be more proactive in picking out
the lessons from audit work that have
relevance to the wider organisation and
disseminating and applying those lessons
more widely.

Appendix 1 - Methods
1 Interviews: We carried out interviews with
Assembly Government officials from the
PAGS, DCELLS Quality and Effectiveness
Branch, and the Assembly Government’s
Business Development Division.
2 Document Review: We reviewed a range of
Assembly Government documents relating to
the audit process, audit results, and
performance measurement. We also reviewed
Estyn inspection reports.
3 Survey of a sample of providers: We
carried out a telephone survey of eight Work
Based Learning providers. The sample was
selected to reflect the diversity of sizes and
geographical spread of Work Based Learning
provision.

Work based learning eng Follow up.doc

More Related Content

Similar to Work based learning eng Follow up.doc (16)

More from NeerajOjha17 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Work based learning eng Follow up.doc