Support monitoring
Support consists of:
These are discussed in turn below.
Ongoing risk
What is this?
Funder and provider should regularly share up
to date, open information about risk. This will help to
reduce the amount of other monitoring that the funder needs.
Project and risk management techniques need to be used in a
way that is proportionate to the scale of the particular project
[1].
Advice
As explained above, in intelligent monitoring,
monitoring is proportionate to risk. So effective risk
management reduces the amount of other monitoring needed. It
also protects funder, provider and the programme from risk.
At the start of the financial agreement, you
should agree a risk register with the provider. You should
base this on the risk register for the programme that you will have
already produced. Use the same format. You should also
draw on any risk register the provider has.
If you have a small number of large, high-risk
providers, you may need to draw up a risk register for each
provider. But, if you have a large number of low-risk
providers, all delivering the same programme, you may be able to
draw up a generic risk register for all providers of the
programme.
Once the risk register has been drawn up, it
provides a basis for monitoring [2]. This can be done by periodically
updating and circulating the register. If the assessment of risk
remains the same, no further special action is needed. If risk is
assessed as greater, the defences against risk will need to be
employed. These may require more focused monitoring but are likely
to need closer management and action, possibly even terminating
contracts or grants. If risk is assessed as less, then you may be
able to reduce the amount of monitoring.
An example of how
risk may be monitored in practice is set out below.
Serious incidents/cases
What is this?
To inform the funder about serious
incidents/cases. This might include, for example, a fatal
accident in a government-funded work-based training scheme.
Advice
The funder has a need to know about serious
incidents/cases. This is particularly – but not exclusively –
the case if the provider is delivering a public service that would
otherwise be provided by the funder (for example, in cases of
‘contracting out’).
Many providers will be familiar with the
principles of reporting serious incidents/cases [3]. Normally, the provider must
report to the funder on a by-exception basis.
The funder and the provider should agree in
advance the procedure for reporting serious incidents/cases.
This should include a list of the types of incident/case to be
reported. But it will be impossible to identify every item on
this list in advance. This list should therefore be
indicative and non-exhaustive.
The funder and provider should develop a
protocol and trust around this issue.
An example of how
serious incidents/cases may be monitored in practice is set out
below.
Example 3: reducing the
monitoring requirement
Four types of information – performance, due
diligence, risk and serious incidents/cases – can, together, be
thought of as a ‘minimum monitoring requirement’. For many
financial agreements, this information should meet your needs.
In these circumstances, the provider will have
to supply a small amount of due diligence information before the
financial agreement is finalised. It will then have to supply
a small amount of information on outcomes achieved (in order both
to meet the funder’s need for performance data and to trigger a
payment).
The provider and the funder will also have to
agree a risk register. The funder and provider will need to
update this periodically. As long as all risks show as
‘green’, the provider will not have to supply further
information.
The requirement for information of serious
incidents/cases can be integrated into the risk register.
This can be done by listing the risk of a serious incident/case as
one of the risks in a risk register. Because the risk
register is a ‘living document’ shared by the provider and funder,
this will encourage proper defences and contingency plans to be in
place. Reporting any serious incidents/cases will be a
function of effective management of the risk of such
incidents/cases, not an afterthought. (In particular, ‘notify
provider of serious incident/case’ will be one of the contingency
plans to be put in place if a risk materialises.)
Notes
- National
Audit Office, Innovation across Central Government, HC12 2008-09,
March 2009
- Office of Government Commerce, HM
Treasury,
Managing Risks with Delivery Partners, Office of
Government Commerce says ‘good-quality monitoring information
should include the scale of risks and how they are being managed
and ‘the scale and intensity of monitoring … should be increased
where there are signs that significant risks [may]
materialise’
- Two examples: for health and
safety reporting requirements, see Health and Safety Executive,
Reporting of Injuries,
Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, Health and
Safety Executive; and for the NHS, see National Patient Safety
Agency, National
Reporting and Learning Service, National Health
Service