Risk Management. Report from the Audit Committee

Transcription

1 Meeting of the Governors 23 June 2015 G Risk Management Report from the Audit Committee 1 At its meeting on 11 May 2015, Audit committee considered a report from the College Risk Management Group on the management of risk in and the register of risks for , as well as an amended Risk Management Policy. It noted that these documents have also been considered by College management at the Strategic Planning Committee. 2 Changes were proposed to the format of the Risk Register, to link the risks explicitly with the objectives and KPIs considered by Governors term. A gross risk score as well as a net score has been added to the Register, thereby giving a transparent appraisal of individual risks and the effectiveness of measures to manage them. The net risk scores are based on the assumption that controls are working fully and effectively. The Committee endorsed this approach. 3 The Risk Register lists the 28 top level risks identified for the next academic year. The three high-risk areas are Finance, Student Satisfaction and Research. Overall, the risk scores have decreased somewhat from last academic year, most notably in the areas of finance and student recruitment where there has been proven success. 4 The Committee noted that the College was in a good financial position, with well managed financial planning and reporting processes, and substantial cash reserves built up as a reserve against the financial uncertainty of previous years. A threshold minimum liquidity days measure has been identified to manage the risks of decreased liquidity if a capital investment is made in property as part of the College s estates strategy. 1 However, there is still a considerable amount of financial planning challenge and uncertainty, for example the 5M of pension and National Insurance costs that will be additional annual staff costs from 2016 onwards, following changes to the USS pension scheme; changes to parental leave costs; and new proposals around London Weighting. Therefore, while the risk is well managed, financial sustainability remains a top risk and a major area of focus for attention. 5 The student recruitment market will be very challenging next year, with intense competition for undergraduates through UCAS, and the uncertain impact that the removal of the Student Number Control will have on other institutions behaviour. There is also growing competition for recruitment onto London based Masters degrees. The need to meet the needs of the evolving student body and deliver an optimal student experience, thus improving Birkbeck s reputation and boosting recruitment in addition to improving the experience of existing students, is therefore a top risk. Work is ongoing to analyse the results of the National Student Survey to identify areas for improvement and increase student satisfaction. It was noted that while Birkbeck has low scores on certain questions 1 Liquidity days is an estimate of the number of days that the College could operate for if its income suddenly stopped.

2 on the survey it scores very highly for overall student satisfaction. More work is needed to understand the results and identify actions that will improve the student experience. 6 The College s ability to retain its top quartile REF ranking was the third ranked risk by gross score, reflecting the fundamental importance of maintaining excellent research to Birkbeck s standing and mission. The College did achieve this position in the 2014 REF but will need to maintain the momentum against robust competition to retain it. 7 Audit Committee noted that the removal of Student Number Control represents a major part of the overall very significant risk on student recruitment and asked that it be explicitly included in the Risk Register. This is reflected in the version presented to Governors today. 8 The Committee also noted a need to continue to monitor the risk of Birkbeck being unable to benefit from involvement in University Square Stratford, which was currently classified as low risk. Audit Committee noted their concern that the opportunity to use these facilities should be maximised, and asked for this issue to continue to be monitored through the Estates and Finance & General Purposes Committees. 9 Some new risks had been identified and added to the Risk Register for , including: Government changes to HE policy; inability to meet open access requirements in relation to research; and IT systems not optimised to support College priorities, including the upcoming replacement of the HR, Finance and Payroll systems. Audit Committee discussed the systems risk, which has a low net score reflecting College management s confidence that project planning and controls will be effective. Next year Audit Committee will monitor progress on delivering the systems replacement project, along with the planned work on student satisfaction. 10 No major unforeseen risks had arisen during and no significant failures of control were reported. It was felt that improvements had been made in understanding what the risks facing Birkbeck are, their possible impact, and appropriate mitigating actions. 11 Audit Committee was pleased to note HEFCE s assessment that the College is not at higher risk, based on the information in the 2014 annual accountability return. 12 Audit Committee recommends that Governors approve: The updated Risk Management Policy, attached as Appendix A. The annual report on risk management , attached as Appendix B. The Risk Register for , attached as Appendix C.

3 G Appendix A Birkbeck University of London AC Risk management policy Purpose of this document 1 This risk management policy forms part of Birkbeck s internal control and corporate governance arrangements. 2 The policy explains the College s underlying approach to risk management and documents the roles and responsibilities of the governing body, the Audit Committee, the Strategic Planning Committee, the Risk Management Group and other key parties. It also outlines key aspects of the risk management process and identifies the main reporting procedures. 3 In addition, it describes the process the governing body will use to evaluate the effectiveness of the College s internal control procedures. Underlying approach to risk management 4 The following key principles outline Birkbeck s approach to risk management and internal control: The College is committed to pursuing strategic opportunities linked to its core mission, provided that the potential benefits and risks are understood and that reasonable means to mitigate risks are put in place. It has adopted a prudent and conservative approach to general financial planning and management. the governing body (Governors) has responsibility for overseeing risk management within the College as a whole; an open and receptive approach to solving risk problems is adopted by Governors; the Master, the senior officers and the employees of the College support, advise on and implement policies approved by Governors; the College makes conservative and prudent recognition and disclosure of the financial and non-financial implications of risks; College employees are responsible for encouraging good risk management practice within their areas of responsibility; Key indicators relating to the top risks will be identified and monitored regularly.

4 Responsibility for the system of internal control 5 Responsibility for internal control is summarised in the table below: Who What Governors Formally responsible for the system of internal control. They: Approve policies on internal control; Seek regular assurance that will enable them to satisfy themselves that the system is functioning effectively; Ensure that the system of internal control is effective in managing risks in the manner which they have approved. Audit Committee Exercise responsibility delegated by Governors for detailed consideration of risk and internal control Risk management group, Identify and evaluate the risks faced by the College for reporting to Strategic consideration by the Audit Committee and Planning Committee Governors; Design, operate and monitor a suitable system of internal control. Senior officers Have day-to-day responsibility for the system of internal control. They: Implement policies on risk and control; Maintain and monitor local risk registers Ensure their staff are aware of risks and their controls. Employees Are responsible for internal control as part of accountability for achieving objectives; Should have the necessary knowledge, skills and information to establish, operate and monitor the system of internal control. Governing body 6 The governing body plays a fundamental role in the management of risk. Its role is to: a Set the tone and influence the culture of risk management at Birkbeck, including: determining the approach to risk as a whole and in respect of any relevant individual issue; determining what types of risk are acceptable and which are not; setting the standards and expectations of staff with respect to conduct and probity.

5 b c d e f Determine the appropriate level of risk exposure for the College. Approve major decisions affecting Birkbeck s risk profile or exposure. Monitor the management of significant risks, including early indicators of potential problems. Satisfy itself that less significant risks are being actively managed, with appropriate controls in place and working effectively. Annually review Birkbeck s approach to risk management and approve changes or improvements to key elements of its processes and procedures. 7 Governors have delegated to the Audit Committee detailed consideration of - and formulation of advice on - risk issues. Risk management group 8 The risk management group is chaired by the College Secretary and consists of the Vice-Master, the Pro-Vice-Masters for Learning and Teaching, Research and Strategic Engagement; an Executive Dean; the Deputy SecretarySecretaries; and the Directors of Finance, Planning/Estates and Human Resources. 9 Key roles of the risk management group are: a b c To identify and evaluate the significant risks faced by the College and consider what controls should be put in place to mitigate them. To provide adequate information in a timely manner to Governors and Governors committees on the status of risks and controls. To undertake an annual review of effectiveness of the system of internal control and provide a report to the Governors through the Audit Committee. 10 The risk management group conducts a detailed annual evaluation of the College s risks and consideration of the effectiveness of the system of internal control and reports to the Strategic Planning Committee. Senior officers 11 The senior officers of the College are the Master, Vice-Master and Pro-Vice-Masters, the Executive Deans, the College Secretary and the Heads of the professional services. Senior officers have day-to-day responsibility for the system of internal control in their School, service or strategic portfolio and for the implementation of policies on risk and control.

6 Risk management as part of the system of internal control 12 The system of internal control incorporates reporting on risk management. This system encompasses a number of elements that together allow the College to respond effectively and efficiently to a variety of operational, financial, and commercial risks. These elements include: a b c d e f g Policies and procedures Attached to significant risks are policies that underpin the internal control process. These policies are set by Governors and implemented and communicated by senior officers to staff. Written procedures support the policies where appropriate. Audit Committee The Audit Committee is required to report to Governors on internal controls and to alert Governors to any emerging issues. In addition, the committee oversees internal audit, external audit and management as required in its review of internal controls. The committee is therefore wellplaced to provide advice to Governors on the effectiveness of the internal control system, including the College s system for the management of risk. Regular reporting The Audit Committee monitors key risks and their controls. This includes the top ranked risks and major institutional projects, which are reported termly with corresponding performance indicators. Decisions to rectify problems are made at regular meetings of the senior management team and Governors if appropriate. College Risk Register The College Risk Register is compiled by the risk management group and considered by the Strategic Planning Committee. It comprises a College Risk Register of the most significant risks, with information on assessed level of risk, controls and monitoring. It helps to facilitate the identification, assessment and ongoing monitoring of risks significant to the College. The document is formally appraised annually. Planning and budgeting The planning and budgeting process is used to set objectives, agree action plans, and allocate resources. Progress towards meeting objectives is monitored regularly. Internal audit programme Internal audit is an important element of the internal control process. Apart from its normal programme of work, internal audit is responsible for aspects of the annual review of the effectiveness of the College s internal control system. External audit

7 External audit provides feedback to the Audit Committee on the operation of the internal financial controls reviewed as part of the annual audit. h Third party reports From time to time, external consultants will be employed to review and report on specific areas. College Risk Register 13 The College Risk Register is compiled and reviewed annually by the risk management group. Schools and Professional Services identify and manage local risks through their annual strategic plans. 14 The College Risk Register includes institutional risks and high-level risks emerging from the local risk registers. The Register\ identifies and evaluates the risk and the actions being taken to mitigate or control it. A single high level owner is identified for each risk, together with senior officersthe bodies responsible for specific controls and committees and other bodies responsible for monitoring each risk. 15 Risk Gross risk scores are assessedindicate the magnitude of the risk without successful controls and are assessed on the basis of net risk (i.e. taking into account the impact of management controls), as follows: LIKELIHOOD (L) is judged as follows Inevitable Likely Possible Unlikely Highly unlikely IMPACT (I) is judged as follows Extreme High Medium Low Negligible

8 RISK SCORE (S) is LIKELIHOOD x IMPACT Risk scores above 6 are recorded in the College Risk Register. They are divided into low (6-below 8.75), medium ( ) and high (12+) overall scores. 16 Net risk scores assess the magnitude of the risk with successful controls in place, using the same method. High scoring risks are actively managed and termly reports on their status are made to the Audit Committee. Lower scoring risks are managed by senior officers through local risk registers. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 1.27 cm Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm 16 The Risk Register also indicates whether the risk is rising, declining or static compared with the last report. Termly and aannual review of effectiveness 17 The governing body is responsible for reviewing the effectiveness of internal control of the College, based on information provided by the risk management group. It has delegated detailed consideration of the effectiveness of internal control to the Audit Committee. 18 For each significant risk identified, Governors, acting on the advice of the Audit Committee, will review the: top risk profile and the effectiveness of the controls each term; and the full College level risk profile annually. They will: review the previous year and examine the College s track record on risk management and internal control; consider the internal and external risk profile of the coming year and consider if current internal control arrangements are likely to be effective. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 cm, First line: 0 cm 19 Governors and the Audit Committee will consider the following aspects. a b c Control environment: the College s objectives and its financial and non-financial targets; organisational structure and calibre of the senior management team with respect to the management of risk; culture, approach, and resources with respect to the management of risk; delegation of authority; public reporting. On-going identification and evaluation of significant risks: timely identification and assessment of significant risks; prioritisation of risks and the allocation of resources to address areas of high exposure. Information and communication: quality and timeliness of information on significant risks;

9 time it takes for control breakdowns to be recognised or new risks to be identified. d Monitoring and corrective action: ability of the institution to learn from its problems; commitment and speed with which corrective actions are implemented. 20 The risk management group will prepare a report of its review of the effectiveness of the internal control system annually for consideration by the Strategic Planning Committee, the Audit Committee and Governors. 21 In producing the report, the risk management group will reflect on: the management of significant risks during the previous year; any controls that failed during the year and why; unforeseen risks and why they occurred; changes to the external environment that affect the risk profile, such as new funding arrangements or new legislation; changes to the internal environment that affect the risk profile, such as a new IT system or new staff; risks expected to emerge during the forthcoming year; new controls that should be put in place; changes or improvements to the process recommended for the forthcoming year. Approved by Governors 2 July 2009 Amendments approved 7 July 2011 Amendments approved 9 July 2014

10 G Appendix B AC SP A Audit Committee 11 May 2015 Strategic Planning Committee Annual Report on internal control and risk Governors are invited to approve the report on the management of risk in , which has been considered by the College Strategic Planning Committee and Audit Committee. Ranking of risks 2 Each year a College Risk Register is produced by the Risk Management Group and forwarded to Strategic Planning Committee, Audit Committee and Governors for consideration. For the risk register, we assessed and scored risks using likelihood and impact scores as set out in the risk management policy. The scores estimated net risk (the score if the controls are effective). The Register consisted of red risks (scoring more than 12), amber risks (scoring ) and green risks (scoring less than 9). To give an indication of scale, the highest possible risk score is 25, representing an inevitable event with an extreme impact. A likely event with a high impact would score 16 and a possible event with a moderate impact would score 9. Management of red risks 3 The red risks in the Risk Register were: Financial sustainability (scored 17.5) Student recruitment (scored 14) Student services (scored 12.25) Student retention, progression and success (scored 12.25) Research Excellence Framework (scored 12.25) Financial sustainability 4 Financial sustainability has been a longstanding top ranked risk for the College. With surpluses above 6% of turnover achieved consistently over the last four years, and agreement of an objective to return surpluses of 5-7% for the coming five years, the risks around financial sustainability have come under control and are well managed, by financial planning, improved budget reporting and more focused tuition fee income and debt management. 5 Developments increasing the risk have included 5M of pension and National Insurance costs that will be additional annual staff costs from 2016 onwards, following changes to the USS pension scheme. The College will need to manage staff

11 costs to avoid additional escalation and will need to carefully evaluate its approach to managing shared parental leave costs and London Weighting proposals. 6 The College s cash position is good; substantial amounts of cash have been built up as a reserve against the financial uncertainty of previous years. A strategy to invest in property is now being defined, addressing the limitations on space that have an impact on student and staff experience and our ability to plan new developments. If we do spend cash on property this will raise the risk of reduced liquidity (the length of time we could operate if our income suddenly stopped). To manage this, a threshold minimum liquidity days measure has been identified in consultation with the Finance and General Purposes Committees. 7 The College s position is currently good, with good prospects and a considerable amount of challenge and uncertainty, so while the risk is well managed financial sustainability remains a top risk and major area of focus for attention. Student recruitment 8 The controls in place for this risk: target setting, portfolio review, fees balanced by bursaries, recruitment monitoring, innovative marketing, improved application and enrolment processes, publicity on loan availability and flexible decelerated degrees with lower annual fees were again fully deployed this year. Part time undergraduate recruitment fell again, following the 2012 changes to part time student funding that had such a negative impact last year across the whole HE sector. Birkbeck managed to offset this by achieving its aims for recruiting full time evening students to replace the part time losses; a considerable achievement. 9 Improved processes and management information continue to have a positive impact on recruitment but even though a great deal has been achieved there is still room for improvement, for example in time to issue offers and follow up to support conversion to enrolment. We reached 95% of our new student number target, undershooting on part time undergraduate and full time postgraduate, but 91% of our new student fee income having recruited proportionately more students onto lower fee courses and less onto higher fee courses compared with targets. This will require attention in the coming year s planning round and recruitment monitoring. 10 Looking forward we will need to continue to deploy all the measures to offset this risk at full power. Student recruitment will remain a top risk and the market will be very challenging, with intense competition for undergraduates through the UCAS route we use to recruit to full time evening courses, where students list five initial choices and we need to work to encourage them to choose us. This is the first year in which universities are competing freely without student number controls. There is also growing competition for Masters students in London, including regional universities setting up postgraduate satellite sites in the capital. Student services 11 Progress in the consolidation and development of student services, the careers, counselling and financial advice services continues, all responding to student demand. The services are integrated and a new student wellbeing centre opened in autumn Over the year, several Catalyst and HE Innovation funded initiatives have been

12 running, for improved careers, employability, employment, enterprise and mentoring. The College is maintaining its Institute of Customer Service accreditation. 12 The pattern identified last year of improved services uncovering escalating demand continues. High fee paying students have high expectations for services, facilities, advice and support and younger students have different support needs compared with older students, all of which will need to be assessed and addressed. Last year, in response to this, the impact of the risk was reassessed and it was elevated to a top risk, and will stay at this level in because although much has been achieved there is more to do. The risk is strongly linked to student satisfaction, both in terms of the national student survey and potential appearance in league tables and in terms of individual students interaction with the College. Over the year, analysis of the 2015 national student survey showed that our students give low ratings for services, advice and feedback and there is a need to find reasons and remedies for this. Student retention, progression and success 13 Before the new high fee/loan system, the expectation for many Birkbeck students was that life commitments could interrupt study, with students taking breaks or returning later to restart or complete, without funding problems. In the new system, for most undergraduate students the fees are only accessible via student loans, and these loans are time-limited. Students who take breaks and additional years are at risk of being unable to complete. 14 As well as retention, which is already an established measure of success, management information is being developed on the number of students who successfully complete a degree within a given period after starting. These statistics will be used to measure the effectiveness of the support interventions we are trialling and developing. We need to understand what works and put appropriate resource in place. 15 For student services and student retention, progression and success, a significant amount of the risk as it currently stands relates to uncertainty: on the costs of delivering effective services and interventions reaching those who require them; on the extent to which staff and students are aware of the newly available services and support and, as the new initiatives have not yet been evaluated on whether they are effective. All three aspects will require effective management. Research Excellence Framework 16 REF preparations and performance were top ranked in as the announcement of the outcome, due in December 2014, would have a large impact on the College s reputation future strategy and future funding. The College maintained its top quartile position in the rankings taking research intensity into account and was able to continue an inclusive approach, with 83% of eligible staff submitted, further demonstrating genuine research intensity. Our HEFCE Quality Research funding stream was also maintained post REF. Within this good overall result there were some excellent performances and some areas that performed disappointingly; and the need identified for effective leadership, planning and engagement across the board for the next research assessment exercise.

13 17 As well as the REF, over the year the need for a comprehensive review of our aims, performance and strategy in respect of research students was identified and that review is now taking place, as is work to better co-ordinate research administration and support. 18 Maintaining excellent research is fundamentally important to the College s standing and mission, making this a top risk. Other risks 19 The other risks in the register were Academic portfolio development League tables Delivery of strategy Limited space External research income Staff costs Government policy Achieving return on investment at Stratford International students Academic portfolio delivery Industrial action Adverse publicity Fundraising Open Access Catalyst programme 20 These have all been either effectively managed or offset, or are potential situations that did not arise. For the register, a different approach has been taken linking the risks with the objectives/key performance indicators agreed last term. Any controls that failed during the year and why 21 No significant failures of control have been reported. Unforeseen risks and why they occurred 22 No unforseen risks arose during the reporting period. The College put considerable resource into meeting the international student compliance requirements of the Home Office UK Visas and Immigration, which had been listed under the Government Policy risk. We have delivered compliance as confirmed by the internal auditors and an independent assessment, but will need to continue to devote considerable resource and attention to meeting UKVI requirements. This is listed as a separate risk for External changes affecting the risk profile 23 The 2012 Government fee and funding changes are still the strongest external driver of our risk profile. We are managing the impact of reduced part time uptake, securing tuition fee income, competing with other universities in an unregulated market, time restrictions on student loans changing expectations on how long

14 students take to complete; and increased expectations for services, support and success. 24 Concentration of external funding for research, through selective distribution of HEFCE QR funding and policy changes in the research councils favouring consortia of high research status universities, is increasing, raising the bar for maintaining our status and standing and securing resources. 25 The uptake of HE among non traditional students is affected by economic factors, a limited graduate job market and uncertainty over the value of a university education. 26 The changes in the Universities Superannuation Scheme, involving increased employer contributions and knock on impact of increased National Insurance, will add 5M to the pay bill. Internal changes affecting the risk profile 27 As College finances have stabilised, the planning and strategic development cycles have been more closely aligned, enabling a more long term outlook with Strategic Planning Committee and Governor overview of current performance and the strategic outlook followed by five year planning in the Schools and service departments, then compilation of the budget and five year plan. 28 The College has agreed an objective of an annual surplus of 5-7% of income (5% rising to 7% after the increased pensions costs are accommodated). 29 There are more high fee paying students, and a diverse body of young, mature, nontraditional and professional students in the College demanding effective general and specialist academic and administrative support and advice. 30 The Catalyst project to develop and enhance intensive flexible provision and aligned support has started. Its pilot projects for lecture capture and e-registers (attendance recording) have been well received by students and staff. 31 Following several senior staff changes last year the new Vice Master, Director of Finance, Director of HR and Academic Registrar are in post, together with the newly designated Director of Commercial Services and Estates Development, enabling the development in key strategic, control and service areas described in this report. Risks expected to emerge during the forthcoming year 32 Depending on the political party or coalition forming the next Government, there may be significant HE policy changes to deal with, such as undergraduate tuition fees and postgraduate loans and fees. 33 Open Access and open data requirements will need to be met to allow us to fully secure research funding. 34 The College has taken a decision to replace the corporate HR, payroll and finance systems and a project to deliver this has been initiated.

15 35 We were due for QAA institutional review in The national contract for audit of academic quality and standards is out to tender, and the new (or continuing) provider not yet chosen. We have assumed we will be audited by a currently unknown agency, using currently unknown methods, in 2016 or shortly after that, and will be preparing accordingly. New controls 36 The HR/Finance system project Board to monitor and govern the procurement and implementation of the new systems 37 An enhanced method for assessing the effectiveness of risk management using gross and net scores (see risk management policy). Risk Management Group 22 April 2015

16 Category Ref Risk Impact Gross likelihood Gross impact Gross score Current risk management strategy Net likelihood Net impact Net score Assurances/KPIs Additional action Responsibili ty Governance Changes since last term 1 Student Satisfaction 1 Inability to meet the needs of the evolving student body and deliver optimal student experience Reduced reputation; student less likely to apply, engagement with dissatisfied students, lower National Student Survey scores, student not reaching full potential NSS scores forwarded to Schools for response/action, via TQECs. Birkbeck student survey for non finalists to identify issues early on/prepare students for NSS "Overall satisfaction" rating compared with other institutions in London and nationally, interactions and feedback from students NSS project to identify areas for service improvement. Further analysis of NSS feedback and exploration of student views PVM L&T STQECs; TQEC, SPC 1 Student Satisfaction 2 1 Student Satisfaction 3 Low university league table rankings Inability to provide student services in line with demand College is ranked lower than its mission and reputation indicates Student dissatisfaction, impact on reputation Analysis of how league tables use data. Agreement to delay appearance for 2 years while we improve our data League table rankings; "dry run"rankings before our actual appearance Further development of student services Service availability; student feedback VM Academic Registrar SPC SEWPC 2 Student recruitment and access 2 Student recruitment and access 3 Student retention and success 3 Student retention and success 4 Academic Portfolio 8 4 Academic Portfolio 9 5 Research Failure to maintain size of student body; competition from other HE institutions with no student number control Reduced income, risk of threat to individual subject areas Schools plan student recruitment targets to maintain overall FTE. Recruitment Management Group of School reps meeting regularly to monitor and take action if targets are not met 3 4 Limited access for non traditional students 6 Reduced student retention 7 Key aspect of our mission not delivered Reduced fee income; students not reaching full potential; impact on reputation Students not reaching full potential; Limited ability to add value in impact on reputation/league table terms of awarding good degrees performance Inability to develop subject areas attracting sufficient numbers of students Failure to fully expand the intensive evening programme portfolio Failure to maintain top quartile REF ranking Potential for College to expand not realised; reduced income Full potential of these programmes to attract new students not realised; reduced income Reduced reputation; staff less likely to apply or stay; reduced research funding, fewer chances for collaboration Progression agreements with London FE Colleges, partnerships and initiatives with selected institutions, maintenance and development of CertHE progression routes Student Retention strategy with support focused on pre entry and the first term, where the risk of drop out is highest Establishing baseline statistics to measure progress against and target specific areas for intervention Strategic discussions 2015 included potential new subject area developments Most existing part time UG degrees are now offered as intensive versions. Catalyst programme projects developing support for these programmes Research strategy agreed; preparations for next REF under way with focus on planning and leadership. Competition remais intense and need to address patchy performance between subject areas Overall student FTE; overall new student FTE Applications from FE Colleges; students progressing from CertHE to degree Percentage of students returning for year 2 Proportion of students from each year of entry who got a degree, by class, are still studying or have withdrawn New developments, new courses New and redeveloped programmes Research intensity adjusted REF ranking Catalyst E registers project exploring student attendance monitoring and potential action to improve student retention Proportion of students from each year of entry who got a degree, by class, are still studying or have withdrawn Schools currently considering the balance of their academic portfolios and areas for future development Exec Deans; PVM R&E Exec Deans; PVM A&CP PVM L&T Tbc after baselines established Executive Deans Executive Deans PVM R SPC, F&GPC SPC TQEC, SPC SPC SPC SPC Research Committee 5 Research 11 Decreased research grant and contract income Reduced income, reduced reputation, impact on REF and our ability to enter research collaborations Research Committee reviews RG&C income termly and raises areas of concern to Schools/SPC. Schools deploying measures to improve application/success rates Research grant and contract income/academic FTE PVM R Research Committee; F&GPC 5 Research 12 Inability to maintain and support PhD student body Key aspect of our mission not delivered; reduced research reputation and ranking Research student review defining our aims for PhD students and assessing current structure and support PhD student numbers, PhD completion rates, Postgraduate Research Experience Survey PVM R Research Committee 5 Research 13 Inability to meet open access requirements Compromised performance in next REF; reduced research funding New academic appointments with expertise in this area; open data/data management project commenced PVM R Research Committee 6 People 14 Key staff leaving; ineffective succession planning Compromised delivery of areas of key activity Review of procedures for making internal appointments, to widen pool of potential successors. Use of interim appointments where needed VM HRSPC 6 People 15 Incomplete PDR uptake Staff not realising their full potential, College not able to participate in staff development initiatives eg Athena Swan Annual monitoring via Audit Committee; new mentoring/research system under development for academic staff Percentage annual PDR uptake VM HRSPC, Audit Committee 6 People 16 Inability to maintain diverse staff and student body Key aspect of our mission not delivered Equality and diversity strategy and monitoring Percentage of staff from minority groups compared with London HE institutions Equalities Committee to be embedded in College management committee structure, enabling VM better integration with strategy discussions Equalities Committee, HRSPC, Governors

17 7 Estate and Environment 17 Inability to implement Estates strategy, shortage of suitable space for teaching, students, research and other activities Inability to develop the College, students taught in accomodation outside our contriol; operational issues and reduced satisfaction New Estates strategy under development following identification of sites in 2013 Masterplan; partnership options for space expansion being explored, new /redeveloped property opportunities assessed. External space rented through long term partnerships wherever possible; annual survey to assess student and staff experience of venues Percentage of classes taught off site; availability of office and research space; funds available to secure space, student and staff feedback Search for new property, either to College teach in or to move other activities Secretary in to freeing up space for teaching Estates Committee, F&GPC, Governors 7 Estate and Environment 18 Failure to deliver environmental strategy Impact on reputation and ability to meet national requirements Carbon Management Plan agreed and being implemented, includes carbon reduction targets year by year. Environmental Management Goup being set up with departmental representatives Carbon emissions; People and Planet university rankings Carbon reduction projects in the Sustainability 2015 Long Term Maintenance plan Manager Estates Committee 8 Financial 19 Inability to maintain financial sustainability, secure sufficient tuition fee income, Reduced income, financial uncertainty, reduced capacity to fund new developments Schools plan student recruitment targets to maintain overall FTE. Planning round includes assessment of feasibility of student recruitment targets; Recruitment Management Group of School reps meeting regularly to monitor and take action if targets are not met; regular budget review including spending reductions if insufficient income generated Income, tuition fee income, student recruitment numbers Deans; PVM R &E SPC, F&GPC 8 Financial 20 Failure to control staff costs 8 Financial 21 8 Financial 22 9 Strategy, policy, reputation 9 Strategy, policy, reputation 9 Strategy, policy, reputation 9 Strategy, policy, reputation Reduced cash reserves lead to reduced liquidity Incomplete recovery of student debt Government changes to HE policy Lack of national strategy for part time HE Inability to demonstrate compliance on international student immigration rules Inability to maintain an agile and inclusive management style while maintaining momentum in an increasingly volatile HE sector Unmanaged increases in expenditure; inavility to fund new developments College would become insolvent if insufficient income generated Reduced income, financial uncertainty Reduced or unpredictable income, students put off applying, senior management resources diverted from strategic development to deal with sudden policy change Insufficient funding for part time institutions; part time market declines further Reputation, adverse publicity, inability to get income by recruiting international students Uncertainty; diversion of staff and management resource; adverse internal and external publicity Planning round includes assessment of staff plans and proposals with central approval New liquidity targets established; baseline minimum cash reserve agreed freeing up cash for property development or acquisition Tightened debt management procedures, regular reports to Committees Monitoring external developments, contingency plans if needed, lobbying with the HE sector for adequate funding Lobbying for policy change; promotion of part time opportunities at Birkbeck; development of alternative study options Team established to ensure compliance, internal audit and external review, SPC overseeing compliance Constructive working relationships, consultation, regular joint meetings, joint responses to external issues where possible Staff costs as a percentage of income VM SPC, F&GPC Net liquidity days Reports on debt position Director of Finance Director of Finance F&GPC, Audit Committee F&GPC, Audit Committee General election 7 May 2015 VM SPC, F&GPC Part time and overall student numbers Feedback from internal audit/external reviewer Specific issues arising Deans, PVM R&E Academic Registrar SPC, F&GPC SPC, Audit Committee HRSPC, F&GPC, Governors 9 Strategy, policy, reputation 27 Insufficient management capacity to deliver strategy College does not develop to full potential Senior management team in place; project based approach for new initiatives; management development programme for key staff; succession planning Strategic development of the College Master SPC; F&GPC; Governors 9 Strategy, policy, reputation 28 Inability to benefit from involvement in the Univeristy Square Stratford campus USS not used to full potential, reduced presence in East London, inability to benefit from the Stratford initiative Encourage more course provision and events at Stratford; outreach and community partnership work Activity at USS; income and spending from USS PVM A&CP SPC 10 Systems 29 IT systems not optimised to support College priorities Disruption to services, inability to benefit from up to date systems, ; inability to renew HR, Finance and Payroll system Project planning, consultation with users, procurement planning, oversight by Project Board. Establishment of corporate information systems priorities via SPC Implementation of new system; integration of all systems with College prioroties HR/Finance system project Board, SPC