For allegations concerning higher education institutions, further education colleges or other relevant bodies (‘institutions’)
Discloser confidentiality
1. In this document the term ‘discloser’ refers to the individual who wishes to make a public interest disclosure to the JISC.
2. The identity of a discloser and the source of his or her information can be kept confidential on the request of the discloser. However, the Executive Secretary and other employees of the JISC Executive may need to be given these details to determine the action to be taken in relation to a complaint, to enable enquiries to be made of the institution, and to enable any investigation to be carried out. Confidentiality will be respected if it is still possible for the case to be properly investigated. If it is not possible to protect confidentiality, the discloser will be given the choice of withdrawing or being identified.
3. Anonymous allegations are received from time to time. Our policy is normally not to take action in response to anonymous complaints.
Policy
4. Our guiding principle for dealing with allegations can be summarised as follows. Institutions are independent bodies and we do not interfere unnecessarily in their operations. However, our relationship with institutions is governed by the relevant funding body’s Financial Memorandum, which sets out the terms and conditions for the payment of funds to the governing body of each institution. The Financial Memorandum also lays down requirements for the governance and management of institutions. Where allegations are received that these requirements are not being met, we must satisfy ourselves that the matter has been investigated, appropriate action taken, and relevant people informed.
The procedure to be followed by a discloser
5. Where an individual wishes to make an allegation to the JISC about matters in an institution, then he or she should:
5.1. Read this document carefully and, if necessary, the relevant Financial Memorandum that governs the relationship between the JISC and the institution.
5.1.1. Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE) financial memorandum
5.1.2. LSC financial memorandum
5.1.3. SFEFC financial memorandum and SHEFC financial memorandum (section 8)
5.1.4. HEFCW financial memorandum
5.1.5. NCETW financial memorandum
5.1.6. DEL financial memorandum with its FE institutions
5.1.7. The two NI HE institutions are overseen by HEFCE and therefore are covered by the HEFCE FM (see 5.1.1.)
5.2. Seek further clarification from the JISC Head of Policy & Corporate services.
5.3. Satisfy him or herself that:
5.3.1. The allegation relates to the JISC’s functions and its relationship with the institution as set out in the relevant Financial Memorandum.
5.3.2. The institution’s internal public interest disclosure procedure has been exhausted.
5.3.3. an individual or collective personnel dispute for which there are established routes of complaint and remedies.
5.3.4. The matter does not relate to an academic dispute between a student and the institution. For higher education, guidance on complaints of this nature can be found in the Code of Practice on Student Complaints to be found on the web-site of the Quality Assurance agency for Higher Education. For further education, guidance on complaints of this nature can be obtained from the LSC.
5.4. Complete the form at the Appendix and submit it to the JISC Head of Policy & Corporate Services. An acknowledgement will be sent within five working days.
The procedure to be followed within JISC
6. All allegations received within the JISC that might affect the proper use of public funds should be acknowledged by the JISC Head of Policy & Corporate Services and initially referred to the HEFCE Audit Service (with whom JISC has a Service Level Agreement). The Chief Auditor will allocate the case to an Auditor within the Audit Service or, if appropriate, seek the advice of the relevant funding body if the institution is not funded by HEFCE. He or she will recommend what action should be taken by the Audit Service, and obtain clarification of or further information regarding the allegation from the discloser, if this is possible and if the Auditor considers this necessary to reach a decision.
7. The Auditor will first consider whether the allegation is relevant to the JISC’s functions. He or she will consider the allegations and decide if they concern the policy of an institution, relate to academic matters or personnel disputes, or simply question legitimate decisions made by the institution. If the allegations do concern one of these areas, no further action will be taken, except that the institution will be informed and a reply sent to the discloser to the effect that these are matters for the institution.
8. If the allegation is relevant to the JISC’s functions, the Auditor will then consider:
- whether the discloser has demonstrated, or seems likely to be able to demonstrate, by the provision of evidence, a reasonable basis for the complaint
- whether the discloser appears to believe that the allegation is true
- the seriousness of the complaint
- whether the discloser is aware of and has used the institution’s own procedure for handling grievances or reporting concerns
- whether there are compelling reasons for the individual’s decision not to use those procedures. Such reasons might include concern on the part of the discloser that s/he will be treated adversely by the relevant institution or some other person or body as a result, or that evidence relevant to the allegation will be destroyed if s/he uses the existing procedures.
9. Having considered these factors, the Auditor will make a judgement as to the robustness and seriousness of the allegation, and whether it needs to be pursued. If the allegation appears to the Auditor to be minor, frivolous or vexatious it will not be pursued. However, a file note setting out the basis for the judgement will be kept (and can be made available subject to Freedom of Information and Data Protection requirements), and the discloser will be informed via the JISC Head of Policy & Corporate services.
10. If the allegation relates to a matter within the JISC’s functions and is considered to be of a level of robustness and/or seriousness which requires the JISC to consider taking action, then the Auditor will instigate the procedure set out below.
Procedure for pursuing allegations
11. When allegations as defined above are received, and the Auditor judges that it is appropriate to pursue them, s/he will prepare a brief summary of the allegation with a recommendation for action, for approval by the Chief Auditor. If the approach to be taken is not clear, the advice of the JISC Executive Secretary will be sought.
12. Once approved, it will be for the Auditor to manage whatever work is deemed appropriate, either using Audit Service resources or by obtaining assistance from outside the JISC, as necessary. In all such cases the institution(s) concerned will be informed. If it is considered that an investigation of some sort is necessary, for example by the institution or its auditors or by the Audit Service, this will be confirmed in a letter from the Chief Auditor to the head of the institution.
13. Allegations may be raised in respect of the head of institution. In these circumstances, the Chief Auditor will liaise with the JISC Executive Secretary about how to proceed and who should contact the institution’s chair of governors or the chair of its audit committee.
14. In all cases, the nature of the allegation should, where possible, be openly discussed to establish if the institution is already aware of the allegation and has investigated it. If this is the case, copies of any reports should be obtained, and the Auditor will make a judgement as to whether any further action is needed by the institution. If the institution is not aware of the allegation, discussions should take place with the institution to agree whether an investigation is necessary and who might undertake it. The Audit Service will obtain a copy of any report resulting from such an investigation by the institution or its auditors, and it has the right of access to any documents necessary for the conduct of its work.
15. When the Auditor considers that no further work is appropriate, either because a full investigation was not warranted or because the allegation has already been the subject of a full internal report, a recommendation should be made to the Chief Auditor that the file on the allegation be closed. The JISC Head of Policy & Corporate Services will then notify the original discloser of this outcome.
16. If the JISC considers that a JISC Audit Service investigation is necessary, the work will be undertaken according to professional audit standards. The investigation should lead to a report that will, if possible, be agreed with the institution as being an accurate report of the investigation and its findings. The report will ultimately be issued to the institution’s Designated Officer (usually the vice-chancellor or principal, but exceptionally the chair of the governing body) in confidence by the JISC Executive Secretary. The expectation is that the report will be considered by the institution’s audit committee. Where it is decided that further work is appropriate, the JISC will inform the discloser that the allegation is being investigated. The discloser will also be informed, in broad terms and insofar as this is compatible with any duties of confidentiality to others, of the ultimate outcome of such further investigations.
17. If the disclosure has been received via a funding body, the National Audit Office (NAO) or the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), the JISC report will be forwarded as an ‘audit in confidence’ document to those agencies. The JISC will also provide a draft response for the NAO or DfES to reply to the original discloser.
General
18. The Audit Service will report on any whistleblowing activity to the JISC Executive Secretary and the JISC Audit Committee in its annual report. This will consider the scale of activity covered by this procedure and the general themes and implications. Major cases will also be reported to the Audit Committee.
19. Discussions with institutions about the JISC’s role in relation to enquiring about and investigating allegations should be conducted on the basis that under statute we have a responsibility for public funds. In discharging that responsibility we will want to use our wider experience to support the institution, to help us work with the rest of the sector in learning lessons from an investigation, and to assist the institution in its dealings with other agencies such as the DfES and NAO.
20. This document cannot cover every eventuality and there will be occasions when an alternative approach will be needed. Minor variations will need the authorisation of the JISC Audit Service. Major variations will need the approval of the JISC Executive Secretary.
21. A separate procedure applies should individuals wish to make a complaint against JISC Officers (Complaints procedure).