Cutting duplication “could produce big savings for higher education”

Citation

(2005), "Cutting duplication “could produce big savings for higher education”", Education + Training, Vol. 47 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/et.2005.00447gab.006

Cutting duplication “could produce big savings for higher education”

Better co-ordination of inspection and data collection in higher education could save at least £15 million annually. That is the estimate in the first report from the Higher Education Regulation Review Group (HERRG), which includes front-line higher-education administrators, and has been looking at ways of reducing bureaucracy. The group believes that there are unnecessary burdens on institutions caused by multiple funding bodies across Government having their own reporting, data-collection and inspection/audit requirements for higher education. The group has recommended a concordat between the funding bodies, whereby the HE Statistics Agency would become the single source of base data, and the Quality Assurance Agency would supply basic inspection and quality assurance. HERRG will seek to broker such a concordat.

Launching the report, Patricia Hodgson, who chairs HERRG, said: “Progress is being made in reducing bureaucracy, and there is evidence of good intentions, but we think there is scope to go further and faster with better co-ordination. This is a potential ‘win-win’ for Government, funding bodies, and universities, if all are willing to work for it.” Responding to the report, the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, Bill Rammell, said: “HERRG has rightly set out a challenging agenda for Government and its agencies, and for universities themselves. A concordat approach to securing savings, without compromising quality standards, should enable us to make real progress and I am committed to working with them and other partners in the coming year.”

The report sets out the key principles agreed by the HERRG. The core aim is better processes that reduce the cost of reporting and inspection, freeing universities to get on with their main jobs. Unless or until an institution is at risk of failure, funding bodies should expect to place greater reliance on management, audit and governance arrangements within colleges and universities themselves, with extra reporting by exception and only where justified by extra risk. Universities and colleges must guard against “gold-plating” in meeting regulatory demands.

The report also sets out the group’s achievements, which include working in collaboration with the Higher Education Funding Council for England, resulting in a change in its approach to funding, monitoring and data collection. This involves cutting the number of special funding streams requiring separate bids from institutions to a maximum of six over time; moving to a “single conversation” with universities and colleges using their own annual forecasts, abolishing multiple date demands during the year, except for institutions at risk; and monitoring by exception, so that institutions need only report on failures to meet particular regulatory requirements.