Skip to content
Please be aware the content below has been generated by an AI model from a source PDF.

220930AuCtteePaper4AALEADERReportFINAL

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Authority

Intern­al Audit Report 202223

LEAD­ER Programme

August 2022

A AZETS


Con­tents

  • Exec­ut­ive Sum­mary 1
  • Man­age­ment Action Plan 5
  • Appendix A – Defin­i­tions 11

Audit Spon­sor: Dav­id Camer­on, Deputy Chief Executive

Key Con­tacts: Brid­get Trus­sell, LEAD­ER Pro­gramme Man­ager; Sam­antha Mas­son, Pro­gramme Supervisor

Audit team: Eliza­beth Young, Engage­ment Lead; Stephanie Hume, Seni­or Man­ager; Lor­na Mun­ro, Intern­al Auditor


Exec­ut­ive Summary

Con­clu­sion

We have con­firmed that the pro­ced­ures for the LEAD­ER pro­gramme clos­ure with­in Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity (CNPA) reflect good prac­tice. There is clear guid­ance for claim and clos­ure pro­cesses cov­er­ing inspec­tion vis­its, inspec­tion reports, updat­ing the Loc­al Actions in Rur­al Com­munit­ies sys­tem (LARCs) and review­ing grantees’ files, and we con­firmed these are being com­plied with.

We also con­firmed CNPA has made pro­gress in address­ing both records man­age­ment reten­tion and les­sons learned issues iden­ti­fied from the 202122 intern­al audit, with addi­tion­al work planned over the remainder of 2022.

Back­ground and scope

The LEAD­ER pro­gramme forms part of the Scot­tish Rur­al Devel­op­ment Pro­gramme 2014 – 2020 for which CNPA is an Account­able Body. The LEAD­ER pro­gramme is an ini­ti­at­ive which aims to increase sup­port to rur­al com­munity and busi­ness net­works to tackle loc­al devel­op­ment objectives.

It is a require­ment of the Ser­vice Level Agree­ment (SLA) between the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment and CNPA that an annu­al intern­al audit takes place to review the func­tions and ser­vices provided by the organ­isa­tion in their role as Account­able Body, and to assess the extent to which they are meet­ing the require­ments out­lined in the SLA.

The LEAD­ER pro­gramme closed at the end of Decem­ber 2021.

In accord­ance with the 202223 Intern­al Audit plan we reviewed the pro­ject, claim and pro­gramme clos­ure pro­cesses to ensure com­pli­ance with the SLA for the LEAD­ER pro­gramme and the effect­ive­ness of pro­ject and pro­gramme closure.


Con­trol assessment

  1. Final claims sub­mit­ted to the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment are in line with eli­gib­il­ity cri­ter­ia and review/​approved pri­or to pay­ment, with all out­stand­ing grant claims sub­mit­ted before the 31 Decem­ber 2021 deadline.
  2. Pro­ject vis­its and final inspec­tion reports have been com­pleted pri­or to final pro­ject claims being paid.
  3. Intern­al admin­is­tra­tion clos­ure pro­ced­ures have been under­taken with a let­ter of pro­ject clos­ure to each applic­ant being issued.
  4. Pro­ced­ures are in place to ensure that all records held by CNPA are main­tained and access­ible for the peri­ods iden­ti­fied in the Ser­vice Level Agreement.
  5. CNPA has put in place meas­ures to cap­ture les­sons learned for inclu­sion in future grant programmes.

Improve­ment actions by type and pri­or­ity (Dia­gram show­ing improve­ment actions by type and priority)

Two improve­ment actions have been iden­ti­fied from this review, one of which relates to the oper­a­tion of the con­trols in place. See Appendix A for defin­i­tions of col­our coding.


Key find­ings

Good prac­tice

  • Eli­gib­il­ity cri­ter­ia is clearly out­lined in the guid­ance avail­able to both applic­ants and staff with­in CNPA.
  • All claims made by applic­ants are sub­ject to review to ensure they are eli­gible, and that appro­pri­ate evid­ence of the expendit­ure incurred has been provided.
  • We con­firmed there is clear segreg­a­tion of duties through­out the pro­cesses in place.
  • The LEAD­ER pro­gramme ensured that all pro­jects sub­mit­ted final claims pri­or to the 31 Decem­ber 2021 deadline.
  • All pro­jects had an in-situ’ inspec­tion report completed.
  • There are a range of intern­al clos­ure pro­ced­ures in place, includ­ing updat­ing LARCs, in-situ reports and grantee file reviews.
  • Each pro­ject must com­plete a Case Study’ to high­light the exper­i­ence of deliv­er­ing the pro­gramme and the bene­fits achieved.
  • A clos­ure let­ter is issued to each pro­ject remind­ing them of their respons­ib­il­it­ies in rela­tion to main­tain­ing records for review by the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment and/​or European Uni­on (EU).
  • A pro­gramme eval­u­ation report1, con­tain­ing les­sons learned, has been delivered on pro­gramme out­come achieve­ment and pro­gramme deliv­ery, using feed­back and com­pleted case studies.

Areas for improvement

We have iden­ti­fied a small num­ber of areas for improve­ment which, if addressed, would strengthen CNPA’s con­trol frame­work for future grant pro­grammes. These include:

  • Ensur­ing that decisions out with expec­ted grant pro­cesses are appro­pri­ately doc­u­mented and recorded.
  • Con­sider wheth­er con­tin­gency arrange­ments are required for key pro­cess steps with­in grant pro­grammes, to ensure grant pro­cesses are fol­lowed in a timely manner.

These are fur­ther dis­cussed in the Man­age­ment Action Plan below.

Impact on risk register

The CNPA cor­por­ate risk register (dated May 2022) included the fol­low­ing risks rel­ev­ant to this review:

  • A11.1: Roles as Lead/​Accountable body for major pro­grammes (e.g. LEAD­ER, Land­scape Part­ner­ship) has risk of sig­ni­fic­ant fin­an­cial claw­back should expendit­ure prove to be not eli­gible for fund­ing, while CNPA car­ries respons­ib­il­it­ies as employ­er for pro­gramme staff.

1Cov­er­ing the peri­od 2014 – 2020, at which 85% of pro­jects had been fully completed.

The down­ward trend in risk score will con­tin­ue as the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment and EU audit quer­ies reduce, how­ever there will be some long-term resourcing risks, due to oblig­a­tions related to records retention.

Our com­ment­ary related to staff capa­city and con­tin­gency arrange­ments whilst not of sig­ni­fic­ant impact will con­trib­ute to man­age­ments con­sid­er­a­tion of the fol­low­ing risk:

  • A9.3: Staff­ing: addi­tion­al extern­ally fun­ded pro­jects strains staff work­load capa­city with increased risks of stress and reduced morale.

Acknow­ledge­ments

We would like to thank all staff con­sul­ted dur­ing this review for their assist­ance and co-operation.


Man­age­ment Action Plan

Con­trol Object­ive 1: Final claims sub­mit­ted to the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment are in line with eli­gib­il­ity cri­ter­ia and review/​approved pri­or to pay­ment, with all out­stand­ing grant claims sub­mit­ted before the 31 Decem­ber 2021 dead­line. (Yel­low)

1.1 Claims approv­al, evid­ence and records

We reviewed two final claims and con­firmed that all claims had been checked for eligibility.

In respect of the claim for the TICK Pro­ject, we noted that this was assessed by the Pro­gramme Super­visor on 15 Decem­ber 2021 and signed off by the Pro­gramme Man­ager on 26 Janu­ary 2022. The pay­ment author­isa­tion form how­ever was signed on 14 Decem­ber 2021 and pay­ment made on 17 Decem­ber 2021, mean­ing that this was done pri­or to the pre­pay­ment check­list being fully com­pleted. Man­age­ment con­firmed the Pro­gramme Man­ager took the decision, giv­en the impend­ing Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment dead­line for final claim sub­mis­sion, to approve the pay­ment as this was the only issue out­stand­ing and the grantee was the Cairngorms Trust (the applic­a­tion body).

We con­firmed the pay­ment was appro­pri­ately author­ised and coun­ter­signed by the Deputy Chief Exec­ut­ive and the money has been reim­bursed to CNPA by the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment fol­low­ing their intern­al checks.

We note the prac­tic­al reas­ons for the decision taken, how­ever this trans­ac­tion did not com­ply with the agreed policy and procedures.

Risk: There is a risk that the organ­isa­tion can­not fully evid­ence adher­ence to grant require­ments as a res­ult of excep­tion­al decisions.

Recom­mend­a­tion: For oth­er grant pro­grammes CNPA should ensure that decisions taken which vary from stand­ard pro­cesses are clearly doc­u­mented includ­ing the approv­al route for the decision being made. Fur­ther, any addi­tion­al risks cre­ated by the decision should be appro­pri­ately doc­u­mented on the risk register or any exist­ing, rel­ev­ant, risk scores adjus­ted to reflect this.

Man­age­ment Action (Grade 2 — Oper­a­tion): In this instance, action was taken in con­sid­er­a­tion of a bal­ance of risks: risk of expendit­ure not being reim­bursed if pay­ment was not made before pro­gramme dead­lines (very high risk) as opposed to irre­cov­er­able error in claim being dis­covered after pay­ment (very low risk giv­en TICK pro­ject is a com­mis­sioned pro­ject by Cairngorms Trust and strength of rela­tion­ships such that any fin­an­cial error would be recovered). The learn­ing point taken from this is to ensure that these man­age­ment and risk con­sid­er­a­tions are doc­u­mented at the time and retained for reference.

This seems a gen­er­al learn­ing point rather than a spe­cif­ic action. How­ever, to evid­ence learn­ing, we will seek to ensure some expli­cit ref­er­ence to this doc­u­mented require­ment is made in the pro­ced­ures sup­port­ing the Com­munity Led Loc­al Devel­op­ment grant fund cur­rently in development.

Action own­er: Com­munity Grants Man­ager Due date: Decem­ber 2022

1.2 Con­tin­gency arrangements

While the final Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment dead­line for sub­mis­sion was 31 Decem­ber, we noted an intern­al dead­line for com­ple­tion was set for 15 Decem­ber due to planned staff leave. As high­lighted in MAP 1.1 this impacted the final claim pro­cess. Fur­ther, staff capa­city to meet all the asso­ci­ated require­ments by the earli­er dead­line was com­poun­ded by staff sick leave and the small size of the team. This also led to an in-situ report on the TICK pro­ject not being pro­duced for three weeks, fol­low­ing the pay­ment of the final claim.

The issues which arose high­lighted the require­ment for con­tin­gency arrange­ments to be agreed in advance to ensure pro­cesses con­tin­ue to oper­ate when staff with­in the small team become unavailable.

Risk: There is a risk that CNPA is under resourced dur­ing key peri­ods of the grant pro­cess, res­ult­ing in key pro­cesses not being adhered to.

Recom­mend­a­tion: To ensure grant pro­cesses are fol­lowed in a timely man­ner Man­age­ment should con­sider wheth­er con­tin­gency arrange­ments are required at key mile­stones and/​or for key pro­cess steps with­in grant pro­grammes, espe­cially for those with lim­ited staff resources.

Man­age­ment Action (Grade 1 — Design): This seems some­thing best incor­por­ated into future devel­op­ment of busi­ness con­tinu­ity advice at an oper­a­tion­al level rather than being grant pro­gramme spe­cif­ic. The need for ser­vices to con­sider their spe­cif­ic busi­ness con­tinu­ity pro­vi­sions, in con­text of dead­lines / ser­vices stand­ards / team size seems a gen­er­ic mat­ter. We will there­fore seek to incor­por­ate this action into our wider Busi­ness Con­tinu­ity Plan­ning thinking

Action own­er: Gov­ernance, Data and Report­ing Man­ager Due date: Septem­ber 2023

Con­trol Object­ive 2: Pro­ject vis­its and final inspec­tion reports have been com­pleted pri­or to final pro­ject claims being paid. (Green)

No report­able weak­nesses identified

CNPA and Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment guid­ance iden­ti­fies that a site inspec­tion must take place, where appro­pri­ate, and this would nor­mally be con­duc­ted in line with the final pay­ment, unless an inspec­tion has taken place recently. We con­firmed that this was car­ried out as expec­ted in both of the pro­jects sampled. In both cases an in-situ’ inspec­tion report was also com­pleted for all projects.

Con­trol Object­ive 3: Intern­al admin­is­tra­tion clos­ure pro­ced­ures have been under­taken with a let­ter of pro­ject clos­ure to each applic­ant being issued. (Green)

No report­able weak­nesses identified

There are clear policies and pro­ced­ures in place that detail the clos­ure pro­cess for each grant, site vis­its, pro­ject file reviews, inspec­tion reports, case stud­ies, final claim pay­ments, final claim reim­burse­ment to CNPA and ensur­ing LARCs is updated. Our test­ing con­firmed that each of these steps were com­pleted for the two pro­jects sampled and clos­ure let­ters were issued remind­ing pro­jects of their ongo­ing respons­ib­il­ity for main­tain­ing records.

We also con­firmed that CNPA had addressed, com­pleted and sub­mit­ted the form accom­pa­ny­ing the Cairngorms Loc­al Action Group (GLAG) Clos­ure Require­ments by the required dead­line of the 31 Decem­ber 2021.

Con­trol Object­ive 4: Pro­ced­ures are in place to ensure that all records held by CNPA are main­tained and access­ible for the peri­ods iden­ti­fied in the Ser­vice Level Agree­ment. (Yel­low)

4.1 Records management

The LEAD­ER Pro­gramme audit of 202122 noted that:

  • CNPA records man­age­ment reten­tion sched­ules did not address the 10 years for her­it­able prop­erty require­ment as noted in the Ser­vice Level Agree­ment with the Scot­tish Government.
  • Elec­tron­ic doc­u­ments are not restric­ted for edit­ing in Win­dows Explorer (file man­age­ment sys­tem), impact­ing the avail­ab­il­ity of a clear audit trail as doc­u­ments could be changed and only the last ver­sion retained.
  • CNPA could be non-com­pli­ant with the Ser­vice Level Agree­ment, due to trans­ition­ing to Cloud based net­work access, impact­ing access to elec­tron­ic doc­u­ments, should the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment or EU wish to access them.

We con­firmed that CNPA have since restric­ted access to the files to three staff and are invest­ig­at­ing addi­tion­al options for restrict­ing edit­ab­il­ity (mass scan­ning to pdf or set­ting to read only), how­ever as files are still being accessed to respond to Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment quer­ies the decision has been deferred for a fur­ther three months. We note that the ulti­mate point of ref­er­ence for the LEAD­ER pro­gramme doc­u­ment­a­tion is LARCS.

We assessed the con­trol as yel­low to reflect the ongo­ing activ­ity and note that the find­ings will con­tin­ue to be mon­itored through the CNPA fol­low up process.

Con­trol Object­ive 5: CNPA has put in place meas­ures to cap­ture les­sons learned for inclu­sion in future grant pro­grammes. (Yel­low)

5.1 Les­sons learned

The 202122 audit of the LEAD­ER Pro­gramme noted that whilst CNPA cap­tured les­sons learned from indi­vidu­al LEAD­ER pro­jects and the over­arch­ing pro­gramme, these activ­it­ies were sub­stan­tially focussed on pro­gramme out­comes and achieve­ments, with less emphas­is on pro­cesses and feed­back from Cairngorm Loc­al Action Group Mem­bers and staff. The pro­cesses in place to cap­ture inform­al feed­back from vari­ous for­ums includ­ing team and extern­al meet­ings was also at risk, as it was not documented.

We found no evid­ence of a struc­tured meth­od­o­logy or pro­cess, such as an action plan, to ensure that the les­sons were dis­sem­in­ated, and action taken or act­ively used in future work. How­ever man­age­ment recently took part in nation­ally organ­ised ses­sions to feed­back on learn­ing, sup­port­ing the evol­u­tion of com­munity led loc­al devel­op­ment pro­cesses. Intern­ally the LEAD­ER team are sup­port­ing work on three small grant pro­grammes (as part of Her­it­age Hori­zons grant devel­op­ments), bring­ing their exper­i­ence to bear. The CLAG Mem­bers are also involved in this pro­cess and provid­ing insight from their per­spect­ive of the LEAD­ER Pro­gramme imple­ment­a­tion. Fur­ther a doc­u­mented les­sons learned report for the whole of the LEAD­ER Pro­gramme (nation­ally) is expec­ted in Decem­ber 2022.

We assessed the con­trol as yel­low to reflect the ongo­ing activ­ity and note that the find­ings will con­tin­ue to be mon­itored through the CNPA fol­low up process.


Appendix A – Definitions

Con­trol assessments

  • R: Fun­da­ment­al absence or fail­ure of key controls.
  • A: Con­trol object­ive not achieved — con­trols are inad­equate or ineffective.
  • Y: Con­trol object­ive achieved — no major weak­nesses but scope for improvement.
  • G: Con­trol object­ive achieved — con­trols are adequate, effect­ive and efficient.

Man­age­ment action grades

  • 4: Very high risk expos­ure — major con­cerns requir­ing imme­di­ate seni­or atten­tion that cre­ate fun­da­ment­al risks with­in the organisation.
  • 3: High risk expos­ure — absence / fail­ure of key con­trols that cre­ate sig­ni­fic­ant risks with­in the organisation.
  • 2: Mod­er­ate risk expos­ure — con­trols are not work­ing effect­ively and effi­ciently and may cre­ate mod­er­ate risks with­in the organisation.
  • 1: Lim­ited risk expos­ure — con­trols are work­ing effect­ively, but could be strengthened to pre­vent the cre­ation of minor risks or address gen­er­al house-keep­ing issues.

© Azets 2022. All rights reserved. Azets refers to Azets Audit Ser­vices Lim­ited. Registered in Eng­land & Wales Registered No. 09652677. VAT Regis­tra­tion No. 219 0608 22.

Registered to carry on audit work in the UK and reg­u­lated for a range of invest­ment busi­ness activ­it­ies by the Insti­tute of Chartered Account­ants in Eng­land and Wales.

×

We want your feedback

Thank you for visiting our new website. We'd appreciate any feedback using our quick feedback form. Your thoughts make a big difference.

Thank you!