Malpractice & Maladministration Policy
Penguin Training Ltd values its reputation for ethical behaviour and for financial probity and reliability. The company takes very seriously its responsibility in ensuring the use of public funding is managed and delivered in accordance with the rules and regulations set out in English law and by relevant departments and agencies such as the Skills Funding Agency.
It recognises that over and above the commission of any crime, any involvement in bribery or other form of malpractice will also reflect adversely on its image and reputation. Its aim therefore is to limit its exposure to such malpractice by:
Setting out a clear policy;
· Encouraging employees to be vigilant and to report any suspicion of malpractice, providing them with suitable channels of communication and ensuring sensitive information is treated appropriately;
· Rigorously investigating instances of alleged malpractice and assisting the police and other appropriate authorities in any resultant prosecution;
· Taking firm and vigorous action against any individual(s) involved in malpractice.
Employees may be the first to realise that there may be something wrong within an organisation. However, they may not express their concerns because they feel that speaking out would be disloyal to colleagues, tutors or to the organisation. They may also fear harassment or victimisation. The Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) 1998, commonly referred to as the ‘Whistle blowing Act’, enables staff to disclose concerns they may have about malpractice so that those concerns can be investigated without fear of reprisals, so long as the concerns are genuine and have been raised in good faith.
Aim
This policy is a guide to all employees of Penguin Training Ltd on how to address suspected incidents of malpractice within its organisation. It sets out the procedures for employees and the steps Penguin Training Ltd will take on receiving an allegation of potential fraud or whistle blowing. It demonstrates Penguin Training Ltd’ commitment to ensure that any allegations are dealt with seriously and urgently.
Definition of MalpracticeMalpractice is essentially any activity or practice which deliberately contravenes regulations and compromises the integrity of the internal or external assessment process and/or the validity of certificates.
It covers any deliberate actions, neglect, default or other practice that compromises, or could compromise:
· the assessment process;
· the integrity of a regulated qualification;
· the validity of a result or certificate;
· the reputation and credibility of [centre name] or,
· the qualification or the wider qualifications community.
Malpractice may include a range of issues from the failure to maintain appropriate records or systems, to the deliberate falsification of records in order to claim certificates.
For the purpose of this policy this term also covers misconduct and forms of unnecessary discrimination or bias towards certain or groups of learners.
Definition of Maladministration
Maladministration is essentially any activity or practice which results in non-compliance with administrative regulations and requirements and includes the application of persistent mistakes or poor administration.
Examples of maladministration
· Persistent failure to adhere to our learner registration and certification procedures.
· Persistent failure to adhere to our centre recognition and/or qualification requirements and/or
· associated actions assigned to the centre
· Late learner registrations (both infrequent and persistent)
· Unreasonable delays in responding to requests and/or communications from regulators, Awarding Organisations or learners.
· Inaccurate claim for certificates
· Failure to maintain appropriate auditable records, e.g. certification claims and/or forgery of evidence
· Withholding of information, by deliberate act or omission.
Examples of malpractice
· Failure to carry out internal assessment, internal moderation or internal verification in accordance with requirements
· Deliberate failure to adhere to learner registration and certification procedures.
· Deliberate failure to continually adhere to centre recognition and/or qualification approval requirements or actions assigned to your centre
· Deliberate failure to maintain appropriate auditable records, e.g. certification claims and/or forgery of evidence
· Fraudulent claim(s) for certificates
· Intentional withholding of information from us which is critical to maintaining the rigour of quality assurance and standards of qualifications
· Collusion or permitting collusion in exams/assessments
· Learners still working towards qualification after certification claims have been made
· Plagiarism by learners/staff
· Copying from another learner (including using ICT to do so).
Scope of the Procedure
This policy is not intended to cover staff concerns which relate to their personal employment situation, nor to provide a means of review or appeal against individual management decisions unless in each case they involve some form of malpractice.
Procedure for Raising Concerns
This policy applies to all employees of Penguin Training Ltd. All allegations should be made to a member of the senior management team in the first instance.
Wherever possible the allegation in writing, the following information must include (where possible):
· All allegations must include (where possible):
· Learner’s name and Penguin Training Ltd registration number
· Penguin Training Ltd staff members name and job role - if they are involved in the case
· Details of the course/qualification affected or nature of the service affected
· Nature of the suspected or actual malpractice and associated dates details and outcome of any initial investigation carried out by the centre or anybody else involved in the case, including any mitigating circumstances
The Directors will then conduct an initial investigation to ensure that staff involved in the initial investigation are competent and have no personal interest in the outcome of the investigation.
Aural disclosures may be made at the choice of the complainant. The complainant should provide as much supporting evidence as possible about the nature of the disclosure and the grounds for their belief that malpractice has occurred. If the member of staff suspects the senior management team to be implicated then they should follow the procedures set below:
Other provisionIf the concerns relate to provision funded directly by the ESFA or through a college partner they should contact the relevant funding partner or ESFA directly.
Independent AdviceAlternately you may wish to raise your concern with Public Concern at Work, an independent charity whose lawyers can provide confidential advice at any stage about how to raise a concern about malpractice at work.
Public Concern at Work
Address
Suite 301, 16 Baldwins Gardens, London, EC1N 7RJ
Web
http://www.pcaw.org.uk/
Telephone
020 7404 6609
In all cases of suspected malpractice and maladministration reported we’ll protect the identity of the ‘informant’ in accordance with our duty of confidentiality and/or any other legal duty.
Confidentiality and whistle blowingSometimes a person making an allegation of malpractice or maladministration may wish to remain anonymous. if you are concerned about possible adverse consequences you may request that the Directors do not divulge your identity.
While we are prepared to investigate issues which are reported to us anonymously we shall always try to confirm an allegation by means of a separate investigation before taking up the matter with those to whom the allegation relates.
The action taken by Penguin Training Ltd will depend upon the type of concern. The matters raised may be:
· Investigated internally
· Reported to any relevant third party or other appropriate authority for investigation
· Or a combination of the above
The senior management team will carry out a full investigation of the allegation by:
· Assigning responsibility for investigating the allegation where appropriate
· Gathering an initial summary of the allegation, its source and the evidence available
· Assessing the risks involved to funding and delivery
· Involving and informing the Learning Partner where appropriate
· Minimising potential losses and safeguard public funding
· Putting measures in place to prevent any further loss
· Establishing lines of communication with the police, if appropriate
· Addressing any public relations management issues
The objective of the investigation will be to establish the facts so that appropriate legal and or disciplinary action can be taken.
Allegations of malpractice will be dealt with quickly and efficiently, and within the following timescales: -
The SMT member to whom the allegation has been made should immediately send written acknowledgement of the concern to the complainant at their home address. Some concerns may be resolved by agreed action without the need for investigation.
The investigation should commence as soon as possible and if, at any stage during the investigation, there is evidence of criminal activity, then the police should be immediately informed.
If, for good reason, the investigation takes longer than 3 weeks to complete, the SMT will write to the complainant who raised the issue with a progress report.
At the end of the investigative process the SMT will write to the complainant who raised the issue with the outcome of the investigation and on the course of action proposed.
On receipt of the disclosure, the SMT member to whom the concern is raised will interview the complainant in confidence, as soon as practicable. The purpose of the interview will be to obtain as much information as possible from the complainant about the grounds for their belief that a malpractice has taken place, to determine the credibility of the complainant and their allegation, and to consult with the complainant about further steps which could be taken.
As soon as practicable after the initial enquiries/interview, the SMT member will recommend what further steps should be taken. Such recommendations may (without limitation) include one or more of the following:
· that the matter should be reported to the Police for a full and formal investigation;
· that the matter should be reported to some other relevant authority or agency for investigation
Prior to considering informing a subject of the nature of any disclosure(s) made against them, an appropriate risk assessment should be conducted by the SMT as to whether it is appropriate and/or necessary to advise them of the allegation and, if so, at what stage. For example, if an allegation relates to a potential criminal matter, such as fraud, then advising the subject concerned without due consideration could have the potential to adversely affect any subsequent criminal investigation or result in the destruction of evidence. It is solely at the SMT’s discretion as to when a subject is informed.
InvestigationsWitnessesIf there is a witness to the event a written statement should taken by the SMT member investigating the allegation.
Physical evidenceUpon taking control of any physical evidence, it is very important that a record is made of the time and place it is taken. If evidence consists of several items, for example many documents, each one should be tagged with a reference number corresponding to the written record (without marking the original item/document) and then held securely without risk or damage or interference.
Protection for Whistleblowers and Penalties for AbuseEmployees, who raise genuine concerns in good faith and not for personal gain, will be protected from recrimination or harassment. If the outcome of the investigation is that the employee has made deliberately false and malicious accusations then the disciplinary procedure will be invoked.
Recording, Monitoring and ReviewA central log will be maintained which records all referrals that are made. This will ensure effective monitoring and progress reporting of disclosures can be made.
Review of PolicyThe Policy on Malpractice will be reviewed periodically.
It recognises that over and above the commission of any crime, any involvement in bribery or other form of malpractice will also reflect adversely on its image and reputation. Its aim therefore is to limit its exposure to such malpractice by:
Setting out a clear policy;
· Encouraging employees to be vigilant and to report any suspicion of malpractice, providing them with suitable channels of communication and ensuring sensitive information is treated appropriately;
· Rigorously investigating instances of alleged malpractice and assisting the police and other appropriate authorities in any resultant prosecution;
· Taking firm and vigorous action against any individual(s) involved in malpractice.
Employees may be the first to realise that there may be something wrong within an organisation. However, they may not express their concerns because they feel that speaking out would be disloyal to colleagues, tutors or to the organisation. They may also fear harassment or victimisation. The Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA) 1998, commonly referred to as the ‘Whistle blowing Act’, enables staff to disclose concerns they may have about malpractice so that those concerns can be investigated without fear of reprisals, so long as the concerns are genuine and have been raised in good faith.
Aim
This policy is a guide to all employees of Penguin Training Ltd on how to address suspected incidents of malpractice within its organisation. It sets out the procedures for employees and the steps Penguin Training Ltd will take on receiving an allegation of potential fraud or whistle blowing. It demonstrates Penguin Training Ltd’ commitment to ensure that any allegations are dealt with seriously and urgently.
Definition of MalpracticeMalpractice is essentially any activity or practice which deliberately contravenes regulations and compromises the integrity of the internal or external assessment process and/or the validity of certificates.
It covers any deliberate actions, neglect, default or other practice that compromises, or could compromise:
· the assessment process;
· the integrity of a regulated qualification;
· the validity of a result or certificate;
· the reputation and credibility of [centre name] or,
· the qualification or the wider qualifications community.
Malpractice may include a range of issues from the failure to maintain appropriate records or systems, to the deliberate falsification of records in order to claim certificates.
For the purpose of this policy this term also covers misconduct and forms of unnecessary discrimination or bias towards certain or groups of learners.
Definition of Maladministration
Maladministration is essentially any activity or practice which results in non-compliance with administrative regulations and requirements and includes the application of persistent mistakes or poor administration.
Examples of maladministration
· Persistent failure to adhere to our learner registration and certification procedures.
· Persistent failure to adhere to our centre recognition and/or qualification requirements and/or
· associated actions assigned to the centre
· Late learner registrations (both infrequent and persistent)
· Unreasonable delays in responding to requests and/or communications from regulators, Awarding Organisations or learners.
· Inaccurate claim for certificates
· Failure to maintain appropriate auditable records, e.g. certification claims and/or forgery of evidence
· Withholding of information, by deliberate act or omission.
Examples of malpractice
· Failure to carry out internal assessment, internal moderation or internal verification in accordance with requirements
· Deliberate failure to adhere to learner registration and certification procedures.
· Deliberate failure to continually adhere to centre recognition and/or qualification approval requirements or actions assigned to your centre
· Deliberate failure to maintain appropriate auditable records, e.g. certification claims and/or forgery of evidence
· Fraudulent claim(s) for certificates
· Intentional withholding of information from us which is critical to maintaining the rigour of quality assurance and standards of qualifications
· Collusion or permitting collusion in exams/assessments
· Learners still working towards qualification after certification claims have been made
· Plagiarism by learners/staff
· Copying from another learner (including using ICT to do so).
Scope of the Procedure
This policy is not intended to cover staff concerns which relate to their personal employment situation, nor to provide a means of review or appeal against individual management decisions unless in each case they involve some form of malpractice.
Procedure for Raising Concerns
This policy applies to all employees of Penguin Training Ltd. All allegations should be made to a member of the senior management team in the first instance.
Wherever possible the allegation in writing, the following information must include (where possible):
· All allegations must include (where possible):
· Learner’s name and Penguin Training Ltd registration number
· Penguin Training Ltd staff members name and job role - if they are involved in the case
· Details of the course/qualification affected or nature of the service affected
· Nature of the suspected or actual malpractice and associated dates details and outcome of any initial investigation carried out by the centre or anybody else involved in the case, including any mitigating circumstances
The Directors will then conduct an initial investigation to ensure that staff involved in the initial investigation are competent and have no personal interest in the outcome of the investigation.
Aural disclosures may be made at the choice of the complainant. The complainant should provide as much supporting evidence as possible about the nature of the disclosure and the grounds for their belief that malpractice has occurred. If the member of staff suspects the senior management team to be implicated then they should follow the procedures set below:
Other provisionIf the concerns relate to provision funded directly by the ESFA or through a college partner they should contact the relevant funding partner or ESFA directly.
Independent AdviceAlternately you may wish to raise your concern with Public Concern at Work, an independent charity whose lawyers can provide confidential advice at any stage about how to raise a concern about malpractice at work.
Public Concern at Work
Address
Suite 301, 16 Baldwins Gardens, London, EC1N 7RJ
Web
http://www.pcaw.org.uk/
Telephone
020 7404 6609
In all cases of suspected malpractice and maladministration reported we’ll protect the identity of the ‘informant’ in accordance with our duty of confidentiality and/or any other legal duty.
Confidentiality and whistle blowingSometimes a person making an allegation of malpractice or maladministration may wish to remain anonymous. if you are concerned about possible adverse consequences you may request that the Directors do not divulge your identity.
While we are prepared to investigate issues which are reported to us anonymously we shall always try to confirm an allegation by means of a separate investigation before taking up the matter with those to whom the allegation relates.
The action taken by Penguin Training Ltd will depend upon the type of concern. The matters raised may be:
· Investigated internally
· Reported to any relevant third party or other appropriate authority for investigation
· Or a combination of the above
The senior management team will carry out a full investigation of the allegation by:
· Assigning responsibility for investigating the allegation where appropriate
· Gathering an initial summary of the allegation, its source and the evidence available
· Assessing the risks involved to funding and delivery
· Involving and informing the Learning Partner where appropriate
· Minimising potential losses and safeguard public funding
· Putting measures in place to prevent any further loss
· Establishing lines of communication with the police, if appropriate
· Addressing any public relations management issues
The objective of the investigation will be to establish the facts so that appropriate legal and or disciplinary action can be taken.
Allegations of malpractice will be dealt with quickly and efficiently, and within the following timescales: -
The SMT member to whom the allegation has been made should immediately send written acknowledgement of the concern to the complainant at their home address. Some concerns may be resolved by agreed action without the need for investigation.
The investigation should commence as soon as possible and if, at any stage during the investigation, there is evidence of criminal activity, then the police should be immediately informed.
If, for good reason, the investigation takes longer than 3 weeks to complete, the SMT will write to the complainant who raised the issue with a progress report.
At the end of the investigative process the SMT will write to the complainant who raised the issue with the outcome of the investigation and on the course of action proposed.
On receipt of the disclosure, the SMT member to whom the concern is raised will interview the complainant in confidence, as soon as practicable. The purpose of the interview will be to obtain as much information as possible from the complainant about the grounds for their belief that a malpractice has taken place, to determine the credibility of the complainant and their allegation, and to consult with the complainant about further steps which could be taken.
As soon as practicable after the initial enquiries/interview, the SMT member will recommend what further steps should be taken. Such recommendations may (without limitation) include one or more of the following:
· that the matter should be reported to the Police for a full and formal investigation;
· that the matter should be reported to some other relevant authority or agency for investigation
Prior to considering informing a subject of the nature of any disclosure(s) made against them, an appropriate risk assessment should be conducted by the SMT as to whether it is appropriate and/or necessary to advise them of the allegation and, if so, at what stage. For example, if an allegation relates to a potential criminal matter, such as fraud, then advising the subject concerned without due consideration could have the potential to adversely affect any subsequent criminal investigation or result in the destruction of evidence. It is solely at the SMT’s discretion as to when a subject is informed.
InvestigationsWitnessesIf there is a witness to the event a written statement should taken by the SMT member investigating the allegation.
Physical evidenceUpon taking control of any physical evidence, it is very important that a record is made of the time and place it is taken. If evidence consists of several items, for example many documents, each one should be tagged with a reference number corresponding to the written record (without marking the original item/document) and then held securely without risk or damage or interference.
Protection for Whistleblowers and Penalties for AbuseEmployees, who raise genuine concerns in good faith and not for personal gain, will be protected from recrimination or harassment. If the outcome of the investigation is that the employee has made deliberately false and malicious accusations then the disciplinary procedure will be invoked.
Recording, Monitoring and ReviewA central log will be maintained which records all referrals that are made. This will ensure effective monitoring and progress reporting of disclosures can be made.
Review of PolicyThe Policy on Malpractice will be reviewed periodically.
