Agenda item

This report summarises the work of Internal Audit for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, identifying the main themes arising from the audit reviews and the implications for the County Council.

Declarations of interest:

None

Witnesses:

Sue Lewry-Jones, Chief Internal Auditor

Phil Osborne, Head of Early Years and Child Care Services

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Chief Internal Auditor introduced this report that summarised the work of Internal Audit for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, identifying the main themes arising from the audit reviews and the implications for the County Council.  She highlighted the concerns raised around the Children and Family Directorate which had influenced the Annual Governance Statement to be looked at by the committee later on the agenda. 

2.    One member questioned why there was a worrying trend of audits that were unsatisfactory or needing significant improvement that had doubled on the previous year.  The Chief Internal Auditor responded that it was difficult to say but that some analysis was being undertaken.  She also explained that the figures were in line with other authorities and suggested this might be a national trend.  It was early days but it could be a signal that councils would have to accept more risks due to the changing environment.  There was a general feeling amongst members that the system was under pressure and that this should be widely recognised and fed back to central government.

3.    In response to a question on who the partners were with the HIV service the Chief Internal Auditor responded that she would find out and feedback to the Chairman.

4.    The Head of Early Years and Child Care Services was asked to explain why the audit of nursery education had raised so many concerns.  He reported that:

a.    The service had been using a paper manual process and a previous audit had identified the need for an IT system.  This was agreed 18 months ago and in that period, much time had been spent identifying and designing the programme as well as inputting data to the system.  A pilot had been undertaken for providers to be able to do that themselves.  Most of the providers liked the system and a few were finding it challenging. The IT system was rolled out across the county in the spring.

b.    Since the rollout, staff had not been able to go out and audit nursery settings as there had been much work created by the new system which needed managing.  Internal audit had expressed their unhappiness that alternative methods of doing the auditing had not been looked at.  The service had agreed the recommendation from Audit.

c.    More resources had been agreed to get the audits underway which would start in the autumn after training had been undertaken.

5.    In response to questions from members wanting assurances around lack of engagement the Head of Early Years and Child Care Services reported that additional resources will be put in place to enable audit visits to take place during the autumn term.  Other advisory staff from the service are visiting settings on a regular basis but are not undertaking financial checks, though they will be checks on other aspects, such as staff recruitment procedures and safeguarding concerns..

6.    He also explained that the service could not use a ready-made IT system as there were none that provided end-to-end service and many were either not future-proofed, were inflexible and did not deal with two year olds.

7.    There was some discussion about checking that the children were real (rather than ‘ghost’ children) and staffing checks.  Processes were explained to the committee.

Action/further information to note:

The Chief Internal Auditor to feedback to the Chairman on who the partners are in the HIV service.

Resolved:

That the report was noted.