Agenda Item: 9

Paper No: CM/04/12/07

MEETING: / PUBLIC BOARD MEETING
DATE: / 20NOVEMBER 2012
TITLE OF PAPER: / ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK
SUMMARY:
To present to the Board the Accountability Framework which has been developed to help clarify accountabilities from Board to Director level in CQC.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Board APPROVES the Accountability Framework for adoption and NOTES that the Framework will be brought back to the Board for review in six months when the Scheme of Delegation has been revised and the accountability arrangements on the following issues are clearer:
  • Decisions to be made by the Board and by the Executive Team
  • The sources of assurance for the Accounting Officer’s responsibilities
  • A review of the role of the Executive Team and its committees

Executive Decision/
Board for information / Executive and Board decision / Executive and Board shared decision / 
Executive and Board discussion/Board decision
The Executive Team has made a decision and the Board has been informed / The Board has been consulted in order for the Executive Team to make a decision / This is a shared decision between the Executive Team and Board / This is for when it is clear that it is a specific Board decision (under statutory and legal requirements) ie. signing off the annual accounts
* Check box as required
LEAD DIRECTOR: / Louise Guss, Director of Governance and Legal Services
AUTHOR: / Sue Martin
DIRECTORATE / Governance and Legal Services
DATE: / 12th November 2012
SUPPORTING
PAPERS: / Annex A –Accountability Framework

GOVERNANCE

AUDIT TRAIL: / The Accountability Frameworkhas been developed under the aegis of the Corporate Governance Framework Project. It is a new product which aims to support the Corporate Governance Framework approved by the Board in May 2012 by mapping the Board’s accountabilities through the organisation to Executive Team level.
LINK TO STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND BUSINESS PLAN / The Accountability Framework is intended to support the Business Plan objective 3 to strengthen CQC’s governance to be a high performing organisation.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NCSC / No particular implications for NCSC.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: / There are no particular financial implications.
RISK IMPACT: / The DH Performance and Capability Review found that accountabilities between the Board and the Executive Team were blurred. Without a clear statement of delegations (under review) and accountabilities, there is potential for confusion as to who is responsible for what and how accountability should be discharged. The Framework also demonstrates the complexity of accountability arrangements in CQC, which is a risk for both the Board and the Accounting Officer who are held to account for the delivery of CQC’s objectives by Parliament. Further work is needed to clarify the Board’s information needs to support its decisions, which will be presented to the Board in due course.
REPUTATION IMPACT: / The Accountability Framework will help to demonstrate that CQC is addressing the criticisms made of its governance by both external bodies and internal audit. As part of the Corporate Governance Framework Project, Internal Comms and Learning and Development are considering how to communicate the Framework to staff in an accessible way to promote greater understanding of the governance framework.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: / The Accountability Framework takes account of CQC’s current legislative responsibilities but will need to be updated to take account of new requirements when these are clear, for example the National Information Governance Committee. The DH Framework Agreement which is the source of a number of the Board’s accountabilities is still in draft. The Accountability Framework will need to be reviewed to ensure it complies with the Framework Agreement when it is finalised and signed by the CQC Chief Executive.
HEALTHWATCH IMPACT: / The role of the Healthwatch EnglandChair has been included in the Accountability Framework.The HWE Committee may consider mapping its accountabilities in due course when it has been established.
EQUALITY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT: / An equality impact assessment is not applicable and has not been completed.

1. Background

1.1The most recent Internal Audit report on CQC’s governance arrangements found that there was a lack of clarity about the respective roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and boundaries of the Department of Health, the CQC Board and the Executive Team. The report commented that accountability was blurred and needed to be more rigorous and transparent at a strategic level and then cascaded through all the supporting structures and processes. A similar finding was reported by the DH Capability and Performance Review.

1.2The Accountability Framework (AF) has been developed, under the aegis of the Corporate Governance Project Board, to begin to address these findings. It remains “work in progress” but is now a sufficiently complete map of the current position to be tested by staff to see where accountabilities need to be further clarified.

1.3The views of ARAC have been sought by email and their comments have been incorporated into the current version of the Framework. Those members who responded were generally supportive of the document but asked that the source of the accountabilities, particularly those for the Board, be referenced. This has been done.

1.4A review of the CQC Scheme of Delegation is in hand to ensure that the two documents align. It will be presented to the Board for approval in the new calendar year.

  1. Executive Summary
  2. The Accountability Frameworkaims to demonstrate how CQC discharges its responsibilities, first and foremost to Parliament and DH. The starting point is the analysis of the responsibilities of the Board, as specified in the revised DH Framework Agreement, and of the Chief Executive as Accounting Officer and head of the executive function. The AF takes each of the Board’s responsibilities, identifies what the Board needs to do to discharge those responsibilities, and who provides the necessary information and assurance to the Board to enable it to do so. The same process has been followed for the Chief Executive’s responsibilities as both Accounting Officer and Chief Executive. The accountabilities have been tracked back through the organisation to Director/Executive Team level, as far as possible.

2.2The Accountability Framework shows the complexity of accountability arrangements in CQC. These are in part a function of the breadth of responsibilities which the Board and the Accounting Officer have.The Chief Executive is a member of the Board and accountable to Secretary of State and the Chair as a Board Member; is the chief executive officer of CQC and accountable to the Chair for his performance; and as Accounting Officer is accountable both to the Principal Accounting Officer in DH and to Parliament for regularity, propriety and value for money.

2.3There are several issues which could be clarified, however, to make CQC’s accountability arrangements more transparent. These will be progressed over the next six months and reported back to the Board. They include:

  • Reviewing what decisions need to be taken by the Board and those which can be taken at Executive Team level
  • Ensuring alignment between the Accountability Framework and the Scheme of Delegation which is under review and will be presented to the Board for discussion shortly
  • Clarifying further what information (eg on risk or performance) is required at different levels of reporting (eg Board, ARAC, ET) to reduce any unnecessary duplication of reporting
  • Clarifying the sources of assurance for the AO. Work is in hand to improve the level of assurance provided to the Board and the AO: arrangements for proper programme appraisal are being developed; the procurement policy is being reviewed to ensure it captures all projects which might impact across CQC; better management information is being developed; and approval requirements for large-scale expenditure is being addressed by Finance.
  • Reviewing the role of the Executive Team and its committees

2.4 Changes to the Committee structure will be incorporated into the Corporate Governance Framework and then into the Accountability Framework as well as the Scheme of Delegation, to ensure there is alignment between these products. Reports will be brought to the Board to approve the proposed changes. Changes in responsibilities will also be reflected in an updated Accountability Framework. The Accountability Framework will be evaluated in six months as part of the Corporate Governance Framework project and any revisions made at that time.

2.5 As part of the Corporate Governance Framework project, Internal Comms will map the Accountability Framework with a view to demonstrating to staff how accountability works throughout CQC and how their role fits in. Learning and Development will also include some training on the AF in forthcoming sessions for the leadership team and for business managers.

Conclusion

3.1 The Accountability Framework aims to address the criticisms made by external and internal scrutiny reports that accountabilities in CQC are blurred. It remains “work in progress” and will be reviewed and updated in six months, along with other key governance documents.

4.Next Steps

The Board is asked to

  • approve the Accountability Framework for adoption,
  • note that the Framework will be brought back to the Board for review in six months when the Scheme of Delegation has been revised and the accountability arrangements on the following issues are clearer:
  • Decisions to be made by the Board and by the Executive Team
  • The sources of assurance for the Accounting Officer’s responsibilities
  • A review of the role of the Executive Team and its committees

Name: / Sue Martin
Title: / Corporate Governance Officer
Date / 12th November 2012

CQC ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK

Purpose of the document

Accountability is an essential component of integrated corporate governance. A robust and transparent Accountability Framework plays an important part in ensuring and assuring the proper discharge of the organisation’s responsibilities.

The purpose of this document, which supports CQC’s Corporate Governance Framework, is to set out who has responsibility within CQC for discharging its key functions and what assurances they rely on so that business is conducted in an efficient, effective and economical manner[1] without duplication of effort but also without missing key requirements.

What does accountability mean in CQC?

Parliament has conferred through legislation specific responsibilities on the Care Quality Commission as the independent regulator of health and social care in England. CQC is held to account as an organisation for the way in which it discharges its responsibilities by the Secretary of State for Health on behalf of Parliament and, in the case of the Accounting Officer, directly by Parliament as well as by the Principal Accounting Officer in the Department of Health. CQC is required to report to Parliament to satisfy it that the public funding CQC has received has been well and appropriately spent and it has delivered the objectives CQC has agreed with the Department of Health[2].

In the Framework Agreement between DH and CQC, the Department of Health has given specific responsibilities to the Chair of CQC, the CQC Board, the Healthwatch England Chair, and the Chief Executive.

The diagram below (from the Framework Agreement) sets out the accountability relationships between Parliament, Secretary of State for Health, the Chief Executive and the Board.

While the responsibility for discharging CQC’s functions rests ultimately with the CQC Board and the Chief Executive, their responsibility is shared across the organisation. Each Committee, Directorate, Team and individual role-holder has certain delegated responsibilities, for which they must answer. Accountability therefore also sits at Committee, Directorate, Team and individual level.

An effective Accountability Framework

There are six elements underpinning a robust and transparent framework of accountability. These elements operate at both the organisational and individual level.

1. Clarity about roles and authority

There needs to be clarity about who holds what roles, their responsibilities and the level of authority associated with those responsibilities.

If there is clarity about who has the necessary authority, for example to make decisions, decision-making and delivery of key tasks will be more effective and risks will be able to be managed at the most appropriate level.

In CQC, clarity around roles, responsibilities and authority is provided by:

  • The DH/CQC Framework Agreement which sets out DH’s accountability requirements of CQC
  • Organisation charts which are up to date and show who reports to whom
  • Terms of reference for all committees which are up to date and regularly reviewed
  • Scheme of delegation which is regularly reviewed and up to date
  • Board training and induction programme which ensures awareness of the Board’s role and accountabilities
  • Training and induction programmes for each employee or person working for CQC which ensure understanding of their role, responsibilities and accountabilities
  • Clearly defined ownership of the Corporate Governance Framework, clear responsibilities for governance, and commitments to improve
  • Clearly defined governance structure with map
  • Job descriptions, performance appraisal arrangements and work objectives
  • Accountability statement (attached), showing how risks and issues are escalated through the organisation

2. Commitment to values

Those to whom roles, responsibilities and authority are delegated are expected to demonstrate a commitment to carry out their roles and responsibilities in accordance with the behaviours, ways of working and values of CQC.

With this commitment, decisions will be made in accordance not only with statutory requirements but with the standards of ethical conduct and behaviour expected and accepted by CQC, and the values and principles governing the organisation.

In CQC, commitment to the standards and values to which CQC aspires is secured though:

  • Codes of conduct for Board Members and for staff
  • Letters of authority from the Chief Executive to Directors which set out their roles, responsibilities, level of delegated authority and standards expected of them
  • Job descriptions and PDR objectives which confirm what staff are expected to deliver and to what standard, and the support they will receive to deliver those objectives
  • HR policies which set out clearly how failure to meet the standards expected of people will be handled
  • Business policies and processes that set out how CQC’s business should be conducted and to what standard, including:
  • business planning including monitoring of strategic and operational plans and budgets
  • financial management
  • HR strategies, policies and procedures
  • performance management framework
  • Risk management process
  • Business continuity arrangements
  • Project and programme governance
  • whistle-blowing
  • compliance with statutory requirements including health and safety at work and information security, including a code of practice on confidential personal information
  • Media handling process to deal with reputational risk
  • Monitoring processes which confirm that the standards of business processes are being met
  • Template on decision-making which confirms that decision support the values and principles of the organisation, as well as taking account of financial and legal considerations

3. Formal reporting

Those to whom roles, responsibilities and authority have been delegated are required to report formally to whoever has delegated the responsibility on how they have discharged their functions.

Through formal reporting of performance against business plans, the budget and compliance with CQC policies, CQC can demonstrate that it has delivered its objectives in the right quantity, to the right quality, on cost and on time.

Within CQC, formal reporting from those to whom authority is delegated is provided through:

  • Annual report and accounts which are laid before Parliament
  • The Annual Governance Statement which is signed by the Chief Executive as the Accounting Officer
  • Publication of statutory reports eg on the delivery of CQC’s responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 2008
  • Statutory disclosures to Parliament and to other statutory bodies such as the Information Commissioner, the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman
  • Evidence to scrutiny bodies such as the National Audit Office and Parliamentary Select Committees
  • As part of the preparation of the Annual Report and Governance Statement, statements of assurance from Directors to the Chief Executive to account for how they have delivered their responsibilities, how they have performed against objectives, how they have used their resources and how they have responded to risks
  • Quarterly reports on performance to the Department of Health
  • Quarterly reports from the Executive Team to the Board on performance
  • Monthly performance reporting to the Executive Team against the scorecard
  • Weekly performance reporting to the Chief Executive
  • Staff self-assessment as part of the PDR process
  • Self-assessment by Committees and the Board of their effectiveness
  • Full and exception reports from Board Committees to the Board to account for the delivery of their work-plans
  • Reports from Head of Internal Audit
  • Reports on any internal control failures or poor risk management

4. Well-informed challenge

Well-informed challenge by the person or committee who receives the report enables them to seek to verify that what has been reported is correct.

Those who delegate responsibility need to have sufficient understanding of the issues to be able to challenge and scrutinise effectively.

In CQC the ability to question and challenge is supported by:

  • Appearance by the Chair and/or the Chief Executive before Parliamentary Select Committees
  • Attendance by the Chief Executive at Quarterly Accountability Reviews with DH, supported by a schedule of regular meetings between DH and CQC to discuss strategic, planning and accountability issues
  • Role description of Non-Executive Directors on the Board which gives them particular responsibility for scrutiny and challenge of management plans and information
  • Performance reporting at all levels within the organisation
  • Management information which supports analysis of the performance scorecard
  • Management assurance processes which involve ongoing checking, validation and monitoring by managers and others
  • Reports from whistleblowers and complainants
  • Within the appraisal process, the manager has the opportunity to verify the self-assessment

5. Independent validation