Only 1% of fraud or financial irregularity probes are published 

Details of several high profile cases remain secret

Details of several high profile cases remain secret

10 Jan 2025, 10:21

More from this author

Just two out of nearly 200 government investigation reports on FE providers have been published over the past seven years, FE Week can reveal.

Figures obtained under the freedom of information act show that between 2017 and 2024, the Education and Skills Funding Agency recovered £49 million in public funding from colleges and training providers following 193 investigations into financial fraud or irregularities.

Experts have condemned the lack of transparency from the ESFA’s counter fraud and investigations team, which deals with allegations of financial misconduct and errors with education funding. 

The agency’s policy over this period stated it would publish these reports “in all but the most exceptional circumstances” because it is in the “public interest”, but it has since been watered down.

Little is known about investigations that the team carries out into FE providers beyond headline figures published in the ESFA’s annual accounts.

Since 2017, the agency has only published only two investigation reports detailing the findings and outcomes – for the College of West Anglia in 2018 and Bournville College in 2019.

Paul Bridge, head of further education at the University and College Union, told FE Week that failing to publish investigation reports means the ESFA is “essentially providing anonymity” to at-fault colleges and training providers.

“There are far too many examples of dodgy financial behaviour from further education bosses, which puts staff and students at risk, and the ESFA now needs to publish the outcomes of its investigations so these bosses can be held to account.”

‘Fair and transparent’

For at least ten years, the ESFA – an arm of the Department for Education set to close in March – has had a policy promising to be “fair and transparent” by publishing reports detailing findings of financial investigations “where it is appropriate to do so”.

But reports from several high-profile investigations are yet to see the light of day, including those into Weston, Brooklands and Strode colleges, as well as independent training providers such as 3aaa and four companies owned by Angela Middleton.

The most recently published report was into issues at Bournville College in Birmingham, published in July 2019.

Anne Murdoch, a senior advisor at the Association of School and College Leaders union, said publishing reports in a timely fashion would allow the sector to “learn from any mistakes that have been made”.

She added: “ESFA investigations encompass everything from incidences of major fraud to minor errors in relation to complex and regularly changing conditions of funding.

“If the outcomes of these investigations are not being published, it is difficult to fully understand the reasons why significant sums of money are being clawed back.”

In recent months spokespeople for the Department for Education have provided different reasons for failing to publish investigation reports.

Last year a spokesperson claimed that most investigations did not need to be published as they were “routine”.

But in November, the department told FE Week’s sister title Schools Week that publication of investigations were often delayed by an “overly protracted” legal process, that gives those criticised in reports the right to respond before publication.

Outcomes not findings

In December 2023, the ESFA updated its policy on publishing investigation outcomes after being berated by the public accounts committee (PAC) for failing to be “sufficiently transparent about the results of inquiries into concerns”.

The government has now promised to publish investigation reports within two months of their conclusion.

But it also quietly changed its policy to only publish investigation “outcomes” which are significantly shorter and less detailed.

PAC chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown has now raised “concern that the [publication] changes hinder transparency and do not align with the view of the committee” from its 2019 report.

He demanded an explanation from DfE permanent secretary Susan Acland-Hood in a letter published on Thursday.

Acland-Hood has been asked to set out how the department “considered transparency against other factors, such as timeliness, when changing [its] guidance to ensure evidence-based decision”.

He also wants assurances on how officials will “ensure sufficient information is available to the sector to understand gaps in practice and learn lessons with just investigation outcomes published”.

The DfE previously said its commitment was still met by publishing outcome reports, adding that doing so “enables the investigation team to publish the pertinent information from these reports without an overly protracted” legal process, such as allowing those criticised to provide a response.

This rule, known as the Maxwellisation process, after a case brought by the late publisher Robert Maxwell against the government, has “historically led to significant delay in publishing investigation outcomes”, the DfE added

The change also enables the government investigation team to “spend more time on its core function of investigating fraud and financial irregularity across the academy trust and further education sectors”.

Latest education roles from

Head of Geography

Head of Geography

Harris Federation

Procurement & Contracts Manager

Procurement & Contracts Manager

Bradford College

Progress Coordinator

Progress Coordinator

Kingston College

Technical Training Mentor Engineering

Technical Training Mentor Engineering

Calderdale College

Student Engagement Officer

Student Engagement Officer

Capital City College Group

SEND Specialist Learning Tutor/Assessor

SEND Specialist Learning Tutor/Assessor

Calderdale College

Sponsored posts

Sponsored post

Do you want to be part of The Bedford College Group’s next chapter?

At The Bedford College Group, we are passionate about transforming lives and communities through education. As one of the...

Advertorial
Sponsored post

It’s Education’s Time to Shine: Celebrate your Education Community in 2025!

The deadline is approaching to nominate a colleague, team, whole school or college for the 2025 Pearson National Teaching...

Advertorial
Sponsored post

Framing the future of creative education: new BTEC HTQ in Photography nurtures talent beyond the lens

The creative industry is evolving rapidly, and so is the way we teach photography. Discover how Pearson's new BTEC...

Advertorial
Sponsored post

A celebration of education as Bett turns 40!

The world of education has transformed dramatically in the past 40 years, but one thing remains constant: the dedication...

Advertorial

More from this theme

Apprenticeships, ESFA

CITB shaves £5m from apprenticeship clawback bill

The training board, which administers its own levy, failed to comply with apprenticeship levy rules

Josh Mellor
ESFA

ESFA accounts: Major write-off for insolvent training provider

The agency's new boss also took a 16 per cent pay rise

Josh Mellor
ESFA, ITP

ITPs to be given 5 months to submit annual accounts to ESFA

ESFA will phase in shorter year-end reporting – and admits it could impact ITPs’ business

Anviksha Patel
AEB, ESFA

‘Automatic suspension’ on national AEB contracts lifted amid legal challenge

Several contracts weren’t issued when they were supposed to, FE Week understands

Anviksha Patel

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One comment

  1. Government/s lead by example.

    Take the apprenticeship levy – Introduced and sold to industry as a hypothecated tax (i.e. gets spent on what it was collected for). Only for the Treasury to keep hold of billions and not commit it to the apprenticeship budget (or growth and skills budget).

    As a result, chronic underfunding, constrained quality improvement and incentivising the spivs and chancers who are prepared to try and game the system. Which in turn prompts the funding body to waste precious resources on costly investigations which don’t get reported, with trust across and within the system eroded.