Guidance

DAO malpractice policy

Updated 17 November 2022

Malpractice Policy

Recognising Quality and Competence: supporting defence with accreditation and specialist bespoke qualification opportunities.

Introduction

The Defence Awarding Organisation (DAO) is held to account by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) against the ‘General Conditions of Recognition’ in order to maintain the integrity of the qualifications and the credibility of the organisations involved in development, delivery and award of those qualifications. An awarding organisation must have and use current, relevant written policy and procedures for the investigation of suspected or alleged malpractice and/or maladministration, as per Condition A8. What follows are those procedures. DAO must ensure that investigations are carried out rigorously and effectively by suitably competent people who have no personal interest in the outcome of the investigation.

Definition

DAO aligns with the definition of malpractice by the Joint Council of Qualifications (JCQ). Malpractice, which included maladministration and non-compliance with the Regulations, means any act, default or practice which is a breach of the Regulations which:

• compromises, attempts to compromise or may compromise the process of assessment, the integrity of any qualification or the validity of a result or certificate; and/or,
• damage the authority, reputation or credibility of any awarding body or centre or any officer, employee or agent of any awarding body or centre.

Malpractice is negligence or misconduct in carrying out a practice, which deliberately breaches regulations, or could compromise the integrity of the assessment process, the qualification, the validity of certificates, or the reputation of the Centre, DAO and MOD. Maladministration can be defined as lack of care, judgment or honesty in the management of some activity. DAO will use the term malpractice for both malpractice and maladministration, in alignment with JCQ advice, with the difference in degree of offence reflected to the level sanction applied. Some examples of malpractice are as follows:

Ser (a)	Centre (b)	Learner (c)
1.	Contravention of the approval conditions	Forgery of evidence
2.	Failure to continually adhere to the approval criteria, ie actions required by the EQA not being met within agreed timescales	Plagiarism
3.	Postponement of visits by External Quality Assurers (EQA) for more than 6 months	Submission of false information to gain a proxy or a qualification
4.	Failure to carry out delivery, internal assessment or internal quality assurance in accordance with requirements	Failure to carry out actions identified from our external assessment monitoring visits within the required timescales
5.	Denial of access to records, resources, individuals or facilities by an authorised DAO representative and/or Ofqual	Failure to adhere to the requirements of our Reasonable Adjustments and Special Considerations Policy
6.	Failure to adhere to learner registration and certification procedures
7.	Failure to maintain auditable records
8.	Fraudulent claiming of certificates
9.	Intentional withholding of information from the DAO that is critical to maintaining the rigour of quality assurance
10.	Deliberate misuse of the DAO or Ofqual logo
11.	Failure to follow set procedures for qualification development
12.	Claiming the incorrect qualification

Awareness and establishing culture

Heads of centre should build and maintain an ethical culture in which malpractice by learners (trainees or students) and staff does not take place, hence, staff involved in the management, assessment and quality assurance of qualifications and learners undertaking DAO accredited qualifications need to be familiar with these procedures. Such a culture of honesty and openness should enable staff and learners to report matters of concern. Any aspect of the procedures can be discussed with the External Quality Assurers and DAO when they visit or by contacting the DAO Compliance Team.

Guidance on General Condition of Recognition A8

Examples of ‘positive indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply are as follows:

• has ways of working that reduce the risk of incidents of malpractice occurring
• makes sure that individuals involved in the development, delivery and award of its qualifications understand and routinely follow these ways of working
• takes all reasonable steps to ensure that current (and former) staff and third parties do not provide information about its qualifications which is inaccurate or misleading
• follows policies, practices and/or procedures that reduce the risk of malpractice, covering, among other things:

1. plagiarism, collusion, tampering, breach of confidentiality of assessment materials
2. incidents that occur outside of England (if it operates elsewhere)

• knows what to do if evidence of malpractice comes to light, whether in the organisation itself or within a third party involved with the design, delivery or award of a qualification
• acts quickly when it has evidence of malpractice
• investigates promptly any allegations for which there are reasonable grounds that current (or former) staff or third parties have provided inaccurate or misleading information to Centres or Instructors/Assessors about its qualifications and, if the awarding organisation establishes that Instructors/Assessors have been misinformed, takes reasonable steps to correct any misunderstandings with the Centres or Instructors/Assessors that are affected
• captures, logs and addresses all suspicions and evidence of malpractice

The DAO uses and regularly reviews this policy and approach that sets out:

• who investigates concerns about malpractice
• how an investigation is undertaken
• how whistleblowers will be treated, and in such a way that individuals will not be prejudiced
• when and how interested parties will be notified lawfully
• how any interviews should be conducted
• how facts will be gathered, and evidence found, collated and stored
• how evidence will be verified
• how confidentiality of investigation materials is assured
• how the records of its investigations will be presented, and their accuracy assured
• how and when any visits to Centres will be announced and undertaken
• which principles will be followed when it undertakes an investigation with other bodies

DAO will:

• determine clear terms of reference for the investigations that are undertaken
• maintain a log of all allegations, including those that were not investigated, that it can cross-reference if new information is provided
• notify the Regulator, and/or other awarding organisations, depending on the outcome of the investigation

Where DAO finds that an Instructor/Assessor has disclosed confidential assessment information, it will ensure that, where appropriate, the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA), or other professional regulator to which that person is subject, and/or line management (chain of command) is notified, where appropriate. In considering whether or not such a referral is appropriate, DAO considers whether:

• the Instructor/Assessor in question is subject to professional regulation by the TRA or other teaching regulator; and
• the malpractice identified is serious based on the facts of the case and the seriousness of the sanction imposed by the awarding organisation
• to raise an A8.7 notification to all awarding organisations

DAO takes into account any guidance issued by the regulator. In general, a referral will be made where there was a deliberate or persistent disclosure in contravention of the requirements for the conduct of the assessment, or in breach of confidentiality of confidential assessment information, particularly where the action had, or was intended to have, a significant impact on the outcome of the assessment for at least one Learner.

Roles and responsibilities

When DAO or a Centre are notified of an allegation or have suspicions of malpractice, DAO are responsible for establishing the facts to judge whether or not the allegation can be proven. If sufficient evidence can be gathered, then an investigation is to be initiated immediately taking the appropriate action. DAO will work with the relevant people (including Centre staff and external parties) and define each person’s responsibilities at that time.

DAO will:

• notify the Head of Centre when either DAO or an external party identifies an allegation or suspicion of malpractice. If the allegation or suspicion implicates the Head of Centre, DAO will notify another suitable person within the chain of command
• support the Centre providing them with direction on how to undertake the investigation of the incident, preventing further malpractice being committed
• consider the need to immediately suspend registration and certification of the relevant qualification(s), as necessary
• use its staff and/or external contractors who are not connected to the Centre or its staff or learners to undertake a fair and unbiased investigation
• ensure that it takes all reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the impact and effects of the incident of alleged or actual malpractice
• communicate appropriately with third parties who made the allegation or raised the suspicion.
• handle information in accordance with the Government Security Classifications, Data Protection Act and public record keeping rules

The respective DAO centre will immediately perform an investigation and DAO will undertake further investigation if required, ensuring procedure at Annex A is adhered to.

DAO will report cases of malpractice to the qualification Regulator, as per para 9 and, whenever it finds evidence that results, or certificates may be invalid. Where it is proven that an incident of malpractice has occurred, DAO will promptly take all reasonable steps to prevent the malpractice recurring and take appropriate action against those responsible proportionate to the seriousness of the incident, or seek the co-operation of line management (the ‘chain-of-command’) in taking action.

Where DAO has cause to believe that an occurrence of malpractice or any connected occurrence may affect a Centre or another Awarding Organisation it will inform those Organisations, reporting all allegations to Ofqual along with the final outcome. If there is evidence that a criminal act may have been committed DAO will cease any further investigation and report it to the relevant Authority.

DAO will determine through its finding if the Centre attracts a Sanction being awarded and the severity of sanction will depend on the risk it may have on Learners and the Centre. Details of the level of sanction awarded and its severity is listed in the DAO Sanction Policy.

Procedure for reporting malpractice

Centre’s responsibilities

The Centre should:

• All incidents of suspected or alleged malpractice should be reported to DAO immediately by emailing DAO Compliance Manager:

Emails should include:

1. Centre name
2. name(s) of those involved in the alleged or suspected malpractice and, if appropriate, their job role (Learner, Facilitator, Assessor, Administrator)
3. the qualification or programme of activity
4. date or time period the suspected malpractice occurred
5. the nature of the suspicion or allegation
6. details of immediate corrective or mitigation actions

• inform the member of staff or learner who has been suspected of malpractice that an investigation will be conducted, and they have the right to reply or appeal against any sanction imposed upon them

• carry out an investigation (similar to a unit investigation) to establish the facts using people who are not involved with the alleged or suspected malpractice and report to DAO within 7 days

• provide evidence on or attached to the alleged or suspected malpractice reporting form (this form is available on the DAO website)

• implement agreed actions as a result of the investigation

• inform centre staff and learners affected by the implications of the actions and sanctions

• take appropriate action to prevent the malpractice recurring

• handle information in accordance with the Government Security Classification, Data Protection Act and Public Records Act

The DAO will inform both their and the Centre’s line management (chain-of-command) about lack of co-operation. This may result in the DAO permanently or temporarily withdrawing the Centre approval status or withdrawing learners from the qualification. During the investigation the DAO has the right to suspend the approval for the qualification/award in question and/or suspend the centre approval; withhold results of assessments for the individual learner or all learners who are undertaking the qualification or withhold claims for candidate certification for the individual learner or all learners who are undertaking the qualification.

Ascertaining cases of alleged or actual malpractice

Any person can report concerns they think could constitute malpractice. They could be:

• DAO staff who identify it through our own working relationship with a Centre
• DAO’s External Quality Assurers who identify it via their Centre visits
• Centre staff
• learners
• Internal Quality Assurers
• external Agencies such as Ofqual, other Awarding Organisations and the Police
• members of the general public
• informants (anonymous or otherwise)

In the event of a report coming from a whistleblowing accusation, DAO will ask the individual permission if they can identify them during the investigation. If the whistle-blower does not wish to be identified DAO will honour their decision and not reveal their identity. In the event of an anonymous allegation of malpractice that does not reveal sufficient details required to investigate, the DAO will record the allegation and close the case.

Investigating alleged malpractice

Approved Centres are required to have a malpractice procedure. If suspected malpractice is reported to a Centre, they are to immediately start an investigation. Before submitting a report to DAO they should:

• ensure staff carrying out the investigation are independent of the staff, learners or function being investigated
• inform those who are suspected of malpractice; they are entitled to know the necessary details of the case and possible outcomes
• submit the report including findings of the investigation to DAO with 7 days

DAO personnel will be assigned to investigate the incident. Interviews if required will be carried out face to face unless authorised by the Responsible Officer to be conducted remotely (for example, by telephone). Once complete they will present the facts of their investigation to the Responsible Officer who will make a decision. The outcome could be:

• no further action if the allegation cannot be proven
• an agreed action plan between the DAO and Centre for the Centre to carry out
• a sanction or sanctions
• a criminal investigation.

DAO will fully co-operate with Ofqual, informing them at the earliest opportunity, where necessary, and agreeing any appropriate remedial action. Where DAO has any cause to believe that an occurrence of malpractice, or any connected occurrence, may affect a Centre or another Awarding Organisation undertaking any part of the delivery of a qualification, DAO will inform that Centre or Awarding Organisation.

Centre staff sanctions

If malpractice is proven at staff level in a Centre DAO will impose one of the following sanctions on the staff member through the Centre, in addition to para 8. They may be:

• reported to their chain-of-command for administrative or disciplinary action
• re-trained before they can undertake any further Centre activity
• given special conditions or restrictions in any further Centre activity

Learner sanctions

If the investigation confirms that learner malpractice has taken place, DAO will direct the Centre to do one or more of the following with the learner(s). The learner may (this list is not exhaustive):

• be sent back to their place of work (‘RTU’)
• be reported to their line management (chain-of-command) for administrative or disciplinary action
• receive a written warning, agreed between DAO and the Centre
• have internal assessment marks disallowed in part or in full
• be re-assessed and internally or externally moderated and checked
• have external assessment marks disallowed in part or in full
• be re-entered for the external assessment
• not be issued a certificate

DAO expects the Centre to notify the Learners(s) of the sanction by providing them with a copy of the written notification from DAO. In cases where malpractice cannot be proven then no further action will be taken, but the investigation will be recorded in its log.

Appeals

Appeals, against a decision on malpractice and the sanctions imposed, can be made through the Enquiries and Appeals Policy which is available on the DAO website.

Centres and learners have the right to appeal against any decision that the DAO has made. If a learner wishes to appeal against a Centre decision, then the Centre must advise the learner of their appeals process. If the learner is dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal then they can appeal to DAO following its appeals process, published on the DAO website.

Review

This procedure will be reviewed annually and revised when necessary.

Annex:

A. Malpractice Procedure Flowchart.

1. Start

2. Allegation or suspicion of Malpractice or Maladministration (M&M)

3. Centre inform DAO (1 day)

4. DAO consider the need to immediately suspend registration and certification of the relevant qualification, as necessary (1 day)

5. Centre completes M&M reporting form and send to DAO (1 day)

6. Centre conducts immediate investigation (<1 week)

7. Centre presents evidence and makes recommendations to DAO

8. Is sufficient evidence provided by the Centre? NO: DAO request further information from Centre DAO to establish an investigation team to conduct investigation YES: Go to step 9

9. Responsible Officer (RO) reviews and informs the Regulator as necessary

10. Does RO require DAO to investigate? NO: a) RO makes decision and recommendation(s) b) DAO Inform Centre and Regulator of outcome c) Closed * YES: Go to step 11

11. DAO to establish an investigation team to conduct investigation

12. DAO investigation conducted

13. DAO Investigation evidence presented to RO