Guidance

Tailored Review of the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission: terms of reference

Published 5 November 2018

1. Objective of the Review

Good corporate governance requires that public bodies are efficient, effective and accountable, and provide value for money. The Government’s approach to public bodies’ reform for 2015 to 2020 builds on the successes of the 2010 to 2015 Public Bodies Reform Programme. This new approach is based on a two-tier approach to transformation: a programme of cross-departmental, functional reviews coordinated by the Cabinet Office, coupled with ongoing, robust ‘tailored reviews’ led by departments with Cabinet Office oversight and challenge. For the first time, these reviews will now include executive agencies and non-ministerial departments. The aim of all such reviews is to provide a robust challenge to, and assurance on, the continuing need for the organisation in question – both in function and form.

The Review will assess in particular:

  • the effectiveness of the organisation in its function and form in delivering its objectives, supporting FCO priorities and UK/US relations

  • the effectiveness of the programme in its function and form in delivering the organisations objectives, supporting FCO priorities and UK/US relations

  • the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the organisation and its sponsor are complying with the Cabinet Office’s code of good practice on partnerships with arm’s length bodies and that they are optimal for the organisation’s effectiveness

2. The scope of the Review: Tailored Review

A Tailored Review of the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission (MACC) is planned to start in the third quarter of the 2018 to 2019 financial year. The Review will cover the contribution by the MACC to FCO priorities and to the Government as a whole and the Devolved Administrations.

The Review will look both at the current performance of the MACC and at how it is able to respond and adapt to those factors which are most likely to affect its position as a prestigious scholarship provider and effective public diplomacy tool for the UK.

Due to the relatively limited size and complexity of the organisation this will be a Tier 2 TR (and at the lower end of complexity and scale for a Tier 2 TR).

3. The focus for the Review

3.1 Form and function

  • the TR should determine whether the form and function of the MACC is still required and aligned to wider departmental and government objectives

  • it should look at the current classification of the MACC as a NDPB (a change in classification could have an impact on the controls which apply to the organization, albeit this is not solely determined by classification)

  • it should look at the diversity of the Commission and the programme (scholars), and the steps taken by the MACC to, where necessary, improve this. This will include consideration of socio-economic background as well as formal protected characteristics

3.2 Efficiency

  • the TR will examine the MACC’s current operational structure, the role of the administrator (the Association of Commonwealth Universities), and of the FCO

  • the potential for efficiency in internal administration between multiple contracts given the ACU’s contractual role in administering HMG’s other scholarship programmes, Chevening and Commonwealth. The review’s scope will not, however, extend to the management of the other scholarship programmes

  • it should also evaluate value for money of the programme

3.3 Effectiveness

  • the TR should consider the overall effectiveness of the MACC in delivering against the objectives of its Mission Statement

  • the contribution of the MACC to the priorities of HMG, the FCO and the Devolved Administrations, including Global Britain, Brexit, soft power, and UK/US relations (including a focus on future proofing, and adaptability to changing requirements)

  • the extent to which the MACC’s functions are directly or indirectly delivered in a devolved context

  • the potential impact of exiting the European Union on the MACC

3.4 Economic model and sustainability

  • the TR should examine the long term sustainability of the MACC’s finances to deliver its objectives

  • the model of financial liability incurred over multiple financial years and implications for funding settlements from the FCO

  • its effectiveness in leveraging funding and support through other income sources

  • the impact of increasing costs due to inflation (primarily university fees)

  • The suitability of existing financial controls and accountability

3.5 Governance

  • the TR should consider any governance and status issues, including a Review of the Management Statement and Financial Memoranda

  • it should examine the effectiveness of the MACC Commissioners and sub committees (including the Audit and Finance), including:
    • the role of the Commission in setting and monitoring the strategy of the MACC, how this is assessed and how the FCO inputs to this process
    • the role and effectiveness of the MACC’s sub committees in supporting the effective management of the MACC
    • whether governance controls in place follow principles of good corporate governance set out in the ‘Partnerships with arm’s length bodies code of good practice’
    • the relationship between the MACC and the FCO (covering accountability and effective and productive working relationships, including those in a devolved context)
  • it should examine the controls and oversight which are appropriate to the status of the MACC to ensure the balance between risk management, strategic direction and independence

  • it should include a review of the current governance documents in place between the FCO and the MACC, and examine the MACC’s engagement with HMG and any wider policy or strategic reviews that are being conducted

3.6 The MACC’s relationship with the FCO

  • the TR should ensure that the relationship between MACC and the FCO is being managed in compliance with good corporate governance as described in the Cabinet Office code of good practice for partnerships with arm’s length bodies and including accountability, sponsorship and working relations at all levels

  • it should review the governance / framework documents and more clearly define the FCO’s government sponsorship role and updating of the Management Statement and Framework Document memorandum to reflect the degree of oversight

  • it should consider the FCO’s role in delivering outreach, marketing, recruitment and engagement for the Marshall programme in the US (through the Embassy and Consul Generals)

4. Scoping pack to include:

The 2014 Custer Review report; Framework Document; Management Statement; Annual Report; Business Plan, 2018-21 Corporate Plan; Organograms; key Stakeholder list; other governance papers.

5. Review Team and Challenge Group

The independent review team consists of FCO officials from outside the Sponsor Team. The team will formally take up their role in October 2018. The Review Team is responsible for launching the review by Written Ministerial Statement, consulting stakeholders, gathering evidence, analysing results, writing the report and disseminating its results. The Review Team must maintain strong relations with the review oversight group (Challenge Group) whom they consult throughout the process.

The Tailored Review will include a Challenge Group to test and challenge the assumptions of the Review Team. The exact make up is yet to be determined but will include a Cabinet Office Representative (Elliott Brinkworth, Strategic Assurance Lead, Public Bodies Team), 1 SMS FCO member of staff, and an external representative with experience of scholarship programmes.

6. Methodology

The Review will begin in October 2018 and is scheduled to end by February 2019. The Challenge Group will have regular oversight of the interim findings to ensure the review is robust and rigorous. The Review Team will consult the Group throughout the process and will maintain regular discussions with the Cabinet Office Public Bodies Reform Team. Interim findings will be shared with key stakeholders including MACC Commissioners and the Association of Commonwealth Universities.

The methodology will include:

  • desk based research of key documents

  • targeted call for evidence with relevant stakeholders followed by meetings to explore some of the issues in more detail

  • site visits to the Association of Commonwealth Universities to gain an in-depth understanding of how the organisation operates and its effectiveness

  • consultations with FCO policy colleagues, Whitehall and Devolved Administration partners

  • work with relevant FCO policy/financial leads to provide advice on analytical, financial, legal and policy aspects to make sure any recommendations are robust and achievable

  • engagement with the Embassy and Consul Generals in the US, MACC recruitment committees, partner academic institutions, and alumni

7. Ministerial approval

The Minister for the Constitution will sign off the Terms of Reference. As a Tier 2 Tailored Review, the final report and recommendations will be signed off, on behalf of the Minister for the Constitution, by officials from the Public Bodies Review Team.

FCO Ministers will have the opportunity to comment on the scope of the review and will sign off the final report and recommendations.