NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT

Transcription

1 NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT UKBA COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE OPINION: Based upon our assessment of the controls required to mitigate the key risks, we have given an overall assurance opinion of II to the audit of UKBA compliance, according to the definitions below: Assurance level I II III IV Distribution: Definition Key controls are in place and working effectively to mitigate the risks associated with objectives. Expected controls in place and most are working effectively. Some risk that objectives may not be achieved. Expected controls in place but many / some fundamental controls are not working effectively. Greater risk that objectives may not be achieved. Expected controls not in place. Significant risk that objectives may not be achieved. Version; Issued to, designation, date; date agreed V1.0: M Donnelly, Head of SPS: 29/11/12; 04/12/12 V1.1: M Donnelly, Head of SPS: ; Audit details: Auditor: L Coverdale Period of Audit: July to November 2012 Date of Audit Report: - first draft: 29 November final report: DRAFT version 1.1 MAIN RISKS a) CAS issued to inappropriate individuals. b) Insufficient evidence collected / retained to confirm compliance with Tier4 requirements. c) Insufficient monitoring of international students continued attendance/progression on programme. d) Incomplete reporting to UKBA. e) Inability to issue CAS if Tier 4 licence (s) are revoked / suspended, leading to reputational damage / inability to obtain tuition fees from international students. AUDIT OBJECTIVE The objective of the audit was to provide assurance of compliance with Tier 4 licence requirements for Highly Trusted Sponsor (HTS) status. SCOPE AND APPROACH The audit utilised UKBA s Tier 4 Migrant Compliance Checklist to assess the University s compliance. NOTE: From 2012/13, the University has asked all academic units to improve attendance monitoring for all students. To support a more consistent approach across the University, with the added benefits of efficiency in administration and rapid access to records, the University is intending to develop a Student Attendance Monitoring System (SAMS); the project is expected to take a year. In the meantime, academic units will manage attendance in a number of different ways many will use signature lists and some will use smartcards. The audit therefore did not check attendance monitoring; it did, however, seek evidence of progression.

2 SUMMARY CONTROL EVALUATION We identified the key controls necessary to mitigate the main risks. We tested them to determine whether they were in place and operating effectively. Ref Key control Risk 1: CAS issued to inappropriate individuals 1 Evidence of entitlement to study has been confirmed. Risk 2: Insufficient evidence Risk 3: Continued progression Risk 4: Incomplete reporting to UKBA Risk 5: Inability to issue CAS if licence revoked/suspended Comment AMBER AMBER N/A N/A AMBER 68/69 CAS on file (1UG missing); 69/69 copy passport; 62/69 copy of valid visa or residence permit but valid details on SAP (3 UG, 4 PG). Overall: 61/69 (88%). 2 Suitability for the course / change of course has been established. AMBER AMBER N/A N/A AMBER 69/69 evidence of suitable qualifications. References not compulsory for INTO; 49/49 UG and PG references available (1 UG no refs but interviewed, 2 PG no refs required). 7/8 ATAS certificates on file (1 PG missing). 69/69 proof of English assessment / IB. 1/69 under 18, declaration signed by student. Overall: 68/69 (99%). 3 Migrant tracking and monitoring of enrolment and changes. GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN 69/69 students enrolled; location not changed; length of course not changed; no indication of visa breach noted on SAP; no reporting of changes. 4 General sponsor duties have been met. N/A GREEN N/A AMBER AMBER 69/69 on a course at minimum level; 69/69 hours of study meet course requirements (minimum level at least 15 hours); 10/10 academic progression requirements recorded on CAS; 69/69 evidence of syllabus/course details; 59/59 evidence of timetable (10/69 research students, no timetable); 69/69 offer / offer letter. 67/69 correct tuition fees paid. 38/38 accommodation fees paid. Overall: 67/69 (97%). 2

3 SUMMARY CONTROL EVALUATION Ref Key control Risk 1: CAS issued to inappropriate individuals 5 Progress is being monitored and concerns on attendance have been addressed. Risk 2: Insufficient evidence Risk 3: Continued progression Risk 4: Incomplete reporting to UKBA Risk 5: Inability to issue CAS if licence revoked/suspended Comment N/A AMBER AMBER AMBER AMBER Attendance monitoring issue: SAMS development project. No test of attendance monitoring. 49/49 still registered and evidence of progression; 20/20 INTO students completed their course. 0/69 evidence of concerns. Risk1 Risk 2 Risk 3 Risk 4 Risk 5 Number of controls applicable to this risk: GREEN No of key controls in place and working effectively AMBER No of key controls in place but NOT working effectively RED No of key controls not in place RISK MITIGATED? AMBER AMBER AMBER AMBER AMBER 3

4 MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING RISK IMPORTANCE RECOMMENDATION MANAGEMENT RESPONSE 1 Our testing of the sample of students Insufficient HIGH We recommend that copies Maggie Donnelly, Head of Student Progress Service against the UKBA Tier 4 migrant evidence of all required and nominated UKBA authorising officer: Agreed / checklist indicated that 58/69 (84%) collected / documentation is obtained not agreed. were fully compliant. retained to and retained. Comment: Full compliance was noted in HR area confirm The key problem relates to the copies of visas held on 4 and the UKBA observations compliance file. Steps are already in place to ensure that future risk section. with Tier4 is significantly reduced. For several years we have been requirements. Non-compliance: routinely scanning passports and visas at first Loss of HTS UG:16/20 compliant. registration. In 2012 we began to check passports and status. (3 visa; 1 CAS) visas annually and to implement a series of flags to ensure that we are following-up any students who failed to PG: 24/29 compliant. present their ID. The currently registered students (4 visa; 1 ATAS) (2/7) in the sample were already being chased to fill the INTO: 18/20 compliant (2 fees data gap. Action will be taken when students do not payments). respond to requests to present valid visas. No action can be taken to rectify the deficit on graduate records (5/7). It is clear that some of the examples noted relate to human error in the ID checking and scanning process e.g. data on file but no scan or partial scan. The impact of error in this process has already been acknowledged and for this reason ID checking is limited to SPS staff and training is provided. ID checking can be a high pressure situation and it may not be possible to eliminate all errors. We will nevertheless seek to improve training and accuracy rates in future exercises. ATAS is routinely recorded on the student record and the example noted appears to be anomalous, although the example has emphasised the need for attention to detail at all stages. 2 The University recognises the English language courses provided by INTO Newcastle LLP as the equivalent of a UKBA approved English language course. Suitability for study inappropriately assessed. Medium We recommend that a document is prepared which shows that the English language courses provided by INTO Newcastle LLP are the equivalent of a UKBA approved English language Maggie Donnelly, Head of Student Progress Service and nominated UKBA authorising officer: Agreed / not agreed. Comment: The Director of INTO Newcastle University will be asked to ensure that a report is considered by relevant 4

5 MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING RISK IMPORTANCE RECOMMENDATION MANAGEMENT RESPONSE course. University committees. 3 10/69 sampled students were research students, for whom there was no timetable. 4 References are required for some, but not all, postgraduate courses. General sponsor duties not met. Suitability for study inappropriately assessed. Medium Medium We recommend that management consider the documentation and retention of a schedule of interactions (in place of a timetable) for research students. We recommend that a review is carried out to determine whether sufficient evidence is required (eg references, qualifications, interview) and retained (for those postgraduate courses for which references are not required) to demonstrate the assessment of suitability for study. Maggie Donnelly, Head of Student Progress Service and nominated UKBA authorising officer: Agreed / not agreed. Comment: PGR students will be considered as part of the SAMS project steps are already underway to ensure the meeting records in eportfolio are recorded appropriately and also that the eportfolio data is available within BW for reporting and analysis. Maggie Donnelly, Head of Student Progress Service and nominated UKBA authorising officer: Agreed / not agreed. Comment: The relevant admissions officers will be asked to review practice with regard to references. It should however be noted that there is limited value in many international references they are often template format and it is very difficult to confirm the authenticity of the writer. In addition references slow the admission process. For this reason a number of programmes (especially PGT) moved to require no references or only 1 reference. For this reason we would regard an interview by a member of staff as being acceptable in lieu of a reference and for taught programmes also place greater weight of academic and English qualifications. OTHER COMMENT cf HR Area 5, 3.5 below: Before finalising the report there was some disagreement with the auditor about the accuracy of fee payments on CASs. All admission teams believed that they had correctly reported the fees paid by the student at the time the CAS was issued. This is one of the most complex areas of student systems and service request have already been made relating to the need for 5

6 MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING RISK IMPORTANCE RECOMMENDATION MANAGEMENT RESPONSE simplification and standard documents for students etc. For this reason the finance upload for SMS took some time to achieve and was only in operation from Summer 2012 for postgraduate applicants only. To eliminate future issues it will be helpful to ensure that the CAS upload routine is developed further and fully used by all teams including for individual registered students. This will be drawn to ISSs attention although we are aware of resource constraints in this area. High Medium Low A fundamental control issue that should be addressed as soon as possible An important control issue that should be addressed as a priority in the near future An issue which is not fundamental but would improve overall control 6

7 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Non European Economic Area (EEA) students who want to undertake a long course of study in the UK, or who want to work during their stay must apply under Tier 4 of the UK's point-based system for immigration. These students must obtain a visa before they travel, which must be supported by a confirmation of acceptance for studies (CAS) assigned by a UK education provider that has a sponsor licence. Students must meet other immigration requirements by scoring enough points for other criteria (for example maintenance). 1.2 The University is a Highly Trusted Sponsor (HTS) and holds a Tier 4 (General) student licence. The University can issue a CAS after ensuring that it wants the overseas student to enter the UK and that to the best of its knowledge, the student meets the CAS rules and will be able to make a successful visa application; however, students actions can still expose the University to risk eg students who overstay their UK visa or who fail to attend classes. The University must therefore have effective processes for managing international students throughout the student lifecycle. 1.3 The UK Border Agency (UKBA), can revoke sponsor licences if it believes institutions have not complied with their duties, been dishonest in any dealings, or are a threat to immigration control. Such an action would result in an inability to admit international students and / or existing visas being cancelled. The impact on the University s business plan would be significant. 1.4 UKBA carried out a compliance visit for the University s Tier 4 licence in January The Head of Student Progress Service requested Internal Audit follow up this check to reassess the University s performance and ensure effective processes for compliance with UKBA requirements. 2. TESTING METHODOLOGY 2.1 The audit was intended to mimic (as far as possible) the process that is used by the UKBA when visiting sponsors for audit checks on Student Migrants: the Tier 4 Migrant Compliance Checklist as used by the UKBA was used to test a sample of students from the University and INTO. A sample of 20 undergraduate (UG), 29 postgraduate (PG) and 20 INTO students (total 69) was selected from a report which identified all live students during 2011/12. In order to minimise the impact of the audit testing, where possible electronic records were reviewed or copies of documentation were observed in their files, with the exception of the INTO sample where access to electronic and manual files was limited, hence reliance was placed upon INTO staff to provide the necessary information directly. 2.2 The UKBA Tier 4 Migrant Compliance Checklist records the migrant s name, CAS number, Visa dates and the date the CAS was assigned. It contains five categories: i) HR Area 1: Monitoring Immigration Status; ii) HR Area 3: Record Keeping and Recruitment Practices; iii) HR Area 4: Migrant tracking and monitoring; iv) HR Area 5: General Sponsor Duties; and v) General Observations. These categories are explained in more detail below, together with the results of the audit testing. 7

8 3. TEST RESULTS 3.1 HR Area 1: Monitoring Immigration Status As a HTS, the University must be able to demonstrate that it has systems in place that will minimise the risk of sponsoring or employing a migrant who does not have the right to work or study in the UK. At registration, students are required to submit copies of passports and visas; this is checked to ensure they it is within date and valid, and must be retained by the University Test results: not satisfactory. i) 68/69 sampled students had a CAS on file (one UG CAS missing); ii) all 69 sampled students had a copy passport on file; iii) 62/69 sampled students had a copy of a valid visa or residence permit on file, although the details on SAP suggested that a valid visa exists (3 UG, 4 PG missing). Overall: 61/69 (88%) Our testing also indicated that the copy passport one of the sampled undergraduate students was out of date at the time of the audit. We understand that there is no requirement in the UKBA guidance that a sponsor must retain a copy of a valid passport throughout the period of the student s attendance The sponsor is required to ensure that evidence of a valid visa is retained whilst the student is attending the University. The audit indicated that 15% (3/20) of undergraduates and 14% (4/29) of postgraduates tested did not have a copy of a valid visa document on file. Copies of valid visas for all 20 INTO students were available; these students have now completed their course of study. 3.2 HR Area 2: Maintaining Migrant Contact Details The University must keep a history of the contact details its sponsored students, which must be an electronic or written record of: their UK residential address; their landline telephone number (where applicable); and their mobile telephone number (where applicable). We did not test this area: it is not explicitly covered by the UKBA Tier 4 Migrant Compliance Checklist and it would be difficult to quickly validate the details held on file. 3.3 HR Area 3: Record Keeping and Recruitment Practices In order to demonstrate that the course that has been chosen or offered is suitable (or if there has been a change of course), students have to provide satisfactory evidence of qualifications and/or references to show they are capable of undertaking the course of study. Satisfactory completion of a course at INTO is accepted as evidence to enter the University on an undergraduate degree course Postgraduate students may, depending upon the course they have chosen, be required to provide an Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS) certificate, which is designed to ensure that those applying for postgraduate study in certain sensitive subjects do not acquire knowledge that could potentially be used in Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes. Where an ATAS certificate is required, this will be documented on the CAS document The UKBA require students to demonstrate their English language ability, usually either a certificate via IELTS or another method: UKBA provide a list of approved English language tests. The assessment is recorded on the CAS and the supporting evidence is attached to the student s file (stored manually with the UCAS application for undergraduates; stored electronically and manually for INTO; stored electronically for Postgraduates). Comment [MED1]: Observation from Kath Hind: Some undergraduates also now have to provide an ATAS Certificate. The courses concerned are in the Schools of Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Marine Technology. The two members of staff who deal with these courses know that they have to document this in the CAS where relevant, but we have not yet updated our instructions to refer to this. Barbara Barker in ISS has the list of courses that are affected by this, in order that the automated process will cater for it. 8

9 3.3.4 Any student under 18 years old is classed as a minor and care arrangements have to be established. Typical evidence would be a copy of a letter to the Local Authority for students in foster care and clarification of arrangements for travel / reception and living Test results: not satisfactory. i) 69/69 sampled students had evidence of suitable qualifications; ii) references are not considered compulsory by INTO; 3/20 sampled students had evidence of references; iii) 49/49 UG and PG students had references, where required. One undergraduate had no references but had been interviewed. We were informed that references were not required for two postgraduate students; iv) 7/8 ATAS certificates on file (1 PG missing); v) 69/69 sampled students had proof of an English assessment / international baccalaureate; vi) only one of the 69 sampled students (an UG) was under 18. No foster care or special arrangements were made as the student became 18 within two weeks. We located a declaration signed by the student. Overall: 68/69 (99%). 3.4 HR area 4: Migrant tracking and reporting The University must report to UKBA (within ten working days) any student has changed their circumstances, for example if their study location, course, or the length of course, has changed. Students may change their course (and the reasons should be documented) but not on the grounds of academic inability, as this may infer that their qualifications to support their application were not correct, or that they have entered the UK without good foundation. Information on enrolment is found on the student s file Test results: satisfactory. i) 69/69 sampled students enrolled; ii) 69/69 location not changed; iii) 69/69 length of course not changed; iv) 69/69 no indication of visa breach noted on SAP; v) 69/69 no reporting of changes. Overall: 69/69 (100%). 3.5 HR area 5: general sponsor duties UKBA require that students who are in the UK on a Tier 4 visa must be studying at a minimum level (typically above NVQ level 6 / degree-level or a pre-sessional English / foundation course which leads to an undergraduate course). Students should be undertaking a course with a minimum of 15 hours of study per week. If a student wants to undertake a second (successive) course, academic progression should be demonstrated (i.e. the second course should be at a higher level than the initial course); where there is doubt, or clarity is needed, this has to be recorded on the CAS. To demonstrate that the student meets the above criteria, evidence of the syllabus/prospectus, student timetable, offer letters, etc. have to be retained The CAS records the amount of fees (for tuition and accommodation) due and paid to date. Supporting evidence is recorded on the student s electronic record, or in timetable or INTO records; undergraduate student information is on the copy of the UCAS application form Test results: not satisfactory. i) 69/69 sampled students on a course at minimum level; 9

10 ii) 69/69 sampled students hours of study meet course requirements (minimum level at least 15 hours); iii) academic progression does not have to be evidenced if the student is studying for a first degree in the UK or completing an existing course. 10/10 academic progression requirements were recorded on a CAS; iv) 69/69 had evidence of syllabus/course details; v) 59/59 evidence of timetable. 10/69 sampled students were research students, for whom there was no timetable; vi) 69/69 sampled student files contained evidence of an offer / offer letter; vi) there was no copy CAS for one UG student; however, the fees as recorded on the UKBA SMS had been paid. Tuition fees had been paid for 67/69 students, and accommodation fees paid for 38/38 students using University or INTO accommodation. Overall: 67/69 (97%). 3.6 UKBA Observations UKBA assess whether, on the basis of the documentation provided, there are any concerns with the student s attendance Attendance monitoring was raised as an issue at a previous UKBA inspection and a previous internal audit. As a result, the University is intending to develop a Student Attendance Monitoring System (SAMS); the project is expected to take at least a year. In the meantime, academic units are managing attendance in a number of different ways, eg signature lists and smartcards. This audit therefore did not check attendance monitoring For the purposes of our audit, we sought evidence of progression and completion of either the academic year/course. Test results: satisfactory. i) 49/49 sampled students still registered; 20/20 INTO students had completed their course; ii) 0/69 evidence of concerns; iii) 49/49 evidence of progression (20/20 INTO students no progression applicable). Overall: 69/69 (100%) CONCLUSIONS Our testing of the sample of students against the UKBA Tier 4 migrant checklist indicated that 58/69 (84%) were fully compliant. Full compliance was noted in HR area 4 and the UKBA observations section. HR Area Overall test results Conclusion HR Area 1 61/69 (88%) Not satisfactory HR Area 2 Not tested Not tested HR Area 3 68/69 (99%) Not satisfactory HR Area 4 69/69 (100%) Satisfactory HR Area 5 67/69 (97%) Not satisfactory Observations 69/69 (100%) Satisfactory Comment [MED2]: We are surprised that 99% in test results leads to a not satisfactory / Level II assurance. Similarly for HR area 5 at 97%. 4.2 Recommendations (suggestions for control improvement) for each of these findings have been discussed and actions agreed with management. 10