Embedding a culture of risk awareness

E n j o y ,
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
EMBEDDING A CULTURE OF RISK
AWARENESS ACROSS THE WHOLE
SCHOOL
MOULSHAM HIGH SCHOOL
LISA WILLIAMS, BUSINESS MANAGER
E n j o y ,






E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
11-18 comprehensive school
Single sex teaching KS3 and core subjects KS4
1600 students
Approx 250 in sixth form
Previously a Community School
Single converter academy
E n j o y ,
E n r i c h
a n d
RISK
A c h i e v e
E n j o y ,
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
Overview
E n j o y ,
Who
SLT
Governors
Risk Owners
Everyone
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
E n j o y ,
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
Who
Risk Owners
Members of SLT should take ownership of each risk
Report at SLT about any changes
Report on mitigation
Be responsible for making the changes if identified
E n j o y ,
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
When
 On the SLT agenda each fortnight
 Each action takes place once each
half term
Review the
action /
mitigation
Review the
Risk
categories
 10 minutes max
 Annual review with Governors
 “Risk Owners” review with their
team
Review the
ratings
E n j o y ,
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
“What’s the point?, Why bother? This is a
paper exercise and a waste of time….”
E n j o y ,
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
Why
Because we have to!
Informs the SIP/is the SIP!!!!!!
Helps prioritise the budget (treatment/action plan)
It does make you prioritise action plans
Have one action plan related to the Risk Register
Part of the annual planning day
E n j o y ,
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
How
Ask your peers
Google
Its not rocket science
There is no set format
Make it work for your academy
E n j o y ,
How
Identify the risks
Rate the risks
Rank them
Mitigation
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
Identify the Risk
Governance
3Non-compliance with Accounting legislation
Governance
6Poor examination results
Governance
9Inadequate response to change in market circumstances results in a
fall in admissions
Operational
13Senior management team is not sufficiently experienced or
qualified to carry out their roles appropriately.
Operational
19Inadequate consideration of health and safety of staff, public and
students whilst on Academy premises.
Financial
15Budget monitoring processes are not robust.
Financial
11Accounting information is not accurate.
Financial
12Financial regulations are not complied with.
Exert
from our
Risk
Register
(we have
24 risks in
total)
IMPACT
1Insignificant-
Rate the Risk
Reputation
Financial Loss
Service Delivery
Compliance
One off negative media exposure
Negligible financial Impact
Minimal Disruption to one area of the organisation
Low level minimal implications
2Minor-
Reputation
Financial Loss
Service Delivery
Compliance
Prolonged single item negative media exposure - local
Fines losses less than £5000
Minimal Disruption to the whole organisation
Implications for a small number of procedures
3Moderate-
Reputation
Financial Loss
Service Delivery
Compliance
National negative media exposure
Fines losses less than £15000
Significant Disruption to one area of the organisation
More than 5 cases / moderate impact on "user"
4Major-
Reputation
Financial Loss
Service Delivery
Compliance
Prolonged negative media exposure - loss of credibility
Fines losses less than £50000
Significant Disruption to large parts of the organisation
Significant impact on key areas
5Extreme -
Reputation
Financial Loss
Service Delivery
Sustained negative media exposure - loss of credibility and potential closure
Fines losses more than £50000
Significant Disruption to the whole organisation
Compliance
Significant impact on whole organisation
PROBABILITY
1 Rare
2 Unlikely
3 Possible
4 Likely
5 Almost Certain
Rate the Risk
5
Impact – Minor
(2) “prolonged
single item
negative media
exposure –
local”
4
Relative Impact
Risk number 6 “Poor
Examination
Results”
Probability
– Possible
(3)
3
6
2
1
1
2
3
4
Probability / Relative Likelihood
5
Analysis
Cat
No
Risk
Inappropriate use or
investment of funds
Governors
SLT (combined
(combined scores
Average
scores Impact x
SLT Govs
Impact x
both
Likelihood)
Likelihood)
4 4 8 8 2 6 4 4 6 4
5.2
Governance
5
Governance
6 Poor examination results
15 12 9 9 12 9 6 12 12 6 11.4
Governance
Unfavourable external
7 inspection results (e.g.
Ofsted)
15 15 8 12 15 12 6 12 6 8
13
4.8
5
9
10.2
8.8
10.9
So for Risk
number 6 in our
example the
combined score
would be 6 (2 x 3)
– Green and low
Relative Impact
Rank to combined Risk
5
10
15
20
25
4
8
12
16
20
3
6
9
12
15
2
4
6
8
10
1
2
3
4
5
Probability / Relative Likelihood
Consider the Treatment
TREATMENT
Avoidance (eliminate the risk)
Mitigation (reduce the risk)
Sharing (outsource or insure)
Retention (accept and budget)
Consider financial cost
of treatment vs
potential cost of risk
and likelihood – keep
perspective
MOULSHAM HIGH SCHOOL
Specialising in English and Humanities
Mitigation
What can we do to
reduce the risk?
This is where you start to inform
your SIP..
•
•
•
•
Poor Exam Results…….Intervention
Staff conduct……………Robust Policies
Data Protection………...Staff Training
/Encryption software
Low pupil numbers…….marketing
strategies
MOULSHAM HIGH SCHOOL
Specialising in English and Humanities
Back to Changing Culture and Perception
IMPROVEMENT
CYCLE
MOULSHAM HIGH SCHOOL
Specialising in English and Humanities
MOULSHAM HIGH SCHOOL
Specialising in English and Humanities
RISK
CYCLE
MOULSHAM HIGH SCHOOL
Specialising in English and Humanities
Back to Changing Culture and Perception
•
•
•
•
•
Notice Much Difference?
School Improvement is all about reducing Risk
The risk of a poor ofsted
The risk of students not fulfilling their potential
The risk of low numbers
Its about changing
perception
MOULSHAM HIGH SCHOOL
Specialising in English and Humanities
E n j o y ,
E n r i c h
a n d
A c h i e v e
Any Questions ????
MOULSHAM HIGH SCHOOL
Specialising in English and Humanities