Securing the sustainability of partnership provision

This HEPI blog was kindly co-authored by colleagues from the Quality Assurance Agency, the Committee of University Chairs, GuildHE, Independent Higher Education, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education and Universities UK.

Franchising and partnership provision should be good news. Often delivered through smaller providers, it can offer local opportunities for engagement in high-quality provision tailored to students’ needs, interests and aspirations, and underpin institutional and national strategies for widening access to – and success in – higher education.

2024 has seen renewed scrutiny on franchising among the media and policymakers. The intensity of that focus has sometimes been prompted by instances of public scrutiny that have provoked rather less positive headlines than this mode of provision might otherwise have hoped to inspire. It has led to the emergence of a narrative of risk before the full picture has been established.

January saw the National Audit Office publish instances relating to the abuse of student loan funding at franchise providers. The topic hit the news again in April when the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee raised concerns about value for money in franchised provision and its regulatory oversight, which the government has now responded to.

Sector bodies have consequently released a suite of resources that, when taken together, start answering some of the stickier questions about franchised provision. Importantly, these resources support providers directly to minimise risk in their franchised provision and take steps towards strengthening the assurance of the high-quality delivery of provision and student learning experience wherever that is delivered.

Universities UK, working with GuildHE and the Committee of University Chairs, have developed the Franchise Governance Framework to help universities support providers to:

• improve governance of franchised provision;
• identify and reduce risk from the start to the end of a franchised partnership;
• deliver value for money by being able to identify risks to public funds through stronger oversight.

It sets out expectations of how universities should be identifying risks of potential fraud in franchised partnerships, underpinned by a set of principles that can be applied throughout the partnership lifecycle. The framework also provides examples of the behaviours that can demonstrate adherence to these principles as well as examples of reflective questions that senior leaders and governing bodies can use to assess their own processes and practices. It builds on good practice already going on in the sector and provides practical steps that can be taken to mitigate risk across the lifecycle of a partnership.

This means that university governing bodies should have assurances about monitoring and oversight, transparency of information, costs and funding, student attendance and engagement, use of agents, roles and responsibilities within the institution and partner, and exit arrangements. This greater emphasis on risk at higher levels of governance shows that the sector is taking the concerns about franchised provision seriously.

A special edition of the Quality Assurance Agency’s Quality Compass has explored How to stay ahead of risks in franchise provision. The UK’s expert quality body designed the resource to offer practical advice to help providers develop and sustain such partnership arrangements, and navigate common franchising challenges, to ensure academic rigour, operational robustness, regulatory requirements and high-quality programme delivery.

Work on partnerships more broadly is also informing practice in the sector. Complexity and limited information on the shape of this provision are not reasons not to act. In fact, they mean support to create transparent, proportionate oversight and deliver strategic, mutually beneficial and quality-assured partnerships is even more important, so that the response is proportionate to the evidence.

Independent Higher Education’s two-year research project explored academic partnerships in the UK with the support of Pinsent Masons. The research found that a collaborative spirit and commitment to development is key to partnership success, with relationships built on trust and transparency increasing perceptions of value. This type of partnership can meet the strategic aims of both partners to create opportunities for students that may otherwise be unavailable. Greater clarity is needed though in areas such as data-sharing arrangements, and effective student support where services are split between providers. Future work is required as partnerships continue to change with external pressures, particularly given the diverging regulatory landscapes across the UK. To support this sector-wide understanding, IHE produced a typology of partnership definitions, for use by providers and policymakers.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator revised its section of the Good Practice Framework on Delivering Learning Opportunities with Others in February this year following a sector consultation. It sets out guidance on handling complaints, academic appeals and other internal processes in the context of partnerships. It is a tool to help providers evaluate their processes and encourage providers in a partnership to agree on the principles at the outset of their relationship, as well as being a useful resource for students and those who advise them. The revised section illustrates a range of partnership models and contexts to support providers in considering how to apply the Good Practice Framework Principles and the legal and regulatory requirements that apply to them. Many franchise partners are legally required to be separate members of the OIA when entering into a partnership, ensuring students have access to individual redress for all aspects of their complaint wherever they are studying.

Sector bodies have advocated a sector-led approach to the management, governance, assurance and enhancement of franchised and partnership provision, founded upon a set of shared principles – such as those articulated in the new UK Quality Code for Higher Education, whose eighth section provides specific guidance on partnership activities.

But, when public scrutiny is understandably focused on this complex area of provision, the sector must earn the right to lead by demonstrating that it’s assuring risk and protecting students. This set of resources, and the investment and commitment made by these sector bodies and their members is a helpful first step in doing so – and should help guide the conversation as one grounded in evidence and effective practice.