School Resource
Management tools:
formative evaluation
Research report
June 2022
Authors: BMG Research
2
Contents
List of figures 4
List of tables 5
Background 6
Methodology 8
Recruitment and sample composition 8
Research design 10
Format and Topic Guide 10
Confidentiality 10
Analysis and reporting 11
Data analysis 11
Note on the interpretation of qualitative research and data 11
Reporting Structure 12
Key Findings – Benchmarking tools (SFB and VMFI) 13
Key Findings – ICFP 16
Detailed Findings: Benchmarking Tools 19
Initial motivations for using the tools 19
Benchmarking and comparison purposes 19
Informing budget setting, savings, and investments 20
Reporting and informing constructive conversations 21
Satisfying a curiosity 21
How SFB and VMFI are being used 23
To provide an indication of variance between schools 23
To allow schools and trusts to challenge or reaffirm thinking, increasing confidence
24
To easily access and digest information 24
Resulting decisions and actions taken after using the SFB and VMFI 26
Conduct further investigations 26
Communicate findings with colleagues and decision makers 27
No decisions or actions taken 28
3
Estimated impact the SFB and VMFI have had on expenditure, time, and resource 31
Identified long-term savings 31
Identified short-term savings 33
Time and resource savings 33
Helped reaffirm knowledge and increase confidence amongst school leaders 34
Detailed Findings: ICFP training and accompanying resources 36
Initial motivations for attending the ICFP training 36
Informing understanding and implementation of ICFP 36
Facilitating conversations with colleagues and stakeholders 37
Career development and accessing free training 37
How learnings from the ICFP training and accompanying resources are being used 38
To provide a holistic introduction for those less informed about ICFP 38
To reaffirm current processes and provide a helpful refresher to habitual users 38
To help embed ICFP in schools 39
Resulting decisions and actions taken after attending the ICFP training 40
Conduct further investigations 40
Communicate information with colleagues 40
No decisions or actions taken 41
Estimated impact the ICFP training has had on expenditure, time, and resource 43
Identified long-term savings 43
Identified short-term savings 44
Saved time by facilitating and informing internal discussions on ICFP 45
Increased confidence through reaffirming correct use of ICFP in schools 46
Conclusion – Benchmarking tools (VMFI and SFB) 47
Conclusion – ICFP Training 48
Appendix I: Topic Guide 49
Appendix II: Statement of terms 56
Compliance with International Standards 56
Interpretation and publication of results 56
Ethical practice 56
4
List of figures
Figure 1 – Benchmarking Tools. Decision 1: Further investigate benchmarking data ..... 14
Figure 2 – Benchmarking Tools. Decision 2: Communication findings with colleagues ... 14
Figure 3 – Benchmarking Tools. Decision 3: No decision taken ...................................... 15
Figure 4 – ICPP. Decision 1: Further investigate the potential for ICFP .......................... 17
Figure 5 – ICFP. Decision 2: Communication ICFP information with colleagues ............. 17
Figure 6 – ICFP. Decision 3: No decision taken .............................................................. 18
6
Background
In 2018 the Department for Education published ‘Supporting excellent school resource
management: strategy’. This set out the Department’s commitment to helping schools
improve outcomes for pupils by making every pound count and getting the best value
from their resources. This strategy underpins the School Resource Management (SRM)
Portfolio of support from the department. The SRM Portfolio is a suite of tools which aims
to help schools and trusts save money on day-to-day costs
1
.
In September 2021, BMG were commissioned to conduct independent qualitative
research to evaluate the use and impact as a result of engaging with this suite of tools:
namely the Schools Financial Benchmarking (hereafter referred to as the SFB), the View
My Financial Insights tool (hereafter referred to as the VMFI), and the Integrated
Curriculum and Financial Planning training course and accompanying resources
(hereafter referred to as ICFP).
The specific research objectives for this qualitative project were:
• What specific decisions and actions have schools and academy trusts taken be-
cause of their use of either of the two financial benchmarking tools or ICFP train-
ing?
• What is the broad balance of costs and benefits of these indirect support strands?
• What have those decisions and actions led to?
• Including the estimated impact on school or academy trust expenditure?
• What are best-case scenario impacts on expenditure of using the two indirect sup-
port strands?
• Are there ways to improve or maximise the contribution of each strand to school or
academy trust expenditure?
Common acronyms used throughout the report are:
ICFP: Integrated Curriculum and Financial Planning
VMFI: View My Financial Insights
SFB: Schools Financial Benchmarking
MAT: Multi Academy Trust
SAT: Single Academy Trust
LA Maintained: Local Authority Maintained
SLT: Senior Leadership Team
1
School Resource Management – gov.uk. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/schools-financial-
health-and-efficiency
7
SMT: Senior Management Team
DfE: Department for Education
SRM: School Resource Management
8
Methodology
Recruitment and sample composition
School Business Professionals were contacted by DfE staff and asked if they would be
willing to take part in the research. Those who expressed interest were contacted by
BMG, and an interview time and date was arranged. A total of 55 interviews were
completed between the 14
th
October – 12
th
November 2021, each lasting between 20 to
30 minutes. 40 interviews were completed with those who had either used the VMFI,
SFB, or both; 15 were completed with those who had attended the ICFP training.
Quotas were applied based on the phase of the school setting (Primary, Secondary,
Mixed), size if in a MAT (Small, Medium, or Large
2
), and whether the schools were LA
maintained, or part of a SAT or a MAT. This was to ensure representation of a diverse
school and academy trust system, and to reflect the project’s budget. Tables 1.1 and 1.2
illustrate this (shown below):
Table 1: VFMI and SFB sample composition
Composition Count
Primary LA
7
Primary SAT/Small MAT
5
Primary Medium/Large MAT
8
Secondary LA
3
Secondary SAT/Small MAT
1
Secondary Medium/Large MAT
3
Mixed Small MAT
1
Mixed Medium/Large MAT
10
Special
2
Total
40
2
Small MAT, 2-4 schools; Medium MAT, 5-10 schools, Large MAT, 11+ schools
9
Table 2: ICFP sample composition
Composition Count
Primary Small MAT
2
Primary Medium/Large MAT
4
Secondary Small MAT
2
Secondary Medium/Large MAT
3
Mixed Small MAT
1
Mixed Medium/Large MAT
3
Total
15
Researchers endeavoured to speak with a variety of job roles, though no quotas were
applied to job roles. This is because some respondents were undertaking multiple roles,
and others, while their job titles reflected one role, in actuality they were conducting
another. Therefore, patterns between different job roles are difficult to evidence, and are
only noted in the report where the patterns are directly attributed to role. Respondents
within the following positions were spoken to:
• School Business Manager
• Academy Business Manager
• Chief Financial Officer
• Governor
• Chief Operating Officer
• Chief Executive Officer
• Finance Director
• Chair
• Head of Finance
• Premises Manager
• Federations Business Manager
• Finance Team Manager
• Deputy Head
• School Finance Manager
• Senior Accountant
10
• Schools Financial Advisor
• School Finance Support Lead
Research design
Format and Topic Guide
A topic guide for the discussions was designed in conjunction with the Department for
Education and is appended to this report in the appendix. The guide was broadly
consistent across all groups (those working in LAs, MATs, or SATs), with some
differences incorporated so conversations were relevant. The guide is split into three
evaluative sections: SFB, VMFI, and the ICFP training. Each participant was asked about
their involvement with just one of these tools. LA maintained schools were not asked
about their use of the VMFI tool as this has not been available to them as long as it has
been for academy trusts; LAs have been using it since March 2020 as part of a planned
rollout of the tool, so it was considered that the long-term impact would not yet be
evidenced.
The discussion structure was loosely split into five parts: introduction of the topic and
respondent background; the impact of the tool (including specific actions taken as a
result); other tools used; suggested improvements; and any final thoughts.
All interviews were conducted by an experienced qualitative researcher. Interviews were
held over the phone, via Microsoft Teams, or using Google Meets. Interviews lasted
between 20-30 minutes.
Confidentiality
At the beginning of each interview, respondents were assured that all information
provided would be treated in the strictest confidence; that BMG would not identify any
individuals or disclose the personal details of those who took part; and that views stated
would not be attributable to individuals. BMG’s independence and impartiality from the
Department for Education was also reiterated, to ensure confidence amongst participants
when sharing their views.
Respondents were informed that the discussion would (with participants’ consent) be
audio-recorded, that the files would be stored securely at BMG Research and would not
be made available to anyone outside of BMG, and that they would be securely destroyed
on completion of this project. They were informed that quotes from the discussions may
be used in the research report; these quotes have been incorporated through this report
to illustrate the range of findings and bring the participants’ voice to the forefront of the
research.
11
Analysis and reporting
Data analysis
A grounded theory approach was used for the analysis of the data meaning that all
themes and findings that are reported against the key areas of interest have emerged
‘organically’ through the research rather than through hypothesis testing, thus making the
overall findings more robust and grounded in the experiences and views of respondents.
To achieve this, once the interviews were completed and transcribed, they were analyzed
using a thematic framework. First, the key themes and topics arising from the interviews
were identified through the topic guide and an initial review of a selection of transcripts.
Each of the key themes and topics were then translated to a column heading in an Excel
grid, with each row within the grid representing an individual. Researchers analyzed each
transcript by extracting relevant data from the interview and summarizing it in the
appropriate cell within the grid. Verbatim quotations were included alongside the
summaries where possible. Interview data was gridded at an individual level to enable
disaggregation and aggregation of the data for different types of schools (MATs, SATs,
and LA maintained schools) and, where possible, job roles and budget-setting
responsibilities.
Note on the interpretation of qualitative research and data
A research interview is a short and informal conversation held with a variety of members
of a particular audience and led (moderated) by a professional researcher. Each
interview is conducted with carefully recruited people (respondents) who are brought
together for a predetermined amount of time to discuss a particular subject nominated by
the client.
In-depth interviews can provide understanding of what people think, need, want, and care
about, and can explore the reasons behind these views. The researcher guides the
participant through a series of topics (agreed beforehand with the client), but in a less
structured way than with a quantitative (survey) questionnaire.
Findings may emerge from conversations which the researcher and client had not
previously considered; these can be identified and explored. It is the moderator’s job to
ensure that all the client’s questions are answered and that every respondent has an
opportunity to express their point of view.
It should be remembered that participants may hold views that are based on incorrect
information. It is the moderator’s role to explore and report participants’ perceptions, not
necessarily to correct any misunderstanding or incorrect perceptions.
12
When interpreting the findings from in-depth interviews, it is important to note that they
are not based on quantitative statistical evidence. Where quantifying language is used
throughout the report, such as referring to groups such as ‘a majority, a minority, many,
or few,’ it should not be assumed that these groups hold any statistical significance, given
the low number of respondents who took part in the research.
Reporting Structure
This report analyses the impacts of the VFMI tool, the SFB site and the ICFP training and
its associated resources. Throughout the report, SFB and VMFI findings have been
grouped together and are referred to as the ‘benchmarking tools.’ Unless otherwise
stated it should be assumed that findings outlined refer to both of these tools; where
differences occur between them this is noted in the main body of the text. The findings for
the benchmarking tools have been grouped because most users who had used VMFI
had also used the SFB, and vice versa; respondents who had used both found it difficult
to cognitively separate the impacts the tools had had on their role.
This report is split into two core sections: the first outlining the findings relating to SFB
and VMFI, and the second relating to ICFP.
13
Key Findings – Benchmarking tools (SFB and VMFI)
Both tools were useful for the majority of users; they help to identify outliers and
provide a good starting point for further interrogation, both by reaffirming and
contradicting current knowledge bases. Staff gained a holistic view of their
performance, and the tools prompted more detailed investigations, saving time, and
illustrating data in a visual way.
After interacting with the benchmarking tools, respondents’ subsequent actions
can be broken down into three categories, with actions and impacts arising from
each. Respondents either investigated data further, communicated findings with
colleagues, or did not take any further actions. See images below for an outline of the
three decision-making categories identified in the research.
The most common behaviour after engaging with the sites was to take no
decisions or further actions. The reasons to not implement findings varied. Some did
not take action due to the sites affirming their current correct practice and reiterating their
strong financial performance, others lacked time or agency to impact findings, and some
did not understand the potential for the tools, citing inaccurate limitations.
Many respondents took an action to further investigate benchmarking data
presented after interacting with the tools. If information found during further
investigations was already known, it then helped to reaffirm thinking, adding to
confidence. Where it was not, respondents could use the tools to understand why. This
aspect of the tools, allowing users to challenge their thinking, was particularly valuable.
Another action was to communicate findings with colleagues and stakeholders
within their schools and academy trusts. The benchmarking information facilitated
data sharing. Discussions took place across all levels, from informal talks to governors’
meetings, and were thought to be more productive, as information is well presented and
illustrative. Conversations too resulted in a more confident and informed workforce.
Further investigations and communicating findings from the tools have helped to
identify both long- and short-term savings. The most common long-term savings
related to staffing and restructuring, where short-term savings were often due to
procurement and tendering arrangements. Many users are able to quantify these savings
relatively accurately, showing a direct benefit of using the tools.
Of those who note limitations of the tools – lack of standardisation of data and a
reporting lag – much of this is due to a misunderstanding of how the sites display
the data. Negative perceptions of the tools, particularly the SFB, were mostly due to a
lack of understanding of how to use the data, and how it is collated. This suggests more
communication and education around how to use the tool could be beneficial.
14
Figure 1 – Benchmarking Tools. Decision 1: Further investigate benchmarking data
Figure 2 – Benchmarking Tools. Decision 2: Communication findings with
colleagues
Decision
• Find time and
resource to
further
investigate
school
expenditure
and build
benchmarking
into habitual
part of
reporting
metrics
Action
• Exploring
other tools
• Investigating
the areas
where
identified as an
outlier
• Reviewing
current areas
of expenditure
and where
improvements
could be made
Impacts
• A more
confident
workforce
• Procurement-
based cost
savings
• Staff-based
cost savings
• Clearer
reporting for
stakeholders
• More time-
efficient
reporting
• OR No impact
Decision
• Communicate
the data with
colleagues and
senior
stakeholders
within schools
and academy
trusts
Action
• Informally
brainstorming
data with
colleagues and
potential impact
• Creating formal
reports for
stakeholders
• Using data in
presentations
• Calling internal
meetings
Impacts
• A more
confident
workforce
• Procurement
based cost
savings
• Staff-based
cost savings
• Better informed
stakeholders
• More time-
efficient
discussions
• OR No impact
15
Figure 3 – Benchmarking Tools. Decision 3: No decision taken
Decision
• No decision
taken as a
result of
interacting with
the SFB or the
VMFI
Action
• No action
taken as a
result of
interacting with
the SFB or the
VMFI
Impacts
• A frustrated
workforce at
their lack of
authority to
implement
change and/or
at the percieved
poor quality
data
• OR A more
confident
workforce
comfortable as
data re-affirmed
current, good
financial
position
• OR No impact
16
Key Findings – ICFP
The principle of ICFP was well received by those who attended the training and
found it formed a comprehensive and holistic overview. All attendees agreed that the
principles of ICFP are beneficial, and most were keen to learn more about it and try to
see how they could implement the principles in their school settings, if they were not
already doing so.
As with the benchmarking tools, a common behaviour after attending the ICFP
training, however, was to take no further decisions or actions. This was either:
• Positive, as those who had attended had reaffirmed current positive practice,
found the information helped to reaffirm their thinking and instead acted as a
‘refresher’ course, increasing confidence that what they were already
implementing was correct.
• Or negative, whereby those who had attended had identified positive savings but
had no authority to implement them. This group said that headteachers and
academic staff were more able to action information over finance staff.
Others took the decision to communicate their learnings with colleagues which led
to increased confidence and more productive conversations. As with benchmarking
tools, the ICFP training led to better informed and more efficient decisions and
conversations, through using the data to illustrate points made and savings identified,
with attendees who had used the workbook by phase and the presentation provided
speaking positively on their impact.
Others chose to further investigate the principles of ICFP. This was particularly
notable for those who had not had a lot of exposure to ICFP and who had attended to
learn more: they found the course prompted them to find out more information and
identify how it could be beneficial for them.
The training was considered most appropriate to help with long-term strategic
planning. Of those who had used the tools provided after attending the training, the
workbook (by phase) was considered to be the most useful for strategic decision-making
and used the information to stress-test future decisions. This was particularly useful for
those with larger budgets and more complex integrated finances, such as MATs.
In line with this, potential savings identified were predominantly long-term; most
attendees were yet to see a direct financial impact. Though large potential savings
could be identified, this primarily related to long-term staffing changes and restructures.
For example, many had decided not to replace staff but were waiting for long-term
organic savings through staff resignations, rather than making involuntary redundancies.
17
Figure 4 – ICPP. Decision 1: Further investigate the potential for ICFP
Figure 5 – ICFP. Decision 2: Communication ICFP information with colleagues
Decision
• Make time to
further engage
with ICFP
resources and
educate
themselves
further,
exploring the
potential of
ICFP for their
schools,
academies, and
academy trusts.
Action
• Referring back
to resources
provided on the
training.
• Experimenting
with the tools,
predominantly
the workbook
(by phase).
• Comparing DfE
information with
other
resources.
Impact
•A more
confident
workforce
• Long-term and
short-term
savings
identified.
• More informed
conversations.
• Some use of
ICFP
•OR No impact
Decision
•Actively
communicate
the learnings
with colleagues
and senior
stakeholders
within schools
and academy
trusts.
Action
• Discussing
ICFP potential
with colleagues.
• Creating formal
reports for
meetings.
• Using
presentation
provided at the
training to
communicate
ICFP to others
.
Impact
• A more
confident
workforce
• Long and short
term savings
identified
• More informed
conversations
• Some use of
ICFP
• OR No impact
18
Figure 6 – ICFP. Decision 3: No decision taken
Decision
•No decision
taken as a
result of
attending the
ICFP training
Action
•No action taken
as a result of
attending the
ICFP training
Impact
•Either: a
frustrated
workforce at
their lack of
authority to
implement
change
•Or: a more
confident
workforce
comfortable as
the training
reaffirmed their
current, good
ICFP pratice
19
Detailed Findings: Benchmarking Tools
Initial motivations for using the tools
Benchmarking and comparison purposes
The majority of respondents cited that the primary reason for using the VMFI or SFB
tools was to benchmark their finances with other, similar, schools. In fact, benchmarking
was the more commonly cited reason for using these tools. Most who had used it in this
way were looking for potential areas for improvements with their schools across a range
of measures, most commonly staffing and procurement, as these were areas with the
biggest expenditure, and therefore where the largest impacts could be had.
We use it [SFB] primarily for staffing costs, which is about 80% of our
overall budget, so we get the most information and use out of that. –
Finance director, Primary MAT
For those working in larger MATs, an additional benefit for using the tools was internal
comparisons. Some of those interviewed mentioned it was not possible to directly
compare their expenditure within their own MAT as their schools were not directly
comparable, and so used the tools to look at how one of their schools compared to
another school with similar characteristics. Region was the most common characteristic
cited, with rural schools wanting to compare to other rural schools, and some mentioning
that London schools were only really comparable to other London schools. However, for
less conventional schools (e.g., large primaries or academies with ages 5 through to 14)
these tools were also valuable to find and compare with other schools with those
characteristics.
I use it [SFB] to compare schools to national schools, and others with
similar characteristics. I can then use it to make a point to our
leadership team and explore why there may be differences. –
Finance Director, Small Primary MAT
Conversely, two respondents mentioned that it was an incredibly useful tool to use within
their MAT, and they were able to compare each of their schools’ finances. The benefit of
using it within one MAT was that there was certainty that the data was directly
comparable, as it had been documented consistently.
If you're in a trust that has similar schools, it's [SFB] incredibly
powerful and useful to compare across your own trust, because you
know exactly how that data has been diced and spliced, what's been
included and what hasn't. – CEO, Mixed MAT
20
During the research we also spoke with two Special Educational Needs (SEN) schools;
they too were only likely to compare themselves to other SEN academies, and so used
the benchmarking tools to do this.
Informing budget setting, savings, and investments
The most popular time to use the tools was during budget setting, where many
respondents would pull reports using the benchmarking tools to inform further
investigations and illustrate where the budget needed attention. For some, at this stage
they already had some inclinations of where they may have been over or underspending
and used these tools as validation before tweaking their existing budget.
We use it [VMFI] a couple of times a year when we’re budget setting.
It gives us a bit of an overview, we wanted to use it to work out why
we were spending over or under in various areas, such as whether or
not this is because our children have different needs than other
schools. - CFO, Large Primary MAT
Others have used the tools to ascertain what their expenditure should be for certain
areas, and identify where they could make savings, or where they could potentially be
investing further. Again, these investigations were usually held at the budget-setting time
of year and used to facilitate budget management, rather than being investigated on an
ongoing basis.
The comparison tool [SFB] really helped with the investigation
process. It was very helpful with interrogation and asking questions. –
School Business Manager, Large Mixed MAT
For both these groups, using red, amber, and green (RAG) colours to indicate
comparatively high, or low, expenditure was mentioned as being particularly useful for a
quick, snapshot of where the budget needed attention, highlighting areas for their own
investigations.
Others had used the tool to compare with aspirational schools, identifying those that were
highlighted on the benchmarking system as being particularly well-managed and well run,
and digging deeper into why this was. This information then helped them to make more
strategic budgeting decisions going forward, by analysing and understanding what has
worked for other, comparable schools. Only one respondent, however, mentioned
planning to reach out to other schools to directly discuss their positive performance.
With the financial benchmarking [SFB] one of the things I've done is
comparing with aspirational schools. Using the demographic, you can
then go in and then pick out a selection of schools which are
achieving more than you are, with a very similar demographic and
21
size. And so that gives you aspirational schools to look at which I
think is really useful. – CFO, Small Mixed MAT
Last, and a more common motivation amongst those working in traditionally financial
roles, such as School Business Managers, Finance Managers, or CFOs, was to use the
tools to confirm information already known. Those working in these roles would use the
tools more often throughout the year in order to reiterate and confirm prior knowledge;
their use was more about fact-checking, than exploratory investigation. These groups
were more likely to have been using the tools for a long period of time, and they had
become one of several resources used in their day-to-day role.
It [VMFI] doesn't tell us much we didn't know before, but it succinctly
brings it all together. - Business Manager, Primary MAT
We were able to see [on VMFI] that one of our school’s senior
leadership is costing us a lot, and the other schools are subsidising
that really. We already knew this, but it's good to have it confirmed. –
CFO, Small Primary MAT
Reporting and informing constructive conversations
Constructively, it was generally agreed that both tools pull information together in a user-
friendly way that is easy to share with trustees and boards. This was considered
particularly valuable during reporting phases, where school finance teams would be
tasked with translating complex financial data for their more academic colleagues,
governors, and stakeholders. The user-friendly nature and visuals incorporated in the
tools were particularly useful for facilitating conversations at this level, and concisely
illustrating actions to be taken, and reasons why.
It’s [VMFI] mostly about stimulating discussions and seeing if we can
beat comparators. – CFO, Large Mixed MAT
I'm really glad that I was introduced to it [SFB] because it's given me
more input, impact, and support of decisions that are being made
within the leadership team. It's given me a bit more leverage. –
Deputy Head, SEN school, Small MAT
Satisfying a curiosity
Last, there were some participants who noted that they had used the tools out of sheer
curiosity but had not had a cause or reason to action them. Many of these users had
been recommended the tools by friends or colleagues working in education, indicating
that the VMFI and SFB both enjoy a high net promoter score within the sector. Another
22
driver for the tools generating a lot of curiosity amongst interviewees was the marketing
and advertisement the DfE had done for the tools. Some mentioned having seen DfE
communications about the tools for some time, and so wanted to experience them in
order to ascertain whether or not they would work for their particular academies.
Our MAT is really very wealthy and always running at a surplus, so it
was just more of an interest really, to see what differences were
flagged up. We also have our own benchmarking within the MAT, so I
wanted to see if it [SFB] matched what we were finding. – Finance
Director, Large Mixed MAT
The DfE promoted it [VMFI] a lot, so that made us look into it. –
School Business Manager, Secondary SAT
Two respondents mentioned using the SFB simply to try to illustrate to others that they
had a basic understanding of school resource management. One respondent had used
the tools to ‘show off in school governors’ meetings’ and had not had cause to use it for
any other reason; this reiterates that the tools are user-friendly and can be used by those
without financial acumen to understand school finances.
23
How SFB and VMFI are being used
To provide an indication of variance between schools
The most common positive perception of both the SFB and VMFI tools were that they
provided a good overarching and top-line indication of variance between schools. Of
those who had used the tools for this purpose, most saw them as good complementary
tools: something they used alongside other internal metrics to benchmark and set
budgets within their schools or academy trusts.
I wouldn't use it [SFB] as a standalone. I would use it to support
decisions combined with our own knowledge of what we do. – Head
of Finance, Medium Mixed MAT
Most saw the tools as useful to get comparative data and identify causes of financial
difficulties. It also helped some to reaffirm that their problems were not unique to their
school, leading to increased confidence that they were not alone in their issues. The
schools filter was noted by some respondents as being particularly useful in helping with
this reassurance, especially amongst those without other directly comparable schools
within their portfolios.
It [SFB] also shows you that you're not alone; other schools are
facing the same issues. – School Business Manager, LA Primary
What I liked about the VMFI is you can change your benchmark
groups, which makes it quite useful in terms of understanding what
those variances might be saying and why. – CFO, Medium Mixed
MAT
Both tools are seen as a good starting point, and something that tends to spark ideas,
rather than answering specific questions they may have. Where expectations amongst
respondents matched the realities of the tools, users were broadly positive about the
information provided and how useful the tools could be for them and their school or
academy trust.
One of the best available tools out there [SFB]. – CFO, Small Mixed
MAT
24
To allow schools and academy trusts to challenge or reaffirm thinking,
increasing confidence
Further, when using the tools as a top-line indicator of school financial performance,
many respondents raised that the information signposted to the user which specific areas
or expenditures to challenge, and which specific areas were performing well.
If this information was already on their radar, it then helped to reaffirm thinking, adding to
confidence amongst school leaders. Where it was not on their radar, they were then able
to conduct further investigations to understand why, and where they could improve. This
aspect of the tools, allowing users to challenge their thinking, was particularly valuable,
especially amongst those working in SATs or smaller MATs and may not have a large
team of finance individuals to brainstorm or discuss results with.
I really value it [SFB]. When I think I'm on the right track, it's almost
like an external person's coming in and saying, 'Look at this, look at
that', and challenging you to delve deeper. It's a really good support
tool. – Head of Finance, Large Mixed MAT
The comparisons [VMFI] with other schools were predominantly
useful to encourage us to be more efficient and to look for best value.
– CFO, Medium Mixed MAT
This led to users feeling generally better informed and confident about decisions being
made. The information, too, led to more productive conversations in schools, and
comparisons highlighted in conversation were kept more relevant. Similarly, some
mentioned that this information would be very useful to someone new to the sector and
would provide a quick benchmarking and understanding of what good financial
performance looks like.
Overall, I've had a really good experience with it [SFB]. After I started
engaging with it, I felt more confident in my understanding of not just
the figures for this specific primary that I work with, but the overall
picture of what makes up the sort of spending and finances around
primary education. - Governor, Primary LA
To easily access and digest information
The usability of the tools were positively noted by a small majority of respondents, who
were complimentary of the layout and navigation, commenting that they was very easy to
use. The updates that both tools had gone through recently had been noticed, with users
who had engaged with both the VMFI and SFB prior to these updates spontaneously
mentioning how much better and easier the tools were to use than beforehand. Of those,
25
many had shared this news with colleagues and some interviewees were revisiting the
tools.
It’s just myself and my deputy here, we both use different sites for
different things, and we both came to each other and said 'wow, you
need to see this.' It's [VMFI] so much better than it used to be. –
School Business Manager, Large Mixed MAT
After the SFB updates DfE released within the last six months, I find
it more intuitive to use. It's now more beneficial than it was
previously. It's becoming a much more integral tool that we can use
to help support schools. – Finance Team Manager, Primary LA
In particular, the flexibility, dashboard, and filter functions were commented on as being
particularly helpful. The recent integration of the self-assessment dashboard was
mentioned by one as being a very helpful addition which had aided in simplifying the site,
and reducing the time spent finding necessary information. Overall, the sites were
described as having a good level of detail, a good user interface, and with clear
signposting throughout the site by a small majority of participants interviewed.
What has been developed [on the SFB] over the last couple of years
has helped enormously by providing the information needed to have
structured discussions to help support schools, particularly those that
are challenged in terms of their financial sustainability. – School
Finance Support Lead, All-through LA
Last, a couple of respondents mentioned that the reporting function on both the sites had
led to their boards engaging well with the information provided; it had helped them to
communicate the information quickly and efficiently.
I like that it's [VMFI] quite visual. It's helpful for me, but also for
governors and trustees to see the data clearly. – CFO, Medium
Mixed MAT
26
Resulting decisions and actions taken after using the SFB and
VMFI
Conduct further investigations
A common claimed decision made after engaging with the benchmarking tools was
simply to continue to engage with the information provided. Generally, the benchmarking
was thought to provide enough ‘food for thought’ for respondents, prompting them to
continue investigations.
Both tools were useful comparatives for the majority of users; they helped to identify
outliers and provided a good starting point for further interrogation, both by reaffirming
and contradicting their current knowledge base. Staff gained a holistic view of their
performance, and the tools prompted them to ask more detailed questions on different
areas of schooling.
We look at where we're in the red and then delve into it [on SFB]. It
gets our minds ticking over budget setting and why we're spending
so much in certain areas, and we drill down into that as part of our
budget setting processes. - Head of finance, Large Mixed MAT
It [SFB] led to us questioning the reason as to why we had certain
variations. For example, where we were overspending on premises
costs, we could look into that and see that we were higher because
we had fewer students, and we know that we can't change these
fixed costs, so it helped us to understand that. It really helped with
the investigation process. – School Business Manager, Large Mixed
MAT
The actions taken after making the decision to further investigate differed depending on
the level of interest, ability to implement findings (i.e., authority within the role) and the
amount of time each respondent had available to them. Some respondents did note that
their investigations were much more pronounced during their annual review and budget
setting periods.
We use the SFB data for strategic discussions when we’re having
those top-level chats, such as during budget setting of completing
SFVS. – School Business Manager, Primary LA
Though many did express a desire to conduct further investigations, awareness of other
DfE tools was low amongst respondents, with very few able to mention other
benchmarking or financial aid tools when queried. However, most users who had used
27
VMFI had also used the SFB, and those who had used the SFB were likely to have at
least heard of VMFI. ICFP respondents too had mostly engaged with SFB, suggesting
that this tool is the most commonly used amongst school business leaders.
Communicate findings with colleagues and decision makers
Users of both tools expressed that the information had helped them to communicate
complex finances to colleagues and decision-makers within their school. Many had made
the decision to do so after engaging with the information on the sites.
SFB helped staff to evidence their case to senior staff, including directors, and boards
and trustees, and how what they were proposing would provide value for money. In other
cases, the tool showcased how changes were necessary and encouraged those with
decision making authority to think differently, and the tool has been valuable in framing
those conversations.
Equally, users of VMFI particularly liked that the tool was visual; it helped to steer
conversations with boards or trustees, who are not necessarily familiar with financial
data, and enabled information to be presented clearly. One interviewee specifically cited
the visuals that VMFI provides as helpful to ignite conversations, and to pull together
information in a user-friendly way that is easy to share with trustees.
It's useful to have the data [from VMFI] for the narrative, and to give
this to trustees. We can use it to illustrate to them why we're doing
certain things. - CFO, Small Primary MAT
I think that's good from a board and a trust point of view that we can
take that report [from VMFI] and print it off and show them the
comparators, which I think is a really useful way of being able to
share key information. I think it does give you an opportunity to think
'where are we?' - CEO, Small Primary MAT
Respondents who had used both of these tools also reported having pulled information
from the sites and using the templates to present their finances and comparative finances
in formal reporting. One respondent mentioned having to prepare a formal report due to
the school being in special measures and communicated the SFB data formally to
illustrate what had to change.
To be able to get that message across with the aid of some pretty
clear and irreproachable data [from the SFB] was very useful indeed.
– Governor, Primary SAT
28
Others had communicated the information less formally, either just by passing on
knowledge of their existence to others, or through bringing in small statistics or figures to
illustrate larger points made in meetings.
No decisions or actions taken
The most common behaviour after engaging with the sites, was to take no decisions or
further actions at all. The reasons to not implement findings varied, from the positive to
the less positive. These include:
Benchmarking tools reaffirmed current knowledge; no further actions necessary
Though most users of both tools were unable to detail any specific actions taken as a
result of the tool, they did allude to it validating what they already knew and reaffirmed
current decisions or ways of working.
We haven't made any tangible decisions because we're always
forward planning anyway, but it [VMFI] helps to compare and support
our thinking. – School Business Manager, Secondary SAT
Benchmarking information not relevant to the role of respondent
Others did not take any further actions because they did not feel that the information was
relevant to their roles, and therefore they had no authority or decision-making
responsibilities to be able to implement any findings. The information they found was
useful and interesting to them, but not actionable. Therefore, they made the decision not
to communicate the information, nor to investigate findings further.
I've looked at it and thought 'ok, this is quite handy, what am I
supposed to do with this now?', so I took it [SFB] to the governor's
meeting to show off a bit, but no one has done anything with it. I don't
think anyone really knew how. – Governor, Primary LA
Respondents lack time to action information but plan to when they have capacity
Others had made the decision to action the findings after briefly reading over the sites,
and ‘dipping their toes in’, but had not yet found the time or resource to take that decision
any further. One respondent mentioned that they would set time aside during budget
planning, but it was not an ongoing priority for them, as they were time stretched in their
current role.
No, not at the moment, lack of time. I'd love to [use VMFI more]. But
we're up against it constantly. So, it's having the capacity to be able
to do so. – Academy Business Manager, Medium Primary MAT
29
Some respondents are unsure of how to action information
Some interviewees also felt that there could be better support from the DfE to help staff
understand how to utilise the SFB to its full capacity, as some staff are unsure of what
they should be looking for, or how to interpret the figures correctly
3
. This would help to
ensure schools are using the data efficiently and facilitate a universal understanding.
Some respondents expressed that more information on what to do with the data would be
beneficial. For example, if a school has identified that they are overspending in a certain
area, they would like to know what the best approach is to deal with this.
Some do not believe that the data is standardised enough at the point of collection
to use for direct comparisons
A minority flagged that consistency issues in data collection processes will flow through
into the tools, creating a level of doubt on the veracity of the information provided.
Amongst this group, there was a perception that the data reported by schools was not
standardised, likely stemming from differences between schools choosing where to
aggregate costs to when they prepare data returns. As a result of the limitations in data
collection, some respondents mentioned that the comparisons they were running with
other schools through using the tools were complementary and informative, rather than
being the only chosen source of information.
I'm a very strong advocate of having a single code instruction,
standardised across schools across the country. This should be a
nationally recognised thing, then it would improve the data. At the
moment you're not comparing apples with apples [on VMFI]. –
School Business Manager, Large Mixed MAT
The product [SFB] could be even better if there were an active and
open dialogue between the number crunchers and the sector itself...I
would like more confidence that everybody's working to the same
definitions because of this golden rule of benchmarking: 'Are you
comparing like with like?’ – Governor, Primary SAT
To combat this, many agreed that all schools should be given stringent training
and guidance on standardisation and how to use this when submitting their
data. This highlights how issues with data collection at present is leading to
3
N.B.A. DfE are already currently undertaking knowledge building activity and have held a number of
events to support the sector in understanding how to effectively use these services.
30
some electing not to use the tools
4
, rather than a limitation of the tools
themselves.
Data reporting timeline limits what can be published and thus used
Linked specifically to SFB, some respondents reported issues with the timeliness of the
data available online from both tools; there is a perception of a delay, so for some
schools their financial circumstances can be different to what was previously reported. As
such, there are challenges in encouraging schools to use SFB, because they consider
the data to be out of date, and therefore they believe they are not comparing like with
like.
SFB is much better than it used to be, however it's a struggle to
encourage schools to use it because they consider it out of date -
they have already made huge changes to their spending compared to
what's listed on SFB, so they are not comparing like with like. –
Senior Accountant, All-through LA
Users of VMFI also felt the timeliness of the data being updated was problematic as they
were looking at historic data, but this appeared to be less acute in comparison with SFB
5
.
It's helpful to look back, but the data is old [VMFI]. We're looking at
the past, not the present. - School Business manager, Secondary
SAT
There are some misunderstandings on the breakdown of data
Another aspect of the tools, more notably the SFB than the VMFI, was a perception
amongst some users that the data was too high-level for them to use. For example, some
noted that the data in SFB covered total staff figures, premises figures, etc., but with no
contextualisation of what has fed into this reporting. As with the standardisation,
however, information and guidance is available on both sites illustrating the breakdown of
costs; this suggests the guidance is not well-known amongst respondents and more
communications highlighting the breakdown of costs could be beneficial to tackle this.
4
N.B.A. Currently these stringent guidelines do exist, and it is mandatory for schools to report their
financial data to the DfE. The department then uploads the data prior to publication, suggesting this
process of data validation is not widely known by users
5
N.B.A. this may be due to the VMFI updates as data is now published within 4-5 weeks of submission;
data publication used to take several months, so user perceptions may still be thinking of previous
timeframes.
31
Estimated impact the SFB and VMFI have had on expenditure,
time, and resource
Identified long-term savings
Positively, many feel that both SFB and VMFI will be useful in the future and have
already identified areas where it might be possible to save or reinvest money.
I think it [VMFI] will in the future [be useful], most definitely. Because
it allows you to start drilling into areas and questioning why some are
red while others are green or amber - CEO, Small Primary MAT
It is recognised that some things are difficult to take immediate action on, such as staffing
and subsequent restructuring, which is consistent with the limited number of direct
actions that have currently been taken as a result of the tools. That being said, some
interviewees stated that the two benchmarking resources have supported their decision
in not making immediate like-for-like replacements, for example, and instead will look at
restructuring. Predominantly, the majority of these long-term savings came from staffing
and restructuring costs.
For example:
• A Large Primary MAT saved the equivalent of a £40,000 salary through merging
the nursery and primary nurse positions after using the SFB; the same academy
trust also made the decision to only hire temporary staff to replace leavers prior to
offering a permanent contract, giving them time to test if the position is financially
viable.
• A Small Mixed MAT identified a saving of around £200,000 after using the SFB
through a long-term restructuring plan.
• A Primary SAT expected to save between £100,000 - £120,000 through not
replacing staff once they decide to leave; they could not attribute direct savings to
either the VMFI or SFB but had used both to make this decision.
We expect to save about £100k across the MAT, this would mostly
come from staffing, but we expect it to happen organically. Where
staff leave, for example, we would not automatically replace them, or
look to recruit a more junior member of staff. Other areas would be
contractual, so we'll look at this when our current contracts come to
an end [through using SFB and VMFI]. – Head of Finance, Medium
Secondary MAT
32
It's still in negotiation, but it wouldn't have been questioned previously
if it wasn't for knowledge of these tools [VMFI and SFB] - we would
have just had a vacancy and refilled it with the same job role. –
Deputy Head, SEN Small Mixed MAT
Another core area identified by some respondents for long-term savings was in admin
and support costs, with Teaching Assistants mentioned by three respondents. SFB was
more prominent at allowing these savings to be noticed and actioned, over VMFI. These
savings weren’t considered to be as substantial as academic staffing and restructuring
costs, potential long-term savings here include:
• A Primary LA mentioned changes to the school administration structure resulting
in a saving of £12,000 - £13,000 a year, amounting to about 20% of their annual
admin budget (after using SFB).
• Another Primary LA identified a saving of about £110,000 through reducing
Teaching Assistant staff (after using SFB).
• A Large Mixed MAT helped identify that a caretaker on the premises was being
paid over market rate, resulting in a forecasted £5,000-£10,000 saving (after using
SFB).
• An all-through LA identified a potential saving of £100,000 after identifying a
significant overspend on Teaching Assistants.
At that time, it [SFB] did reduce our costs quite significantly, because
we reduced our roles by 12 TAs - a saving of about £110,000. –
School Business Manager, Primary LA
A few respondents were unable to quantify their estimated savings, but rather noted that
the tools had been invaluable for them over the course of their careers and had helped
them to save hundreds of thousands of pounds.
If you take all three tools together [SFB, VMFI, ICFP], using these
they have saved around £900,000 on a £17 million budget over two
years, and a lot of that will have been down to those tools. – COO,
Large Mixed MAT
Two respondents using SFB noted that they were not looking to save money at the
moment and found that the benchmarking site helped instead to reiterate why they were
overspending in certain areas.
We're not really looking to save at the moment, it's not really as
simple as that. For example, one of our schools have too many TAs,
33
but it's also got a lot of special needs kids, so some benchmarking
[via SFB] is not relevant. – Finance Director, Medium Primary MAT
Identified short-term savings
Where short term savings has been identified, this was usually due to changes in
procurement and tendering arrangements. Both VMFI and SFB were useful in identifying
areas of overspend, resulting in many finance respondents reviewing their procurement
processes, and renewing their contracts with catering or energy companies.
For example:
• A Medium Primary MAT estimated an £11,000 saving this financial year through
tendering a new caterer (using VMFI).
• A Large Primary MAT estimated to have saved around £20,000 on catering
(VMFI).
• A respondent (Large Mixed MAT) described how the tool had resulted in them
harmonising their energy contracts at a trust level, striking a better deal than
having separate contracts across the schools, as was done previously (VMFI).
• A Medium Secondary MAT had saved about £10,000 over the previous financial
year on small things, such as IT expenditure and bills (SFB).
• Another Large Mixed MAT had saved on utility bills, estimating a dip in 15%-20%
after switching their supplier (SFB).
• A Large Mixed MAT estimated to have saved a six-figure sum over the past three
years due to changing their energy supplier as a result of using the VMFI.
The SFB had also helped to identify more miscellaneous short-term savings:
We noticed we were spending a lot on resources that we didn’t seem
to have [via SFB]. So, we did some investigations and found these
resources hiding in subscriptions and things like that. We managed to
cancel a lot of those. – CFO, Small Mixed MAT
Time and resource savings
A common and strongly held view amongst the majority of participants was that both the
benchmarking tools had helped to save a lot of time and school resource. By bringing
information together in one place, they have cut out the need to gather information from
multiple sources manually. Additionally, the tools have enabled information to be
contextualised with a narrative as to why certain figures are higher or lower, which again
puts less strain on resources.
34
It's [VMFI] saved time for us, without a doubt. Something we do every
year in the budget is benchmarking, and this allows us to have all the
information, rather than going to look for it. VMFI is one of the best
tools that you can use for this. – CFO, Large Primary MAT
Users were also spending less time collating information themselves and making manual
comparisons, owing to the tools pulling all of this information together in one place. Whilst
most could not quantify this time saving, of the minority who could estimate, they cited
between 2-5 days as the time they had, or would potentially, save on data collection,
entry, and dissemination per school year. Consistent with this, some users commented
that they wouldn’t be able to collect the same volume of data that’s available on the
benchmarking sites, as it would be too time intensive.
It [SFB] is very helpful to be able to see data as an overview - 'at a
glance'. Within 10 minutes, you can look at some quite meaningful
information. Whereas if you had to drill down into individual schools
and get their budget information to do some comparison, it's going to
take a lot longer to do that. - Finance Manager, All-through LA
If we were to try to gather it ourselves, I just think it probably wouldn't
get done. Knowing that it's there available for us from information that
we produce and send on to the DfE anyway is great [on the SFB]. –
Governor, Primary SAT
Additionally, both of the tools were thought to mitigate previous ‘finger-in-the-air’
reporting. Previously, finance staff may have estimated their income and expenditure and
how this compares with other schools. Now, time is saved in the long-term, as these staff
members are not having to redo their reporting if their estimations turn out to be incorrect.
Last, a few respondents mentioned that the tools helped to save time by better informing
staff meetings, allowing for faster decision-making due to quicker comprehension by all
authoritative bodies.
It's [VMFI] good for having conversations with trustees and can save
time by speeding along these processes. It acts as a good, visual tool
for them. – CFO, Small, Primary MAT
Helped reaffirm knowledge and increase confidence amongst school
leaders
An increase in confidence as current knowledge is reaffirmed or expanded is a
secondary impact of using the benchmarking tools. Though not as prominent as notified
35
savings, those using the tools did allude to an increased confidence when discussing
school finances, as a result of the benchmarking. This increased confidence was driven
by acknowledgement that they are now better informed due to having a good oversight of
spending.
It's [SFB] definitely made me more confident to speak about the costs
comparable across the country. It influences my role in decision
making and what I put across to SLT, but I couldn't say if it has
changed the end result. – School Business Manager, Primary LA
This too was true of those who had not made any decisions after using the VMFI or SFB
tools. Though they acknowledged that the information had not had an impact on their
school spending, it was inferred that this was only because the information helped to
validate the decisions they had already made. For these respondents, the tools are seen
more of a ‘sense check’, or a ‘safety net’, and they refer to them regularly to help them
maintain a confidence in their current decisions and reporting systems.
It [VMFI] helps us validate and ask the right questions. For example,
we overspend on educational resources because we see it as an
investment, so this helps us to explain that. – School Business
Manager, Secondary SAT
The tool [VMFI] doesn't lead to cost saving per se, because we
already have a very robust reporting system. If it flagged something
we'd look into it, but this usually comes out naturally of our reporting
system. – CFO, Small Primary MAT
36
Detailed Findings: ICFP training and accompanying
resources
Initial motivations for attending the ICFP training
Informing understanding and implementation of ICFP
For those attending the training, core motivations fell into two, equally distributed groups:
those who were very familiar with ICFP and wanted to either expand or reaffirm their
knowledge; and those who were not familiar with ICFP and wanted to learn about it with
a common end-goal of implementing it into their schools or academies.
Amongst those unfamiliar with ICFP, most interviewees attended the training simply to
learn more about it, how to implement it, and to generate better ways of working. The
majority felt it would be relevant to their roles and wanted to learn and develop new skills.
A few respondents noted that ICFP was a ‘buzz word’ in the industry, and so felt that they
needed to attend in order to keep up with colleagues and other schools and professionals
working in education.
ICFP has been the buzzword, so we wanted to implement it. We
didn't really know what it was all about, but we knew we wanted to
implement it, especially if it was something the DfE were
recommending. – Academy Business Manager, Medium Primary
MAT
For those already familiar with ICFP, attendance on the course was intended to be a
refresher for those who had used ICFP, and a reaffirmation they were following
processes correctly. One respondent had created their own ICFP tool and wanted to
attend in order to compare this with the DfE one and ascertain whether theirs was
working well. Others wanted to check their internally designed system to determine if
there was anything that could be done differently, or if they could improve any areas.
We’ve been using ICFP for a while but were a bit unsure of the data,
so just wanted to make sure we were using the tools in the right way.
– CFO, Small Primary MAT
Whilst there were no notable differences in motivation to join the training across school
type, some had implemented ICFP in primaries within their MAT and wanted to learn how
to do this in secondaries, and vice versa.
37
Facilitating conversations with colleagues and stakeholders
A secondary motivation for a few respondents was to learn how to ‘speak the language’
of academics working in their schools or academy trusts. Amongst this group, there was
a belief that teachers and headteachers do not necessarily understand that the budget
informs what the curriculum can incorporate, and so attended the training to try to gain
the skills needed to communicate this to others. These attendees had hoped that the
information would facilitate conversations with these other colleagues and bridge the
knowledge gap between curriculum teams and finance teams.
We thought it would be useful for us to have a third body to help in
discussions between finance and curriculum. – Head of finance,
Medium Secondary MAT
Career development and accessing free training
Last, there were a few respondents who had attended the training, either because their
managers had requested that they do or, as managers, they had decided to go on the
training themselves to understand whether or not it would be worth them sending their
subordinates on the course.
The Finance Director of our MAT recommended I attend, so I went. I
opted into it though, to understand a bit more about my budgeting
responsibilities. – School business manager, Large Primary MAT
The fact that the training was free was also a core motivator for many, and there was an
underlying implication that those who attended would not have done so if they had been
required to pay for it.
Well, it was a free course in an area I wanted to develop, so I thought
‘why not?’ – Head of Finance, Large Mixed MAT
38
How learnings from the ICFP training and accompanying
resources are being used
To provide a holistic introduction for those less informed about ICFP
Most attendees described the training as useful and informative, with clear and
actionable content.
However, for some who had not done any sort of integrated financial planning before, the
information was found a little complex. One respondent mentioned that they had had to
do prior research before taking the course, which helped them immensely in keeping up
with the content.
I taught myself a lot beforehand and needed this background
knowledge to understand it before attending. – Head of Finance,
Large Mixed MAT
This did not detract from the information provided for most respondents, however, as
there was a general understanding that information provided had to cater to different
audiences, and most respondents expressed an interest and responsibility for conducting
further research if they had not followed the course content. For others, the content and
information conveyed was useful and informative.
The training was great, the people there were all on my level, and
asking sensible questions. There was real appetite amongst business
managers there to bring a level of expertise and accounting in. –
School Business Manager, Large Mixed MAT
To reaffirm current processes and provide a helpful refresher to
habitual users
Interviewees who attended the ICFP training and had already had an introduction to the
principles felt that it reaffirmed current knowledge, and acted as a ‘refresher’, consistent
with initial motivations for signing up. Several interviewees also stated that it reinforced
current practices and gave them greater confidence in their day-to-day role by knowing
they were implementing things correctly.
It was comforting to know that we weren't missing anything or doing
anything wrong. It's good to be reassured. And it was good to know
that all the problems we have are the same as everyone else's. –
Chair, Medium Primary MAT
39
Despite some staff reportedly using the tool prior to the training, some felt that attending
the training helped them to save time through increasing their confidence with the tool,
thus allowing them to implement things quicker.
In respect of time saving, it wasn't a brand-new tool for us, so it didn't
save too much time, but I do now use it much quicker as I know what
I'm doing because of the training and feel more confident with it. -
CFO, Small Primary MAT
To help embed ICFP in schools
The resources provided alongside the training were considered useful for embedding
principles. In particular, some respondents mentioned that the presentation included
helped them to communicate with other colleagues and increase communication on the
importance of integrated planning within their schools. Similarly, it was useful to have a
'third body' in discussions between finance and curriculum, to help to mediate
discussions and reiterate that financial planning is necessary to enable a better, stronger
curriculum. One respondent described the training as helping to bridge the gap of
understanding between the academic and business leaders within their academy trust.
It helped school business managers familiarise themselves with the
language and emphasise that the content is worthy of their time and
attention, hopefully it means that they don't resent me for making
them do it, as they've learnt it's worth it! – CFO, Small Secondary
MAT
It was very good to get a holistic idea [of ICFP] and let me
understand what other colleagues may be thinking, which I hope will
increase communication. – School Business Manager, Large Mixed
MAT
For two respondents who had had the time to implement the findings themselves, the
resources provided were found useful in helping them to develop their own ICFP model.
40
Resulting decisions and actions taken after attending the
ICFP training
Conduct further investigations
Of the majority of the respondents who found the course to be useful and engaging for
them, most expressed a decision to further investigate, with the intent of implementing,
ICFP in their schools. Many had used the resources provided during the training and
were using them on an ongoing basis for reference purposes.
I've got the resources from the training right here on my desk! –
School Business Manager, Large Mixed MAT
The most popular tools used after the training was the workbook (by phase) for budget
setting and the information provided at the procurement training around best practice in
going out to tender. The technical guide and the presentation had also been widely
referred to, but with mixed reviews. Other popular tools used to feed into further research
by those who attended the ICFP training were the ISBL spreadsheet, and SRMA training
(provided by ISBL). In fact, the majority of respondents who took part in ICFP training
were actively engaged in researching ICFP via ISBL resources at the time of research.
Part of further investigations for one Medium Secondary MAT resulted in them
experimenting with other ICFP tools, and consulting with an ICFP specialist creating their
own model.
Communicate information with colleagues
As with the benchmarking tools, the visual information provided during the ICFP training
encouraged attendees to communicate with colleagues about their budget setting. On
completing the course, attendees expressed an interest in sharing learnings with
colleagues with the overall intent to eventually action them.
Of those who had shared the information with others, they felt it had helped improve
communication within their schools, and thought it was useful for framing internal
discussions and feeding into longer term strategies and decision making. As an example,
one interviewee thought the tool was particularly useful in explaining to colleagues why
they are recommending the budgeting and financing that they are, and that it brings
tangible and visual information to decision makers. The online visuals of the tool were
particularly helpful in this instance.
It's been more helpful for presenting our points of view, because you
can say until you're blue in the face that you haven't got enough
41
money. This helps put it into a better context and explains the how. –
School Business Manager, Large Mixed MAT
This was particularly important when communicating formally with SLT and decision-
making staff members, as the information provided helped many to get their points
across. Incorporating the visual learnings from the training when sharing information with
others was a clear action taken from the training, and an effective one.
It's been very difficult to get the teaching leadership staff to engage
with it. They don't use the tools on a regular basis and come from a
different background, so it works as an evidential tool. – CFO, Mixed
Small MAT
No decisions or actions taken
As with the benchmarking tools, a common action after attending the ICFP training was
not to engage further with ICFP. Reasons for no further actions or decisions to be taken
include:
Already implementing ICFP in schools; training reaffirmed good practice
For some attendees, one core reason that no further actions were taken was because
they had already implemented ICFP and were reassured by the training that their models
were working well for them.
It didn't help us to make any decisions, but it did ensure that we were
already doing the right thing, and that they'd made the right choices.
It was better than the consultant we used for ICFP because the
online visuals helped. – School Business Manager, Large Primary
MAT
No decisions were made off the back of anything. It didn't inform any
change of direction or encourage us to do new things at all. But that’s
mostly because we were already doing it all anyway. – Chair,
Medium Primary MAT
However, one criticism raised by some who were already implementing good ICFP in
their schools was that they left slightly disappointed with the training. This was not neces-
sarily because of the content of the course – which they largely agreed was correct and
informative – but more because of the advertising of the course. The training was sold as
a ‘deep dive’ into ICFP, but those already implementing it did not believe it to be very de-
tailed.
42
It was quite high level and not really all that in-depth, which I wasn't
expecting as I think they called it a deep dive into ICFP. But it was
the right level for my colleagues as an introduction. – CFO, Small
Mixed MAT
Lack of agency in current role to implement information from the training
However, and in line with the benchmarking tools, there were some who noted that no
further actions or decisions were taken due to a lack of agency when decision-making. A
lot of decisions depend on leadership within school structures, and those who are not in
these strategic conversations feel unable to input. One respondent mentioned feeling
frustrated at leaving the training having identified many areas of where money could be
saved but feeling powerless to do anything about this. Others spoke of their frustrations
over a lack of influence within their schools, despite being the budget holder, and thought
the training course could be improved by supporting business managers to get
stakeholder buy in.
The DfE really needs to raise the profile of ICFP in schools. If
business managers aren't on the SLT, then they have no real say in
how they save money. ICFP is the way forward, but the DfE needs to
address the fact that business managers aren't included in strategic
conversations. – School Business Manager, Large Mixed MAT
If you're not in SLT you get no insight into strategic and financial
planning, so there's not a lot I can do, despite having full ownership
of the budget. I see money wasted all the time, but I can't do anything
about it because I don't have any seniority. – School Business
Manager, Large Mixed MAT
The most common suggestion cited for how to improve the ICFP training and
accompanying resources was that it should be tailored to a wider audience, including
headteachers and trustees, so that all members of the SLT have buy-in, thus leveraging
the position of finance teams. While this finding was prevalent, it was more likely to be
reported by those working in standalone finance teams within MATs, as there appears to
be fewer opportunities to speak directly with academic staff for those working within
these settings
6
.
6
6
N.B.A. This is currently how the ICFP training is run, suggesting that the communication between those
working in separate functions within schools and MATs is acting as a barrier, rather than the design of the
course itself.
43
Estimated impact the ICFP training has had on expenditure,
time, and resource
Identified long-term savings
Most interviewees found the principles outlined during the ICFP training useful for better
overall management of budgets and expenditure, and some long-term benefits and
savings were identified as a result of this.
For some respondents the training came after they had already completed their financial
planning or budget setting for the year, and so the tool was not applicable for them at that
time but did see its value in the future. With that in mind, it is perhaps unsurprising that
many couldn’t describe any specific savings as a result of the training, alluding to the
idea that the ICFP is seen as a long-term cost savings tool, as opposed to a quick
solution.
As with the benchmarking tools, the majority of potential long-term savings noted referred
to staffing and restructuring savings, with most savings expected to happen organically
through natural staff changes. The training and resources provided had helped to
reframe staffing decisions and allowed for a more holistic view of the best balance of staff
and experience within schools. One interviewee who worked within a Medium Secondary
MAT felt that the training would have longer term impacts in relation to savings on
recruitment and training of staff, as they will redeploy and retrain existing staff. Similarly,
another interviewee mentioned they had used the tool to look at their budget, and
subsequently made the decision not to replace staff, and another Small Mixed MAT had
used it to inform an upcoming restructure which is estimated to save £350k.
For example, I'm aware that we've got some teachers leaving. We've
got a teacher who is from Sunderland and she's moving back at the
end of the academic year, so we're already looking at what's the
cost? What's the replacement need? Have we got enough students
to actually warrant replacing that teacher full time? It's looking at all
of that from the ICFP point of view. – School Business Manager,
Large mixed MAT
In line with this, the training and resources provided were useful in helping to show where
efficiencies could be made which did not focus on the specific staff member, but the
position as a whole. Demonstrating this, a secondary medium MAT described the
creation of an ICFP modelling tool which had been key in driving strategy and decision
making within the school, and encouraged them to think about existing staffing, rather
than ‘emotional decisions’ when thinking about what is best for the school. This has the
impact of aiding the best decisions related to staffing by desensitising information.
44
Another noted that the tool had helped to monitor the balance of need between
experienced and more expensive staff, with less experienced and therefore cheaper
teachers; by comparing cost and need in this way, decisions were much easier to make
when it came to the restructuring of staffing.
We’ve made our own ICFP modelling tool, and this has helped to
drive strategy and decision making by not thinking about existing
staffing, and therefore not making emotional decisions when thinking
about what's best for the schools. – Head of Finance, Medium
Secondary MAT
We can use it to help the head ensure she has the right resources.
She struggles to disassociate people with hours, and the ICFP tool
helps make sure we have the right resources. – CFO, Small Mixed
MAT
A few attendees had used the tool to look into their teacher-pupil contact ratios and while
they had not yet actioned this, some noted they would keep the information in mind when
planning future recruitment drives.
As well as long-term staffing savings, some respondents noted that the use of ICFP in
their forecasting had become habitual. They predicted that by using the tool they would
be able to stress-test future financial decisions. While it was not possible to quantify this
as a long-term saving, it was inferred that by being able to model future decisions it
would be possible to avoid making poor financial choices which could lead to detrimental
change within their schools.
We will use it continuously to make sure that our projections are
looking realistic. - CFO, Small Primary MAT
We use it to stress test. It's a good early warning sign that your
budget might be about to go awry. I've used it to build into my budget
setting, I always start there. – CFO, Small Mixed MAT
Last, some planned to use it more habitually, with one Small Secondary MAT
commenting that ICFP is now a required part of their annual review of their five-year plan.
Identified short-term savings
ICFP had also been useful to analyse the proportion of expenditure across different
categories (though only amongst a minority of interviewees) and identify short term
45
savings. These short-term savings spanned procurement, staffing, and curriculum
planning costs.
For example:
• One respondent (Large Primary MAT) cited significant savings on their energy
supplier as a direct result of using the procurement guide offered on ICFP.
• A Small Mixed MAT used the tool to plan timetabling and identify that the school
had a full-time staff member for a part time role, saving £30,000.
• Another (Small Mixed MAT) changed their curriculum to teach the same one
across the whole year group, whereas it had previously been split into two.
• One (Medium Primary MAT) made an estimated saving of £40,000 by asking one
of their deputies to teach, rather than an employing another member of staff, after
noting that other schools with similar pupil numbers saved staffing costs by
having teaching deputy heads.
• One respondent (SEN, Large Mixed MAT) noted that they had saved on catering
through merging the contract across the MAT, rather than having one contract per
school.
We saved money on our energy supplier; I can’t remember how
much but our CFO was very happy so it must have been a significant
saving. This came about as a direct result of the procurement course
offered on the ICFP. – Premises Manager, Large Primary MAT
Saved time by facilitating and informing internal discussions on ICFP
Encouragingly, the training appeared to go some way in bridging a gap between finance
and curriculum planning, acting as a ‘third body' in discussions which has helped to
mediate discussions and reiterate that differences are necessary, which was a pressure
point for some schools:
We have a financial planner and a curriculum planner and never the
twain shall meet! It's very frustrating because the curriculum will tell
us that they've agreed a reading scheme and it's £500 a month, and
we won't have that in the budget. - School Business Manager, Large
Mixed MAT
The workbook (by phase) resource in particular was mentioned as helping Senior
Leadership Teams (SLT) to understand how small changes in the curriculum can have
big financial impacts. Similarly, this resource had helped another team to show that staff
working across finance divisions are indeed aware of, and do understand, the importance
46
of the curriculum when financial planning. In line with this, the resource also helped to
save time in some instances through more fluid communication.
It gave us a grown-up way to communicate with teaching staff,
showing that things like estate or IT costs are important in the long
run. We can't teach if we don't have buildings, for example! It's
bringing all these things to the fore and in reasonable proportion, as
well as analysing the curriculum. - CFO, Small Secondary MAT
Education is paramount, that's the most important thing, but we have
to be able to fund it. So, there will always be a battle between finance
and curriculum [teams]. This has helped us to communicate that
financial stability is needed to provide the best environment for
education. - Head of Finance, Medium Secondary MAT
This was consistent with their motivation for initially signing up to the training, which was
to understand the impacts of financial planning on the curriculum.
Increased confidence through reaffirming correct use of ICFP in
schools
As with the benchmarking tools, the ICFP training helped to reiterate to those who were
already implementing ICFP in their schools and academy trusts that they were doing this
correctly. For these respondents, though this impact was not financial, nor did it save on
time or resource, it helped to increase confidence and gravitas with other members of
staff when explaining what they had implemented.
It was comforting to know that we weren't missing anything or doing
anything wrong. It’s good to be reassured. And it was good to know
that all the problems we have are the same as everyone else’s. –
Chair, Medium Primary MAT
The point of the training, for us, was to give context to what was
already being done. – CFO, Small Secondary MAT
47
Conclusion – Benchmarking tools (VMFI and SFB)
The information the VMFI and SFB provided to schools and academy trusts was
positively received by a majority of respondents, and both sites had had a quantifiable
impact on many the schools and academy trusts who took part in the research. This
quantifiable impact was varied, but ranged from small financial and time savings, to large,
significant financial savings spanning many years.
The data used on the sites was not always, however, used independently to inform
decisions, but rather formed an integral part to a suite of tools which schools and
academy trusts used. Resulting from this, some respondents noted that the quantifiable
impact could not always be directly attributed to the only the tools, though a few
respondents did. While many often used the SFB and VMFI sites with each other,
respondents also used a range of other metrics to evaluate where efficiencies could be
made, from bodies such as the ISBL to their own, internal reporting and comparison
metrics. Most attributed this need to use other sites to a perception that some of the data
collected prior to being uploaded onto the sites was not standardised. While this is not a
limitation of the tools itself, it does suggest that further communication around how to
collate and report data could increase confidence in using the tools.
The VMFI and SFB both encouraged action from some respondents, which ranged from
‘passive’ activity, such reading and digesting information, to more ‘active’ reactions
whereby information was shared, downloaded, discussed, and used to inform strategy.
The visualisation and usability of the sites in particular were attributed as reasons for
further actions taken after engaging with them. Amongst those who did not take any
‘active’ action after engaging with the sites, this was largely due to the information
reaffirming positive good practice and financial health within their settings. Therefore,
though some could not quantify impact, this was not necessarily a negative.
In conclusion, this research has highlighted that the benchmarking tools have helped
many to make significant savings to their school budgets. With further communication to
combat misunderstanding of how to use the tools, as well as more stringent training on
how to collate and report data, they have the potential to help make significantly more
savings.
48
Conclusion – ICFP Training
The principle of ICFP was well received by attendants, and it was an uncontested belief
that the integrated nature of financial and academic planning was beneficial for schools
and academy trusts. This benefit was seen by many who had begun to implement and
experiment with ICFP. For those who had not previously used ICFP in their schools, the
tools and resources used were not yet widely used, however, so any directly quantifiable
impact was currently estimations for long-term savings. These estimations were
significant, suggesting the ICFP training has the potential to contribute to significant
schools’ savings across the country.
The impact of ICFP was largely around staffing and long-term saving, and the training
and accompanying tools had helped to remove emotion from restructuring and staffing
decisions. Though many schools had not chosen to make immediate redundancies once
identifying savings, instead preferring to save through organic staff turnover, this again
highlights that significant future savings can be expected.
Though the majority of those who attended the training did not take immediate affirmative
action on completion, of those who did take an action, this was mostly linked to reporting,
information sharing, and seeking further information elsewhere. The workbook (by phase)
was noted as the most popular tool to help with these three actions, as the information
was visual, shareable, and customisable. More informed conversations and better
planning was the result of this tool.
In conclusion, the ICFP training was a positive way to introduce ICFP training to make,
and to reaffirm ICFP to others who were already aware. It is likely that the training and
accompanying tools has already led to savings around the country, but research
suggests that more long-term savings can be expected as a direct result of the training
courses.
49
Appendix I: Topic Guide
Introduction and briefing (2 minutes)
Introduction:
• Moderator to introduce themselves and BMG Research
• Thank them for agreeing to take part in an interview about their thoughts and
experiences on a number of services offered by the Department for Education.
• There are no right or wrong answers
• You don’t have to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable answering
Purpose of the discussion: The Department for Education has commissioned BMG
research to speak with schools and academy trusts in England, to understand the
actions, behavioural change (if any) and (if possible) the impact on financial decision
making and savings made by specific DfE School Resource Management services and
tools. The conversations will be used to help understand the impacts of these. This will
then be integrated into a full research report and shared with the Department for
Education.
Length: The interview should take approximately 15 - 20 minutes to complete.
Confidentiality: All information you provide will be treated confidentially. We will not
identify any individuals or share the personal details of those who took part. I am
independent. Your responses are strictly confidential which is required by the Market
Research Society.
• Views stated are not linked to individuals and the more open and honest you can
be the better.
• We may use some of the things you say in our reports, but we won’t reveal who
said them. This is in line with the Market Research Society Code of Conduct.
Recording: we would like to audio-record the discussion for the purposes of accurately
capturing all the information you share with us. The audio will be used for analysis
purposes only and will not be shared with anyone outside of BMG research.
50
Background and introduction (1-2 minutes)
We’re going to talk mostly about the School Resource Management Resources available
today…
• I have that you work in an [INSERT SCHOOL TYPE], is that correct?
• Please could you tell me a little bit about your current role within it?
o Probe: e.g., SBM for a school within the MAT, centralised function, CFO for
trust, etc.
• And what are your day-to-day responsibilities? [Probe: financial decision-making
responsibilities
• And could you tell me whether you’ve used the:
• School Financial Benchmarking site (SFB) N.B.A. Ask all
o View My Financial Insights site (VMFI) N.B.A. Only ask if in MAT or SAT
o ICFP training courses N.B.A. Only ask if in MAT
SFB: Impact of SFB tool (10-12 minutes)
[ASK MATs, SATs, and LA schools]
PART 1: ASK ONLY IF HAVE USED SCHOOL FINANCIAL BENCHMARKING (SFB)
SITE
• Overall, how would you describe your experience(s) of using the SFB site?
• And how useful to you/your school/trust were the comparisons with other schools?
Why/why not?
• What made you decide to use the SFB tool?
o Which specific scenario(s)
o How many times a year/how often is it used?
• How did the SFB site help with decision making?
o Probes: strategic discussions at either SLT or Governing Body (if an LA
maintained school) or Board of Trustees (if a MAT or SAT)
o Longer term strategic planning
o Challenge financial planning/ inform budget setting
o Identify areas for potential efficiency savings
o Identify ways to better allocate resource
o Contact other schools to discuss their actions of interest
51
• What actions did you/your school take as a result of these decisions?
o Probes: change of suppliers, redeployment of workforce
o Probe: Do you plan to take any further actions this school year? Which?
• Overall, how useful, or influential would you say this resource has been to your
school (or trust level) decision making and actions taken? What makes you say
this?
• Did the SFB helped you to identify any savings?
o If yes, how much, roughly, have you saved? If unsure, probe (e.g., £100s,
£1,000s)
o And how much do you think you will save? Probe on financial forecasting
o In what area(s) of school/trust operations did it/will it help you to save
money?
• Have you managed to save any time or resource through using this tool? For
example, has it saved time by providing data you would otherwise have had to find
yourself?
o How much time has it saved you/your organisation? (e.g., admin)
o How much resource has it saved you/your organisation? (e.g.,
redeployment of staff)
o How much money has it saved you/your organisation?
• What would you say the key things learnt from the SFB tool are?
• And how do you think the SFB site could be improved?
• Would you recommend this tool to others? Why/why not?
PART 1b: ASK ONLY IF HAVE NOT USED SCHOOL FINANCIAL BENCHMARKING
(SFB) SITE
You said you have never used the SFB…
• Have you looked at the SFB site?
o [If yes] Why did you not use the information provided?
VMFI: Impact of VMFI tool (10-12 minutes)
PART 2: ASK ONLY IF HAVE USED VIEW MY FINANCIAL INSIGHTS (VMFI)
[for MATs and SATs only, NOT LA maintained schools]
52
• Overall, how would you describe your experience(s) of using the VMFI site?
• And how useful to you/your school/trust were the comparisons with other schools?
Why/why not?
• What made you decide to use the VMFI tool?
o Which specific scenario(s)
o How many times a year/how often is it used?
• How did the SFB site help with decision making? Probes:
o Strategic discussions at either SLT or Governing Body (if an LA maintained
school) or Board of Trustees (if a MAT or SAT)
o Longer term strategic planning
o Challenge financial planning/ inform budget setting
o Identify areas for potential efficiency savings
o Identify ways to better allocate resource
o Contact other schools to discuss their actions of interest
• What actions did you/your school take as a result of these decisions?
o Probes: change of suppliers, redeployment of workforce
o Probe: Do you plan to take any further actions this school year? Which?
• What other impacts has the information available through the VMFI tool have?
Probe: managing workforce/ workload/ curriculum planning/ data planning etc.?
• Has the VMFI data helped you to identify any savings? If so, how much have
you/could you save on… Probe on financial forecasting, identified vs realised
savings
o Non-staff spend
o Staff spend
o Recurring costs
o Non-recurring costs
o Procurement cost changes
• Have you managed to save any time or resource through using this tool? For
example, has it saved time by providing data you would otherwise have had to find
yourself?
o How much time has it saved you/your organisation?
o How much resource has it saved you/your organisation?
o How much money has it saved you/your organisation?
• What would you say the key things learnt from the VMFI tool are?
• And how do you think the VMFI site could be improved?
53
• Would you recommend this tool to others? Why/why not?
PART 2b: ASK ONLY IF HAVE NOT USED VIEW MY FINANCIAL INSIGHTS (VMFI)
SITE
You said you have never used the VMFI site…
• Have you ever looked at the VMFI site?
o [If yes] Why did you not use the information provided?
o Why did it not help you to make decisions for your school/trust?
PART 3: ASK EITHER THE VMFI AND SFB SITES
• Have you used [VMFI and/or SFB] alongside any other Department resources to
make these decisions?
• What other tools and data sources do you use to support your financial decision
making?
o How do they compare with the DfE tools?
• After using the [VMFI and/or SFB], did you look for any other DfE resources?
Which?
ICFP SECTION: Impact of ICFP training and tools (10-12 minutes)
[ASK both parts of this section on training and tools if the interviewee attended or viewed
online at least one of the ICFP training sessions]
[ASK only the part on ICFP tools if they didn’t attend an ICFP session or watch it online
and are content to answer questions on the use of the ICFP tools DfE has made
available as they have used them]
Part 1: ASK IF ATTENDED ICFP TRAINING
• Why did you choose to attend the ICFP training? (either in person, or the online
videos of the training sessions on gov.uk pages)
o When did you make the decision to attend?
• Overall, how would you describe your experience of the training?
o Did it meet your expectations? Why/ why not?
o What are the main benefits you found from using the training?
o Any limitations? Aspects you would have liked covered
54
I would like to talk to you now briefly about how you have used the principles taught in
the training…
• How did the ICFP training help with decision making? Probes:
o Strategic discussions at Board of Trustees (if a MAT)
o Longer term strategic planning
o Challenge financial planning/ inform budget setting
o Identify areas for potential efficiency savings
o Identify ways to better allocate resource
o Contact other schools to discuss their actions of interest
o Change in curriculum planning
o Integration of your [MAT] financial and curriculum plans
• Did the training helped you to identify any savings?
o If yes, where did you manage to identify/make these savings?
o If yes, how much, roughly, have you saved/ could you save? Probe realised
vs. actual
o If unsure, probe for bandings
• What other impacts has the training provided had? For example, has it saved time
by providing information you would otherwise have had to find yourself?
o How much time has it saved you/your organisation?
o How much resource has it saved you/your organisation?
o How much money has it saved you/your organisation?
• Do you revisit materials from the training? How often, and what for?
• Have you been on any other training courses offered similar to this?
o If yes: how does this one compare to others you have used?
• Did the short course encourage you to use other Department resources? Which
ones?
o Did these additional resources help you to make savings? Where, and how
much?
Part 2: ASK IF USED ICFP TOOLS FROM DFE
• Which of the following DfE produced ICFP tools have you personally used?
Interviewer to capture if any others have been used
o Basic principles of ICFP presentation
o Workbook (by phase)
55
o Technical guide
o The Pioneer Academy Trust tools (for primaries)
o Could you take me through which scenario(s) have you used [INSERT
TOOL USED]?
o What would you say the main benefits have been from using [INSERT
TOOL USED]?
o Have you used them to integrate your [SAT’s / MAT’s / LA’s] financial and
curriculum plans? Probe which tool specifically
• Could you give me an example of when you have used this tool to inform a
financial decision?
o Probe: staff management, resource allocation, budget setting etc.
• Overall, how would you describe your experience of the available ICFP tools on
gov.uk?
• Are there any limitations to using [INSERT ABOVE TOOL]?
o And are there any limitations with using the package of ICFP tools available
in general?
PART 3: ASK ALL ICFP RESPONDENTS
• How could the Department’s support for schools and trusts to conduct good ICFP
be improved?
Wrap up (2 minutes)
• Is there anything else you would like to add?
• Thank and close
56
Appendix II: Statement of terms
Compliance with International Standards
BMG complies with the International Standard for Quality Management Systems
requirements (ISO 9001:2015) and the International Standard for Market, opinion, and
social research service requirements (ISO 20252:2012) and The International Standard
for Information Security Management (ISO 27001:2013).
Interpretation and publication of results
The interpretation of the results as reported in this document pertain to the research
problem and are supported by the empirical findings of this research project and, where
applicable, by other data. These interpretations and recommendations are based on
empirical findings and are distinguishable from personal views and opinions.
BMG will not publish any part of these results without the written and informed consent of
the client.
Ethical practice
BMG promotes ethical practice in research: We conduct our work responsibly and
considering the legal and moral codes of society.
We have a responsibility to maintain high scientific standards in the methods employed in
the collection and dissemination of data, in the impartial assessment and dissemination
of findings and in the maintenance of standards commensurate with professional
integrity.
We recognise we have a duty of care to all those undertaking and participating in
research and strive to protect subjects from undue harm arising as a consequence of
their participation in research. This requires that subjects’ participation should be as fully
informed as possible and no group should be disadvantaged by routinely being excluded
from consideration. Both agency and client shall take all adequate steps to ensure that
the identity of each respondent participating in the research is protected.
