We have identified a number of risks to consider when registering and monitoring education and training providers.
This framework uses a series of indicators to help us to determine an appropriate level of oversight for each registered provider.
Providers can use the framework to consider their own circumstances against each risk.
Additional factors may be considered at our discretion. The provider risk framework does not apply to the regulation of apprenticeships and traineeships.
Risk: Student welfare
The welfare of a student is compromised while enrolled with the provider.
Indicators that a lower level of oversight is required |
Indicators that an increased level of oversight is required |
A commitment to student welfare, including child safety, underpins all the policies and activities of the provider. Comprehensive student welfare policies and procedures, including child safety, are regularly reviewed and communicated to the provider community. Student welfare including child safety is monitored and intervention strategies triggered as required. Support services are accessible to all students. No CRICOS registration, operation of student exchange programs or boarding facilities.
| Provider lacks awareness of its student welfare responsibilities.
Student welfare policies procedures, including child safety, are not in place, lack detail, or are not regularly reviewed.
Intervention strategies do not exist, or are not effectively implemented.
Provider delivers to international or exchange students, delivers courses in high risk industries, or oversees homestay accommodation. Provider operates boarding facilities for domestic and, or overseas students. Anaphylaxis management plans are required.
|
Risk: Students interests
Education and training provider fails to meet the needs of students.
Indicators that a lower level of oversight is required |
Indicators that an increased level of oversight is required |
- Feedback loop for complaints, student and stakeholder surveys and so on is established and necessary actions are implemented.
- Student achievement is consistent with or better than relevant benchmarks.
- Completion or progression rates are above standard for provider type.
- Recent satisfactory regulatory oversight of curriculum or facilities.
| No formal process exists to determine student suitability for the course or provider environment before enrolment.
Facilities and materials are not sufficient or appropriate to enable effective learning.
Student achievement is below relevant benchmarks.
Completion or progression rates are below standard for provider type.
Complaints relating to the same topic are received on an ongoing basis. Published curriculum does not clearly show that the eight key learning areas are offered for Years 7–10.
|
Risk: Governance
Governance structure fails to underpin effective operations and successful management of the provider.
Indicators that a lower level of oversight is required |
Indicators that an increased level of oversight is required |
Governing body and senior management demonstrate a commitment to integrity, accountability and ethics.
Comprehensive business planning documents with clear assignment of ownership and accountability.
Low turnover of governing body members, senior staff and management team. Legal framework provides clear evidence of: - the provider's purpose
- not-for-profit status (according to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission)
- related entities mitigate possible conflicts of interest
- appropriate delegations
- provision for early learning centre
- appropriate safeguards for winding up (note: a registered company would present a lower risk).
| Governing body and senior management include a large number of members with limited experience with the provider. Lack of business planning documents or documents exist with weak ownership and accountability. Operation of an unincorporated association or cooperative model. High turnover of executive or Board positions. Provider operates across state boundaries or internationally. Provider has multiple registrations, such as school, registered training organisation, student exchange organisation, senior secondary and, or CRICOS.
|
Risk: Financial viability
Financial failure of a provider leading to inability to deliver education or training.
Indicators that a lower level of oversight is required |
Indicators that an increased level of oversight is required |
Unqualified financial statements. Strong financial performance and ratios. Consistent student enrolment figures. Enrolment figures meet or exceed minimum threshold levels. Low reliance on government funding. All Commonwealth and state grants are solely allocated towards student education. Formal and transparent agreements between the provider and related entities.
| Qualified financial statements.
Weak financial performance and ratios.
Fluctuating student enrolment figures.
Enrolment figures below minimum threshold levels.
High reliance on government funding. Dependence on third party loans. Existence of possible prohibited agreements with third parties. Existence of cross-party agreements.
|
back to top
Risk: Compliance
Insufficient processes in place to ensure compliance with regulations and standards.
Indicators that a lower level of oversight is required |
Indicators that an increased level of oversight is required |
- Provider has process to recognise and monitor compliance.
- Previous audits found provider is compliant.
- No concerns or only minor concerns raised by regulatory bodies in relation to provider.
- Previous approvals granted with no specific conditions attached.
| - No process in place for provider to recognise or monitor compliance.
- Previous audits identified areas of non-compliance.
- Significant concerns raised by regulatory bodies in relation to provider.
- Previous approvals had specific conditions attached.
-
Outstanding complaints, matters raised by parents or other regulators or out-of-cycle review activity.
|