Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GREEN LIGHTS AHEAD: THE ROLE OF AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEES
CONTENTS
GREEN LIGHTS AHEAD: THE ROLE OF AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEES
PART 1: WHEN AND HOW TO SET UP A COMMITTEE
1.1 WHY ARE WE HERE?
1.2 WHO SHOULD BE ON THE COMMITTEE?
1.3 EXTRACTING MAXIMUM VALUE
HOW ARE CHARITIES PERFORMING?
PART 2: RUNNING AN EFFECTIVE COMMITTEE
2.1 WORKING WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL AUDIT TEAMS
2.2 MANAGING RISKS
HOW ARE CHARITIES PERFORMING?
PART 3: CONTINUED SUCCESS
3.1 SOUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
3.2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
HOW ARE CHARITIES PERFORMING?
EXISTING RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE
2
3
4
6
9
10
12
14
17
18
20
22
23
GREEN LIGHTS AHEAD: THE ROLE OF AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEES It has been another testing year for the charity sector. Over the past 12 months funding uncertainty, regulatory investigations and historic acts of fraud have magnified existing challenges and brought new threats. In a time of financial anxiety and increased media scrutiny, charities must give confidence to funders, beneficiaries and wider society that they are well-run, well-led and use resources effectively.
The scale of the challenge has been clearly identified by regulators. Research carried out for the Charity Commission showed the level of public trust and confidence in charities had fallen significantly since 2014. Media stories about charities and how they spend their money were cited as key reasons for the decline. Although many have shown resilience, dashboard warning lights are beginning to flash in several areas.
To regain public trust, charities must improve decision making and become more accountable for the way funds are raised and spent. Governance procedures must be reviewed and organisational risks reassessed. Audit, finance and risk committees have an important role to play. But with little central guidance, how can charities make sure their committees are fit for purpose and contribute to good governance?
Here we offer advice on how to run effective committees and reveal our survey findings on current practice across the sector. Some charities will set up separate committees to deal with audit, finance and risk. Others will create a combined committee for two or three of these areas. Our advice is applicable to all. We hope it will support charities to tackle the pressing need to embed good governance, and help them turn their dashboard lights from amber to green.
Nick Sladden, National head of charities, RSM.
156
Online survey ran between October and November 2016. Throughout the report we have used our survey findings to benchmark current practice. As averages have been used, this is only an indicative guide; individual charities may score higher or lower than the listed results. Nonetheless, looking forward, charities should aim to turn all lights green.
Committees are generally ineffective.
A slim majority of committees are effective, but there is room for improvement.
Nearly all committees are effective.
Scotland
83%England
42%
27%Wales
22%Northern Ireland
16% International
RESPONDENTS HAVE OPERATIONS IN
INCOME BANDS0 – 1m: 14% 1 – 6m: 32% 6 – 10m: 18% 10 – 20m: 16% 20 – 40m: 10% 40+m: 10%
RESPONDENTS
3
1.1 Why are we here? Most charities set up committees when the remit of the board becomes too wide for it to be effective or when its workload becomes too onerous. Others, such as some education institutions, are required to do so by regulators.
Charities must decide whether they set up separate committees to deal with audit, finance and risk issues or create combined committees for two or three of these areas. Combined committees can deliver significant management and volunteer time savings, while separate committees can provide greater independence from management and increased emphasis on risk and control. A balancing exercise will help charities make the right choice.
Smaller non-regulated charities (typically with annual incomes below £10m) often set up a joint audit and finance committee. Once above this size, charities will often have a separate audit committee.
Committees should operate within the set terms of reference laid down by the board [see box on page 5]. These should serve as a basis to plan meetings, provide a framework to report to the board and help the committee self-evaluate its performance. The terms of reference should be reviewed on an annual basis to make sure they keep pace with the charity’s changing needs.
The frequency of meetings is important so timely advice and recommendations can be passed to the board. Unless the organisation is facing significant difficulties, committees will not need to meet every month. Most should aim to meet quarterly or twice a year. For finance committees, regular management accounts should be available whether or not there is a meeting that month.
PART 1: WHEN AND HOW TO SET UP A COMMITTEE
81%report to the
board about work carried out
87%have terms of
reference
4
WHAT SHOULD THE TERMS OF REFERENCE COVER? Typically, terms of reference set out the committee’s:
• overall purpose, responsibilities and authority;
• composition;
• frequency of meetings;
• relationship with external and internal auditors;
• overview of the charity compliance function;
• authority to conduct special investigations; and
• authority to engage with specialists, as needed.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS PER YEAR
2 to 3 times a year Once a year
More than 6 times a year4 to 6 times a year
FINANCE7%
3%
38%
52%of finance committees meet 4 to 6 times a year
COMBINED12%
5%
29%
54%of combined committees meet 4 to 6 times a year
RISK
48%of risk committees meet 2 to 3 times a year
8%
11%
33%
AUDIT
42%of audit committees meet 2 to 3 times a year
21%
3%
34%
5
1.2 Who should be on the committee? To meet the objectives set by the board, committees must be the right size. When they are too large, committees run the risk of becoming inefficient. When they are too small, committees may find they are not quorate and lack the authority to make valid decisions, particularly if a member is unable to attend a meeting.
In recent years, charity committees have become smaller. Between four and six members is likely to be optimal in most cases. Our survey shows current practice is in line with this trend.
Diversity must be a key consideration. To effectively carry out their responsibilities, committees should
comprise a mix of genders and age groups. This not only promotes a variety of skill sets and viewpoints but also helps to ensure membership reflects the demographics of the charity’s beneficiaries.
While there are signs that efforts are being made to recruit younger committee members, there is still some way to go. Charities can improve membership diversity by promoting vacancies outside their own networks. For example, younger people are more likely to be reached through social media and businesses can be approached to encourage volunteering.
6
COMMITTEE GENDER DOMINANCE
77% MALE
14% FEMALE
9% EQUAL SPLIT
4on an AUDIT committee
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEMBERS:
6on a FINANCE
committee
4on a RISK
committee
8on a COMBINED
committee
ACROSS ALL COMMITTEES:
66% MALE
34% FEMALE
7
HOW TO SELECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
87%Age 51-65 Age 35-50
77%
55%Age 66+ 18%
Age 18-35
COMMITTEES HAVE MEMBERS IN THE FOLLOWING AGE CATEGORIES:
Typically, effective members:
• have an objective outlook;
• are not afraid to ask direct and honest questions;
• are able to interpret, analyse and question a financial statement;
• have sufficient time and energy to dedicate to the committee; and
• understand the organisation and the key risks it faces.
8
WHAT MAKES AN EFFECTIVE CHAIRPERSON? A good chairperson should recognise:
• the role may require input at any time, not just at scheduled meetings;
• the need to focus on key risks facing the organisation when planning committee activities;
• the need to keep committee members engaged; and
• the need to set clear expectations for advisers, such as internal and external auditors.
1.3 Extracting maximum value If a committee is to add value to an organisation, it must comprise suitably qualified individuals. Diversity of skill set is important. Expertise should span the core aspects of the committee’s duties: primarily finance, audit and risk. In some cases, membership may also need strategy, IT, compliance, fundraising and HR skills.
Robust induction processes should be introduced to ensure new members are prepared and do not hinder productivity. The right onboarding helps recruits understand their responsibilities and the role they must play in an effective committee. This ensures meeting time is not wasted on bringing new members up to speed.
Existing members should also receive training to keep their skills up-to-date. Typically, members are not remunerated for committee work but this does not minimise or eliminate their potential exposure to regulatory or public scrutiny. Without regular training, there is a risk that decisions will be based on out-of-date knowledge.
To maintain appropriate financial literacy, a committee should ensure members keep up with regulatory changes. This can be delivered by courses and seminars as well as relevant publications and presentations at committee meetings.
The content of ongoing training should also include updates on emerging risk areas, accounting and financial reporting developments, and any changes to the charity's objectives, operating environment, internal controls and processes. It should take place or be reviewed at least annually.
43%of committees don’t
train members on induction
57%of committees
don’t offer on-going training
9
HOW ARE CHARITIES PERFORMING? Our performance dashboard uses our survey results to benchmark current practice. As averages have been used, this is only an indicative guide; individual charities may score higher or lower than the result below. Nonetheless, looking forward, charities should aim to turn all lights green.
The committee is the right size.
Consideration has been given to the timing and frequency of meetings.
The committee operates within the set terms of reference and reports to the board about work to be carried out.
Membership comprises a mix of genders and age groups to ensure a variety of viewpoints and skillsets.
Induction training is provided to ensure new members contribute from day one.
Members are given ongoing training to keep up with regulatory requirements and the charity’s changing needs.
10
11
PART 2: RUNNING AN EFFECTIVE COMMITTEE 2.1 Working with internal and external audit teamsThe media attention given to the failure of large organisations and the role financial reporting processes played in their downfall has heightened public interest in the robustness of internal and external audit.
Internal audit An internal audit function can provide assurance that organisational risks have been properly identified and managed. As regulators and the public increasingly turn their attention to charities’ internal controls, this has become an ever-more important role.
An internal audit function should:
• review internal controls;
• test compliance of internal controls;
• assess organisational compliance with board policy statements;
• complete operational audits that could improve business processes; and
• complete special audits for high-risk areas, such as fraud or suspected abuse of systems.
To maintain a strong control environment, internal audit teams should regularly update the committee on compliance, financial or control issues that management must address. They should also communicate:
• the planned scope of internal audit work for a minimum of the next 12 months and how this was determined;
• the time needed to achieve audit plan objectives;
• if any planned work was deferred and how this will be addressed;
• areas that require follow up or a re-audit based on previous findings; and
• coverage of activities not reported in the financial statements.
Setting up an internal audit function requires resources, but not all charities are large enough to justify the cost. In these cases, the committee should consider whether project-based audits could provide assurance over key risk areas not covered by an external auditor.
55%of charities do not
have an internal audit function
80%review internal controls
67%test compliance of internal controls
61%complete operational audits that could improve business procedures
49%assess compliance with board policy statements
43%complete special audits for high-risk areas, such as fraud or suspected abuse of systems
ACTIVITIES OF INTERNAL AUDIT TEAMS:
12
HOW SHOULD COMMITTEES SELECT AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR? The committee should expect the external auditor to:
• understand the committee’s expectations;
• maintain open communication and engage in timely and candid discussions;
• meet independently with the committee without the presence of management or internal auditors;
• promptly discuss any concerns about financial reporting or organisational performance, significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control processes, or evidence of fraud or abuse of systems;
• inform the committee of issues that management is aware of but has not adequately addressed;
• advise the committee about areas believed to require special attention;
• inform the committee about time pressures exerted by management, the degree of management’s co-operation in the audit and its impact on the audit effectiveness; and
• discuss the contents of the formal audit findings report.
External auditAn external auditor provides an opinion on the truth and fairness of the charity’s financial statements. This is a critical exercise as it provides assurance that the charity’s financial reporting processes are effective and comply with laws and regulations.
An external auditor should also provide impartial information on:
• emerging financial reporting matters;
• emerging sector trends and risks;
• tax and regulatory issues; and
• general business advice.
If needed, the committee should be provided with an opportunity to independently discuss other matters with the external auditor. This includes an assessment of whether the scope and experience of financial personnel properly reflect the size and complexity of the organisation.
The committee can also ask whether the external auditor has any concerns about the organisation’s attitude towards risk. This could extend to a discussion about whether management is actively addressing issues that could have an adverse impact on financial statements, operational stability or compliance with laws and regulations.
The committee should be directly responsible for the selection and retention of the external audit firm. It should also have the authority to dismiss the provider if its expectations are not met. Clear selection criteria can help the committee make an informed choice.
13
2.2 Managing risks Committees are responsible for assessing the integrity of internal control systems to ensure financial and non-financial threats are properly identified, monitored and managed. This is a challenging task for many.
Identifying risks and, importantly, the causes of risk is difficult because it requires insight and an appreciation of the charity’s internal environment as well as external factors. A committee member’s knowledge of the risks faced by the charity will enable them to determine whether the actions on how to deal with potential problems are appropriate. Conversely, being unable to address risk can lead to operational failure.
The role of the risk register To start mitigating threats, charities must first determine their risk appetite. Providing clarity on the level of risk the charity is willing to encounter ensures that any actions taken to mitigate the risk are proportionate.
A risk register is also an important tool for identifying and managing threats. The formal document should be developed by management and detail all potential risks as well as the procedures that have been put in place to manage these.
The risk register should be regularly reviewed and updated to ensure it is fit for purpose and keeps pace with emerging threats. For most charities, this should be completed on at least an annual basis. To do this effectively, a committee must have a detailed knowledge of the charity’s control environment. This includes an understanding of the:
• basic structure of the charity, including subsidiaries, where relevant;
• culture, including the tone at the top;
• charity’s values;
• management philosophy and operating style;
• integrity of employees;
• acceptable behaviours; and
• policy statements and procedures manuals.
88%of charities have a risk register in place
HOW OFTEN IS YOUR RISK REGISTER UPDATED?
14
Once a year26%
2-3 times a year
39%
4-6 times a year
23%
More than 6 times a year
11%
Never1%
Data security today and tomorrow Today, data privacy and security must be a top priority of the risk agenda. As the world becomes increasingly digital and more information is transmitted through online channels, the cost and reputational impacts of a breach cannot be underestimated.
In recent years the sector has attracted regular criticism for its use and handling of personal donor data. To tackle the challenge head-on, charities must adopt preventative measures to reduce the likelihood of a breach. Regularly testing the vulnerability of IT infrastructure, networks and devices is a useful first step.
Charities should also train staff and volunteers about the safe use of systems as many are unaware of how their actions could inadvertently expose the organisation to risk. Updating staff about current scams and relevant dos and don’ts are key elements of a risk mitigation strategy.
If charities are to properly manage data security threats, they must develop strategies to reduce damage limitation if things do go wrong. Purchasing insurance is important but does not guarantee full protection. Charities must also put in place policies that will enable them to react quickly, facilitate data backups and carry out investigations or prosecutions without suffering reputational damage.
Strategies should be regularly reviewed to ensure they remain current and protect against the latest technology advances and exposures. Committees should consider the following points.
• Has an appropriate IT risk assessment been performed?
• Has the network’s vulnerability been tested?
• Are vendor relationships being managed appropriately?
• Have staff been given security awareness training?
• Is there an incident response plan in place?
HOW OFTEN DO YOU TEST YOUR IT CONTROLS?
More than once a year
28%
Annually32%
Biennial7%
Don't know24%
Never9%
15
61%
14% say it happened less than a year ago
9% say it happened 1-2 years ago
7% say it happened 2-5 years agonever experienced fraud
3% say it happened 5+ years ago
6% don’t know
CHARITIES' EXPERIENCE OF FRAUD
Tackling fraud Fraud is a perennial hot topic in the sector as ever-more sophisticated schemes continue to emerge. In this challenging environment, donors and the general public alike are increasingly asking tough questions.
Management is responsible for implementing and monitoring systems to prevent fraud. The tone at the top set by senior management provides a model of appropriate conduct that filters down to every level. This in turn influences the integrity of the financial and compliance reporting process.
The committee should gather information from management as well as external and internal audit to assure itself that appropriate anti-fraud steps have been taken.
HOW TO ACHIEVE AN EFFECTIVE TONE AT THE TOP Management should:
• identify and understand the factors that lead to fraudulent reporting;
• assess the risk of fraudulent reporting;
• design and implement the necessary internal controls for prevention and detection; and
• consider implementing fraud hotlines and whistleblowing policies to promote a culture of compliance.
16
Many charities report that they have not fallen victim to fraud. However, it is important to differentiate between awareness of fraudulent activity and actual exposure. Often charities will not have the proper assurance processes in place to get a full picture on whether fraud is occurring in their organisation.
While internal audit teams are a useful tool, charities should carry out a fraud and bribery risk assessment if they are to fully appreciate their fraud landscape. This helps the charity understand its risk profile and guide action to tackle threats.
While mitigation measures should protect against external threats, such as procurement chain fraud, false invoicing and misuse of grant monies, charities should also recognise that a significant proportion of fraud is internally initiated. Cases of individual employees diverting funds, stealing cash or setting up false suppliers regularly hit headlines. Committees must exercise caution when reviewing numerical documents and consider which charity activities would most likely create an opportunity for a fraudster.
While it is still true that charities generally comprise good people who do good things, there will be a minority who will seek to take advantage of this. To tackle the problem, charities must first acknowledge this uncomfortable truth.
HOW ARE CHARITIES PERFORMING? Our performance dashboard benchmarks current practice. Looking forward, charities should aim to turn all lights green.
5%
Inte
rnal
ly a
nd e
xter
nally
Don
't kn
ow
Inte
rnal
ly
Exte
rnal
ly
HOW WAS CHARITY FRAUD INITIATED?
23%33%
39%
Management has set out its risk appetite to ensure mitigation measures are proportionate.
A regularly updated risk register is used to identify and manage threats.
IT controls are frequently tested to check the vulnerability of technology infrastructure, networks and devices.
Counter-fraud measures protect against external and internal threats.
17
PART 3: CONTINUED SUCCESS 3.1 Sound financial management A lack of cash will cause a charity to fail. To avoid this, finance must be a key consideration for the committee. Members should confirm the charity’s sustainability by overseeing budget preparation and ensuring appropriate financing has been secured for the short and long-term.
Budgeting is an important element of the financial planning, control and evaluation processes. However, the practices of charities can vary greatly.
Committees with financial oversight should assess and approve the annual budgets prepared by management before they are presented to the board. There are many ways to approach this but key considerations include:
• the quality and accuracy of previous budgets;
• the process for developing the budget;
• the methodology used to project significant items;
• management’s most difficult estimates;
• whether the charity’s strategic goals have been incorporated;
• management’s process of monitoring actual versus budgeted results; and
• regulatory or contractual requirements.
To be effective, budgets should cover at least the year ahead. A long-term strategy laid down in numbers provides a charity with an objective focus and to demonstrate viability this should also include a cash flow projection.
71% of budgets include a cash flow projection51% of budgets look
1 to 2 years ahead
18
Future financing Financing is the lifeblood of an organisation’s sustainability, but charities often do not have a plan that extends beyond the current year. Management typically focus on developing operating and capital budgets but fail to take into account the timing of cash flows needed to fund operations.
To ensure this does not constrain a charity’s sustainability, it may be appropriate for the committee to assess the charity’s short and long-term financing plans. In these cases, it should ask management:
• whether the charity has a short and long-term cash flow forecast that considers the best and worst case scenarios;
• if the charity has an understanding of the current cost of debt;
• the financing options available to meet cash flow needs and when these expire;
• whether the charity is subject to debt covenants and how are these monitored;
• if the charity has considered the likely sources of additional finance needs and the steps required to secure these; and
• whether the charity has a strategic plan and related three to five-year forecast that identifies the financing needs of the organisation.
72% have secured
appropriate long-term financing
89% have secured
appropriate short-term financing
19
The committee may also need to review other publications created by the organisation, such as impact reports, stakeholder summary reports and reports to funders. It should consider whether the content could cause reputational damage or negatively impact on future funding. Other considerations include:
• why the report is needed;
• how the report was prepared and by whom;
• whether the data is fit-for-purpose; and
• how the report will be used by the recipient.
HOW TO IMPROVE THE ROBUSTNESS OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
• Are the financial statements clear, complete and accurate?
• Have financial and compliance disclosures been handled correctly?
• Has management taken account of critical accounting policies?
• Are there any significant or unusual transactions?
• What accounting judgements and estimates have been made?
• Do the financial statements offer a clear picture of risks and how they are managed?
3.2 Reporting requirements As the media spotlight continues to shine on high-profile accounting irregularities, regulators and the public are increasingly turning their attention to charities’ financial reporting processes. Charities must give stakeholders confidence that their financial reporting processes are fit-for-purpose. Failure to do so will significantly impact on future availability of funds.
Annual reports The committee has a key role to play in reviewing the annual report. This includes identifying current and emerging risks that could impact on a charity’s financial reporting and disclosure. It should also consider carrying out a review of the financial statements to enhance the quality of information shared with third parties.
It is good practice to analyse what is in the financial statements as well as what is not. The committee should confirm whether disclosures have been made because of immateriality or because they are not required by accounting standards. Particular attention must be given to items that seem unclear and those subject to significant estimation. Healthy scepticism and due diligence is key.
20
Grant compliance and tax reportingAs funders increasingly focus on how charities use donations, providers are now demanding audited proof of activities. Today, additional compliance requirements are regularly introduced - anything from single transaction tests to audits for a specific activity area.
In this new environment, the committee must assure itself compliance requirements are met. It should consider the following points.
• What specific compliance requirements exist and who is responsible for them?
• How are compliance requirements developed when new funding streams are set up?
• Who is responsible for making sure reporting occurs in a time sensitive manner?
The term ‘charity’ often leads to the assumption that the organisation has no tax-related concerns. Potential tax exposures are, however, one of the most important considerations for a charity as non-compliance can lead to significant financial and reputational consequences.
Key consideration points include:
• whether the charity’s activities still allow tax exemptions to be claimed;
• levels of non-charitable trading income;
• potential direct and indirect tax issues arising from future plans;
• suitability of the charitable group’s structure, for example, the requirement for trading subsidiaries; and
• considerations for transferring profits from one entity to another within the charitable group.
Regulatory and ethicsAs auditors and regulators focus heavily on control systems, committees must make sure the right systems are in place to ensure organisational compliance with laws and regulations. To keep pace with latest requirements, committees should review reports from key regulators, such as the Care Quality Commission and Ofsted.
It is also best practice for the committee to review the whistleblowing policy alongside any ethical concerns raised by staff members to ensure the organisation is taking appropriate steps to reduce its exposure to potential reputational damage.
The committee reviews reports from key regulators and questions the actions management has taken in response:
HOW OFTEN DOES YOUR COMMITTEE CONSIDER WHETHER THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH TAX LEGISLATION?
44%more than once
per year
41%Annually
22%never
53%
more than once per year
4%biennially
21%
annually
21
HOW ARE CHARITIES PERFORMING? Our performance dashboard benchmarks current practice. Looking forward, charities should aim to turn all lights green.
The charity has a board-approved budget that looks at least 12 months ahead.
Budgets include a cash projection that confirms the charity’s sustainability.
Appropriate short-term and long-term financing has been secured.
The committee regularly checks compliance with direct and indirect tax legislation.
The committee reviews reports from key regulators and questions the actions management has taken in response.
The charity is confident its operations comply with laws and regulations.
22
EXISTING RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE There is a lack of additional sector-specific guidance on when and how to form committees. Useful resources on the wider issue of good governance can be found below.
• A chair’s compass, Association of Chairs, www.associationofchairs.org.uk
• Boards that work: a guide for charity trustees, David Fishel
• Charities and risk management (CC26), Charity Commission
• Finding new trustees (CC30), Charity Commission
• Trustee recruitment, selection and induction (RS1), Charity Commission
• Essential trustee (The): what you need to know (CC3), Charity Commission
• Hallmarks of an effective charity (The), Charity Commission
• Charities SORP FRS102, www.charitiessorp.org/
• Protecting data, protecting people, Charity Finance Group
• Charity Governance 2020, RSM
For charities in England and Wales: Charity Commission – apps.charitycommission.gov.uk
For charities in Scotland: Scottish Charity Regulator – www.oscr.org.uk
For charities in Northern Ireland: Charity Commission for Northern Ireland - www.charitycommissionni.org.uk
IT WAS ENCOURAGING THAT OUR ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT PRACTICE IN THE SECTOR DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY RED LIGHTS. IF YOU HAVE GOT THIS FAR YOU ARE WELL ON THE WAY TO TURNING ALL LIGHTS GREEN.Nick Sladden, National head of charities, RSM.
23
The UK group of companies and LLPs trading as RSM is a member of the RSM network. RSM is the trading name used by the members of the RSM network. Each member of the RSM network is an independent accounting and consulting firm each of which practises in its own right. The RSM network is not itself a separate legal entity of any description in any jurisdiction. The RSM network is administered by RSM International Limited, a company registered in England and Wales (company number 4040598) whose registered office is at 50 Cannon Street, London EC4N 6JJ. The brand and trademark RSM and other intellectual property rights used by members of the network are owned by RSM International Association, an association governed by article 60 et seq of the Civil Code of Switzerland whose seat is in Zug.
RSM Corporate Finance LLP, RSM Restructuring Advisory LLP, RSM Risk Assurance Services LLP, RSM Tax and Advisory Services LLP, RSM UK Audit LLP, RSM UK Consulting LLP, RSM Employer Services Limited, RSM UK Northern Ireland Limited and RSM UK Tax and Accounting Limited are not authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 but we are able in certain circumstances to offer a limited range of investment services because we are members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. We can provide these investment services if they are an incidental part of the professional services we have been engaged to provide. RSM Legal LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, reference number 626317, to undertake reserved and non-reserved legal activities. It is not authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 but is able in certain circumstances to offer a limited range of investment services because it is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and may provide investment services if they are an incidental part of the professional services that it has been engaged to provide. Baker Tilly Creditor Services LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for credit-related regulated activities. RSM & Co (UK) Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to conduct a range of investment business activities. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, information contained in this communication may not be comprehensive and recipients should not act upon it without seeking professional advice.
© 2017 RSM UK Group LLP, all rights reserved. 3022. Expires 1217
rsmuk.com
CONTRIBUTORSNick Sladden Nick is head of charities at RSM and is responsible for a portfolio of sector clients, including a number of top 250 charities. He gained the ICAEW Diploma in Charity Accounting in 2008 and completed the Governing for Nonprofit Excellence Program at Harvard Business School in 2014. He is a trustee and volunteer for two national charities.
Lauren England Lauren is a supervisor in the charity team at RSM having chosen to specialise in working with not for profit sector clients since 2012. She works with a portfolio of clients in the charity and education sectors and gained the ACA qualification in 2016.
