The Budget That Nobody Owns
A public-sector agency with a ₤60m annual budget has run a 7% overspend for two consecutive years, covered by year-end underspends elsewhere. The finance director reports that budget holders treat their allocations as 'ceilings to spend against' and submit variance explanations only after quarter-end. A recent internal audit found that 30% of purchase orders were raised after the goods were received, and that one directorate had reclassified ₤1.2m of capital spend as revenue to stay within its revenue limit. The chief executive has asked for a financial control improvement plan before the external audit begins in two months. The agency's funding settlement for next year is flat in cash terms, implying a real-terms cut.
1. Diagnose the underlying control weaknesses revealed by the audit findings, and explain why the overspend has persisted for two years.
Read the worked answer
Three weaknesses stand out. First, commitment control is absent: raising purchase orders after receipt means the agency has no reliable view of commitments, so budget holders cannot see their true position until invoices arrive. This converts budgeting from a planning tool into a lagging report. Second, the reclassification of ₤1.2m of capital as revenue is not a presentational quirk - it is a misstatement that flatters the revenue position and understates capital, and it signals that budget holders are managing to a line rather than to the agency's overall financial position. Third, variance reporting is retrospective and after quarter-end, so corrective action always arrives late.
The persistence is explained by the absence of consequences and by the year-end underspend cover. Because overspends were absorbed elsewhere, no directorate experienced a binding constraint, and the behaviour was reinforced. This is a classic budgeting culture problem: allocations are treated as entitlements to be spent, not as limits to be managed, and there is no incentive to forecast accurately.
The flat cash settlement makes the problem urgent: a 7% structural overspend cannot be covered by one-off underspends in a year with no real growth. The diagnosis should be framed to the board as a control and culture failure, not a forecasting error.
2. Set out a financial control improvement plan for the next two months, prioritising what can realistically be delivered before the external audit.
Read the worked answer
Prioritise actions that produce evidence the auditors will test, and sequence them by feasibility.
Weeks one to two: stop the bleeding. Mandate that no purchase order is raised after receipt except with finance director approval, and report exceptions weekly. Freeze the capital-to-revenue reclassification practice and require any reclassification to be approved by the finance director with a documented accounting basis. Reconcile the ₤1.2m to confirm the correct treatment and prepare a disclosure.
Weeks three to four: restore visibility. Introduce a monthly commitment report by directorate showing budget, commitments, actuals, and forecast outturn. Require budget holders to sign off their forecast, not just their spend. Move variance review to a monthly meeting chaired by the chief executive, with named actions.
Weeks five to six: fix accountability. Clarify in writing that budget holders own their forecast accuracy and that overspends will not be automatically covered. Identify the recurring 7% pressure and require each directorate to propose a savings or reallocation plan for the flat-cash year.
Weeks seven to eight: prepare for audit. Produce a control self-assessment, a log of exceptions and remediations, and a board paper setting out the residual risks. Be candid with the auditors about the reclassification and the late purchase orders - early disclosure is far better than discovery. Longer-term items such as budget-holder training and a revised delegation framework should be scheduled after the audit, not rushed before it.