Accountability That Delivers: 5 Things Every MCA Must Get Right

The accountable body plays a vital role in ensuring public money is managed responsibly, decisions are properly governed and funding requirements are met. For Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs), this responsibility becomes particularly important as funding arrangements, statutory powers and partnerships with delivery organisations evolve.

The accountable body is not a new concept, local authorities have long been responsible for sound financial management, effective governance and statutory compliance. The challenge is understanding how these responsibilities fit within business as usual, where additional assurance is needed and whether existing arrangements are sufficient.

Business as usual covers the organisation's ongoing operations. The accountable body function brings together the responsibilities and controls needed to demonstrate that public money and associated decisions are managed in accordance with the relevant legal, financial and governance requirements.

The distinction is important because many of the activities that support accountability should already exist within the organisation.

There are five areas that an effective accountable body function must get right.

Clear accountability and decision making.

Responsibilities, delegated authority and approval routes must be understood by everyone involved. Where an MCA administers funding or works with delivery partners, it must be clear who makes decisions, who approves expenditure and who is responsible for meeting the relevant conditions. Without this clarity, gaps and duplication can develop, leaving important decisions without clear ownership.

Financial control. Appropriate arrangements must be in place to monitor budgets, authorise expenditure, maintain accurate records and demonstrate that funding is being used for its intended purpose. Controls should be proportionate to the value and risk of the funding involved, providing confidence without creating unnecessary bureaucracy.

Risk management and assurance. Identifying risks is only the starting point. There must be clear ownership, effective controls and evidence that those controls are working. Leaders need to understand where assurance is strong, where gaps exist and what action is required. A completed risk register or a report confirming that a process exists does not, on its own, demonstrate that the underlying risk is being managed effectively.

Compliance, audit and independent scrutiny. The authority must understand its statutory obligations, funding agreements and reporting requirements. Evidence must be retained, audit findings addressed and responsibilities between the MCA and its delivery partners clearly defined. Internal audit provides independent assurance on governance, risk management and controls, complementing the oversight undertaken by management and corporate functions.

Effective oversight of delivery. Assurance must provide a meaningful view of whether funding is being managed properly and intended outcomes are being achieved. This requires reliable reporting on expenditure, progress, performance, dependencies and emerging issues. Where problems arise, there must be clear routes for escalation and corrective action. Accountability for funding should not, however, be confused with direct responsibility for managing every project or delivering every outcome.

These five areas depend on assurance operating across the organisation. Operational teams must own and manage their risks and controls. Senior management and specialist functions must provide oversight and challenge. Internal audit must be able to provide independent scrutiny. Together, these arrangements should give decision makers a reliable picture of whether obligations are being met and where intervention is needed.

For an MCA reviewing its operating model, the starting point should be to map existing responsibilities, processes and assurance arrangements. Finance, Legal, Governance, Procurement, Risk, Audit and Programme Management may already undertake much of the required work. The objective is to identify gaps, unclear ownership, duplication and opportunities to strengthen assurance, rather than automatically creating another team or layer of governance.

The right arrangement might be a dedicated team, a coordinated function across existing departments or clearer responsibilities embedded within the current operating model. The answer depends on the authority's statutory responsibilities, funding arrangements, risk exposure and existing capabilities.

Ultimately, accountability is not demonstrated simply by having policies, committees and reporting templates in place. It is demonstrated by clear responsibilities, effective controls, reliable evidence and action when things go wrong.

A well designed accountable body function should provide confidence that public money is being managed responsibly while enabling the organisation to deliver its objectives. Getting that balance right is both a governance responsibility and an organisational transformation challenge.