18th September 2012, 10:39 PM
tmsarch Wrote:The IfA says that it recommends the use of its quality assured (my emphasis) Registered Organisations. Quality assured surely means that there are both rigorous codes of professional conduct and practice in place and that the IfA ensures that these standards are continuously being met through effective assessment and inspection.
If the IfA are serious that the RO scheme provides a ‘kite mark’ of quality and good practice then the onus must surely fall to the IfA to ensure that ROs are meeting the requirements that they set. It should not be the responsibility of employees (who may not even be members of the IfA) to monitor standards of ROs or to tell the IfA that standards are not being met. If there are ROs out there who are, for example, not providing CPD as required by RO status then the IfA must surely have failed in its monitoring role.
If there is no effective assessment and inspection of standards (and Oxbeast's example suggests these aren't working on the ground) then what is the point of RO status?
That's a good question, and it does indeed sound like the IFA has to up its game on this point. But, that doesn't mean that individuals should sit back and not report issues the way Kevin suggested. After all, the few folk actually working at IFA HQ can't be expected to know what's going on in every unit if nobody tells them! Not that I'm a big fan of IFA in its current form - I felt they lost their way early on, and my hope is that getting chartered might just give them the kick up the backside they desperately need in order to start truly serving the profession the way they claim to be.