Snowdon & Associates Government Funding and Regulation: Impact on Quality Ken Snowdon Quality 2006: Innovations in Quality Measurement in Post-Secondary Education This presentation has Notes. Please see “Notes Page” under View in Powerpoint

Without a Roadmap : Government Funding and Regulation of Canada’s Universities and Colleges Canadian Policy Research Networks December 2005

Outline Key Considerations Favourable Conditions for “Quality” Realities Creating a Favourable Environment for Improved Quality

Key Considerations Government funding mechanisms and the regulatory environments are quite different from province to province reflecting…. – History, local circumstance, demographics etc. Federal involvement - research, training, student assistance - cuts across provincial boundaries… with ‘mixed’ results

Key Considerations

Favourable Conditions for “Quality” Funding – Adequate funding that recognizes differences in institutional mission, activity levels (i.e. enrolment) and program ‘mix’ – Recognize different views about “adequate”

Reality…Funding – In 6 of 10 provinces funding in 2004/05 was below funding levels in the early 90’s – FUNDING FROM ALL SOURCES – In most provinces provincial funding has been characterized by reduced grants (in real terms per student) and increased tuition – but…varies – Significant increase in research funding – federal / provincial - with associated indirect costs – Limited increases in ‘core operating’ grants

Indexed Change in TOTAL Funding per Full-time Student (All funds, all sources of income, adjusted for inflation)1992=100

Indexed (relative to 1990 base year) Post-secondary PROVINCIAL Grants (in 2003 Real Dollars) (operating, capital, research) NOT ADJUSTED FOR ENROLMENT

Favourable Conditions for “Quality” Funding mechanisms – Predictable / Stable - to encourage and recognize the long-term nature of university human resource and program commitments – Transparent / Simple (accountable) – Equitable – similar $ for similar activities

Reality… Funding mechanisms – More complicated… and constant change Matching funds Earmarked envelopes (with ‘competitions’) ‘Performance Funds’ ‘pseudo’ – competitive – Capital allocations – Research – CFI, indirect cost, etc.

Reality…Funding mechanisms – Federal ‘re-investment’ mixed results Millennium Foundation CFI CRC – faculty renewal SSHRC, NSERC, CIHR Indirect costs – Created funding pressures on provinces and led to active “substitution” - taken into account when setting provincial operating grant levels – Within institutions – greater emphasis placed on research – ‘hodge podge’ student assistance

Favourable Conditions for “Quality” Regulatory environment – Clear expectations from government – Encourage competition – Encourage fund-raising / entrepreneurial activity – Clear, consistent “rules of the game” For government funding (operating, research) For tuition policy For student assistance For program approval Entry into higher education ‘market’

Reality…Regulatory mechanisms – Complex tuition frameworks De-regulation, cost-recovery, tuition reimbursement, program differentials, ‘freezes’, caps, roll-backs, mandatory student assistance provisions… – Bewildering student assistance changes – Introduction of ‘new’ credentials – “applied degrees” - and new institutions – Changing ‘rules of the game’ – unexpected consequences – Business Plans, Service Plans, Multi-year agreements, Performance Agreements, Accountability Agreements, etc.,

Reality…. Whatever happened to “keep it simple”?

Reality… impacts Action – ‘follow the money’ Greater emphasis on research – Predictable consequences for undergraduate programs – “haves” and “have-not” disciplines Tendency to alter internal resource allocation models to reflect income opportunities – “haves” and “have-nots” Extraordinarily difficult planning environment

Reality…. Post-secondary funding – from all sources has hit all-time highs ~$30 billion... yet it is seen as not adequate to deal with: – Major expansion of enrolment and research – Continuing expectation for more accessibility, higher quality, more research

Favourable Environment for Improved Quality What are you trying to do? Goals What do you need to get there? – Resources, Tools, Strategies How would you know you are making progress? Accountability – public reporting/indictators

Favourable Environment for Improved Quality Define access, quality and research goals Recognize the need for adequate resources …from somewhere – public and/or private Adopt a multi-year perspective Keep the funding mechanisms few and simple Improve the climate of ‘trust’ between fed/prov and between prov/institutions

Favourable Environment for Improved Quality Accountability frameworks that recognize institutional differentiation ‘performance’ REPORTING Strengthen role of institutional governing bodies

Summary The diversity of post-secondary education in Canada creates special challenges that need to be recognized when discussing ‘quality’ Adequate funding, simplified funding mechanisms, and clear, consistent ‘rules of the game’ will help create an environment conducive to improving quality. Performance reporting and the full engagement of Governing Boards

Thank You! Ken Snowdon Snowdon & Associates Inc.