Pan-Canadian Quality Standards in International Credential Evaluation Keith Johnson - January 23, 2009 Prepared for: NARTRB Assessment Project - Learning Days

Pan-Canadian Quality Standards in International Credential Evaluation Diagnostic Report Methodology – “What we did” Key themes – “What we found out” Recommendations – “What we are going to do about it”

Objectives 1.To perform an analysis of assessment agency practices, methods, and policies 2.To achieve a better understanding of credential assessment processes and practices 3.To develop a set of recommendations to achieve increased use of a common set of standards and practices by ACESC member organizations and other groups performing credential assessments, ultimately improving their portability within Canada 4.To strengthen partnerships with other credential evaluation organizations and related key stakeholder groups

Research Methodology 1.Are there instances where two or more agencies provide differing opinions on a given credential? Where do they occur? What is their effect on the integration process? 2.What are the roots of these discrepancies? 3.What is the scope of these discrepancies? What can be done to harmonize the process and policy activities of agencies to help mitigate these discrepancies?

Research Components End User Focus Groups Immigrant Client Focus Groups Stakeholder Forum National Workshop of Credential Evaluators Policy Comparison General Assessment Survey 1. Discrepancies? 2. Roots? 3. Scope and Solutions? Assessment Agency Survey Literature Review

Themes/Findings The demand for assessment services is likely to increase over the short to medium term: Demographics - Low domestic birth rate, baby-boom retirements. Labour force requirements – Resource/commodity boom; current need for skilled labour. Immigration trends – Overall increase in immigration; levels were 31.4% higher than in the cohort. CIC policy statements indicate future target increases.

The type of immigration to Canada is also likely to augment future demand for assessments: Themes/Findings – Cont’d 32.8% of immigrants admitted to Canada in 2006 held either a bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree as compared with 20.0% in Level of Schooling Attained years of schooling17.2%15.1% years of schooling32.1%22.3% 13 or more years of schooling11.6%9.6% Trade certificate11.1%6.8% Non-university diploma8.0%13.3% Bachelor's degree16.3%23.9% Master's degree3.0%7.0% Doctorate0.7%1.9% CIC, 2006 New Workers - 15 Years of Age and Older (Education)

Themes/Findings – Cont’d Current immigrants into Canada have more education than past cohorts. Many of the evaluations performed by assessment agencies (as per the Assessment Agency Survey) were at the bachelor’s level or higher:

Themes/Findings – Cont’d Findings from the focus groups, National Workshop of Credential Evaluators, and the Stakeholder Forum suggest that, while the majority of assessments performed by different agencies are comparable, discrepancies do exist. Immigrant clients and end users are generally satisfied with the services provided by assessment agencies. There is great variability among end users in their familiarity and knowledge regarding the role played by assessment agencies. Discrepancies in the regulatory realm seem the most problematic for both the applicant and the regulator.

Agencies have been able to adapt and un-bundle their services successfully to meet the needs of a number of institutional clients. Themes/Findings – Cont’d Reasons for Using External Agencies Translation Equivalency Document Authentication Validation of College/University Percentage of respondents

Themes/Findings – Cont’d Terminology and definitions differ among agencies. There are significant differences in the resources available to credentialing bodies. Agencies have different documentation requirements (e.g., originals vs. certified copies). There is little standardization among agencies regarding document verification procedures. Most agencies use the same international references (e.g., PIER, AACRAO); a few have been able to create their own country profiles.

Themes/Findings – Cont’d The seven agencies surveyed perform a total of approximately 48,000 evaluations annually. For agencies outside of Quebec, the top five source countries (based on education) are the following: 1.India (17%, 13%, 21%, 32%) 2.Philippines (14%, 6%, 14%, 40%, 10%) 3.China (10%, 15%, 10%, 8%, 3%) 4.Pakistan (9%, 7%, 5%) 5.Russia (3%, 3%, 3%) The top three source countries of applications to Quebec are 1.France (13%) 2.Algeria (11%) 3.Morocco (10%)

Themes/Findings – Cont’d Most assessments done by agencies were within their jurisdiction. 0-25% of applications were initiated outside of Canada. 0-20% of applications were initiated within Canada but outside the jurisdiction of the selected agency.

Recommendations - Preface Two types of recommendations: policy vs. organic Standards can be introduced at a number of different points in the assessment process. An incremental approach can be taken in harmonizing processes and policies.

Recommendations Eleven (11) recommendations were preferred by the project's Evaluation Working Group: Update the glossary of terms hosted on the CICIC website Improve harmonization of document requirements and verification procedures Create a pan-Canadian Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) to help guide the assessment practices and policies of all groups that perform credential evaluations. Provide regular workshop and networking opportunities for credential assessors from across Canada.

Recommendations – Cont’d Produce a set of jointly researched country profiles Hold annual meetings with key stakeholders in the credential assessment community Develop a “competency profile” specific to credential assessors Develop a college/university certificate/degree program for credential assessors Improve public awareness, especially among employers, regarding the role of assessment agencies Develop a shared resource database for groups performing credential assessments Conduct a feasibility study on developing a national Internet portal for free overseas pre-assessments

 Questions / Discussion