Government Funding and Regulation: Impact on Quality

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

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

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

4. 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

5. Key Considerations

6. 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”

7. 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

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

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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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’

14. 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.,

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

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

21. 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

22. Thank You! Ken Snowdon Snowdon & Associates Inc. www.snowdonandassociates.ca