Implementing an Accountability Framework in BC: Two Perspectives

1
Implementing an Accountability Framework in BC
Two Perspectives

• Tony Eder, University of Victoria
• Kevin Perrault, BC Ministry of Advanced Education

2
BC Public Post-Secondary System Overview

• Differentiated system comprising Colleges,
  Institutes, University Colleges and Universities
• Governed by different legislative acts with
  varying degrees of institutional autonomy
• System has evolved to meet the needs of British
  Columbians

3
What is the Accountability Framework?

• Integrated set of processes to coordinate
  planning, performance measurement and reporting
  throughout BCs public post-secondary system.

4
Why a formalized Accountability Framework?

• To enhance system level management of the public
  system by
• Promoting stronger system context
• Improving coordination of planning to align
  government strategic priorities with
  post-secondary institution goals and objectives
• Developing performance measures and targets to
  assess effectiveness of plans and strategies
• Ensuring system partners understand the outcomes
  they are expected to share

5
Accountability in BC

• Long history of public accountability initiatives
  in the post-secondary system
• Some coordination at sectoral level
• Universities through TUPC
• Colleges/Institutes through AECBC and SCOEA (with
  govt)
• This Framework builds on these previous
  initiatives

6
Accountability in BC

• Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and
  the New Era commitments of the Liberal govt
  have been the principal drivers of this new
  Framework
• Initially for government ministries and agencies
• Now includes public post-secondary institutions
• Expand public accountability from input and
  financial measures to outcomes and outputs

7
Framework developed through consultation

• Executive consultation discussion paper
• System and sectoral feedback
• some institutional cynicism and negativity on
  specifics
• concern with targets and consequences
• acceptance with assurance that framework would be
  developed consultatively
• Representative Committees struck
• Formal Advisory
• Performance Measures Working Group
• Dedicated Accountability Branch in Min. of
  Advanced Education (15 FTE)

8
Integrated Framework Structure

• Performance Measures to achieve goals
• Performance Targets at system and institution
  level
• Harmonized reporting
• Ministry Service Plans and Reports
• Institutional Service Plans and Reports

9
Performance Measures(Bobs big 5 research)

• Is the system big enough? (capacity)
• Is the system good enough? (quality)
• Is the system balanced? (comprehensive, relevant,
  responsive)

• Is the system efficient?
• Is the system equitable? (accessibility)
• Does the system promote discovery, innovation,
  and the creation of knowledge? (research)

10
Performance Measures

• Intended to be comprehensive extensive research
  at what is used in other jurisdictions (provinces
  and states)
• Result traditional input and financial measures
  complemented by outcomes, outputs, accessibility,
  equity and efficiency measures

11
Performance Targets

• Governing principles
• Applied equitably and reasonably
• Aggregate of institutional targets equals system
  target
• Ministry sets targets with input into process and
  criteria
• Targets should promote performance and be
  achievable
• Institutional comparisons should be based on
  reasonable and valid comparators
• Take into account cyclical, contextual or other
  structural impacts
• Taken as a whole, should promote overall
  improvement of the institutions and the system

12
Performance Targets

• In most instances targets were developed
  consultatively to be palatable to institutions
• Recognition that the Minister wants stretch
  targets for the system

13
Performance Targets

• Targets a balance of stretch and reasonable
  performance
• Student satisfaction with education maintain a
  high level of satisfaction (benchmark 90) or
  demonstrate improvement over time
• Number of degrees, diplomas, certificates
  awarded performance is calculated on a 3-year
  average

14
Performance Measures and Targets

• Data collection must be non-obtrusive wherever
  possible largely through establish reporting
  procedures
• Ground up motivation Institutional Presidents
  and Boards must sign-off on plans and reports
• Process was open and publicly documented
  (technical docs, service plans and reports all
  available on the web)

15
Challenges and Opportunities

• Autonomy with accountability / accountability
  with autonomy
• Get the measure right sooner or later
• Dont break the camels back
• Have the wisdom to accept that which cannot be
  changed
• Balance government with institutional time
• never underestimate the value of good catering

16
Challenges and Opportunities

• Balance of political reality with institutional
  reality
• Service plans as institutional advocacy documents

17
Significance

• Collaboration, cooperation, consultation
• Provides a method of accountability that
  addresses different perspectives
• Articulated integration of government and
  institution strategic direction

18
Next Steps

• Framework continues to evolve
• Measures and targets refined, some dropped, some
  added
• Continued balance between autonomy and control

19
This is the last slide

• Documentation
• www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/welcome.htm
• Service Plans available at institutional websites
• E.g. web.uvic.ca/president/accountability/
• Questions?