HIGHER EDUCATION OMBUDSMEN AND EMPOWERMENT TOWARDS EARLY RESOLUTION

HIGHER EDUCATION OMBUDSMEN AND EMPOWERMENT TOWARDS EARLY RESOLUTION AND A GOOD PRACTICE FRAMEWORK Rob Behrens “Don’t Mourn, Mobilize” Joe Slovo Chief Executive and Independent Adjudicator Robert. behrens@oiahe. org. uk Twitter @OIAChief. Exec ENOHE ANNUAL CONFERENCE, WARSAW, POLAND 15 -17 MAY 2014

THE OIA AS A STRATEGIC PARTNER Ø A Classic Ombudsman Scheme – independent complaints handler of last resort established under 2004 Higher Education Act Ø Applies to 141 HEIs in England Wales – not Scotland. Ø With experience of 10, 000 cases and (almost) universal compliance Ø Sensitive to special features of Higher Education (R (Mustafa) v OIA [2013] EWHC 1379) Ø Free to students and with a year-on-year lowering of unit costs for universities Ø Use of Transparency to generate scrutiny, understanding and public trust Ø Member of the Regulatory Partnership Group (and partner in developing the sector Operating Plan) Ø Engine of Good Practice 2

CONTEXT OF GOOD PRACTICE INITIATIVES Ø Development of oversight of universities Ø Rise of student complaints and appeals Ø Government White Paper (2011) ‘Students at the heart of the system’ reflects and accelerates rises of student expectations and assertiveness. Ø Evidence of variable practice and some unacceptable practice Ø Comparative precedents (eg Scotland). 3

OUTWARD-FACING, PARTNERSHIP APPROACH Ø On-going consultation programme to develop the OIA itself and the way the sector deals with student complaints Ø Informs strategic and operational plans Ø Through: q Question papers q Written submissions q Complainant survey q Round-table meetings q Options to choose from q Routine, regular visits to HEIs and students unions q Learning from other sectors 4

TRENDS IN COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE OIA 2500 2012 2000 1605 1500 1341 England 1858 1007 1000 900 1491 734 542 1285 586 500 0 Wales 682 859 931 508 544 34 2005 42 52 41 76 56 114 154 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 5

WHAT IS COMPLAINED ABOUT: 2012 OUTTURNS 80% 70% 69% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 9% 10% 0% Academic status Service Issue (Contract) 6% Other 6% Academic Misconduct, Plagiarism & Cheating 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% Financial Discrimination & Human Rights Disciplinary matters (not academic) Welfare & Accommodation Admission 6

HOW THINGS GO WRONG Ø University failed to follow its procedures Ø Breaches of the duty to act fairly (natural justice) Ø Information not properly considered (or not demonstrated that it was) Ø Delay or maladministration Ø Non-implementation of appeal panel decision Ø Cohort dealt with inconsistently Ø Inadequate supervision/tuition/equipment Ø Poor communication or misinformation Ø Discrimination issues, especially disability 7

NEW CASE-RELATED ELEMENT IN SUBSCRIPTIONS Ø Core subscription continues to be determined by OIA Board in the context of complaints volumes and organisational efficiency Ø From 2014 case element based on ineligible, settled / withdrawn and reviewed cases from the previous year Ø Points based system with points allowance based on subscription bands Ø December 2012 letter detailing thresholds and costs-per-point above threshold for 2013 cases Ø Case element invoiced in March 2014 Ø In first year a minority of universities likely to pay the case element 8

EARLY RESOLUTION PILOTS Ø Campus Ombudsmen as suggested by 2011 HE White Paper ? Ø Diversity of existing provision q Student Services Offices q Students Union Advice Centres q Student Conciliators q Graduate Interns q Complaint Mediation Schemes Ø Mediation Ø No “one size fits all” v Canterbury Christ Church – wider use of mediation v University of South Wales – Student Conciliators v Sheffield – facilitated discussion v Kingston – training in complaint handling and mediation v Huddersfield – student conciliators v ARC linking pilots to good practice procedure 9

TOWARDS A GOOD PRACTICE FRAMEWORK 80 per cent of Pathway 3 submissions agreed that a framework focusing on operational complaints and appeals resolution would be extremely useful. This framework will be: ü Consultative ü Jointly developed ü Non- statutory ü A living document (web-based) and ü Complement QAA Quality Code 10

GOOD PRACTICE FRAMEWORK THE DRAFT FRAMEWORK KEY FEATURES • Three stage process • Inclusion of Academic Appeals as well as Complaints • Time-frames • Inclusion of Early Resolution and Conciliation • Consultation: April-July 2014 • Publication: September 2014 • Adoption: September 2015 11

GOOD PRACTICE FRAMEWORK: THE EMERGING ISSUES Ø ‘Wicked’ Issues Ø Importance of Comparative Analysis Ø Scope of Framework Ø Regulatory Status Ø Implications of Ombudsman oversight. 12