Adopting Standards of Practice to Navigate Safely in

Difficult TimesKristen Robillard, Concordia University, Canada

Natalie Sharpe, University of Alberta, Canada

ENOHE, Oxford, April 2013

New Standards of Practice: A Milestone for ACCUO In June 2012, ACCUO (Association of Canadian

College & University Ombudspersons)/AOUCC (Association des ombudsmans des universités et collèges du Canada)

adopted Standards of Practice at its annual conference in Edmonton, Canada.

“They are the product of the significant work of many of our members.   I view the document  as an important milestone for both ombudsmanship in higher education and for our Association.”

(ACCUO President Kristen Robillard to Tom Kosakowski, Ombuds Blog, July

13/12)

What are SoPs?These vary in all professions: some call it minimum

standards of professionalism and practice; establishment, maintenance and enforcement of professional standards (prescriptive, e.g., College of Physicians & Surgeons, Alberta))

Others view it as a framework of principles that describe the knowledge, skills and values inherent in a particular profession; articulating goals and aspirations of the profession; and the collective vision of professionalism that guides their members’ daily practices (guidelines, e.g., Ontario College of Teachers)

Purpose of SoPs in Ombuds WorkTo serve as a guideline for the establishment of

practices, policies and procedures for ombudspersons in Canadian post-secondary institutions, with enough flexibility to acknowledge the diversity in their roles and variances in institutional structure and governance

To ensure that the ombudsperson’s role is understood, protected, valued and promoted in Canadian higher education institutions

To ensure that our relationships with clients are based on promoting fairness, equity, and respect

To help post-secondary institutions that are seeking support to create an ombuds office, promote fairness and accountability in their academic institution, remove systemic barriers, and seek progressive change

Background The Standards of Practice (SoPs) has been a document in

evolution with its first draft in 2004.After substantial work was completed by various ACCUO

members, a sub-committee was struck in June 2011 at the annual ACCUO Conference in Vancouver to formulate a concise Standards of Practice for ombudspersons at higher education institutions in Canada, primarily colleges and universities.

It was made very clear that ACCUO would adopt the SoPs as guidelines, rather than prescriptions to allow for the variety of legislation in the provinces of Canada, and mandates of ombuds offices in Canada, and to educate and encourage post-secondary institutions across Canada to recognize the value of the ombud’s role in promoting institutional fairness.

Inclusive, not ExclusiveAt the very outset, we recognized significant differences

in the nuances of language as we worked on our SoPs.As an organization of two national languages with

cultural and regional variations, and very diverse institutions, we worked carefully to ensure that terminology was flexible and clear.

It was important to be inclusive of all models of ombuds offices; unlike the many Canadian provinces that have standard classical, legislative ombudsmen, universities and colleges in Canada have a variety of ombuds forms, mandates and practitioners: part-time academic; administrator; student; hybrid student-administrator, etc.

As one member noted, ACCUO may benefit with more inclusive and compelling language to safeguard the funding of existing offices and/or helping to promote the creation of new offices.

Guideline, not PrescriptionThe goal was to to have a concise, point form statement

that described what we aspire to as post-secondary ombudspersons in Canada.

It would be a guide for the ombudsperson, and educate the institution about the value of the ombuds role in promoting fairness in the educational institution.

Based on the acceptance of variation of practices, it was important to not have a restrictive, prescriptive model that would create any hierarchy or weed out hybrid models. One member stated that the inherent challenge of publishing such a document lies within the language that defines each practice. 

Rather it was important to clarify the essential elements to carry out the work of an ombudsperson and provide true value to the institution and its community.

Grassroots ParticipationThe sub-committee of three ombudspersons (Martine

Conway, University of Victoria; Nancy Chamberland, Université Laval; Natalie Sharpe, University of Alberta) work in universities with diverse mandates and provincial legislation.

They sought the guidance of their fellow ombuds “wise persons” who had formulated the original documents.

They sought feedback from current members as they pieced together the document over the ACCUO list:serve (the ACCUO server distributes members’ shared information electronically).

They held teleconference meetings frequently over the year.Feedback was also sought at the two mid-year regional

meetings, capturing all points of view, regional, cultural and language variations.

Turbulent Times for our Universities and Colleges Our SoPs do not operate in a political vacuum. These are turbulent

times for post-secondary institutions. The majority of institutions we are talking about are public

institutions, and fall under provincial legislation. Post-secondary institutions in Canada have been facing severe reductions in government funding since the early 1990s.

The administration in post-secondary institutions, weary of fighting for government funding, are succumbing to the pressures of a neo-liberal agenda that education is for sale on a global scale; we are witnessing the introduction of corporate models of management and growth of privatization at Canadian universities. The stresses and strains of research, teaching and learning has been chronicled by academia (R. Gill:2009)

Cutbacks in education cannot be ignored as we also hear of the closing of ombuds offices on a few of our Canadian campuses, but thankfully, the opening of others; it has become increasingly important for ombudspersons to emphasize their role in promoting fairness and integrity at post-secondary institutions during these challenging times.

Commodification of Education As tuitions rise to compensate for government underfunding (and

threats to increase them more, even in Quebec), students are given conflicting messages. They are consumers of education and personally responsible for their education, and that is why the costs are rising; but at the same time they are also told that a degree with integrity cannot be bought and sold; if they are dissatisfied with the quality of their education, they cannot request a refund.

With the promotion of the consumer-recruitment model, some students still believe that quality is something you can negotiate for if you bargain hard enough, yet the institution argues that despite what you have paid, the degree will never be compromised. So “buyer beware”. Why do we blame students for all their “consumer” complaints when the system promotes such values?

The ombudsperson is continually examining for systemic fairness when institutions are forced to pose conflicting values in their struggle to survive an economic climate and compete with sister institutions for limited funding.

The ombudsperson continues to emphasize the need to build a a respectful dialogue between students and institution to create value and accountability in the education process.

The SoP Preamble“With a focus on fairness, equity and respect,

the ombudsperson builds capacity to help the institution be accountable to its own value and mission statements.

In working with individuals, the ombudsperson facilitates fair resolutions that build trust and fortify the relationship between individual and institution.”

Highlights of The Standards of Practice - The 4 Principleswww.uwo.ca/post-secondary/SoPJune2012EF.pdf

“These standards provide a point of reference for practicing ombudspersons and staff of the office of the ombudsperson.” These 4 principles are:

Independence (structured to function independently; no decision-making power, other than the discretion of when to intervene);

Impartiality (objectively reviews facts, apply principles of administrative fairness; no conflict of interest);

Confidentiality (except for imminent harm; office retains privileged information);

Accessibility (office is accessible, free of charge, and publicized).

SoPs – Functions & ResponsibilitiesProvides Information & Advice (on policies,

procedures, rights & responsibilities); referrals; analyzing problems, developing options, evaluating courses of action; coaching and feedback to help party make decisions;

Decides whether and how to intervene (CR; investigation); access to information and files;

Makes Recommendations on case-specific or systemic matters and Publicize if not responded to in a timely manner;

Publishes Annual and Special Reports;Promotes Integrity of its Service to fulfill its Mandate.

Next Stage: Guiding us to Best PracticesWe now have a sub-committee (Nancy Chamberland, Laval; Iman

Ibrahim, Ottawa; and Natalie Sharpe, Alberta) developing a Best Practices manual to show how these standards can be realized in our daily practices.

Confidentiality guidelines – We outlined about 18 practices related to client visits; website information, disclosure to other services; limits of confidentiality, etc. and realized very quickly that our mandates and provincial legislation influence our practices. Given our varied professional backgrounds, we noted that in Quebec, the majority of post-secondary ombudspersons are lawyers and most of their ombudspersons have full investigative powers. Yet the variation of practice that we examined in no way compromised the SoPs.

The development of best practices will be a slow, ongoing process as it requires extensive dialogue about our institutions, our mandates, as well as variation in our provincial legislations. However, we believe it will help us to handle complex problems with confidence; it will also benefit new ombuds offices as they face a rising sea of complaints.

SummaryThe SoPs focus on fairness, equity and respect;The SoPs help the ombudsperson build capacity for

institutional accountability and facilitate fair resolutions that foster trust between the individual and institution;

The SoPs help us to achieve our goals in upholding the quality and integrity of the academic institution while simultaneously removing unfair systemic practices and/or barriers;

The SoPs help us to identify “Best Practices” within our ombuds offices to help us to truly add value to our higher learning communities, in calm and turbulent times.

SummaryThe SoPs helps the ombudsperson to maintain

a firm hold on his/her role as an advocate for due process and right to be heard, not as an advocate for the customer/client.

The SoPs help the ombudsperson advocate for what is reasonable and fair, rather than special treatment or privilege of status.

The SoPs provide ombudspersons a community of support, a “community of practice” across the vast expanse of Canada.

Standards of Practice?Do you follow a Standards of Practice?Prescriptive or Guideline?Any cautions on developing SoPs? Risks?

Limitations?Other commentary

Sources citedGill, R. (2009) Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries

of neo-liberal academia in Flood, R. & Gill, R. (Eds.), Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections, London: Routledge

Standards of Practice for Ontario College of Teachers; Alberta College of Physicians & Surgeons

Guide to Standards of Best Practice for Public Servants, http://www.ombudsman.gov.ie/enpublications/guidelines-for-public-servants

ACCUO Standards of practice, www.uwo.ca/post-secondary/SoPJune2012EF.pdf