EUA autonomy scorecard III

Thomas Estermann

Director Governance, Funding & Public Policy Development

European University Association

The state of play in 2017 and the Scorecard

University autonomy in Europe

6/04/2017

Structure 1. The Scorecard: background and methodology

2. 2017 state of play & trends• Organisational autonomy

• Financial autonomy

• Staffing autonomy

• Academic autonomy

3. Observations

4. Outlook

6/04/2017

Why university autonomy?

• Enables universities to act more strategically and set priorities according to their strengths

• Potential towards more income diversification

• Robust internal quality assurance

• Successful Internationalisation strategies

• Does not automatically lead to better performance but is an important requisite

6/04/2017

10 years of EUA’s work on university autonomy

• Autonomy as a central policy issue for EUA – Lisbon and Prague Declarations

• Publication of University Autonomy in Europe I. Exploratory Study (2009)

• The Autonomy Scorecard project (2009-2012)

• Exploitation of the Scorecard

6/04/2017

What is EUA’s University Autonomy Scorecard?

• A unique tool covering 29 higher education systems across Europe (for Germany three states selected)

• Monitoring university autonomy in 4 dimensions

• Scoring and ranking systems for public universities

• New element: country profiles

6/04/2017

An exclusive tool for policy development

• Country specific comparisons and benchmarking

• Structured policy dialogue

• High level events – Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia

• Long-term projects (i.e. ATHENA)

Informing policies at European level

• HE Modernisation Agenda, Horizon 2020, EFSI

Institutional support

6/04/2017

www.university-autonomy.eu

http://www.university-autonomy.eu/

Methodology • Scoring over 30 indicators

• based on restrictions which are assigned a deduction value

• percentage scores for each indicator

• Average score per autonomy dimension

• Weighting system

• assesses relative importance of the autonomy indicators, based

on the input of the European national rectors’ conferences

• Data collection and verification

• with National Rectors’ Conferences

6/04/2017

Challenges & caveats

• Interpretation of complex and diverse situations

• Necessary degree of simplification to allow comparisons

• Not everything can be measured

• Accountability measures can only be partially addressed

• Context matters

• Challenge of comparison over time

6/04/2017

Organisational Financial Staffing Academic

• Selection procedure/ criteria for rector

• Dismissal/ term of office of rector

• Inclusion/ selection of external members in governing bodies

• Deciding on academic structures

• Creating legal entities

• Length/ type of public funding

• Keeping a surplus• Borrowing money• Owning buildings• Charging tuition fees for

national/ EU students• Charging tuition fees for

non-EU students

• Staff recruitment procedures

• Staff salaries• Staff dismissals• Staff promotions

• Deciding on overall student numbers

• Selecting students• Introducing/ terminating

programmes• Choosing language of

instruction• Selecting QA mechanisms/

providers• Designing content of

programmes

6/04/2017

Executive head appointment:Public authorities intervene with different degrees of formality in 40% of the systems

No external validation (internal appointment)AT, BE-FL, BE-FR, HE (DE), DK, EE, FI, FR, HR, IE, LT, NO, PL, PT, RS, SI, UK

Formal validation by an external authorityCH, BB (DE), NRW (DE), ES, HU, IS, IT, LU, LV, NL, SE, SK

6/04/2017

Executive head selection criteria:The law specifies selection criteria in 65% of the systems

The executive head must most often hold an academic position.

Internal decision on required qualificationsAT, BE-FR, CH, IE, IS, NL, NO, SI, SK, UK

Required qualifications stated in lawBE-FL, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, LV, PL, PT, RS, SE

6/04/2017

Governance structuresThree models co-exist in Europe Evolving picture

unitary governance structures

dual governance structures – "traditional model”

dual governance structures – "asymmetric model"

6/04/2017

External members in governing bodies: An increasingly frequent practice, but with continued involvement of public authorities

Universities can appoint external members DK, EE, FI, IT, LT, PT, UK

Universities cannot appoint external members themselves but make proposals NO, SE, SK

Universities can appoint part of the external members AT, BE-FR, HE (DE), FR, HR, IS, SI

Universities do not control the external members appointment process CH, ES, HU, LU, NL, RS

Other appointment process BE-FL, NRW (DE), IE

Universities cannot include external members BB (DE), LV, PL

6/04/2017

Creation of legal entities:Universities can most often create both for-profit and non-profit entities

Universities can create legal entities without constraintsAT, BE-FL, BE-FR, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, NL, NO, RS, UK

Universities can only create not-for-profit legal entitiesCH, PT, SI

Other restrictionsDK, IE, IS, LV, PL, SE, SK

6/04/2017

Organisationalautonomy -trends

• Increasing co-existence of different legal statuses within systems

• Discussions on governance models (balance, competences, composition)

• Increasing participation of external members - higher degree of freedom to select them in the North of Europe

No linear progress towards increased autonomy

6/04/2017

OrganisationalAutonomy

Increase

Stable

Decrease

New

Evolution from 2010

6/04/2017

Rank System Score

1 United Kingdom 100%

2 Denmark 94%

3 Finland 93%

4French-speaking community of Belgium

90%

5Estonia 88%

Lithuania 88%

7 Portugal 80%

8Austria 78%

Norway 78%

10 Hesse (DE) 77%

11 Ireland 73%

12 Flanders (BE) 70%

13 The Netherlands 69%

14 North Rhine-Westphalia (DE) 68%

15 Poland 67%

16Italy 65%

Slovenia 65%

18 Croatia 62%

19 Sweden 61%

20 France 59%

21 Brandenburg (DE) 58%

22 Latvia 57%

22 Hungary 56%

24Spain 55%

Switzerland 55%

26 Serbia 51%

27 Iceland 49%

28 Slovakia 42%

29 Luxembourg 34%

Organisationalautonomy

6/04/2017

OrganisationalAutonomy Scores

High (81% to 100% scores)

Medium high (61% to 80% scores)

Medium low (41% to 60% scores)

Low (0 to 40% scores)

Clusters

6/04/2017










non-EU students








programmes

6/04/2017

Internal funding allocation:Nearly half of the systems are still imposing restrictions, limiting the scope for strategic resource allocation

No restrictions in allocating fundingBE-FL, CH, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), DK, EE, ES, FI, IS, IT, LU, LV, NL, NO, UK

Limited/no possibility to shift funds across broad categoriesBE-FR, FR, HR, HU, LT, PT, SE, SI, SK

Line-item budgetRS

Block grant with other restrictionsAT, IE, PL

6/04/2017

Ability to borrow money:Borrowing remains constrained or prohibited in more than 70% of the systems

Universities can borrow without restrictionsAT, BE-FL, BE-FR, DK, EE, FI, LV, NL

Universities can borrow with restrictionsBB (DE), NRW (DE), ES, FR, HR, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, PL, SE, SI, SK, UK

Universities cannot borrowCH, HE (DE), HU, NO, PT, RS

6/04/2017

Ownership of real estate: Universities generally can own their buildings in principle

Universities can own real estateAT, BE-FL, BE-FR, CH, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IS, IE, IT, LU, LV, NL, NO, PL, PT, SI, SK, UK

Universities cannot own real estateBB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), HU, LT, RS, SE

6/04/2017

Capacity to sell real estate: Only ¼ of systems do not impose restrictions to universities on the sale

Universities own real estate, and can sell without restrictionsAT, DK, EE, ES, IT, NL, SK, UK

Universities own real estate, and can sell with external approvalCH, HR, IS, LU, NO, SI

Universities own real estate, other restrictions apply to sellingBE-FL, BE-FR, FI, FR, IE, LV, PL, PT

Universities cannot own real estateBB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), HU, LT, RS, SE

6/04/2017

Tuition fees for national Bachelor studentsStrongly regulated area but different models

6/04/2017

Universities can set fees freely

Universities cooperate with external authorities

Universities can set fees under an externally-set ceiling

Fees are set externally

Universities may not charge fees

Tuition fees for international students (Bachelor and Master)More diversityEvolving picture & policy experimentation

Universities can set fees freely

Universities cooperate with external authorities

Universities can set fees under an externally-set ceiling

Fees are set externally

Universities may not charge fees

6/04/2017

Financial autonomy –trends

More systems resort to multi-annual financial planning, although

maintain annual allocation of funds

Worrying trends linked to allocation of scarce resources:

increased earmarking of public funds

budget cuts reducing the universities’ scope for strategic financial

management

increased state involvement in financial decisions

Persistence of measures taken in the context of the economic

crisis – more constrained regulatory frameworks

6/04/2017

Financial Autonomy

Increase

Stable

Decrease

New

Evolution from 2010

6/04/2017

Financial autonomy

Rank System Score

1 Luxembourg 91%

2 Latvia 90%


4Estonia 77%

The Netherlands 77%

6 Flanders (BE) 76%

7

Italy 70%

Portugal 70%

Slovakia 70%

10 Denmark 69%

11 Finland 67%

12 Switzerland 65%

13 Ireland 63%

14 Lithuania 61%

15Croatia 60%Iceland 60%

17 Austria 59%18 Slovenia 57%19 Sweden 56%20 Spain 55%21 Poland 54%

22French-speaking community of Belgium

52%

23 Serbia 46%24 France 45%25 Brandenburg (DE) 44%26 North Rhine-Westphalia (DE) 43%27 Norway 42%28 Hungary 39%29 Hesse (DE) 35%

6/04/2017

Financial autonomy scores





Clusters

6/04/2017










non-EU students








programmes

6/04/2017

Staff recruitment:Recruitment of senior academic staff remains heavily regulated

Senior academic staff

Universities can decide freely on recruitmentBE-FL, CH, DK, EE, FI, IS, LU, NL, NO, RS, SK, UK

Universities cannot decide freely on recruitment (restrictions apply)AT, BE-FR, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, PL, PT, SE, SI

Senior administrative staff

Universities can decide freely on recruitmentAT, BE-FL, BE-FR, CH, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), EE, FI, IS, LT, LU, LV, NL, NO, PL, SE, SK, UK

Universities cannot decide freely on recruitment (restrictions apply)DK, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, PT, RS, SI



6/04/2017

Staff salaries:Universities are rarely able to decide autonomously on salaries, especially for academic staff


Universities can decide on salariesCH, EE, LU, LV, PL, SE

Decisions on individual salaries are restricted due to an overall limit for all staff salariesBE-FL, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE)

Salary bands negotiated with other partiesDK, FI, IS, NL, NO, UK

Salary bands set externally for some or allBB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), FR, HU, IE, LT, RS

Salaries set by an external authority / civil servant status for some or allAT, BE-FR, ES, HR, IT, PT, SI, SK

Other restrictionsBE-FL, HU, IE, NO, PL


Universities can decide on salariesCH, EE, LT, LU, PL, SE, UK

Decisions on individual salaries are restricted due to an overall limit for all staff salariesBE-FL

Salary bands negotiated with other partiesBB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), FI, IS, NL, NO

Salary bands set externally for some or allDK, FR, HU, IE, RS

Salaries set by an external authority / civil servant status for some or allAT, BE-FR, ES, HR, IT, PT, SI, SK

Other restrictionsBE-FL, HU, IE, LV, PL

Universities can decide on salaries

Decisions on individual salaries are restricted due to an overall limit

for all staff salaries

Salary bands negotiated with other parties

Salary bands set externally for some or all

Salaries set by an external authority / civil servant status for some

or all

Other restrictions

6/04/2017

Career development: Restrictions often apply for promotions –higher posts must be available, the composition of the committee is prescribed by law


Universities can freely decide on promotions AT, BE-FL, CH, EE, FI, IS, NL, PL, SE, SI, SK, UK

Universities cannot decide freely on promotions (restrictions apply)BE-FR, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), DK, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NO, PT, RS


Universities can freely decide on promotionsAT, BE-FL, CH, EE, FI, IS, LU, LV, NL, NO, PL, SE, SK, UK

Universities cannot decide freely on promotions (restrictions apply)BE-FR, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), DK, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, PT, RS, SI



6/04/2017

Staffing autonomy -trends

• Rather stable dimension

• Restrictions most often in salary setting or dismissal

• Half of the systems have civil servant status for a majority of

senior university staff, but tendency of phasing out in several

countries

• Employment modalities of senior academic staff tend to be more

regulated than those of senior administrative staff

• The economic crisis continues to affect staffing policies

6/04/2017

Staffing Autonomy

Increase

Stable

Decrease

New

Evolutionfrom 2010

6/04/2017

Staffing autonomy

Rank System Score

1 Estonia 100%

2 Sweden 97%


4 Switzerland 95%

5 Luxembourg 94%

6 Finland 92%

7 Latvia 89%

8 Denmark 86%

9 Poland 84%

10 Lithuania 83%


12Austria 73%

The Netherlands 73%

14 Iceland 68%

15

Hesse (DE) 63%North Rhine-Westphalia (DE) 63%Norway 63%

18 Portugal 62%19 Slovakia 61%

20Brandenburg (DE) 58%Serbia 58%

22 Hungary 50%23 Spain 48%

24

French-speaking community of Belgium

44%

Italy 44%Slovenia 44%

27France 43%Ireland 43%

29 Croatia 37%

6/04/2017

Staffing Autonomy Scores





Clusters

6/04/2017










non-EU students








programmes

6/04/2017

Overall student numbers:• Continued plurality of models• Pressures on free admission• Negotiation most frequent option

Exclusive decision of the universitiesEE, IE, IT, LU, NO, SE, UK

Universities decide on the number of fee-paying students while the external authority defines the number of state-funded study placesHR, HU, LT, LV

Universities negotiate with an external authorityBB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), DK, ES, FI, IS, PL, PT, SI,SK

Exclusive decision of an external authorityRS

Free admissionAT, BE-FL, BE-FR, CH, FR, NL

6/04/2017

Admission criteria at Bachelor levelUniversities are exclusively responsible for admission in less than 1/3 of the systems

Universities can set admission criteria

Admission criteria are co-regulated between universities and an external authority

Admission criteria are entirely regulated by an external authority

6/04/2017

Admission criteria at Master levelGreater autonomy for universities in student selection

Universities can set admission criteria

Admission criteria are co-regulated between universities and an external authority

Admission criteria are entirely regulated by an external authority

6/04/2017

Introduction of new degree programmes:Several systems are engaged in a transition away from programmeaccreditation

Universities can open degree programmes without accreditationAT, CH, IE, LU, NO, PL, SE, UK

All new degree programmes/courses must be submitted to prior accreditation to be fundedES, FR, HR, NL

All new degree programmes/courses must be submitted to prior acreditation to be introducedBE-FL, BE-FR, HU, IT, LT, PT, RS, SI, SK

Other restrictionsEE, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), DK, FI, IS, LV 6/04/2017

Language of instruction: Are universities free to choose their language of instruction?

Bachelor programmes

Universities can choose the language of instruction for all programmesAT, CH, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), DK, EE, ES, FI, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, NO, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK

Restrictions on the use of foreign languages applyBE-FL, BE-FR, FR, HR, IS, LT, LV, RS, SI

Master's programmes

Universities can choose the language of instruction for all programmesAT, CH, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), DK, EE, ES, FI, HU, IE, IS, IT, LU, NL, NO, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK

Restrictions on the use of foreign languages applyBE-FL, BE-FR, FR, HR, LT, LV, RS, SI

Master's programmes

Bachelor

programmes

6/04/2017

Choice of quality assurance provider:The creation of a national QA agency in some countries limits previously existing options for universities

Universities can choose a provider freely according to their needs (including countries from other agencies)AT, CH, BB (DE), HE (DE), NRW (DE), EE, FI, HU

Universities cannot choose the quality assurance agencyBE-FL, BE-FR, DK, ES, FR, HR, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, NO, PL, PT, RS, SE, SI, SK, UK

6/04/2017

Academic autonomy -Trends

Different models to determine overall student numbers; pressures

on free admission

Accreditation systems are in transition in a series of countries

Greater number of positive developments in comparison to the

other autonomy dimensions

Universities in Europe still have little freedom in choosing QA

mechanisms or providers

6/04/2017

Increase

Stable

Decrease

New

Academic Autonomy

Evolutionfrom 2010

6/04/2017

Academic autonomy

Rank System Score

1 Estonia 98%

2 Finland 90%

3

Ireland 89%

Luxembourg 89%

United Kingdom 89%

6Hesse (DE) 88%

North Rhine-Westphalia (DE) 88%

8 Brandenburg (DE) 87%

9 Norway 83%

10 Iceland 78%

11 Denmark 75%

12Austria 72%

Switzerland 72%

14 Poland 68%

15 Sweden 66%

16 Hungary 58%

17 Spain 57%

18Italy 56%

Slovakia 56%

20 Portugal 54%

21 Croatia 50%

22 The Netherlands 48%

23Latvia 46%

Serbia 46%

25 Slovenia 44%

26 Lithuania 42%

27 France 37%


29French-speaking community of Belgium 32%

6/04/2017

Academic Autonomy Scores





Clusters

6/04/2017

Impact on autonomy

Funding • Steering increasingly through funding mechanisms:

performance indicators, competition, contracts

• Budget cuts, heavier reporting, earmarking of funding, demands on efficiency

System structure, diversity and size• Concentration processes are on the rise – scope for

strategic governance?

• Special challenges for large, centralized systems6/04/2017

The objective should remain to meaningfully enhance the institutions’ ability to build strategic profiles

through the development of their academic offer,

supported by proper financial management capacity, adequate HR strategies and a reflection on the governance model.

6/04/2017

[email protected]@eua.be

Working together

For further information please contact:

• Privilege a holistic approach to university autonomy

• Identify priorities and aims, dialogue and structured implementation

EUA can support you with:

• Tailor-made support fostering a holistic approach to autonomy

• National events providing specific comparative analysis, including funding framework and structured dialogue

• Link to system events through EUA’s USTREAM project

6/04/2017

EUA autonomy scorecard III

Education

Transcript of EUA autonomy scorecard III