Cyclical Review and Auditing Procedures

Purpose

The purpose of these Procedures is to set out the process for conducting the monitoring of new degree and diploma programs and the cyclical review of existing degree and diploma programs to ensure that they continue to meet provincial quality assurance requirements and to support their ongoing rigour and coherence. Further, these procedures set out the process for the cyclical audit conducted by the Quality Council, which reviews the University’s institutional quality enhancement Polices, Procedures and processes. New programs are monitored at the time of first intake and at least one year after the launch of the program. Cyclical reviews of established programs and the University audit occur at least once every 8 years.

Definitions

For the purposes of these Procedures the following definitions apply:

Academic Council: the most senior academic governance body of the institution

Degree: An academic credential awarded upon successful completion of a prescribed set and sequence of requirements as specified by a program and that meet a standard of performance consistent with University and provincial degree level expectations

Diploma: An academic credential awarded upon the successful completion of a prescribed set of degree credit courses as specified by a program. Diplomas are classified as concurrent and/or direct-entry

Faculty Council: established by Academic Council to approve new programs and courses, policies (including admissions), academic standards, curriculum and degree requirements, and long-range academic plans, at the Faculty level

Graduate Studies Committee (GSC): A standing committee of Academic Council responsible for reviewing graduate curriculum proposals and documents.

Ministry: the Ontario Ministry governing the affairs of Colleges and Universities.

New Program: any degree, degree program, or major, currently approved by Academic Council and the Board of Governors, which has not been previously approved by the Quality Council, its predecessors, or any intra-institutional approval processes that previously applied. A change of name, only, does not constitute a new program; nor does the inclusion of a new program of specialization where another with the same designation already exists (e.g., a new honours program where a major with the same designation already exists). To clarify, for the purposes of these Procedures, a “new program” is brand new: that is to say, the program has substantially different program requirements and substantially different learning outcomes from those of any existing approved programs offered by Ontario Tech University. The final determination of whether a proposed offering constitutes a new program will rest with the Provost.

Program: A complete set and sequence of courses, combination of courses, and/or other units of study, research and practice; the successful completion of which qualifies the candidate for a formal credential (degree with or without major; diploma)

Quality Council: the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance, established by the Council of Ontario Universities in July 2010, responsible for oversight of the Quality Assurance Framework processes for Ontario Universities. The Council operates at arm’s length from both Ontario’s publicly assisted universities and the Ontario government.  

Resource Committee: the university Academic Resource Committee or equivalent university body

Undergraduate Studies Committee (USC): A standing committee of Academic Council responsible for reviewing undergraduate curriculum proposals and documents.

Scope and authority

These Procedures apply to undergraduate and graduate degree and diploma programs and the associated governance processes, whether the programs are offered in full, in part, or conjointly by any institutions federated or affiliated with the university. It also applies to degree and diploma programs offered in partnership, collaboration or other such arrangement with other post-secondary institutions including colleges, universities or other institutes.

For those programs that are offered in more than one mode, at different locations, or having complementary components (e.g., bridging options, experiential education options, etc.), the distinct versions of the program will be identified and reviewed during new program monitoring and cyclical program review. The self-study brief will encompass all modes, locations, and components in one report.

Degree and Diploma Programs which have been approved but never launched, have been closed, or for which admission has been suspended, are not subject to these Procedures. Stand-alone Micro-credentials are also not subject to these Procedures.

The Provost, or successor thereof, is the Policy Owner and is responsible for overseeing the implementation, administration and interpretation of these Procedures.

Procedures

Monitoring of New Academic Programs

1. At the time of first intake into the Program, CIQE, working with the Office of Institutional Research and Analysis, will prepare an initial report that will review admissions and enrollment data and report on any changes made to the program since it was approved. This report will be reviewed by the Office of the Provost, through the Resource Committee, to assess any issues that may arise and determine if alternate plans are required to ensure the overall success of the Program.

2. One year after the launch of the Program, CIQE, working with the Academic Unit, will prepare a report that will review: enrolment and admissions data; success in realizing the program objectives, requirements, and learning outcomes; any changes made to the program since approval; and other key metrics to assess New Program effectiveness. This report will be reviewed by the Office of the Provost, through the Resource Committee, to assess any issues and determine if alternate plans are required to ensure the overall success of the Program.

3. Should any recommendations arise from the one-year report, additional monitoring and review may be required at the request of the Office of the Provost or the Resource Committee. An additional monitoring report, if required, will analyze key curricular and student data (e.g. student evaluations, GPA, retention data, etc.) as well as address the recommendations from the initial report. Pending review, further documentation may be required for ongoing monitoring.

4. Should the Quality Council require any follow-up reports, these shall be completed in accordance with the requirements outlined in the approval letter from the Quality Council.

5. New Programs will then be reviewed and refined on an ongoing basis in accordance with the Institutional Quality Assurance Policy. Specifically, approved Programs will be entered into the schedule of academic program reviews and the first review will take place no more than eight years after the start of the Program, and every eight years hence, in accordance with Section 8 of these Procedures. The first cyclical review will take into consideration the outcomes of the intake, one-year, and any additional reports, as well as any aspects highlighted by the Quality Council as required during the program review.

Cyclical Review of Degree and Diploma Programs

Procedures for program reviews involve six components: the review and enhancement of program learning outcomes; the development a self-study brief by the program under review; external evaluation to provide recommendations on program quality improvement; internal response to review and recommendations; preparation and approval of a final assessment report and implementation plan; and subsequent reporting on the implementation of recommendations. Individuals may use the templates provided at www.ontariotechu.ca/ciqe as a guide to assist in the planning and implementation of the components of the cyclical review. It is expected that, unless otherwise specified below, all information, documents, and reports are not publicly accessible and will be afforded an appropriate level of confidentiality.

1. Appointment of Internal Assessment Team

   1. Upon notification that a program is up for review, the Faculty Dean will appoint an Internal Assessment Team (IAT), comprised of faculty, staff and students (current or recent graduate of the program). The Dean will also appoint a faculty member from the IAT to act as Chair. A faculty co-chair may be appointed, if necessary.

   2. The proposed IAT will be submitted to CIQE, and will be approved by the Provost.

2. Review and Enhancement of Program Learning Outcomes
   The IAT chair, in consultation with the IAT, will review and enhance the program learning outcomes, and map them to the degree level expectations (either undergraduate or graduate) set out by the Ministry.
   

   1. The IAT will engage in a program learning outcome enhancement process where they will review and revise their program learning outcomes. These revisions will lay the groundwork for the program for the upcoming seven years. The program and course learning outcomes must be reviewed and revised using resources provided by CIQE and the Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC). It is strongly recommended that the IAT and other program faculty participate in learning outcome sessions hosted by CIQE and TLC; alternatively, the revised program learning outcomes must be reviewed and approved by CIQE and TLC prior to the scheduling of the External Review.  The IAT will then map the revised program learning outcomes to the appropriate degree level expectations (DLEs) using resources provided by CIQE and the Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC).

   2. After the map to the degree level expectations is complete, the IAT will map their current course offerings to the revised program learning outcomes and analyze the results.

   3. The revised program learning outcomes and DLE map, once approved by the IAT, will be an appendix to the self-study document.

3. Self-Study Briefs
   The self-study brief will form the basis of the program review and must clearly set out the indicators of program quality, as outlined in the Evaluation Criteria, against which the program is to be assessed.  The brief may also identify specific aspects of the program on which feedback is sought. A template for the proposal will be provided through the Centre for Institutional Quality Enhancement via the website at www.ontariotechu.ca/ciqe.
   

   1. Self-study briefs for each program under review must be prepared and reviewed by a Program Review Internal Assessment Team (IAT).

   2. The IAT will work in collaboration with the Centre for Institutional Quality Enhancement (CIQE) to pull together key institutional data and other indicators of program quality that will inform the self-study.

   3. The brief should be broad-based, reflective and forward-looking and should demonstrate how the program advances the University’s mission.

   4. The brief must also present evidence to support an assessment of the program requirements, program learning outcomes and degree level expectations, along with the human and physical resources involved.

   5. The brief should address any concerns and recommendations raised in previous reviews.

   6. The brief will include a short description of the process by which the self-study was prepared, including faculty, staff, and student input and involvement.

   7. The brief will also identify specific aspects of the program on which feedback is sought, including any consideration of the principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization; areas requiring improvement and those that hold promise for enhancement; any unique curriculum or program innovations, creative components, or significant high impact practices; as well as academic services that directly contribute to the academic quality of the program. The brief will incorporate feedback sought from representatives from industry, the professions or employers, where appropriate.

   8. Upon its completion, the Faculty, and the Dean, will review the self-study brief to ensure that it presents the full range of evidence to support an assessment of program quality.  The Dean may also highlight any areas of opportunity or institutional constraints that may need to be taken into account as part of the review.

4. External Review and Reporting

   1. The Dean, in consultation with the IAT, will recommend to the Provost, at least 5 individuals to serve as external reviewers of the Program.

      1. Reviewers must be external to the University, will normally be tenured (or equivalent) and will have suitable disciplinary expertise, qualifications and program management experience, including an appreciation of pedagogy and learning outcomes, tenured or equivalent, have program management experience at another university, and be at arm’s length to the program under review, as outlined in the Proposed External Reviewer’s form and on the Quality Council’s website.

      2. For undergraduate programs, two reviewers are required, with both being external to the university. At least one of the reviewers must currently be at a Canadian post-secondary institution.

      3. For graduate programs, at least two reviewers external to the university are required. At least one of the reviewers must currently be at a Canadian post-secondary institution. A third internal reviewer, external to the program, may additionally be included.

      4. For each External reviewer candidate, the recommendation must be accompanied by a rationale for the selection and a detailed biographical statement that outlines their academic expertise, administrative experience, accomplishments, and research.

      5. External reviewer forms are sent to CIQE to be reviewed and approved by the Provost. CIQE will contact approved proposed reviewers to maintain arms-length process and ensure that the required number of reviewers are engaged to review the Program.

   2. CIQE, in consultation with the Faculty, will organize a site visit to provide an opportunity for the reviewers to assess the standards and quality of the program and to prepare a report that addresses the University’s program quality review Evaluation Criteria.

      1. External review of doctoral program must incorporate an on-site visit. External review of undergraduate programs, and certain Master’s programs (e.g. professional Master’s programs, fully online) will normally be conducted on-site, but the Provost (or delegate) may propose that the review be conducted by desk audit, virtual site visit, or an equivalent method if the external reviewers are satisfied that the off-site option is acceptable. The Provost (or delegate) will also provide a clear justification for the decision to use these alternatives. An on-site visit is required for all other proposed master’s programs.

      2. In advance of the site visit, or prior to the desk audit, CIQE will send to the reviewers the unit’s self-study brief, a cover letter by the Dean, along with any additional material or information that may be needed to inform the assessment.

      3. On the first morning of the site visit, or prior to the desk audit, the Provost or their designate will meet with the reviewer(s) to outline the process for review and the roles and responsibilities of the reviewer.

      4. During the site visit, reviewers will have an opportunity to meet with the IAT, and with other faculty, students, staff, senior academic administrators, and any others who can most appropriately provide informed comment, such as representatives from industry, the professions or employers, to discuss aspects of the self-study in the context of the program quality review criteria.

      5. Reviewers will be required to respect the confidentiality of all aspects of the process and recognize the institution’s autonomy to determine priorities for funding, space and faculty allocation. Commentary or recommendations on issues such as faculty complement and/or space requirements, that are within the purview of the university’s budgetary decision-making processes, must be tied directly to issues of program quality or sustainability.

   3. Reviewers will submit a report to the Dean, through CIQE, which addresses the substance of the self-study and the program quality review Evaluation Criteria. A template for the report will be provided by CIQE.

      1. Normally, the report will be prepared jointly by the reviewers and will contain at least three recommendations.

      2. Reviewers will be invited to acknowledge and provide evidence of any clearly innovative aspects of the program, including in the content and/or delivery of the program relative to other such programs, together with recommendations on specific steps to be taken to improve the program, distinguishing between those the program can itself take, and those that require external action.

      3. Reviewers will also be asked to identify and commend notably strong and creative attributes of the program; describe the program’s strengths, areas for improvement, and opportunities for enhancement; and identify distinctive attributes of each discrete program/mode of delivery/site, where applicable.

      4. Normally, the report will be completed within 30 days of the site visit.

      5. Upon submission, CIQE will review the external reviewers’ report to ensure it meets the requirements stated in Article 8.4.3. If additional details or clarification are needed from the reviewers, CIQE will reach out to the reviewers to request this in a revised report.

5. Response to Report

   1. Upon receipt of the reviewers’ report(s), the Dean and the IAT will consider its recommendations, including consideration of any financial or other resource implications.

      1. The IAT Chair will solicit feedback from program faculty and, in consultation with the IAT, will prepare and send to the Dean the Program’s response to the reviewers’ report that will include a summary of the program strengths, opportunities for improvement and a response to the recommendations put forward by the reviewers. A template for the program’s response report will be provided through CIQE.

      2. Using the Program’s response report as a guideline, the Dean, working in consultation with the Office of the Provost, will prepare a separate decanal response to the reviewers’ report. The response will include the Dean’s assessment and prioritization of the recommendations and an Implementation Plan including resource requirements, a timeline for acting on and monitoring the implementation of the recommendations, and persons/area responsible for acting on the recommendations. A template for the decanal response and Implementation Plan will be provided through CIQE. The Dean will solicit Faculty feedback on the Implementation Plan through Faculty Council. 

      3. The Implementation Plan will be reviewed by the Provost, through the Resource Committee, to examine resource implications and allocations. The Resource Committee will create a summary report of its review.

6. Approval Process

   1. Using the self-study brief, together with the reviewers’ report(s), the Dean’s and Program’s responses, the Implementation Plan, and the Resource Committee’s summary report, CIQE will prepare a Final Assessment Report (FAR). If confidential information is presented in any of the documentation used to prepare the FAR this information will be included only in an appendix. The appendix will be afforded the appropriate level of confidentiality within the Office of the Provost and will be withheld from distribution.

      1. The FAR will synthesize the reports and recommendations resulting from the review, identify the strengths of the program as well as the opportunities for program improvement and enhancement.

      2. The FAR will list all recommendations of the external reviewers and the associated separate internal responses and assessments from the Program and the Dean.  Explanation for reviewer recommendations not selected for further action in the Implementation Plan, as well as any additional recommendations that the Program, the Dean and/or the university may have identified as requiring action as a result of the program’s review, will be included.

      3. CIQE will also prepare an Executive Summary to the FAR as to be suitable for publication.

   2. The FAR (excluding the appendix, if applicable), Executive Summary, and Implementation Plan, will be presented to the appropriate standing committee of Academic Council (USC or GSC) for approval.

   3. In those cases where the program review cycle includes both undergraduate and graduate programs, separate reviews will be conducted and reports will be submitted to the USC and GSC concerning the reviews relevant to the mandate of each committee.

   4. It is expected that the reports and recommendations will be afforded an appropriate level of confidentiality.

   5. The Executive Summary and Implementation Plan is provided to Academic Council and the Board of Governors for information. The FAR, Executive Summary, and Implementation Plan will be sent to the Quality Council as required under the Quality Assurance Framework.

   6. The Executive Summaries and Implementation Plans are then posted on the Ontario Tech corporate website.

   7. The approved FAR, Executive Summary, and Implementation Plan will be provided to the Faculty, through the Dean, as primary owner. These will serve as the basis for the continuous improvement and monitoring of the program.  The Faculty is responsible for subsequent reporting and monitoring of the Implementation Plan, as outlined in Section 8.7.

7. Subsequent Reporting and Monitoring of the Implementation of Recommendations

   1. Eighteen months following the completion of the review, the Office of the Provost will request from the Dean of the Faculty a brief follow up report that outlines the progress that has been made in implementing the agreed upon plans for improvement. The report will be sent to the Resource Committee for review.

   2. If outstanding items remain from the Implementation Plan at the time of the eighteen-month report, the Resource Committee will review these outstanding items with the Dean of the Faculty. The Committee may recommend further monitoring of these items on a case-by-case basis.

   3. A summary of the progress report will be approved by the appropriate standing committee of Academic Council (USC or GSC).

   4. A summary of the progress report will be included in the reporting to Academic Council on program reviews.

   5. The summary report is then posted on the Ontario Tech corporate website.

8. Review of Joint or Collaborative Programs

   1. Joint programs, and other programs offered in collaboration with other post-secondary institutions, will ensure that the required quality assurance requirements of both institutions are met.

   2. When the program is held jointly with an institution that does not have an IQAP that has been ratified by the Quality Council, the Ontario Tech IQAP Policy and associated Procedures will apply with Ontario Tech as the leading institution.

   3. In cases where the program is held jointly with an institution that does have an IQAP ratified by the Quality Council, the Office of the Provost, through CIQE, will collaborate with the partner institution to develop a process and associated templates that will address all requirements of each institution’s IQAP. Specifically, the collaboration will address:

      1. The selection of external reviewers
      2. Templates to be used for a single self-study and required reports from the external reviewers, program team, and Dean(s)
      3. The location(s) or the site visit(s), timing for program review, and subsequent reporting
      4. The development of a joint committee to review the program
      5. The process for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of recommendations after the review

      6. The lead institution for the purposes of submission to the Quality Council

Review of Joint or Collaborative Programs

1. Joint programs, and other programs offered in collaboration with other post-secondary institutions, will ensure that the required quality assurance requirements of both institutions are met. 
2. When the program is held jointly with an institution that does not have an IQAP that has been ratified by the Quality Council, the Ontario Tech IQAP Policy and associated Procedures will apply with Ontario Tech as the leading institution.
3. In cases where the program is held jointly with an institution that does have an IQAP ratified by the Quality Council, the Office of the Provost, through CIQE, will collaborate with the partner institution to develop a process and associated templates that will address all requirements of each institution’s IQAP. Specifically, the collaboration will address:
   1. The selection of external reviewers
   2. Templates to be used for a single self-study and required reports from the external reviewers, program team, and Dean(s)
   3. The location(s) or the site visit(s), timing for program review, and subsequent reporting
   4. The development of a joint committee to review the program
   5. The process for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of recommendations after the review
   6. The lead institution for the purposes of submission to the Quality Council

Quality Council Cyclical Audit

In accordance with the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF), the University is subject to a Cyclical Audit by the Quality Council, at least once every eight years. The Quality Council has established the schedule of institutional participation in the audit process within the eight-year cycle and publishes the agreed schedule on its website. The Cyclical Audit provides necessary accountability to post-secondary education’s principal stakeholders by assessing the degree to which the University’s internally-defined quality assurance processes, procedures, and practices align with and satisfy the agreed upon standards, as set out in the QAF.

Specifically, the Cyclical Audit will: 

• Review institutional changes made in policy, process, and practice in response to the recommendations from the previous audit
• Confirm the University’s practice is in compliance with its IQAP as ratified by the Quality Council and note any misalignment of its IQAP with the Quality Assurance Framework; and
• Review institutional quality enhancement practices that contribute to continuous improvement of programs, especially the processes for New Program Approvals and Cyclical Program Reviews

1. The Audit Team
   
   

   Normally three auditors, selected from the Audit Committee’s membership by the Quality Assurance Secretariat, conduct the Cyclical Audit. These auditors will be at arm’s length from the University undergoing the audit. Members of the Quality Assurance Secretariat accompany the auditors on their site visit and constitute the remainder of the Audit Team.

2. Scope of the Audit

   1. The Audit Team will independently select a sample of programs for audit that represent the development of new Degree programs under the New Program Procedures (normally two examples of new programs) and Section 8 of the Cyclical Review and Auditing Procedures (normally three or four examples of programs that have undergone a Cyclical Program Review). New Degree programs and Cyclical Program Reviews undertaken within the period since the previous Audit are eligible for selection. 

   2. Diploma Programs and Micro-credentials that have been developed under the New Program Procedures and changes made under the Curriculum Change Procedures or Program Closure Procedures will not normally be subject to audit.

   3. A small sample of new programs still in development and/or cyclical program reviews that are still in progress may also be selected, in consultation with the University. If so, documentation associated with these in-progress processes will not be required for submission for audit. Instead, the auditors will ask to meet with the program representatives to gain a better understanding of current quality practices.

   4. Specific areas of focus may also be added to the audit when an immediately previous audit has documented Causes for Concern, or when the Quality Council so requests. The University will be informed of the specific areas of focus in the letter from the Quality Assurance Secretariat that also details the programs selected for audit. The University itself may also request that specific programs and/or quality enhancement elements be audited.

3. Pre-Audit Orientation and Briefing
   The Quality Assurance Secretariat will schedule an in-person, half-day briefing approximately one year prior to the University’s scheduled Cyclical Audit. During this briefing, the Quality Assurance Secretariat and a member of the Audit Team will provide an orientation on what to expect from the Cyclical Audit to the University Key Contact, key CIQE staff members, and any other relevant stakeholder(s) as determined by the Provost or designate.
   

4. Self-Study

   1. In consultation with the Provost, CIQE will prepare a self-study, which reflects on past and current policies and practices and the extent to which the University demonstrates a focus on continuous improvement in the development of new programs and the cyclical review of existing ones. The self-study will present and assess the quality enhancement processes, including challenges and opportunities, within its own institutional context and pay particular attention to issues, if any, flagged in the previous Audit.

   2. CIQE will also prepare a package of all relevant documentation for each program selected for audit, including all items related to each step outlined in the Procedures. The self-study and document packages are submitted by CIQE to the Quality Assurance Secretariat in advance of the desk audit.

   3. The documentation to be submitted for audit will include, but is not limited to:

      • All templates, proposal briefs/self-studies, reports and responses, minutes of meetings, and any other relevant documents and other information related to the programs selected for audit, as requested by the Audit Team;

      • A record of any revisions of the university’s IQAP, as ratified by the Quality Council; and

      • The annual report of any minor revisions of the university’s IQAP that did not require Quality Council re-ratification.

5. Audit Team Review

   1. Desk Audit
      

      The auditors will first undertake a desk audit of the University’s quality enhancement practices, which will determine whether the University’s practice is in compliance with the IQAP and will also note any misalignment of the IQAP with the QAF. The desk audit serves to raise specific issues and questions to be pursued during the on-site visit and to facilitate an effective and efficient audit. The auditors will undertake to preserve the confidentiality required for all documentation and communications and to meet all applicable requirements of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

   2.  Site Visit
      After the desk audit, auditors will normally visit the University over two or three days. The principal purpose of the on-site visit is for the auditors to get a sufficiently complete and accurate understanding of the University’s application of the IQAP in the pursuit of continuous improvement of programs. Further, the site visit will serve to answer questions and address information gaps that arose during the desk audit and assess the degree to which the institution’s quality enhancement practices contribute to continuous improvement.
      

      1. CIQE, in consultation with the Office of the Provost and the auditors, will establish the program and schedule for the site visit. In the course of the site visit, the auditors speak with the university’s senior academic leadership including those who the IQAP identifies as having important roles in the governance process.

      2. The auditors also meet with representatives from those programs selected for audit, students, and representatives of units that play an important role in ensuring program quality and success.

6. Audit Report

   1. Following the conduct of an audit, the auditors will prepare a report that will be approved by the Quality Council. The report, which is to be suitable for publication, comments on the institution’s commitment to the culture of engagement with quality assurance and continuous improvement and will meet the requirements as outlined in Section 6.2.7 of the QAF. The report shall not contain any confidential information.

   2. A separate addendum will provide the University with detailed findings related to the audited programs. This addendum is not subject to publication. The report may include findings in the form of Suggestions, Recommendations, and/or Causes for Concern.

   3. The Audit Report also includes recommendations for the Quality Council to take one or more steps, as appropriate, as outlined in Section 6.2.7 of the QAF. This may include participation in a Focused Audit, as described in Section 9.10 below.

   4. The Quality Assurance Secretariat submits the Audit Report to the Audit Committee for consideration. Once the Audit Committee is satisfied with the Report, it makes a conditional recommendation to the Quality Council for approval of the Report, subject only to minor revisions resulting from the fact checking stage.

   5. The Quality Assurance Secretariat provides a copy to the University, via the Provost, for fact checking. This consultation is intended to ensure that the report does not contain errors or omissions of fact but not to discuss the substance or findings of the report. CIQE will prepare a report, for submission by the Provost, on the factual accuracy of the draft report within 30 days. If needed, the Provost can request an extension of this deadline by contacting the Quality Assurance Secretariat and providing a rationale for the request. This response becomes part of the official record and the audit team may use it to revise their report. However, the fact checking response will not be published on the Quality Council’s website. When substantive changes are required, the draft report will be taken back to the Audit Committee.

   6. Upon approval by the Quality Council, the Quality Assurance Secretariat sends the approved report to the university with an indication of the timing for any required follow-up.

7. University Response to Report

   1. When a Follow-up Response Report is required, the University, through CIQE, will submit the Report within the specified timeframe, detailing the steps it has taken to address the recommendations and/or Cause(s) for Concern.

   2. If the Audit Team is satisfied with the University’s Follow-up Response Report, it will draft a report on the sufficiency of the response. The auditors’ report, suitable for publication, is then submitted to the Audit Committee for consideration.

   3. If the Audit Team is not satisfied with the response, the Audit Team will consult with the University, through the Quality Assurance Secretariat, to ensure the follow-up response is modified to satisfy the requirements of the Audit Report. In so doing, the University will be asked to make any necessary changes to the follow-up response within a specified timeframe.

   4. The Audit Committee will submit a recommendation to the Quality Council to accept the university’s follow-up response and associated auditors’ report.

8. Publication of the Results of the Audit

   1. The Quality Assurance Secretariat will publish the approved report of the overall findings, absent the addendum that details the findings related to the audited programs, together with a record of the recommendations on the Quality Council’s website.

   2. The University will also publish the report (absent the previously specified addendum) on its website.

   3. The Quality Assurance Secretariat publishes any Follow-up Response Report and the auditors’ report on the scope and adequacy of the university’s response on the Quality Council website and sends a copy to the University for publication on its website.

   4. A report on all audit-related activity is provided to the Ontario Council of Academic Vice-Presidents (OCAV), the Council of Ontario Universities (COU), and the Ministry through the Quality Council’s Annual Report.

9. Outcomes of the Cyclical Audit
   The Audit Report describes the extent to which the University is compliant with the IQAP and approximates best practice. Based on the findings in its Report, the Audit Committee will make recommendations about future oversight by the Quality Council and/or one or more of its Committees.
   

   1. When the Audit Report finds relatively high to very high degrees of compliance and good to best practices, the Audit Committee may recommend reduced Quality Council oversight in one or more areas of the University’s quality enhancement practices. The recommendation may include, but is not limited to, the elimination of the requirement for a Follow-up Response Report to the Audit Report and possibly a reduced set of documentation required for a subsequent audit.

   2. Alternatively, when the Audit Report identifies deficiencies in several areas of the University’s practices and/or systemic challenges, the Audit Committee may recommend increased oversight by the Quality Council. The nature of this oversight will be determined by the Quality Council and may include one or more of the following outcomes, which are less formal than the Cyclical Audit and, thus, will not replace it:

      • Increased reporting requirements;

      • A focused audit (Section 9.10, below); and/or

      • Any other action deemed appropriate by the Quality Council.

10. Focused Audit

    1. When an Audit Report has identified at least one Cause for Concern, the Audit Committee will recommend to the Quality Council that the specific area(s) of concern may require closer scrutiny and further support through a Focused Audit.

    2. A Focused Audit may also be triggered by the Quality Council when it has some concerns about the quality assurance processes at a particular university.

    3. A Focused Audit may take the form of a desk audit and/or an additional site visit. The Audit Committee will also recommend to the Quality Council a proposed timeframe within which the Focused Audit should take place.

    4. The Focused Audit Report

       1. Following the conduct of a Focused Audit, the auditors will prepare a report that will be approved by the Quality Council. The report will be suitable for subsequent publication, and will meet the requirements as outlined in Section 6.3 of the QAF.

       2. The Focused Audit Report may also include Suggestions, Recommendations, and/or Cause(s) for Concern.

       3. The report will be published on both the Quality Council and University websites. Other standard elements associated with a Cyclical Audit, such as the requirement for a one-year response, will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Monitoring and review

These procedures will be reviewed as necessary and at least every three years. The Office of the Provost, through the Center for Institutional Quality Enhancement, coordinates the day to day management of the quality assurance process, and works in collaboration with Deans and units to implement the procedures for developing and accessing academic programs. The Provost or successor thereof, is responsible to monitor and review this Policy.

Relevant legislation

This section is intentionally left blank.

Related policies, procedures & documents

Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance - Quality Assurance Framework

Institutional Quality Assurance Policy

Academic Resource Committee Terms of Reference

Program Nomenclature Directives

Protocols associated with consultation/development of Indigenous curriculum