‘Significant gaps’ in university annual reporting data

Universities display “significant gaps” in their annual reports, according to new analysis.

A sector steering group undertook a review of reporting after finding that institutions lacked “holistic oversight” and that accountability for performance-reporting and oversight could be improved.

It reviewed how nine universities in the UK and Australia present themselves through annual reports and key performance indicators (KPIs), and the role of the governing bodies in monitoring performance on the value universities create for stakeholders.

Published by Advance HE, the report finds that certain indicators, such as student data, could be improved, while others, such as sexual misconduct, received very little coverage.

In addition, the majority of universities surveyed did not address their approach to value creation in a systematic way, only a few showed that the providers had identified and managed risks, and there was limited or no information on how emissions are calculated.

While most institutions had detailed reporting on diversity and inclusion, the survey found that it was often “more concerned with telling a positive story”.

The report concludes that there were “significant gaps” in universities’ annual reports, and that there are “inconsistencies” in the way KPIs are presented across the universities.

It says institutions could improve their reporting by benchmarking their annual reports against others in their sector, and following global standards and guidelines.

In a separate report, the steering group says that the annual report is the only written, official and publicly available source of holistic performance information, although it could be improved. 

“There seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy; annual reports are too long and it is perceived (though not evidenced) that people don’t read them, therefore they are of no value,” the steering group says.

The report urges regulators to consider incentivising good practice in annual reporting and reducing other levels of mandatory reporting.

The group also warns that KPIs relating to academic quality, student experience, and sustainability are “fragmented, reported in different places and are sometimes not strategic”.

It says that the report aims to address a persistent challenge for boards – “the holistic, strategic oversight of the performance of the institution”.

“Both are critical to reputation management but are fundamental to effective governance itself,” it adds.

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com