Truth and Transparency: A deep-dive into University-Agency Relationships
Lindsay AddingtonAssistant Director, International InitiativesNational Association for College Admission Counseling
About NACAC
• National Association for College Admission Counseling
• Established in 1937
• Approximately 15,000 members in 50 countries• Admissions Professionals
• High School Counselors
• Independent Educational Consultants (IECs)
• 23 Regional affiliate organizations, including OACAC
• Risks to students and to schools
• Questions about the propriety of paying per-
capita compensation for student enrollments
Concerns Among NACAC membership
Higher Education Act: Incentive
Compensation Ban Statute
• Enacted in 1992 in response to waste, fraud and abuse discovered regarding
incentive-based recruitment and the Title IV federal financial aid program.
• “The institution will not provide any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment
based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial aid to any
persons or entities engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in
making decisions regarding the award of student financial assistance, except that
this paragraph shall not apply to the recruitment of foreign students residing in
foreign countries who are not eligible to receive Federal student assistance.” (20
U.S.C. 1094(a)(20))
NACAC’s Recent Engagement
March 2011
• Commission Convened
February 2013
• Department of International Initiatives
May 2013
• Commission Report Published
September 2013
• Change to SPGP
September 2014
• Change to SPGP
October 2015
• SPGP Motion
2013 SPGP Changes
All members agree that they will:
“not offer or accept any reward or remuneration from a secondary school, college, university, agency, or organization for placement or recruitment of students in the United States. Members who choose to use incentive based agents when recruiting students outside the U.S. will ensure accountability, transparency and integrity.”
2014 SPGP Changes
All members agree that they will: 1) “not offer or accept any reward
or remuneration from a secondary school, college, university, agency, or organization for placement or recruitment of students in the United States.”
2) “not employ agents who are compensates on a per capita basis when recruiting students outside the United States unless ensuring they and their agents conduct themselves with accountability, transparency, and integrity.”
Utilization of International Student Recruitment Agents (US HEI)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NACAC Admission Trends Survey (preliminary data)
AACRAO International Student Recruitment Practices 60 SecondSurvey
Inside Higher Ed Survey of College and University Admission Directors
Inside Higher Ed Survey of College and University Admission Directors
OACAC Member Survey
American Council on Education: Mapping Internationalization on USCampuses
Inside Higher Ed Survey of College and University Admission Directors
NACAC Admission Trends Survey
20
15
201
52
014
201
32
013
201
22
01
12
01
0
0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
90,00%
100,00%
Formal Contract List Partners onWeb
Provide TrainingManual
In-persontraining
Assess studentsatisfaction
Other QA efforts
Institutional Practice: Working with Agents (ATS Preliminary Data, 2015)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Work with private recruitment agency
Attend overseas recruitment fairs
Partnerships with overseas high schools
Print or online advertising
Social media-based outreach
Other
Percentage of Schools Using Strategy
Among US high schools that actively recruit international students, use of agents is high (2014 Counseling Trends Survey data)
Assessing Campus Readiness, and Preparing
Identifying and Vetting Prospective Agency Contractors
Contracting and Legal Obligations
Training and Communications
Assessing and Improving Performance
2.
3.
4.
Who Can Help?
Get to Know an Agent
Verifying an Agent’s University Partnerships
Important to Know about Agent Practices
Your Responsibilities: What Universities Expect From You
2.
3.
4.
Partner ResearchPhase 1
• To understand the University-Agent relationship & drivers of behaviour
• To develop guidance & best practice (for UK universities)
Phase 2
• Understand legal frameworks in which we operate
• Are our contracts worth the paper they’re written on?
• What’s the value of codes of practice?
• What can we learn from other countries?
Research Questions
• Do national settings affect the utility of university-agent contracts?
• Do national settings create/provide different levels of protection for students, universities and agents?
• Do national settings affect how contracts are monitored and enforced?
• How do other regulatory mechanisms affect the utility of the university-agent contract (e.g. regulatory codes, etc.)
Preliminary Findings
Research Methods
Stage 1: Contract analysis (# of contracts)
Stage 2: Online survey
(# of valid
responses)US 16 34
UK 17 38
Australia 5 13
Total 38 85
Profile
Number of
partner agents
(Average)
Number of
countries
(Average)US (N =34) 34 9
UK (N=38) 98 41
Australia (N=12) 218 55
Total (N= 85) 89 30
20
36
67
34
0
20
40
60
80
US UK Australia Total
Profile
% of intl students compared to the total of ALL new students
% recruited via agents
Number of FTE staff dedicated to international recruitment
0,0%10,0%20,0%30,0%40,0%50,0%60,0%70,0%
Most predominant source country of
agents
China
India
Within the country
Other source countries listed:
• Brazil• Hong Kong• India• Indonesia• Japan• Malaysia• Pakistan• Russia• South Korea• Saudi Arabia• Spain• Thailand• Vietnam
Contentious Areas
• Using sub-agents
• Double dipping
• Fee mishandling
• Fraudulent documentation
• Low quality students
Contentious Areas: Stage 2 Preliminary Findings
Permitted or required Prohibited
Not specified in the contract
• Using sub-agents 36 45 26
• Double dipping 53 28 46
• Collecting deposit 11 73 35
• Collecting tuition fees7 76 36 (1)
• Arranging competence test 40 27 46
• Certifying documents 55 20 31
The purpose of a contract1. To manage risk• To establish a business relationship • To confirm commission level(s) • To prevent potential problems • To manage conflict • To safeguard the institution
2. To protect the prospective students
3. To safeguard the agents
4. To foster positive relationship outcomes • To maximise the number of international students recruited • To maximise student intake quality • To encourage agents’ collaborative behaviour
Approaches of contracting process
1. Risk mitigation approach
2. Principal (University) led approach
3. Process driven approach
4. Partnership approach
Control Mechanisms
• A detailed contract with agents
• An institutional code of conduct
Proactive Contracting
Goals: • To promote successful performances &
framework of relationships • To identify & eliminate root causes of potential
problems • To optimise risk & return and Minimise deterrent
when problems arise • To manage conflict & prevent litigation • To minimise costs & losses where they are
unavoidable
• The onus is on the institution.
“If you are not in control of your contracts, you are not in control of the business.”
– Tim Cummins, CEO, International Association of Contract &
Commercial Management (IACCM)
• The contract is not the goal; successful implementation is.
Preliminary Takeaways
Hot Topics Proposal made at NACAC Annual Conference
San Diego, CaliforniaOctober 3, 2015
• In the interest of transparency, that all NACAC member universities, when employing agents abroad, will list their names and contact information in an easily accessible portion of the university admissions website
• That NACAC prohibit members from engaging in the unethical practice of double-dipping, that is, the practice of receiving a fee from both a university and a prospective student and his or her family, for rendering the same services.
Discussion and Q&A
