<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Christopher R. Schmidt</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">STATE LEVEL MECHANISMS FOR LEARNING FROM WHISTLEBLOWING CASES AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Problems of Management in the 21st Century</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">higher education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">internal audit</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">internal controls</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">organizational learning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">whistleblowing</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">June/2016</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2016/450-1468166580.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">11</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">State level mechanisms for soliciting, validating, and learning from whistleblower claims of fraud, theft, or misconduct against public colleges and universities are explored in four US states: California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio. Sequential public information requests were used to understand the methods that were used in each state, the types of claims that each state experienced, and to understand their processes for learning from such claims. The types of claims, breadth of scope that the claims span, and disposition of the claims is used to characterize each state’s approach and compare and contrast results with other states in the sample. There was a wide variation in responses and approaches used in each state. Varying from no information solicited or maintained (Michigan) to full histories that include case level detail (Ohio), excellent multi-year case tracking and reporting (California) to the voluminous tracking of every property loss or damage in every institution (Massachusetts). An organic rubric is developed and used to compare and contrast the responses and service level provided by each of the states. Although anonymous whistleblower claims are essential to the governance and administration of higher education, state level mechanisms vary widely in their approaches to administering this process and ensuring better future outcomes. Establishing a standard based upon best practices would ensure that institutions are making the best use of all information available to them to improve their immunity from employee fraud and theft and misconduct.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">43-56</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Christopher R. Schmidt</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">LEARNING POINTS FROM WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS AGAINST INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Problems of Management in the 21st Century</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">college and university administration</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">internal audit</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">internal controls</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">whistleblowing</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December/2015</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2015/450-1451415380.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The types of whistleblowing claims made against institutions of higher education are not well understood nor are the various mechanisms used to solicit, investigate, and learn from such claims at the institutional and state levels. This research obtained and analyzed whistleblower claims made against institutions of higher education and explores and facilitates a discussion around the value of learning opportunities that come from whistleblowing claims. Aggregate claims data and detail workpapers for claims made against the 45 publicly funded colleges and universities in the state of Ohio, in the midwestern United States was analyzed to identify patterns and areas of focus which could improve institutional processes and internal controls. Four areas resulted from the analysis: hiring and pay practices, prevention of the theft of institutional assets, prevention of the theft of student funds, and an institutional accreditation issue. All claims that were reported reflected real concerns on topics of strategic importance to institutions and their management practices, although not all were substantiated or corroborated. One quarter of the claims resulted in proven cases for recovery and prosecution. At the state level, completeness of investigation and administrative learning were sometimes not pursued due to the code enforcement nature of the governing bodies whose mandate was limited to the identification and prosecution of crimes, although improvement opportunities clearly existed. The case of Ohio demonstrates that open government and public information request processes can provide sufficient information to allow insight into the nature of the claims and to identify improvement opportunities for both the institution and state level administration. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original Article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">110–120 </style></section></record></records></xml>