1996 BC college, institute and agency system ... · 1996 BC College, Institute and Agency System...

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/welcome.htm

1996 BC College, Institute and Agency SystemAccountability Report

We would like to emphasize that this document is targeted to inform Ministry and Institutional contacts. The data in this report is derived from the 1996 KPI feasibility test and is subject to a number of definition, measurement and reporting inconsistencies. The report is produced for discussion purposes only.

Table of Contents

Purpose of this Report

The Need for Collective Accountability

Evolution of College System Accountability

Background to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

The KPIs and the Strategic Plan

KPIs: Part of the Ministry's Integrated Performance Management Plan

The 1996 KPI Implementation Summary

Participation

Completion

Transfer

Financial

Space Utilization

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/welcome.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2002 1:56:40 PM]

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/

http://www.gov.bc.ca/


Student Satisfaction

Employment

Employer Satisfaction

Appendices

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms: (Under Construction)

Appendix B: Participation Data

Appendix C: Completion Data

Appendix D: Financial Data

Tables and Diagrams

Table 1: Accountability Working Group Members

Table 2: College, Institute and Agency System Accountability Regime

Table 3: Strategic Alignment of the 1996 KPIs

Diagram 1: Performance Management Cycle

Table 4: 1996 KPI Implementation Summary

Table 5: Participation Measures - System Totals

Table 6: Credentials Completion - System Totals

Table 7: Course Completion Rate - System Totals

Table 8: Student Transfer - Level of Declared Preparedness

Table 9: Financial Measures - Overview



Table 10: Direct Education Costs as % of Total Operating

Table 11: Direct Instruction Costs Per Course Hour Equivalent

Table 12: Operating Revenue as % of Total Revenue

Table 13: Proposed Space Utilization Measures

Table 14: Student Satisfaction - Reasons for Enrolling Met

Table 15: Student Satisfaction - Studies Were Worthwhile

Table 16: Student Satisfaction - Quality of Teaching

Table 17: Student Employment - Current Main Activity

Table 18: Student Employment - Training Related Job

Table 19: Student Employment - Education Useful in Getting Job

Table 20: Student Employment - Education Useful in Performing Job

Return to Accountability Home Page


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/welcome.htm

http://www.gov.bc.ca/com/copy/

http://www.gov.bc.ca/com/disc/

http://www.gov.bc.ca/com/priv/

http://www.gov.bc.ca/aved/feed/

1996 Performance Report


PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

Target Audiences

● Institutional Accountability Contacts ● Bursars ● Registrars● Deans ● Instructors● Institutional Researchers ● Systems staff● Other interested parties in BC's Colleges, Institutes and Agencies.

Intended Use: To stimulate discussion and action in the review and improvement of the 1996 KPIs in time for the implementation of the 1997 KPIs.

What this Document Is

● A summary of the test year for the College, Institute and Agency System Key Performance Indicators.

● A summary of feasibility and meaningfulness of the definitions, collection and reporting processes.

● A presentation of information and data at a system level only and in summary format only.

What this Document Is Not

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/purpose.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:57:21 PM]




● An inter-institutional comparison.

● An analysis of the performance of the College, Institute and Agency System.

● An accurate assessment of actual performance due to definition, measurement and reporting inconsistencies with the data.

● Useful as a source of management information or a decision making tool for 1996.

Return to Report Home Page

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/purpose.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:57:21 PM]







The Need for Collective AccountabilityThe development and implementation of a performance measurement and reporting framework in the BC College, Institute and Agency System serves several purposes:

1. To respond to a growing demand for greater accountability in the use of provincial resources. Colleges, the Ministry and the provincial government will be better able to provide the public with meaningful performance related information.

2. To provide Treasury Board with better information regarding the performance of the college system and the benefits of investing in public post secondary education.

3. To establish an information process which will allow individual institutions to compare their own performance against a system-wide performance benchmark.

4. To provide a balanced score card on the progress being made towards the achievement of the strategic objectives of Charting a New Course.


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/need.htm [10/1/2002 1:57:31 PM]









Evolution of College System Accountability

Auditor General Report

1993: The Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia performed a value-for-money audit of the Ministry's stewardship of the budget for the provincial college system. While the OAG's report provided several recommendations on enhancing performance and outcomes measurement and reporting, it also acknowledged this to be an extremely challenging task.

CCAF Accountability Framework

1993: A special Task Force of college system and private sector practitioners customized the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation's (CCAF) 12 attributes of effectiveness framework for use in BC Colleges and Institutes. The result was a self assessment framework comprised of seven questions related to an institution's mandate, programs, student mix, student outcomes, resource administration, intellectual and physical resources and information management systems.

Institutional Pilots

1994: Three institutions piloted the CCAF framework in the context of institutional evaluations. A fourth institution developed a goals oriented evaluation process in the context of the CCAF framework. These pilots identified a need for greater comparability of institutional data and for high level college system performance benchmarks. This work provided the impetus for the Ministry and the college system to begin work on the development of a college system accountability framework.

Accountability Working Group (AWG)

1995: The Accountability Working Group (AWG) was formed with multi-institutional representation and members from various levels of responsibility within institutions. The AWG recommended a 1996 test of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in nine "Areas of Performance Interest." These are: participation, completion, transfer success, financial, space utilization, student satisfaction, employment, employer satisfaction and

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/evolut.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:57:37 PM]




institute employee satisfaction.

Strategic Planning Committee

1995: The Ministry struck a multi-stakeholder committee to create a strategic plan for the College, Institute and Agency System. The plan, entitled: " Charting a New Course" was completed in 1996 and specifies high level strategic goals in the areas of Access, Relevance and Quality, Affordability and Accountability. Charting a New Course drives the evolution of the Key Performance Indicators.

Data Definitions and Standards Project

1995: Was a busy year as the Ministry also initiated the critical "Data Definitions and Data Standards Project." This project will support most Ministry and institutional data requirements including the provision of Key Performance Indicators by establishing a common basis for the collection, maintenance and reporting of data across the college system. The Data Definitions project is investigating the feasibility of a data warehouse which will maintain core segments of the college system's data and will allow cost effective reporting.

1996 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

1996: In order to determine the feasibility and meaningfulness of the KPIs recommended by the AWG, the Ministry requested that all colleges, institutes and agencies submit KPI data on a test basis. This was a test to highlight the variations in existing data systems and the problems in aggregating institutional level data to provide a report at the system level. All institutions have or are reporting the KPI data, and most institutions included comments on how the accountability process and the KPIs themselves could be improved.


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/evolut.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:57:37 PM]

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/strategic/welcome.htm

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/datastandards/welcome.htm







Background to the 1996 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)The KPIs tested in 1996 were developed and proposed by the Accountability Working Group (AWG). The AWG membership included research expertise from institutions, (including those that had piloted the accountability framework), institute presidents, a board member, Ministry representatives and a consultant.

TABLE 1: AWG Members

Tom Austin: CHAIRDirector, Post Secondary Finance and Student AssistanceMinistry of Education, Skills and Training

Bob Matthews, Board MemberLangara College

Kathleen Bigsby, Program Evaluation OfficerAdvanced Education Council of BC

Mario Mazziotti, Director Institutional ResearchBritish Columbia Institute of Technology

Don Black, Director Institutional Research and PlanningOpen Learning Agency

John Meagher, Vice President EducationNorth Island College

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/back.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2002 1:57:42 PM]




Dan Cram, Director Institutional ResearchVancouver Community College

Paul Merner, Director Institutional ResearchCamosun College

Mary Hoekstra, Vice President. Finance & Admin.Vancouver Community College

Alastair Watt, Director Institutional ResearchUniversity College of the Cariboo

Dave Jackson, Coordinator Productivity & EffectivenessMinistry of Education, Skills and Training

Terence Weninger, PresidentCollege of New Caledonia

Gerald B. Kilcup, PresidentKwantlen University College

Don Young, PartnerKPMG

In determining the KPIs, the AWG members were asked, "what words would you use to describe the performance of the BC College, Institute and Agency System?" The answers to this question formed the nine "Areas of Performance Interest" under which specific performance is measured in more detail.

Once the Areas of Performance Interest were defined, the AWG broke into KPI Work Teams to research and propose specific measures. The teams reviewed the vast array of data processes being used to capture performance related information at institutions and the measures being used to report on performance.

To guide this work, the AWG established a series of principles for the selection of KPIs. To the greatest extent possible, KPIs were to:

● relate to goals of the college, institute and agency system;● include input, output and outcome data;● be clearly and consistently defined and assembled;● be of a limited number;● represent a balance to avoid over-emphasizing any single activity;● utilize existing data systems or be cost effective to compile, and;● capture as much activity as possible, including non-traditional and partnership delivery.

Valuable lessons were learned when the teams pre-tested the KPIs. For example, while the system accountability measures were targeted at high level performance, there was a natural tendency to want to expand the number and depth of individual measures. This became referred to as "KPI creep". It was only through the recognition of the additional institutional burden the KPI collection imposed that the AWG was able



to limit the KPIs to a reasonable number.

The development of the definitions for the KPIs was also difficult due to the diversity and complexity of data systems at the 21 institutions. Using a preliminary set of definitions, the KPI Work Teams found a comfortable level of data consistency at selected institutions. However, when these definitions were tested at other institutions with a different selection of program or delivery options, the KPI Teams found that the preliminary definitions were less inclusive.

It was clear to the AWG that a system wide test of the KPIs would be the best way to discover and resolve data inconsistencies and would help refine the KPIs and supporting definitions. Therefore, the AWG members recommended that the proposed KPIs be reported by all institutions in September of 1996.

The AWG recommendation was endorsed by the Council of Chief Executive Officers in March of 1996, and the Ministry began to receive the KPI data starting in September. The first reporting period was the 1995/1996 fiscal year.

This report summarizes the 1996 KPI data at the system level, identifies problems associated with the definition, collection and reporting, and describes a process for the resolution of the problems. The data presented in this report is subject to a number of definition questions that require resolution. It is produced for information and discussion purposes only.









The KPIs and the Strategic PlanTABLE 2: College, Institute and Agency System Accountability Regime

Provincial Objectives

(WHAT)

Planning & Strategies:

(HOW)

Performance Measurement &

Reporting:

(WHEN)

Responsibility:

(WHO)

Establish and communicate long and short term goals and objectives through system strategic plan and annual management letter.

Prepare annual operational plans and longer term action plans.

Report to Treasury Board and the Legislature annually.

Ministry of Education, Skills & Training

(MoEST)

Management letter from MoEST specifies annual agency targets.

System strategic plan provides long-term direction.

Prepare agency planning documents to respond to management letter and system strategic plan -- submit to MoEST.

Establish KPIs and Benchmarks

Submit annual reports based on performance contracts.

System-Wide Agencies

(Info. Mgt Centre, Curriculum, Transfer, Technology)

Management letter from MoEST specifies annual institutional targets.

System strategic plan provides long-term direction.

Prepare institutional planning documents to respond to management letter and system strategic plan -- submit to MoEST.

Annual reports include:

Staff & Class Data, Audited Financial Statements, Enrollments, PACS, KPIs & Benchmarks

Institutions

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/plan.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:57:50 PM]




While the development and refinement of KPIs would normally be preceded by a formal strategic plan and business plans which clearly specify high level goals and detailed objectives, the 1996 College System KPIs were developed before the Strategic Planning Committee began its work. In fact, the 1996 KPIs had already been developed and tested by the KPI Work Teams before the Strategic Planning Committee began in June of 1995.

How then did the AWG develop the measures in the absence of strategic goals? The AWG did not attempt to anticipate a detailed strategic direction. Instead the group referred to past discussions, statements and other indications of strategic goals, such as the 1993 Premier's Summit on Education and Training, in order to consider what formal goals may emerge. The understanding of College System objectives in this informal context helped the AWG formulate KPIs.

Using this approach, the AWG targeted KPIs at high level goals which were remarkably similar to those which ended up being articulated in Charting a New Course. In retrospect, this approach worked well as the Areas of Performance Interest and the KPIs themselves can be seen to line up well with the new strategic goals.

TABLE 3: Strategic Alignment of the 1996 KPIs

Access Relevance & Quality Affordability

Participation Completion & Transfer Revenues

Student Satisfaction Employment Costs

Space Utilization Institutional Climate Space Utilization

Employer Satisfaction Student Satisfaction


As part of the follow-up to this pilot year, the 1996 KPIs will be reviewed by a system wide committee. Part of the committee's mandate will be to consider how the KPIs can be improved or changed in 1997 to improve alignment with the system's strategic plan, "Charting a New Course". In the future, the KPIs and the accountability process will identify the progress the Ministry and the College, Institute and Agency System is making toward the attainment of the strategic goals articulated by the plan.


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/plan.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:57:50 PM]







KPIs: Part of the Ministry's Integrated Performance Management Plan

Diagram 1: Performance Management Cycle

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/part.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2002 1:58:12 PM]




1. Clear Objectives:

The Ministry, in partnership with the System, has prepared a Strategic Plan for all colleges institutes, and system-wide agencies. The plan, endorsed by the Minister, provides high level goals in four broad areas: Access, Relevance/Quality, Affordability and Accountability.

Timeline: Endorsement 1996. Implementation 1996-97 & Ongoing.

2. Effective Strategies to Meet Objectives:

The Ministry, system-wide agencies and institutions have reviewed the plan and are beginning to formulate the strategies necessary for the realization of its objectives. Processes, policies and organizational structures are being reformulated to facilitate the achievement of the strategic objectives.

Timeline: Ongoing in Alignment with Strategic Plan.

3. Aligned Management Information Systems and Processes:

The Ministry, in partnership with the College, Institute and Agency System has embarked on a Data Definitions and Standards initiative which will allow performance management and public accountability information to be generated, stored and extracted from the College, Institute and Agency System in a more consistent, timely and cost effective manner.

Management structures in the Ministry and in system-wide agencies will be aligned to provide a consistent and coordinated effort toward the achievement of the strategic objectives.

Timeline: Feasibility & Coordination 1996. Implementation 1997.

4. Performance Measurement and Reporting:

In partnership with the College System, the Ministry has begun testing a system-wide performance measurement and reporting framework. This will result in a set of balanced performance measures or Key Performance Indicators which all institutions will report annually. This data will form the basis of an annual performance report.

Timeline: Testing 1995/96 in 1996. Implement 1996/97 in 1997.

5. Real Consequences:

The Strategic Plan provides for a performance funding system to form part of the College System's funding formula. One part of the system, "performance ranges," is intended to provide rewards and penalties based on achievement of enrollment targets.

Timeline: Implemented 1997/98. Impact 1998/99.




The 1996 KPI Implementation SummaryTable 4: KPI Implementation Summary

1996 PILOT KPIs RESPONSIBILITY

Institutions Ministry

A: Participation

Unduplicated Headcount (Institutional Total) x

Unduplicated Registrations by KPI Program Area (Publicly Funded and Other) x

Course Hour Equivalents by KPI Program Area (Publicly Funded and Other) x

FTEs by KPI Program Area (Publicly Funded and Other) x

B: Completion

Credentials Completed by KPI Program Area (from <1 yr to >5 yrs) x

Courses Completed by KPI Program Area x

Course Attempts (Stable Enrolments) by KPI Program Area x

C: Transfer

Former Students' Declared Preparedness x

D: Financial Indicators

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/summary.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:58:20 PM]




Direct Education Costs as a Percentage of Total Operating Costs x

Direct Instructional Cost per Course Hour Equivalent x

Operating Revenue by Source as a Percentage of Total Revenue x

E: Space Utilization

room utilization (optional) x

seat utilization (optional) x

F: Student Satisfaction

Former Students' Declared Satisfaction x

G: Employment Indicators

Former Students' Declared Employment Status x

H: Employer Satisfaction

Extracts of BCLFDB Survey X


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/summary.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:58:20 PM]







Participation

Measurement Objective:

This Area of Performance Interest was recommended by the AWG in order to measure the system's level of performance in terms of services delivered. This is an input API, but a strategically important one that describes performance related to Access.

Measurement Development:

The AWG was unable to recommend a "participation rate" for this year's test. Instead, the AWG recommended the use of the measures below for 1996 and further examination be made for participation activity for the 1997/98 reporting year.

For 1995/96, Participation is broken down into:

● Unduplicated Headcount; ● Unduplicated Registrations;● Course Hour Equivalents, (CHE), and;● Full Time Equivalents, (FTEs).

Table 5: Participation Measures - System Totals

Participation UnduplicatedHeadcount

Unduplicated Registrations

Course Hour EquivalentsCHE

FTEs

KPI Program Area

InstitutionalTotal

Publicly Funded Other

PubliclyFunded Other

PubliclyFunded Other

Developmental 28,821 5,157 10,577,677 1,336,702 11,246 1,572

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/partic.htm (1 of 5) [10/1/2002 1:58:25 PM]




Career/Tech 49,289 1,035 15,956,995 219,577 20,484 391

Vocational 25,646 6,666 12,508,626 494,582 11,780 474

PT Vocational 87,418 47,098 3,064,671 1,022,611 3,310 1,014

Acad.: Yrs. 1&2 40,928 914 11,717,933 185,841 19,805 437

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 4,551 31 1,806,900 17,700 3,479 31

Apprenticeship 7,896 0 1,831,118 0 1,531 0

Total 265,449 244,549 60,901 57,463,920 3,277,012 71,633 3,920

IMPORTANT NOTE: This data is derived from the 1996 KPI feasibility test and is subject to a number of definition, measurement and reporting inconsistencies. This table is produced for discussion purposes only.

Participation Indicator #1: Unduplicated Headcount

This is the total number of individual students served during the fiscal reporting year. The figure was requested as an institutional total only as it is extremely difficult for institutions to allocate headcounts into specific KPI Program Areas. Students often take courses which fit into more than one KPI Program Area. Specific allocations of headcounts to individual KPI Program Areas would require substantial resources and would require too many assumptions to justify the additional information.

Headcount Reporting Issues:

1. The original AWG intention of having institutions report Headcounts for each of the KPI Program Areas and identify them as either part-time or full-time was too problematic.

2. The successful resolution of a definition of full and part time was not possible before the KPI test was initiated. The task of defining full and part time students was given to the Data Definitions and Standards Committees which had not yet concluded its work on the definitions.

3. Also, as students often enroll in courses which can be attributed to more than one KPI Program Area, institutions would be forced into arbitrary Headcount allocations based upon the students course or program mix. This allocation method suggests that student headcounts be placed in the KPI Program Area in which the "majority of the students activity takes place." An unintended outcome of this is that the Developmental KPI Program Area would be significantly understated as a majority students enroll in Developmental courses to supplement a more extensive mix of courses taken in other areas.

4. These issues resulted in a simple request for institutional total Headcount, which was to be



unduplicated. Institutions did not identify any problems in reporting this specific measure, but a standard point in time for counting Headcounts must be specified for 1997.

Participation Indicator #2: Unduplicated Registrations

This measures the total number of individual students (unduplicated) which have reached stable enrollment status in one or more courses in a KPI Program Area. The registrant data supplements the headcount data by breaking out the volume of educational activity into seven categories.

A student is to be counted once in each KPI Program Area in which they study. Therefore, if a student is taking courses from 4 different KPI Program Areas, they will be counted 4 times. As a result, the total registrants figure will be greater than the total provided for headcounts.

Total registrants are broken down by:

● 7 KPI Program Areas; and● Publicly funded and Other.

Unduplicated Registrations Reporting Issues:

1. The term "unduplicated registrations" was confusing, although few institutions reported difficulty in obtaining the data, once clarification was provided.

2. The definitions for "publicly funded" and "other funded" must be clarified.

3. Allocation of registrations among KPI Program Areas presented minor difficulties as institutions were forced to make a determination of where to place the registrations in service courses.

4. One institution was unable to separate apprenticeship from vocational.

5. Registrations for some contract activity may not have been included. Some contract students do not have a registration or student identifier.

6. Generally, the amount of contract activity will be understated as few institutions track the non-publicly funded students as rigorously as they track publicly funded.

7. Contract students may also be publicly funded students and therefore have more than one identifier which may allow them to be double counted.

Participation Indicator #3: Course Hour Equivalents, (CHEs)



The Accountability Working Group originally proposed that the 1996 KPIs include Student Contact Hour (SCH). However, a field test on the feasibility of the indicators, suggested that SCH was too focused on the traditional ways of delivering education. A newer, more flexible concept which was less dependent on traditional concepts was required. To respond to this concern, the Data Definitions and Standards Committee had begun to develop definitions for a concept known as the Course Hour Equivalent, or CHE.

The CHE is defined as a learning experience which is equivalent to one hour of scheduled time. While SCH is a traditional measure and is dependent on an instructor's presence and a student's physical location, a CHE is independent of delivery mode and does not require an instructor to be physically located in the same space as the student.

Thus, the CHE was chosen to supplement the other measures under participation. While Headcounts and Unduplicated Registrations provide an understanding of how many people are being served by the college system, the CHE provides an understanding of how many units of education these students are consuming.

CHE Reporting Issues:


2. Institutions did not provide extensive comments on the technical problems associated with this measure. It is likely that, since the CHE is based on SCH, many respondents may have simply reported their SCH figures.

3. The system total CHE figures under-represents the amount of non-publicly funded activity currently being provided as several institutions were unable to capture the data for all or some KPI Program Areas.

Participation Indicator #4: Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)

The FTE is the total number of all full and part-time students converted to the number of students carrying a "normal" full time course load within specific program categories.

FTE Reporting Issues:


2. While no institutions indicated specific problems with reporting the FTE measure, there were a number of concerns regarding the use of FTEs in rates or with other measures under participation. (A consistent perspective on this matter was not clear however, as some institutions suggested using FTEs with other measures was inappropriate while others readily combined them in their own institutional reports).



3. While not explicitly stated in Bulletin Number 4, it appears that most institutions reported their "Actual FTEs."









Completion

Measurement Objective

The ability to measure the college system's output is a top priority for the performance management initiative. This data reveals the volume of educational services at various levels that is "successfully" delivered. Success is considered to be a grade of pass or better.


The Accountability Working Group reviewed a number of the institutional methods of capturing data related to attrition, retention, completion and "length-of-time-to-complete" but found methods either inconsistent or too complex. The AWG was unable to recommend the use of any one approach for the pilot.

For 1995/96 the Accountability Working Group recommended two measures:

● Credential Completions● Course Attempts vs. Course Completions

Credential completions measure the outputs at the program level, while course completions measure the outputs at the course level. These two measures balance the need to promote the successful completion of programs with the educational reality that many successful students never enroll in or complete a full credential program.

Table 6: Credentials Completion - System Totals

Credential Completion All Credentials Awarded

(Regular Full-Time Duration in Years)

KPI Program Area <1 1&<2 2&<3 3&<4 4&<5 5&> Total

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/complete.htm (1 of 5) [10/1/2002 1:58:29 PM]




Developmental 1,699 70 4 0 0 0 1,773

Career/Tech 607 724 4,073 356 31 15 5,806

Vocational 6,860 2,925 63 0 0 0 9,848

Academic: Yrs. 1&21 2 143 727 0 0 0 872

Degrees: Yrs. 3&42 0 0 0 200 691 320 1,211

Total 9,168 3,862 4,867 556 722 335 19,510


1 Credential completions for academic students is not the most appropriate measure of success.

2 Credential completions for academic students is not the most appropriate measure of success.

Table 7: Course Completion Rate - System Totals

COURSECOMPLETIONRATE

All Courses

Completed

All Courses

Attempted Completion

Rate

KPI Program Area

Developmental 64,815 89,428 72%

Career/Tech 196,849 222,396 88%

Vocational 123,428 148,724 83%

Part Time Vocational 122,8441 129,183 95%

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 150,905 190,309 79%

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 25,639 27,175 94%

Total 684,480 807,215 84%




1 Part-Time Vocational completions have been estimated (for two institutions) using the system's average completion rate.

Reporting Issues Generic to all Completion Measures:

Of all the KPIs, the collection of completion data seemed to present the most difficulty for institutions. There are several reasons for this:

● The KPI definitions did not go far enough in specifying data characteristics.

● The operational realities of course enrollments, attempts, completions and credential completions are extremely complex and varied among institutions. Thus, it is difficult to specify definitions which apply to all circumstances.

● Unlike the Participation and Financial Areas of Performance Interest, Completion data represents a new way of looking at system performance. There is more ambiguity about how these measures should work.

The completion data presented in this pilot exercise does not represent the same cohort because institutions have used different dates in the academic cycle to take snap-shots: (start date, stable enrollment date and end date). The 1997 KPI definitions must be explicit about the point in time at which activity is to be recorded.

This issue stems from the mis-match between academic and fiscal years, and is exacerbated by the growing number of continuous entry/exit programs and courses. Currently, unless institutions unilaterally expand the defined reporting window beyond the fiscal year, the data reported does not connect the course attempts which fall in a prior fiscal year with the course completions which fall in the following fiscal year.

The reporting "window" for the completion KPI may have to be shifted or expanded, and additional data provided about "in-progress" students in order to be able to capture data that is cohort specific.

The degree category excludes credentials earned in career technical programs which may be 3 yrs or greater in regular duration.

Credentials Reporting Issues

1. The time categories should be called "typical program duration".



2. Institutions have used a variety of reporting "windows" in an attempt to better align the educational activity with an academic year as opposed to a fiscal year. A system wide standard must be specified clearly in the definitions that support the KPIs.

3. Institutions which have relatively new programs with a high proportion of part-time students will show a lower credential completion rate for the first few years.

4. Early exit credentials for upper division programs have been reported in upper division categories. A consistent policy on this issue must be clearly articulated.

5. Credentials "Earned" provides a strong incentive for institutions to count the credentials an individual has earned for which the individual may not even be interested in applying for, or may not even be aware they have earned.

6. The motivation to apply for credential differs by KPI Program Area and thus the comparison of credentials granted by KPI Program Area is not representative of the "volume of achievement".

7. Credentials granted is not the sole representation of success, especially for academic and university transfer students.

8. KPI definitions must be clear on what type of data institutions must assemble on contract activity.

Course Attempts vs. Completions

1. In order to reduce the data collection effort, some institutions have mapped a student to a single KPI Program Area, and subsequently identify all of that student's attempts and completions with that KPI Program Area. This has the effect of under-representing the amount of developmental activity which is reported.

2. Some course attempts data includes withdrawals and audits.

3. Some institutions did not include continuing education activity since the data did not exist.

4. Some developmental and vocational students are not recorded as "registered", they are kept in a "holding" category until the end of the term. This has the effect of understating the amount of activity in these KPI Program Areas.





Transfer

Measurement Objective

This Area of Performance Interest identifies a former student's declared "preparedness" for a continuation of studies based on previous related training. The objective is to determine how well a program prepares students for further studies.

Measurement Development

The Accountability Working Group determined there is merit in tracking and assessing the ability and ease with which students, both academic and non-academic, transfer within and between institutions in BC.

The AWG recommended in its March 1996 Progress Report that methods and measures to determine transfer success rate and volume of transfer be given further consideration for the 1997/98 KPI Report. In the interim, the AWG recommended that students "declared preparedness" be reported using extracts from the 1995 Student Outcomes data.

In order to accurately assess the level of preparedness, the Outcomes survey is structured to ask transfer questions of only those students who have:

a. taken further studies (which were),b. "very" or "somewhat" related to their original studies.

Student Transfer Measure Number One: Former student who had taken further studies which were "related" to their original studies were asked:

Survey Q: 16a: How well did the program at [name of institution] prepare you for your further studies at [name of new institution]? Would you say...

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/transfer.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:58:32 PM]




1. Very well prepared2. Somewhat prepared3. Not very prepared4. Not at all prepared

Table 8: Student Transfer - Level of Declared Preparedness

C/T and Voc Academic System Total

Response N % N % N %

Very well 930 59 2,237 51 3,167 53

Somewhat 528 34 1,918 44 2,446 41

Not very 63 4 153 4 216 4

Not at all 43 3 51 1 94 2

Total 1,564 100 4,359 100 5,923 100


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/transfer.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:58:32 PM]







Financial


The financial indicators were recommended to provide a balanced score card and to address the need for an assessment of fiscal responsibility.


The AWG originally recommended the test of four financial measures. One measure, "Cost per Completor" was dropped after a feasibility assessment revealed extensive problems in associating cohort specific costs with the completions of the same cohort.

The rest of the 1996 Financial measures are based on the definitions and categories developed by the Standard Chart of Accounts Task Force in 1995. Although the Chart of Accounts was in Draft form, the Accountability Working group saw it as a "work-in-progress" that was solid enough to allow system consistency. It was also felt that the KPIs should be based on definitions which were future-oriented.

The Chart of Accounts was sufficiently developed to have been endorsed by the Data Definitions and Standards Financial Standards Committee and was also considered the Accountability Working Group, to be the terminology that would be adopted by the college system for general financial reporting purposes in the 1996/97 reporting year.

As this was the first time that the Chart of Accounts would be tested (via the KPIs) it was recognized that some institutions would need to use estimations to reconstruct their 1995/96 data using these definitions.

Table 9: Financial Measures: Overview

Measure Content Major Funds

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/finance.htm (1 of 5) [10/1/2002 1:58:38 PM]




1. Direct education costs as a percentage of total operating costs

Direct Education Costs = direct instruction costs plus instructional administration and support costs;

Total Operating Costs = direct education costs plus general support costs

Operating

Special Purpose/ Contract Services

2. Direct instructional cost per Course Hour Equivalent (CHE)

Report total direct instruction cost over institutional total Course Hour Equivalents (CHE)

Operating


3. Operating Revenue by major source - in dollars and as of percentage of total revenue

Revenue from provincial grants, federal grants, tuition fees, ancillary operations, contract services, donations, other.

Operating


Ancillary

Reporting Issues Generic to all Three Financial Indicators:

1. The definitions of funds and categories must be clearly articulated to ensure that institutional reports are consistent, and that indicator 1 is consistent with indicators 2 and 3.

2. A point which was not well communicated by the AWG and the Ministry was that amounts used in the KPIs should relate directly to each institution's annual financial statements. As a result, some institutions have drawn their data from different sources to report their KPIs.

3. Another category is required which represents blends of publicly and user funded activity. Not all activity is strictly either or.

4. Allocation of activity to KPI Program Area is difficult for service courses such as English and math.

5. There is a need to clarify categories against funding. e.g. UT courses which are funded via Career/Technical and general interest which is placed under PT-Voc.

Table 10: Direct Education as % of Total Operating - System Totals

Min. % Max. % Average % Median % Total %



Ratio: Direct Ed/Total Operating 48% 79% 71% 73% 73%


Reporting Issues: Direct Ed. Costs as % of Total Operating

1. Revenues and costs associated with contract activity which did not involve education or training delivery were not included. This type of activity has no obvious place among the KPI Program Categories.

2. Some contract and continuing education activity was not included as breakdowns of direct education and support costs were unavailable.

Table 11: Direct Instructional Costs Per CHE - System Totals

Total System Direct Instructional Costs $:

Total System Course Hour Equivalents

DI Costs $/ CHE

KPI Program Area

Developmental 44,676,729 10,728,673 4.16

Career/Tech 113,108,489 14,998,988 7.54

Vocational 74,563,370 12,361,619 6.03

Part Time Vocational 19,632,358 3,435,984 5.71

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 79,657,487 11,938,056 6.67

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 6,928,331 674,911 10.27

Apprenticeship 10,750,892 1,499,237 7.17

Total 349,317,656 55,637,468 6.28




Direct Instructional Costs Per CHE Reporting Issues:

1. CHE data does not match the CHE data provided under the Participation KPI.

2. Allocation of direct instructional costs by KPI Program Area is problematic: Cost centres which support multiple KPI Program Areas are apportioned based on staff or faculty workload which is based on the academic, not the fiscal year.

3. Some institutions added a "contract" category to the KPI Program Areas, and noted that some contract activity had no CHE associated with it.

4. Some institutions added a General Interest category for funding.

5. One college did not include costs associated with special operating/contract services funds as they could not calculate the CHEs associated with the contract activity.

6. This same college was able to differentiate direct instructional costs between general operating and contract services.

7. Apportioning cost centres that support multiple categories: this may be done more or less precisely depending on the access to data, and the resources at hand.

8. The cost of delivering an academic FTE is skewed up. Direct instructional costs associated with academic programs include a higher proportion of activity which does not result in CHEs. Therefore, the direct costs per CHE unit are higher than in vocational programs. This matter limits the meaningfulness of inter-KPI Program Area cost/CHE comparisons.

9. Academic costs are also skewed up by the inclusion of costs associated with service courses which support C/T and Voc programs.

Table 12: Operating Revenue as % of Total Revenue - System Totals

Total System: Revenue by Category

$

% of TotalOperatingRevenue

i) Provincial grants 511,266,382 66.4%

ii) Federal grants 10,872,184 1.4%



iii) Tuition fees 119,619,654 15.5%

iv) Ancillary Operations (gross) 45,355,407 5.9%

v) Contract services 51,976,886 6.8%

vi) Donations 1,657,750 0.2%

vii) other 29,029,514 3.8%

Total 769,777,777 100.0%


Reporting Issues: Operating Revenue by Source

1. One institution included amounts in these totals which had been transferred out to purchase equipment, but they were unable to separate them from specific revenue groups.

2. The fund categories and their contents must be clearly defined.









Space Utilizaton


The Accountability Working Group identified the use of existing space as an important indication of college system performance.


The KPI Work Team identified two new measures to calculate performance on a "full calendar-clock" basis. This would permit an assessment of space utilization beyond the traditionally used educational time period.

Despite the testing of the proposed measures by the KPI Work Team, it was found in early implementation that the data systems needed to collect the proposed measures did not exist at many institutions. Therefore, the use of seat and room utilization measures as originally proposed by the Accountability Working Group were made optional for the September report.

Given that the two proposed measures were made optional, the Ministry considered reporting data extracts from the institution's annual IFUS reports. After discussions with the Director of Post Secondary Facilities Branch, it was determined that the IFUS extracts would not serve the purposes of performance measurement. Therefore, for 1996 the KPIs under Space Utilization have not been reported. This Area of Performance Interest will be reviewed by the 1996 KPI Review Committee to determine its application in 1997.

Table 13: Proposed Space Utilization Measures

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/space.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:58:43 PM]




Room Utilization(Institutional Total)

Scheduled contact hours1 divided by the number of instructional rooms times total available hours.

Total available hours = 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks each year, or 8,736 hours for each room.

Seat Utilization(Institutional Total)

Student contact hours divided by the number of student workstations times total available hours;

All student contact hours to be reported whether or not they are in the annual enrollment report.

1 Scheduled contact hours will ensure that rooms requiring preparation and clean up are properly counted.

Space Utilization Reporting Issues:

● Cost of collecting data prohibitive.

● Data systems do not exist at smaller institutions.

● Difficult and expensive to capture room and seat utilization data for all contract activity. Leased facilities, satellite campuses and partnerships add further confusion.


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/space.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:58:43 PM]









As the student is the college system's most direct customer, it is critical to understand their level of satisfaction with their educational and institutional experiences. The Accountability Working Group recommended that the data from three questions in the Student Outcomes Survey be used in 1996.

Student Satisfaction Measure Number One:

Former students were asked the extent to which their main reason for enrolling was met.

Survey Q: 45: To what extend did you meet your most important reason5 for enrolling? Would you say it was...

1. Completely met2. Mostly met3. Not really met4. Not met at all

5 Reasons for enrolling could be to: complete a diploma; certificate or degree; complete requirements for other credential; qualify to enter another program; improve existing job skills/learn new job skills; decide on a career / change careers; personal interest and other.

Table 14: Student Satisfaction - Reasons for Enrolling Met

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/student.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2002 1:58:49 PM]




Reasons for Enrolling Met? C/T and Voc Academic System Total


Completely 5,297 47 3,292 39 8,589 44

Mostly 4,429 39 3,313 39 7,742 39

Not really 891 8 1,112 13 2,003 10

Not at all 596 5 735 9 1,331 7

Total 11,213 100 8,452 100 19,665 100

Student Satisfaction Measure Number Two:

Former students were asked the extent to which their studies were worthwhile.

Survey Q: 49: How worthwhile were your studies at [name of institution]? Would you say...

1. Completely worthwhile2. Somewhat worthwhile3. Not worthwhile at all

Table 15: Student Satisfaction - Studies Were Worthwhile

Studies Worthwhile? C/T and Voc Academic System Total


Completely 7,474 66 4,663 55 12,137 61

Somewhat 3,566 32 3,596 42 7,162 36

Not at all 236 2 260 3 496 3

Total 11,276 100 8,519 100 19,795 100



Student Satisfaction Measure Number Three:

Former students were asked to rate the level of quality of teaching in their program of study.

Survey Q: 52: Rate aspects 6 of your program at [name of program / institution].

a) Quality of teaching

1. Good2. Adequate3. Poor

The Outcomes survey also asked students to rate satisfaction with other aspects such as "organization of the program" and "study facilities on campus".

Table 16: Student Satisfaction - Quality of Teaching

Quality of Teaching C/T and Voc Academic System Total


Good 7,562 67 5,854 69 13,416 68

Adequate 3,100 28 2,423 29 5,523 28

Poor 558 5 208 2 766 4

Total 11,220 100 8,485 100 19,705 100









Employment


These measures provide an assessment of the college system's ability to provide relevant and job ready training and education. While not all aspects of a student's success in the labour market are within a college's span of control, this measure is a true outcome, and represents a major strategic goal for the college system.

There are four measures which the AWG recommended extracting from the 1995 Student Outcomes survey:

Employment Measure Number One:

To determine labour force status, former students were asked about their current main activity.

Survey Q: 6: Which of the following best describes your current main activity? Would it be:

1. Working2. Attending school3. Caring for family and other responsibilities4. Unemployed and looking for work5. Both working and attending school6. Both working and caring for family and other responsibilities

Those who responded: (1) "working", (5) "both working and attending school", or (6) "both working and caring for family and other responsibilities" were considered to be "employed".

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/employ.htm (1 of 4) [10/1/2002 1:58:52 PM]




Table 17: Student Employment - Current Main Activity

Employed? C/T and Voc Academic System Total


Employed 9,372 83 6,121 71 15,493 78

Employment Measure Number Two:

Former student who were "employed" were asked if they were employed in a training related job.

Survey Q: 37: To what extent is your [main] job related to the training that you took at [name of institution]? Would you say...

1. Very related2. Somewhat related3. Not very related4. Not at all related

Table 18: Student Employment - Training Related Job

Employed in Training Related Job? C/T and Voc Academic System Total


Both categories: Very & Somewhat Related 7,095 76 1,660 27 8,755 57

Employment Measure Number Three:

Former students who were "employed in a training related job" were asked if they found their education useful in getting that job.7

7 If a student already had their current main job while attending an institution, they are not included in this question.



Survey Q: 40: How useful was your education at [name of institution] in getting your [main] job? Would you say...

1. Very useful2. Somewhat useful3. Not very useful4. Not useful at all

Table 19: Student Employment - Education Useful in Getting Job

Education Useful in Getting Job? C/T and Voc Academic System Total


Very

Somewhat

Not really

Not at all

Total 100

Employment Measure Number Four:

Former students who were "employed" were asked if they found their education useful in performing their job?

Survey Q41: How useful has your education at [name of institution] been in performing your job? Would you say...

1. Very useful2. Somewhat useful3. Not very useful4. Not at all useful



Table 20: Student Employment - Education Useful in Performing Job

Education Useful inPerforming Job? C/T and Voc Academic System Total


Very

Somewhat

Not really

Not at all

Total









Employer Satisfaction


Employers are the college system's second most important customers, second to the students. While students train for a variety of personal objectives, it is critical that those who pursue employment objectives be provided with the education and training that will help them find and maintain good jobs. This measure of RELEVANCE asks employers what skills, education, attitudes and experiences are necessary for graduate students to be successful in the world of work.


The employer satisfaction survey currently being conducted by the British Columbia Labour Force Development Board (BCLFDB) will provide macro, or system wide information about how employers view graduates of B.C.'s post secondary system.

The Ministry and post secondary system representatives have been involved in the development of the survey and will have access to the full data set when the project is complete.

As of November 19, 1996 this survey is 75% complete. A follow-up mail survey of employees (former students) will be linked to the employer survey.

The Accountability Working Group recommended the use of extracts from the BCLFDB survey to report on employer satisfaction. While the survey has not been completed in time for this report, the Ministry will report the findings when they are released and begin to assess how the key measures may be considered for application in the 1997 KPIs.


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/satis.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:59:10 PM]




http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/satis.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2002 1:59:10 PM]







APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS(UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

Areas of Performance Interest (APIs):

Broad areas of performance which contain more specific measures called key performance indicators.

Course Hour Equivalent (CHE):

A learning experience which is deemed equivalent to one hour of scheduled class time. While the Student Contact Hour (SCH see below) is a traditional measure and is dependent on an instructor's presence and a student's physical location, a CHE is independent of delivery mode and does not require an instructor to be physically located in the same space as the student.

KPI Program Areas:

Categories of education and training activity. Includes: Developmental, Career/Tech, Vocational, Part-Time Vocational, Academic Yrs: 1 and 2, Degrees: Yrs 3 and 4, and Apprenticeship.


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/appenda.htm [10/1/2002 1:59:10 PM]









APPENDIX B: PARTICIPATION DATA

Participation Measures: System Totals

Participation Unduplicated Headcount

Unduplicated Registrations

Course Hour EquivalentsCHE FTEs

KPI Program Area

Institutional Total




Developmental 28,821 5,157 10,577,677 1,336,702 11,246 1,572

Career/Tech 49,289 1,035 15,956,995 219,577 20,484 391

Vocational 25,646 6,666 12,508,626 494,582 11,780 474

PT Vocational 87,418 47,098 3,064,671 1,022,611 3,310 1,014

Acad.: Yrs. 1&2 40,928 914 11,717,933 185,841 19,805 437

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 4,551 31 1,806,900 17,700 3,479 31

Apprenticeship 7,896 0 1,831,118 0 1,531 0

Total 265,449 244,549 60,901 57,463,920 3,277,012 71,633 3,920


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/appendb.htm (1 of 7) [10/1/2002 1:59:13 PM]




Unduplicated Registrations: (Publicly Funded) Data Characteristics

KPI Program Area Min. Max. Average Median Total

Developmental 74 8,505 1,801 1,237 28,821

Career/Tech 454 24,435 2,899 1,240 49,289

Vocational 200 4,054 1,603 1,445 25,646

Part Time Vocational 2,124 12,412 6,724 5,745 87,418

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 35 6,420 2,729 2,504 40,928

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 140 1,114 650 697 4,551

Apprenticeship 3 3,979 607 335 7,896

Total 244,549


Unduplicated Registrations: (Other Funded): Data Characteristics


Developmental 2 1,790 397 266 5,157

Career/Tech 2 688 104 38 1,035

Vocational 1 2,970 606 131 6,666


Academic: Yrs. 1&2 1 307 131 110 914



Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 5 26 16 16 31

Apprenticeship 0 0 0 0 0

Total 60,901


Unduplicated Registrations: (Publicly Funded & Other Funded) Data Characteristics


Developmental 76 10,295 2,124 1,614 33,978

Career/Tech 454 25,123 2,960 1,248 50,324

Vocational 200 5,565 2,020 1,925 32,312


Academic: Yrs. 1&2 35 6,539 2,789 2,504 41,842

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 145 1,114 655 697 4,582

Apprenticeship 3 3,979 607 335 7,896

Total 305,450


Course Hour Equivalent: (Publicly Funded) Data Characteristics




Developmental 113,520 3,381,747 622,216 459,320 10,577,677

Career/Tech 58,253 5,001,670 886,500 597,398 15,956,995

Vocational 152,124 2,329,740 735,802 603,642 12,508,626

Part Time Vocational 79,423 515,492 204,311 185,562 3,064,671

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 6,540 1,703,332 732,371 747,264 11,717,933

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 64,500 394,585 258,129 288,964 1,806,900

Apprenticeship 540 968,850 130,794 60,027 1,831,118

Total 57,463,920


CHE: (Other Funded) Data Characteristics:


Developmental 270 605,168 111,392 74,152 1,336,702

Career/Tech 300 119,500 24,397 12,747 219,577

Vocational 1,005 156,755 44,962 15,872 494,582


Academic: Yrs. 1&2 45 59,089 26,549 38,061 185,841

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 5,850 11,850 8,850 8,850 17,700

Apprenticeship

Total 315 810,280 204,813 145,989 3,277,012




CHE: (Publicly Funded and Other Funded): Data Characteristics


Developmental 113,520 3,986,915 700,846 512,222 11,914,379

Career/Tech 60,582 5,121,170 898,698 606,471 16,176,571

Vocational 152,124 2,392,313 764,895 620,462 13,003,208


Academic: Yrs. 1&2 6,540 1,704,352 743,986 767,718 11,903,775

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 76,350 394,585 260,657 288,964 1,824,600

Apprenticeship 540 968,850 130,794 60,027 1,831,118

Total 6,540 8,428,258 3,196,891 3,108,519 60,740,933


FTEs: (Publicly Funded) Data Characteristics:


Developmental 123 3,636 662 512 11,246

Career/Tech 108 5,986 1,138 728 20,484

Vocational 149 2,148 693 572 11,780



Part Time Vocational 78 505 221 183 3,310

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 30 2,792 1,238 1,398 19,805

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 143 1,025 497 398 3,479

Apprenticeship .4 789 109 51 1,531

Total 71,633


FTEs: (Other Funded) Data Characteristics:


Developmental .3 654 131 82 1,572

Career/Tech .5 189 39 21 391

Vocational 1 127 43 15 474


Academic: Yrs. 1&2 0.1 139 55 59 437

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 5 26 16 16 31

Apprenticeship

Total 3,920


FTEs: (Publicly Funded and Other Funded) Data Characteristics




Developmental 123 4,290 754 541 12,818

Career/Tech 114 6,175 1,160 749 20,875

Vocational 149 2,203 721 572 12,254


Academic: Yrs. 1&2 30 2,801 1,265 1,434 20,242

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 157 1,025 501 398 3,510

Apprenticeship 0.4 789 109 51 1,531

Total 75,553










APPENDIX C: COMPLETION DATA

Credentials Completion: System Totals:

Credential Completion All Credentials Awarded:

(Regular Full-Time Duration in Years)

KPI Program Area <1 1&<2 2&<3 3&<4 4&<5 5&> Total

Developmental 1,699 70 4 0 0 0 1,773

Career/Tech 607 724 4,073 356 31 15 5,806

Vocational 6,860 2,925 63 0 0 0 9,848

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 2 143 727 0 0 0 872

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 0 0 0 200 691 320 1,211

Total 9,168 3,862 4,867 556 722 335 19,510


Course Completion Rate: System Totals:

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/appendc.htm (1 of 4) [10/1/2002 1:59:14 PM]




Course Completion Rate All Courses Completed All Courses Attempted Completion Rate

KPI Program Area

Developmental 64,815 89,428 72%

Career/Tech 196,849 222,396 88%

Vocational 123,428 148,724 83%

Part Time Vocational 122,844 129,183 95%

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 150,905 190,309 79%

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 25,639 27,175 94%

Total 684,480 807,215 84%


Course Attempts Data Characteristics:

KPI Program Area Min. Max. Average Median

Developmental 1,206 21,741 5,589 3,618

Career/Tech 1,120 88,948 13,082 7,667

Vocational 1,393 35,016 9,295 8,483

Part Time Vocational 1,656 25,747 9,937 6,708

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 174 30,762 12,687 13,124

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 2,397 6,283 3,882 3,463




Course Completions Data Characteristics:


Developmental 840 19,351 4,051 2,724

Career/Tech 1,048 79,434 11,579 7,057

Vocational 1,333 26,606 7,714 7,337


Academic: Yrs. 1&2 141 23,250 10,060 9,405

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 2,397 5,861 3,663 3,291


Completion Rate: Data Characteristics:


Developmental 27.2% 91.0% 67.4% 69.5%

Career/Tech 78.6% 93.6% 88.0% 87.1%

Vocational 49.5% 95.7% 84.5% 87.7%

Part Time Vocational 76.4% 100.0% 93.1% 93.5%

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 71.7% 90.7% 80.5% 80.8%

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 90.6% 100.0% 94.7% 94.1%

IMPORTANT NOTE: This data is derived from the 1996 KPI feasibility test and is subject to a number of



definition, measurement and reporting inconsistencies. This table is produced for discussion purposes only.









APPENDIX D: FINANCIAL DATA

Direct Education as % of Total Operating: System Totals

Min. % Max. % Average % Median % Total %

Ratio: Direct EdTotal Operating 48% 79% 71% 73% 73%


Direct Instructional Costs Per CHE: System Totals

Total System DirectInstructional Costs $

Total SystemCourse HourEquivalents

DI Costs $CHE

KPI Program Area

Developmental 44,676,729 10,728,673 4.16

Career/Tech 113,108,489 14,998,988 7.54

Vocational 74,563,370 12,361,619 6.03

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/appendd.htm (1 of 6) [10/1/2002 1:59:15 PM]




Part Time Vocational 19,632,358 3,435,984 5.71

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 79,657,487 11,938,056 6.67

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 6,928,331 674,911 10.27

Apprenticeship 10,750,892 1,499,237 7.17

Total 349,317,656 55,637,468 6.28


Direct Instruction Costs: Data Characteristics

KPI Program Area Min. $ Max. $ Average $ Median $

Developmental 437,062 14,506,004 2,792,296 1,861,295

Career/Tech 533,182 40,063,899 6,653,441 4,090,088

Vocational 877,856 15,595,479 4,660,211 3,818,194

Part Time Vocational 476,027 2,759,491 1,402,311 1,045,927

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 221,267 12,566,413 5,310,499 4,790,775

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 1,085,921 3,802,791 2,309,444 2,039,619

Apprenticeship 3,633 6,631,405 895,908 293,019


Course Hour Equivalent: Data Characteristics




Developmental 113,520 3,986,915 670,542 506,132

Career/Tech 60,582 5,121,170 882,293 585,882

Vocational 152,124 2,392,313 772,601 639,662


Academic: Yrs. 1&2 6,540 1,704,352 795,870 785,543

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 148,295 368,862 224,970 157,754

Apprenticeship 540 968,850 124,936 43,404


Direct Instruction Costs per CHE: Data Characteristics

KPI Program Area Min. $/CHE Max. $/CHE Average $/CHE Median $/CHE

Developmental 3.08 5.96 4.36 4.16

Career/Tech 4.73 12.26 7.93 7.69

Vocational 3.95 10.67 6.01 5.93

Part Time Vocational 2.79 10.83 6.07 5.54

Academic: Yrs. 1&2 4.31 21.26 8.61 7.73

Degrees: Yrs. 3&4 7.32 12.93 10.19 10.31

Apprenticeship 4.56 17.77 8.40 7.05




Operating Revenue as % of Total Revenue:System Totals

Total System: Revenue by Category $

% of Total Operating Revenue

i) Provincial grants 511,266,382 66.4%

ii) Federal grants 10,872,184 1.4%

iii) Tuition fees 119,619,654 15.5%

iv) Ancillary Operations (gross) 45,355,407 5.9%

v) Contract services 51,976,886 6.8%

vi) Donations 1,657,750 0.2%

vii) other 29,029,514 3.8%

Total 769,777,777 100.0%


Revenue by Major Source: Data Characteristics

KPI Program Area Min. $ Max. $ Average $ Median $

Provincial Grants 700,000 83,805,452 26,908,757 24,176,690

Federal Grants 0 3,213,447 604,010 195,004

Tuition Fees 56,250 22,808,165 6,295,771 5,442,954

Ancillary Operations (gross) 0 6,039,194 2,387,127 2,257,968



Contract Services 0 9,743,550 2,735,626 1,881,792

Donations 0 425,814 103,609 51,356

Other 6,514 4,805,395 1,527,869 1,152,651


Percentage of Total Revenue: Data Characteristics


Provincial Grants 50.8% 80.8% 66.7% 65.7%

Federal Grants 0.0% 37.4% 3.6% 0.5%

Tuition Fees 4.1% 22.0% 13.6% 13.0%

Ancillary Operations (gross) 0.0% 9.3% 5.2% 5.8%

Contract Services 0.0% 18.4% 6.9% 6.5%

Donations 0.0% 7.3% 0.7% 0.0%

Other 0.5% 8.4% 3.7% 3.0%


1. Reasons for enrolling could be to: complete a diploma; certificate or degree; complete requirements for other credential; qualify to enter another program; improve existing job skills/learn new job skills; decide on a career / change careers; personal interest and other.

2. The Outcomes survey also asked students to rate satisfaction with other aspects such as "organization of the program" and "study facilities on campus".

3. If a student already had their current main job while attending an institution, they are not included in this question.



1996 BC College, Institute and Agency System Accountability Report Draft Copy for Discussion Purposes Only







http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/diag-one.gif

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/accountability/96report/diag-one.gif [10/1/2002 1:59:47 PM]

1996 BC college, institute and agency system ... · 1996 BC College, Institute and Agency System...

Documents

Transcript of 1996 BC college, institute and agency system ... · 1996 BC College, Institute and Agency System...