HESA performance indicators Sample Clauses

HESA performance indicators. The University has selected targets that can be monitored consistently over time and for which benchmarking information is available, to enable evaluation of our performance in context. Table 7a of Annex B to this Access Agreement sets out our targets for HESA performance indicators, focusing on successful recruitment and retention of key widening participation groups. In our Access Agreements since 2012/13 we have focused on recruitment and retention of students from low participation neighbourhoods, after taking advice from UCAS and HESA about the reliability of data on different indicators of widening participation. This focus on low participation neighbourhoods is helpful, enabling us to selectively target our outreach activities on schools, colleges and other organisations with catchment areas including these priority neighbourhoods. We have included targets on retention, although our performance is already better than benchmark. This is due to concerns that widening participation students may be more likely than other students to withdraw in their first year of study. We continue to keep these performance indicators under close scrutiny. Our targets are based on POLAR3 classification.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
HESA performance indicators. Within the sixteen English Xxxxxxx Group universities we perform towards the top on fair access measures and Manchester has the highest absolute number of low income, lower socio-economic, low participation or state school entrants. As a proportion of students we are positioned 2nd, 2nd, 4th and 5th respectively in this group. HESA data in 2009/10 shows that 7.5% of young full time entrants were from low participation neighbourhoods (LPNs). This was an increase from the previous year and we exceed our individual benchmark of 6.8% - one of only four English Xxxxxxx Group to do so. HESA preview data for 2010 indicates our proportion of LPN entrants has improved even further. Our percentage of entrants from state schools decreased very slightly in 2009/10 to 78.1%. Although we did not hit our benchmark of 80.9% we continue to meet our target of not deviating from this by a statistically significant margin – one of only 6 English Xxxxxxx Group HEIs in this category. HESA preview data for 2010/11 shows a broadly similar pattern. 2009/10 HESA data shows we recruited 21.3% of young, full time entrants from lower socio-economic groups. Although we do not hit our benchmark of 22.8% we continue to meet our target of not deviating from this by a statistically significant margin. Comparing to 2007/08 (the last reliable comparator year) there has been an increase in the proportion of students from lower socio-economic groups and a narrowing of the gap below the benchmark from -2.3% to -1.5%.
Sample 1
HESA performance indicators. The University is keen to set targets that can be monitored over time and for which benchmarking information is available to enable evaluation of our performance in context. For this reason in Table 5a of Annex B to this Access Agreement we have set targets related to HESA performance indicators in the following areas, focusing on successful recruitment and retention of key widening participation groups. We have included targets on retention, although our performance is already better than benchmark. This is due to concerns that widening participation students may be more likely than other students to withdraw in their first year of study. So we will keep this performance indicator under close scrutiny. We have focused on recruitment and retention of students from low participation neighbourhoods after taking advice from UCAS and HESA about the reliability of data on different indicators of widening participation. The use of low participation neighbourhoods presents particular advantages, as these neighbourhoods are defined by HEFCE using postcodes and the POLAR2 analysis. In contrast socio‐economic class is a self‐reported field by applicants, which leads to unreliable and incomplete data. This focus on low participation neighbourhoods is helpful, as we will ensure that our outreach activities are focused on schools, colleges and other organisations with catchment areas including these priority neighbourhoods. Performance indicator Our targets % of young full‐time undergraduate entrants from low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR2) (HESA Table t1b) For both these indicators we currently recruit at location‐adjusted benchmark for this indicator. We aim to progressively improve our performance compared to benchmark over the next five years through activities including aspiration raising work, sensitive use of contextual data and generous fee discounts and bursaries. % of mature full‐time undergraduate entrants with no previous he & from low participation neighbourhood (POLAR2) (HESA Table t2a) % non‐continuation following year of entry: young full‐time first degree entrants from low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR2) (HESA Table t3b) Our non‐completion rates are currently 0.5% better than benchmark. Through support and bursaries for students from low income families, we aim to further reduce non‐ completions for this group of students. % non‐continuation following year of entry: mature full‐time first degree entrants with no previous HE (HESA Table t3c)...
Sample 1
HESA performance indicators. Participation of young full-time first degree entrants at The University of Manchester* 90 80 70 60 % from state schools or colleges 50 % from Social Class IIIM, IV or V % from National Statistics Socio-Economic 40 Classification, 4-7 ** % from Low Participation Neighbourhoods 30 10 0 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 * Data are all combined figures from UMIST and the Victoria University of Manchester ** Following the revision by the Office of National Statistics of the Social and Occupational classification, the social class indicator was redefined for 2002-3 data; this means that comparison with figures from earlier years cannot be made.
Sample 1
HESA performance indicators. For our Access Agreement the University has selected targets that can be monitored consistently over time and for which benchmarking information is available, to enable meaningful evaluation of our performance. Table 7a of the Annex to this Access Agreement sets out our targets for HESA performance indicators, focusing on successful recruitment and retention of key widening participation groups. In our Access Agreements since 2012/13 we have focused on recruitment and retention of students from low participation neighbourhoods, after taking advice from UCAS and HESA about the reliability of data on different indicators of widening participation. This focus on low participation neighbourhoods is helpful, enabling us to selectively target our outreach activities on schools, colleges and other organisations with catchment areas including these priority neighbourhoods. Our targets are based on POLAR3 classification.
Sample 1

Related to HESA performance indicators

  • Key Performance Indicators 10.1 The Supplier shall at all times during the Framework Period comply with the Key Performance Indicators and achieve the KPI Targets set out in Part B of Framework Schedule 2 (Goods and/or Services and Key Performance Indicators).

  • Performance Indicators The HSP’s delivery of the Services will be measured by the following Indicators, Targets and where applicable Performance Standards. In the following table: n/a meanç ‘not-appIicabIe’, that there iç no defined Performance Standard for the indicator for the applicable year. tbd means a Target, and a Performance Standard, if applicable, will be determined during the applicable year. INDICATOR CATEGORY INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD Organizational Health and Financial Indicators Debt Service Coverage Ratio (P) 1 c1 Total Margin (P) 0 cO Coordination and Access Indicators Percent Resident Days – Long Stay (E) n/a n/a Wait Time from LHIN Determination of Eligibility to LTC Home Response (M) n/a n/a Long-Term Care Home Refusal Rate (E) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2/3 INDICATOR CATEGORY Quality and Resident Safety Indicators INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator Percentage of Residents Who Fell in the Last 30 days (M) 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD n/a n/a Percentage of Residents Whose Pressure Ulcer Worsened (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents on Antipsychotics Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents in Daily Physical Restraints (M) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2.0 LHIN-Specific Performance Obligations 3/3

  • Attainment on Performance Indicators The District will be responsible for overseeing the academic programs offered in its schools and ensuring that those programs meet or exceed state and local expectations for levels of attainment on the statewide performance indicators, as specified in 1 CCR 301-1.

  • Performance indicators and targets The purpose of the innovation performance indicators and targets is to assist the University and the Commonwealth in monitoring the University's progress against the Commonwealth's objectives and the University's strategies for innovation. The University will report principal performance information and aim to meet the innovation performance indicators and targets set out in the following tables.

  • Contractor Performance Evaluations The Contract Administrator will evaluate Contractor’s performance as often as the Contract Administrator deems necessary throughout the term of the contract. This evaluation will be based on criteria including the quality of goods or services, the timeliness of performance, and adherence to applicable laws, including prevailing wage and living wage. City will provide Contractors who receive an unsatisfactory rating with a copy of the evaluation and an opportunity to respond. City may consider final evaluations, including Contractor’s response, in evaluating future proposals and bids for contract award.

  • PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES 8 A. CONTRACTOR shall achieve performance objectives, tracking and reporting Performance 9 Outcome Objective statistics in monthly programmatic reports, as appropriate. ADMINISTRATOR 10 recognizes that alterations may be necessary to the following services to meet the objectives, and,

  • Ongoing Performance Measures The Department intends to use performance-reporting tools in order to measure the performance of Contractor(s). These tools will include the Contractor Performance Survey (Exhibit H), to be completed by Customers on a quarterly basis. Such measures will allow the Department to better track Vendor performance through the term of the Contract(s) and ensure that Contractor(s) consistently provide quality services to the State and its Customers. The Department reserves the right to modify the Contractor Performance Survey document and introduce additional performance-reporting tools as they are developed, including online tools (e.g. tools within MFMP or on the Department's website).

  • Performance Measures and Metrics This section outlines the performance measures and metrics upon which service under this SLA will be assessed. Shared Service Centers and Customers will negotiate the performance metric, frequency, customer and provider service responsibilities associated with each performance measure. Measurements of the Port of Seattle activities are critical to improving services and are the basis for cost recovery for services provided. The Port of Seattle and The Northwest Seaport Alliance have identified activities critical to meeting The NWSA’s business requirements and have agreed upon how these activities will be assessed.

  • Quarterly Contractor Performance Reporting Customers shall complete a Contractor Performance Survey (Exhibit I) for each Contractor on a Quarterly basis. Customers will electronically submit the completed Contractor Performance Survey(s) to the Department Contract Manager no later than the due date indicated in Contract Exhibit D, Section 17, Additional Special Contract Conditions. The completed Contractor Performance Survey(s) will be used by the Department as a performance-reporting tool to measure the performance of Contractors. The Department reserves the right to modify the Contractor Performance Survey document and introduce additional performance-reporting tools as they are developed, including online tools (e.g. tools within MyFloridaMarketPlace or on the Department's website).

  • Annual Performance Evaluation On either a fiscal year or calendar year basis, (consistently applied from year to year), the Bank shall conduct an annual evaluation of Executive’s performance. The annual performance evaluation proceedings shall be included in the minutes of the Board meeting that next follows such annual performance review.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.