Table 7a. Statistical targets and milestones relating to your applicants, entrants or student body Reference number Please select target type from the drop-down menu Description (500 characters maximum) Is this a collaborative target? Baseline year Baseline data Yearly milestones (numeric where possible, however you may use text) Commentary on your milestones/targets or textual description where numerical description is not appropriate (500 characters maximum) T16a_01 HESA T1b - Low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3) (Young, full-time, undergraduate entrants) To achieve a participation rate of Young Full time Undergraduates (HESA Table T1b) of 17.5% from Lower Participation Neighbourhoods (POLAR 3), by 2020. No 2013-14 16.4% 16.7% 16.9% 17.1% 17.3% 17.5% T16a_02 HESA T3b - No longer in HE after 1 year & in low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR 3) (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To reduce the non-continuation for young FT UGs from LPNs to 7.5% by 2020 (as measured by HESA Table T3b – POLAR 3 data) No 2012-13 8.7% 8.3% 8.1% 7.9% 7.7% 7.5% T16a_03 Other statistic - Progression to employment or further study (please give details in the next column) To increase the percentage of full-time, UK, first degree graduates from LPN (POLAR 3 quintiles 1 or 2) entering professional/managerial employment or further study to 68% by 2020. No 2013-14 56% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% Based on institutional analysis of DLHE data (the year relates to the year of the survey, the year after graduation) T16a_04 Other statistic - Other (please give details in the next column) To increase positive response in the National Student Survey to the statement ‘As a result of my course I believe my career prospects have improved’ to 78% in 2020 (from 68% in 2013) No 2013-14 68% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% T16a_05 Other statistic - Care-leavers (please give details in the next column) To increase the number of Care Leavers at MMU to 75 by 2020, from 57 in 2013/14 (based on number of students receiving the MMU Care Leaver Bursary) No 2013-14 57 60 63 66 70 75 T16a_06 Other statistic - Low-income backgrounds (please give details in the next column) Increase the numbers of students from low income backgrounds (household income of £25,000 or less) taking a sandwich year No 2013-14 155 Monitor and publish figure Monitor and publish figure Monitor and publish figure Monitor and publish figure Monitor and publish figure Notes Alongside applicant and entrant targets, we encourage you to provide targets around...
Table 7a. Likelihood of Beginning to Pay, Separate Analyses by Earnings Low-Income (earned < $20,000 in year prior to order) Not Low-Income (earned >= $20,000 in year prior to order) Coefficient Standard Error Hazard Ratio Coefficient Standard Error Hazard Ratio Total General letter This month 0.73*** 0.04 2.08 0.35*** 0.06 1.41 † Last month 0.33*** 0.04 1.39 -0.02 0.07 0.98 † 2 months ago 0.24*** 0.05 1.27 -0.03 0.09 0.97 † 3 or more months ago 0.21*** 0.04 1.23 -0.08 0.08 0.93 † Notice of intent to suspend This month 0.68*** 0.08 1.97 0.63*** 0.14 1.88 Last month 0.16 0.12 1.17 0.10 0.23 1.11 2 months ago 0.01 0.14 1.01 0.17 0.28 1.19 3 or more months ago 0.07 0.09 1.07 0.09 0.22 1.09 License suspension This month 0.31* 0.16 1.36 0.45 0.30 1.57 Last month 0.08 0.19 1.09 0.52 0.45 1.69 2 months ago -0.22 0.24 0.81 -0.32 0.74 0.72 3 or more months ago -0.02 0.11 0.98 0.13 0.40 1.14 Court hearing This month 1.01*** 0.05 2.75 0.96*** 0.10 2.62 Last month 0.40*** 0.08 1.49 0.38* 0.17 1.46 2 months ago 0.48*** 0.09 1.61 0.27 0.22 1.31 3 or more months ago 0.38*** 0.05 1.47 0.12 0.17 1.13 † Contempt This month 0.66*** 0.07 1.93 0.75*** 0.14 2.12 Last month 0.37** 0.12 1.45 0.33 0.30 1.40 2 months ago 0.17 0.15 1.19 0.52 0.37 1.68 3 or more months ago 0.21** 0.07 1.23 0.86** 0.27 2.36 † n 8,680 2,774 11,454 Log likelihood (-2) 121,225 35,218 167,141 * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001 † subgroups significantly differ from each other at p<.05 Note: N=329 missing information on earnings are excluded from this subgroup analysis. Xxx proportional hazard model, with Efron treatment of ties. Model also includes demographic controls. different actions have different lags). Suspending licenses does not have a significantly different relationship between the two subgroups, though it is only significantly associated with beginning to pay for low-income fathers, for whom the standard error is smaller. While letters are associated with beginning to pay for both groups of fathers, the relationship is significantly stronger for low-income fathers. Table 7b examines separate relationships for those who were initial nonpayers compared to those who paid initially but then fell into nonpayment. All enforcement tools are significantly associated with beginning to pay for both groups except for license suspensions (which is significant for initial payers only, though relatively large standard errors and the small incidence means there is no significant difference ...
Table 7a. Statistical targets and milestones relating to your applicants, entrants or student body Reference number Please select target type from the drop-down menu Description (500 characters maximum) Is this a collaborative target? Baseline year Baseline data Yearly milestones (numeric where possible, however you may use text) Commentary on your milestones/targets or textual description where numerical description is not appropriate (500 characters maximum) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 T16a_01 HESA T1a - Low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR3) (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To increase the proportion of young LPN students from this group to 5.4% by 2019/20 No 2013-14 4% 4% 4% 4.5% 4.9% 5.4% T16a_02 HESA T2a - (Mature, full-time, first degree entrants) To increase the proportion of mature LPN students from this group to 4% by 2019/20 No 2013-14 2.2% 2.2% 2.5% 3% 3.5% 4% T16a_03 HESA T7 - Students in receipt of DSA (full-time, first degree entrants) To increase the proportion of this group to 7% by 2019/20 No 2013-14 6.3% 6.3% 6.5% 6.7% 6.9% 7% T16a_04 HESA T1a - NS-SEC classes 4-7 (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To maintain the proportion of students from this group by 2019/20 No 2013-14 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% T16a_05 HESA T1a - State School (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To maintain the proportion of students from this group by 2019/20 No 2013-14 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% T16a_06 HESA T3a - No longer in HE after 1 year (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To reduce the non-continuation rate of young students to 5% by 2019/20 No 2012-13 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6% 5.5% 5% T16a_07 HESA T3a - No longer in HE after 1 year (Mature, full-time, first degree entrants) To reduce the non-continuation rate of mature students to 15% by 2019/20 No 2012-13 20.6% 20.6% 20.6% 18% 16% 15% T16a_08 HESA T3a - No longer in HE after 1 year (All, full-time, first degree entrants) To reduce the non-continuation rate of the overall population to 7% by 2019/20 No 2012-13 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9% 8% 7% Notes Alongside applicant and entrant targets, we encourage you to provide targets around outreach and student success work (including collaborative work where appropriate) or other initiatives to illustrate your progress towards increasing access, student success and progression. These should be measurable outcomes ‐based targets and should focus on the number of beneficiaries reached by a particular activity/programme or the number of schools worked with, a...
Table 7a. Statistical targets and milestones relating to your applicants, entrants or student body Reference number Please select target type from the drop-down menu Description (500 characters maximum) Is this a collaborative target? Baseline year Baseline data Yearly milestones (numeric where possible, however you may use text) Commentary on your milestones/targets or textual description where numerical description is not appropriate (500 characters maximum)
Table 7a. Statistical targets and milestones relating to your applicants, entrants or student body Number Please select target type from the drop-down menu Description (500 characters maximum) Is this a collaborative target? Baseline year Baseline data Yearly milestones (numeric where possible, however you may use text) Commentary on your milestones/targets or textual description where numerical description is not appropriate (500 characters maximum) 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 1 HESA T1b - State School (Young, full-time, undergraduate entrants) Restore 2009/10 levels of participation for young full-time undergraduates from state schools to 95.4% by 2016/17 No 2009/10 95.4% 94.5% 95% 95.4% In the 2012/13 agreement MMU anticipated that participation would drop nationally in the first two years following the introduction of tuition fees and made a commitment to arresting that fall and restoring participation levels of target groups to current levels over the next five years. Early indications suggest this may be a very ambitious target and once the actual figures are available we will review this position and may alter our targets accordingly. 2 HESA T1b - Low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR2) (Young, full-time, undergraduate entrants) Restore 2009/10 levels of participation for young full-time undergraduates from Low Participation Neighbourhoods to 15.5% by 2016/17 No 2009/10 15.5% 14.5% 15% 15.5% In the 2012/13 agreement MMU anticipated that participation would drop nationally in the first two years following the introduction of tuition fees and made a commitment to arresting that fall and restoring participation levels of target groups to current levels over the next five years. Early indications suggest this may be a very ambitious target and once the actual figures are available we will review this position and may alter our targets accordingly. 3 HESA T3b - No longer in HE after 1 year & in low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR 2) (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To half the difference between the non- continuation rate for young full-time first degree entrants from LPNs and that for those from other neighbourhoods No 2009/10 3.5% 2.5% 2% 1.75% Non-continuation rate for those from LPNs in 2009/10 was 12.8% compared with 9.3% for other neibourhoods, resulting in the current 3.5% difference . 4 HESA T3b - No longer in HE after 1 year & in low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR 2) (Young, full-time, first degree entrants) To improve the ...
Table 7a. Exposure results for pesticide A in mg per dosimeter for mixer/loaders & operators (TRIAL SET 1) Amount per quantity handled (mg) PESTICIDE A ML-1 ML-2 ML-3 ML-4 ML-5 ML-6 OP-1 OP-2 OP-3 OP-4 OP-5 OP-6 outer jacket 0.049 1.502 0.066 0.011 0.018 0.007 2.691 2.577 4.948 0.746 0.372 0.797 outer trousers 0.028 0.037 0.010 0.007 <LOQ 0.004 5.460 4.941 5.222 0.373 0.373 0.754 inner shirt <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.005 0.020 0.010 0.009 <LOQ 0.029 inner pants <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.026 0.033 0.014 0.005 0.007 0.012 cap <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.002 0.015 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.002 inner gloves <LOQ 0.297 0.030 0.006 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.008 <LOQ 0.004 protective gloves 0.398 0.359 0.218 0.005 <LOQ 0.001 0.464 0.413 0.340 0.091 0.037 0.058 ML1, ML2, ML3 and OP1, OP2, OP3 handled pesticide A (morning) while ML4, ML5, ML6 and OP4, OP5, OP6 handled pesticide B (afternoon) Table 7b: Exposure results for pesticide B in mg per dosimeter for mixer/loaders and operators (TRIAL SET 1) Amount per quantity handled (mg) PESTICIDE B ML-4 ML-5 ML-6 OP-4 OP-5 OP-6 outer jacket 0.113 0.101 0.028 0.855 0.633 1.134 outer trousers <LOQ 0.086 0.005 0.226 0.631 1.114 inner shirt <LOQ <LOQ 0.005 0.003 0.004 0.005 inner pants 0.003 0.003 0.010 0.004 0.006 0.007 cap <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.002 0.016 0.005 inner gloves 0.009 0.239 0.101 0.001 0.001 0.009 protective gloves 1.510 1.299 1.782 0.093 0.122 0.141 ML4, ML5, ML6 and OP4, OP5, OP6 handled pesticide B (afternoon) Table 7c: Exposure results for pesticide A in mg a.s./ kg a.s. handled for mixer/loaders and operators (TRIAL SET 1) Amount per quantity handled (mga.s./Kg a.s.) PESTICIDE A ML-1 ML-2 ML-3 ML-4 ML-5 ML-6 OP-1 OP-2 OP-3 OP-4 OP-5 OP-6 outer jacket 0.602 18.482 0.817 0.136 0.227 0.086 39.4 34.3 60.9 10.9 4.95 9.81 outer trousers 0.344 0.461 0.126 0.81 <LOQ 0.050 80.0 65.7 64.3 5.47 4.96 9.28 inner shirt <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.075 0.268 0.125 0.131 <LOQ 0.362 inner pants <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.384 0.434 0.177 0.071 0.097 0.152 cap <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.026 0.204 0.104 0.009 0.020 0.021 inner gloves <LOQ 3.653 0.373 0.077 0.007 0.061 0.007 0.019 0.022 0.115 <LOQ 0.044 protective gloves 4.899 4.415 2.680 0.058 <LOQ 0.016 6.800 5.497 4.188 1.331 0.490 0.710 ML1, ML2, ML3 and OP1, OP2, OP3 handled pesticide A (morning) while ML4, ML5, ML6 and OP4, OP5, OP6 handled pesticide B (afternoon) Table 7d: Exposure results for pesticide B in mg a.s./ kg a.s. handled for mixer/loaders & oper...
