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. 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
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. 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. 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

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

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE AUDIT The Contractor shall allow the Authorized User to assess Contractor’s performance by providing any materials requested in the Authorized User Agreement (e.g., page load times, response times, uptime, and fail over time). The Authorized User may perform this Contractor performance audit with a third party at its discretion, at the Authorized User’s expense. The Contractor shall perform an independent audit of its Data Centers, at least annually, at Contractor expense. The Contractor will provide a data owner facing audit report upon request by the Authorized User. The Contractor shall identify any confidential, trade secret, or proprietary information in accordance with Appendix B, Section 9(a), Confidential/Trade Secret Materials.

  • Historical Performance Information To the extent agreed upon by the parties, the Sub-Advisor will provide the Trust with historical performance information on similarly managed investment companies or for other accounts to be included in the Prospectus or for any other uses permitted by applicable law.

  • Registry Performance Specifications Registry Performance Specifications for operation of the TLD will be as set forth in Specification 10 attached hereto (“Specification 10”). Registry Operator shall comply with such Performance Specifications and, for a period of at least one (1) year, shall keep technical and operational records sufficient to evidence compliance with such specifications for each calendar year during the Term.

  • Performance Evaluations 34.1. The Contractor is subject to an annual performance evaluation to be conducted by NYCDOT pursuant to the PPB Rules.

  • Performance Incentives Provided that sufficient funds are available from athletics revenue or gifts for the unrestricted use of the Department of Athletics, Athletics Director shall be entitled to receive additional non-salary compensation from the University in the form of the following stated bonuses for increased responsibilities, provided that all varsity sports are in compliance with all Governing Athletics Rules and University Rules, and there are no pending or active NCAA or __________ Conference investigations or major violations of which Athletics Director knew or should have known. [Insert Incentives – See examples below

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