Welcome slide
Future arrangements for the
Destination of Leavers from
Higher Education Survey
Davina Madden – HEFCE Regional Consultant and
Interim Head of Provision of Information Policy
Manchester
20 August 2013
Aims of the event
• Provide an update on the process for
2014
• Hear from an institution that
manages the survey
• Hear from us about what a potential
contractor could offer
• Discuss the pros and cons of each of
our options and feed back to us
Changes to DLHE survey 2014-15
Rationale
•
White Paper’s commitment to develop a ‘level
playing field’ between all types of HE provider
•
English FECs would be required to fund and
administer the DLHE survey for themselves
Circular letter outlining options for FECs (April 13)
•
To ‘go it alone’ - fund and administer the DLHE survey
for themselves
•
HEFCE to tender on behalf of FECs to establish a
framework supplier
•
To collaborate with other FECs/HEIs to run the survey
as a consortium
Update on the process
• Support to manage
procurement and data quality.
Expected Timeline
Aug 2013
Informal consultation events
• HEFCE to appoint a supplier
through OJEU open tender
process.
Sep 2013
Circular Letter outlining full
process.
Feb2014
• First tranche of the survey
(April 2014) for English FECs to
become optional
Complete OJEU competitive
tender
Feb 2014
Supplier appointed
Mar 2014
Training events for FECs
Apr 2014
Tranche one survey returns
(optional)
Apr 2014
FECs complete preparedness
checklist
May 2014
Feedback on checklist from
HEFCE
Oct 2014
Survey activity starts
• HEFCE supplier in place to
support second tranche
(January 2015)
• After 2015, FECs expected to
use framework supplier if data
does not meet requirements.
What this will mean for your institution.
We want to explore with you...
• What our proposals would mean for
your institution
• What considerations should we build
into the Invitation to Tender for
approved supplier.
• How we can further support you
through these changes
Association of Colleges (AoC)
Nick Davy – AoC HE Policy Manager
Manchester
20 August 2013
Data Quality
Richard Puttock – HEFCE Head of data and management information
Manchester University
20 August 2013
Why good DLHE data is important
High response rates
• Target response rate:
• Full Time – 80%
• Part Time – 70%
Important because:
• Comparable and publishable data –
used to inform student choice
• Quality assurance and enhancement
• Informs public policy - the social,
cultural and economic benefit of
Higher Education
HEFCE’s Data Thresholds...
Currently a minimum of 23
students
• Concern of non-publishable data
• Round table discussions about data
thresholds
• Part of HEFCE’s financial
memorandum
• Data contributes to the wider debate
around the value of HE in FE
• Distinctive contribution of smaller
providers
HEFCE’s requirements
Data requirements
• Complete responses and full data
• Correct SOC and SIC coding
• Data submission via HEFCE extranet,
linked to ILR (XML format).
Preparedness checklist
• To help FECs think about the
practicalities of running the survey
• To allow HEFCE to act as a critical
friend
DLHE Collection In-House
Jan Moore
Assistant Head of Careers & Employability
Manchester Metropolitan University
DLHE Collection In-House –
the MMU context
 We are a very big institution – some 9,000 students are
surveyed every year across the April and January
collections so we can reap economies of scale
 Extensive telephone follow up is required - only 12% of
our students replied on-line in the 2011/12 collection
 Growing interest in destinations due to DLHE being a KPI
means that we have to offer MMU staff an expert and
professional support service throughout the year
 Two members of C&E staff now work full-time on DLHE
and related graduate labour market issues
The advantages of doing DLHE
in-house
 It’s good PR - continued contact when other university
services have ceased
 Highlights our ‘after-sales’ service
 Increases knowledge of the graduate labour market –
emerging trends can be identified quickly
 Enables the writing of great case studies and marketing
materials
 Quality assurance – always has been an informal means of
getting honest feedback
 Existing students help with the ‘phone survey – great for
their skill development and they get paid!
The disadvantages of undertaking
the DLHE collection in-house
 Identifying your POPDLHE – need excellent relations
with your IT people and they need to be interested
in/have time for DLHE too
 The evening work! (Overtime and TOIL)
 Manual paper sifting vs. electronic processing
 Marking up and coding incl. JACS and SOC 2010
 Steady flow of HESA circulars that need to be read –
and understood! There is an annual re-visiting and
revision training of what we need to do - and when
DLHE Collection In-House: Key Issues
 Level of support from your institution as a whole
 Level of support that can be called on from
IT/Management Information systems
 Interest and knowledge of the staff involved
 Support network – HEIs have AGCAS and
increasingly regional and LinkedIn groups but CFE’s?
 Value for Money – what you get back in terms of
greater knowledge, alumni contacts etc must justify
the cost
What a contractor would
offer
Matthew Barrow – HEFCE HE Policy Adviser
Manchester
20 August 2013
Running the DLHE survey through a contractor
• HEFCE to run a tender exercise to establish a
preferred supplier.
• This should:
• Ensure economies of scale
• Reduce the burden for FECs to run
competitive tender exercises
• Support FECs to provide good quality
data
Current Contractor
• Current contractor for the
collection of DLHE data for FECs
covers:
• 116 colleges
• 22,438 graduates
• College populations range
from 4 to 1590
• Response target of 80% (high)
• Means contacting over 17,950
graduates
College’s Responsibility
• Provide the contractor with a
contact list of the survey sample
• Communicate with the
contractor
What the contractor will provide
Contracted to run the survey on your behalf
• Set up data systems
• Advertise and market the survey
• Digital copy of the survey sent out via e-mail
• Specialist online survey software with
unique access codes
• Adapted for smart phones
• Text messages
• Letters
• Fully trained call team
• Diagnostics
• Producing the data and analysing
Costs involved
Costs
• Currently, the survey runs at a cost of ≈
£ 10 per student
• Dependent on the bids that we receive
from our Invitation to Tender
• There may be an annual set up cost
• There may be a cost per student
Practicalities of using a contractor
• Staff and student awareness of the survey
running
• Quality of the alumni contact records
• Set up costs for institutions
Benefits to using a contractor
Benefits
• End to end service
• Reduced risk
• Fixed costs
• Expertise and experience
• Soc and Sic coding
• The rules and any changes
• No need to recruit temporary staff
• Economies of scale
• Brand awareness
Group Discussion
Davina Madden – HEFCE Regional Consultant and
Interim Head of Provision of Information Policy
Manchester
20 August 2013
Discuss in groups
• Feedback on HEFCE’s process
• Timing
• Options available
• Preparedness checklist
• What would be the implications for
your institution
• How can HEFCE support FECs
through these changes