Working Group 5: Cost/Benefit Analysis
Martin Cloonan, Arnaud Haeringer, Benedetto Matarazzo, Mark Murphy and Mike
Osborne: Steering the Fifth Wheel: Defining and Funding Continuing Education in
Four EU Countries
Abstract
This article examines the possibility of establishing funding models for Continuing
Education (CE) within four European Union countries - France; Ireland; Italy; and
Scotland. In doing so it first raises the question of what constitutes Continuing
Education. Having noted the breadth of the term, the article continues by investigating
the existence of funding models by examining the use of cost-benefit analysis in
determining course provision in the relevant countries. It is suggested that ideological
commitments on behalf of the providers militate against the use of simple cost-benefit
analysis. But, contrary to expectation, this ideology is expressed more with reference to
costs than it is with reference to benefits. We finish by considering whether funding
models can be established and how those models might affect perceptions of CE.
Introduction
In March 1996 the European Universities Continuing Education Network (EUCEN)
applied for funding from the European Commission's SOCRATES fund for an
ERASMUS Thematic Network Project to examine the European dimension of CE. The
intention was to address inter-disciplinary and administrative issues of common interest
with a view to increasing pan-European co-operation. In particular the project aimed to
collect data on a national and European level on good practice and innovation in
continuing education and to identify facilitatory and inhibiting factors in European
collaboration. The proposal, entitled "Thematic Network Project in European University
Continuing Education" (THENUCE), received an initial one year grant of 100.000 ECU
which together with contributions from partner universities and organisations facilitated
a European report and 19 individual country reports (EUCEN 1997). THENUCE is one
of two ‘horizontal’ networks funded by the EC, the other being Open and Distance
Learning, and there exist some 32 other subject-specific ‘vertical networks’ (EC 1998).
Following further funding, in years 2 and 3 of the THENUCE, particular issues identified
in the initial year (EUCEN 1997, p15) are being considered by 13 Working Groups with
topics ranging from the role of academics in CE, through researching the learning
process and up to networking and CE around the world. We are involved in Working
Group 5, which deals with Cost Benefit Analysis in CE. The aim was to investigate the
use of cost-benefit analysis in the provision of CE within four EUCEN countries (France;
Ireland; Italy; and Scotland), focusing on two institutions in each country. The research
concentrated upon one key stakeholder - the provider. It was hoped to develop a model
of funding CE and to compare and contrast differing models used within the eight
institutions under review.
Each of the participant countries produced a national profile of CE provision which
formed the backdrop to the group’s work. In addition a literature review of cost-benefit
analysis was conducted at the University of Stirling. From this it became clear that while
the costs of education could be calculated (if often somewhat crudely), the benefits
were more problematic, as they were often articulated in subjective, value-laden, terms.
Partly because of this, some commentators have doubted whether cost-benefit analysis
to educational projects (Fielden and Pearson, 1978). However, it became clear to us
that, at a minimum, cost-benefit analysis focuses attention on choosing between a set of
alternatives (Woodhall, 1980). Furthermore, it became evident during the course of the
research that for CE providers decisions concerning costs and benefits informs much of
their daily praxis.
In order to determine how widespread the use of cost-benefit analysis was in the
provision of CE a questionnaire was designed. This formed the backdrop to a series of
semi-structured interviews which were conducted with the eight CE providers. The
questionnaire was divided into four parts which dealt with: provision; costings and fees;
perceived benefits; and general points. The questionnaire was designed to stimulate
discussion and to produce a qualitative analysis of cost-benefit analysis in CE in the
participant countries from the providers’ point of view. In order to achieve this it was
necessary to pose a simple question.
Part One: What is Continuing Education?
The provision of CE in each country is partly a result of historical legacies. Limitations of
space prevent in-depth analysis of this, but the situation can be precised as follows: all
of the countries involved provide a range of CE within the context of increasing numbers
of people entering HE and a pan-EU acceptance of the concept of Lifelong Learning. In
France the "right" to HE is established under the baccalaureat system, with all who pass
this exam being allowed to enter university. The CE tradition can be seen in the
establishment of special university examinations for adults in 1956, les examens
speciaux d’access aux etudes universitaires (Council of Europe, 1996: 65). In Italy CE is
somewhat newer, having only began to be established in 1986 (Catania et al, 1997: 2).
Ireland can trace its provision of CE back to the 1940s (Murphy, 1997: 2), while
Scotland has by far the longest tradition of CE, as it can trace its roots back to the late
nineteenth century (Osborne, 1997: 1).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, no one answer emerged in answer to the question of what CE
consisted of. Nevertheless, some common factors emerged. It was apparent that an
important thread within CE in all of the participant countries is the heritage of Liberal
Adult Education (LAE) and a commitment to education furthering social justice
(Osborne, 1997: 1). Thus the question of what CE is elicited such responses as "the
advancement of the cultural level of adults" (Catania et al, 1997: 1); "an empowerer of
adults to take a more active and effective role in... society" (Murphy, 1997: 1) and
generally to help adults who have taken a break from education to return (Feutrie, 1997:
1).
Generally there was no formal state-derived definition of CE, but rather a range of
activities undertaken by universities which fitted under the broad heading. Within this a
crude divide could be drawn between general adult education courses of the LAE
tradition, and professional training of the sort which often referred to as Continued
Professional Development (CPD). However, what was most impressive was the sheer
range of activities which the term Continuing Education encompasses.
Thus CE ranged from the free summer Access courses aimed at local socially
disadvantaged groups which are provided, and financially underwritten, by Glasgow
Caledonian University; to the highly prestigious (and expensive) 2-3 day seminar
courses run by the Universite de Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg which feature world
experts lecturing for audiences paying handsomely for the privilege. While these might
be the extremes of the field, they do illustrate that CE activities range from the populist
to the elitist, with a corresponding divide between the free (such as courses for the
unemployed) and the highly expensive (such as a MBAs). Such extremes occur within
and between institutions, as well as within and between countries.
To an extent the lack of a state definition of CE within the participant countries results in
a situation in which CE is whatever providers determine that it is. CE appears to be
determined by the content of the courses which it is held to encompass, rather than
having a subject-based remit which it is expected to fulfil. Ultimately it is defined by its
audience, rather than by an academic discipline.
In terms of provision, it was apparent that rather than Universities per se providing CE, it
is often departments (and/or committed individuals within them) who initiate, and then
often run, CE courses. The influence of one or two key individuals within universities as
driving forces behind CE provision was noted by a number of respondents. Some
respondents reported that provision was in response to market demand, although
provision was generally expressed as being a public service (generally to the local
community) rather than an overtly commercial enterprise. In this sense CE providers are
trying to initiate, and then shape, markets as much as they are responding to existing
markets.
The very definition of CE could be affected by what was going on elsewhere in the
market as it could shape what CE might encompass within a given institution. For
example, Haute-Alsace was acutely aware of competition, reporting that any financially
successful courses were likely to be copied and indeed stolen by competitors. This
might even go as far as competitors poaching teachers and teaching the same course
at a different price and/or venue. For others competition might simply relate to not
duplicating work which other local providers were doing. For example, has a number of
private training organisations which compete with universities in training provision
(Catania et al, 1997: 11). Only one respondent, Maynooth, was emphatic that
competition had no impact on provision.
Competition could take many forms, from the local to the regional, to the national and
beyond. Generally there was a keen awareness amongst respondents of their markets,
although it was apparent that this awareness incorporated a certain amount of
autonomy. Thus one respondent argued that universities respond to markets, but that
have some leeway in which markets they wish to respond to. For example, Louis
Pasteur marketed itself to the whole of France and Europe, whereas Glasgow
Caledonian was more orientated towards the local community, although it also
marketed some CE courses to an international audience. Thus the range (and,
implicitly, definition) of CE could be affected by the interaction between prevailing
market conditions and government initiatives.
However, the market is continually interacting with state policies. In all the participant
countries decisions by government to expand HE was shaping events within CE. In
Ireland universities are mandated to provide CE under the Universities Act, 1997.
French universities are under similar legal obligations and since 1971 French
employees have enjoyed certain rights to educational leave, especially in the public
sector. In Italy in 1994, "a law was passed.. which encouraged industries and
companies to employ young people under the age of 32 on a Contract for Work
Training" (Catania, et al, 1997: 10) in return for certain tax relief.
In most of the Universities the provision of CE was seen as very much an add-on
activity, "the fifth wheel of the car" as one respondent put it. The labelling in Ireland of
many CE activities as "extra-mural" gives insights into the often peripheral nature of CE.
This was further evidenced by the fact that the majority of CE tutors are not part of the
institution's core, but are drafted in (on highly variable terms and conditions) to teach
particular courses. For example, in Ireland such teachers accounted for around 90% of
CE provision (Murphy, 1997: 12). The respondent from Haute-Alsace lamented that
working in CE was a route which an ambitious academic would to get on in their
profession. The lack of a national profile for CE was particularly lamented in Italy
especially as CE is a comparatively new phenomenon there (Catania et al, 1997:
passim).
The counterweight to this was a great deal of autonomy within, and on behalf of,
institutions. Practically all of the respondents spoke of departmental autonomy, saying
that they could run whatever courses they wished providing that they did not bring the
university into disrepute or, even worse, cost the university money. (Although it was
accepted that some Access and extra-mural courses were effectively loss-making
goodwill gestures to the local community).
Part Two: Using Cost-Benefit Analysis
While the use of cost-benefit analysis was restricted, it was apparent that a number of
factors were important in considering the issue. These were: costings; ideology; benefits
and the interaction of CE with Lifelong Learning.
a: Costings
In order to establish funding models a number of questions were asked about course
costings. This resulted in a number of funding models for departments being articulated
by respondents. Some departments were entirely dependent on raising funds via selling
courses - to both individuals and businesses. Others got money from research activities,
external sponsorships (including European Union and local government funding). The
Irish and Scottish respondents also mentioned research as an income stream. One
department managed to maintain itself primarily through top-slicing the budgets of other
departments within the institution, although this was felt to be vulnerable to the internal
politics of the institution. Overall the picture was very much one of a mixed economy,
perhaps reflecting the fact that CE provision is often ‘far from homogenous’ (Osborne,
1997: 1). Significantly, none were entirely funded by central government, although some
posts were funded from central and local government monies and from EU sources,
especially in work with the socially disadvantaged.
Not surprisingly, costings analysis for individual courses varied enormously. Here a
great deal is dependent upon the system adopted by institutions in reaction to state
policy and market forces. But event within these constraints, there is room for some
autonomy. As one respondent noted, even when mandated to supply CE, institutions
have to make decisions about how much CE to provide. Mitigating factors include
whether the course is to be paid for by public funds, by students, or by employers; what
publicity materials will be produced; whether the teachers are university employees or
external; what the university charges the department for its services; the cost of
teaching materials (especially if any laboratory work is involved); whether the course
might be considered to be a "loss-leader", the exclusivity of the course; and, as most
respondents remarked, "what the market will bear".
One respondent suggested that three criteria have to be met before a course will run an unmet need from individuals or enterprises; institutional competence in teaching the
proposed course; and someone to pay for it. Another suggested that anything could be
done as long as the bills were paid. The wide-range of activities covered by the term
"CE" obviously offers the potential for almost limitless variables to affect funding, but
these characteristics were common across all the providers and most courses.
All of the respondents spoke of costing their courses, but this did not generally appear
to be the most scientific of analyses, indeed the process was described in one instance
as being "ad hoc " (Murphy, 1997: 12) and even "arbitrary" (ibid: 20). One respondent
spoke of course costs as capable of being worked out on the back of a cigarette packet
with the proviso that the cost of each part of the course should not exceed the price of a
take-away meal. If it did local people would not attend. The overwhelming impression
gained via the questionnaire was that providers seemed to work on an intuitive feeling
that courses would be profitable, with the caveat that, with the exception of some
Access-type courses, institutions will not run courses unless they can at least cover
their costs.
When the question of funding formulas was raised, some respondents referred to
expected market demand or to specific requests from clients as being motivations for
running courses. The main cost was staff, primarily for tuition, but also involving
administration, which could be considerable. Publicity materials were generally seen as
forming around 10% of a course's budget.
Questions were also asked about the availability of government funding for courses.
Some institutions were able to reduce fees because of various local and national
government subsidies. Courses were also provided for free for unemployed people in
Haute-Alsace and other places, while Maynooth orientated much of its provision
towards the socially disadvantaged. In Haute-Alsace courses for the unemployed
benefited from local government subsidies of up to 70%.
The respondent from the University of Catania was adamant that as the university was
in an underdeveloped area, the main funding should remain the state. This was an
example of commitment to the socially disadvantaged, but the institution clearly had a
wider market than this group as it also undertook training for Italian diplomats.
Interestingly, the idea of a partnership between universities and local government
bodies was mentioned by respondents in all the countries examined, with the exception
of France. In all of the participant countries, the EU was cited as a funder of some
courses, especially those for the unemployed. But no institution reported that European
money was central to their funding regime.
A key variable was the approach of the central university authorities to CE, especially
with regard to what happened to fees once they had been paid. In some institutions
there was a claw back from the University of a certain percentage, although Catania
and University College Dublin reported that they were able to keep all their fees. (One
institution reported that while it was paid a fee for running a course there was no
necessary relationship between this and the amount of income which the course
generated). Other universities operated on a more ad hoc basis, with the caveat that
once most universities would routinely become interested in any courses which were
financially lucrative. Bari reported that 15% of course fees went to the department and
the same to the centre.
There were no instances in which the price of non-accredited courses was significantly
lower than that of accredited courses. Prices for courses tended to relate more to the
cost of provision, rather than to whether or not the course engendered an award. In no
instance were employers and businesses charged a higher rate for courses. This was a
little surprising given the ideological impression which was given by the majority of the
respondents.
b: Ideology
There was strong evidence of a paternalistic streak amongst respondents who often
characterised the provision of CE as being a social good which was being used to help
the socially disadvantaged. Respondents spoke of CE serving the "community" and
"society". This was particularly the case in Ireland where much extra-mural activity is
provided with the specific aim of countering "social issues such as poverty and
disadvantage" (Murphy, 1997: 13). But it was also noted within Scotland where some
courses had been specifically targeted at socially excluded groups (Osborne, 1997: 22).
An overt declaration of an ideological commitment to equality
which was implicit in many of replies. Costs might be the major determinant of provision,
but CE providers also apparently retained a great sense of social responsibility. CE
provision was seen in terms of helping non-traditional students and, in the case of
Ireland of "reducing inequality" (Murphy, 1997: 19). However, this was underpinned in
terms of a pragmatic response to the question of costings. References to the market
were made in terms which suggested that some markets were open for exploitation in a
commercial sense, while others were to be provided for in order to fulfil CE’s traditional
role of providing liberal adult education. But this must be tempered by the realisation
that "CE" can encompass postgraduate, professional and specialist courses aimed
primarily at (comparatively) privileged audiences.
As it was clear that many CE practitioners had a commitment to issues of social justice,
a question was asked about whether some CE courses were used to cross-subsidise
other courses. One respondent said that courses were cross-subsidised in order to fulfil
the University's commitment to widening access which was contained in its Mission
Statement. Another simply referred to "inequality in society" as a justification for crosssubsidisation. But in general, with the exception of Ireland, the answer to whether crosssubsidy took place was no.
However, it was apparent that this should be viewed in terms of providers not
deliberately setting out to cross-subsidise courses. Some courses were clearly more
lucrative than others and could more than cover their costs. Although the respondents
reported that their universities central administration were keen to keep any "profits", it
is clear that some found their way back into departmental funds and became de facto
subsidies for other courses via such means as paying for secretarial support; upkeep of
buildings; employment of some academic staff; etc. Sometimes profits were deliberately
generated as it was clear that the market for certain courses (for example in Business
Studies and other professional courses) would bear a high cost). However, subsidies
generally tended to be more covert than overt.
Arguably moves towards the accreditation of CE courses and away from non-accredited
courses (especially in the UK) is a counterweight to ideological commitment to
increased Access and social justice as it stresses training and competences rather than
intellectual development. The wide ranging nature of CE meant that there was a great
deal of variation in the amount of courses which were accredited ranging from
practically all courses at Glasgow Caledonian to only two courses in Catania.
Respondents reported a range of 5-95% of their courses being accredited.
In France accredited prior learning (APL) was of particular importance (Council of
Europe, 1996:65, Davies et al 1998). In Ireland there is less accreditation, but a slow
movement towards it with Maynooth reporting that there seemed little point in continuing
with non-accredited course. In Italy accreditation was less of an issue, with ‘culturally
developing employees’ (Catania et al, 1997: 12) being given greater emphasis. In
Scotland there is a general shift towards accreditation (Osborne, 1997: 2).
However crude economic determinism was resisted in a number of ways. The
respondent from Glasgow Caledonian University was adamant that it was the
university's commitment to wider access in its Mission Statement which was the
motivating factor behind CE provision. He believed that there was an interaction
between ideological commitment and financial pragmatism which could never be fully
disentangled in order to ascertain which part was being determinant at any particular
point.
Another department said that it was planning to place itself more centrally within the
University's activities in order to pursue a social justice agenda, while UCD reported that
it is moving from a model primarily centred on market forces towards one which will be
directed much more towards community needs. From these comments it is clear that
ideological and political commitment within an institution can militate against crude
economic reductionism. CE is still seen by many of the practitioners here as something
which is too be valued in its own right, not as something to simply be bought and sold.
There was also another impact of ideology - that of influencing how practitioners
perceived their role. This may account for the fact that while the literature on costbenefit analysis makes much of the opportunity costs of pursuing certain courses of
action, none of the respondents made much of this. Presumably CE providers are not
used to thinking in such ways, as CE is what they want to do, the opportunity cost of
doing something else is not part of day-to-day thinking.
It was also apparent that the fashionable view (especially within successive UK
governments) that the state should retreat from its role in education with individuals
taking more responsibility for their own learning did not find favour with the respondents.
For example, one respondent was adamant that local government should pay for
expansion of CE and was lobbying hard for this to happen. While none of the
respondents could currently rely totally on state funding, it was clear that at least half of
them hoped that this would change. This may stem from a desire simply gain further
funding, but it also appeared be a manifestation of the desire to use the state as an
enabler of disadvantaged groups. The respondents from Catania and Maynooth held
that as the state gained a great deal from CE for very little financial input, it should
supply it with more resources and redress the balance.
c: Benefits
While respondents were able to pinpoint costings in a were comparatively thorough
way, articulation of possible proved far more difficult. However, while ideological
responses might have been expected here, few were forthcoming. Instead the cash
nexus was cited. A question was asked about what the benefits of CE were for the
following stakeholders: government/society, institutions, employers, and individual
students. Despite the fact that no restriction was placed on the kinds of benefits which
were included, benefits tended to be most easily and frequently expressed in financial
terms. For example, the respondent from Catania highlighted increased production.
Thus even though there was an ideological commitment to social justice on behalf of
some the practitioners (and their institutions) questioned, they tended to articulate
benefits in financial terms.
In the case of the government/society, benefits were expressed as more qualified
personnel and a better educated population in general which was deemed to be of
intrinsic merit. It was also suggested by two respondents from (France and Italy) that
higher taxes might flow from a better-educated workforce. Institutions were held to
benefit from the chance to experiment with new courses, from better-educated and
professional staff (in the case of CPD/Staff development) and from the chance to show
their commitment to the local community (in the case of liberal adult education and
extra-mural classes). At Haute-Alsace it was also noted that CE also provides
universities with the opportunity to experiment with courses which might later become
part of more mainstream provision and thus a regular source of income. For employers
the benefits were perceived as being a better educated/more motivated workforce from
whom particular economic benefits might flow. While to a certain extent respondents
were putting themselves in other people’s shoes here, it was noticeable that an
economic bottom line was soon articulated.
The main economic beneficiaries were held to be students. It was not routinely
assumed that students would automatically benefit financially from going on CE
courses, but this was almost routinely seen as a motivation. Indeed, one respondent
suggested that students were simply motivated by a desire to improve their present
(financial) circumstances. Thus while CE providers often speak in terms of developing
students’ intellectual capacities and education as a good in itself (Osborne, 1997: 1),
they are also keenly aware that for many of the students this might be a means to
another end.
A question on the criteria by which the benefits of CE were judged by the participant
institutions produced answers including attendance levels; improved career prospects
for students; social and economic progress; social and philosophical progress; prestige
to the university; and relevance to the community at large. There was less equating of
benefits with finance here, although one respondent again said that financial
considerations were becoming increasingly important. At a minimum financial obstacles
were the first hurdle that any proposed course had to cross. Once again, it appears that
providers have aspirations which go beyond pure economics, but are more than aware
that it is economics which underpin courses.
When interviewees were asked about measuring benefits the picture became fuzzier.
One respondent said that benefits were measured "very imprecisely". The respondent
from Dublin was not sure that measurement is even possible and a third respondent
pointed out that student evaluation of courses in was in some ways a pointer to benefits,
as positive responses from students at least indicated some benefits if only at the level
of enjoyment. In certain areas of CPD it was possible to design courses which produced
more concrete benefits in terms of whether, after attending a training course, students
could perform the task for which they had been trained. It might also be possible to
measure benefits in terms of whether students who wanted to improve their careers did
so after the end of a course. It was also clear that simple benefits such as gaining a
university place after an Access course; examinations success; or being able to perform
a task once trained were capable of measurement. However, again, it was apparent that
there was a general perception that CE was doing good in the world, but less scientific
proof of this, especially in terms of intellectual development.
Overall, it was clear that benefits were harder to articulate than costs. This is not
surprising as costs can be noted in concrete figures whereas many of the perceived
benefits are somewhat abstract. Thus, ideological commitment to societal equality
notwithstanding, when asked to articulate benefits respondents often lapsed into
economic models, perhaps based on perceptions of student motivations.
d: CE and Lifelong Learning
The research was carried out at a time when the notion of Lifelong Learning had gained
almost universal acceptance across Europe, following the European Year of Lifelong
Learning in 1996. Superficially, it might appear that the concept would find wide appeal
amongst CE practitioners, especially those with a career in adult education. Thus a
question was included on the relationship between CE and Lifelong Learning. In France,
Ireland and Italy they were viewed as being part of the same process, with the caveat
that CE is often centred on those at work (especially in terms of COD). The respondent
from Catania reported that one of the reasons it provided CE was in order to fulfil its
commitment to Lifelong Learning in Europe and that the two were synonymous. Bari's
respondent reported that Lifelong Leaning applied to non-accredited courses, with CE
being accredited. The situation in Ireland was said to be in a state of flux (Murphy, 1997:
5), although Lifelong Learning has a special role under the 1997 Education Act (ibid: 1).
In France there has been a movement way from a situation where all universities had to
have a CE department to one where CE is often provided by other departments.
Perceptions of Lifelong Learning were more guarded in Scotland, with a certain amount
of cynicism about the concept being apparent, especially in attempts to make all
learning measurable via accreditation. A Scottish Office Education and Industry
Department (SOEID) consultation document on Lifelong Learning is expected in July
1998, an equivalent Green Paper, The Learning Age (Department for Education and
Employment (DfEE) 1998) having already been published in England and Wales in
response to the 1997 Dearing Report on Higher Education (Dearing 1997).
The question on Lifelong Learning produced answers which showed that within all of the
participant countries it is perceived as something which is, and will increasingly be,
quantifiable. In general cautious approval of the concept was matched by concern that it
was being used to fulfil economic rather than educational aspirations. However, it was
seen as something which might be useful in promoting more recognition of the
importance of CE which has had to overcome a certain amount of hostility, particularly
in Italy and Ireland.
Part Three: Models
It is not possible to construct a simple model of funding for CE as there are too many
variables involved (understandably in the light of the wide-ranging nature of CE
evidenced here). However, it is possible to highlight the key variables and to note that
the provision of CE across the four countries is dependent on a number of factors
including of various market forces; government policy (local and national); EU policy;
institutional policy; key personalities within the institution and the level of ideological
commitment to non-market criteria. Obviously, it is also possible to do costings for
individual courses, but little sense can be made of these outside of a more holistic view
which takes account of the key variable already identified.
Costs were overwhelmingly seen by respondents in purely financial terms. For example,
it was noticeable that when asked what were the main costs for students of attending
CE classes, mention was most frequently made of financial contributions, with social
upheaval and the loss of what otherwise might be leisure time (a key opportunity cost)
being secondary considerations. It was also noted (and occasionally lamented) that
often it is the individual student who picks up most of the cost of courses. It is clear that
this is where the burden increasingly lays, commitments to widening access not
withstanding. The costs to employers and the government were most frequently
expressed in financial terms, with the general sentiment being that the costs to the latter
were minimal in terms of overall state spending.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of this survey it has not proved possible to develop a model of
funding CE, because the systems are so varied. However, the key relationships can be
noted. They are those between the state and the institution; between the institution and
the market; and those existing within the institution.
It is clear from even this brief summary that the scientific use of cost-benefit analysis in
the provision of CE in the four countries is limited. Most of the respondents limited their
use of such analysis to some fairly crude calculations of whether a given course would
cover its overheads. While some respondents were much more aware than others of
the need to find and develop markets, it was clear that most of the practitioners adopted
a somewhat pragmatic response to budgetary issues. A commitment to developing
individuals, expanding knowledge and general individual and social progress went
hand-in-hand with the realisation that this had to be paid for. Cost-benefit analysis when
it was used was clearly a means to an end - the continued provision of CE. Here an
ideological commitment to adult education was balanced by a realistic view which that
markets must be found, even for "free" courses, in order to justify continuation of
courses. Despite this respondents were markedly more capable of articulating costs
than they were in describing benefits.
The context in which the research took place is also vital. All of the countries were
expanding HE provision and CE was playing an important role in this expansion. But it
has been noted that expansion of HE in western Europe has tended to mean more of
the same type of student, rather than attracting students from different sectors of the
population (Council of Europe, 1996: 54). The relative relationship between socioeconomic position and participation in HE has not changed and it is unlikely to in a
situation where the ability to pay for education is becoming increasingly important (ibid).
Thus while CE has increased Access, much it is far from clear that it has impacted upon
relative inequality. If the use of cost-benefit analysis in CE is to increase, then this
needs factoring into the equations.
Further research is necessary to draw any firmer conclusions than the tentative ones
proposed here. However, it can be concluded here that while practitioners saw
themselves as more orientated towards the educational benefits of CE, rather than
being unduly concerned about costs, they remained more capable of articulating costs.
The paradox of cost-benefit analysis in CE may be that those who think most highly of
the benefits are more skilled in articulating costs.
Note: The authors would like to thank all those respondents and others within the
institutions who gave up so much time to help with this survey.
Appendix 1: The Questionnaire
1. Why does your university provide continuing education courses?
2. How does this provision relate to the universities strategic plan/mission statement?
3. What type of continuing education courses do you run? (please give a yes/no
answer, followed by a brief description if applicable)
Access?
Non-Accredited Liberal Adult Education (LAE)?
Accredited LAE?
Non-Accredited Continuing Professional Development (CPD)?
Accredited CPD? (including Masters?)
Other ?
Costings
4. What sort of costings analysis does the institution/department undertake prior to
setting up continuing education courses?
5. What costing formula is involved? (e.g., does this vary according to whether the
course is accredited or not?
6. Wh at proportion of the cost of providing courses is government-funded and what
proportion paid for by the individual? (if this varies between courses, please give
details).
7. Do some continuing education courses (and/or other departmental activities)
subsidise other CE courses?
If so, on what grounds are such subsidies justified?
8. Is the cost of accredited CE courses proportionate to that of an equivalent
undergraduate course?
9. Do any outside agencies, such as local authorities, make contributions towards the
cost of providing CE courses?
10. What do you (and/or the institution think are the main costs of CE for the following?
Government/society;
Institutions;
Employers;
Individual students.
11. Approximately what percentage of courses are credit bearing and what percentage
not?
12. Are credits gained on accredited courses transferable to degrees within your
institution?
Fees
13. How does your institution decide what fees to charge students on CE courses?
14. Is there a difference between the fees charged for accredited courses and those
charged for non-accredited courses?
15. Does your institution charge higher fees for employers? If so, on what grounds?
16. What percentage of course fees goes to the university and what percentage to the
department (and what to the tutor)? (e.g., does the university have a standard
overhead/services charge?
Benefits
17. What do you (and/or the institution) think are the main benefits of CE for the
following?):
Government/society;
Institutions;
Employers;
Individual students.
18. By what criteria do you judge the benefits of CE?
19. How are these benefits measured?
General
20. How is the department as a whole funded? What sources of income does it have?
21. What are the major influences affecting the provision of CE in your institution?
22. What do you think is the relationship between CE and lifelong learning?
23. How do you propose to fund non-accredited courses in the future?
24. Does the existence of competitors shape the provision of CE by your institution?
If so, how?
25. Have you any other comments about the provision of CE by your institution
(especially with regard to costs and benefits)?
Appendix 2 Costings of A Return To Learning Course organised by the Adult
Education Office, University College Dublin
The Return to Learning course is an access course designed for adult learners. It takes
place over 20 weeks on the UCD campus, and concludes with a set of exams. The
purpose of the course is to indicate the ability of participants to attend and complete a
course. It is not a recognised access course (there is no such thing in the Republic of
Ireland), although many of the students apply to higher education institutions or are
interested in pursuing degree programmes. Normally about 40 students participate in
the course.
Income/Expenditure on the Return to Learning Course:
Income
Fees (£190 x 20)
= £3,800
Sponsorship (by Educational Building Society (EBS)) = £6,000
TOTAL:
= £9,800
Expenditure
Tuition
Administration (marketing, distribution, etc)
Overheads (electric, heating, rooms)
TOTAL:
= £6,000
= £6,000
= -----= £12,000
From these figures, it appears that the course is running at a loss. It depends, however
on the way you look at these costings. The Administrative cost of the course could be
included in the general running of the Adult Education Office. If they were taken out of
the equation, the course would run on a surplus. The funding from the EBS could be
seen as extra money to fund other aspects of the Office.
In terms of benefits to the players involved, The EBS could be said to gain in two ways.
First, it receives advertising on the brochure that is sent to 12,000 homes. Secondly, it
could be said to gain goodwill by being a sponsor of an education course. The
Educational Building Society provide 20 Bursaries for students on the course. This is
part of the £6,000 they provide as sponsorship.
According to the Director, the institution (UCD) gains in symbolism. Provision of the
course indicates a willingness to provide access to adult learners. Again it could be
seen as goodwill for the institution.
For adult students, the benefits are a return to learning and a corresponding increase in
self-confidence, and also a possible route into higher education.
Does the Adult Education Office benefit from providing this course? Monetarily, no. The
director, however, doesn’t see it as a monetary issue. The course is a public service,
and the institution is obliged to provide a course like the Return to Learning. The Office
could be said to gain in increased exposure in the field of adult education, and also in
expertise.
Note: It is difficult to separate the administering of this programme from the others on
offer via the Office. All programmes are distributed and marketed in the same way, and
staff carry out duties in relation to the course as part of their general duties in the Office.
The director, as a rule of thumb, puts the cost of administration of individual courses on
a par with tuition.
Bibliography
V.Catania, M-C.Hamill, B.Matarazzo and G.Ronisisvalle (1997) University Continuing
Education in Italy (http://www.fe.up.pt/nuce.ITAL.html).
Council of Europe (1996) Access to Higher Education for Under-represented
Groups (Strasbourg: Council of Europe).
P.Davies, J. Gallacher and F Reeve (1998) The Accreditation of Prior Experiential
Learning: a Comparison of Current Practice within the UK and France. International
Journal of University Adult Education (forthcoming)
R. Dearing (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society. London: HMSO.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) The Learning Age - Higher
Education for the 21st Century. London: DfEE
European Commission (EC) (1998) Directory of Thematic Network Projects 1996/97
and 1997/98 http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg22/socrates/tnsum/tnpdir.html
European Continuing Education Network (EUCEN) (1997) University Continuing
Education in Europe. Liege: EUCEN
J.Fielden and P.K.Pearson (1978) Costing Educational Practice. London: Council for
Educational Technology).
M.Feutrie (1997) University Continuing Education in France
(http://www.fe.up.pt/nuce/FRAM.html).
J.Howson and M.Mitchell (1995) "Course costing in devolved institutions: perspectives
from an academic department" Higher Education, 27:2, Spring 1995, pp.64-68.
G.W.Matkin (1997) Using Financial Information in Continuing Education. Phoenix:
Oryx Press.
M.Murphy (1997) University Continuing Education In Ireland
(http://www.fe.up.pt/nuce/IREL.html).
M.Osborne (1997) University Continuing Education in the United Kingdom
(http://www.fe.up.pt/nuce/UKIN.html).
M.Osborne, J.Leopold and A.Ferrie (1997) Does access work? The relative
performance of access students at a Scottish University. Higher Education 33, pp.155176.
M.Woodhall (1980) Cost-Benefit Analysis in Educational Planning Paris: UNESCO,
(second edition).
See Appendix 1.
The list of institutions which were analysed is as follows: France (Université de HauteAlsace and Université de Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, conducted by Arnaud Haeringer);
Ireland (University College of Ireland, Maynooth and University College, Dublin (UCD),
conducted by Mark Murphy); Italy (Università degli Studi di Catania and Univeristà degli
Bari, conducted by Benedetto Matarazzo) and Scotland (Glasgow Caledonian
University and the University of St. Andrews, conducted by Martin Cloonan).
‘Access courses are programmes that are specifically designed for mature student
entry to Higher Education, often with a focus on students under-represented in the
sector (e.g. socio economic groups, women especially in science and technology and
ethnic minority groups)’ (Osborne, Leopold and Ferrie, 1997: 173).
The great exception to this general rule in this survey in Glasgow Caledonian University
(GCU) which has the provision of CE at the heart of its Mission Statement the second
sentence of which includes a commitment to widen access and allow students to
develop their own pathways.
See Appendix 2 for costings of a particular course.
For a much more detailed approach see Matkin, 1997.
As a rule of thumb Haute-Alsace suggested that the following formula might be used in
costings: Costs of teachers: 50%, advertisements and other communications: 25%,
course(s) management: 25%. University College Dublin suggests that the rough figures
were: tuition: 50%, administration: 30%, publicity: 5%, printing: 5%, course materials:
10%.
A similar question relating to costs was also asked, but results here did not allow for
conclusions to be drawn.
PAGE
PAGE 1
¡—™
œ • ¤….¥ÂA¦ § çæ‚ýâ«§¯¨‚Ì¥È§È¶ÜƳˆÆ”“•Æ•‰…‡ŠÈÈƟƇ‰”‡Æ‚
’‡ŠÈÈ‚ÃČ҅­ŸÆ·‘Õ”²ŸÄÆÎŒ—
‘Õ”’Ÿ¦‰’‹‡ŠÈ…‰‹ÏÈ‚û°ƒˆƒœ“ƒŠ‡ÊÆ«‡”‡…‡ŸÊÆ¢…Æ×ßßÐÈ‚Ú¶È¢ÈÆ·“ƒÆ
‡…ƒ•Æ‰…’‰ÆÙƨ“ˆ…‡Æ•ƒ”‡•Æµ‹‰ˆÆ¤‰Š‡”ÈÈƤ‰Š•‡ÆÇ‚üý‚É֏
ä«ÂãŠïæà‚ý•çµã•ä Âà‚ÊËþÀ‚äµÂêŒä ä¢ÂêŒã«‡…”‰‚ä¥ÂêŒã¥Š‰•ƒ‚ä¤Âê
Œâ©–
ƒˆ‚ä§ÂêŒâ Šƒ‚ä«ÂãŠææàêŒå¥§¶‚ä«ÂãŠåæàêä§Âáä¥Â‚ä«ÂSummaryInfo
rmation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿe
Levine@†AEEK™½@†=-W£½@†í´Ó󯽘Ž @Ò¾–}Microsoft Word
6.011ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿãŠãæàêä§ÂáŒâµ‡ƒ
‚ä«ÂãŠäæàêä§Âáä¤Â‚ä«ÂãŠïæàêä§ÂáŒï²ƒ‹–
Š‡’ƒ•‚ä§ÂêŒâ§“’‰‚ä«ÂãŠàæàêä«ÂãŠãæàáŒä§•‚ä«ÂãŠçæàêä§Âáä¤Â‚ä«
ÂãŠîæàêä§ÂáŒâ£ƒ…‚ä«ÂãŠâæàêä§Âáä¥Â‚ä«ÂãŠáæàêŒã²‰‰Š•áä¢Â‚
ç«êŠæ悏ç¨êŠææ‚ŏç²êŠçæŠææÃîŠçæ‚ŏç¯êQfãç²àŠçæÃîŠç悏ä¤Âê^
fãç¯ôç²à‚ûäµÂêîfãXfãä¤ÂàôŠäæàø‚ŏç¬êŠææŠïæ‚ûä¤Âêä«Âãç¬àø‚
ûç²øç¨êç¨áŠçæƏç«êç«áŠç悏ç¬êŠïæ‚üû‚À‚Æ‚1æ•çæêä¤Âô•¶çêç²áç²á
Šçæô•íæ‚üû‚À‚À‚û•ä ÂëŒæø‚ûç«èŠìæåç¨ø‚7æ•JåêŠææô•°çêŠçæô•ÒæêŠçæô•±
çêŒä×ւŏç¯êŠææŠïæ‚ûç¯ëŠáæøç­êîŠçæƏç­êŠæ悏$fä ÂáŒçÜá•ä«Âã
ç¯àôä«Âãç¯àôç­‚À‚ä¤ÂêäµÂá
fãáfãàfãìfãXfãä«ÂãŠáæààôŠåæààáŠçæàà‚1æ•çæêä«ÂãŠáæàô•¶çêŠçæô•
Ðçêä¤Âô•Ò䂏ä§ÂꏦgãŠææôŠçæà‚ŏç¯êQfãŠçæàŠçæÃîŠç悏ç¬êŠæ悏ä¤
Âê•^fãç¯ôŠçæà‚×ՏXfãä¤Âà‚ՏäµÂáŒç©‚ç¬êŠäæ‚ՏäµÂáŒç¥‚ç¬êŠåæ‚Տ
äµÂáŒçµ‚ç¬êŠãæ‚ՏäµÂáŒäµ§‚ç¬êŠàæ‚üׂûç¬ø‚ä¥ÂêØgãä§ÂôŠææôç
¬à‚ûîfãIfãä¥Âàôåfãä«Âãç¬àààëIfãä«Âãç¬ààåîfãä¥ÂôŠçæàëŒçÎø$
f•ä ÂáŒçÜáä¤Âôä¥Âôç­‚üû‚À‚ç²êîŠçæ‚ŏç¯êŠææŠçæ‚ûç¯øç¬êŠçæÆ•ç
¬êŠà悏ä§Âꏦgãç¯ôç¬à‚ç¬ê§gãä§Âôç¯àîŠçæ‚ŏç«êç¬ÂŠçæÃîŠçæ‚û
éfãØgãä§Âôç¯ôç«àôä¢Âàø‚ûç¯ø‚ä¤ÂêØgãä§Âôç¯ôç«îŠäæà‚ûIfã
ä¤ÂàëIfãä«ÂãŠïæààåîfãä¤ÂôŠçæàëŒçÎø$fä«ÂãŠïæàôä¤Âôç­‚Æ‚ç«ê
ç«áŠçæ‚üû‚ŏç²êç«Âç«îŠçæÃîŠçæ‚ûç²éŠåæøWç•Jäêç¯ô•Íæêç²ô•çæêØgã
ä§Âôç¯ôç²àô•áæêä§Âô•_çô•åæêŠææ‚À‚ç«êŠç悏ç²êŠææ‚üû‚À‚À‚ûç²ø‚ŏç
¯êŠàæ笂ûîfãØgãä§ÂôŠçæôç¯àôŠçæàêŒçÎåîfãØgãä§ÂôŠçæôç¯îŠä
æàôŠçæàêŒçÎø‚ŏç²êŠçæŠåæÊä悏ä¤ÂêØgãä§ÂôŠçæôç¯îç²à‚ûîfãä¤
ÂôŠçæàëŒçÎø$fä«Âãç²áŠàæàôä¤Âôç­‚À‚ç¯êç¬‚üû‚À‚üû‚üû‚ɏç¢Ò²æ‚؏
碂ûç¨èŠìæåç¢•-æêŠçæâç¢•-æêŠææâç¢•-æêŠàæø‚ç¢•æêŠçæ‚ŏç¯êQfãŠææàŠçæÃîŠç悏ä¤Âê^fãç¯ôŠææà‚ûä¤Âëä«ÂãŠáæàø
ç­êîŠçæƏç­êŠæ悏$fä¤Âôä ÂáŒçÜáä¤Âôç­‚À‚²æç¢‚üû‚üû‚å£””êŠææ‚
üý‚ý•ä ©‚ÊËþÀ‚0f‚ÊË̏磂ɏç¢Ò¶æ‚؏碂ُ碂¶æç¢‚çµãç¢•çæàƒç£ÿ‚üý‚ý
•ä ¥‚ÊËþÀ‚0f‚çµãÃfãàà‚Ff‚üý‚ýä µ‚ÊËþÀ‚0f‚ÊËÌç ‚µæ‚çµãÃfãààƒç ÿ‚üý‚ý
•å µ§‚ÊËþÀ‚0f‚ÊË̏硂ɏç¢Ò²æ‚؏碂ûç¢•æëŠçæø‚ُ碂²æç¢‚çµãç¢•çæà‚Æ‚ç²êØfãà‚ä±Âêç¢•ç悏©æ•´æêÃfãà‚
ÊË̏箂؏碂ç¢•çæêä±Â‚ُ碂²æç¢‚ÊË̏硂çµãç¢•çæà‚ûç²÷Øfãàøç²ê
ç²áŠç悏8fç²ƒç®ÿ‚FfŠäæ‚üûƒç¡ÿ‚üýèéòí¤¨ §ÅÄñϏ?i…é鏏ꪨ¹Ÿèºìƒéïó
òŸú…÷šÓß×Ðú²³†¸ú÷ÝßÎèŸÍ›ù»›˜˜ú„…îï‹ô†ë¢®¦¡‹ÃÂ÷É‹†ì¬®¿™í© ‹õôôõ‘îœñ¸´¼»‘Ù
ØíÓ‘œö¶´¥ƒ÷³¦‘ïîß޺ŷړŸ—
ºòóÆøº·ÝŸ¨ßÛ¹û^ÛØغÄŃ‚æ™ë†ÏÃËÌ殯š¤æëÁÃÒôÄÁ昙Œé–
ä‰ÀÌÄÃé¡ •«éäŽ ÎÌÝûŽ ËÞÌé—–
diMAINdÎϫԦ˂†«ÕÔ­¯·{ÃËkl#$j‘äõ”™NS<=±½ÝæÄ!Ê!á&æ&4'6',¢,b-c-—-œ-0
0(0.02(233333Ì8Ô8B>C>D>{A|A}AKHQHôJK?SKS‘T™T×YÜY4[7[ _¤_`!`ÿc
d´eµe¶eJwgwhwiwhz¯‚üúüúüú÷ú÷úîúåúüú÷ú÷ú÷úîú÷ú÷ú÷ú÷ú÷ú÷úåú÷ú÷ú÷úüúüîúü
ú÷úîáúîáú÷úüú÷ú÷ú÷ú÷ú÷ú÷úüúåÞúüúüúüú]h]euDP]huDP]eV]]]^V¯‚°‚Ÿ†©†—
Ÿ‘‘¬‘Α“¦“˜˜ú™û™š››'(åŸìŸc n ˆ¨˜¨à¨ý¨>©u©1ªdª†ª®ªõª#«%«.«<«>«^«˜«
¬5¬g¬ƒ¬Ä¬í¬ˆ­˜­Ê­ý­&®P®‰®¾®h¯x¯œ¯É¯å¯î¯ï¯ð¯°°÷±ø±4³5³N´O´…´†´»´¼´¶¶‰¶Š
¶¶‘¶üú÷úôú÷ú÷ðúðúðëúðúðé÷ú÷ú÷ú÷úüúüúüúüúüåüú÷úüúüúüúüúüúüúüúüúüúüúáúÛ
ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÕÓÕPuDPuDPU•]^U•]ha U•]a ]a
V]]^]U]S‘¶’¶”¶•¶›¶œ¶¶¶Ÿ¶¢¶£¶ßÀý÷ý÷ý÷ýõóu]uDPP®¯¸¹
QRnoêìj’y"è!7$8$L'N*O*Ñ,Ò,102022)2*23333]7^7ã:ä:å<æ<üE#ØüE#ØüE#ØüE#
Øü
E#ØüE#ØüE#ØüE#ØüE#ØüE#Øü
E#ØüE#ØüÿE#üE#Øüöööööööüüöüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüð33,æ<@@}A~ALCMCF
F1I2IóJôJKKNMOM•MÈPÉPðRñR#V$VYXZXUZVZ9\:\›^œ^z`{`þcÿcddugvgÛkÜk1n2n
qqüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüü3q´uµuIwJwhwiwN~O~gh{|mƒnƒ†Ÿ†ª†«†ç‡è‡ŒŒBC‘‘‘­‘®‘¯‘͑Α’h’î’÷’%“5“o“üü
üüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüÛÙÙÙÙÙÙ
4h.h3'o“”“œ““¦“§“%”–”H•³•è•M–Á–—0—>—J—_—¸—
˜˜˜˜n˜æ˜:™û™ü™ššgš{š‰š•šªšàš›››`›µ›œFœ›œ§œ'•þþþüþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþüþþþþþü
üþþþþþþþþþüþþþþþþþ-'()Ÿ ®Ÿ¯ŸäŸåŸìŸíŸ
J K b c o p ˆ À ñ ¡¡ ¢¡¢(¤)¤ü¤ý¤™¥š¥§ §‰¨—¨˜¨$©%©—
©˜©sªtª¾ª¿ª=«þúúþ÷þþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ÷÷÷÷÷þ÷÷÷÷þúúúúúúúúúúú3,=«>«Ö«×«E¬F
¬²¬³¬--·-¸-®®w®x®å®æ®‰¯Š¯ä¯å¯æ¯ç¯è¯é¯ê¯ë¯ì¯í¯î¯ï¯°ö±÷±3³4³N´…´»´¶ˆ¶‰¶üü
üüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüüú÷÷÷ú÷÷÷÷÷õ3*‰¶’¶“¶”¶Ÿ¶ ¶¡¶¢¶£¶ù÷õù÷õõñ3`üÿ
%K@ñÿNormala
$@$ Heading 13U•a
"A@òÿ¡"Default Paragraph
Font&@¢ñFootnote Reference@
Footnote Text @ Footer
9r )@¢!Page Number @2 Header
9r k#<b*0B;{>´b£³E_–Ì&™œÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿ
ÿÿEE–&&™™™™™™™œ
£³£¶ÿÿÿÿ!ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ
ÿÿ
!ÿÿÓêë*¼7EJTÿbµr ‚îF™ ¤ˆ¥£³”)Úv
~
€
¯‚‘¶ßÀabcæ<qo“'=«‰¶£¶defghij!!ÿÜ
Liz Seagraves$\\DOCHART\EPD\mjc2\eucen\REPORT3.doc
Liz Seagraves$\\DOCHART\EPD\mjc2\eucen\REPORT3.doc
Liz Seagraves$\\Dochart\epd\mjc2\eucen\REPORT4.doc
Liz Seagraves$\\Dochart\epd\mjc2\eucen\REPORT4.doc
Liz Seagraves$\\DOCHART\EPD\mjc2\eucen\article.doc
Liz Seagraves$\\DOCHART\EPD\mjc2\eucen\article.doc
Liz Seagraves$\\DOCHART\EPD\mjc2\eucen\article.doc
Liz Seagraves$\\DOCHART\EPD\mjc2\eucen\article.docUniversity of
StirlingA:\article.doc
Bente LevineA:\ARTICLE.DOCÿUæ),
¾¶UéU
&ê¿Už {
"ÀUï•
2ÀUõ¹
NÀUÞÕ
"jÀU‚ ÷
ŒÀU•
¨ÀU
ÅÀUÏ
ÒÀœCAPF%AutoExecAutoOpenFileOpenF%OFileSaveF%S
AutoClose
FileCloseF%CFileSaveAsF%SAToolsMacroF%101
FileTemplatesCAPAUTOEXECAUTOOPENFILEOPENFILESAVE AUTOCLOSE
FILECLOSEFILESAVEASTOOLSMACRO
FILETEMPLATES@HP LaserJet Series IILPT1:HPPCLHP LaserJet Series II
DLg
ste,,ðtle Titchd‹reetÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿHP LaserJet Series II
DLg
ste,,ðtle Titchd‹reetÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ€ € € C•Times New Roman
Symbol&Arial5Courier New"ˆ
ÐhV„&FX{'f
ë&&ƒ˜I0'•L>YS&Working Group 5: Cost/Benefit Analysis
Liz Seagraves
Bente LevineÐÏࡱá;þÿ
þÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ