dse future talent - the student€¦ · dse future talent 2017/18 - project teams ... this involves...

DSE FUTURE TALENT

………………………

2017/18 The Projects

DSE Future Talent 2017/18 - Project Teams

• Travel Health Service Reconfiguration Laura Blythin, International Student Support Adviser, SAAD Sarah O'Neill, Senior Student Services Assistant, SAAD

• Design Specification for a Programme Development Web-based Toolkit

Naomi Roussak, Student Recruitment & Widening Participation Coordinator, SRID Stephanie Holmes, Senior Student Services Assistant, SAAD

• Manchester Student Homes Campaigns

Kaz Naseem, Senior Student Services Assistant, SAAD Michael Dobson, Employability Executive, Careers Service

• Student Engagement with Careers Service Events

Rebecca Harrington, Admissions Coordinator, SAAD Ellen Stephenson, Sport Development Coordinator, Residential Services

Directorate for the Student Experience

1

Title: Occupational Health screening for students undertaking travel activities

Author/Enquiries: Sarah O’Neill and Laura Blythin (Student Admissions & Administration Division)

Date/version: May 2018

Circulation: John Newton (Project Sponsor), Sarah Hartley (Course Leader)

Summary: To review the existing commissioning arrangements, business model and operational

delivery systems for travel screening for students who travel abroad

1. Introduction The University’s Occupational Health Service provides health screening for students undertaking travel activities for a number of purposes such as field trips, clinical elective placements, study abroad placements and voluntary work. This involves providing vaccinations and malaria protection, advising on pre-existing medical conditions and providing health clearance for students where travel is a mandatory part of their course. There is a significant level of activity and effort associated with providing this service, which has grown in an unplanned and ad-hoc manner over a number of years. There has been an incremental rise in the level of demand for this service which has created difficulties with planning and allocating clinical resources. A recent UNIAC review of the Occupational Health Service recommended that a review of the current travel health service should be completed to ensure that it functions as efficiently and effectively as possible.

2. Aims and Objectives The project has four main objectives:

To review the commissioning arrangements for health screening for PGT and UG students who undertake travel activities as part of their course.

To review the existing business model including financial arrangements and cost benefits.

To review the operational delivery systems

To provide a general understanding of the current process and identify best practice. The outcome of the project will be to produce a service report detailing the existing arrangements and recommendations for service modernisation.

3. Methodology & Project Scope The project was divided into four phases:

Planning: An initial scoping meeting was held with the Project Sponsor to narrow and refine the scope. It was agreed with the project sponsor that staff and postgraduate research students could be removed from the scope of the project along with the service development implementation plan. The project scope was revisited and redefined in a later meeting with the Sponsor to account for changes within the project team. Desk research was undertaken to identify key stakeholders. The project brief was used to identify the key stake holders in each academic school and initial contact was made by phone and email to outline the aims of the project.

Assessment of customer process: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with key stakeholders from the relevant academic schools. Face to face interviews were carried out to ascertain current processes, needs assessment, and best practice and detailed minutes of each interview were taken. Documentation was collected relating to how schools identify students with pre-existing medical conditions, communications between schools and Occupational Health and recharging documents. Partway through the interviews the interview collection form was implemented to ensure standardisation of questions (Appendix 1). The interview collection forms were used to complete process maps for each school to clarify current processes for travel screening including risk assessments, arranging appointments with Occupational Health and financial arrangements if schools were responsible for paying for treatment.


2

Assessment of operational delivery process: Face to face interviews were carried out with key stakeholders from both Occupational Health sites (Waterloo Place and the Mill) to define operational delivery processes. Financial data was collected from Occupational Health staff who produced reports from OPAS and supplied copies of recharging documents issued to stakeholders in schools or business areas. Administrative stakeholders from schools and business areas supplied data where gaps were identified. 2 questionnaire templates, one for clinical staff and one for administrative staff (Appendix 2), were distributed to Occupational Health staff to document time spent on Travel Screening activities. The questionnaire was issued to 12 clinicians and 7 administrators. Replies were received from 5 clinicians (representing data for 10 people) and 2 administrators (representing data for 4 people).

Analysis of results and recommendations.

4. General Findings

4.1 Key schools in terms of student numbers and income Figure 1 presents a pie chart of students who attended travel screening as part of a recharged field trip in the 2016/17 academic year. The split is comparable when cost is considered rather than numbers of students; hence a separate visualisation for this metric is unnecessary.

The two largest users of the travel screening service are SBS and SEED, with SBS being responsible for most of the field trips and the vast majority of recharged field trips. The largest field trip is the SEED trip to Uganda screened by The Mill, which in 2016/17 had around 145 students and was responsible for more than 50 percent of recharged costs. This shows that a single trip can significantly affect the number of students accessing the service and the associated recharged costs and being aware of any possible new field trips, or increases in numbers on trips is important regarding the future financial and operational resources required to maintain a high quality service. The total costs not including the administrative fee charged by The Mill for 2016/17 £20,862.00.

Uganda (Team Uganda), 14, 4% Costa Rica, 24, 6%

Ecuador, 23, 6%

Mallorca, 12, 3%

South Africa, 28, 7%

Uganda, 145, 39%

Cuba, 25, 7%

South Africa, 82, 22%

Morocco, 21, 6%

Number of students seen for Travel Screening in 2016/17

Waterloo Place

The Mill


3

4.2 There is no travel screening budget

We requested details of the travel screening budget in the initial stages of our research and were informed by David Carthy (Finance co-ordinator) that there is no fixed or formal budget for travel screening, as it is part of the overall Occupational Health budget.

5. Operational Findings (Occupational Health)

5.1 Data Issues There are a number of general issues with data which include: missing data, methods of capturing data are not robust, lack of experience in managing data and lack of centralised data. Specific examples of these issues can be found in the Table below which highlight the issues. Taken together these issues mean it is difficult to perform standardised analysis of data pertaining to the activities of either site and makes comparisons of their operations almost impossible.

Data Issue Potential Impact

1. Lack of connection between location and responsible school for field trips. Recharging is done by trip location only.

Confusion if multiple trips to same location. Hard to ID historic records, especially in case of staff turnover.

2. Nurses at travel clinics record data onto spreadsheets rather than directly into OPAS system.

Doesn’t allow central viewing of data or ease of reporting. Potential for error (spreadsheet is more flexible than system where logic should limit incorrect inputs and reporting could ID errors). Using spreadsheets rather than central storage and reporting increases the risk of accidental data breaches (higher capacity for human error).

3. Blanks fields in data and poor data quality.

This includes duplicate values due to misspelling and inadequate validation, missing data and lack of data auditing. Incomplete record for university insurance.

4. Lack of unique student identifiers in data.

Hard to identify trends as cannot link to status, nationality, etc. (E.g. students from a certain country may be more likely to need a vaccine that is not given to them as standard – this is an example, it has no relation to current data). Hard to identify repeat customers.

5. Lack of standardization/ centralized data

Relating to point 2. Recharging documents are presented differently in Waterloo Place and the Mill and there are no standard naming conventions for spreadsheets. This could result in the following issues:

Receiving different document styles for the same process

(recharging travel heath screening) could be confusing for

schools and prevent them carrying out their own

reporting/identifying trends.

Does not facilitate central reporting or quality control.

Prevents OH and the Mill working as a single team/unit.

6 Lack of expertise in data reporting

Currently there is only one part-time staff member based at the Mill who is able to create and run reports from OPAS (Jennifer Lambert). Even when David Carthy's position has been filled there will be only two staff members within OH who are able to produce data reports, one based at the Mill and one at Waterloo Place. This could result in reporting breakdown in the event of staff absence or staff turnover.


4

5.2 Financial 5.2.1 Total Cost to Occupational Health of screening

We were unable to identify the total costs to Occupational Health of travel screening. Partly this has been because we are unable to get full recharging records, for example for students who self-refer or are referred by their schools. The Mill charge a standard appointment fee of £12.00 but we have been unable to ascertain the basis for this pricing and are unclear of whether this would be sufficient to cover costs.

5.2.2 Total recorded recharging amount We have been unable to obtain a record of the total amount recharged despite asking on a number of occasions. We have attempted to obtain recharging amounts for individual field trips undertaken within the 16/17 academic year and believe we have obtained details of most field trips but know of some which are missing (i.e. Boston). In addition we have identified differences in the recharging process between the two sites. We have identified this as a risk as part of our conversations with staff and examination of record keeping. We have asked for a total amount but Occupational Health have been unable to provide a final figure for recharging which has limited the analysis we can conduct in this area.

5.2.3 We have identified approximate amounts of time staff spend on a screening (clinical/administrative) for a particular trip Table 2, below, summarises the results of the survey. The data shows that UK trips are generally much less time consuming, as they consist of a paper screening unless students have a pre-existing medical condition. The most labour intensive is the screening for overseas trips outside the EU for the initial screening and there is an associated increase in time for reviews of students both with and without existing conditions. This means that a significant increase in overseas trips might place a significant pressure on resources and the potential effects of this on the capacity of the service might need to be considered. Administrative staff note it takes around 18 hours (plus a flexible amount dependent on the number of students taking the trip) for tasks related to each trip for the recharging and appointment processes. This may also be a potential source of pressure if the number of trips were to increase substantially in a short period of time. Also, this information regarding the administrative duties is based exclusively on the experience at Waterloo Place and should not necessarily be considered as representative for The Mill.

Approx no. of hours for initial paper screening (mins)

Average time taken to review the record of a student with no health condition (mins)

Average time taken to review the record of a student with existing health condition (mins)

Additional time taken (mins)

Travel screening UK trip

Average in mins (all) 5 6 13 13

Average in mins (Waterloo Place) 11 17 41 16

Travel screening for an overseas screening within the EU



Travel screening for an overseas screening outside the EU



*Sample data for the Mill clinical staff was collected from a single source, data from Waterloo Place was collected from multiple sources. Waterloo Place data is included in the total amounts and separately as a more representative sample.


5

5.3 The system will get a weekly integration download from Campus Solutions from next year At present there is no connection to the student systems to maintain a single point of truth for student data. Currently all data is manually input into the OPAS system, which has resulted in a lack of standardisation and duplicates, i.e. multiple names for the same school (medical school). Separation of the sites and non-standardisation of approaches also means returning students may not be picked up due to marriage, misspelling etc.

5.4 Operational discrepancies between the two sites (Waterloo Place and The Mill) 5.4.1 The Mill has a new vaccine policy

The Mill streamlined their process this year to not offer childhood vaccines and boosters as students can obtain these from their own GP. However, this might cause further issues regarding whether the risk assessment is being fully met in this case.

5.4.2 The responsibilities of staff differ across sites The split of responsibilities between the administrative staff and the clinicians differs across the two sites for travel screening. At Waterloo Place the recharging process is largely carried out by the administrators, while at The Mill Jennifer Lambert (OH Advisor) produces recharging documents for trips via the Mill.

5.4.3 The Mill recharge for time spent on travel screening but Waterloo Place do not From an examination of financial data from recharging documents provided by The Mill it would appear that The Mill recharge schools or directorate offices for the trips which they screen (£3,238.00 in 2016/17 based on spreadsheets provided), while Waterloo Place have confirmed that they do not do this and that Occupational Health do not do this more generally. This may have an impact on the finances of the service and standardisation of the practice might be considered.

6. Operational Findings (Rest of the University) 6.1 Identification of key customers and peak usage The project brief was used to identify the key customers in each of the academic schools who administer the travel screening process in partnership with Occupational Health. It was clear from the project brief that we needed to focus on four main areas of the travel screening process: field trips, elective placements, study abroad and voluntary work. The schools with the largest number of referrals to Occupational Health are Environment, Education & Development (SEED) and Biological Sciences because they run a large number of field trips for their programmes in which obtaining fitness to travel certificates are mandatory. Student Development & Community Engagement (SDCE) run the flagship volunteering programme, Team Uganda, for which fitness to travel certificates are also mandatory but the number of students taking part is small (15). The School of Dentistry run two international exchange programmes for which fitness to travel certificates are

mandatory but again the numbers are very small (6). Students from most schools with field trips are referred

to Occupational Health for travel screening from January – July, but due to overseas placements, electives and ad hoc appointments, the Occupational Health Service is busy throughout the year so peak usage cannot be identified.

6.2 Initial needs assessment at School Level The School of Biological Sciences and SEED run the same field trips each year with approximately the same number of students attending so their travel screening requirements can be estimated at the start of the academic year. This is also the case for the Team Uganda volunteering trip and the international exchanges that the School of Dentistry administers.


6

The International Programmes Office (IPO), School of Arts, Languages and Cultures (SALC), the School of Medicine and the School of Biological Sciences only refer students to Occupational Health for travel screening who have pre-existing health conditions so the numbers of students accessing the service change every year and cannot be predicted. This makes it difficult for the Occupational Health service to plan for the demands of students with pre-existing medical conditions, however, it should be noted that the numbers are small in comparison to the students attending field trips.

6.3 Overview of processes and best practice between schools

The interviews with stake holders from Schools highlighted that there are a range of different activities that students undertake that can involve overseas travel and therefore require access to the travel service from Occupational Health. Each School has a slightly different process for managing the travel screening of their students. Many of the School processes share similarities but overall there was not one standardised process. Detailed process maps from each school were completed on the basis of information gathered in the face-to-face interviews (see appendix 3). The table below sets out the different types of overseas trips that require travel screening from Occupational Health.


7

Name of School

Type of Placement

Occupational Health Services Required? Number of students who use OH service

Payment

Biological Sciences

Field trips (outside Europe)

Vaccinations, malaria medication, travel packs for all students visiting high risk destinations (if required for specific trip). Fitness to travel certificates mandatory. Paper screening for all other students.

2016/17 - 139 School responsible for all costs

Biological Sciences

Overseas Placements

Paper screening for all students and travel case management for students who have pre-existing medical conditions. Fitness to travel certificates mandatory for all students

15/16 - 46

16/17 - 84

School only pays for students who are in receipt of Manchester bursary

SEED Field trips (outside Europe)

Vaccinations, malaria medication, travel packs for all students on specific trips. Fitness to travel certificates mandatory but can be obtained from students' GP or OH. Childhood vaccinations can be obtained from GP. Paper screening for low risk destinations.

100 – 200 per year

School responsible for all mandatory vaccinations, malaria medication and travel packs

Dentistry International Exchange

Vaccinations and travel screening for Boston trip. Chest x-rays and vaccinations for Japan trip. Fitness to travel certificates mandatory.

6 School responsible for all costs of Boston trip but students on Japan trip must pay for any treatment themselves

Nursing Overseas electives

Students use travel clinic/GP/self-refer to OH for travel screening. Fitness to travel certificates not required.

Unknown Student responsible for all costs

SALC Study abroad mandatory part of course

Only students who disclose pre-existing medical conditions require fitness to travel certificates and they can use their own GP or OH. Students travelling to Japan or China require medical assessment from OH for vaccinations and chest x-rays.

20 – 30 per year

Student responsible for all costs

Medicine Overseas electives

Students can obtain travel vaccinations from travel clinic/GP/OH. Fitness to travel certificates only mandatory for students with pre-existing medical conditions.

2016/17 - 6 students referred


IPO Study abroad

Fitness to travel certificates mandatory for all students attending overseas placements.

2016/17 - 27

2017/18 - 25



8

SDCE Team Uganda volunteering project

Vaccinations, malaria medication, travel packs for all students and travel case management for students with existing medical conditions. Fitness to travel certificates mandatory.

15 per year SDCE responsible for all costs

6.31 Standard process for schools who are responsible for re-charging for travel screening for students (field trips, volunteering and international exchange - Biological Sciences, SDCE and Dentistry) For students attending field trips, University organised volunteering trips and international exchanges, obtaining a fitness to travel certificate is mandatory to ensure that students are covered by the University insurance policy. It is therefore useful to outline a summary of the current operational process of issuing fitness to travel certificates for these stake holders. The co-ordinator of the field trip, volunteering project or international exchange is responsible for completing an extensive risk assessment of the intended destination. In general, the destinations of the trips remain the same each year so the previous year's risk assessment can be updated annually in line with any changes to medical travel advice for the specific country. The new risk assessment report is sent to Occupational Health in September/October along with destinations, dates and numbers, for the upcoming trips for the year so Occupational Health can advise on required vaccinations, travel advice and medication required for each trip. The required vaccinations and medical treatments such as malaria protection and travel kits are agreed with the school along with the cost. In Biological Sciences staff hold a meeting with Occupational Health in December to discuss the required vaccinations and travel costs and discuss the travel screening process. The school administrator sends Occupational Health a list of students attending the trip and advises students to complete the health questionnaire (see appendix 4) and declare any pre-existing medical conditions. In SEED, students who declare that they have an existing medical condition can obtain their fitness to travel certificate from their GP instead of Occupational Health which can reduce the appointments and work hours required from Occupational Health staff to complete the screening. Students who are visiting certain countries such as Uganda, Costa Rica and South Africa will need specific vaccinations therefore all students attending field trips in these destinations will require an appointment with Occupational Health. Students attending all other trips are required to complete the health questionnaire and Occupational Health will assess if any of the students require an appointment based on any pre-existing conditions they may have. Occupational Health informs the school contact of any students who haven't completed their health questionnaire or who haven't attended appointments so the school contact can chase students. When the health questionnaires have been received and treatment has been completed Occupational Health will then issue fit to travel certificates for all students attending trips. The financial process is the same for SEED, Biological Sciences, Dentistry and SDCE in that Occupational Health provides an estimate of costs for each field trip. Once the students have attended their appointments Occupational Health update the recharging spreadsheet with the students' details on and record treatment administered to them. When treatment is completed for all the students on each field trip Occupational Health send the recharging document to the key contact in the school for payment. The recharging document is then sent to the finance officer in the school for payment. 6.32 Standard process for schools who are not responsible for re-charging for travel screening for students (study abroad, placements, electives - Biological Sciences, SALC, IPO, Nursing and Medicine) Students attending placements or electives overseas are responsible for obtaining their own travel screening including vaccinations and travel advice. Students must complete their own risk assessment through


9

MyPlacement and declare if they have any pre-existing medical conditions. If students have a medical condition they must obtain a fitness to travel certificate from OH or their own GP.

6.4 Operational issues at school level (communications/clinic planning)

The operational process for booking appointments for students differs slightly between the schools in that SEED students are generally all postgraduate students so they attend appointments at the Mill. Occupational Health block books appointments for the SEED students and Nick Ritchie, the field trip administrator, uses survey software to allow students to book their own appointments. Students who attend appointments at Waterloo Place must call Occupational Health to book their appointments individually but the appointments are sometimes block booked in advance. Medicine reported that further clarity regarding the referrals process for students with pre-existing medical conditions was required. They reported that it was not clear who should make the final decision on whether a student was fit to travel or not, as sometimes the nurse will feel unable to issue a travel certificate to a student and will refer the student back to the school. The student will then need to have a meeting with the Academic Lead to assess whether they can attend the elective. IPO have requested more information about how to manage a student's complex health condition whilst abroad and they would find it useful to have a better understanding of the advice that OH gives to students who have existing health conditions. Schools also reported that data protection is an issue because they are not informed if students self-refer to OH and they do not see students’ health questionnaire so they are often not aware of the health issues that students report to OH. The concern is ensuring the student is given the adequate support prior to and during the trip. Ideally schools would like to know when students’ appointments are and if students have attended them so they can chase any students who miss their appointments. IPO have reported that it is not clear whose responsibility it is to ensure that students complete the health declaration questionnaire as IPO are not copied into email that is sent to student so they cannot contact student to request that the questionnaire is completed. IPO have reported that OH do not chase students for the health questionnaire which led to a number of students not being issued with a fitness to travel certificate.

7. Recommendations

Number Recommendation Additional information Responsibility Dependency

1. Devise and implement a Data Policy regarding the collection and maintenance of OH data.

In addition to improving future data, it is also recommended that a review of existing data be completed to prepare for integration with Campus Solutions.

Occupational Health

Knowledge of what data will be preserved when Campus Solutions integration takes place

2. Standardize processes across both sites to include operational processes, vaccine policy and policy on recharging for Occupational Health Advisor/staff time.

Standardization will provide an equitable student experience and efficient working practices.

Occupational Health

Recharging policy may be dependent on recommendation 6.

3. Review the split of operational responsibilities between clinical and administrative staff to reflect

Clearly defined roles will ensure all staff are carrying out work commensurate with

Occupational Health

To be carried out in conjunction with standardization of processes.


10

the job roles.

their grade and role and clearly defined roles will improve efficiency, particularly in relation to staff turnover, knowledge sharing and training.

4. Identification of full costs to be used to develop Travel Health Screening Budget.

Once the information has been collected, this can be used to inform a cost benefit analysis of the travel screening process.

Occupational Health

Dependent on creation of a data policy including improved data quality and collection.

5. Create Travel Health Screening Budget.

Defining a specific budget will facilitate management of the overall Occupational Health budget. It will support strategic planning including future increases in the demand on the travel screening service.

Occupational Health

Dependent on identification of costs to estimate a suitable budget.

6. Process for recording time spent on specific trips to help with recharging and identify which schools, trips and processes require the most resource.

Once gathered, this information could be used to inform cost/benefit analysis of travel screening process or to inform the standardization of charges for the screening/appointment process.

Occupational Health

7. Standard process of referring students who have pre-existing medical conditions to Occupational Health

Develop new form through MyPlacement for referring students to Occupational Health that meets the requirements of schools

Occupational Health/School Reps/

To be developed through Student Lifecycle Project

8. Improve information on referrals process on Occupational Health website for students and staff including published service standard for replying to emails.

Create flowchart to explain standard process of referrals for staff and students. Schools may also benefit from single contact at Occupational Health or ‘meet the team’ section of website.

Occupational Health

Depends on standard referrals process being defined

9. Provide guidance to Schools on data protection

Create policy document for staff to set out defined

Occupational Health

Dependant on GDPR and should be developed in


11

processes for managing student data eg. can fitness to travel certificates be sent to student and school? Can schools be informed when students have self-referred to OH?

partnership with Information Governance Office.

10. Review process for students to book appointments at Occupational Health with the aim of standardizing the process for all users.

Assessment of different methods of booking appointments to ascertain which method is the most effective. Based on current findings as standard process may not be possible due to different needs of stake holders but merits review as it could create a significant time saving and provide clarity to users.

Occupational Health

11. Text students the day before their appointment to increase attendance at appointments

Occupational Health

Depends on Occupational Health using software to enable this

12. Create a new project to review the option of outsourcing travel vaccinations to private travel clinics or GP services

To relieve pressure on OH travel vaccinations could be outsourced to private travel clinics but this would lead o loss of income for OH.

Occupation Health/University

Depends on strategic policy of University and collection of full financial and resource data (including work hours) by OH to perform a cost benefit analysis.

8. Conclusion In conclusion it is clear that due to the difficulties we experienced in obtaining data we were unable to complete a full analysis of the commissioning arrangements for health screening for students who undertake health activities and this is in part due to the pressures that the Occupational Health service is under. This is due to a number of issues relating to data quality and missing data which meant that it was not possible for us to complete a full review of the existing business model. We have therefore made a number of recommendations relating to increased reporting functionality and enhanced data collection which should lead to improvements in data monitoring. We have also identified a number of operational issues between the two sites such as the Mill charging for staff time which Waterloo Place does not do and the two sites operate different ways of booking appointments with students.


12

During the face-to-face interviews with stakeholders we do not specifically ask them for their overall satisfaction rating of the Occupational Health service but on the whole, stakeholders were happy with the service that they received. The travel screening process seems to be most effective in the schools who are responsible for re-charging, who have the largest number of students attending mandatory field trips, and for which fitness to travel certificates are mandatory, SEED and Biological Sciences. The travel screening process between these schools and Occupational Health is well established and works well. This is in part due to frequent communication between the schools and Occupational Health in which the existing processes are regularly reviewed and streamlined where possible and the stake holders meet with Occupational Health at the start of the academic year to determine stake holder needs. The other schools that are responsible for re-charging for travel screening and for which fitness to travel certificates are mandatory, but who have much smaller numbers of students, Dentistry and SDCE, also reported high satisfaction with the Occupational Health service which is a result of good communication between the stake holders and Occupational Health. The schools which reported a lack of satisfaction with the current service are those who refer students with pre-existing medical conditions to Occupational Health as there seems to be a lack of clarity around the referrals process and issues with data protection. The schools that are not responsible for covering the cost of the travel screening seem to be the least involved in the process which could be due to the small numbers of students who are referred and the lack of financial commitment. These schools reported that they would like to have a better understanding of the referrals process and the advice that is given to students with an existing health condition by Occupational Health which suggests that more information is needed for staff in schools regarding Occupational Health’s service. This could be addressed through improved communications between schools and Occupational Health such as a flowchart on their website to explain the process in more detail and key contacts for schools to liaise with. Schools reported that they would like to be copied in to correspondence between Occupational Health and their students so they are better informed about when students’ appointments but this may not be possible for data protection reasons. Overall more data is required in order for further conclusions to be made and before service modernisation can occur. However, the recommendations that we have presented should be considered in conjunction with the findings of the forthcoming UNIAC audit which will focus on the legal framework for the service.


13

9. Appendices

Appendix 1: Information Collection Form (template supplied for Electives as differences are minimal but copies of all templates available on request)

Electives We are collecting information concerning undergraduate and postgraduate taught students only, please do not include information regarding postgraduate research students or staff.

School/Office concerned

Details of overseas electives Please list all that apply

Date of meeting

In attendance

Commissioning

Is there an Occupational Health Travel screening budget and if so, who is responsible for this?

How are opportunities made available to students? What are the requirements for an elective to be eligible?

How are risk assessments conducted?

Is there a cap on the number of students that you allow to take electives abroad?


14

Financial

Please provide a list of all electives (that your school/office has been involved in) that have taken place in the last 3 academic years and the number of students who have attended each elective.

For each elective listed above, please provide the total cost for Occupational Health Travel Screening (including recharging documents if available).

Operational Process

How do student book appointments with OH?

What happens if students don’t attend electives?

What happens if student doesn’t attend appointment at OH?

Feedback on travel screening process

What service do you require from OH?

What works well with current process?

What doesn’t work well?

What changes/improvements have you made to the process?


15

Appendix 2: Questionnaires for Occupational Health staff to identify time spent on travel screening

2A. Clinical Staff

Questionnaire to establish time spent by Occupational Health Nurses on Travel Health Screening

Date ………………………………………….............................................................................................................. Name………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. When completing the average times for screening, if there is a significant difference between two field trips of the same type, we would be grateful if you could complete 2 forms and note the relevant trip on each form. Please complete for each type of screening that you have been involved in. The completed questionnaire should be returned to sarah.o’[email protected]

Travel screening for a field trip within the UK

Please confirm approximate number of hours needed to complete an initial paper screening. (This should include any standard processes that you complete, regardless of the number of students.)

Average time taken per review for a student with no relevant health condition.

Average time taken per review for a student with an existing health condition.

Additional time taken that is not included in the above (e.g for appointment scheduling or additional paperwork)

Travel screening for an overseas screening within the EU

Please confirm approximate number of hours needed to complete an initial screening. (This should include any standard processes that you complete, regardless of the number of students.)




Travel screening for an overseas screening outside the EU

Please confirm approximate number of hours needed to complete an initial screening. (This should include any standard processes that you complete, regardless of the number of students.)



mailto:sarah.o'[email protected]


16


2B. Administrative staff

Questionnaire to establish time spent by Occupational Health Administrative Staff on Travel Health Screening Process

Date ………………………………………….............................................................................................................. Name………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Please respond to the questions below and return the completed questionnaire by email to sarah.o’[email protected]

Producing and sending recharging documents

Please confirm the average number of hours taken to produce and send recharging documents for a trip with a paper screening process

Please confirm the average number of hours taken to produce and send recharging documents for a trip with a full screening process (that includes vaccinations or other treatments as standard)

Non-payment

How is non-payment chased?

Where the recharging notice has not been paid, please confirm the average number of hours spent chasing non-payment. Please exclude schools/departments who pay by the required deadline or chasing where the non-payment refers to staff not students.

Appointments

Please confirm the average number of minutes taken to book an appointment

Please confirm the average number of

mailto:sarah.o’[email protected]


17

appointments booked per field trip outside the EU

Please confirm the average number of appointments booked per field trip inside the EU

Please confirm the total number of nurse appointments booked per trip for the past 3 academic years.

Please include trip destination, school name and number of appointments.

Please confirm the total number of doctor appointments booked per trip for the past 3 academic years.

Please include trip destination, school name and number of appointments.

Additional tasks

Please confirm the average number of hours taken per field trip for any additional administrative activities and please provide details of what these are


18

Appendix 3: Process Maps for individual schools/business areas (PowerPoint copies available from Project Team) 3A. Biological Sciences Field trips


19


20

Placements


21


22

3B. Dentistry


23


24

3C. International Programmes Office (IPO)


25


26

3D. Medicine

Documents referenced in Process Map available from Project team on request


27


28

3E. SEED

School of Environment, Education and Development field trips process

• SEED runs seven field trips outside Europe.

• Students travelling to destinations with a high risk of malaria all require appointments with OH.

• Some destinations such as Uganda require specific vaccinations such as yellow fever.

• Students can obtain childhood vaccinations from their own GP.

• Students with existing medical conditions can obtain travel certificates from their own GP.

Email OH in October with a list of all student field

courses that require standard

travel vaccinations, i.e. dates,

destinations and numbers

OH recommends required

vaccinations , guidance and

travel packs for trips

Students complete health and safety

survey and declare any pre-existing

medical conditions

Students with pre-existing medical conditions are

referred to their GP for a fit to

travel cert or they are referred to OH

as and when required using referral form

All other students must complete a

health questionnaire and

email to OH

Check with OH that all students have

sent in questionnaires,

chase any missing ones

OH block book appointments for

students from December -

February

School send survey software to

students to allow them to book their own appointments

Travel certificates issued by OH

OH recharges School for

vaccinations for each field trip


29


30

3F. SALC


31


32

3G. Volunteering


33


34

Appendix 4: Health Questionnaire

Travel Health Self-Assessment For staff, postgraduate and undergraduate students intending to undertake a Work Placement / Elective / Field Trip / Study Abroad Please complete the self-assessment questionnaire below if you answer Yes to any of the following please contact Occupational Health Services at [email protected] for staff and postgraduate students or [email protected] for undergraduate students. If you have answered No to all questions no further action required.

Will you be travelling to a tropical country or a country where vaccinations or prophylactic medication ( i.e. malaria) are recommended?

Yes

> REFERRED TO OH PROCESS

Will you be travelling to remote locations where you will be more than 24 hours from the nearest medical facility?

Yes


Will your travel involve activities posing high risk in the event of sudden illness or incapacity e.g. working at altitude, working at sea, technical climbing, abseiling, diving, caving, archaeological digs etc.?

Yes


Do you have any health related disability (or an existing support plan) for which you may require support or assistance during your travel?

Yes ? IF YES > REFERRED TO OH PROCESS AND ADVISED TO REGISTER WITH DASS AND/OR UPDATE EXISTING SUPPORT PLAN

Do you have any health condition that may impact upon your ability to undertake the proposed travel which requires medical or other support?

Yes


Do you have any pre-existing unstable medical condition or are you recovering from a recent illness, hospitalisation, injury or surgery?

Yes


Are you pregnant? Yes


Only complete details below if you are contacting Occupational Health Services.

University ID number Male Female

Surname Forename

Address Date of Birth

Mobile no: Email

Department/School Course/Role

Destination Exact location or region

Date of Travel: Return date

Field trip coordinator Manager/Supervisor

Please indicate reason for travel: Business Field Trip Elective Secondment Conference Placement

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

1


___________________________________________________________________________

Title: Future Talent Project: Design specification for a Programme Development web-based toolkit

Author/Enquiries: Naomi Roussak, Stephanie Holmes Date/version: 15 June 2018 Circulation: Jo Hicks (Teaching and Learning Manager: Programmes) and relevant TLSO

colleagues Summary: To scope and produce a design specification for the development of a web-based

toolkit that will aid colleagues involved in developing new programmes, with the aim of fostering good practice in this area and to assist in meeting wider CMA obligations

___________________________________________________________________

1. Background 1.1 This Future Talent project was sponsored by Jo Hicks, Teaching and Learning Manager for programmes

within TLSO, and focusses on programme approval processes for the development of new programmes. 1.2 The programme approval process is currently made up of two stages, known locally as NPP1

1 and

NPP2.2 These are themselves comprised of several appendices to facilitate the capture of information

and to obtain the relevant approval at each stage to ensure that high quality and competitive programmes are developed, and meet required external benchmarks.

1.3 Two main factors affecting this project are compliance with consumer regulations as published in guidance issued by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in March 2015 and the Student Lifecycle Project (SLP).

1.4 CMA guidance3 states that students are provided with clear, accurate and timely information to

enable informed decisions to be made about what and where to study, and that surprising changes cannot be made which are not in line with the University’s terms and conditions. In practical terms, all documentation (e.g. prospectus and offer letter) and published material should accurately reflect the award undertaken.

1.5 To ensure compliance with timeliness and accuracy of published information the Teaching and Learning

Group approved a recommendation to bring forward final approval deadlines for new programmes and amendments from July to March each session.

1.6 The Student Lifecycle Project is a University wide project focussed on the improvement of various

processes that impact upon a student’s experience from application through to graduation, and including the programme approval process. At the time of this project, proposals were being made to enhance the flow and management of information as part of the programme approval process using an electronic management tool. To support this, a recommendation was also being made to streamline the current process by developing one single iterative template.

1.7 The primary purpose of this project was to produce a design specification which would be used by colleagues in the TLSO to construct a web-based toolkit. The toolkit would facilitate a set of resources designed to be used in isolation, or together, to support colleagues in remaining compliant with CMA, and also to share best practice amongst those involved in developing and approving new programmes.

1.8 The scope of the project was limited to those parts of a toolkit that would be aimed at colleagues

supporting the administrative aspects of the approval process. Academic considerations, such as how to

1 http://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/tlso/quality/development-programmes/new-programme-approval/npp1-

documentation/ 2 http://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/tlso/quality/development-programmes/new-programme-approval/npp2-

documentation/ 3https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428549/HE_providers

_-_advice_on_consumer_protection_law.pdf

http://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/tlso/quality/development-programmes/new-programme-approval/npp1-documentation/




https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428549/HE_providers_-_advice_on_consumer_protection_law.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/428549/HE_providers_-_advice_on_consumer_protection_law.pdf

2

write intended learning outcomes or to identify the most appropriate assessment types, were out of scope but form part of wider recommendations in the final section of this report.

1.9 The secondary purpose was to make a draft version of an element of the toolkit, namely a programme

approval timeline to identify key dates and activity involved in the approval process. This was viewed as a fundamental starting point for programme approval in the light of CMA requirements, and would help to identify priorities for the toolkit resources. This timeline also forms part of wider recommendations contained in the final section of this report (appendix E).

2. Methodology 2.1 Research 2.1.1 The initial stage of the project was to research existing resources with the potential to form elements

of the toolkit (appendix A). This research was twofold, in that resources from other higher education institutions were identified, before research was conducted into the resources that were already in use within individual Faculties within The University of Manchester. This research enabled mapping of pre-existing areas of good practice within the University and the HE sector.

2.1.2 To supplement this initial research, a questionnaire was created to capture the views of colleagues

within the University that dealt directly with the programme approval process. The questionnaire focussed on respondents’ prior relationship with and awareness of the process and existing guidance, as well as additional requirements (appendix B). The collation of these responses (appendix C) formed a draft set of ideal resources, which would eventually form the final design specification (appendix D). The questionnaire also served the purpose of identifying critical gaps to enable an assessment of those parts of the toolkit specification as essential (or desirable) and recommended to be prioritised appropriately.

2.2 Secondary stakeholders 2.2.1 The second phase of research was conducted via face-to face meetings with University PSS staff in

various areas with an ‘interest’ in the programme approval process. Secondary stakeholders were identified and consulted to help identify areas in which primary stakeholders could benefit from guidance. A secondary function of these meetings was to inform the production of the programme approval timeline, in terms of providing the dates and deadlines relevant to their respective areas. These stakeholders were defined as those whose role was linked to the programme approval process, however were not the target audience of the toolkit. Three secondary stakeholder meetings were held, as follows:

Student Services Manager (Student Systems and Business Support) and Student Services Manager (Student Records)

Student Communications and Marketing Manager

Student Admissions Manager and Student Admissions Office 2.2.3 The meetings with all three groups of secondary stakeholders provided an insight into the way in

which information is extracted from the NPP1/2 forms and used in a way which formally sets up and markets new programmes on a variety of IT systems and publications. These colleagues also identified the common errors that tended to be made on the NPP1/2 forms and the negative effect that this this had in delaying the approval and publication of new programmes. Both the Student Communications and Marketing Manager and the Student Admissions Manager provided project plans for print publications and the admissions course marketing calendar respectively, both of which indicated key dates to include when constructing the programme approval timeline (appendix E).

2.3 Primary stakeholders 2.3.1 Primary stakeholders were defined as school/faculty staff working directly to support programme

approval processes, at which the toolkit would be aimed. Colleagues in Teaching and Learning Management roles within each of the three Faculties were approached to provide insight regarding required resource in the area of programme approval. Meetings were arranged with staff members within the Faculty of Humanities and the Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health.

2.3.2 Primary stakeholders identified that PSS colleagues had a thorough general understanding of the programme approval process and key dates and deadlines, and that areas where they lacked knowledge tended to be in relation to non-standard practices. The stakeholders also suggested that it would be useful to include academic staff within scope as their input would provide a more

3

accurate understanding of the resources required by those who interacted with the programme approval process, but whose role did not require an inherent understanding of it. Furthermore, the primary stakeholders provided areas for improvement on the draft questionnaire.

2.3.3 The primary stakeholders that were consulted initially provided further staff contacts, both PSS and

academic, which were in turn approached to provide feedback regarding programme approval in the form of response to the finalised version of the questionnaire (appendix B). Completed questionnaires were received from nine members of staff, the contents of which have been compiled in Appendix C.

3. Key Findings 3.1 Design Specification 3.1.1 The final design specification (appendix D) was formed through the collation and summary of

questionnaire responses. The design specification lists each potential toolkit element, alongside a review of various criteria, these being existing examples within the University and other Russell Group HEIs, feasibility and an essential/desirable rating. The final design specification identified a high percentage of toolkit elements where there are no existing examples already in use at the University, many of which could be identified as being essential.

3.1.2 The design specification is only representative of the opinions within the two faculties that responded

to the invitation to take part in the project and is therefore lacking any potential issues that could have been raised by the Faculty of Science and Engineering. The limited number of individual respondents may also mean that further research would be beneficial, perhaps in the form of a focus group or consultation session as colleagues with an academic background especially seemed to prefer a face-to-face approach.

3.2 Timeline 3.2.1 The secondary aim of the project was to produce a draft version of an element that would eventually

be included in the toolkit. The selected element was a timeline to represent the key dates and deadlines within the programme approval process, many of which were identified through the secondary stakeholders (see appendix E). The timeline was identified as a potential key element of the toolkit early on in the process to emphasise the earlier programme approval deadline to colleagues, but also to make them aware of the impacts when changing this information in the context of CMA compliance and consumer regulations.

3.2.2 Developing the timeline also provided a valuable networking opportunity in having to liaise with the

wide range of stakeholders involved in programme approval and publication processes.

4. Recommendations

4.1 Responses to the questionnaire were consistent in highlighting that the programme approval process is not considered straightforward with all respondents indicating that they had required assistance in completing the process. As the substantive role of the respondents was mixed, this means that both PSS and academic colleagues would benefit from the support provided by a web-based toolkit. Appendix D identifies the specific elements that should be included in the toolkit as well as those that should be prioritised, as based upon the demand from the responses, our wider research and capacity to address the key features of CMA guidance.

4.2 The timing of publishing programme information was deemed critical for CMA compliance. It was apparent from the questionnaire that colleagues were not clear about the roles of those involved at particular times so it is therefore recommended that the proposed timeline in Appendix E could be enhanced to track key milestones in developing a new programme, key publication points, making amendments and defining roles and responsibilities at key points in the process.

4.3 Once the toolkit is ready for launch a communications plan should be created to raise awareness of its

presence and to share its purpose and intended use as responses seemed to indicate that colleagues required support but it did not seem obvious to them as to how a toolkit could be of use to complement face-to-face resources. Consequently, it is recommended that the resources contained within the toolkit are of an interactive and personable format where possible e.g. recording of a stakeholder meeting in action (Appendix D).

4

4.4 Further research should be conducted into the needs of those from the Faculty of Science and Engineering, and also where there may be specific support needs for collaborative or online programme delivery. It may also be necessary in time to consider the role that students could play in approval processes so that support for this group is reflected within the toolkit where appropriate.

4.5 It is recommended that consideration is given to the way the toolkit is presented on the TLSO webpages

so that it is not an ‘add-on’ to existing content and in time the toolkit itself could replace the TLSO section devoted to approval and quality assurance of programmes.

Appendix A - A summary of all Russell Group Institutions online programme approval resources

5

Institution Link to online programme approval resources/identified notable features

University of Birmingham

https://intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/as/registry/policy/programmemodule/programmes/index.aspx

Process map/flowchart detailing stages of committee approval

List of university contacts from a range of departments

University of Bristol

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/academic-quality/approve/

Key dates timelines for UG and PG, relating prospectus and web data collection to programme approval

Committee meeting dates for programme approval

FAQs

University of Cambridge

Link not identified

Cardiff University

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/public-information/quality-and-standards/programme-approval

Annual cycle of activity (not accessible to public)

List of department contacts in policy

Durham University

https://www.dur.ac.uk/learningandteaching.handbook/3/3/

Programme approval flowchart

University of Edinburgh

https://www.ed.ac.uk/institute-academic-development/learning-teaching/staff/course-programme-design

Links to programme design training/workshops

Video introduction to course and programme design

University of Exeter

https://www.exeter.ac.uk/cgr/teachingqualityassuranceandenhancement/programme-module-development/

Programme approval flowcharts

Individual college programme approval co-ordinator details

University of Glasgow

https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/senateoffice/qea/progdesignapproval/programmeapproval/

Process flowchart

Documentation requirements grid

Imperial College London

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/about/governance/academic-governance/academic-policy/programme-design/

King’s College London

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/approvalandmod/index.aspx

FAQs

Approval process diagram

University of Leeds

http://ses.leeds.ac.uk/info/21010/programme_and_module_approval

Programme approval timeline linked to recruitment timescales

University of Liverpool

https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/aqsd/quality-and-enhancement-framework/programme-development/programme-approval/


Programme approval committee hierarchy



http://www.bristol.ac.uk/academic-quality/approve/



https://www.dur.ac.uk/learningandteaching.handbook/3/3/









https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/approvalandmod/index.aspx

http://ses.leeds.ac.uk/info/21010/programme_and_module_approval




6

London School of Economics and Political Science

https://info.lse.ac.uk/Staff/Divisions/Academic-Registrars-Division/Teaching-Quality-Assurance-and-Review-Office/Courses-and-Programmes

Sub-committee dates

Deadlines and secretary contact details

Detailed step-by-step guide to using the electronic course approval system

Quick guide to using the course approval system

Newcastle University

https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/governance/modules/approval/programme/


Faculty contact details

University of Nottingham

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/academicservices/qualitymanual/curriculum/programmedesign,developmentandapproval.aspx

Business case approval process flowchart

University of Oxford

Link not identified

Queen Mary University of London

http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/quality-assurance/academic-development/programme-development/


Guidance and contacts section on webpages

Archive of agendas, papers and minutes prior to current academic year

Guidance documents for the programme approval forms

Webpages on collaborative provision

Queen’s University Belfast

https://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/AcademicAffairs/ProgrammeApprovalandReview/

Programme approval flowchart with two year lead-in

Web-pages which explain the programme approval process including what to consider at each stage, the relevant documentation and who sits on each panel

Summary of key dates including course approval deadline and prospectus information deadline

Webpages explaining different types of collaboration

University of Sheffield

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/lets/pp/qa/prog-app

New module approval form includes ‘handy hints for completion’

'Timetable for new and amended modules and programmes' document

Programme specification guidance (including guidance on programme learning outcomes)

'CMA guidance and practical approaches to programme development' document

'Timeline showing relationship or programme approval timings and school student journey'

'Key stages in programme approval process' map

Webpages and various documents relating to collaborative provision

Distance learning handbook

University of Southampton

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/quality/programmes_and_modules/index.page

Chart outlining different stages of programme approval against required documentation within 'Programme Validation Policy and procedure' document

Principles/guidance on learning outcomes (with links to help write them)



https://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/governance/modules/approval/programme/







https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/lets/pp/qa/prog-app

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/quality/programmes_and_modules/index.page


7

University College London

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c3/prog-approval#top

Approval process map

Roles and responsibilities chart

Timeline with key dates

University of Warwick

https://warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/dar/quality/categories/courseapproval/

Supporting documentation checklist

University of York

https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/teaching/procedure/programmes/approval/

‘Role of external assessors’ document

‘Key dates for consideration’ document

Framework for programme design: award stage and module requirements of the modular schemes

Policy and guidance documents relating to non-standard programmes e.g. collaborative

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c3/prog-approval#top

https://warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/dar/quality/categories/courseapproval/

https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/teaching/procedure/programmes/approval/

Appendix B - Questionnaire

8

Future Talent Project 2018

The aims of the DSE Future Talent programme are to develop a pathway for DSE colleagues to reflect on their career direction and aspirations, enhance their personal effectiveness,

learn more about the Directorate and enhance ‘single team’ ethos of the DSE.

We have been tasked with producing a design specification for the development of a web-based toolkit that will aid colleagues involved in developing new degree programmes.

Please note: this project is NOT changing the programme approval process. We aim to share good practice and

create extra resources to facilitate the programme approval process.

Please answer the following questions by clicking on the relevant yes/no box, and expand on your

answer where prompted in the text boxes:

Do you have experience in completing, or helping others to complete, NPP1 and NPP2 forms to approve new degree programmes?

Yes ☐ No ☐

Have you ever sought guidance in completing the NPP1/NPP2 forms?

Yes ☐ No ☐

If yes, where did you seek this guidance from?

Would you benefit from better guidance in how to complete the NPP1/NPP2 forms?

Yes ☐ No ☐

If yes, please expand on the types of guidance you would like to see.

Are you aware of the key dates that are relevant to the programme approval process e.g. the prospectus publishing date?

Yes ☐ No ☐

Are you aware of the key contacts involved Yes ☐ No ☐


9

in the programme approval process e.g. who/where to send the NPP1/NPP2 forms to?

Are you aware of the CMA guidance and how it may affect the programme approval process?

Yes ☐ No ☐

Please answer the following questions in the text boxes provided:

1. How straightforward do you find the programme approval process?

2. Have you made use of existing toolkits/provision to aid the programme approval

process? If yes, what have you used and from where?

3. Would you benefit from the addition of a toolkit on the TLSO webpages to help with the

process of degree programme approval? If yes, what would you like to see in the toolkit?


10

4. Any further comments?

Optional

While this questionnaire will remain anonymous, please share the below information if you are

willing to:

What faculty do you work in?

What school do you work in?

Are you a PSS or academic member of staff?

Appendix C – Compilation of Questionnaire Responses

11

Questions Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person 9

Do you have experience in completing, or helping others to complete, NPP1 and NPP2 forms to approve new degree programmes?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes n/a Yes Yes

Have you ever sought guidance in completing the NPP1/NPP2 forms?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes n/a Yes Yes

Comments TLSO officers and School T&L officers, and academic colleagues who have completed the process before.

Departmental academic colleagues

From the Faculty's T&L officer and a colleague who has recently gone through the approval of a new degree programme

Mainly from the Faculty Office (Humanities)

TLSO website and colleagues. Faculty colleagues

Faculty Office or TLSO

Mostly Sue Knight , FBMH Teaching & Learning Adviser

From other academic colleagues who had also worked on NPP1 and 2, and from my PSS colleague in SALC, Fiona Fraser.

Would you benefit from better guidance in how to complete the NPP1/NPP2 forms?

Yes Yes No Yes No Yes n/a Yes No

Comments I think example templates for different types of programmes would help to show the level of detail and information required. This is often provided informally through sharing or referring to previous successfully approved programmes.

A clear guide on the bringing all the appendices together – e.g. resources approval, library, especially in relation to collating signatures. It was never clear who needed to speak to who, when.

Academics are always asking to view examples of approved NPP documents to help them complete the sections.

Bullet point guidance, FAQs, examples etc.

A template for a programme specification is something that is often requested but there is no central School, Faculty or University template.

Personally I would like to see this tie up with more teaching related training eg how to create suitable learning outcomes that meet the correct HE level requirements and how to match this with suitable assessments (and ideas for assessments types), getting this right in your initial unit specs is quite key as changing later on can become quite an onerous process. In addition better guidance from the library with how to create links to reading lists etc to put accurate reading lists in place would be useful. Also better assistance

I did not feel I needed better guidance, but the support of Fiona Fraser was indispensable. I think academic colleagues generally need one-to-one personal support from PSS colleagues rather than online materials.


12

Are you aware of the key dates that are relevant to the programme approval process e.g. the prospectus publishing date?

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

Are you aware of the key contacts involved in the programme approval process e.g. who/where to send the NPP1/NPP2 forms to?

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Are you aware of the CMA guidance and how it may affect the programme approval process?

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

How straightforward do you find the programme approval process?

It was relatively straightforward, and well supported by verbal advice from the Faculty TLSO. Having someone on the end of a phone and in face-to-face meetings helps.

For the answers above, this was a discovery process, rather than having this information located clearly somewhere. I found the collating the material for NPP1 and 2 the opposite of straightforward.

Currently I am in the process of preparing NPP1 documents. I am yet to go through the approval process

The process requires a number of processes and approvals from across University Departments to be completed in parallel. A number of the forms are not user friendly.

It is a lengthy process requiring several stages of consultation and approval. There are a number of signatures required on a variety of forms and involvement from finance and eLearning. This takes a lot of tracking to keep on top of everything at each stage. Programme approval for joint/collaborative programmes are even more complex. This area needs to be streamlined. Once the proposals are reviewed, there is also a lot of backwards and forwards between the faculty and school to address any comments or queries.

Not straightforward at all I’m afraid. The forms are too long and we are still relying on paper based forms that require actual signatures. I have been sent forms back on a number of occasions as they don’t have signatures (although they have been approved via email). It’s time consuming and complicated.

Since the restructure it is not exactly clear who needs to see the documentation as far as PGT

Not as straightforward as it could be—there is quite a lot of repetition involved (that is, supplying the same or nearly the same information multiple times) and in general I find the university’s official forms (especially the NPP2 and the course unit descriptor forms) overly lengthy.


13

Have you made use of existing toolkits/provision to aid the programme approval process? If yes, what have you used and from where?

I am not aware of any existing toolkits

No The TLSO and HumNet websites are used for reference.

No. Didn’t know there were any.

http://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/tlso/quality/development-programmes/new-programme-approval/

no As I’ve said, I mainly made use of the expertise of PSS and academic colleagues who were familiar with the process.

Would you benefit from the addition of a toolkit on the TLSO webpages to help with the process of degree programme approval? If yes, what would you like to see in the toolkit?

As above – templates of completed forms. Also there needs to be greater clarity and instructions for marketing information forms as these come early in the process and are crucial for the success of the programmes once approved.

I would like to see an update on material on the TLSO website. Contacts and information were far out of date.

No It would be useful to help provide a toolkit to prospective proposers at the beginning stage so they fully understand what is required of them. We do run Stakeholder meetings BUT the initial “stage” for academics is prior to this.

I think a good flow chart would be handy that identifies who should be involved and where the documents go at each stage. With hyperlinks to various documents that are required.

Electronic forms. Not opening and having to save additional documents to drives. All of the information in the same place.

A template for a programme specification

Yes – especially for PGT /CPD – ( we have created much guidance on CPD within FBMH which might be useful to link to)

No, I don’t really think so—online toolkits and guidelines mainly add an extra layer of time-consuming labour, whereas what would be more beneficial is more PSS support. The support I had was excellent, but the PSS colleagues are overworked.

Any further comments?

I find the current support from T&L officer to be sufficient. However, I am yet to experience the NPP1 and NPP2 approval process

The process is longwinded. Often programmes are created following a tender bid and there is a lot of information that has to be duplicated for the NPP process. It would be nice to have these joined up. Review the requirement for a programme specification. No-one really knows what audience it is for. The university should create templates for these so that there is a good corporate style. More information and guidance for academics on how to write course units and programmes. Things like curriculum models, academic levels, intended learning outcomes etc. Often academic colleagues don’t know

As mentioned so as not to reinvent wheels it might be worth contacting Annie Mcloughlin in FBMH who was heavily involved in creating approval processes for CPD within our Faculty.









14

where to look for this. Other HEIs have fantastic staff resources for this, but Manchester has very little or none.

Who are they? Hums, SALC, Academic

Hums, SEED, Academic

Hums, AMBS, Academic

Hums, SEED, PSS

BMH, SHS, PSS FBMH, Biology Sciences, Academic

Humanities, SALC, academic

Appendix D – Design Specification: Recommendations for Toolkit

15

Recommendations for Toolkit Existing examples within the University of Manchester

Existing examples within other Russell Group HEIs

Notes on feasibility Essential or desirable?

Example/s of model NPP1/2 forms including appendix material

No. Specific schools/faculties refer to their own forms for previously approved programmes

None identified Feasible to create objective model form to eliminate bias and likelihood of copying/pasting. Concern that one model form would not capture the idiosyncrasies of each faculty

Essential

Bullet point guidance in completing NPP 1/2 forms No None identified Should be fairly straightforward but may be too simplistic when considering different faculty processes/stakeholder staff

Essential

FAQs in completing NPP1/NPP2 forms No See University of Bristol, King's College for general programme approval FAQs

Online capture form could be set up to address nuances and expand FAQs in an ongoing fashion

Essential

Electronic process for submitting NPP forms including programme spec template

No See London School of Economics and Political Science

Not feasible for toolkit but currently under consideration as part of SLP review

Desirable

Update on material on TLSO webpages including contacts/information

Yes - information exists but could be updated See Cardiff University, University of Exeter, Queen Mary University of London, Newcastle University, London School of Economics and Political Science for departmental contacts lists

Need to consider the overlap between toolkit and TLSO website

Essential

Model stakeholder meeting video/focus on initial stage of approval process

The Humanities intranet contains:

stakeholder meeting document

None identified Desirable

Process map/timeline to include key dates The Humanities intranet contains:

Programme approval process flowchart

Key dates for faculty programme approval committee/sub-committee

Key deadlines for admissions The Biology, Medicine and Health (BMH) intranet contains:

Toolkit to help with the development of a successful postgraduate programme

See University of Birmingham, University of Bristol, Durham University, University of Exeter, University of Glasgow, King's College London, University of Leeds, University of Liverpool, UCL, University of Sheffield, Queen's

Timeline already produced within this project. Could be updated to include hyperlinks/improved via the SLP

Essential

Appendix D – Design Specification: Recommendations for Toolkit

16

University Belfast, Queen Mary University of London, University of Nottingham, Newcastle University

Tender bid and NPP form joined up to avoid repeating same information

No None identified Will likely form part of the TLSO review of the current NPP1 and 2 templates

Desirable

Information and guidance for academics on how to write course units and learning outcomes (and link to appropriate assessment type)

No. Broad guidance on Staffnet: http://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/tlso/policy-guidance/teaching-and-learning/teaching/curriculum-design/

See University of Edinburgh, University of Southampton, University of Sheffield

Not in scope but forms part of the wider recommendations in the final section of this report.

Desirable

Simplification of language used on NPP forms (compared to Campus Solutions, American terminology)

No None identified Feasible to create an interim document with mapped Campus field names but will need to be defined once programme requirements in Campus 9.2 are known.

Desirable

Create personalised redirects to respective faculty intranet dependent on role

No n/a Would undermine purpose of toolkit and sharing best practice

n/a

Toolkit to exist as the whole TLSO website rather than in addition to it

No None identified Would need to be considered by TLSO as part of toolkit delivery and forms part of the wider recommendations in the final section of this report.

Desirable

Greater clarity on non-standard programme approval e.g. collaboration and articulation

No See University of York, University of Southampton, Queen's University Belfast, Queen Mary University of London

Out of scope for toolkit but TLSO to investigate non-standard starts/deadlines

Desirable

Information regarding the differences between UMW (e.g. distance learning programmes) and standard degree programme approval

No See University of Sheffield

UMW still in development and is being considered by TLSO review e.g. through the creation of country fact files outlining key regulations for each respective geographical area.

Desirable

Guidance on how/if to embed employability (TEF) in programme design

No See University of Southampton

To be considered as part of TLSO - could link to external requirements e.g. TEF, HESA AND HEFCE

Desirable

Academic colleagues to have one-to-one support from PSS staff rather than online materials

Yes, in some schools/faculties based on conversations with stakeholders

n/a Toolkit should aid PSS staff to support academic colleagues. Aim is not for academics' sole source of information to be PSS staff

n/a

CMA fact file that links the key consumer regulatory requirements to the different parts of the programme approval process.

No See University of Sheffield

Would aid colleagues in understanding the link between this process and CMA regulations

Essential

Appendix E – Programme Approval Timeline

17

1


Title: Manchester Student Homes (MSH), Support/Campaign Effectiveness and Student Visibility.

Author/Enquiries: Michael Dobson (Employability Executive, Careers Service) and Kaz Naseem (Senior Student Services Assistant, Student Admissions & Administration).

Date/version: Wednesday, 30th May 2018 – V2.0

Circulation: Cooper Healey, Poppy Humphrey and Keith Lowe (all MSH), members of MSH Team as necessary, DSE Future Talent cohort.

Summary: Assessing the effectiveness of the support offered by MSH to University of Manchester students, and reviewing the profile and visibility of MSH amongst The University of Manchester student body.

1. Executive Summary 1.1. This project aimed to assess the effectiveness of the support offered by MSH to University of Manchester (UoM) students, as well as reviewing the profile and visibility of MSH amongst the student body. The project was commissioned by MSH as a result of a lack of awareness and usage of their services.

1.2. A variety of both quantitative and qualitative data was analysed in order to undertake a thematic analysis in relation to the objectives of the project. This data was obtained through the provision of historic and current MSH Survey data, as well as an additional survey undertaken by the Project Team and a semi-structured interview with a key stakeholder. 1.3. It was found that whilst students indicated an awareness of MSH, there was some confusion as to how exactly it was linked to the UoM. Students that used MSH to find accommodation tended to so because of this University affiliation, citing a high level of trust associated with MSH. There was contradictory information as to whether recommendations from peers were an important aspect of promoting MSH. 1.4. Students were more likely to use online property search websites than the MSH accredited property search engine. Respondents cited a lack of functionality of the website as a possible reason behind this. Students were most likely to find out about MSH online, further highlighting the necessity for a user-friendly website. 1.5. It became apparent that both the appearance and location of the MSH office was having a detrimental impact on levels of student engagement with the service. It was suggested that relocation to an area closer to the University would lead to higher levels of student footfall.

2

1.6. Responses from survey participants indicated that the services currently offered by MSH are fit for purpose and aligned correctly with the student lifecycle. It was also apparent that promotion of these services was being undertaken through effective means, such as information provision and accommodation events. 1.7. A series of recommendations have been provided by The Project Team. A key recommendation is to improve the website and produce an app in order to allow MSH to compete with market competitors. Other recommendations include undertaking a rebrand and relocation, prioritising key services offered by MSH and formulating a new team to offer community based services.

2. Background 2.1. MSH is a free, university run housing service for students. MSH runs a landlord accreditation scheme and offers students support through a property search engine, the provision of housing advice and contract checking. MSH also works with students, the community and numerous partner agencies to identify and respond to issues in off campus areas. 2.2. MSH is jointly funded by The UoM and Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), and has Service Level Agreements with various key institutions. This wide array of stakeholders and the breadth of their service delivery can cause MSH to suffer from a low profile within the universities and the student population. 2.3. As many students are unaware of the amount of support, information and guidance offered, MSH chose to commission a project through the DSE Future Talent programme. The key deliverables of this project were to both gather feedback on the support and key initiatives delivered by MSH and assess whether these are aligned with the student lifecycle, as well as reviewing the profile and visibility of MSH amongst University of Manchester students. 2.4. This report and recommendations will be reviewed by MSH with a view to incorporating findings into 2018/19 strategic plans. It is hoped that a series of findings and recommendations will allow for an understanding of whether current MSH support/initiatives are aligned with student expectations, as well as an awareness of the profile and visibility of MSH amongst The UoM student body and how this can be enhanced.

3. Methodology 3.1. In order to ensure that the project delivered against the brief, in accordance with set timescales, we split the project into three distinct phases. A definitive list of key milestones can be seen in Appendix 1. 3.2. Research Phase 3.2.1. November 2017: MSH sent us UoM Student Survey results and Annual Reports dating back to the 2013/14 academic year. This documentation contained mass amounts of quantitative data which we were able to analyse. Research notes can be seen in Appendix 2.

3

3.2.2. December 2017: We attended an MSH Accommodation Fair in Barnes Wallace. This allowed us to speak with Penny Chan, who undertakes Marketing and Communications for MSH, and generate an understanding of the communication outlets and messages that MSH use within student engagement. A list of these communication channels can be seen in Appendix 3. 3.2.3. March 2018: We interviewed Jack Houghton, Students' Union Communities Officer. Jack was identified as a key stakeholder by MSH and we were able to ask him questions related to student awareness of MSH and the perceived effectiveness of key MSH support services.

3.2.4. March 2018: We negotiated a one-hour slot in The University of Manchester Library in which we were able to survey 10 students on their knowledge and experiences of MSH. This allowed us to obtain both qualitative and quantitative data for analysis. Survey questions and results can be found in Appendix 5. 3.2.5. March 2018: We used LimeSurvey to create an online survey which invited participants to answer questions relating to their knowledge and experiences of MSH. A link to the LimeSurvey questionnaire was shared on student facing social media pages. The survey received a total of 34 student responses, and allowed for the generation of both qualitative and quantitative data. Survey questions and results can also be found in Appendix 5. 3.2.6. April 2018: We received the results from MSH’s 2017/18 UoM Student Survey, which was structured slightly differently to previous years and asked different questions. This provided data which allowed for the exploration of new themes, as well as allowing for a comparative analysis to previous years. Results from this survey can be seen in Appendix 6. 3.3. Understanding Phase

3.3.1. April 2018: Having obtained both quantitative and qualitative data from the aforementioned research methods, we undertook a thematic analysis of our findings in order to determine key themes related to the objectives. Finalised objectives can be seen in Appendix 7.

3.4. Solution/Completion Phase 3.4.1. April/May 2018: Having evaluated the data available to us and concluded our findings, we formulated our recommendations for MSH and finalised our written report.

4. Findings/Analysis 4.1. Which students responded From The Library/LimeSurvey data we can see that the majority of students who responded were undergraduate (UG) UK/EU students. The data from MSH survey also shows that 70% of the correspondents were UG students and of that group 74% were UK/EU. Appendix 6 shows the breakdown of these groups.

http://mancunion.com/2018/03/05/interview-jack-houghton/

4

4.2. Awareness of MSH Over half (54%) of The Library/LimeSurvey respondents indicated a prior awareness of MSH. Results are available in Appendix 5.

4.3. MSH Profile Amongst UoM students

MSH survey respondents demonstrated an understanding that MSH is associated with UoM. When asked to respond to, “MSH is,” the most popular responses were “A partner of the University”, followed by “a department of the University.” Results are available in Appendix 6.

4.3.1. Participants surveyed through The Library/LimeSurvey showed an acute awareness of an affiliation between MSH and UoM, demonstrated by the below responses. Further responses are available in Appendix 5.

“It’s an organisation which is affiliated with Manchester Universities and helps students to find safe, reliable landlords and properties to rent.”

4.3.2. Respondents noted that MSH properties were with accredited landlords. Responses such as the below indicate that properties with an accredited landlord are indeed a desirable commodity. Further responses are available in Appendix 5.

“They offer a service where if they advertise a property, that landlord is accredited by them.”

4.4. Reasons for choosing MSH MSH survey results showed that the most popular reason (46%) as to why students chose to use MSH was because it was “an approved University scheme.” This indicates an obvious importance to respondents that MSH is a UoM support service. Results are available in Appendix 6.

4.4.1. Respondents from The Library/LimeSurvey who found accommodation through MSH spoke about their trust of MSH, seemingly taking assurance from the association with UoM. Further responses are available in Appendix 5. “Manchester Student Homes – they were heavily advertised and they were promoted by the

University as being safe as the landlords they promote are accredited.”

4.4.2. Participants offered contradictory information regarding the importance of peer recommendations. Only 17% of MSH survey respondents indicated that MSH had been “recommended by other students/friend.” 4.4.3. However, responses such as the below from Library/LimeSurvey respondents indicate that peer-to-peer marketing can be deemed a viable options when considering how MSH services can be effectively promoted. Further responses are available in Appendix 5.

5

“Manchester Student Homes had a good reputation amongst students so would probably use them again.”

4.4.4. Jack Houghton also spoke of the importance of peer-to-peer student marketing, and how MSH could potentially further explore this route of communications. “The best way to engage with students is being borderline led by students…a lot of students

that engage other students, such as a leading events, campaigns…they understand their audience.”

4.5. Usage of MHS website to find accommodation The MSH survey showed that 34% of students said they used online property searches, i.e. Rightmove, Zoopla etc with less than 30% saying that they used MSH. Results are available in Appendix 6. 4.5.1. Students who hadn’t found their accommodation were asked which service they would use, with 34% again selecting online property searches. However only 21% said they would use MSH to find their property. This corresponds with the low proportion of Library/LimeSurvey respondents who indicated they planned to use MSH to find accommodation. Results are available in Appendix 5. 4.5.2. When invited to comment on the MSH website, respondents had several suggestions as to how the website could be improved, and therefore presumably be used on a more regular basis. Further responses are available in Appendix 6.

“Make the website more modern and easy to use. There needs to be a quick view option.”

4.6. Finding out about MSH When asked how they’d found out about MSH, via the “University website” or an “Internet Search” were the most selected responses. This further highlights the importance of having a functional and accessible website. 4.6.1. “University publications” was selected on 32 occasions, indicating the significance of MSH continuing to work closely with relevant staff across the University to promote services and initiatives. 4.6.2. A comparably small number of responses became aware of MSH through “posters & leaflets,” vindicating MSH’s decision to cut back on the amount of print material produced. Results are available in Appendix 6. 4.7. Appearance and Location of MSH It became apparent from Library/LimeSurvey respondents that the physical appearance of the MSH is having a detrimental impact on student engagement. Further responses are available in Appendix 5.

6

“I would not in any way associate it as being a University of Manchester support service. I had always assumed it was a private/individual company. There are no signs of Uni

association.”

4.7.1. Jack Houghton introduced the concept that the physical location of the MSH office is also having a negative impact on student engagement.

“Students don’t tend to associate premises next to subway or tanning salons as University, they’re not going to think that MSH is also University just because it’s close. Across the road

there are another six letting agencies, so they’re going to be seen as same people.”

4.8. MSH Service Feedback

When asked to comment on future improvements regarding the support of students in their transition into private accommodation, it became evident that some MSH survey respondents lacked knowledge and understanding of the services provided by MSH. Responses such as the below highlight this, as participants suggest services that MSH already offer.

“Maybe the presence of private landlords at the accommodation fair.”

“Leaflets handed out to flats/halls of residence.”

4.8.1. MSH survey respondents spoke about the necessity for the provision of general ‘information and guidance.’ Similar responses are available in Appendix 6.

“More information about how to actually find and buy a house and all the different factors to

consider.”

4.8.2. MSH survey respondents noted a desire for further presentations and talks, as per below.

“More talks/presentations...sessions available to help understanding of houses, billing etc.”

4.8.3. Several participants introduced a concept that some form of review/feedback system for landlords could be introduced that would help future tenants with decision making. Similar responses can be seen in Appendix 6.

“I feel like more could be done for international students. Two of my house mates are international students and they really struggled with UK guarantors.”

4.8.4. A bespoke theme was also introduced in which one MSH survey respondent stated they felt more could be to provide relevant advice to International students around guarantors.

“A service warning of specific landlords which have been difficult to deal with in the past.”

7

5. Recommendations

5.1. Rebrand/rename

Whilst our findings indicate that a proportion of students are aware of MSH and its links to the University, it also shows there is confusion as to what exactly MSH is and which services they offer. This confusion could be avoided if the name reflected more accurately what MSH provides, for example ‘Manchester Universities Student Homes.’ It would also be beneficial if branding could incorporate University colours and logos. Since the majority of services users are from The UoM, it would seem to make most sense for the 1824 logo and purple colouring to be included within branding. However we do understand that this is likely to confuse and potentially exclude MMU students. Since the two universities fund MSH we feel they should take priority and the inclusion of branding from other organisations, such as Royal Northern College of Music and Manchester College, wouldn’t be necessary.

5.2. Relocation

Relocating to an area where there is larger student footfall, perhaps closer to the Accommodation Office, Grove House or somewhere close to the campus on Oxford Road may help students understand that it is a University service and increase footfall usage. We understand the historical background of the current office location; however with so many letting agencies surrounding it, MSH is failing to stand out. Smaller offices may also help reduce rent costs which can be spent more effectively elsewhere. The majority of service users appear to access MSH support online, so a reduction in office space would be more efficient.

5.3. Update Online Presence

The data shows that the majority of students use online searches to find property, however students are using letting agency websites as opposed to the MSH property search engine. Comments were made about the functionality and accessibility of the current website. Having discussed this issue with MSH management, we appreciate the high expense involved in upgrading the website, and how budgeting limitations may hinder potential website development. However, a less expensive option may be to work with the University IT department to generate a website development project/student internship opportunity in which the website is reviewed and updated annually and options for improved functionality are explored. A further recommendation regarding the online presence of MSH is the potential development of an app. The majority of MSH competitors have an easy to use app, which is evidently advantageous in this technical age. Again, we recognise the cost implications of app development, but it might be worth exploring internal avenues within the University.

5.4. Slim down extra services

When students were asked about the services that MHS provided, the analysis highlighted a degree of confusion and contradiction. We propose that MSH continues to concentrate on its key initiatives which students are aware of and are directly related to finding a property, such as; landlord accreditation scheme, providing free advice and guidance in relation to properties and a free contract checking service. It may make sense that the Good Neighbourhood Scheme and the outreach work in the communities are separated into a new

8

department, perhaps named “Off-Campus Experience Team.” We feel this would make the MSH mission statement a lot clearer and would make it easier for students to understand what they provide.

5.5 Relaunch

These recommendations could all work together in a relaunch of the service, where MSH is rebranded and relocated to a more suitable location. This could be done in direct alignment with a review of whether the work of the Good Neighbours Team would sit more appropriately elsewhere within the University support system. We believe that the aforementioned changes, in tandem with the production of a more functional and accessible website, would increase both student awareness/clarification of the services MSH offers, and MSH usage in comparison to market competitors.

6. Limitations

6.1. It was agreed that the scope of this project would cover only UoM students and their awareness of MSH, as opposed to also incorporating input from the MMU student body. As such, potential differences in student demographics between the two Universities should be taken into account when considering the implementation of recommendations.

6.2. Whilst it was recommended that we interview Riddi Viswanathan, Students’ Union Diversity Officer, unfortunately she was unable to schedule time to meet us. Additionally, Jack Houghton noted that he was unable to discuss anything that would coincide with a University strategic review of MSH. Each of the above could potentially equate to a loss of input from key stakeholders.

7. Appendices

Appendix 1: MSH Project Milestones Appendix 2: Notes from MSH Annual Reports Appendix 3: MSH Communication Channels Appendix 4: Interview Notes Appendix 5: Questions and Responses from Library and LimeSurvey combined Appendix 6: MSH UoM Student Survey Results 2018 Appendix 7: MSH Project Objectives

9

Appendix 1

MSH Project Milestones

Date Action

November 2017 First meeting with Manchester Student Homes (MSH) took place on 21st November 2017 at MSH office in Fallowfield.

December 2017 Attended MSH Accommodation Fair at Barnes Wallace in early December 2017. We spoke with in depth with Penny who undertakes Marketing and Communications at MSH, as well as several landlords – this was before it was decided to only include students within the scope of the project.

December 2017/ January 2018

MSH sent us UoM student surveys and Annual Reports, dating back to the 2013/14 academic year. An analysis of the data from these reports took place throughout December and January.

February 2018 We met with project sponsors again at the MSH Office in Fallowfield, providing an update on the progress we’d made with the quantitative data from the reports and conversations had at the Accommodation Fair. We also agreed to narrow the scope of the project, focusing only on UoM students as opposed to service users from MMU.

March 2018 We interviewed Jack Houghton, Students' Union Communities Officer. Jack was identified as a key stakeholder by MSH and we were able to ask him questions related to student awareness of MSH and the perceived effectiveness of key MSH support services. We tried to also arrange an interview with Riddi but she was unable to find the time to meet with us.

We surveyed 10 students in The University of Manchester Library, asking them to answer questions related to their knowledge and experiences of MSH. We undertook a thematic analysis of the data, ensuring that we were working within the realms of the objectives.

We used LimeSurvey to create an online survey which invited participants to answer questions relating to their knowledge and experiences of MSH. A link to the LimeSurvey questionnaire was shared on student facing social media pages. The survey received a total of 34 student responses, allowing us to obtain some excellent qualitative data for in-depth analysis.

April 2018 We received the results from MSH’s 2017/18 UoM Student Survey, which was structured slightly differently to previous years and asked different questions. This provided data which allowed for the exploration of new themes, as well as allowing for a comparative analysis to previous years.



10

April/May 2018

Having evaluated the data available to us and concluded our findings, we formulated our recommendations for MSH and finalised our written report we decided that we had sufficient data and began to conclude our analysis.

11

Appendix 2

Notes from MSH Annual Reports

Annual Report 2013-14

• Eased cap on student numbers saw increased demand for academic places, which lead to an increased demand for accommodation. • Property searches on the website totalled 213,614, with the busiest week for website visitors being 24th – 30th November.

Web Traffic

• The prominent peaks in terms of page views were mid-November to mid-December, mid-January to mid-February and mid-August to mid-September. The last one was because of an influx of Erasmus students. • The web-traffic for the academic year saw a 10% increase.

Website Search Criteria

• 28.62% of student searches were filtered on beds available, the most popular. • In terms of area searches, Fallowfield was comfortably the most popular from October to March searches.

Advice, Guidance and Advocacy

• The total number of student contacts for contractual issues was 244, with 135 contacts about deposits. Of the 719 enquiries, only 207 of these were related to accredited landlords. • Student profiles of office contact – 1,117 UoM enquiries, used most prominently by UoM students as previously discussed with Poppy, Cooper and Keith. These ascertains are based on the demographic and financial situation of our students. MMU students accounted for just 431 of the 1896 enquiries. • International students made up 764 of the enquiries, 40%. International students are proportionally high users of Manchester Student Homes. This led to the introduction of the international friendly standard, for which landlords have to apply.

Housing events

• Ran a number of housing events, including an “Erasmus Find a Home Event”. • Six accommodation fairs were run across the Universities, also continued to attend housing talks at request of peer mentors and academic staff.


• The 2014/15 advertising season saw demand for student accommodation reach unprecedented levels. All property accredited and advertised was taken. • Property searches on the website totalled 224,129, with the busiest week for website visitors being 2nd – 9th December.

Web Traffic

12

• Two key letting periods appeared from mid-November to mid-December and mid-January to mid-February.


• 19.5% of searches were filtered on beds available, the most popular option as was the case last year. The introduction of “are you in a group?” altered the figures and was the second most selected option. This year also saw the inclusion of bills inclusive as an option. • In terms of search areas, Fallowfield was comfortably the most elected area, as was the case last year. The City Centre was the only area to retain its number of searches into the second half of the cycle.

Antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance

• Far fewer complaints are experienced in Central Wards, with just 26 visits taking place in these areas.

Marketing and Communications

• Through an increased number of events and marketing channels, an increased number of visitors used the MSH website. MSH has seen increased exposure to the student market, which has resulted in greater exposure for accredited providers. • Marketing channels included the following: Communications for International Students, Communications/newsletter targeting students in specific departments, communications via Students’ Union, Student Services, 147 Bus, staff news. • MSH attended 50% more events than the previous year, handing out over 6,500 private hall guides to students, staff and parents. • Development of social media has allowed MSH to reach a greater number of people. Aim to boost the number of social media outlets from 2 to 5 next year.


• The 2015-16 advertising saw a consolidation of the market, as demand just failed to reach the heights of last year when all the accommodation was taken. The market managed to provide accommodation for all those searching without any issues.

Web Traffic

• As with previous years, the busiest periods for web traffic were from mid-November to mid-December and mid-January to mid-February. The compression of the market into the pre-Easter period saw a drop in searches during the last quarter of the advertising period. • Whilst there has always been a marginal decline in searches at the start of the summer season, 2016 saw a 28% drop in searches. This reflected the fact that properties were being taken earlier in the year.


13

• “Beds available” and “Are you in a group” were the top two in terms of accommodation searches were filtered on. • Fallowfield again the most comfortably selected search option from 01/10 to 31/03. The most selected from 01/04 to 30/09 was city centre. Those searching for accommodation in Fallowfield seem to find it before April.

Marketing and Communications

• Manchester Student Homes administrator taken responsibility for the marketing and communication aspects of the business, including running of Accommodation Fairs and Events, as well as social media. There has been a significant increase in the number of visitors to the MSH website. • In December 2015, six accommodation fairs were held over the course of two weeks. This was the first time that individual Facebook event pages were used to further promote each event. • Over the course of the academic year, MSH has altered the way it uses social media. The number of impressions on Twitter and Facebook has grown exponentially. • Next year they plan to use Instagram more at certain times of the year with photos of both MSH events and good neighbour’s team.

Surveys

• MSH ran two surveys concerned with customer satisfaction of both landlords and students. The increase in student responses was six fold, up to 1,099 in 2016. This was possibly down to the fact that Manchester Student Homes had full control of the surveys administration.


• The 2016-17 advertising season saw demand for student accommodation stabilise, with a small reduction in lettings being experienced in HMO’s (Home with Multiple Owners). This is probably down to new accommodation in the City Centre, notably Vita’s Square Circle Development.


• “Beds available” (166,471) and “Are you in a Group?” (152,156) were the most selected options when filtering accommodation searches.

Housing and Accreditation Services

• MSH continues to provide a wide range of services, for the benefits of students and landlords alike. 389 students were advised on various issues, ranging from contact checking to fraud. MSH is also now offering a new enhanced level of accreditation, in which landlords are required to undertake volunteering work in the community (landlords devoted 235 hours to volunteering hours in academic year).

Marketing and Communication Services

• Manchester Student Homes service “on the road”, to various campus locations. During November/December five accommodation fairs were run, attracting over 1,300 students. Throughout the year, MSH either conducted or attended other events such as open days and house hunting talks, this led to engagement with a further 1,700 students.

14

• Increased profile on social media has resulted in increased numbers at events outside the office. MSH needs to analyse the demand side of the service, survey students about how they find their accommodation, where and what they are looking for and what time of year they search. • Digitalisation of publications/communication channels, many publications are no longer available in print format.

15

Appendix 3

MSH Communication Channels

1) UoM Student News 2) UoM Student Weekly Newsletters 3) UoM Student Recruitment and International Development 4) UoM Senior Residential Life Coordinators 5) UoM Student Services at Barnes Wallis 6) UoM Student Services at The Atrium 7) UoM Social Media Coordinator at The School of Arts, Languages and Cultures 8) UoM PC Screensavers 9) UoM Plasma Screens 10) UoM Student News social media channels 11) UoM Student Services social media channels 12) UoM Welcome Week events 13) Residential Life Receptions across all campuses 14) Residential Life Flat Chats 15) UMSU Communications 16) Man Met Student Communications 17) Man Met Student Living 18) Man Met Residential Life 19) Man Met Residential Life events 20) Man Met International Office 21) Man Met Vine Reception – Dedicated MSH space and plasma screen 22) Man Met Browzer (default Man Met webpage for students on all PCs in halls of residence) 23) Man Met Students’ Union 24) Man Met Plasma Screens 25) Man Met social media channels 26) Man Met International Welcome events 27) Man Met Find A Home events 28) UoS Head of Student Support 29) UoS Directorate Support 30) UoS Accommodation & Diversity 31) UoS Students’ Union 32) UoS Plasma Screens 33) UoS Housing Talks 34) ManColl Accommodation pages 35) ManColl Liaison (departments and Students’ Union) 36) ManColl Plasma Screens 37) ManColl social media channels 38) ManColl Wellbeing events 39) RNCM Student Wellbeing 40) RNCM Students’ Union 41) RNCM Plasma Screens 42) RNCM social media channels 43) RNCM Welcome Week event 44) Kexgill window wrap – accredited provider 45) 147 Bus – free circular bus along Oxford Rad 46) MSH Student mailing list 47) MSH Provider mailing list – info sent to students via accredited providers 48) MSH Student Surveys via UoM 27 49) MSH Student Surveys via Man Met

16

Appendix 5

Questions and Responses from Library and LimeSurvey combined

What is your current year of study?

First year – 2 Pre-final year – 13 Final year – 9 PG- 2 Did not answer – 2 UK/EU or International Student

UK/EU – 23 International Student – 3 Did not answer – 2 Have you previously heard of Manchester Student Homes? Yes – 17 + 3 No – 11 + 6

USERS/AWARENESS OF MSH

If yes, tell us in your own words what you know about Manchester Student Homes?

• They are a student housing organisation endorsed by the university. • Used their website to find a house for second year. • Organisation which helps students finds accommodation which adheres to a certain

standard. • Very little; just that it’s an option for student housing. • Huge website that helps students find homes/roommates • They help students find a home according to their own criteria. • They offer a service where if they advertise a property, that landlord is accredited by

them. I used them to get the house which I have lived in for the last two years. They have a good website where you can search for the property type that you want.

• Tries to match students to landlords without going through an agent who earns agent fees. Limited number of houses around the University area.

• Used the search tool to look for houses. It’s for accredited landlords. • They have an office in Fallowfield and are in some way affiliated with the university. • They help student find homes from accredited landlords and offer a contract checking

service. • Manchester Unis collaboration to accredit landlords. • University run and endorsed housing service which helps people find houses and is

also able to check tenancy agreements and give advice. • The universities run it; it is full of approved landlords. • I know it's a website where student can find accommodation and it's verified by the

University. • It's an organisation which is affiliated with Manchester Universities and helps students

to find safe, reliable landlords and properties to rent. • From Facebook Ads and using Google Search. • Student letting agency. • University approved accommodation, and somewhere to go for landlord disputes.

17

• They just help you out with contracts, making sure they are not corrupt and give advice on finding accommodation.

Have you either been made aware of, or used, the following services provided by MSH?

Service Aware Used

Property search engine on website

12 + 2 12 + 1

Landlord accreditation scheme

13 + 1 5

Contract checking service 10 + 2 3

Deposit/tenancy advice 12 + 2 4

Landlord/tenant mediation 10 + 3 2

Accommodation Fairs/Events 11 + 2 1

Student-to-student message board

5 + 2 1

NO AWARENESS OF MSH

If no (haven’t heard of MSH), “Manchester Student Homes is a free, university-run housing service for students. They provide a landlord accreditation scheme, property search filter, accommodation talks and housing events, amongst many other services. Now you have an initial awareness of who Manchester Student Homes are, which of the below (if any) would you be interested in?”

Service Interested

Property search engine on website

0 + 5

Landlord accreditation scheme

2 + 4

Contract checking service 2 + 6

Deposit/tenancy advice 2 + 5

Landlord/tenant mediation 1 + 4

Accommodation Fairs/Events 0 + 5

Student-to-student message board

0 + 2

18

Who have you used/intend to use to find accommodation and why?

• Manchester Student Homes as I trust their website. • Letting agent’s website such as Jordan Fishwick, Homes4u and Manchester Student Homes. • University halls-catered. • I have just googled properties in a designated area. • Local estate agents. Ease of use. • MSH • Manchester Student Homes - they were heavily advertised and they were promoted by the university as being 'safe' as the landlords they promote are accredited. I felt safer using this service as I felt if we had any problems they would offer us help and advice. • Online search engine, Homes4u, Rightmove.com as they have a greater variety of houses and more user friendly websites. • Family friends of housemates because there was no need to go through and agency which would have added additional costs for little added benefit. • I have used Zoopla and Right move. MSH was good but there were not enough options. • Estate agents website as it seemed like the most obvious place to look first. • I use the property search (MSH) site as well as normal property sites. • Online/Fallowfield estate agents. Ease. • I look at our current estate agents housing availability since I already have a contract with them (Drake and Co). • Private searches because the general standard on Manchester student homes seemed not as great. I could find a better house at a better deal by myself. I prefer to use everything and know I got the best possible deal then trust one site. • Websites such as Manchester Student Homes, friend's recommendations. • I have used Manchester Student Homes and friends' recommendations. • Manchester student homes has a good reputation among students so would probably use them again. • Student accommodation website, convenient and of good service. • Philp James – cheaper agency fee. • MCR move, Let’s residential – no particular reason, just had houses we liked. • University of Manchester Housing Website, Zoopla, Air B’n’B. • Classmates – can have more information about the accommodation. • Rightmove – Quick and Easy. • Homes4U – my friend sorted it out. • Rightmove, MCR move, Nicholas H, Philip James.

What month in the academic year did you start your property search?

Month How many started accommodation search?

September 0 + 1

October 3 + 1

19

November 6 + 2

December 9 + 0

January 2 + 3

February 3 + 2

I haven’t started yet… 1 + 0

Taking into account your experiences/what you know of MSH, is there anything that would stop you using the services that they offer- If so, please specify what. • Would stop using the service if the houses were poorly kept/landlords were dodgy. • Having used MSH to find our house for second year I wouldn't trust it or go near it again. We had a horrendous experience with our 'approved landlord' which was Tiger Property Partners. We suffered problems all year, had to make a formal complaint and had to go through arbitration at the end of the year to get our deposit back as they tried to keep an insane amount. MSH needs to take feedback from students that have let properties from their website as well as feedback about landlords. This way people won't keep experiencing the horror landlords that take advantage of students. • Availability and contact methods. • Limited choice of accommodation. • No the contract service is brilliant. • Very limited property choice. • If they had high fees or poor student recommendations. • The quality of the houses seems no as great as other services. • They don't have many affordable options for individual students. • Can’t think of any • No, not that I can think of. • The service they provide may not be as convenient as those as student accommodation websites. • No • Bad properties, better elsewhere.

Please copy and paste the link below in a seperate tab, and outline your initial thoughts looking at the photo. For example: What do you think of the physical appearance of the building? Would you associate it with a University of Manchester related support service?

20

• I think the building looks fine, I would associate it more with an estate agents rather than a support service. • It looks quite nondescript and plain. I would not in any way associate it as being a uni of support service. I had always assumed it was a private/individual company. There are no visible signs of uni association. • God, no. • It needs to be better visibly associated with the University. Extremely bad advertising for a corner building. Signs of the University always help. • I wouldn't know it was a University of Manchester service; no purple logo. • The building looks fine, but it does not seem like a part of the UoM support service. • I would associate it with a UoM related support service. I also know where the location is. However, at first glance it looks like a block of student accommodation. • I would not associate it with UoM. The building looks fine although it’s not particularly clear what it is and what it offers. The interior looks a bit dingy and uninviting. Without the UoM colours and logos, I don't feel like it’s somewhere I can find advice from the Uni. • I think this office is quite tucked away and I would not necessarily associate it with a Manchester University related support service. I feel in order to do that it should clearly have the Manchester university logo visible saying that is it a support service for them. I do think this building is in a good location because it is in the heart of Fallowfield, a very student populated area. It could perhaps do with a banner on the metal post in front - so that it is eye catching and more clear what it is? • It is very hidden. When I was in Fallowfield I didn't even know it was there. Should definitely have university of Manchester logos around so they know it’s connected to the universities. Needs lots more signage. • It's doesn't stand out much. • Yeah it's the office/agency. • It's not obvious from a glance it is a University run service since the purple colour scheme and iconic uni logo isn't obvious. • It is a fine building; I wouldn't associate it with the related services. • I think the physical appearance is fine, I think I could associate it with UoM since there are some posters, otherwise i might not think it is university building or university support building. • It is not immediately clear that it is affiliated with the University, but it seems like a good and reliable service on first sight. • It looks well kept, not run down or old and I probably wouldn’t have associated it with the university had I not been told it was. • A bit ugly, wouldn’t associate with UoM. • It’s a little bit normal; I will not associate with UoM. • Maybe, could be. • I don’t think I would have thought it was part of the University. • It’s old and not good looking, the appearance of the building does however look like the University. • Ugly – old looking. • Did not realise that was the building, have always thought it looks a bit run down. • Too rounded, standard office, yes I would associate though.

21

Have you ever used the MSH website? If so, which of the following options best describes your experience of doing so?

Opinion on website Number of responses

Very useful 2

Useful 12 + 3

Couldn’t say 1 + 4

Not very useful 1

Not at all useful 1

I’ve never used it 2 + 3

22

Appendix 6

MSH UoM Student Survey Results 2018

Manchester Student Homes is…

Response Number of responses

A community group 34

A department of the University 202

A government service 4

A landlord 11

A partner of the University 314

An agent 75

Blank 44

Manchester Student Homes provides…


A free contract checking service 257

A waste recycling service 125

Runs a landlord accreditation scheme 271

Provides free info, advice and guidance 383

Property management service 182

Free student safety info 261

Have you already found your accommodation?


Yes 243

No 76

Blanks 365

When did you start looking for accommodation?

23


September 8

October 32

November 112

December 53

January 35

What is/was your reason for choosing Manchester Student Homes? (You can choose more than one answer) Response Number of responses

An approved University scheme 75

Operates a landlord accreditation scheme 54

Recommended by other students/friends 27

Other (please specify) 5

Other: “easy to use”, “liked the particular house,” “no time to look for private accommodation”, “agencies are very unreliable,” and “allows you to search properties of multiple landlords.”

How did you find out about Manchester Student Homes?


Accommodation fairs 31

Accommodation talks 31

Housing event 11

Internet search 39

Posters & leaflets 17

University website 40

University publications 32

Other (please specify) 4

Other: “Chatting”, “cousin went through the system,” “friends told me about it,” and “I can see the building when I go to Sainsbury’s.”

24

How likely is it that you would recommend Manchester Student Homes to a friend or colleague? Response Number of responses

0 6

1 4

2 6

3 10

4 14

5 39

6 53

7 51

8 64

9 21

10 42

Student’s total: 662 of which 70% were UG, 22% PG and 8% Exchange/ Erasmus Part-Year

UG students total: 463 of which EU: 64, international: 123, UK student: 276

PG students total: 147 of which EU: 21, international: 119, UK: 7

14%

60%

26%

UG students

EU UK International

14% 5%

81%

PG Students

EU UK International

25

Good neighbours team:

Reponses: provides a night time patrol – 158 promotes community cohesion – 215 is open until 4.30am – 91 provides a waste recycling service – 80 provides a helpline for noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour – 274 provides a waste removal service – 56 runs student safety events – 222

How you found your accommodation?

Directly with the landlord – 21 Directly with the private hall – 15 Through a private letting agency – 51 Through an online property search (not MSH eg. Rightmove, Zoopla etc) – 81 Via the Manchester Student Homes advertising service – 72 Didn’t answer (may not have found their accommodation yet!) – 422

Interestingly only 36.2% of students replied to this question, brings into question the validity of the answers.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

provides anight time

patrol

promotescommunity

cohesion

is open until4.30am

provides awaste

recyclingservice

provides ahelpline for

noisenuisance and

anti-socialbehaviour

provides awaste

removalservice

runs studentsafety events

Good neighbours team

Good neighbours team

26

Looking at this chart it would seem that a large proportion of students use MSH however slightly more students use Online property searches, i.e Rightmove, Zoopla,

Please tell us how you plan to find your accommodation?

Directly with the landlord – 3 Directly with the private hall – 3 Have not decided – 20 Through a private letting agency – 8 Through an online property search (eg. Rightmove, Zoopla etc) – 26 Via the Manchester Student Homes advertising service – 16 Didn’t answer – 586

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Directly with the landlord

Directly with the private hall

Through a private letting agency

Through an online property search (not MSH eg.Rightmove, Zoopla etc)

Via the Manchester Student Homes advertisingservice

How did you find your accommodation

0 10 20 30

Directly with the landlord

Directly with the private hall

Through a private letting agency

Through an online property search (eg. Rightmove,…

Via the Manchester Student Homes advertising service

Have not decided

How do you plan to find your accommodation

27

Even though students are doing a survey for MHS when asked the question how you plan to find your accommodation, they seem to prefer private online property searches.

In just a few words, please tell us what improvements you would like to see in the future to support you in the transition into the private sector? Open Ended Question

(Filtered into themes)

Housemates help finding housemates More events for finding potential housemates etc Hold more events regarding fairs Online ads Help find housemates Guarantors help with finding guarantors I feel like more could be done for international students. Two of my house mates are international students and they really struggled with UK guarantors I'd like guidelines on guarantors to be more clear - I'm living with two international students next year, and while we were looking for houses, we'd only find out that you'd need a UK guarantor at the end, even though on the website, it said the landlord was international student friendly. Tutorials/Presentations more fairs run throughout the start of the year More one-to-one support e.g. a talk in tutorial groups More talks/presentations and recommending different agencies to use to find accommodations sessions available to help understanding of houses, billing etc. Bills/Budgeting Explanation of the process of paying bills. Eg: How to pay them, which provider to use, the process of switching over payment from the previous tenants to us etc... Give more information about the process e.g paying bills, reporting issues etc. More information about budgeting. For example, looking only at the price per week is misleading, because a house with a lower price per week could actually amount to a total rent which is bigger than a house slightly more expensive per week, but with free rent in July and August or with a discount if the sum is paid in full. There are a lot of details I had to work out on my own and it was quite stressful. More information would definitely be useful and appreciated. Website A website run by the uni giving detailed advice to students about the process of choosing accommodation in the private sector Better photos of properties advertised and when viewing houses I would like them to have told them in advance so that they could clean their properties. I would also like more information on the process of actually signing for a property-I had no idea how fast it would be. Better search engine with more houses Better website layout I found that many houses that were on there were already taken and weren't removed from the site I thought that there were not as many houses on the Manchester student homes site compared to other sites. However, it's definitely a great benefit that all are accredited landlords.

28

If all the descriptions on the Manchester Student Homes website were in a more consistent format. Make the website more modern and easy to use and on map view be able to narrow down the searches more. Should be a quick view option. more different houses on your website The properties that have already been taken need to be taken off the website quicker Landlords a guide to what to expect from un-scrupulous landlords A list of bad landlords who we should avoid. We got screwed over by outback landlord and then we looked online and other people has written about him, but there was no place we could go to check him out before hand A service warning of specific landlords which have been difficult to deal with in the past. More information on how to set up bills for doing your own bills as I am currently trying to work it out for the first time for next year. Actually care about the tenants and their needs rather than just going after their money Better management of Landlords Landlord feedback from previous tenants rating and reviews of landlords Reviews of landlords Tell us about scammers, rip offs, what to look for in deposits, contracts etc warn us about how horrible estate agents and landlords are Information/guidance A full information rundown on property letting, how to inspect flats when visiting and how to look out for hidden fees advise when you should start looking for a house as many people do not realise you have to start looking so early and you could also provide infro about which areas are most popular with students Earlier notices and guidance to start looking for a house I know we started looking early, but I didn't feel like there was any particular support. Though, we do intend to have someone look over our contract. Information and guidance pack Information as soon as we enter university. We were all very shocked that people had started looking so soon and it was a mad dash to secure a property. Also maybe some advice about deciding who to live with? It seems like common sense, but sometimes when you're choosing housemates you don't really think about the fact you will be living with those people and what that actually means. Oh, and perhaps a checklist for when we visit homes about what should be there, what should be there- or just the basics really? Mention it earlier on, have information available all the time. More advice xx More assistance More guidance on affordable places for students More guidance on finding private shared houses Mqna More help and guidance about how to look for properties and how to apply for them More information about contracts More information about how to actually find and buy a house and all the different factors to consider. Also guidance about contracts because that was really confusing for us More information about what is acceptable and what isnt in terms of having to pay for agency fees or rent over the summer months to ensure that students arent taken advantage of by landlords. More information and advice on what to look out for when viewing houses

29

More information as to when is best to apply and what questions to ask and support with landlord meetings More information for students who are subject to external landlords aka - lease requirement, fee suitability, More information given by emails More information on everything, earlier. Prices Cheaper prices ! or student loyalty deals Emails which give you information about the price ranges of different locations

Appendix 7

MSH Project Objectives

1) Gather feedback on the support and key initiatives delivered by Manchester Student Homes to University of Manchester students, reviewing their effectiveness and whether they are aligned with the student lifecycle.

2) Gather evidence to review the profile and visibility of Manchester Student Homes amongst University of Manchester students. Consider strategies and tools as to how Manchester Student Homes can further increase student awareness of their brand.

3) Produce a written report that documents the findings of the above objectives; including the outlining of recommendations as to whether Manchester Student Homes current campaigns and initiatives are fit for purpose, and suggestions as to how Manchester Student Homes could make changes to improve its visibility and use by students.

1


Title: Student Engagement with Careers Service Events

Author/Enquiries: Rebecca Harrington – Student Services and Ellen Stephenson – UoM

Sport

Date/version: 21st June 2018 / V2

Circulation: Sophie Wing, Tammy Goldfeld, Paul Gratrick, Rachel Mutters

Summary: Investigation and recommendations into ways to increase student

engagement with UG Careers Service Events

Executive Summary

This report outlines a series of recommendations to improve student engagement in events

hosted by the University of Manchester Careers Service. The Careers Service identified a

need to increase student engagement numbers for their events. The Careers service runs

over 400 events a year so it is imperative it focusses its resources on events with potential

for high student engagement and impact.

The report specifically looks at undergraduate events run by the Careers Service and does

not include employer led or postgraduate events, although these have been taken in to

consideration when looking at how events are marketed and administrated in general. All

events analysed utilised the Careers Service event management system CareersLink. Issues

with CareersLink were out of scope as this is being covered by other projects but all events

we analysed had to be in Careerslink in order to be in scope.

In order to understand the background to this project we undertook desk based research.

Through this we decided to consider student engagement in line with previous academic

research around extracurricular activity and students rather than academic engagement

which calls for different definitions. Our methodology was to collect different forms of data for

a variety of sources. We interviewed key stakeholders, undertook a data analysis and

collected feedback from students that had attended and had not attended events. From this

body of work we built a list of recommendations around 5 key areas;

KPI’s – We recognised the need for the senior leadership team to develop some key

performance indicators around how they measure student engagement.

Communications- We have made a series of recommendations outlining

consistency in communications and communication methods.

Feedback – Our recommendations follow on from our own feedback surveys and

push for an increased use of feedback to inform future events, both from students

and employers.

Event Analysis – These are a follow on task from the event analysis undertaken and

should outline key trends to drive effective engagement forward.

Other- Any additional recommendations

2

Our original outputs changed through the course of the project due to data issues and we

had to redirect out attention in to analysing certain areas that could not be progressed as

expected. This is reflected throughout the project report.

These recommendations have been developed to be taken up by the Careers Service

Student Experience Intern so the project can be moved forward and implemented. We have

written up a list of key actions and task for the Student experience intern to progress.

Based on the report the Careers Service should establish a set of principles to guide what

they want to gain from their events. As illustrated in the report the current engagement of

students is not easily measurable from the majority of events. In order to be in a position to

measure the services performance, consistent processes around events, communication and

marketing need to be established. Alternatively the service could move away from numerical

targets and adopt a qualitative approach to measuring success of student engagement.

1. Introduction 1.1 Background and Summary

The report has been commissioned by the Career Service of the University of

Manchester to gain further insight in student engagement with their activities. The

Careers Service has identified an attendance of 21% post registration and would like to

increase this average significantly. Coupled with this is the recognised need to improve

the experience of the students through the event process from initial sign up to the event

taking place. The project will also need to explore active ways of reacting to feedback

and exploring reasons for non-attendance and putting processes in place to overcome

this.

An integral focus of the project is the practicality of the any recommendations and the

feasibility of scaling up.

The UoM Careers Service currently runs around 400 events a year for different student

groups and these consist of various types of events which can be run by the Careers

Service or directly by employers. The scope of the project is based around

Undergraduate events which are run by the Careers Service and are advertised through

CareersLink.

CareersLink is the current (external) system used by the Careers Service to manage all

aspects of careers events. The system was reviewed by an earlier Future Talent Project

in 2014 which evaluated current students and recent graduate's attitudes towards

CareersLink and made recommendations on its continued usage and how to improve the

use of brand and marketing within CareersLink.

Faculty Careers Managers are member of the careers service team who work with

specific faculty groups to run bespoke events targeted at their specific student audience.

Employability Executives are Careers Service team members who support employer

engagement with the university students.

3

Employability Consultant (Student Engagement) leads on the major careers events which

are open to all students and advises on the Marketing and Communications.

The Careers Service will also have a Student Experience Intern available for 8 weeks

who will be tasked with the continuation and any follow up recommendations made by

this project.

1.2 Project Aims

i. Map out different points / opportunities for engagement with students once they

have registered/ attended an event – Give suggestions for types of engagement

ii. Make recommendations for marketing and communications the would convert

student sign ups to attendance at events.

iii. Make recommendations for marketing and communications following attendance

at an event and how this could be implemented on a large scale.

1.3 Desk based research

Student Engagement is a hot topic in higher education and involves many different

types of engagement with different stakeholders. Through our initial research it

became apparent that the majority of literature around engagement related to study

and academics schools rather than extra-curricular activities. One of the aims of this

project is to explore what we mean by Engagement and how we intend to track and

measure it for the Careers Service. In the following pages I will discuss the different

issues surround engagement and how we have approached them and then I will sum

up our definition of engagement in terms of the project.

Defining engagement is problematic because it involves lots of variables, such as at

what point is a student engaged? Do we measure it by what the student does after

the interaction? Is participating enough to say that they have engaged? In Studies

in Higher education this is illustrated; “While all agree it is important, there is a debate

over the exact nature of the construct; a key problem is a lack of distinction between

the state of engagement, its antecedents and its consequences”. 1 From this we

decided that we had to base our project around something that could be measured so

that we could relate the engagement to our objectives. This was also supported by

the fact the majority of studies utilised empirical data to identify what works and what

doesn’t when dealing with engagement. 2 The research supported our initial

thoughts that successful students are engaged with both their academic and

extracurricular activities and this creates further engagement. Finn’s ( 1993)

participation-identification model argues that participation in both the classroom and

wider school leads to success, which then develops a sense of belonging which, In

perpetual cycle, further increases participation. 3 This helped us limit our scope to

undergraduate students as they are required to engage more regularly in academic

4

activity than postgraduates and this also limits the impact of other HE institutions on

impacting whether a student engages with Manchester.

Through our research we discovered that the preferred way to approach engagement

is holistically4 so, in terms of Careers events we should look at the context Careers

events; timing of events the differences behaviour between different cohorts of

students, the different motivations to attend and also how the key messages are

distributed. So we decided to consider all aspects of the events when designing how

we would approach the project and wanted to try and collect qualitative and

quantative date from students and employers to understand the wider context. We

did some preliminary research to see if there are national trends in engagement and

found that market driven changes in universities, changes in societal values,

increases in flexibility of delivery and online courses, and generational differences are

all noted as affecting the ways student engage with HE. We do think however those

students taking courses with linked careers may be more likely to engage with

Careers Events as it can directly link to their chosen career path. As such we expect

there to be differences in engagement between different student groups.

Employability is an integral factor as to why students attend university and this is why

projects such as this hold such importance as student interest in employment

outcomes is becoming of further importance when choosing a University and/or

degree programmes. David Rae argues “Employability remains high on the agenda

for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the UK, as well as other developed nations,

as student become more selective in their choice of courses and institutions….. As

the financial burdens on student and graduates grow, they increasingly see gaining a

degree as a necessary first step to starting their career; hence employability is a

major going concern” 5. This influenced our decision to look at how events are

promoted in school and alongside the students’ course and ensured we looked at the

nuances between different cohorts in terms of subject.

So, in order to be able to measure engagement, approach engagement holistically

and take in to account external factors we are defining successful engagement with

the Careers service as an Undergraduate student signing up and attending an event

and leaving with a positive experience which will encourage future attendance at

careers service events. Throughout our project we will take in to account the factors

that may influence a student’s decision to attend and event try and investigate ways

to improve events and communications overall.

1 Framing Student Engagement in Higher Education ; Ell R. Kahu, 18 Aug 2011, Studies in Higher

Education Journal; Vol 38, No 5, 758-773 2 Project Muse; Examining the ways institutions create student Engagement: the Role of Mission

Adrianna J . Kezar, Jilliam Kinzie Journal of college student development, Volume 47, Number 2, March/ April 2006 pp149-172 Published by John Hopkins Press pg 150 3 Finn, J. D. (1993). School Engagement & Students at Risk. Washington DC: National Center for

Education Statistics. 4 Framing Student Engagement in Higher Education ; Ell R. Kahu, 18 Aug 2011, Studies in Higher

Education Journal; Vol 38, No 5, 758-773 5 David Rae, (2007) "Connecting enterprise and graduate employability: Challenges to the higher

education culture and curriculum?", Education + Training, Vol. 49 Issue: 8/9, pp.605-619, https://

doi.org/10.1108/00400910710834049

5

2. Methodology

2.1 Data Collection

Once we had clarified the objectives for the project we were able to begin a plan of how and

when we would go about collecting the information which we required.

We needed to collect data and information from a number of sources in order to give us a

picture of what is happening in the careers service with regards to processes, procedures,

methods of communication staff to staff and staff to student

To cover objectives we needed to find out about :

Current engagement process with students through careers service

Marketing and communications of Internal UG events

Any standard communication which currently exists

We used the ‘Information collection form’, appendix A, to help us to decided what methods to

use.

Initially we met with Tammy Goldfeld the Head of Careers Service to get her thoughts on the

current situation and feel for her ideas about what needed to be done and ways to do this.

Next we had meetings with first line stakeholders - those on the ground who communicate

with students

Sophie Wing ( Project Sponsor) – - Employability Consultant ( Student

Engagement)

Rachel Mutters – Careers Manager, Science and Engineering

Paul Gratrick – Careers Manager Humanities

Annika Zimmer / Sarah White – Employability Executive, Leading on links with

Employer lead activities

FBMH – Careers Manager was not in post during the project

In these meetings we covered :

Faculty differences

Methods of communication with students

o CareersLink

o Social media

o Peers – societies related to the subjects studied in the faculty

What actual communications are sent out to students pre and post event

Examples of successful events

Which groups are more / less engaged in their view

Any differences between home and international students in their perceived

engagement

6

Any previous experience with asking / gaining feedback from students about the

events

Current use of CareersLink

Employer engagement with the faculties

Measuring attendance at events

We also asked some specific questions to Sarah White around the use of CareersLink, as

she is the ‘super user’ contact;

About communications

User access

Attendance monitoring

Feedback process student and employer

Employer use

From these initial meetings with the first line stakeholders, we were able to draw up a list of

actions and items to investigate which are covered throughout the project.

2.2 Feedback

From our initial meetings it became apparent that feedback from students attending events

and Employers hosting events was not often collected and when it was the information which

has been collected was not processed.

We decided we needed to trial the collection of feedback from both students and employers,

those who had attended events and those who had signed up but not attended (as far as we

knew – there is another issue here with the signing in process)

After a review of the various feedback methods on offer to us, focus groups, interviews,

online research, telephone call, email, questionnaires, appendix B, and various formats such

as Lime survey, padlett, we made a decision to use an online questionnaire with limited

questions via Lime Survey. We chose this method because it is a UoM supported system

which can collect both qualitative and quantitative data and is good for data analysis. With it

we can create templates which could be used in the future by the Careers Service.

We designed three surveys using the Lime survey tool:

1. Survey to UG students who had attended a Careers Service organised event

2. Survey to UG who had signed up to events but not attended

3. Survey to Employers who had organised events with the Careers Service

These online surveys were sent out by the Careers Services to the named groups that we

wanted to target. The survey we live from 20th January until 18th May 2018.

Results were reviewed on the 21st March and then finally on the 21st May 2018.

A list of the questions asked on the three surveys can be seen in appendix C.

7

3. Analysis of data 3.1 Influencing factors and issues

Main issues affecting how to increase UG student engagement with Careers Service events

were found to be:

Processes differ by faculty

Student engagement challenges differ between faculties and student groups

Factors which are out of our control:

Issues with the use and compatibility of Careerslink – Out of scope for this project

Influencing factors such as the weather which was mentioned

3.2 CareersLink Analysis

One of our original objectives was to collect and analyse the events listed in CareersLink to

see if we can identify trends of when and why students may or may not attend events. We

were looking at things that the service could control and alter such as Location, Time, Date

etc. Ideally, we would have identified trends that we could then make recommendations on

when planning future events.

The approach to collecting the data was to create a spreadsheet of the data needed so that

we could have it under one spreadsheet to work from with the same level of information for

each event. Events analysis is something that has been done by the Careers service

previously in order to inform future events but we felt it was prudent to undertake our own

analysis based on the scope and aims of our project. As our scope covered undergraduate

events advertised and signed up through CareersLink we decided to base our analysis

through CareersLink reporting. This would also give us a good idea of the capabilities of

Careerslink and what careers service staff would be able to do with the system in a relatively

short time period. We have been conscious through the project that we did not want to make

recommendations that would be difficult to undertake due to staff resources. Staff resource

was raised an issue as part of our original meetings.

8

The information we asked the careers service to collect for each of their events from this year

was;

Number of places available

Number of registered students- pre-event

Number of Attended students

Location

School

Year

Timing of Promotional activity

Was the event promoted by school contact

Was the event promoted by any societies

Was the event promoted on Facebook

Was the event promoted in Newsletters

Was the event held on Campus

Was the event advertised on CareersLink.

When we received the completed spreadsheets back there was a lot of information missing

so we manually checked these events in CareersLink and tried to complete the analysis. It

soon became apparent that for lot of events that were within scope we had no way of

knowing who attended or pre-registration was done through a different system. Please see

below for a summary of results for semester one;

(Fig 1)

A full table of information can be seen in appendix D

As you can see there are a large proportion of events that cannot be included in the analysis

because of the different approaches used to register or monitor attendance either by the

Careers service or by External stakeholders (Industry). We feel that in order to make

meaningful recommendations we need to be working from data that is representative of the

events held and then able to look at a true rate of attendance between students signing up

9

and then attending or not attending. If we want to be working towards a numerical

percentage/target then we need to be able to measure attendance rates.

One of the potential issues that was observed through this events analysis was conflicting

messages. On some of the events we looked at it stated that you don’t need to register in

advance of the session, if you are measuring the relationship between registration and

attendance then this use of wording needs to addressed. On some events listings the listing

both asked students to register due to limited space and that they could just turn up on the

day; ( Fig 2)

“Limited spaces available for this session. On the day the room will be filled on a first-

come, first-served basis. Please register your interest to attend this event on

CareersLink so that we have an idea of numbers and can send you a reminder

email. You can cancel your registration by clicking 'Cancel Registration' on the event

in CareersLink.

If you have not signed up in advance you are welcome to come along on the day - just

make sure you register when you arrive.”

( Fig 2 )

From this example we can see that it may be confusing to applicants whether they are

required to Pre-register. This may have happened due to the wording on a template that’s

commonly used when advertising events on CareersLink. Another problem with using this is

that it may give students the impression it's not important to register for events or attend.

10

From the data and from the initial stakeholder meetings we also found that there wasn't any

official way to monitor how events were being advertised and promoted once the Careers

Manager/ Officers had advertised through their channels (Student Experience Managers/

School Staff/Societies) and therefore we were unable to look at the success of different

communication channels. For example, whether events that were featured in a School

Newsletter had better attendance than those which had not? Is peer support more influential

than an email from a student experience rep etc.

Our initial plan when analysing this data was to split the events by faculty once we had

collected all of the information and then try and find trends by faculty rather than overall. We

decided to do this because it had been identified in both the initial first line stakeholder

meetings and then the desk-based research, that different cohorts of students have different

motivations for attending career focussed events/extra-curricular activities, in order to assess

engagement holistically this must be taken in to consideration. The trends that we

preliminarily hoped to see would be that events held in specific school buildings would have

more success and that certain times and dates would have a higher rate of student

engagement. Unfortunately, due to the lack of reliable data we ultimately decided that it

would be best to focus our efforts on other parts of the project and write up a plan to move

forward as part of our recommendations so that processes can be put in place to make

meaningful changes to events. If we further analysed the data it wouldn’t have been reliable

and could always be open to criticism by those whose events are or are not represented. We

will explore this further within the recommendations.

3.3 Communications

From the meetings which we held with Careers Managers and Employability Executives, we

collated the information into a table about the use of different communication methods used,

appendix E. The results showed that there is no consistency across faculties in the use of

communication methods. The CareersLink system which is supposed to be used to advertise

all events was intermittently used by all the Faculty Managers and Employability Executive

but in different way and differing amounts. The Careers Managers all realise the importance

and worth of social media channels as a method of communications but there are barriers to

the use of social media which hinder them:

Lack of understanding of use by all departmental staff

Lack of a social media policy guidelines

Not allowed to use certain social media as per University guidelines

Need of work accounts on certain social media platforms

Difficulty in providing only relevant information to each group of students

Limited facilities for producing things such as podcasts

Limited staff resource to use social media efficiently and effectively

Lack of consistency in the use of social media channels amongst different faculties means it

is hard to say what does work and what doesn’t work.

Appendix F, shows the current social media usage by each area.

11

CareersLink is the preferred method of communication in the department, ( as it is where all

event data should originate from and be stored ) and yet is not used in a consistent way by

any faculty. We found that all event data was not up to date or complete on the system,

some Faculty Careers Managers and their staff used the system but all in varying ways. The

general opinion is that the system is not fit for use and does not lend itself to attracting

students with its communication tools.

All the members of staff who we spoke with mentioned that there was great worth in using

peers to promote their event to students. The way this is done is by contacting groups or

societies related to the study course of the potential attendees and asking them to promote

the event in their own words and by whatever medium they feel is appropriate and will have

most reach. The issue that careers staff in this area have is with group / society contacts

changing each academic year and the difficulty in making contact with the new members and

building up rapport with them.

It was also found that at no point was there any tracking of communications sent out. The

usual process was for communications from the Employability Executives about events for all

to be sent to a given contact, (usually the Faculty Careers Manager), and then left with them

to distribute as they saw fit, to the appropriate audience and through their own chosen

channels.

Communications Analysis; Looking at What Industry Do; Should we base our

communication methods on the Industry Standard.

The scope of our project was looking at UG UoM events run through the Careers service a

lot of these involve industry engagement, either running the events or contributing to one of

the Careers service events. We have looked closely at the different communications

methods used by the Careers service and internal colleagues and felt it would be useful to

see how events are advertised externally by Industry. This helps support our

recommendations around internal communications and the use of multi-platform

communication strategy. This also seemed a good follow on from the events analysis as its

appears that some industry recruiters specifically choose to run their own registration and

attendance monitoring and this feeds in to the lack of data on these events. Through the first

line stakeholder meetings it was raised that the Careers service offers an advertising service

for industry events so any work in this area should have a twofold benefit to both colleagues

working with industry and colleagues looking at student engagement data. One of our

recommendations will be that a project should be undertaken that looks at the different social

media platforms that industry use and when and how they ask students to sign up.

We did some initial research on this so that we could see if it there was enough accessible

information to undertake a project and we found that there was, we have included in

appendix G the examples we looked at. The initial findings around this work is that Industry

recruiters use multi-platform communications over, their website, Facebook Events, Twitter

and Linkedin to promote their events and in a number of instances they use their own sign up

site or survey which is used across national university events. We feel that when looking at

communication, exploring the current industry standard would be a good place to starting

point so we can bench mark our own activity against what's being done elsewhere.

12

3.4 Feedback

Feedback and evaluation are key to any process and ensuring the events meets the needs of the department, it also a good way to find out how to improve engagement. Some feedback is currently being collected ad hoc and using various methods, but then

nothing is being done with the information.

We collected feedback via Lime Survey as explained in the methodology section. The results

were limited as we were only able to collected data during semester two because of the time

restraints around the project.

3.4.1 Summary of Feedback from those who attended events:

102 replied to the survey

67 had previously attended careers events

The majority (64% ) had found out about careers events through a direct email from

the careers service followed by 27% who had found out from social media either a

group or the careers service based.

School newsletters and onsite print such as poster we the least likely way that

students would find out about these events

98% of recipients said the event(s) they attended had met their expectations

87% said the events were ‘very useful ‘or ‘useful’ with only 1 % saying they were not

useful at all

100% of students questioned said they would attend another careers service event

based on their experiences.

Some of the reasons for events not meeting people expectations were:

o ‘Event was focused on UG without prior work experience’ they would have

liked some information for those who do have experience

o Attendee wanted personalised feedback different employers

o Information given was not audience appropriate

o Too long. More focus required. Could lead to other sessions

o Interview could have been more realistic

o Didn’t like the panel question and answer would have preferred the panel to

mingle so individuals could ask questions.

Appendix H shows a summary of the results of the Feedback from those who attended

events, in numbers and percentages

Appenidx I shows a breakdown of the summary of results by event 3.4.2 Summary of Non-Attendance

As we have already discussed in the Methodology we used Lime Survey to design and

employ a number of surveys, one of the surveys we designed was asking applicants who

had signed up for an event and not attended what reasons they had for not attending, when

this idea was first raised with stakeholders it was noted that there probably wouldn’t be a

good response rate from these students as they had chosen not to engage, it was also

13

raised that we had to be very careful with the wording of any survey so as not to put students

attending for future events.

We didn’t measure the response rate by event as the emails were sent out via the Careers

service staff and in order to measure the response we would then have had to ask individual

staff to report on who they had sent to and when, and this seemed a lot of work and

coordination of data when not knowing what level of response we would get generally. We

added 40 events on to the survey across February and March 2018 and asked careers

manager to distribute to student's who did not attend their events, we had 19 responses

across 9 events. The answers from the survey indicated that 53% of these students had not

attended because of ' other reasons' and 36 % due to the time not being convenient. Full

responses can be seen in appendix J – Careers Service ‘Non attendance’ survey results

A reason why we felt it was important to send out a survey to non-attendees as well as

student that attended is because it send a message in a positive way that we care that they

haven't attended and that we are monitoring it so they are given the impression it is important

that they attend.

3.4.3 Summary of Employer Feedback

We also developed a Feedback survey for employers as there didn’t seem to be a lot of

feedback from employers available to work from and it was raised in the initial stakeholder

meetings that it’s important that employers feel they are getting value from attending on

campus events and that the events work for both the employer and the students. Because

we had done significant work on the appropriate feedback method/vehicle to use it was worth

trialling feedback questions with employers, so that potentially the same vehicle could be

used and then staff across the careers service would feel comfortable setting up their own

surveys and analysing the data for a variety of different audiences/ Users. Both of us have

drawn on our own experiences of working in departments that use more than one system to

do the same thing and felt it was integral that we thought about the bigger ramifications and

usability as part of our recommendations.

We had three responses from the employer questionnaire which can be seen in appendix K

– Careers Service ‘Employer’ survey results, obviously collecting more feedback would be

imperative before any changes or actions are taken on based on this. In summary the

feedback was positive but one employer did mention that the University student attendance

is lower than at other institutions that have visited.

It is not possible to say if this data is representative of the attendees of the Careers Service

Events as the sample is so small and was limited to one semester – that being when there

were less events going on.

14

4. Recommendations 4.1 KPIs

The difficulties which have caused us not to be able to draw many concrete conclusions in

this project been caused in part by the lack of knowledge on the current levels for

engagement of student with Careers Service events. We would highly recommend that the

Careers Service establish engagement KPIs. These should be set by Senior Leadership

Team and would ensure that all faculties are using same measurement tools.

Any figures and information then gathered, in the recommended ways could then be

measured against the KPIs and this would give meaning to the recommended actions of

Careers Managers and Employability Executives.

4.2 Communications

An agreement between Faculty careers managers to focus on two mediums of social

media and agree how they will be used – A review of social media use effectiveness

from the general event feedback forms)

We have been advised that there are no plans to change from the Careerslink system

and therefore all staff need to get on board with it and use it in a consistent fashion. If

guidelines for use and templates are put in place and all staff follow these for a set

amount of time it will then be easier to review the system and its uses and to possibly

take this review as evidence that they system is not fit for purpose, if that is what is

found.

Each area of the process on careerslink needs to have templates set up to be used

by any staff member at any given stage to communicate with students.

When messages regarding events for all, are sent from Employability Executives to

Faculty Careers Managers there needs to be a system of tracking put in place for a

set amount of time. This would enable the service to know which messages are being

sent to whom and via which channels. Ideally there would also be tracking to see if

the messages had been received eg hits on the facebook page, or the use of google

analytics.

We have located the contact for groups and societies within the students union and

passed this information to the Faculty Careers managers. We have been provided

with a link to the Student Union website where the information can be located. We

recommend that, using the SU website, a member of staff be tasked with finding any

associated groups or societies and their getting in touch with their contacts

throughout August / September before Welcome Week.

We recommend an invitation to all group and society the contacts to visit the Faculty

Careers managers for an informal meet and greet session where they can ask

questions and received information about what the faculty would like help with. Any

guidelines should also be given at this point.

We did not receive any clarification on any social media guidelines and policies. It is

recommended that they are located and covered in a suitable training format with all

those who are involved in the use of social media. Using the guidelines we

15

recommend that the Careers Service draw up a simple usage chart to enable those

required to feel more confident in using social media to communicate with students.

A review of key messages and the wording used in CareersLink templates There is

currently conflicting messages in the templates these need to be resolved so that the

messages to student are clear. Alternatively, you could have clear distinction

between events that do require registration and attendance monitoring for data

purposes and some that you take out of scope for monitoring in terms of engagement.

The Careers service should undertake review of the communication methods and

registration surveys that are used by Industry to attract out students, to inform the

communications policy. These can easily be found by reviewing employer events in

CareersLink.

There should be a clear way to track how communications are distributed by schools

once an email has been sent from the Faculty Manager. From our research it was

apparent that some schools were more active than others and anecdotally this may

affect engagement. If this activity is tracked then the schools which don’t actively

promote careers events can be identified and then worked with to improve their

student engagement with careers events.

4.3 Feedback

In order to get a true picture the surveys would need to be sent out as soon as the

first event of the first semester has taken place, and then continually be sent out after

each week of events through to the end of semester 2. )

We recommend the use of Lime Survey for a whole academic year to get feedback of

Careers Service events with the three surveys which we have developed.

We can see the worth in using a system such as padlett and think this could be

trialled in the second year or alongside Lime Survey in year 1 of feedback collection.

This system all for interactive and dynamic feedback during sessions and has already

been well received at some careers events. It is a good feedback tool to obtain real

time feedback, before, during and after events)

Trial Non-attendance questionnaires, initially you would want to collect qualitative

data in the first year to garner an understating of the various reasons students don’t

attend and then as a follow up you would design a quantitative survey based on the

results you have already received.

16

4.4 Event Analysis

To move this project forward there would need to be some decisions made by the

Careers service as to whether numerical targets as a KPI are appropriate given the

current process for monitoring events or whether the way in which events are

registered and attendance monitored needs to be looked at so that the level of

engagement with all relevant events is in fact measurable.

When an analysis of events is undertaken in the future, the results should be

analysed by faculty grouping. Then the individual trends of students from different

faculties should be considered and a more targeted approach to engaging students

can be reflected in the communications, timings, locations etc

When an analysis of events is undertaken in the future, the results should be

analysed in terms of time and date of Event. Then the trends of different days and

times can be drawn from in order to inform date setting in the future.

When an analysis of events is undertaken in the future, the Careers service should be

able to draw tangible outcome from the analysis to inform future events. This should

also show the Careers Service which events may not be worth running in terms of

resource and number of students attending.

The Carers Service should investigate the spaces that are owned at school level and

make database/ List to be shared with colleagues, so that these sources can be

tapped in to by the whole department.

4.5 Other

Use of incentives for attendance – works for My Future fest – MFF is able to offer

incentives for attendance at the event because they ask attending employers and

organisations to provide these. Excess funds from the year are also available to buy

any incentives that are seen as essential and appropriate for the event. Could

resource not be allocated throughout the year to certain events with elevated

importance or that the Careers Service wants to raise the profile of.

4.6 SEI Project 4.6.1 We understand that the Careers Service will have a Student Experience Intern in place

over 8 weeks in 2018 and that the focus of this employee will be a continuation of the

investigation into Student Engagement with the Careers Service.

Our recommendation for the SEI would be to use the pre work done on this project and to;

Continue with the lime survey for feedback and ensure any amendments are made so

it is ready for implementation in Semester 1 of year 2018/19. Department buy in and

processes of who needs to send and what needs to be sent when, regarding this will

need to be agreed. There will also need to be allocation of resource at the end of

semester 2 to analysis the data. This could fall to an SEI for 2019.

Investigation into forms of marketing used by industries which could be and should be

used by the Careers Service (refer to initial findings in this project)

17

Create master templates for communications.

Decide on most appropriate times for sending out communications. See suggestions

in appendix M – Suggested timescales which were a conclusion of information

provided throughout the project.

Decide on communication routes.

Consider the implementation of the use of Mindview V7 and the implementation of the

use of a MASTER file, using the template created by this project, which can be seen

in appendix N – MindView7 Template. This will provide timelines, templates for

communications, contact details and hold any other information which is needed

regarding student engagement and events in the Careers Service.

Consider the location of events -

majority of events are currently run in these non school affiliated

buildings – AGLC and University Place

Need to consider spaces available on Sackville campus – availability,

worth for events which are open to all,

Advertising in the event location

4.6.2 Required for Mindview 7

o needs social media guidelines for all staff to be attached (recommendation on

this below)

o need a list of rooms/ facilities

o need SU contacts

o needs all documentation pertaining to careers events to be on this one

document that everyone has access to and uses. Consistency and

standardisation

o Needs Templates with confirmed key messages

5. Conclusions 5.1 Overview

Based on the report the Careers Service should establish a set of principles to guide what

they want to gain from their events. As illustrated in the report the current engagement of

students is not easily measurable from the majority of events. In order to be in a position to

measure the services performance, consistent processes around events, communication and

marketing need to be established. Alternatively the service could move away from numerical

targets and adopt a qualitative approach to measuring success of student engagement.

5.2 Other considerations

18

The University is currently going through a time of major change and review and alongside

this regulatory changes such as GDPR are going to affect the way in which the Careers

service will be able to use and handle data. We have raised the Student Life Cycle project

and GDPR as possible risk in our risks and issues register, see appendix L. The processes

outline by SLP could significantly impact the recommendations outlined and the Careers

services approach to collecting and saving data could influence future processes. We have

had no indication on how these factors may impact the Careers service and their processes

and they should be taken in to account when taking any recommendations forward.

5.3 Project aims versus outcomes

5.3.1 Map out different opportunities for engagement with students once they have

registered/ attended an event –

This has been addressed in the report. Further work needs to be done to

ensure a consistent approach and that the correct target audience is reached.

Suggestions have been made on the increase in use of social media channels

as well as taking lessons from industry. The introduction and continued use of

an application such as Mindview would enable this process.

5.3.2 Make recommendations for marketing and communications that would convert

student sign ups to attendance at events.

We have made recommendations on the continued use of peer to peer

channels which have been used to some success in certain faculties. As

check-ins are not done at all events and feedback has not been consistent we

have no way of knowing the current rate of student conversion. Once a

consistent approach is used across the board it will be easier to monitor

conversion and then it will be possible to trial and decide upon successful

methods of marketing and communication which would increase conversion

from sign up to attendance.

5.3.3 Make recommendations for marketing and communications following

attendance at an event and how this could be implemented on a large scale.

Our recommendation is to action feedback via the Lime Survey. This would

involve all attendees of every event being sent the survey to complete. The

results could then be used to make decisions on the worth of events.

19

Appendices

A. Information collection form B. Overview of possible research methods C. Questions in feedback surveys D. Analysis of events on CareersLink E. Summary of communication methods used by Careers Managers and

Employability Executives F. Summary of social media usage by Careers Managers and Employability

Executives G. Table of Employer sign up and social media usage H. Overview of results from Lime Survey of those who attended events I. Overview of results from Lime Survey of those who attended events – broken

down by event J. Results from Lime Survey of those who did not attend events K. Results from Lime Survey of Employer feedback L. Risks and issues register M. Notes on timescales for communications N. MindView.7 template example