Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

November 7, 2013 David Armstrong SCWI Project Officer 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "November 7, 2013 David Armstrong SCWI Project Officer 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 November 7, 2013 David Armstrong SCWI Project Officer 1

2  Approved vs actuals: 92.55%  83.65% in  79% in  76% in

3 YearRanges of Approved vs Expended Total Underspending # of RPTs with Total Expenditures over 90% % - 100%$2.5 M % - 100%$5.1 M7 3

4  $142K – money for programs that were approved, not cancelled and that show $0 expenditures  Down from $1M in

5 Category of Expenditure % Expended vs Approved – Prov. Average College Benchmark 90%96% Board Benchmark 85%95% Miscellaneous 72%80% Transportation 68%83% 5

6 Category of ExpenditureRange of % Expended by RPT College Benchmark 39% to 100% 10 RPTs over 90% 62% to 100% 12 RPTs over 90% Board Benchmark 32% - 100% 7 RPTs over 90% 68% to 100% 10 RPTs over 90% Miscellaneous 0% to 100% 6 RPTs over 90% 3 RPTs no requests 0% to 100% 9 RPTs over 90% 1 RPT no request Transportation 11% to 100% 4 RPTs over 90% 31% to 100% 5 RPTs over 90% 6

7 7 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% %39% -100% %62% -100%12

8 8 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% %32% -100% %68% -100%10

9 9 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% %0% -100% 6 (3 with no requests) %0% -100% 11 (1 with no request)

10 10 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% %11% -100% %31% -100%5

11 Dual Credit Approach% Board Benchmark% College Benchmark Team-Taught at a Secondary School 90%96%92%100% Team-Taught at a College 88%99%85%100% College Delivered at a Secondary School 76%88%74%88% College Delivered at a College 89%97%90%94% Level 1 College Delivered at a College 76%84%100% 11

12 Category of Expenditure Amount Underspent% Expended College Benchmark $1,843,789$792,13190%96% Board Benchmark $764,051$281,98185%95% Miscellaneous $383,517$377,18172%80% Transportation $1,764,136$706,93568%83% Activities and Forums $419,474$312,97290%82% RPTs $14,395$12,34299% Total: $5,189,362$2,483,54284%89% 12

13  Monitor closely  Will be reviewed at end of Sem 1 by SCWI  Transportation funding model should not be a barrier to student participation 13

14 14

15  Focus continues to be on primary target audience, including SWAC programs  Interim benchmarks for Dual Credits, Activities and Forums continue ◦ If benchmark does not meet estimated expenditures – use Miscellaneous section 15

16  Data-based decision making based on rubrics will continue  Training November 21 – details to follow 16

17 Apprenticeship Level 1 In-School Dual Credits  Required to work with OYAP coordinators, TCU Field Office staff, College Apprenticeship Leads in the determination of Level 1 In- School Dual Credits  Expectation that RPTs will first go to TCU Field Office to negotiate seat purchase  Commitment from TCU to funding seats for students with an RTA  Non-alignment of Seat Purchase dates 17

18 Apprenticeship Level 1 In-School Dual Credits  Forms ◦ SCWI Level 1 Dual Credit Seat Purchase (Confirmation of MTCU Seat Purchase Approvals for OYAP Dual Credits) ◦ Attestation of Training Facility for College Oversight for OYAP Dual Credit Program ◦ Programs will not be approved unless forms are submitted by the due date for the proposals 18


Download ppt "November 7, 2013 David Armstrong SCWI Project Officer 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google