Go to top of page

TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2017: Report of Overall Findings

7 March 2018

Executive summary

In July-August 2017 the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) conducted the second of its sector wide surveys. The purpose of the survey was to increase TEQSA’s accountability, better understand its impact on higher education providers, and improve its performance. The 2017 survey consisted of:

  • one provider specific version with principal contacts for all Higher Education providers (those registered as well as those who had submitted initial registration applications)
  • a brief survey for the operational head of selected peak/professional/student bodies.

A very similar survey was conducted in 2016. In 2017 items remained very similar, but presented in a slightly different order to make it easier for principal contacts to answer. The 2017 principal contact survey included a section for Vice-Chancellors and Chief Executive Officers (VC/CEO) to offer personal comments. In 2016 this formed a separate survey.

TEQSA engaged Australian Survey Research (ASR) to deploy and analyse a web survey of 192 principal contacts (PC) and 39 peak, professional and student bodies (PPSB). A total of 143 principal contacts and 28 PPSBs completed the survey.

The content of the surveys focused on TEQSA’s key performance indicators from its current Regulator Performance Framework. In addition, principal contacts were asked about various recent interactions with TEQSA including applications, case managers and roundtables. All respondents in all surveys were asked to rate TEQSA’s overall performance as a regulator.

Response

There were sufficient numbers of principal contact responses and a well-constructed sample to conclude that the PC survey was representative of the population at the 95% confidence interval and a confidence level of ±4%. The PPSB survey had a ±10% confidence interval meaning that results from that particular survey can, at best, be interpreted as indicative only.

Key findings

Results were analysed to produce top 2 scores (the proportion of respondents selecting the two most positive rating points--excellent and good). Don’t know / not applicable and no answer responses were excluded from all top 2 score calculations. Top 2 scores of around 80% and above are considered are good result in customer satisfaction research.

PC survey: Highs and lows

The table below shows the items which achieved a top 2 score of 80% and over (when rounded). Guidance and support materials were well-rated, as were the items relating to the TEQSA Conference. CRICOS applications also scored highly as did KPI 2 items which related to TEQSA’s communication with providers.

PC: TOP SCORING ITEMS

2017

n

2017

TOP 2 SCORE (%)

2016

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

Guidance & Support materials: The quality of the information

85

94.1

N/A

Guidance & Support materials: Relevance of information

85

92.9

N/A

Conference: Opportunity to interact with other delegates

84

91.7

N/A

Guidance & Support materials: Usefulness of information

85

90.6

N/A

Conference: The quality of speakers

83

90.4

N/A

CRICOS Application process: Clarity of the online form

69

89.9

84.1

Conference: The program

83

89.2

N/A

KPI 2: Quality of regulatory information

140

88.6

80.8

KPI 2: Relevance of information

140

87.1

86.8

Conference: Relevance of material presented

83

86.7

N/A

CRICOS Application process: Clarity of the application guide

71

84.5

76.1

CRICOS Application process: Helpfulness of portal information

71

84.5

73.0

Guidance & Support materials: Ease of access to that information

85

82.4

N/A

Guidance & Support materials: Amount of information

85

81.2

N/A

Overall performance

138

79.7

82.3

*N/A means the result is not available as these items were not included in the 2016 survey.

The lower scoring items (below 60% top 2 score) in the PC survey are displayed in the table immediately below. These issues were all reflected in respondent comments, particularly around timeliness, stability in case management, need for greater consultation or understanding, and requests for some or more visits.

The key areas requiring improvements are TEQSA’s case management (knowledge of organisations), streamlining and consultation. A number of providers commented on streamlining initiatives going backwards and some wanted greater coordination between TEQSA and ASQA. A view still exists with non-universities that TEQSA is university centric and does not understand the uniqueness of many small, private providers: that is even hostile to them.

Statistically significantly different (p<0.05) results highlighted in bold.

PC: LOWER SCORING ITEMS

2017

n

2017 TOP 2 SCORE (%)

2016 TOP 2 SCORE (%)

KPI 1: Streamlining to reduce burden

130

59.2

71.4

KPI 2: Communicating streamlining initiatives

130

59.2

78.9

KPI 6: Engagement

136

58.8

78.9

KPI 4: Reuse of material

101

56.4

70.8

Case mgt approach: Consideration of your needs

130

55.4

70.9

KPI 2: Timeliness of information after making a decision

101

54.5

76.5

KPI 4: Timely coordination of visits

75

53.3

75.0

KPI 3: Consultative approach

111

53.2

56.6

Case mgt approach: Knowledge of your organisation

136

52.2

71.1

PC survey: Attribute differences

Responses from the principal contact survey were analysed by various provider attributes to understand where there were similarities and differences between respondent groupings. This helped identify issues with particular segments and allows TEQSA to tailor initiatives to these particular groups.

Provider size showed no differences—an unusual result for this type of survey and a good result for TEQSA. It means that, from a provider perspective, TEQSA does not treat providers differently on the items surveyed. Results for state (location) and RTO (or not) groupings were also not significantly different. However, there were considerable differences in the following groupings:

  • self-accrediting authority or not
  • high / moderate financial position risk as assessed by TEQSA
  • high / moderate student risk as assessed by TEQSA
  • CRICOS / not CRICOS registered
  • category
  • market groupings.

Score comparisons

For this piece of analysis, a simple average of the top 2 scores for each item was calculated within a topic (KPI) of the principal contact survey. These six average top 2 scores were then compared with the top 2 scores of the same KPIs within the PPSB survey, along with the top 2 scores of TEQSA’s overall rating as a regulator (the same overall regulator performance question was asked in all three surveys). The comparative results are displayed in the table below.

Comparison of results between the two surveys shows that PPSBs were more positive about TEQSA’s performance on all KPIs. The only KPI for which views for PCs and PPSBs were fairly similar was KPI 6 (TEQSA continues to improve its regulatory framework). PPSBs also rated TEQSA’s overall performance as a regulator higher.

KPI / ITEM and TOP 2 SCORE (%) FOR EACH SURVEY

PRINCIPAL CONTACT
n=143

PEAK / PROF / STUDENT BODY
n=28

KPI 1 - Regulation does not impede efficient operation

66.0

91.7

KPI 2 - TEQSA’s communication with your organisation

71.7

84.6

KPI 3 - Regulatory actions are proportionate to risks

57.0

89.5

KPI 4 - TEQSA has a streamlined and co-ordinated approach

54.9

85.0

KPI 5 - TEQSA is open, transparent and consistent in its dealings

67.6

88.9

KPI 6 - TEQSA continues to improve its regulatory framework

60.8

66.7

Overall TEQSA's performance as a regulator over the last 12 months

79.7

87.5

Conclusions

For TEQSA’s second survey of stakeholders there were some excellent results, but also some results that have declined since 2016. However various sub-groups within the provider population had quite different views on aspects of TEQSA’s performance and these differences need to be recognised. There were some providers (usually large, low risk and self-accrediting) who were extremely satisfied with TEQSA’s performance while smaller, for profit providers were less positive about TEQSA’s performance.

The survey clearly indicated where providers thought TEQSA was doing well (quality and relevance of guidance materials and regulatory information) and could improve (streamlining, speed of response, consultation and case management). The survey gives TEQSA clear guidance on where to focus any service initiatives.

Importantly, overall TEQSA was well-regarded by providers and peak bodies as a regulator assuring the quality of Australia’s higher education. The 2016 and 2017 results for TEQSA’s overall performance rating remained at a very similar level and within the margin of error for the 2017 survey.

Introduction

In July-August 2017 TEQSA conducted sector wide surveys for 2016-17. The purpose of the survey was to increase TEQSA’s accountability, better understand its impact on higher education providers, and improve its performance. The survey consisted of:

  • one provider specific version with principal contacts for all Higher Education providers (those registered as well as those who had submitted initial registration applications)
  • a brief survey for the operational head of selected peak/professional/student bodies.

TEQSA engaged Australian Survey Research (ASR) to help design, test, deploy, analyse and report on the surveys.

The report outlines the methodology used to conduct and analyse the web surveys as well as key findings from each survey including provider attribute differences. The questionnaires used in the surveys form an attachment to the report.

Methodology

This section outlines how the two surveys were developed; how survey participants were identified; how the survey was administered and analysed; and the composition of the response sample.

Questionnaire development

In 2016 TEQSA and ASR developed a series of questions based around TEQSA’s Regulator Performance Framework (2015-16) which encompasses six key performance indicators (KPIs). The Framework also incorporates the key strategies and metrics within the TEQSA Corporate Plan 2015-19.

The questionnaire developed for TEQSA’s principal contacts (PC) had an operational focus and included questions around recent interactions between themselves and TEQSA. The peak and professional body (PPSB) survey was very short and focused on TEQSA’s overall KPI achievement. There was no survey for VC/CEOs in 2017 as this was incorporated as a distinct section within the PC survey.

The PC survey was pilot tested in 2016 with a small group of participants who were willing to be involved in the pilot phase. The pilot test resulted in a number of changes to the questionnaires. No pilot testing was conducted for the 2017 survey as the items remained largely the same.

In 2017 there were some new questions added about TEQSA’s conference and guidance and support materials. Questions about the roundtable briefing asked in 2016 were removed.

Data collection

The two web questionnaires were loaded into ASR’s proprietary web surveying tool, SurveyManager and hosted on ASR’s internet servers located at a high security data centre in Melbourne’s CBD.

TEQSA provided ASR with a full listing of all current and selected pending higher education providers (N=192) that it regulates or is likely to regulate across Australia. The lists included contact details of TEQSA’s principal contact within the provider. The listing also included provider attributes such as state, size, self-accrediting authority, etc, which were used to analyse responses. Results of this analysis are discussed later in the report. Further to the higher education provider list, TEQSA provided ASR with a list of peak and professional bodies names and contact details (N=38).

Prior to going live with the full survey, TEQSA’s Chief Commissioner, Professor Nick Saunders, AO and its CEO Mr Anthony McClaran emailed a joint letter to the CEOs of all potential participants advising them of the survey and requesting their participation. Soon after, ASR sent invitation emails to the principal contact within each provider and each PPSB representative. The invitation email contained a unique hyperlink to access a recipient’s questionnaire.

ASR monitored response rates and sent two targeted reminder emails to all non-responders in each survey. The survey was in field from 13 July to 8 August 2017.

Data analysis

Results were analysed to produce top 2 scores (the proportion of respondents selecting the two most positive rating points) and frequency distributions. A z test was used to determine any statistical differences between attribute sub-groups which included self-accrediting authority, 2017 financial risk rating, 2017 student risk rating, category, state, provider size, RTO activity, CRICOS registration and market groupings. All tests were reported at the p<0.05 level (95% confidence level). See the box below for further explanation of confidence levels and intervals.

Top 2 scores were calculated using only the number of respondents who chose a rating point answer. In other words don’t know, not applicable and no answers (blank) were excluded from statistical calculations. A top 2% score of 100% can be interpreted as all respondents who answered a particular question indicated that TEQSA was performing at a good or excellent level on a particular item.

In some tables the total may not always equal 100.0%. This is due to rounding and is not an error.

Response and sample profile

A total of 192 principal contacts were invited to participate in their survey. A total of 143 principal contacts responded to the survey, yielding a response rate of 74%. The sample is statistically representative of the principal contacts population at the 95% confidence level and a ±4.1% confidence interval. This is an acceptable scientific research confidence interval.

A total of 38 representatives from peak, professional and student bodies were invited to participate in their survey and one declined so this organisation was removed from the population base. A total of 28 representatives from peak and professional bodies answered the survey achieving a response rate of 74%. The results for this survey have a confidence interval of ±10%. With this higher confidence interval and a small sample of 28, we suggest treating the PPSB results with caution and as indicative only.

Representativeness of a sample is often assessed at a 95% confidence level (accuracy) and a ±5% confidence interval (precision).

The confidence interval (also called margin of error) is the plus-or-minus figure usually reported in newspaper or television opinion poll results. For example, if you use a confidence interval of 4 and 47% percent of your sample picks an answer you can be "sure" that if you had asked the question of the entire relevant population between 43% (47-4) and 51% (47+4) would have picked that answer.

The confidence level tells you how sure you can be. It is expressed as a percentage and represents how often the true percentage of the population who would pick an answer lies within the confidence interval. The 95% confidence level means you can be 95% certain; the 99% confidence level means you can be 99% certain. Most researchers use the 95% confidence level.

When you put the confidence level and the confidence interval together, you can say that you are 95% sure that the true percentage of the population is between 43% and 51%. The wider the confidence interval you are willing to accept, the more certain you can be that the whole population answers would be within that range.

For example, if you asked a sample of 1000 people in a city which TV channel they preferred watching, and 60% said Channel A, you can be very certain that between 40% and 80% of all the people in the city actually do prefer that channel, but you cannot be so sure that between 59% and 61% of the people in the city prefer the channel. 

Reference: www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Population / sample comparison

The profiles of the provider population and the survey sample were compared by state and category to identify any over/under-represented in the principal contact response set. Both profiles had very similar proportions (see tables immediately below) meaning that the response set showed no non-response bias, that is, the sample closely reflected the population on each attribute. As a result, the response sample was considered closely representative of the population and no weighting was applied to the principal contact survey response set.

STATE

PRINCIPAL CONTACTS
POPULATION

RESPONSE
SAMPLE

 

Freq

%

Freq

%

NSW

86

44.8

60

42.0

VIC

48

25.0

33

23.1

QLD

20

10.4

15

10.5

SA

17

8.9

15

10.5

WA

15

7.8

15

10.5

ACT

3

1.6

3

2.1

NT

2

1.0

1

0.7

TAS

1

0.5

1

0.7

Total

192

100.0

143

100.0

 

CATEGORY

PRINCIPAL CONTACTS
POPULATION

RESPONSE
SAMPLE

 

Freq

%

Freq

%

Australian university

40

20.8

33

23.1

Australian university of specialisation

1

0.5

1

0.7

Overseas university

2

1.0

2

1.4

Higher Education Provider (HEP)

122

63.5

85

59.4

Prospective Higher Education Provider (HEP)

27

14.1

22

15.4

Total

192

100.0

143

100.0

Data file

ASR has supplied a de-identified raw data file to TEQSA. The file also contains all de-identified verbatim comments for TEQSA’s further investigation.

Principal contact survey key findings

This section outlines the key findings from the principal contact (PC) survey. Respondents were asked to rate TEQSA’s performance on a number of items. Results are presented by topic, in the same order as presented to respondents in the web questionnaire. For most items, top 2 scores are presented along with a charted frequency distribution. The most common themes within free text comments are covered throughout each topic.

In order to fit tables and charts across a page, item names have been abbreviated. Refer to appendix A for a table of abbreviations.

Important notes about scores and charts: A top 2 score is the total proportion of respondents selecting the two most positive rating points in their answer to a question. When calculating the proportion of respondents in this answer category, any respondents who answered with don't know, not applicable or no answer / have been excluded from the base of the calculation.

As a result the percentage of green (dark and light green) in the following charts may not always be equivalent to the top 2 score as presented in tables. The table figures will usually be slightly higher. This is because the chart percentages include don’t know, not applicable, and no answer proportions.

The charts have been sorted by the proportion of positive responses and are presented in descending order.

When reading the charts, it is useful to look at the proportion of green (positive) and the proportion of orange/red (negative) responses. Where there is more green than other colours it means that positive ratings outweigh negative ratings. A lot of orange and red indicates considerable room for improvement.

Key performance indicators

PC KPI 1: Regulation by TEQSA does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of your organisation

Close to three-quarters (73%) of PCs rated TEQSA’s performance as either good or excellent for the item opportunity to give feedback. The other item under KPI 1, streamlining to reduce burden, was rated higher at 59%. Note that ratings for both items were lower than in the 2016 results, significantly so for streamlining to reduce burden. Refer to the table below.

PC: KPI 1  

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

Opportunity to give feedback  n=136

72.9

Streamlining to reduce burden  n=130

59.2

*Excludes don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses

The following chart shows the frequency distribution of answers (proportion of respondents choosing a particular answer) for KPI 1 items.

PC: KPI 1
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=143

PC: KPI 1. Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for KPI 1. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

 

Streamlining to reduce burden

Opportunity to give feedback

Excellent

14.0

23.8

Good

39.9

45.5

Fair

21.7

20.3

Poor

8.4

3.5

Very poor

7.0

2.1

Don’t know/no answer

7.0

3.5

Not applicable

2.1

1.4

 

PC KPI 2: TEQSA’s communication with your organisation is clear, targeted and effective

Four of the seven items under KPI 2 rated above 70%. Quality of regulatory information scored highest, with 89% of PCs rating this item as either good or excellent. Relevance of information was the second highest scoring item with a top 2 score of 87%.  

The items relating to clarity of information (69%), communicating streamlining initiatives (59%) and timeliness of information after making a decision (55%) all rated significantly lower this year.

PC: KPI 2 n=131

TOP 2 SCORES (%)*

Quality of regulatory information  n=140

88.6

Relevance of information  n=140

87.1

Reasonable opportunity to address matters  n=101

72.3

Completeness of information  n=104

71.2

Clarity of information  n=103

68.9

Communicating streamlining initiatives  n=130

59.2

Timeliness of information after making a decision  n=101

54.5

*Excludes don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses

In the chart below, note the relatively high proportion of don’t know / not applicable / no answers for some items relating to TEQSA’s communication. This suggests that not all respondents had the experience or information to provide a rating response for these items. This may not be negative, but simply reflect lack of opportunity or need.

PC: KPI 2
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=143

PC: KPI 2. Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for KPI 2. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

 

Timeliness of information after making a decision

Communicating streamlining initiatives

Clarity of information

Completeness of information

Reasonable opportunity to address matters

Relevance of information

Quality of regulatory information

Excellent

8.4

12.6

9.8

10.5

12.6

22.4

22.4

Good

30.1

41.3

39.9

41.3

38.5

62.9

64.3

Fair

20.3

24.5

11.2

12.6

9.8

8.4

7.7

Poor

4.9

9.1

7.7

5.6

4.2

2.1

2.1

Very poor

7.0

3.5

3.5

2.8

5.6

2.1

1.4

Don’t know/no answer

4.2

9.1

4.9

4.2

4.2

2.1

2.1

Not applicable

25.2

0.0

23.1

23.1

25.2

0.0

0.0

 

PC: KPI 3 - Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA for your organisation are proportionate to the risks being managed

Compared with all other KPIs, top 2 scores remained considerably lower for KPI 3 with scores of 61% and 53% for the two items. The item consultative approach was the lowest scoring KPI item for PC.

Referring to the table and chart below, note the relatively high proportion of don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses for both items, suggesting that not all PCs had the experience or information to provide a rating response.

PC: KPI 3 n=131

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

Actions proportionate to risks  n=92

60.9

Consultative approach  n=111

53.2

*Excludes don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses

PC: KPI 3
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=143

PC: KPI 3. Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for KPI 3. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Consultative approach

Actions proportionate to risks

Excellent

14.0

8.4

Good

27.3

30.8

Fair

17.5

14.0

Poor

13.3

8.4

Very poor

5.6

2.8

Don’t know/no answer

10.5

7.7

Not applicable

11.9

28.0

 

PC KPI 4: TEQSA has a streamlined and coordinated approach to compliance and monitoring for your organisation

The ratings for both items within KPI 4 dropped significantly from 2016 to 2017. The item reuse of material was rated as good or excellent by 56% and timely coordination of visits by 53% (compared to 71% and 75% in 2016).

Not all respondents were able to rate the items with a considerable proportion of don’t know / not applicable / no answers, particularly for timely coordination of visits (48%). It is likely these respondents had not experienced a TEQSA staff visit in the last 12 months and were therefore not able to provide a rating.

PC: KPI 4  

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

Reuse of material  n=101

56.4

Timely coordination of visits  n=75

53.3

*Excludes don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses

PC: KPI 4
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=143

PC: KPI 4. Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for KPI 4. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Timely coordination of visits

Reuse of material

Excellent

11.9

13.3

Good

16.1

26.6

Fair

11.2

21.0

Poor

5.6

7.0

Very poor

7.7

2.8

Don’t know/no answer

3.5

14.0

Not applicable

44.1

15.4

 

PC KPI 5: TEQSA is open, transparent and consistent in its dealings with your organisation

TEQSA’s performance on KPI 5 was rated fairly positively, with two items rated good or excellent by more than 68% of respondents. Positive ratings for Consistency of decisions decreased significantly this year; this was also the lowest scoring item for this KPI (61%) leaving some room for improvement. However, this item received a relatively high proportion of fair ratings.

PC: KPI 5

TOP 2 SCORES (%)

Quality of information on National Register  n=129

79.1

Consistency of information  n=139

67.6

Availability of information  n=139

63.3

Consistency of decisions  n=104

60.6

*Excludes don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses

PC: KPI 5
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=143

PC: KPI 5. Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for KPI 5. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Consistency of decisions

Availability of information

Consistency of information

Quality of information on National Register

Excellent

11.9

14.7

18.2

13.3

Good

32.2

46.9

47.6

58.0

Fair

16.8

30.8

17.5

15.4

Poor

7.7

4.2

8.4

2.8

Very poor

4.2

0.7

5.6

0.7

Don’t know/no answer

4.9

2.8

2.8

9.8

Not applicable

22.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

 

PC KPI 6 - TEQSA continues to improve its regulatory framework in consultation with your organisation

Variety of media and making process improvements were the best scoring items for KPI 6 with a top 2 score of 62%. Note that positive ratings for Engagement dropped significantly this year: to 59% from 79% in 2016. 

PC: KPI 6

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

Variety of media  n=131

61.8

Making process improvements  n=131

61.8

Engagement  n=136

58.8

*Excludes don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses

PC: KPI 6
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=143

PC: KPI 6. Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for KPI 6. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Engagement

Making process improvements

Variety of media

Excellent

18.9

10.5

14.0

Good

37.1

46.2

42.7

Fair

23.8

23.8

30.1

Poor

7.0

4.2

2.8

Very poor

8.4

7.0

2.1

Don’t know/no answer

4.2

6.3

8.4

Not applicable

0.7

2.1

0.0

 

PC: Interactions with TEQSA

Providers were asked to indicate the types of interactions they had with TEQSA in the last 12 months. The most common interactions were use of TEQSA’s website (92%) and an interaction with a TEQSA case manager (90%).

PC: Types of interactions with TEQSA in last 12 months
% of respondents choosing a rating point; % based on n=143 Multiple answers allowed so total may be >100%

Horizontal bar chart showing types of interactions with TEQSA in last 12 months. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

Type of interaction

Percentage (rating point)

Use of TEQSA’s website

91.6

Interaction with your case manager

89.5

Use of TEQSA's guidance and support materials for the HES Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 transition

86

Use of TEQSA’s National Register of Higher Education Providers

69.2

Participation in TEQSA’s conference

59.4

Application for course accreditation / renewal of accreditation

58.7

Application for TEQSA registration / renewal of TEQSA registration

42

CRICOS – other application

34.3

Application for CRICOS registration / renewal of CRICOS registration

29.4

Application for self-accrediting authority

3.5

Other

9.8

PC: Applications

This section outlines providers’ views of the interactions they had with TEQSA while making registration and accreditation applications, including CRICOS as well as applications for self-accrediting authority (SAA). The table and chart results within this section are based on a sub-set of the PC survey sample (n=101), that is, only those who indicated that they had a particular interaction.

The following series of tables and charts display the top 2 scores and frequency distributions of answers about aspects of these interactions.

PC: Registration, accreditation and SAA application processes

TEQSA’s clarity of the online form and application guide were key strengths, rated positively by 78% and 76% of respondents. The item any follow up assistance that was required scored relatively lower at 69%, and dropped notably this year (from 80%).

PC: REGISTRATION, ACCREDITATION AND SAA APPLICATION PROCESSES  

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

Clarity of the online form  n=89

77.5

Clarity of the application guide  n=96

76.0

Helpfulness of portal information  n=92

72.8

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements  n=96

70.8

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application  n=96

68.8

Any follow up assistance that was required  n=67

68.5

*Includes only respondents who were involved with aspects of registration, accreditation or SAA.

Top 2 scores and n counts exclude don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses.

PC: TEQSA Application process
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=101

PC: TEQSA application process. Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for TEQSA application process. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Any follow up assistance that was required

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

Helpfulness of portal information

Clarity of the application guide

Clarity of the online form

Excellent

16.8

15.8

11.9

18.8

15.8

14.9

Good

43.6

49.5

55.4

47.5

56.4

53.5

Fair

19.8

19.8

21.8

19.8

18.8

15.8

Poor

4.0

5.9

5.0

5.0

3.0

3.0

Very poor

4.0

4.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

Don’t know / No Answer

1.0

1.0

1.0

4.0

1.0

3.0

Not applicable

10.9

4.0

4.0

5.0

4.0

8.9

 

PC: CRICOS application process

The providers who indicated that they had interacted with TEQSA about CRICOS registration or any other aspect of a CRICOS application in the last 12 months were asked about aspects of their interactions. The table and chart results within this section are based on a sub-set of the PC survey sample (n=77), that is, only those who indicated that they had a particular interaction.

TEQSA performed well on items relating to this process, with top 2 scores ranging between 78% and 90%. Clarity of the online form, clarity of the application guide and helpfulness of portal information were the highest rated items (90%, 85% and 85% respectively).

 

PC: CRICOS APPLICATION PROCESS  

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

Clarity of the online form  n=69

89.9

Clarity of the application guide  n=71

84.5

Helpfulness of portal information  n=71

84.5

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application  n=72

79.2

Any follow up assistance that was required  n=67

79.1

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements  n=71

77.5

*Includes only respondents who were involved with CRICOS registration or other CRICOS applications.

Top 2 scores and n counts exclude don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses.

PC: CRICOS Application process
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=77

PC: CRICOS application process: Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for CRICOS application process. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

Any follow up assistance that was required

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

Helpfulness of portal information

Clarity of the application guide

Clarity of the online form

Excellent

16.9

29.9

18.2

22.1

16.9

15.6

Good

54.5

39.0

55.8

55.8

61.0

64.9

Fair

15.6

13.0

16.9

13.0

13.0

9.1

Poor

5.2

3.9

2.6

0.0

1.3

0.0

Very poor

0.0

1.3

0.0

1.3

0.0

0.0

Don’t know / No Answer

3.9

2.6

2.6

2.6

3.9

5.2

Not applicable

3.9

10.4

3.9

5.2

3.9

5.2

 

PC: TEQSA's case management approach

The vast majority of respondents (90%) indicated TEQSA’s case management approach was very important to their organisation and 8% indicated that it was somewhat important.

PC: Importance of TEQSA's case management approach
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=143

Bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for the importance of TEQSA's case management approach. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

Importance of TEQSA's case management approach

Percentage

Very important

90.2

Somewhat important

7.7

Not important at all

1.4

Don’t know / No answer

0.7

Respondents were then asked about their experiences of TEQSA’s case management over the last 12 months. Nineteen percent indicated their experiences had improved, while for 53% case management experiences had stayed the same. However, 23% of respondents indicated that their experiences had worsened. Refer to the chart below.

We are aware that there have been considerable changes in the case management area, and while it has negatively affected around a quarter of providers, it has been a better or stable situation for the remainder.

PC: Experiences of TEQSA's case management
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=142

Bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for experiences of TEQSA's case management. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

Experiences of TEQSA's case management

Percentage

Improved

19.0

Stayed the same as in the previous 12 months

52.8

Worsened

22.5

Don’t know / No answer

5.6

Those providers who indicated that case management had improved or worsened were asked to comment about what had happened with their case management over the previous 12 months. Positive comments (improved) focused on faster decisions, helpfulness and approachability.

Negative comments (worsened) focus on not having or know about who their case manager was and having multiple case manages in a short time with resulting loss of corporate knowledge.

PC: TEQSA's case management approach

Those providers who had interacted with a TEQSA case manager in the last 12 months were asked about different aspects of TEQSA’s case management approach. Consistent with a relatively high proportion of respondents stating their experience had worsened over the last 12 months, the items were rated significantly lower this year. The highest scoring item in this topic for 2017 was also the same as in 2016 - responsiveness, with 63% rating this as good or excellent.

PC: CASE MANAGEMENT APPROACH

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

Responsiveness  n=140

62.9

Consideration of your needs  n=130

55.4

Knowledge of your organisation  n=136

52.2

*Includes only respondents who interacted with case managers in the last 12 months.

Top 2 scores and n counts exclude don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses.

PC: Case management approach
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=142

Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for experiences of TEQSA's case management approach. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Knowledge of your organisation

Consideration of your needs

Responsiveness

Excellent

18.3

16.2

25.4

Good

31.7

34.5

36.6

Fair

29.6

26.8

19.7

Poor

9.9

7.0

10.6

Very poor

6.3

7.0

6.3

Don’t know / No answer

4.2

8.5

1.4

 

PC: TEQSA conference

Of the providers who attended the TEQSA Conference, 92% rated the item opportunity to interact with other delegates (excellent or good). All items scored highly in this topic (between 87% and 92%).

PC: TEQSA CONFERENCE

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

Opportunity to interact with other delegates  n=84

91.7

The quality of speakers  n=83

90.4

The program  n=83

89.2

Relevance of material presented  n=83

86.7

*Includes only respondents who attended the TEQSA Conference.

Top 2 scores and n counts excludes don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses.

PC: TEQSA Conference
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=85

Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for experiences of TEQSA's Conference. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Relevance of material presented

The program

The quality of speakers

Opportunity to interact with other delegates

Excellent

34.1

31.8

31.8

45.9

Good

50.6

55.3

56.5

44.7

Fair

11.8

10.6

9.4

5.9

Poor

1.2

0.0

0.0

2.4

Very poor

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don’t know / No answer

1.2

1.2

1.2

0.0

Not applicable

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

Providers who indicated that they had attended the conference were asked to comment and 24 valid comments were offered. The most common themes were:

  • Have a bigger venue
  • Create more opportunities to meet with TEQSA people – it’s about TEQSA and not the sector
  • Make it less university-centric
  • Make it free
  • Have more Q&A sessions / time.

PC: Guidance and support materials

TEQSA’s guidance and support materials were rated highly, with all top 2 scores rating between 81% and 94%. The quality of the information and the relevance of the information were the highest scoring items (94% and 93%).

PC: GUIDANCE AND MATERIALS  n=85

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

The quality of the information

94.1

Relevance of information

92.9

Usefulness of information

90.6

Ease of access to that information

82.4

Amount of information

81.2

*Includes only respondents who used guidance and support materials.
Top 2 score and n counts exclude don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses.

PC:  TEQSA Guidance and support materials
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=85

Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for experiences of TEQSA Guidance and support materials. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Amount of information

Ease of access to that information

Usefulness of information

Relevance of information

The quality of the information

Excellent

36.5

40.0

42.4

37.6

30.6

Good

44.7

42.4

48.2

55.3

63.5

Fair

18.8

14.1

9.4

7.1

5.9

Poor

0.0

2.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

Very poor

0.0

1.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

Providers who indicated that they had used guidance and support material were asked to comment and 24 valid comments were offered. The most common themes were:

  • Some guidance is in two places, it’s hard to find, or an index would be useful
  • Get rid of 2011 references / old / beta versions
  • Provide more, particularly links to HES
  • Positive comment about guidance material.

PC: TEQSA overall

All providers were asked to rate TEQSA as a regulator. Eighty percent of respondents who answered this question rated TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months as either good or excellent which a good result for any regulator—especially given recent changes at the Agency.

Note that the total of the excellent and good proportions in the chart below is slightly less than 80%. This is because the chart includes a proportion of don’t know / no answer respondents who have been excluded from the top 2 calculation.

PC: TEQSA's performance over the last 12 months as the regulator assuring the quality of Australian higher education
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=143

Bar chart showing breakdown of responses from principal contacts for view of TEQSA's performance over the last 12 months as the regulator assuring the quality of Australian higher education. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

Excellent

23.8%

Good

53.1%

Fair

13.3%

Poor

1.4%

Very poor

4.9%

Don’t know / No answer

3.5%

 

VC / CEO comments

In 2016 VC / CEOs were invited to a separate survey and this was seen by many providers as extra work, as often the same person responded to both surveys. To ensure that TEQSA could still give VC / CEOs the opportunity to make personal comments about TEQSA’s performance in the last 12 months, a separate section was included in the PC survey. All participants were aware of this section / opportunity before answering.

The common themes from the 64 suggestions within the VC / CEO question were:

  • Positive comments around the value of TEQSA, its professional approach, good support and engagement with providers
  • The belief that TEQSA should be more of a partner with providers
  • Timeliness of responses/decisions and lack of continuity
  • A reliance on paper based processes and perceived adversarial approach, particular with smaller private providers.

Again, so as not to lose the value of individual and insightful suggestions, ASR strongly recommends that relevant TEQSA staff read the (de-identified) verbatim comments from this survey.

Principal Contact: Year comparison

In the last 12 months principal contacts’ perceptions of TEQSA’s performance declined many areas and a number of these decreases were statistically significant. The two largest differences since last year were for the items timeliness of information after making a decision and timely coordination of visits (both top 2 scores decreased by more than 20%). Refer to the table below.

In reading the differences, the confidence interval which can also be thought of as the margin of error for the 2017 survey (±4%) and the sample size (n count) for a question must be kept in mind. For larger sample sizes any difference that is less than 8% (that is, ±4%) may be due to measuring error.

Two of the five items relating to the CRICOS application process improved notably (but not statistically significantly) over the last 12 months—both items related to application information.

Ratings for TEQSA’s overall performance have remained fairly similar to the 2016 survey ratings—a good result considering the decline in many other items.

The items about the TEQSA conference and guidance / support materials were added to the survey this year, so there is no year on year comparison available.

Statistically significantly different (p<0.05) results highlighted in bold.

ITEM

2017

n*

2017

TOP 2 SCORE (%)*

2016

TOP 2 SCORE (%)

±% CHANGE

KPI 2: Timeliness of information after making a decision

101

54.5

76.5

-22.1

KPI 4: Timely coordination of visits

75

53.3

75.0

-21.7

KPI 6: Engagement

136

58.8

78.9

-20.0

KPI 2: Communicating streamlining initiatives

130

59.2

78.9

-19.7

Case mgt approach: Knowledge of your organisation

136

52.2

71.1

-18.9

Case mgt approach: Consideration of your needs

130

55.4

70.9

-15.5

Case mgt approach: Responsiveness

140

62.9

78.3

-15.4

KPI 4: Reuse of material

101

56.4

70.8

-14.4

KPI 5: Consistency of decisions

104

60.6

73.7

-13.1

KPI 1: Streamlining to reduce burden

130

59.2

71.4

-12.2

KPI 2: Clarity of information

103

68.9

80.5

-11.6

Application process: Any follow up assistance that was required

89

68.5

80.0

-11.5

KPI 2: Completeness of information

104

71.2

81.0

-9.9

KPI 2: Reasonable opportunity to address matters

101

72.3

80.7

-8.4

KPI 6: Making process improvements

131

61.8

69.9

-8.1

KPI 5: Consistency of information

139

67.6

74.8

-7.2

KPI 6: Variety of media

131

61.8

68.8

-7.0

CRICOS Application process: Any follow up assistance that was required

67

79.1

84.8

-5.7

KPI 1: Opportunity to give feedback

136

72.8

77.0

-4.2

KPI 3: Actions proportionate to risks

92

60.9

65.0

-4.1

KPI 3: Consultative approach

111

53.2

56.6

-3.4

Overall performance

138

79.7

82.3

-2.5

CRICOS Application process: Helpfulness of portal information

71

84.5

86.8

-2.3

Application process: Clarity of the online form

89

77.5

79.3

-1.8

KPI 5: Quality of information on National Register

129

79.1

80.5

-1.4

Application process: Clarity of the application guide

96

76.0

76.9

-0.9

Application process: Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

96

70.8

71.1

-0.3

Application process: Helpfulness of portal information

92

72.8

73.0

-0.2

KPI 2: Relevance of information

140

87.1

86.8

0.3

KPI 5: Availability of information

139

63.3

61.2

2.2

Application process: Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

96

68.8

66.3

2.5

CRICOS Application process: Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

71

77.5

73.2

4.2

CRICOS Application process: Clarity of the online form

69

89.9

84.1

5.8

KPI 2: Quality of regulatory information

140

88.6

80.8

7.8

CRICOS Application process: Clarity of the application guide

71

84.5

76.1

8.5

CRICOS Application process: Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

72

79.2

70.4

8.7

Conference: The program

83

89.2

N/A

N/A

Conference: The quality of speakers

83

90.4

N/A

N/A

Conference: Relevance of material presented

83

86.7

N/A

N/A

Conference: Opportunity to interact with other delegates

84

91.7

N/A

N/A

Guidance & Support materials: The quality of the information

85

94.1

N/A

N/A

Guidance & Support materials: Relevance of information

85

92.9

N/A

N/A

Guidance & Support materials: Ease of access to that information

85

82.4

N/A

N/A

Guidance & Support materials: Usefulness of information

85

90.6

N/A

N/A

Guidance & Support materials: Amount of information

85

81.2

N/A

N/A

N/A means the result is not available as these items weren’t asked in the 2016 survey.

*Top 2 scores and n counts exclude don’t know / not applicable / no answer responses.

Provider attribute analysis

Attribute analysis is conducted to identify where there are similarities and differences between providers. It provides insight that overall or aggregated analysis cannot. It helps answer the questions “Do some groups perceive that they are treated differently?” and “Do sub-groups have similar views?” Essentially this analysis is used to work out whether or not TEQSA has the same or different interactions with various sub-groups and conversely if these sub-groups have the same or different perceptions of TEQSA.

The following section presents the results of principal contact responses using nine provider attributes:

  1. Self-accrediting authority
  2. 2017 risk to financial position
  3. 2017 risk to students
  4. Category
  5. Provider size
  6. State
  7. Registered Training Organisation (RTO) activity
  8. CRICOS registration and
  9. market groupings.

The table below and which continues on the following page shows the sub-sets used in the analysis of each attribute.

ATTRIBUTE

SUB-GROUPS

n

% of RESPONSE SAMPLE

Self-accrediting authority

No

100

69.9

 

Yes / Part yes

43

30.1

2017 Risk to financial position

High / moderate

35

24.5

 

Low

71

49.7

 

Other

37

25.9

2017 Risk to students

High / Moderate

63

44.1

 

Low

47

32.9

 

Other

33

23.1

Category

University*

36

25.2

 

Higher Education Provider (HEP)

85

59.4

 

Prospective HEP

22

15.4

Provider size

<100

28

25.7

 

100 - 499

26

23.9

 

500 - 4,999

26

23.9

 

5,000 - 19,999

15

13.8

 

≥ 20,000

14

12.8

State

NSW

60

42.0

 

VIC

33

23.1

 

QLD

15

10.5

 

WA

15

10.5

 

SA

15

10.5

 

Other

5

3.5

Active RTO

No

68

47.6

 

Yes

75

52.4

CRICOS# registered

No

37

25.9

 

Yes

106

74.1

Market groupings

Faith based

14

9.8

 

Miscellaneous^

21

14.7

 

For profit

35

24.5

 

University

33

23.1

 

Other (not for profit, non-faith based)

10

7.0

 

N/A as prospective HESPs

21

14.7

 

No value available

9

6.3

*University includes Australian university, Australian university of specialisation and overseas university

^Includes Government Agencies, Pathways, Professional Bodies and TAFEs

#stands for Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students

Only items which were statistically significantly different at the 95% confidence level have been included in the sub-group comparison tables below. These differences are presented using top 2 (% positive) scores only and were analysed using a z test. Statistically significantly higher results are highlighted in bold.

Top 2 scores were calculated using only the number of respondents who chose a rating point answer. In other words don’t know, not applicable and no answers (blank) were excluded from statistical calculations. A top 2 score of 100% means that all respondents who answered a question rated the item as good or excellent.

Important note: there were NO significant differences in any items for the various sub-groups within provider size, state and whether or not a provider was an active RTO. Results for these attributes were not included in the report.

PC: Self-accrediting authority

For all items in the table below, providers that had self-accreditation status rated significantly higher than providers who did not have this authority. This should not be a surprise to TEQSA as higher quality providers are likely to have this authority and also have a more positive view of TEQSA as a result of being granted the authority. They also probably have fewer interactions with TEQSA.

Significantly higher results highlighted in bold.

SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ITEMS

TOPIC / ITEM

SELF-ACCREDITING AUTHORITY
TOP 2 SCORES (%)

No
max n=100

Yes / Part yes
max n=43

KPI 1: Streamlining to reduce burden

51.6

76.9

KPI 1: Opportunity to give feedback

67.0

85.7

KPI 2: Reasonable opportunity to address matters

67.1

90.9

KPI 2: Timeliness of information after making a decision

46.2

82.6

KPI 2: Clarity of information

60.8

95.8

KPI 2: Completeness of information

65.0

91.7

KPI 2: Quality of regulatory information

84.7

97.6

KPI 3: Consultative approach

46.7

66.7

KPI 3: Actions proportionate to risks

49.3

92.0

KPI 4: Reuse of material

44.4

86.2

KPI 5: Quality of information on National Register

74.2

90.0

KPI 5: Consistency of information

60.8

83.3

KPI 5: Consistency of decisions

51.4

83.3

KPI 6: Engagement

51.6

75.6

KPI 6: Making process improvements

50.5

89.5

CRICOS Application process: Any follow up assistance that was required

67.6

93.3

Case mgt approach: Responsiveness

55.7

79.1

Case mgt approach: Knowledge of your organisation

44.2

70.7

Case mgt approach: Consideration of your needs

43.5

84.2

Total n varies by item because not all respondents were eligible to answer all questions. The maximum possible n is displayed in the table header.

PC: 2017 Risk to financial position

The providers that TEQSA rated as having a low risk to financial position in 2017 rated TEQSA’s performance highest on all items in the below table. There were a considerable number of differences for this attribute, including for TEQSA’s overall performance.

Note the large differences in TEQSA’s overall performance rating.

Significantly higher results highlighted in bold.

SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ITEMS

TOPIC / ITEM 

2017 RISK TO FINANCIAL POSITION

TOP 2 SCORES (%)

 

High / mod

max n=35

Low

max n=71

Other

max n=37

 

 

 

KPI 1: Streamlining to reduce burden

48.6

72.3

43.3

 

KPI 1: Opportunity to give feedback

54.3

85.5

65.6

 

KPI 2: Reasonable opportunity to address matters

58.6

87.5

58.3

 

KPI 2: Timeliness of information after making a decision

44.4

68.8

38.5

 

KPI 2: Clarity of information

51.7

83.7

60.0

 

KPI 2: Completeness of information

58.6

84.0

60.0

 

KPI 3: Consultative approach

26.5

64.5

66.7

 

KPI 3: Actions proportionate to risks

30.8

77.1

61.1

 

KPI 4: Reuse of material

40.0

69.8

44.4

 

KPI 4: Timely coordination of visits

30.4

72.0

55.6

 

KPI 5: Quality of information on National Register

60.0

90.6

76.7

 

KPI 5: Consistency of information

45.7

82.6

60.0

 

KPI 5: Consistency of decisions

39.3

73.2

55.0

 

KPI 6: Variety of media

42.4

72.7

59.4

 

KPI 6: Engagement

28.6

73.5

60.6

 

KPI 6: Making process improvements

48.6

80.0

38.7

 

CRICOS Application process: Any follow up assistance that was required

58.3

88.9

60.0

 

Case mgt approach: Responsiveness

55.9

74.3

47.2

 

Case mgt approach: Knowledge of your organisation

33.3

68.7

38.9

 

Case mgt approach: Consideration of your needs

40.6

71.9

38.2

 

Overall performance

68.6

91.2

68.6

 

Total n varies by item because not all respondents were eligible to answer all questions. The maximum possible n is displayed in the table header.

PC: 2017 Risk to students

Providers that TEQSA rated as having a low risk to students in 2017 also rated TEQSA’s performance highest on all items in the below table. There were a considerable number of differences for this attribute; including for TEQSA’s overall performance rating.

Significantly higher results highlighted in bold.

SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ITEMS

TOPIC / ITEM

2017 RISK TO STUDENTS
TOP 2 SCORES (%)

High / mod
max n=63

Low
max n=47

Other
max n=33

KPI 2: Timeliness of information after making a decision

48.1

77.8

40.9

KPI 2: Clarity of information

60.4

86.2

66.7

KPI 2: Quality of regulatory information

85.5

97.8

81.3

KPI 3: Consultative approach

39.7

66.7

71.4

KPI 3: Actions proportionate to risks

42.6

86.2

68.8

KPI 4: Reuse of material

47.2

77.4

47.1

KPI 5: Consistency of information

56.5

82.6

67.7

KPI 5: Consistency of decisions

46.2

80.0

64.7

KPI 6: Engagement

46.7

71.1

64.5

KPI 6: Making process improvements

55.7

83.3

42.9

Application process: Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

57.5

91.7

65.6

CRICOS Application process: Any follow up assistance that was required

63.0

93.8

75.0

Case mgt approach: Responsiveness

55.7

80.9

50.0

Case mgt approach: Knowledge of your organisation

44.1

68.9

43.8

Case mgt approach: Consideration of your needs

39.7

85.7

43.3

Overall performance

73.3

95.6

69.7

Total n varies by item because not all respondents were eligible to answer all questions. The maximum possible n is displayed in the table header.

PC: Category

Where there were differences, universities provided significantly higher ratings compared with HEP and prospective HEP groups, as displayed in the table below. Ratings for TEQSA’s overall as a regulator were consistent across the groups.

Significantly higher results highlighted in bold.

SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ITEMS

TOPIC / ITEM

CATEGORY - TOP 2 SCORES (%)

University^
max n=36

HEP
max n=85

Prospective HEP
max n=22

KPI 1: Streamlining to reduce burden

81.3

54.3

41.2

KPI 2: Timeliness of information after making a decision

82.4

50.7

38.5

KPI 2: Clarity of information

94.4

64.4

58.3

KPI 3: Actions proportionate to risks

95.0

51.6

50.0

KPI 4: Reuse of material

86.4

48.6

44.4

KPI 5: Consistency of decisions

87.5

52.1

55.6

KPI 6: Engagement

76.5

51.9

57.1

KPI 6: Making process improvements

90.3

55.6

42.1

CRICOS Application process: Any follow up assistance that was required

92.3

69.2

100.0

Case mgt approach: Consideration of your needs

84.4

45.6

47.4

Total n varies by item because not all respondents were eligible to answer all questions. The maximum possible n is displayed in the table header.

^ includes Australian university, Australian university of specialisation and overseas university

HEP: Higher Education Provider

PC: CRICOS registration

CRICOS registered organisations rated all items in the table below higher than organisations that were not CRICOS registered, including TEQSA’s overall performance.

Significantly higher results highlighted in bold.

 

CRICOS - TOP 2 SCORES (%)

SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ITEMS

TOPIC / ITEM

CRICOS registered
max n=106

Not CRICOS registered
max n=37

KPI 1: Streamlining to reduce burden

66.0

36.7

KPI 6: Engagement

64.7

41.2

KPI 6: Making process improvements

70.0

35.5

CRICOS Application process: Helpfulness of portal information

86.6

50.0

Case mgt approach: Consideration of your needs

61.2

37.5

Guidance & Support materials: Ease of access to that information

86.3

58.3

Guidance & Support materials: Amount of information

84.9

58.3

Overall performance

84.5

65.7

Total n varies by item because not all respondents were eligible to answer all questions. The maximum possible n is displayed in the table header.

PC: Market groupings

Universities scored significantly higher than most other market groups on all the items in the table below. There were considerable differences between sub-groups for this attribute, but TEQSA’s overall performance rating was not an area of difference. Where there were significant differences, the For profit group was generally lowest scoring. This overall view was reinforced in open-ended comments with comments like TEQSA is hostile, adversarial and not experienced / understanding of their operating model. However, overall performance is not in the difference table below, so market grouped providers have quite specific issues not related to overall performance.

Significantly higher results highlighted in bold.

SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ITEMS

TOPIC / ITEM

MARKET GROUPINGS^ - TOP 2 SCORES (%)

Faith based

n=14

Miscellaneous^ n=21

For profit

n=35

University

n=33

Other (not for profit, non-faith based) n=10

N/A as prospective HEP n=21

No value available n=9

KPI 2: Timeliness of information after making a decision

72.7

82.4

33.3

82.4

28.6

33.3

42.9

KPI 2: Clarity of information

61.5

81.3

43.3

94.4

100.0

54.5

85.7

KPI 3: Actions proportionate to risks

54.5

62.5

24.0

94.7

87.5

42.9

100.0

KPI 4: Reuse of material

54.5

62.5

34.4

90.5

66.7

44.4

50.0

KPI 5: Consistency of information

64.3

81.0

44.1

81.3

80.0

70.0

62.5

KPI 5: Consistency of decisions

53.8

62.5

38.7

90.9

62.5

50.0

83.3

KPI 6: Engagement

57.1

70.0

36.4

77.4

40.0

55.0

87.5

KPI 6: Making process improvements

57.1

61.9

50.0

89.3

88.9

38.9

42.9

CRICOS Application process: Any follow up assistance that was required

100.0

81.8

52.6

91.3

100.0

100.0

75.0

Case mgt approach: Knowledge of your organisation

53.8

66.7

32.4

71.9

57.1

40.0

44.4

Case mgt approach: Consideration of your needs

81.8

61.9

29.4

83.3

57.1

44.4

33.3

Total n varies by item because not all respondents were eligible to answer all questions. The maximum possible n is displayed in the table header.
^Some cell numbers (n counts) are very small so results should be interpreted with extreme caution.
#Includes Government Agencies, Pathways, Professional Bodies and TAFEs
+Includes not for profit and non-faith based

Peak/professional/student body survey key findings

This section outlines the key findings from TEQSA’s peak, professional and student body survey. For all items, top 2 scores are presented along with a frequency distribution. Results are presented by topic, in the same order as presented to respondents in the web questionnaire. The most common themes within free text comments follow.

Note: Due to the relatively small number of respondents for this section—a total of 28 peak / professional/student bodies answered the survey—these results should be treated with considerable caution and only indicative at best.

In this section, the term peak, professional and student body has been abbreviated to PPSB.

PPSB: Interaction with TEQSA

The chart below displays the types of direct or indirect interactions PPSBs had with TEQSA in 2016/2017. The most common type of interaction with TEQSA was direct first-hand experience (89%). Thirty-nine percent of PPSBs had indirectly dealt with TEQSA or had feedback from members.

PPSB: Interactions with TEQSA in last 12 months 
% of respondents choosing a rating point; % based on n=28; Multiple answers allowed so total >100%

Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from PPSB for opinion of interactions with TEQSA in last 12 months. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

Direct first-hand experience dealing with TEQSA

89.3

Indirect feedback

39.3

Feedback from members of my organisation about dealings with TEQSA

39.3

Media reports

25.0

Other

7.1

PPSB: Scores for all questions

From a PPSB perspective, TEQSA performed well on all KPIs. Refer to the table and chart below. The KPIs around impact and risk approach were key strengths for TEQSA from a PPSB perspective. TEQSA’s performance on the six KPIs varied from a high of 92% (KPI 1) to a low of 67% (KPI 6). Note that for KPIs 3 and 4 there was a considerable proportion of don’t know / no answer responses.

PPSB: KPIs 

 

n

TOP 2 SCORE (%)

KPI 1  Impact

Regulation by TEQSA does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of your organisation

24

91.7

KPI 2  Communication

TEQSA’s communication with your organisation is clear, targeted and effective

26

84.6

KPI 3  Risk approach

Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA for your organisation are proportionate to the risks being managed

19

89.5

KPI 4  Compliance / monitoring

TEQSA has a streamlined and co-ordinated approach to compliance and monitoring for your organisation

20

85.0

KPI 5  Approach

TEQSA is open, transparent and consistent in its dealings with your organisation

27

88.9

KPI 6  Continuous improvement

TEQSA continues to improve its regulatory framework in consultation with your organisation

24

66.7

Overall

TEQSA performance over the last 12 months as a regulator

24

87.5

 

PPSB: TEQSA ratings
% of respondents choosing a rating point; n=28

Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of responses from PPSB for their TEQSA ratings. Data is also available in the table below the chart.

 

Overall

KPI6

KPI5

KPI4

KPI3

KPI2

KPI1

Excellent

10.7

10.7

25.0

3.6

7.1

21.4

14.3

Good

64.3

46.4

60.7

57.1

53.6

57.1

64.3

Fair

10.7

21.4

3.6

10.7

7.1

10.7

7.1

Poor

0.0

7.1

7.1

0.0

0.0

3.6

0.0

Very poor

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don’t know / No answer

14.3

14.3

3.6

28.6

32.1

7.1

14.3

 

PPSB: Year comparison

Between 2016 and 2017 ratings for two of the seven items in the below table increased notably and two decreased notably. It is interesting to note that KPI 4 increased in 2017 for PPSBs, whereas most providers rated this area lower in 2017 than 2016.

Due to very small sample sizes these results should be seen as indicative only. The sample sizes are too small to conduct reliable or valid comparative statistical analysis.

ITEM

 

 

2017
n

2017
TOP 2 SCORE (%)

2016
TOP 2 SCORE (%)

± %

KPI 6: Continuous improvement

TEQSA continues to improve its regulatory framework in consultation with your organisation

24

66.7

100.0

-33.3

Overall

TEQSA performance over the last 12 months as a regulator

24

87.5

100.0

-12.5

KPI 1: Impact

Regulation by TEQSA does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of your organisation

24

91.7

93.3

-1.6

KPI 5: Approach

TEQSA is open, transparent and consistent in its dealings with your organisation

27

88.9

87.5

1.4

KPI 3: Risk approach

Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA for your organisation are proportionate to the risks being managed

19

89.5

84.6

4.9

KPI 2: Communication

TEQSA’s communication with your organisation is clear, targeted and effective

26

84.6

73.3

11.3

KPI 4: Compliance / monitoring

TEQSA has a streamlined and co-ordinated approach to compliance and monitoring for your organisation

20

85.0

71.4

13.6

Survey comparisons

For this piece of analysis, a simple average of the top 2 scores for each item within a topic (KPI) of the principal contact survey was calculated. These six average top 2 scores were then compared with the top 2 scores of the same KPIs within the PPSB surveys, along with the top 2 scores of TEQSA’s overall rating as a regulator (the same overall regulator performance question was asked in all three surveys). The comparative results are displayed in the chart below.

It shows that PPSBs were more positive about TEQSA’s performance on all KPIs. The only KPI for which views for PCs and PPSBs were fairly similar was KPI 6 (TEQSA continues to improve its regulatory framework). PPSBs also rated TEQSA’s overall performance as a regulator higher.

KPI and overall comparison across the two survey audiences
Top 2 scores (%) for each topic (averaged for PCs) 

Horizontal bar chart showing breakdown of KPI and overall comparison across the two survey audiences.

Conclusions

After an excellent result in TEQSA’s first stakeholder survey (2016), this year has a lower percentage of respondents rating TEQSA excellent or good on a number of indicators. However this decline is not universal: various sub-groups within the provider population have quite different views on aspects of TEQSA’s performance and these differences need to be recognised. There are some providers (usually large, low risk and self-accrediting) who are extremely satisfied with TEQSA’s performance while smaller, for profit providers are less positive about TEQSA’s performance.

Importantly, overall TEQSA has continued to be well-regarded as a regulator assessing the quality of Australia’s higher education. The 2016 and 2017 results for TEQSA’s overall performance rating remained at a very similar level and within the margin of error for the 2017 survey.

This year’s results should continue to give TEQSA clear guidance on where to focus any service initiatives. Many of the suggestions for improvements or change are consistent with the 2016 survey. The majority of providers continue to rate TEQSA excellent or good in each of its 6 KPIs and the relationship between TEQSA and the PPBS results continue to be extremely positive. Providers have not notably changed their requests for areas of change.

The activities or processes that providers think TEQSA is doing well include:

  • Provision of guidance and support materials
  • The conference it held in 2017
  • The quality and relevant of regulatory information, including, for many, the information around CRICOS applications
  • Its overall performance as a regulator

Areas that providers believe TEQSA needs to improve include:

  • Streamlining, including re-use of material
  • Speed of response when making decisions
  • Consultation and engagement
  • Case management, in particular, case managers’ knowledge of providers and consideration of their needs as well as timely coordination of visits.

In general, peak, professional and student bodies have more positive views about TEQSA’s performance than providers.

Appendix A: Table of item abbreviations

TOPIC

ITEM FULL NAME

ABBREVIATED NAME

KPI 1

Streamlining its regulatory processes and practices to reduce (or positively affect) administrative burden for your organisation

Streamlining to reduce burden

 

Providing your organisation with the opportunity to give feedback on proposed changes to TEQSA’s practices (including streamlining initiatives)

Opportunity to give feedback

KPI 2

Communicating its streamlining initiatives to your organisation

Communicating streamlining initiatives

 

Providing a reasonable opportunity to address matters relevant to a regulatory decision, prior to a final decision being made

Reasonable opportunity to address matters

 

Timeliness of information provided by TEQSA after TEQSA makes a regulatory decision

Timeliness of information after making a decision

 

Clarity of information about TEQSA's regulatory decisions

Clarity of information

 

Completeness of information about TEQSA's regulatory decision

Completeness of information

 

Quality of information on TEQSA's regulatory policies and processes  provided through TEQSA’s website and newsletters

Quality of regulatory information

 

Relevance of information  on TEQSA’s regulatory policies and processes  provided through TEQSA’s website  and newsletters

Relevance of information

KPI 3

The consultative approach taken to confirm the annual risk assessment results with your organisation

Consultative approach

 

Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA for your organisation are proportionate to the risks being managed

Actions proportionate to risks

KPI 4

TEQSA’s reuse of material provided by your organisation for a range of regulatory matters

Reuse of material

 

Timely coordination of TEQSA staff visits to your organisation

Timely coordination of visits

KPI 5

Availability of information on trends and observations on sector performance

Availability of information

 

Quality of information provided on the National Register (showing the results of the regulatory decisions)

Quality of information on National Register

 

Consistency of information provided to your organisation

Consistency of information

 

Consistency of TEQSA's decisions about your organisation

Consistency of decisions

KPI 6

Using a variety of media and channels to communicate sector-wide updates

Variety of media

 

Direct engagement with your organisation through briefings and roundtables

Engagement

 

Making improvements to its processes and policies in areas that impact your organisation

Making process improvements

Application process

Clarity of the application guide (easy to understand)

Clarity of the application guide

 

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

 

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

 

Helpfulness of information on how to use the provider portal (for preparing and submitting applications online)

Helpfulness of portal information

 

Clarity of the online form

Clarity of the online form

 

Any follow up assistance that was required

Any follow up assistance that was required

CRICOS application process

Clarity of the application guide (easy to understand)

Clarity of the application guide

 

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

 

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

 

Helpfulness of information on how to use the provider portal (for preparing and submitting applications online)

Helpfulness of portal information

 

Clarity of the online form

Clarity of the online form

 

Any follow up assistance that was required

Any follow up assistance that was required

Case mgt approach

Responsiveness to the needs of your organisation

Responsiveness

 

Knowledge of your organisation’s specific needs / issues / environment

Knowledge of your organisation

 

Consideration of your organisation’s specific needs / issues / environment for tailoring the application process

Consideration of your needs

Conference

The program

The program

 

The quality of speakers

The quality of speakers

 

Relevance of material presented

Relevance of material presented

 

Opportunity to interact with other delegates

Opportunity to interact with other delegates

Guidance and support materials

The quality of the information

The quality of the information

 

Relevance of information

Relevance of information

 

Ease of access to that information

Ease of access to that information

 

Usefulness of information

Usefulness of information

 

Amount of information

Amount of information

Overall

Overall: TEQSA's performance over the last 12 months as the regulator assuring the quality of Australian higher education

Overall performance

Appendix B: Questionnaires used in 2017 surveys

The appendix contains the full questionnaires used in the principal contact survey and the peek, professional and student body survey.

Appendix B1 – the principal contact questionnaire

Appendix B2 - the PPSB questionnaire

TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2017 - principal contact

Introduction

You are asked to answer this survey from the perspective of #%orgname%#, in your capacity as your organisation's principal contact for TEQSA. We encourage you to also obtain feedback from other people in your organisation as appropriate for their level of engagement with TEQSA in 2016-17. If you believe someone else in your organisation might be better placed to answer, please forward your invitation email containing the survey link to that person.

TEQSA has engaged Australian Survey Research (ASR) to conduct the survey on its behalf.

Your link (the one you used to arrive at this page) is a unique organisational link and can be passed on to others within your organisation. The questionnaire can be completed over multiple sittings. Once the finalise (submit) button is clicked at the end of the questionnaire the link will be de-activated. If this is done in error please contact ASR to re-activate your link. No data will be lost.

The survey should take less than 20 minutes to complete. Click here (disabled for this sample version) for a list of questions. Please answer by close of business on Thursday 3 August 2017.

Download a summary of TEQSA's key achievements for 2016-17 against the key performance indicators of its Regulator Performance Framework.

Confidentiality

All respondents and their answers are known to ASR. However, at no time will ASR provide TEQSA with results or data that identify individual respondents. ASR will only provide de-identified data and summary results to TEQSA, and your responses remain confidential to ASR.

Answering and navigation hints

  • If you get interrupted while answering, please click on the Return later link at the bottom right of a page.
  • When you return using your unique link in your invitation email, you will be returned to the last page you saved.
  • Use the navigation option to the left of the screen (look for an arrow) to move directly to a section.
  • Clicking on Next at the bottom of a screen will save your answers and move you to the next page.
  • Clicking on Previous at the bottom of a screen will return you to the previous page. Please use this to go backwards rather than using the back button on your browser as this will take you out of the questionnaire completely.
  • You can print the questions and your answers one page at a time by clicking on the print icon (top right) on each page. You will be given an opportunity to print all the questions and your answers at the same time once you have finalised (submitted) your response. Note that ALL questions will be printed, even the ones that you did not need to answer. 

If you have any technical questions about the survey please contact Tricia Deasy at Australian Survey Research on (03) 9557 4211 or tollfree on 1800 068 489 or teqsa [at] aussurveys.com. If you have any questions about the survey scope, concept or rationale, please contact your TEQSA case manager or Felicity Gianatti at comms [at] teqsa.gov.au.

Click on Next below to display the first set of questions.

Communication and consultation

Communication

How would you rate TEQSA's performance over the last 12 months in terms of:

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Don't know

Not applicable

Quality of information on TEQSA's regulatory policies and processes - provided through TEQSA’s website and newsletters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relevance of information on TEQSA’s regulatory policies and processes - provided through TEQSA’s website and newsletters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality of information provided on the National Register (showing the results of regulatory decisions)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communicating its streamlining initiatives to your organisation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using a variety of media and channels to communicate sector-wide updates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Availability of information on trends and observations on sector performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consistency of information provided to your organisation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consultation

How would you rate TEQSA's performance over the last 12 months in terms of:

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Don't know

Not applicable

Providing your organisation with the opportunity to give feedback on proposed changes to TEQSA’s practices (including streamlining initiatives)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The consultative approach taken to confirm the annual risk assessment results with your organisation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Direct engagement with your organisation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you would like to make any comments about your answers above, please enter here.

Leave blank if you have no comments.

 

Regulatory processes and decisions

Regulatory processes

How would you rate TEQSA's performance over the last 12 months in terms of:

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Don't know

Not applicable

Streamlining its regulatory processes and practices to reduce (or positively affect) administrative burden for your organisation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Making improvements to its processes and policies in areas that impact your organisation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEQSA’s reuse of material provided by your organisation for a range of regulatory matters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Timely coordination of TEQSA staff visits to your organisation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulatory decisions

How would you rate TEQSA's performance over the last 12 months in terms of:

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Don't know

Not applicable

Providing a reasonable opportunity to address matters relevant to a regulatory decision, prior to a final decision being made

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Timeliness of information provided by TEQSA after TEQSA makes a regulatory decision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarity of information about TEQSA's regulatory decision/s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completeness of information about TEQSA's regulatory decision/s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consistency of TEQSA's decisions about your organisation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA for your organisation are proportionate to the risks being managed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you would like to make any comments about your answers above, please enter here.
Leave blank if you have no comments

 

Interactions with TEQSA

In the last 12 months which of the following interactions has your organisation had with TEQSA?

Please select all that apply.

NOTE that some interactions may have been completed in the last 12 months and some may have only just commenced. Please select relevant interactions, irrespective of their completion status.

 

Application for TEQSA registration / renewal of TEQSA registration

 

Application for course accreditation / renewal of accreditation

 

Application for self-accrediting authority

 

Application for CRICOS registration / renewal of CRICOS registration

 

CRICOS – other application

 

Interaction with your case manager

 

Use of TEQSA’s website

 

Use of TEQSA’s National Register of Higher Education Providers

 

Participation in TEQSA's conference -TEQSA held its first conference in November 2016

 

Use of TEQSA's guidance and support materials for the HES Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 transition

 

Other: Please specify:

 

None of the above

 

Applications

How would you rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months on the following aspects of the application process?

This applies to applications for TEQSA registration (including renewal), accreditation (including renewal) and/or self-accrediting authority.

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Don't know

Not applicable

Clarity of the application guide (easy to understand)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Helpfulness of information on how to use the provider portal (for preparing and submitting applications online)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarity of the online form

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any follow up assistance that was required

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How would you rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months on the following aspects of the CRICOS application process?

This applies to  applications for CRICOS registration (including renewal) and other CRICOS applications.

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Don't know

Not applicable

Clarity of the application guide (easy to understand)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarity of the assessment scope and evidence requirements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Helpfulness of information about how to prepare an application

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Helpfulness of information on how to use the provider portal (for preparing and submitting applications online)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarity of the online form

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any follow up assistance that was required

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEQSA's case management approach

How important is TEQSA’s case management approach to your organisation?

 

Very important

 

Somewhat important

 

Not important at all

 

Don't know

 

How has your organisation's experience of TEQSA's case management changed in the past 12 months? 

 

Improved

 

Stayed the same as in the previous 12 months

 

Worsened

 

Don't know

 

Please explain, in summary, what has happened with your case management over the last 12 months.

 

How would you rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months on the following aspects of its case management approach?

If you have experienced considerably different or varied case management in this period, please focus on the current situation.

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Don't know

Responsiveness to the needs of your organisation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knowledge of your organisation’s specific needs / issues / environment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration of your organisation’s specific needs / issues / environment for tailoring the application process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What could TEQSA do to improve the overall performance of its case management approach?

               

 

TEQSA conference

How would you rate the TEQSA conference in terms of:

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Don't know

Not applicable

The program

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The quality of speakers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relevance of material presented

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opportunity to interact with other delegates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have any comments to make about TEQSA's conference, please enter here.

 Leave blank if you have no comments 

 

Guidance and support materials

How would you rate this material in terms of the following: 

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

Don't know

Not applicable

The quality of the information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relevance of information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ease of access to that information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Usefulness of information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amount of information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have any comments to make about TEQSA's guidance and support materials, please enter here.

 Leave blank if you have no comments 

 

VC / CEO personal comments

As Vice-Chancellor or CEO of your organisation, if you would like to express a personal view of TEQSA's performance in the last 12 months, please enter in the box below. (max 10,000 characters)

 

Overall

How would you rate TEQSA's performance over the last 12 months as the regulator assuring the quality of Australian higher education.

 

Excellent

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

Very poor

 

Don't know

 

 

Please offer your or your organisation's views on the following four questions.

What does TEQSA DO WELL that it should continue doing?

What one thing should TEQSA IMPROVE or change that would make the most difference to its effectiveness as a regulator?

What one thing should TEQSA STOP doing that it is currently doing?

What should TEQSA be involved in or MORE INVOLVED IN than it is currently?

 

TEQSA Stakeholder Survey 2017 - head of peak, professional, student body

Introduction

You are asked to answer this survey from the perspective of the head of #%orgname%#. Where appropriate, please respond on behalf of your membership / constituents.

TEQSA has engaged Australian Survey Research (ASR) to conduct, analyse and report on the survey on its behalf.

Your link (the one you used to arrive at this page) is unique to you. It may be passed on to others within your organisation, but we would prefer to hear from you personally. If you believe someone else in your organisation might be better placed to answer, please forward your invitation email containing the survey link to that person.

The questionnaire is very short but can be completed over multiple sittings. Once the finalise (submit) button is clicked at the end of the questionnaire the link will be de-activated. If this is done in error please contact ASR to re-activate your link. No data will be lost.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. Please answer by close of business on Thursday, 3 August 2017.

Download a summary of TEQSA's key achievements for 2016-17 against the key performance indicators of its Regulator Performance Framework.

Confidentiality

All respondents and their answers are known to ASR. However, at no time will ASR provide TEQSA with results or data that identify individual respondents or their organisations. ASR will only provide de-identified data and summary results to TEQSA, and your responses remain confidential to ASR.

Answering and navigation hints

  • If you get interrupted while answering, please click on the Return later link at the bottom right of a page.
  • When you return using your unique link in your invitation email, you will be returned to the last page you saved.
  • Clicking on Next at the bottom of a screen will save your answers and move you to the next page.
  • Clicking on Previous at the bottom of a screen will return you to the previous page. Please use this to go backwards rather than using the back button on your browser as this will take you out of the questionnaire completely.
  • You can print the questions and your answers one page at a time by clicking on the print icon (top right) on each page. You will be given an opportunity to print all the questions and your answers at the same time once you have finalised (submitted) your response. Note that ALL questions will be printed, even the ones that you did not need to answer.

If you have any technical questions about the survey please contact Tricia Deasy at Australian Survey Research on (03) 9557 4211 or tollfree on 1800 068 489 or teqsa [at] aussurveys.com. If you have any questions about the survey scope, concept or rationale, please contact Dorothy Illing at comms [at] teqsa.gov.au.

Click on Next below to display the first set of questions.

Interaction with TEQSA

In the last 12 months what direct or indirect interaction have you had with TEQSA?

Select all that apply

Direct first-hand experience dealing with TEQSA, for example, during conferences, direct discussions, briefings

Indirect feedback, for example from my staff or colleagues who have had dealings with TEQSA

Feedback from members of my organisation about their dealings with TEQSA

Media reports

Other : Please specify

None of the above

 

KPI 1: Impact

As the operational head of your organisation, you are asked to rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months on each of the six indicators from TEQSA’s Regulator Performance Framework. Click here for a copy of the framework.

If you wish to explain why you have given a particular rating, please use the comments box which appears after each rated statement. We understand that the indicators are broad and that you may have specific factors in mind when arriving at your rating. Please articulate any specific issues in the comment boxes provided. Comments for rating questions are optional but we would like to know your views for the four final open-ended questions.

 

How would you rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months with respect to KPI 1: Regulation by TEQSA does not unnecessarily impede the efficient operation of higher education providers.

Excellent

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

Very poor

 

Don't know

 

 

Your comments about TEQSA in relation to KPI 1

KPI 2: Communication

How would you rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months with respect to KPI 2: TEQSA’s communication with your organisation is clear, targeted and effective.

Excellent

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

Very poor

 

Don't know

 

 

 

Your comments about TEQSA in relation to KPI 2

KPI 3: Risk approach

How would you rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months with respect to KPI 3: Regulatory actions undertaken by TEQSA are proportionate to the risks being managed.

Excellent

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

Very poor

 

Don't know

 

Your comments about TEQSA in relation to KPI 3

KPI 4: Compliance and monitoring

How would you rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months with respect to KPI 4: TEQSA’s compliance and monitoring approaches for higher education providers are streamlined and co-ordinated.

Excellent

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

Very poor

 

Don't know

 

Your comments about TEQSA in relation to KPI 4

KPI 5: Approach

How would you rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months with respect to KPI 5: TEQSA is open, transparent and consistent in its dealings with your organisation.

Excellent

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

Very poor

 

Don't know

 

Your comments about TEQSA in relation to KPI 5

 

KPI 6: Continuous improvement

How would you rate TEQSA’s performance over the last 12 months with respect to KPI 6: TEQSA continues to improve its regulatory framework in consultation with your organisation.

Excellent

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

Very poor

 

Don't know

 

Your comments about TEQSA in relation to KPI 6

 

Overall

How would you rate TEQSA's performance over the last 12 months as the regulator assuring the quality of Australian higher education.

Excellent

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

Very poor

 

Don't know

 

Please offer your views on the following four questions:

What does TEQSA DO WELL that it should continue doing?
 

What one thing should TEQSA IMPROVE or change that would make the most difference to its effectiveness as a regulator?

What one thing should TEQSA STOP doing that it is currently doing? 

What should TEQSA be involved in or MORE INVOLVED in than it is currently?