Second-chance education evaluating the outcomes and costs of university-based enabling programs

Aim one was to quantify the value-added to the university in terms of undergraduate enrolments and to the students in terms of their human capital accumulation according to Becker's (1964) theory. Aim two was to evaluate outcomes in terms of meeting the dual goals of equity and efficiency. Equity was defined by the notion of inclusion, based upon the principle of personal agency as espoused by Sen (2009), and measured by access and completion of a higher education award (Marginson 2011). Efficiency was measured by access to, and completion of, university qualifications consistent with the Australian Government's definition of an Enabling program (Higher Education Support Act 2012 p. 302). This duality of definitions allowed for comparisons between the possible number of successes as indicated by enrolments in Enabling programs and actual outcomes demonstrating a leakage in the public funding bucket (Okun 1975).

The provision of specific Commonwealth funding appears to have precipitated an escalation in enrolments but completions and articulations experienced a sustained decline meaning costs of successful outcomes increased. Statistical analysis demonstrated that increasing access by distance education did not increase equity or efficiency as measured in terms of completions and articulations. Logistic regression suggests that it is not student demographics but the program structure and/or mode of study chosen for Enabling that are the strongest predictors of completion, articulation and undergraduate success.