Design of the Graduate Support Provision Score

The Graduate Support Provision Score is a proposed, self-reported index of institutional practice. It comprises 20 structured items in five stages, with four items per stage. Each item is scored from 0 to 5, giving a maximum of 100. Answering the questions takes approximately 5 minutes (registration and approval are separate). The programme, rather than the institution as a whole, is the principal unit of analysis.

Conceptual model

The framework proposes a staged pathway: realistic expectations, essential foundations, transition into practice, timely post-qualification support, and graduate outcome monitoring and improvement. The stages identify different opportunities for institutions to prepare and support graduates. They are an organising framework, not independently tested predictors of graduate success, and not a claim that every learner follows the same path. Much of the supporting evidence comes from related fields, including entrepreneurship education, training transfer and small-business support.

Scoring

Each question has six response options scored 0 to 5, describing increasingly developed provision. Respondents choose the highest level they can confirm, including the levels below it, so a high score is not awarded for an isolated feature when the foundations are absent. The options are not a measure of proven effectiveness. External provision counts only when students or graduates are told how to access it.

"Need to check" means missing information, not zero. Partial answers are saved, but an assessment is scored and ranked only when all 20 questions are answered from 0 to 5. The five stage scores are always reported alongside the total. Rankings compare self-reported provision among participating programmes only, not graduate success, and close ranks may be unstable.

Weighting

Each stage contributes 20 of the 100 points. Equal weighting is a methodological choice, not evidence that every stage contributes equally to graduate outcomes. Any future change to the weighting will be announced in advance. Scores produced under earlier versions are never silently revised.

Comparison safeguards

• Each programme is compared with all participating programmes that have an eligible result.
• Ranks are not displayed until at least ten programmes have eligible results.
• The number of programmes in the comparison is reported with every result.
• Institutions are confidential by default. Only those that choose reciprocal named participation can see each other's names and ranks.

Supplier neutrality

Provision is assessed on its quality and accessibility, regardless of who delivers it. Comparable support receives equal credit whether it is provided internally or through external specialists. The benchmark does not favour GROW or any other provider.

Interpretation

The score describes reported practices for a defined programme at a defined point in time. It is not an independently checked measure of educational quality, a higher score does not show better graduate business outcomes, and the study cannot establish cause and effect or speak for training providers that did not take part. Stage 5 asks whether institutions collect and use information about their graduates; the benchmark does not itself collect or compare graduate outcomes. It does not directly measure graduate success, and it is not an accreditation, certification, professional endorsement or demonstration of educational causality.