Review of Database Fees and User Fees Determining Economic Principles and New Fee Structure for the National Coaching Certification Program

Transcription

1 Review of Database Fees and User Fees Determining Economic Principles and New Fee Structure for the National Coaching Certification Program October 2008

2 Executive Summary... 2 Introduction... 4 Background... 4 Outcome... 5 Objectives, Process and Timelines... 5 A Chronological History of Database and User Fees... 6 Today s Context of Economic Principles... 8 Rationale for Reinvestment in NCCP Further Considerations Overview of Options Option 1: Separate Fees for Data Base and Reinvestment Option 2: Proportioned Fee Option 3: Context/Gradation Registration Fee Option 4: NCCP Program Fee APPENDIX 1: Cost Simulations for Option APPENDIX 2: Simulations for Option 2: 35% P/T and 65% NSO Split Page 1 of 29

3 Review of Database Fees and User Fees Determining Economic Principles and New Fee Structure for the National Coaching Certification Program Executive Summary In August 2005, the Government of Canada, the Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation, and the Coaching Association of Canada (CAC) endorsed an agreement setting out the mandate and governance structure for the development of coaching in Canada. The mandate agreement is due for review in August In 2005, the mandate agreement set the expectation that CAC would participate with federal and provincial/territorial governments to develop the economic principles that underpin the need to support the development, delivery and, promotion of the NCCP, while also taking into account the financial responsibilities of end users. CAC, in partnership with the Provincial/Territorial governments and NSOs, is coordinating a process prompted by upcoming review of the mandate agreement as well as the imminent deployment of the new NCCP Database and need to address the implications of the New NCCP. The review process which began in May 2008 and will finish early in 2009 will recommend endorsement, as part of the mandate agreement review of economic principles that support the development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP, and a fee structure consistent with those principles. In order to accomplish this goal, the review has been divided into six phases. Context Development First Consultation Option Development Second Consultation Recommendation Development Decision Process Document the chronological evolution of database fees and user fees Meet with selected representatives of NCCP Partners to identify the interests, needs, and principles Create fee structure options based on the First Consultation Develop document to be used in consultation with NCCP Partners Presentation/feedback sessions with NCCP Partners Fully develop the recommendation Provide opportunity for final feedback Guide the recommended economic principles through the FPT approval stages Implementation of recommended fee structure Oct 07 May 08 May Jun 08 Jul Sept 08 Oct Nov 08 Nov-Dec 08 Dec 08 Aug 09 April 1, 2010 Page 2 of 29

4 The first phase of consultation identified some shared interests among NCCP partners: A centralized database is essential to the integrity of the NCCP as a national program. Financing the actual operating costs and future capacity/improvement of the NCCP DB through fees. Every event in all streams/contexts and should be subject to database charges. NCCP fee structure should not be a disincentive to register coaches. It also identified important issues that need to be considered: A population of unregistered coaches in the Community Sport stream although presently it is a problem only in small pockets of a few sports. Significant differences in the volume of data entries among NCCP Partners. Fees cannot become a disincentive to coaches. Certification and NCCP status is of differing value among the contexts. The current fee structure is complicated. Four options for a new fee structure have been developed and are presented in this document. Each is based on a different business model and uses different approaches to address the interests and issues. Option 1: P/T Delivery Agencies and NSOs pay two fees (DB Fee, Reinvestment Fee), both on a per event basis. Option 2: P/T Delivery Agencies and NSOs pay a single annual fee based on their delivery volume in the preceding year as a proportion of the annual volume in their Partner Category (either P/T or NSO). The share to be paid by the Partner Category is based on the relative proportion of total annual delivery volume. The amount to be paid is equal to their calculated proportion of the annual amount that enables administration of the NCCP Database and Reinvestment in ongoing development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP. Option 3: A context/gradation specific fee is assessed when a coach registers in the first event in a context. The fee is valid for the estimated period that it takes to complete the context and the allowable period for maintaining certification. A record maintenance fee is assessed to the coach at the end of period to maintain their database records. Option 4: All NCCP Partners P/T Delivery Agencies, NSOs and P/TSOs pay an annual program fee. Each of these options is explained in more detail in the full-length document including how the fee is set, how it s applied and the way in which the fee addresses the key interests and issues identified in the first phase of consultation. It is essential that the merits and possibilities of the options be considered thoughtfully by all NCCP Partners. A series of consultations are scheduled over the next six weeks that will blend presentation and discussion to both ensure the issues, options, and implications are understood, and to afford sufficient time for discussion and feedback. Page 3 of 29

5 Review of Database Fees and User Fees: Determining Economic Principles and New Fee Structure for the National Coaching Certification Program A. INTRODUCTION CAC, in partnership with the Provincial/Territorial governments and NSOs, is coordinating a process to review database and user fees. The review began in May, 2008 and will finish early in The process was prompted by upcoming review of the mandate agreement that sets out the mandate and governance structure of CAC, as well as the imminent deployment of the new NCCP Database and need to address the implications of the New NCCP. The goals of the review are to: Recommend the economic principles that will be endorsed as part of the mandate agreement review. Develop a fee structure consistent with the economic principles that will support the development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP. B. BACKGROUND In August 2005, the Government of Canada, the Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation, and the Coaching Association of Canada (CAC) endorsed an agreement setting out the mandate and governance structure for the development of coaching in Canada. The Regina Resolution, as this agreement is known, contained the Ministers two expectations for mandate of CAC: CAC s mandate is to lead coaching and sport leader training, delivery and promotion in association with other stakeholders, through a leading edge national coach and sport leader development program that provides for coaching within a broad context of sport leadership based on the needs of sport participants from playground to podium. CAC will participate with federal and provincial/territorial governments in the development of economic principles (based on the principles outlined in Appendix 3 of the Mandate Agreement) that address the need to support the development, delivery, and promotion of the national coach and sport leader development program, while also taking into account the financial responsibilities of end users. The aim of the six economic principles identified in the Regina Resolution is to balance accessibility and sustainability. The NCCP must be offered at a reasonable cost to make it accessible to coaches and ensure sufficient reinvestment in the capacity of the partner organizations for development and delivery. One of six principles asks that CAC recommend to deputy ministers a national administration/delivery fee that is reinvested by CAC in coach program delivery and program administration. The agreement, in fact, suggests that such a fee combine fees necessary for administration of the national database and reinvestment in the program. Despite a concerted effort, it proved impossible to arrive at a formula in Page 4 of 29

6 With the mandate agreement due to be reviewed in August 2009 at the Ministers meeting, it is essential to articulate the economic principles that will support the development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP and result in a fee structure that will support the development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP in its current context. In this same time period, CAC will launch a new NCCP Database that has been designed to: Overcome the limitations of the current platform Ensure database stability and reliability Introduce new technology that addresses NCCP Partners needs Increase quality of coaches record data Enhance capacity to communicate with the coaches The deployment of the new Database and implementation of the New NCCP makes it imperative to develop a business model that is relevant for the context created by these developments. At present, database fees and user fees are closely linked and, in light of the need to determine the economic principles underlying the notion of user fees, it seemed reasonable to take a comprehensive approach to this question. C. OUTCOME The outcome of the review process will be a new fee structure that both supports database administration and ensures reinvestment in the development, delivery and promotion of the NCCP. The new fee structure will be introduced at the start of D. OBJECTIVES, PROCESS AND TIMELINES There are several objectives to be met before it is possible to articulate the economic principles and the new fee structure associated with them. Determine a business model that is logical for the New NCCP, the new Database and the current development and delivery environment. Keep the process in line with the timeline required by the Mandate Agreement Review Process with Federal-Provincial/Territorial Governments. Ensure NCCP Partners (NSOs and F-P/T Governments) have opportunities to influence formulation of the options and to provide informed feedback. The review process has six phases that take place over a period of just under two years. Context Development Document the chronological evolution of database fees and user fees Oct 07 May 08 First Consultation Option Development Meet with selected representatives of NCCP Partners to identify the interests, needs, and principles that need to be reflected in options that are developed for fee structure Create fee structure options that meet the interests, needs, and principles identified in the First Consultation Develop document to be use as the basis of consultation with NCCP Partners May Jun 08 Jul Sept 08 Page 5 of 29

7 Second Consultation Recommendation Development Decision Process Presentation/feedback sessions with NCCP Partners to identify preferred option and suggest improvements Fully develop the recommendation of economic principles and NCCP fee structure Provide opportunity for final feedback by NCCP Partners Guide the recommended economic principles through the FPT approval stages Implementation of recommended fee structure Oct Nov 08 Nov-Dec 08 Dec 08 Aug 09 April1, 2010 E. A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF DATABASE AND USER FEES 1. Database Fees The NCCP Database (NCCP DB) was established in 1979 after CAC and the NCCP Partners agreed that CAC would assume the mandate to develop a national database that would respond to the growth of the program and the need to recognize credentials gained through NCCP. The NCCP DB was upgraded in 1999 at which time a web-based application was developed. CAC audited the NCCP DB in 2006 to address the challenges of database stability and reliability and recognized at the same time the emergence of new technology and demand for greater internet access to the database by coaches and NCCP Partners. The need for a new NCCP DB was clear. CAC subsequently conducted a comprehensive need analysis with the NCCP Partners, leading to the development of a new NCCP DB launched in October While the database fees that were charged when the NCCP DB was introduced in 1979 are unknown; subsequent records show that fees changed infrequently and only when there was a clear imbalance between fees and the operational cost of service delivery. As the implementation of the New NCCP began, CAC identified the need to review the fee structure. However, the Provincial/Territorial governments were reluctant to change the fee structure in advance of the release of the Coaching Implementation Group report, with its likely implications for CAC governance and mandate, and the availability of the business plan for the implementation of the New NCCP. Database fees were to remain unchanged until the 2005 Ministers conference at which time it was hoped that a more permanent solution would be possible. The following table shows the history of NCCP DB fees. Old NCCP Technical (NSO) Practical Theory (P/T) Unknown Unknown Unknown $ 1.60 $0.00 $ $ 2.00 $0.00 $ 2.00 New NCCP (NSO & P/T) $ 2.00 Page 6 of 29

8 2. User Fees From 1979 to 2003, CAC produced the NCCP Theory Manuals which, in turn, it sold to Provincial/Territorial Partners. The four-year average, from , of annual revenues generated through sales of Levels 1, 2 and 3 manuals was $240,000 annually. Year Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total $ 173,406 $ 53,405 $ 18,071 $ 255, $ 179,222 $ 78,802 $ 19,674 $ 277, $ 139,339 $ 56,697 $ 21,616 $ 217, $ 128,402 $ 59,058 $ 21,247 $ 208,707 Average $ 155,092 $ 61,990 $ 20,152 $ 239,985 $ 217,082 With the implementation of the New NCCP, the Provincial/Territorial Governments had decided to assume responsibility for producing the new Multi-sport materials. At the same time that CAC proposed a review of database fees, it also proposed the introduction of a per coach fee for use of the material to replace the revenue that CAC had realized through sale of the manuals. The ISRC s response to these proposals was framed within its desire to wait for the release of the Coaching Implementation Group s report and the production of the business plan for Implementation of the New NCCP, both of which were anticipated to be complete by the subsequent Ministers meeting. In the same way that it was reluctant to move forward with a review of NCCP DB fees before these were complete, the ISRC decided it was not in a position to establish a definitive per coach fee for use of the material. In late 2003, the Provincial/Territorial Partners consented to pay a temporary voluntary financial contribution to the general administration of the NCCP beginning on April 1, A more permanent solution was envisioned once the Ministers conference was held. a) Multi-sport Delivery (P/T Governments - P/Ts) The financial contribution was set at $1.50 for each module taken by a coach in Competition Introduction Part A and Part B. This new fee was viewed as a user-pay mechanism, introducing to the NCCP lexicon, the now familiar term, user fees. The user fee approximated the amount that had been previously paid. For example, the three modules of Part A and Part B results in a fee of $9.00 per coach, similar to the $8.00 that would have been the margin generated on the sale of the Level 1 and Level 2 manuals. b) Sport-specific Delivery (National Sport Organizations NSOs) In the New NCCP, NSOs may choose to integrate the CAC Context Specific Multi-sport material. CAC negotiated an agreement with NSOs so that they were also charged on a per coach basis for use of the CAC material with the amount depending upon the Context. Community Sport $ 2.00 Competition Introduction Part A $ 2.00 Competition Introduction Part B $ 2.00 Competition Introduction Parts A & B $ 3.00 Instruction Beginners $ 3.00 Page 7 of 29

9 c) Financial implications Over the past three years, the new user fee structure has generated average annual revenue of just over $112,000. This is $104,000 less than the average annual revenue generated through the sale of Level 1 and Level 2 manuals. Year P/T Government User fees revenue NSO $ 62,088 $ 7, $ 82,292 $ 44, $ 76,487 $ 64,652 Average $ 73,622 $ 38,745 Total Average $ The hoped-for permanent solution for user fees proved to be elusive and the first mandate agreement came into effect in August 2005 without resolution on this matter. CAC was given the mandate to develop, with the participation of the Federal Provincial/Territorial Governments, the economic principles that would address the need to support the development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP, while also taking into account the financial responsibilities of end users. F. TODAY S CONTEXT OF ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES There are several factors that characterize the context within which the fee structure (NCCP DB and user fees ) is being considered. Taken together the following factors are reshaping how the NCCP is developed and delivered; they represent a context which is considerably different than the one in which the existing fee structure was developed. 1. The New NCCP has introduced additional elements that require development, delivery, and registration. In addition to a workshop component, a Context may require evaluation; there may be multiple training events or evaluations required to achieve Certified status. Maintenance of certification requires the completion of professional development activity and an active coaching status. All of these elements need to be captured in the NCCP DB. 2. The division of responsibility for delivery of the NCCP is no longer mutually exclusive. With the eventual disappearance of the Theory, Technical, and Practical components of the Old NCCP, and with Context Specific material able to be offered in a Multi-sport or Integrated form, the historical division of responsibilities for NCCP delivery between P/T Governments and NSOs is no longer in effect. The past three years are witness to a changing pattern of database and user fees paid by each partner category as a result of the shifting delivery volume through the P/T and NSO Partners. Year P/T Partner NSO Partner $ 135,907 $ 159, $ 128,361 $ 187, $ 108,971 $ 200,292 Page 8 of 29

10 $250,000 P/T Partner NSO Partner $200,000 $159,532 $187,356 $200,292 $150,000 $135,907 $128,361 $108,971 $100,000 $50,000 $ Technology is expanding data management options. While the NCCP still uses paper forms, today s technology can reduce the number of steps in data entry, improve data quality, and make access to data records more immediate. Direct entry and data transfer are real options in today s context. 4. The viability and demand for e-learning is growing. While the New NCCP continues to emphasize the value of the facilitated interactive learning environment, there are increasingly powerful web-based and interactive technologies that can be used to enhance or supplement learning, or make learning more accessible in remote and isolated situations or for those demanding flexible scheduling. Those who have grown up with computers in the classroom are looking for learning options that require less time away from home or the ability to learn on their own schedule. Development of online learning alternatives for context specific material and professional development need to be considered in the approach to database and reinvestment fees. 5. Professional Development is a requirement in NCCP. Coaches need Professional Development to retain their certified status. As a result, new education opportunities are being specifically developed; there is also a need to recognize existing courses and activities. Professional Development is a new element of the NCCP and needs to be considered outside of how the fees for the core NCCP are assigned. The data/base and reinvestment fees treatment for professional development will be determined along with the finalization of the Policy on Professional Development. 6. The Provincial/Territorial role in delivery is changing. There are a number of changes emerging with the implementation of the New NCCP that are affecting the role of the P/T delivery agencies. a) An increasing demand from the P/T delivery agencies by P/TSOs for support of the significant task of Learning Facilitator and Evaluator training. b) Online education makes direct registration and access to training possible for a coach. All of Multi-sport modules, sport-specific online pre-training or blended training and online Professional Development activities have the potential to impact traditional roles. Page 9 of 29

11 c) With the implementation of additional contexts, there will be a growing demand for professional development activities. d) Demand for real-time communication and information transfer is increasing. G. PRINCIPLES RELATED TO THE DATABASE FEE STRUCTURE The First Consultation phase led to the identification and validation of a series of principles that were used to formulate the Options that are presented in this document. 1. A centralized database is essential to the integrity of the NCCP as a national program. The records of all coaches who participate in NCCP in all streams/ contexts should be entered on the NCCP DB. Accurate, comprehensive data about coaches participating in NCCP is a fundamental demonstration of program accountability to the primary investors in the NCCP: the Federal Provincial /Territorial Governments. As a consequence: a. Substitute databases that maintain off line records of coaches who complete NCCP events are not acceptable. b. Duplicate databases, largely maintained by NSOs, are acceptable. Duplication will likely increase as data transfer protocols enable data transfer to CAC of coaches records that have been entered directly onto an NSO or P/T database. 2. The operating costs of the NCCP DB need to be financed through fees. Operating costs are defined as the expense of: a. Hosting and monitoring the database, maintaining hardware, supplies b. Management of NCCP DB services c. Basic service provision: entry of coach data, printing and mailing initial card, production of standard reports d. Capacity upgrades e. Reserve for continuing investment in database development 3. NCCP DB fees should be based on actual costs. a. Incremental increases/decreases due to changes in the actual cost structure including where an NCCP partner takes responsibility for data entry should be reflected in fees. 4. Every event in all streams/contexts should be subject to database charges. 5. NCCP fee structure should not be a disincentive to register coaches. 6. Basic services include: a. Data entry and quality control b. Printing and mailing of initial coaching card c. Access to NCCP transcript d. Standard database reports 7. Enhanced services are customized reports that require manipulation of data by CAC are provided on a fee for service basis. Page 10 of 29

12 H. RATIONALE FOR REINVESTMENT IN NCCP The economic principles in the Mandate Agreement restate the roles of the Federal Government to subsidize development, and the Provincial/Territorial Governments to subsidize delivery. When the Mandate Agreement is reviewed in 2009, the principles need to express how the end users responsibility to support the development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP are reflected in the fee structure. This was the mandate assigned to CAC in the 2005 Agreement. The responsibility of the end users can be viewed as one of reinvestment in the continuing development and improvement of the NCCP, as the means to reinforce the value of their trained or certified status. The credibility of a coach s NCCP status derives from the high quality and national standards of the NCCP. Credibility of NCCP status increases when it translates into access to coaching positions, qualification for employment, and achieving the prerequisite for select coaching opportunities. Quality and standards are also imperatives for the P/Ts, NSOs, and P/TSOs, as delivery agencies. Their capacity to attract coaches to the program depends on the reputation that the NCCP has with coaches for relevant, recognized education. It also reinforces the commitment within sport to the Program and a growing willingness to require NCCP as a prerequisite in different coaching roles. The realization of high quality curriculum and national standards depend upon the Program being relevant to current coaching demands, based on up-to-date knowledge and delivered in a sound learning environment. Within the context of the New NCCP this translates to the need for: A continuous curriculum improvement cycle Ongoing development of learning facilitators and evaluators Maintenance of quality control in all aspects of delivery Continuing improvement and innovation in learning methods and technology, and assessment and evaluation Creation of innovative professional development /coaching education opportunities Evaluation of the program s impact Research on training and training techniques Capacity to deliver the Program in both Official Languages Reinvestment ensures continuation of the benefits that accrue through the NCCP partnership. The strong partnership which makes it more cost-effective to produce programs than if they were developed individually, as well as enabling the collective Canadian coaching education expertise to be accessible to all sports. The dominant position of the NCCP in coaching education reduces costs that might otherwise be incurred by sport or P/T Partners in competing with other programs. Beyond quality and standards, reinvesting in NCCP also translates into the need for the marketing and communication that promotes NCCP to coaches, sport organizations, the sport and recreation community and the Canadian public which strengthens the NCCP brand and further increases the commitment to national standards and high quality in coaching education. There are different conceptual models for a fee structure which can address the question of reinvestment and also respond to the principles and various considerations that have been raised in the first consultation. Moving forward, replacing the term user fees with reinvestment fee better communicates the intent behind the fee. Page 11 of 29

13 There is no standard approach to registration fees for modules, even within the P/T delivery system for the same modules. NSOs and their member P/TSOs determine fee structures that vary across and within provinces and territories, even for the same context. Coaches are generally not aware of the fees that are triggered by their participation. It is the organizers of NCCP events that need to understand the value of national standards and high quality and how the reinvestment fee and NCCP DB fee protect the integrity of the coaching education they offer. I. Further Considerations The First Consultation raised five issues that need to be considered in developing a new fee structure. Each is discussed below. 1. There is a problem of unregistered coaches in the Community Sport stream although presently it is a problem only in small pockets of a few sports. However, it is important that the fee structure not increase the incentive to organize NCCP events off line. Community Sport and its potential to reach large numbers of grass roots coaches was an important part of the rationale for investing in the development of the New NCCP; there is a need to be accountable for its impact which can only be understood if all of the Community Sport participation is recorded. 2. There are significant differences in the volume of data entries among NCCP Partners. One means of responding to the issue is through a volume discount, even though the cost of administration is a fixed cost that does not decrease with increased entries. There is a connection between volume and Community Sport, as the highest volume in most sports is, and will continue to be, in this stream. 3. It is important that fees do not become a disincentive to registering coaches in the NCCP DB. There is a time lag between a workshop and the payment of NCCP DB and user fees. Coaches do not pay the fees directly. Coaches may not easily appreciate the value of being entered on the NCCP DB in contexts where there is no certification. All of these facts make it tempting for Community organizations already reluctant to pay database fees to allocate collected fees to other activities. NCCP DB charges are most frequently paid by the P/TSO, the NSO, or the P/T delivery agency; sometimes they are billed back to the community or provincial organizing group. P/T partners commonly incorporate the charges of NCCP fees into their budgets as part of their subsidization of NCCP delivery. Increased charges would divert budget away from support of other areas of NCCP delivery. 4. Certification and NCCP status is of differing value among the contexts. Logic suggests that program development is higher on a per coach basis for the smaller number of coaches in Competition Development or Competition High Performance. Both of these factors suggest that it may be worthwhile to consider how to differentiate fees among the contexts. 5. The current fee structure is complicated. The budget for DB and user fees must be based on a projected volume of NCCP participation that may be subject to wide variation. Simplifying the fee structure and knowing the annual cost in advance is appealing to many organizations; not only because it improves budgeting accuracy but also because it enables the ability to plan how to develop the revenue side of the equation. Page 12 of 29

14 J. OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS The approach to the development of fee structure options was to move beyond simply tinkering with the current numbers. In fact, the incremental approach would not address the need for a new business model that recognizes how the New NCCP impacts on both the NCCP DB and NCCP development and delivery. It also perpetuates an out of date logic in fee structure and does not address any of the issues that have been surfaced in the First Consultation. Consequently, the options present a comprehensive approach based on three different business models. Each option is described in detail and presents how it responds to the various considerations. Page 13 of 29

15 OPTION 1: SEPARATE FEES FOR DATA BASE AND REINVESTMENT Description: P/T Delivery Agencies and NSOs pay two fees (DB Fee, Reinvestment Fee), both on a per event basis. Rationale: Option 1 is based on a business model that continues to conceptualize a fee structure based on fees as expenses, where fees vary directly with the volume of delivery and the primary interest being minimization of cost: Partners that deliver to a higher number of coaches bear more of the cost, on the assumption that higher use should translate to bearing a larger share of the expense. Option 1 continues the status quo method of assessing two fees per NCCP event and charging after the fact. The cost structure of the database fee has been changed to fit with the actual cost of the new database and to provide for upgrades and redevelopment. A. HOW THE DATABASE (DB) FEE IS SET The basic DB fee is calculated using the formula: Annual Database costs divided by the volume of entries 1. Determining Annual Database costs Calculated on a rolling 3 year average For year 1 of the new DB fee: The fiscal years of , and would be used to calculate average cost. The DB fee would be announced November 1, 2009 and be effective in the fiscal year Database costs include the following: Database services: direct costs of data entry Operating expenses: hardware maintenance, supplies, printing and mailing of coaching cards Hosting Database management: salary of database administrator Capacity upgrades: based on industry standard Reserve for continuing investment in database development based on industry standard 2. Divided by the volume of entries a) An entry is a training or evaluation event b) Database fees change annually. The fee for the fiscal year is announced in previous November. c) Database fees reflect incremental increases/decreases in cost or volume. d) Operational expenses, and subsequently, database fees could be reduced if a card is printed only upon initial issue of CC#. When their status changes, a coach would retrieve their transcript from the CAC website and print it themselves. Page 14 of 29

16 B. DIFFERENTIATION IN FEES Fees are differentiated across contexts. The database fee for a Community Sport context event is the lowest of all contexts in order to increase the incentive for registration of all community sport coaches. Instruction Beginners and Competition Introduction are lower than the Competition Development, Instruction Advanced Performers, and Competition High Performance. The fee for registering a Learning Facilitator, Master Learning Facilitator, Evaluator or Master Evaluator in any context is lower than the DB fee for a training/evaluation event. DB fees are reduced by approximately 25% when an NCCP Partner enters the data directly and electronically transfers the data to CAC, or when a coach registers directly for an e-learning module. (25% is an approximate percentage that may be adjusted if direct entry results in increased costs for additional quality control.) C. APPLYING THE FEE Every event (training, evaluation,) in every context is subject to a database fee. All Learning Facilitators, Master Learning Facilitators, Evaluators and Master Evaluators are subject to a database fee. Enhanced services would be charged on a fee for service basis. D. SETTING THE NCCP REINVESTMENT FEE The basic Reinvestment fee is calculated using the following formula: Reinvestment Requirement divided by the annual volume of coach events. The Reinvestment fee is differentiated across contexts in the same manner as DB fees except there would be no difference in fees charged to NCCP Partners who entered data directly and those that did not. E. PAYMENT OF DATABASE AND REINVESTMENT FEES On a quarterly basis, CAC invoices the NCCP Partner for DB fees and reinvestment fees based on registration in the quarter: Coaches who register in modules organized by the Partner. Learning Facilitators, Master Learning Facilitators, Evaluators, Master Learning Facilitators who are registered for a context Invoices would identify the two fees separately. F. HOW OPTION 1 ADDRESSES FEE STRUCTURE ISSUES 1. Reducing the incidence of missing coach records in the NCCP DB and DB fee volume discount Option 1 sets the fees for Community Sport at 1/2 of the level of Competition Introduction/Instruction Beginners. The highest volume of coaches is found in the Community Sport stream. The low fee for the largest volume functions as a volume discount. If an NCCP Partner establishes direct data entry and transfer of the data to the NCCP DB, the volume discount could be enhanced by approximately 25%. Page 15 of 29

17 The differentiated fee for Community Sport may reduce reluctance among community level organizations that organize training to forward registration records and associated fees. This reluctance may not be entirely eliminated because fees, even though at a low level, continue to be submitted after the fact. 2. Disincentive to register The low fee for Community Sport is intended to ensure there is no disincentive to the coach to register. Whoever organizes the course will build into registration the cost of DB and reinvestment fees. It is unlikely the coach is aware of what costs their registration is intended to cover. Where the provincial/territorial government is the delivery agency, it subsidizes these costs, likely without the coach being any the wiser. The fees in the other contexts are unlikely to be significant enough to discourage registration by coaches who wish to achieve Trained or Certified status. 3. The differing value of NCCP to coaches Option 1 differentiates fees among the contexts on the assumption that the value of NCCP status to the coach in Competition Development and Competition High Performance is greater than in the Competition Introduction/Instruction Beginners and, in turn, is greater than in the Community Sport stream. 4. Complexity of fee structure Option 1 does not simplify the fee structure or improve the ability to budget. It maintains the practice of invoicing after the activity takes place. One possible way to simplify the presentation of the fee structure is to use a blended fee per entry that adds the DB fee and the Reinvestment Fee. A simulation of the fee calculation is in Appendix 1. Page 16 of 29

18 OPTION 2: PROPORTIONED FEE Description: P/T Delivery Agencies and NSOs pay a single annual fee based on their delivery volume in the preceding year as a proportion of the annual volume in their Partner Category (either P/T or NSO). The share to be paid by the Partner Category would be based on the relative proportion of coach activity captured in the NCCP Database in the previous year. The amount to be paid is equal to their calculated proportion of an annual amount that enables administration of the NCCP Database and Reinvestment in the ongoing development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP. Rationale: Option 2 is also based on a business model with a fee structure where fees are an expense that varies directly with the volume of delivery. Partners that deliver NCCP to a higher number of coaches bear more of the cost, where higher use translates to bearing a larger share of the expense. The cost structure of the proportioned fee encompasses the actual cost of the new database and provides for upgrades and redevelopment, as well as the same reinvestment amount used in Option 1. A. HOW THE FEE IS SET 1. The annual fee revenue necessary to cover the NCCP Database and Reinvestment in ongoing development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP would be established as part of the CAC annual budget. The amount would reflect any decreases/increases in actual costs. 2. The share to be paid by each Partner Category is calculated based on the share of delivery volume. Using the table on the bottom of page 8 which shows relative share of delivery volume, the P/T Category Share would be 35%, the NSO Partner Category Share would be 65%. 3. The percentage of the P/T Category Share to be paid by each P/T would be calculated by determining each P/T s percentage of the total P/T delivery volume. Example: Step 1: Use the annual fee revenue as the amount shown in Appendix 1 on page 26 that shows $472,500 as the amount that would reflect the amount needed to cover the NCCP Database and Reinvestment. For the purpose of this example, we will round the amount up to $475,000. Step 2: Use the table on the bottom of page 8 which shows the relative share of delivery volume in The P/T Category Share would be 35%, the NSO Partner Category Share would be 65%. The P/T Category Share would be $166,250; the NSO Partner Share would be $308,750. Each province/territory pays a proportion of the $166,250, equal to the percentage of delivery volume within the P/T Category. E.g., a province that accounts for 4% of the total P/T delivery volume would pay a Proportional Fee of $6, Similarly, an NSO that accounts for 4% of the NSO delivery volume would pay a Proportional Fee of $12,350. A simulation of the fee calculation is in Appendix 2. Page 17 of 29

19 B. DIFFERENTIATING THE FEE Delivery volume does not differentiate the contexts. This could be possible by introducing a weighting to the different contexts, e.g., a Community Sport event could be worth 1/2 of a Competition Introduction event. The simulation of the Proportional Fee does not show any reduction for direct data entry. This is also a possible modification although it would likely be less than the 25% used in Option 1. C. APPLYING THE FEE All events by every coaches in every context would be used in the calculation of the annual delivery volume. All training and evaluation events of Learning Facilitators and Evaluators would be used in the calculation of the annual delivery volume. D. HOW OPTION 2 ADDRESSES THE FEE STRUCTURE ISSUES 1. Reducing the incidence of missing coach records in the NCCP DB Because the Proportional Fee is known at the beginning of each year, the NSO and P/T can decide how to generate the revenue to cover the Proportional Fee. Depending on what an NSO decides, Option 2 could increase or decrease reluctance among community level organizations to forward registration records. If submission of records triggers the assessment of a fee, the disincentive to register all coaches remains. However, if an NSO decides not to assess any charges for Community Sport the disincentive to register all of the coaches in a community training event is eliminated. 2. Volume Unless the idea of differential weighting becomes part of this option, there is no volume discount. In fact, a greater delivery volume results in the assessment of a higher percentage of the Category Share. 3. Disincentive to register The degree of disincentive to register will depend upon how the P/T or NSO determines how to generate the revenues it requires to cover its Proportional Fee. 4. The differing value of NCCP to coaches Option 2 allows the NSO or P/T to differentiate charges for NCCP events among the contexts, using the premise that a higher fee could be charged in contexts where the value of NCCP status is higher. 5. Complexity of fee structure Option 2 improves the ability to budget by determining the Proportional Fee at the beginning of a fiscal year. The method of calculating the Proportional Fee uses recorded volume of NCCP activity in the previous year. The calculations may appear complicated at first because they use a different approach but with continuing implementation, this is a relatively straightforward method. Page 18 of 29

20 OPTION 3: CONTEXT/GRADATION REGISTRATION FEE Description: A context/gradation specific fee is assessed when a coach registers in the first event in a context. The fee is valid for the estimated period that it takes to complete the context and the allowable period for maintaining certification. A record maintenance fee is assessed to the coach at the end of period to maintain their database records. Rationale: Option 3 is based on a business model where the cost of sustaining the NCCP is distributed among the coaches who benefit from the quality of the program that is possible only because of the application of collective expertise and consistent quality of learning experiences. This option conceives of the fee structure as a registration fee paid at the beginning of a program, regardless of whether or not it is completed. Any coach who registers for a training event in any context can only do so because the entire curriculum for a context is in place. All coaches who enroll in a context become equally responsible for reinvesting in the development, maintenance, and administration of the NCCP. A. HOW THE FEE IS SET Rather than establishing an arbitrary fee, the fee for a context/gradation registration fee would initially be calculated by: Using the baseline DB and NCCP Reinvestment fee from Option 1 Multiplying that fee by the sum of The average number of events in a context plus the number of years in the minimum standard period for maintenance of qualifications And discounting the result by the approximate percent of coaches who do not complete the program. Subsequently, the fee in effect would be adjusted without reference to the baseline data. (Database Fee + Reinvestment Fee) for a Context x (Average number of events in a Context + Number of years in maintenance period) x 60% Discount E.g. Community Sport: (Database fee $ Reinvestment Fee $1.00) x 1 event (Training) = $2.00 (There is no discount because there is generally a single event in Community Sport.) E.g. Competition Introduction/Instruction Beginners (Database fees $ Reinvestment Fee $3.00) x (4 of 7 competencies + Evaluation) + (5 years of certification) = [$6 X (4+1+5)] = $60.00 discounted by 60% = $25.00 E.g. Competition Development (Database fees $ Reinvestment Fee $4.00) x (6 Multi-sport Modules + Sport-specific Training + Evaluation) + (5 years) = $ discounted by 60% = $50.00 When the maintenance period expires, the coach would be directly assessed a database record maintenance fee of $10-15 which would be valid for five years. Page 19 of 29

21 B. DIFFERENTIATION IN FEES Fees are differentiated across contexts. The Context Registration Fee for a Community Sport context event is the lowest of all contexts in order to increase the incentive for registration of all community sport coaches. The Context Registration Fee for Instruction Beginners and Competition Introduction are lower than the Competition Development, Instruction Advanced Performers, and Competition High Performance. The Context Registration Fee would be reduced by 15% when an NCCP Partner enters the data directly and electronically transfers the data to CAC, or when a coach s first event in a Context is an e-learning module. (15% is an approximate percentage that may be adjusted if direct entry results in increased costs for additional quality control.) C. APPLYING THE FEE All coaches in every context would be subject to a fee. The registration fee would be assessed in equal portion to the NSO and P/T delivery agency associated to the coach. All Learning Facilitators, Master Learning Facilitators, Evaluators and Master Evaluators would be subject to a fee however, the fee assessed would be equal to the DB record maintenance fee for the relevant context. Enhanced services would be charged on a fee for service basis. D. HOW OPTION 3 ADDRESSES FEE STRUCTURE ISSUES 1. Reducing the incidence of missing coach records in the NCCP DB and DB fee volume discount The largest number of coaches those in Community Sport would pay only a nominal Context Registration Fee. A similar discussion about the impact of a low fee on the registration of coaches by community organizations also applies in Option 3. As in Option 1, this is the largest volume of coaches and the lower fee functions as an automatic volume discount. 2. Disincentive to register The low fee is unlikely to be a disincentive to register in Community Sport. The fee for Competition Introduction/Instruction Beginners could be a disincentive because coaches are early in their commitment to coaching, particularly if the organizing community or provincial organization collects this fee directly from the coach. It is unlikely that the fee is a disincentive to coaches who have a longer-term commitment to coaching and want to achieve Trained or Certified status. 3. The differing value of NCCP to coaches Option 3 differentiates fees among the contexts on the assumption that the value of NCCP status to the coach in Competition Development and Competition High Performance is greater than in the Competition Introduction/Instruction Beginners and, in turn, is greater than in the Community Sport stream. The rationale for a higher fee at the Competition Development and Competition High Performance is that Page 20 of 29

22 developing and delivering this context involves more events and greater complexity in training and evaluation and the resulting greater costs are spread across a smaller population of coaches. 4. Complexity of fee structure The fee structure is less complex than Option 1 because there is a single fee that is assessed per coach. It is perhaps more complicated in that the activity level of coaches in a given year would not be readily evident as in Option 1. Fee assessment would display the number of coaches entering a context but not their activity in subsequent years. This information would however be available through the standard database report. Page 21 of 29

23 OPTION 4: NCCP PROGRAM FEE Description: All NCCP Partners P/T Delivery Agencies, NSOs and P/TSOs pay an annual program fee. Rationale: Option 4 is based on a business model that departs entirely from an expense-based fee structure. It is based instead on the premise that all partners benefit from the NCCP regardless of the size of the sport or the volume of delivery. The true value of the program is that all coaches in all sports in all provinces and territories have access to a standardized, high quality program as a result of leveraging the collective expertise of the sport community. Rather than the partners with the largest delivery volumes bearing the largest share of the development, delivery, and maintenance costs, it shares equally the responsibility for sustaining the program. A. HOW THE FEE IS SET The Program Fee would be set to ensure an ongoing capacity to develop, ensure quality control of content and delivery, and administration on the NCCP. B. DIFFERENTIATING THE FEE P/T Delivery Agencies and NSOs would pay an equal amount. P/TSOs would pay a fee that is 10% of the P/T and NSO fee. There would be a threshold level of 25 coaches. Any NSO, P/TSO or P/T Delivery Agency falling below that level would not be assessed a fee. Province/Territory (2 of 13 less than 25) 11 $ 3,900 $ 42,900 P/TSOs (average 10/NSO; estimate 25% less than 25 coaches) 475 $ 390 $ 185,250 NSOs (3 of 66 less than 25 coaches) 63 $ 3,900 $ 245,700 $ 473,850 1 C. APPLYING THE FEE The fee would be assessed annually and replace DB and Reinvestment fees..the program fee would entitle Partners to all standard database reports; services would be extended as appropriate to those organizations falling below the threshold. Enhanced services would be delivered on a per user fee basis. Although Option 4 incorporates an assessment of fees to P/TSOs, there is no reason why this fee could not be paid on behalf of the P/TSO by the P/T Delivery Agency or NSO. D. HOW OPTION 4 ADDRESSES FEE STRUCTURE ISSUES 1. Reducing the incidence of missing coach records in the NCCP DB There would be no disincentive to registering all coach records as there is no longer a fee assessed per coach registered. It may possibly be a disincentive in threshold sports to register coaches where passing the threshold would result in payment of the program fee. 1 This cost simulation was based on generating the same level of revenue as Option 1 and Option 2 so that there was a degree of comparability among the options. The $475,000 is the approximate amount that covers the cost of the NCCP Database and the reinvestment required for development, delivery, and promotion of the NCCP. Page 22 of 29