Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. 3.1 Estimated Expenditure on additional access and retention measures
3.2 Assessment of CCCU Access and Retention Record
Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. In its 2012-13 Access Agreement, the University made a significant commitment to bursary support for those in most financial need in addition to increased expenditure on access measures, establishing a number of new posts and structures. Data on our 2012-13 student intake showed that our targeted approach to student financial support successfully met our aim of giving assistance to those in most need. We were able to allocate 95% of our planned expenditure to those with a Household Residual Income (HRI) at or below £16,000 who also met one or more widening participation indicators. As stated in our 2013-14 Access Agreement we took the opportunity to review our household income eligibility thresholds in 2014-15 after completing a full academic cycle. We will retain our targeted approach to student support and maintain the HRI eligibility criterion at the higher level of £20,000. The following level of expenditure indicates the level of activity that is envisaged by 2018- 19: • £5,291,000 on financial support for students • £2,735,078 OFFA countable spend on access, student success and progression. A number of posts were established in 2012-13 including a Head of Widening Participation, Student Experience Officers in each faculty, Peer Mentoring Co-ordinator, Data Co-ordinator, Progression Officer and WP Outreach Officers, together with extensive outreach activity. In 2014 we will be appointing a new Director of Student Recruitment and Admissions to strengthen our management and coordination structures. Our HESA WP PFIs reveal that those in the lower SEGs (NS-SEC classes 4-7) are under- represented in our student population: 18.9% in 2010-11 compared with a benchmark of 23.2%, as are those from Polar 2 low participation neighbourhoods (4.9% compared with a benchmark of 7.1%). We are also aiming to increase the proportion of students from state schools from 73.6 to 80.0%. Therefore the immediate focus has been on these three target groups and the University has set stretching targets to contribute to an increase in the participation of these groups.
Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. Indicative expenditure is shown below highlighting the balance of access and student success activities, whilst at the same time enhancing bursary support to recognise the fact that a significant number of UCLan students enter from low income families. Feedback from students and from the Students’ Union is that such measures encourage low income families into higher education and improve progression rates. Access £485,550 Student Success £2,836,191 Progression £812,500 Financial support £4,748,079 Monitoring and evaluation £40,000 All of the expenditure noted is “countable” for the purposes of this Access Agreement. Financial support will be provided to students in cash and through payments to support learning. Additional funds will be allocated to enhance the hardship fund to be administered by the Xxxxxx Bursary Fund Panel. Through these additional funds we will be able to provide more targeted financial support to mature students, especially student parents and to students in need at appropriate points throughout the student lifecycle. Our approach to financial support is evolving based on discussions with the Students’ Union and on feedback from previous and current First Years as well as national research and feedback. The Students’ Union favours an approach which continues to provide a high level of support to the very poorest students, but allows for differing levels of support for other students presenting varying needs. Feedback from previous and current First Year students suggests that although the availability of financial support is not a key determinant in the decision to come to University, once here it is highly valued and may make a significant difference in some students’ ability to stay the course, thus impacting favourably on student success and progression. While recognising that national research does not point to bursaries having significant impact in widening participation, we feel that tailored investment, based on impartial and auditable criteria, will allow interventions by way of financial support to be used to maximise student retention and achievement.
Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. In line with the access guidelines we have reviewed our data, drawing on the HESA widening participation and student retention performance indicators and benchmarks which confirm that the University College has a high percentage of under-represented students accessing the institution significantly above the sector average, but a higher than benchmark non-continuation and non- completion rates. In line with OFFA guidance the University College expects to spend an amount equating to 18% of expenditure above the £6,000 fee level. The emphasis will be on targeted outreach and collaborative activity and on retention and completion activities; it is proposed that the balance of funding will be a one third / two thirds split between these two sets of activities. A number of fee waivers and financial bursary arrangements will be offered to students, and their success in influencing student behaviour will be closely monitored. The University College will also participate in the National Scholarship Scheme (see Section 4.4). Students accessing the institution before 2012/13 will continue to be supported through the current Access Agreement arrangements. The expenditure on access measures indicated in this agreement relate to provision for new entrants in 2012/13 and also to retention and support measures for continuing students. The total sum that the University College will spend on access measure is estimated to be c. £490,000; this relates to anticipated expenditure for students on all three years of undergraduate degrees in 2012/13. The trend data for the University College in relation to its performance indicators and benchmarks over the last five years is detailed in the following table.
a) Participation of under-represented Groups in HE: young and mature entrants 2004-2009 Young Full time First Degree - State Schools (Table 1a) Young Full Time First Degree - From Social Class IIIM, IV and V (Tables 1a) % % UCPM Benchmark UK UCPM Benchmark UK
b) Non-continuation following year of entry - all FT First Degree entrants 2003-2008 Young entrants not in HE following year of entry (Table 3a) Mature entrants not in HE following year of entry (Table 3a) % % UCPM Benchmark UK UCPM Benchmark UK Mature non continuation with no previous HE (Table 3c) Projected outcomes - neither award nor transfer (Table 5) % % UCPM Benchmark UK UCPM Benchmark UK
Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. 4.1 The University recruits a diverse undergraduate population. While the majority of our UK undergraduate students have homes outside the East Midlands, around 40% of each cohort comes from the region, a region with improving, but still low, HE participation rates. Half of these students are from Nottinghamshire, the county with the lowest regional HE progression rate.
4.2 NTU‟s full-time undergraduate population is consistently well ahead of English national averages in the proportions of young students recruited from state sector schools, from lower socio-economic groups (NS-SEC 4-7) and from low participation neighbourhoods (POLAR 2), and exceeds or meets HESA benchmarks (Appendix 1: table 1). Mature student entrants to full-time first degree programmes routinely include a high proportion with no previous HE experience and from low participation neighbourhoods, when compared with national averages and NTU benchmarks (Appendix 1: table 2). While our undergraduate ethnicity profile closely mirrors the national means, the proportion of NTU students drawing DSA is the only nationally benchmarked indicator on which we do not reach benchmark. This is to be targeted for improvement.
4.3 HESA „non-continuation‟ data continue to reflect the University‟s good continuation rates for full-time first degree entrants, with performance well ahead of benchmark in most recent years. (Appendix 1: Table 3) Analysis by sub-groups broadly reflects this, although with more variation. Internal data provide for more fine-grained analyses of progression and academic achievement, by subject, programme and demographic factors, and support the development and trails of additional targeted strategies to further improve continuation and achievement.
4.4 Overall, in relation to the major HESA Performance Indicators for participation by under-represented groups and for „non-continuation‟, the University performs at levels high within the third quartiles of all HEIs and well ahead of national averages.
4.5 Informed by this data, comparative information and by OFFA guidance, the University proposes to commit 27% of additional fee income to „additional access and retention measures‟ in 2012/13. These include the continuation of plans already in progress under current Access Agreements as well as increased and additional measures from 2012/13.
Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. 4.1 The University has made significant progress against outreach measures over the last decade. For example the proportion of young state sector students securing a place at the University of 5 xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx/xxxxxxx‐group‐latest‐news/137‐2011/4808‐hesa‐performance‐indicators‐‐xxxxxxx‐group‐comment/ 6 xxx.xxx.xx.xx/xxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxxxxx/ 7 Also known as the “University Composition Fee” 8 xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx/xxxxx/0000/0/xxxxxxxx Cambridge has increased by 6.3 percentage points to 59.3%9 and the proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnicity students admitted reflects national demographics10. The University is currently engaged in an unprecedented level of additional outreach activity which reaches a diverse range of under‐represented groups across the UK.
4.2 The University has a strong commitment to widening participation. The University therefore intends to commit to spend at a higher level as suggested in guidance from OFFA (see 4.4 below).
4.3 To date, all expenditure from additional fee income on access measures by the University of Cambridge has been focussed on delivering financial support through bursary provision, at a current annual cost of £5.8 million, or 29.2% of fee income above the standard rate11. From 2012 a proportion of fee income will be specifically allocated additionally for the conduct of outreach activities.
4.4 It is estimated that under the new arrangements and by 2016‐17, the total expenditure by the University of Cambridge on access measures from additional fee income will approximately £9.8 million per annum, or c32.0% of fee income above the standard rate. amount to
4.5 Overall, the collegiate University will, even with the higher fee, still be meeting out of its own resources almost half the real annual cost of £17,000 of educating an undergraduate at Cambridge and thereby benefitting every UK and EU student at the University, regardless of background.
Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. 4.1 The relevant latest available HESA performance indicators show that UCL has a low number of students from under-represented backgrounds. The indicators show that UCL has 65.3% of its intake from state schools, 17.5% from lower social class, 3.8% from low participation neighbourhoods and 1.4% from families with no previous higher education and from low participation neighbourhoods.
4.2 In terms of applications from UK domiciled students, in 2009/10, 17.8% of known applicants were from SEC groups 4-8 and 5% from POLAR Group 1. Whilst the number of applications from under-represented groups is low, the numbers represent an increase on previous years.
4.3 Retention at UCL is very high with the latest HESA data indicating non-continuation following year of entry at 3.2% and projected outcomes at 89.8%.
4.4 UCL has made some positive steps towards improving access and its retention of students is excellent. However, it recognises that within its intake cohort there is a relatively low proportion of students from under-represented groups.
4.5 As such, UCL will seek to spend approximately 30% of its additional fee income on access commitments, including outreach activities, scholarships and bursaries. Once fully implemented, this will amount to approximately £8.2 million of OFFA countable funding being spent per year on access measures.
4.6 Under the previous Access Agreement, UCL committed to spend an additional £350,000 on outreach activities. In 2009/10, UCL spent approximately £370,000 of additional income in this area. However, the vast majority of additional income is spent on bursary provision. In 2009/10, this amounted to just over £5 million.
4.7 In addition to the current commitment, for 2012/13 UCL intends to spend an additional £830,000 on activities. So from 2012/13 UCL will commit to spend an estimated £1.2 million from additional fee income on outreach activities.
4.8 Over £100,000 of the new additional fee income will be spent on retention including £14,200 on new activities. Over £80,000 of non-additional fee income is currently spent on retention activities through the UCL Transition Programme and this will continue.
4.9 UCL will participate in the National Scholarship Programme and spend over £2 million on the first year intake in 2012. The vast majority of funding will go to students from families with a household income under £25,000. The proposal contained in this Agreement, when fully rolled out over the student life cycle of the 2012 in...
Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. BG has a high proportion of students from under-represented groups. In 2011/12, 71% of entrants were from backgrounds with household incomes of £42,600 or less, 52% from backgrounds with household incomes of £25,000 or less. HESA benchmarks have regularly been met or exceeded year on year in terms of numbers of disabled students, students from state schools, and students from low participation neighbourhoods, see the table below: Performance Indicators 2010-2011 Performance Indicators 2009-2010 Performance Indicators 2008-2009 Performance Indicators 2007-2008 State Schools (young entrants) 97.9 96.0 97.0 97.4 95.5 95.9 98.0 94.8 95.6 97.6 94.6 95.3 Lower Social Class (young entrants) 40.8 37.8 39.7 35.1 36.5 37.6 40.4 40.7 40.4 53.1 36.5 37.8 Lower Participation Neighbourhoods (young entrants) 16.8 13.2 15.2 18.4 13.0 16.0 20.2 13.1 16.4 15.5 12.3 15.1 Students in receipt of DSA (full-time first degree) 4.4* 5.5 - 6.1 5.2 - 6.7 5.0 - 7.7 4.5 - Mature students (full-time first degree) 8.9 8.1 10.1 6.3 5.4 6.1 7.6 8.6 8.6 15.4 9.2 10.7 *this statistic is subject to a data validation check – data resubmitted to HESA May 2012 Subject to the resubmission of the 2010/11 Students in receipt of DSA (full-time first degree) data, there have been only 3 instances where a sector benchmark has not been met or exceeded by BG since Access Agreements were introduced (Lower Social Class (young entrants) in 2009-10, and Mature students (full-time first degree) in 2008-09 and 2010-11. With an overall record of highly successful recruitment of students from under-represented groups already so firmly established, and in light of the guidance published by OFFA, the university college proposes to spend 15% of its additional fee income on widening participation measures to promote access and retention of students from under-represented groups.
Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. 2.1 Liverpool Hope University has an excellent record in widening participation and has consistently exceeded its benchmarks in all categories of the HESA Performance Indicators.
2.2 Liverpool Hope University has improved its retention rates significantly in recent years and exceeds its benchmarks in the HESA Performance Indicators
2.3 In assessing Liverpool Hope University’s record on access and retention, the following tables (derived from HESA PIs) demonstrate the University’s consistently high performance in widening participation and its significantly improved performance in retention. From state schools 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 Hope 98.6 98.3 97.7 98.1 Location adjusted benchmark 96.0 96.3 94.1 96.0 Significant difference Xxxxxx 1130 1035 1137 1165 From low participation neighbourhoods 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 Hope 17.9 19.6 18.6 20.6 Location adjusted benchmark 15.9 16.3 15.5 15.1 Significant difference + + + Xxxxxx 1130 1035 1137 1165 Age-adjusted NS-SEC Social Classes 4-7 (2008/09 was a different methodology) 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 Hope 36.9 45.8 40.1 41.4 Location adjusted benchmark 36.7 40.6 37.8 38.2 Significant difference + Xxxxxx 1130 1035 1137 1165 Participation of students in higher education who are in receipt of Disabled Students' Allowance (DSA) 2009/10 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 Hope 7.9% 8% 7.5% 6.7% Benchmark 5.8% 5.5% 5.3% 5.1% Significant difference Cohort 4220 4165 4087 4240 Percent no longer in HE 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 Hope 8.1 8.4 11.9 12.1 Benchmark 9.0 10.0 10.4 10.7 Significant difference Xxxxxx 0000 0000 0000 1625 Neither award nor transfer projected 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 Hope 11.1 8.6 14.7 25.6 Benchmark 14.6 14.9 17.2 18.1 Significant difference + + - Xxxxxx 1520 1615 1596 1690
2.4 Liverpool Hope University estimates that it will allocate 10% of its additional fee income over £6000 on additional access and retention measures.
2.5 The additional fee income allocated to access, retention and student success measures significantly underplays the overall contribution already made by Liverpool Hope University to access, retention and student success.
2.6 The University reported to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) that for the academic year 2009/10, its actual expenditure on widening participation commitments was £17,803,290 (34% of turnover). The University’s Widening Participation premium from HEFCE for 2011/12 is £2,177,207.
2.7 In addition, the University...
Expenditure on Additional Access and Retention Measures. 3.1 Assessment of Access Performance to Date HESA PI Absolute terms Against Benchmark
