HARDSHIP FUNDS PROJECT: ANALYSIS OF HARDSHIP FUNDS QUESTIONNAIRES & CASE STUDY FOLLOW UP
ISBN 0 7559 1068 0
This document is also available in pdf format (188k)
Purpose
1. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the completed 'Hardship Funds' questionnaires which the Funding for Learners Division sent to bursary/finance officers in every Higher Education Institution (HEI) and Further Education College (FEC) in Scotland in February 2004. This work was further enhanced by some case study follow up interviews in July/August 2004.
Background
2. The Scottish Executive has been progressing various commitments made in the Lifelong Learning Strategy, "Life through Learning; Learning through Life". One of these commitments was to take forward an internal review of funding for learners which has been done by the Funding for Learners Division. Although the review was only published last month - 22 September 2004 - an early useful action emerging from the work of the review was to look in detail at the issue of Hardship Funds - in both further and higher education - and to further enhance our evidence base in this regard.
3. In conjunction with the Scottish Further Education Funding Council and the Student Awards Agency for Scotland we decided to consider the structure, administration, and delivery of hardship funds, and their relationship to the current guidance; the effectiveness of their targeting; the simplification of their administration/structure; and improving their accessibility. These are: the (Undergraduate) Hardship Funds, Mature Students Bursary, and Hardship Loans in Higher Education; and the Young Students' Retention Fund, and the Hardship Fund in Further Education (not the Childcare Fund).
4. Hardship Funds provide discretionary non-repayable assistance for students in financial difficulties in order for them to access and/or continue in FE or HE and are paid in addition to any other forms of entitlement-based student support. Hardship Funds are allocated by Scottish Ministers (via SAAS and SFEFC) and are administered by HEIs and FECs. Guidance on the distribution of HE Hardship Funds and MSBF is issued annually by SAAS and the Executive. Guidance on the distribution of FE Hardship Funds (and previously YSRF) is done by SFEFC. Some institutions have their own hardship funds/trust funds which are held and administered separately from the centrally-allocated Hardship Funds which we are interested in here.
5. Questionnaires were sent to all bursary/finance officers in every HEI (21) and FEC (46) in Scotland. The level of response was encouraging with 59% of all FECs and 52% of all HEIs. This is important in order to obtain a sizeable response for the results to be representative and comprehensive.
6. The questionnaires sought to establish the current usage of Hardship Funds by student characteristics; when in the academic year the funds were being paid out; whether the needs of students were being met, the role of the institution in the process and importantly what the views of the bursary/finance officers were to improve and better meet genuine hardship needs.
7. It is useful to note that since the data in the questionnaires has been received Hardship Loans in Higher Education have been abolished (and the resources used to augment the Hardship Funds). The Young Students Retention Fund in Further Education (FE) has been combined with the FE Hardship Funds to form a single fund with a corresponding review of the eligibility criteria.
8. Hardship Funds for students in Further and Higher Education are intended to help eligible full and part-time students whose access to, or continuance in, Further and Higher Education may be inhibited by financial considerations. The Mature Students Bursary Fund provides non-repayable assistance for full-time Higher Education students with formal childcare costs as a top priority. Students have to meet various criteria to be eligible namely taking out their full student loan entitlement - if applicable - and residency criteria.
Key Findings
9. There was almost unanimous support for one funding stream for Under Graduate Hardship Funds in HE and one in FE, along with appropriate Guidance on their distribution. This would give the institutions the flexibility to allocate the funding to those most in need when they need it most without problems around pre-defined eligibility criteria. The administration of these funds would also be easier for the institution's staff.
10. A considerable number of institutions felt that the system was too complicated and that students could find it confusing. An associated issue was that the eligibility criteria could be simplified.
11. In HE a significant number of institutions indicated that the Mature Students Bursary Fund was over-allocated and the HE Hardship Funds were under-allocated. Many institutions have problems spending their allocations of MSBF which links to its associated eligibility criteria.
12. A number of responses flagged up that FE allocation was more generous than the corresponding HE allocation especially in relation to the MSBF and the FE Childcare Fund. The maximum amounts payable in MSBF do not nearly meet in full childcare costs over an academic year; however the MSBF can provide assistance of up to £2,000 to offset these costs. Also it is useful to note that awards of MSBF can be supplemented by awards from the HE Hardship Funds.
13. Terminology was raised as an issue as well and the name 'Hardship' was seen as off-putting. It can deter some students from seeking advice and submitting claims.
Characteristics of recipients of funding (the student population)
Analysis of Hardship Funds spend (not MSBF or Young Students Retention Fund).
14. An analysis of the returns shows that of the students who received Hardship Funds in HE the majority were young students (aged under 25). In FE however the majority (nearly 60%) of students were 'mature/independent'. This is in kilter as the question specifically excluded MSBF and YSRF so more younger HE students receiving Hardship Funds and more mature FE students receiving Hardship Funds would make sense.
15. The postgraduate category here would only cover some short one year postgraduate conversion courses and not the traditional four year research-based PHD students. It is therefore not surprising that in Chart 1 there are few postgraduate students.
16. There are also relatively small proportions of recipients who are parents, have special educational needs or are part-time.
* Charts may not sum to 100% due to incomplete returns
Note: In Charts 1-4, recipients of funding cannot fall into both the mature/independent and young categories as these are independent. However, the other characteristics are not independent of one another e.g. a recipient of funding can be mature and a parent and have special educational needs.
Analysis of Young Students Retention Fund & Mature Students Bursary Fund
17. In analysing the uptake of the MSBF in HE it can be seen that over 90% of recipients are classed as mature/independent. There is also a far higher number of students who are parents claiming funding. This is in kilter with the aim of the fund which provides assistance with formal childcare costs as a top priority, up to £2,000 can be paid from the MSBF (see Chart 3).
18. In FE as expected the majority of students in receipt of YSRF are young students, with only a small percentage being mature/independent. There are relatively few students who are parents claiming support, as shown in Chart 4.
* Charts may not sum to 100% due to incomplete returns
Cases of dropout due to financial hardship
19. This was an important question and area for consideration. In answering this question respondents were asked to provide the reasons they thought the drop-out had occurred. The benefits trap 1 was prominent in cases of drop-out, particularly with regard to FECs. Although HEIs also cited the benefits trap as a reason for drop-out, the evidence suggests that this was more of a problem in FECs . As evidenced in Chart 5, 17 of all institutions who responded cited this as a reason contributing to drop-out.
20. The issue of funding allocations was explored. The majority of institutions indicated that their allocation was not sufficient to meet demand and some said that valid applications were turned down as a result. Other institutions managed to make their allocation meet the overall number of applications by awarding lesser amounts to each applicant. Again problems in meeting childcare costs were highlighted by institutions and the fact that per student FE funding is more generous/realistic than HE funding.
Administration of Funding
21. The majority of institutions means-test their applications using a single application form. A significant number have a Hardship Committee/Panel in place that assesses applications. Relatively few institutions interview applicants as a matter of course, although some commented that this is the best way to assess what level of funding an individual needs.
22. In terms of payment of funds, institutions were then asked when 'most of their students received hardship funds' . The majority of institutions tend to pay instalments uniformly throughout the year as opposed to paying a lump sum, although some prefer to pay one lump sum. However, the returns suggest that HEIs make more lump sum payments (usually at the beginning of semesters one and two) whereas FECs tend to distribute funds uniformly throughout the year. In cases where instalments are paid, these generally occur on a monthly basis (see Chart 6).
23. Many institutions anticipate hardship by targeting certain groups such as lone parents; those from low-income households; and students with dependants. Some institutions proactively promote hardship funds at a very early stage circumventing more serious financial problems and helping to highlight the existence of these discretionary funds
24. In the responses received, many institutions stated that they regularly use the facility to carry forward 10% of Hardship Funds into the next financial year and that they feel it is an important feature of the funding structure. There was a significant difference in the results observed from HEI and FEC returns. The vast majority of HEIs stated that they often take advantage of this, although the majority of FECs replied that only sometimes do they use the facility. Perhaps more importantly, very few institutions have never taken advantage of this feature (see Chart 7).
25. Many institutions value the facility of transferring money from MSBF to Hardship Funds, though would prefer to be able to vire even more than the 40% which they are able to. This is because the eligibility criteria for Hardship Funds are much broader and many more students can apply for it.
Delivery of funding
26. The majority of institutions thought that the overall structure of the Hardship Funds causes students difficulties, especially in relation to the number of funds and associated eligibility criteria. This was the case on both the HEI and FEC side. Some institutions commented that the funding available for young students was insufficient. Others felt it unfair that a student with the same level of hardship as someone else could receive far more money due to them being over the 25 years of age 'mature' cut-off point, and the other not. In fact, the point was raised that two students, aged 25 and 24, could receive a substantial difference in support simply as a result of their age.
27. There are also concerns about the naming of the funds. Many institutions feel that the term 'hardship' is off-putting, and is enough to prevent students from coming forward to claim assistance. They feel that this counteracts what the funds were actually set-up to do, and that a name change may reduce the effects of this.
28. Institutions were then asked if they use funds to support things normally covered by other student support processes. Many institutions indicated that they do not use funds in this way. Some institutions did highlight the fact that they make payments to subsidise travel. Others answered that they make payments to support, for example, dyslexia assessments, and qualified this by saying it would lead to a quicker decision on disability claims and awards. On the whole, it seems as though the majority of institutions do not make payments knowingly to support other types of hardship, although some do when they feel this is necessary.
29. The final question is perhaps the most indicative of the general attitude towards the current hardship system. Here, institutions were asked to suggest improvements to the system to better meet genuine student hardship. The overwhelming feeling was for one funding 'fund' for each institution - covering in the case of FECs both levels of study - from which institutions could allocate. However, one fund for FE and one for HE, where applicable, would also be an improvement to the system. This would afford the institutions sufficient flexibility to award as they see fit, rather than allocating funds if the student satisfied the specific criteria. As well as better meeting hardship, many institutions feel that this would greatly reduce both the administrative burden and would lead to the whole process being less resource-intensive. This would speed up the turn around of payments.
30. Another suggested improvement is for the eligibility criteria to be simplified. Different eligibility criteria, coupled with the number of different funding types available, has led to the confusion in the system. On the HE funding side, a significant number of institutions feel that the MSBF is over-allocated while the HE hardship fund is under-allocated, therefore it is felt that this could be improved which has been evidenced throughout the analysis of the individual questions.
ASD/FFL
1 October 2004
Footnote1 Benefits trap as defined by the questionnaire: 'when movement from benefits to student support with less frequent payments makes it too difficult/less manageable'.