Issues on Recruitment

The new funding formula (revised August 2003)The current size and shape of the University

G R BarnesManagement Information, August 2005

2

Sources of HE Funding

5 0 %G overn m en t

G ran ts

2 5 %S tu d en t Tu it ion& O th er F ees

2 5 %O th er P riva te

In com e

F u n d s fo r P u b licH ig h er E d u ca tion

Estimated proportions for system as a whole

3

Division of HE Budget

8 9 %B lock G ran ts

1 1 %E arm arked F u n d s

N ation a l B u d g e tfo r H ig h er E d u ca tion

In s titu t ion s

4

Block Grants

A p p roved F TES tu d en t P laces

5 7 %Teach in g In p u t

G ran ts

N on -R esearchG rad u ates

1 4 %Teach in g O u tp u t

G ran ts

R esearch M s & D s ;P u b lica tion s

1 2 %R esearch O u tp u t

G ran ts

E n ro lm en t S ize ;% D isad van tag ed

S tu d en ts

6 %In s titu t ion a l

F ac to r G ran ts

B lock G ran ts8 9 %

Historical proportions, subject to change

5

Earmarked Funds

6 %N S F A S

3 %In s titu t ion a l

R es tru c tu rin g

2 %O th er, in c lu d in g

C om m u n ityD eve lop m en t

E arm arked1 1 %

Historical proportions, subject to change

6

Distribution of the Budget

1 Block grants 7 914 89% 8 569 89% 9 143 89% 1.1 Teaching inputs 5 091 57% 5 512 57% 5 881 57% 1.2 Institutional factors 514 6% 556 6% 593 6% 1.3 Teaching outputs 1 273 14% 1 378 14% 1 470 14% 1.4 Research outputs 1 037 12% 1 123 12% 1 198 12%

2 Earmarked grants 1 011 11% 1 109 11% 1 161 11% 2.1 NSFAS 545 6% 578 6% 638 6% 2.2 Interest & redemption on loans 160 2% 154 2% 146 1% 2.3 Ad hocs 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2.4 Teaching development

Foundation programmes 65 1% 70 1% 75 1% Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

2.5 Research development 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2.6 New capital projects 13 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2.7 Institutional restructuring 229 3% 307 3% 302 3%

TOTAL 8 926 100% 9 679 100% 10 304 100%

2005/06 (R'million)

Redistribution of

(R'million)

DISTRIBUTION OF BUDGET TOTALS FOR 2003/04 TO 2005/06

actual budget for

(R'million)

Provisional distribution of MTEF budgets

2003/04 2004/05

6.5% increase from 2004/05 to 2005/06 (before inflation)

7

Teaching Input Grants

Teaching inputs derived from:FTE enrolled students in year N-2Adjusted for approved plan for year NFunding grid of CESM categories, course

levels, and mode of tuition Capped for 2006 to 2007 (thus 2009)

8

 

Proposed Institutional Shares of Teaching Input Unit Totals

Actual 2003 Capped for 2005/2006 Funded totals 2005-2009

Cape Peninsula 4.52% 4.49% 4.49%

Cape Town 5.07% 5.24% 5.24%

Central 1.67% 1.64% 1.64%

Durban Institute 3.71% 3.83% 3.83%

Fort Hare 1.19% 1.15% 1.15%

Free State 4.38% 4.45% 4.45%

Johannesburg 7.03% 6.91% 6.91%

KwaZulu Natal 7.88% 7.70% 7.70%

Limpopo 3.47% 3.41% 3.41%

Mangosuthu 1.34% 1.17% 1.17%

Nelson Mandela 3.67% 3.80% 3.80%

North West 5.28% 5.01% 5.01%

Pretoria 8.89% 9.19% 9.19%

Rhodes 1.14% 1.18% 1.18%

South Africa 9.63% 9.96% 9.96%

Stellenbosch 4.93% 5.09% 5.09%

Tshwane 8.45% 8.57% 8.57%

Vaal Triangle 2.36% 2.44% 2.44%

Venda 1.55% 1.34% 1.34%

Walter Sisulu 3.38% 3.04% 3.04%

Western Cape 2.87% 2.86% 2.86%

Witwatersrand 6.07% 6.09% 6.09%

Zululand 1.54% 1.45% 1.45%

11 of the 23 (48%) have decreased in shares

9

Funding Groups

Funding groups:  2004/05 and 2005/06

Group CESM categories included in funding group

1 07 education, 13 law, 14 librarianship, 20 psychology, 21 social services/public administration

2 04 business/commerce, 05 communication, 06 computer science, 12 languages, 18 philosophy/religion, 22 social sciences

3 02 architecture/planning, 08 engineering, 10 home economics, 11 industrial arts, 16 mathematical sciences, 19 physical education

4 01 agriculture, 03 fine and performing arts, 09 health sciences, 15 life and physical sciences

10

Weightings per Course Level

Undergraduate 1Honours & Equivalent 2Masters and Equivalent 3Doctors and Equivalent 4

11

Weighting factors

Note: distance funded at 50%

Weighting factors for teaching inputs: 2004/05 and 2005/06

Funding group

Undergraduate& equivalent 

Honours& equivalent

Masters & equivalent

Doctoral & equivalent 

Contact Distance Contact Distance Contact Distance Contact Distance

1 1.0 0.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.5 4.0 2.0

2 1.5 0.75 3.0 1.5 4.5 2.25 6.0 3.0

3 2.5 1.25 5.0 2.5 7.5 3.75 10.0 5.0

4 3.5 1.75 7.0 3.5 10.5 5.25 14.0 7.0

12

Migration Strategy

The new formula is to be phased in over three years

In 2004, both the old formula and the new are used

Formulae are applied to flatten out peaks and valleys in the grant to institutions

13

Size & Shape

Race Gender Delivery mode Under & Post Grads DOE benchmarks

14

Race DistributionRace Distribution 2003 to 2005

50%

3%

31%

16%

0%

50%

3%

32%

15%

0%

49%

3%

33%

15%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

African Coloured Indian White Other

2003 2004 2005

15

Gender DistributionGender Distribution 2003 to 2005

44%

56%

44%

56%

44%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Male Female

2003 2004 2005

16

Delivery ModeDelivery Mode Distribution 2003 to 2005

79%

21%

82%

18%

90%

10%

89%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Contact Distance

2003 2004 2005 Target

17

Under & Post Grads

Mode of Study

Occ/UG/PG Contact  Distance Total

UG Occassional 1.8% 0.0% 1.6%

Undergraduate 76.8% 28.2% 71.8%

PG Occassional 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

Postgraduate 21.2% 71.7% 26.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

18

Qualification typeQualification Type Distribution 2003 to 2005

76%

17%

6%1%

76%

16%

6%2%

76%

16%

7%1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

UG & Equiv Hons & Equiv Mast & Equiv Doct & Equiv

2003 2004 2005

19

Grad rates

Qualification Type 2003 2004 Benchmark

UG Cert/Dip 23% 37% 22.5

UG Bachelor 17% 16% 22.5

UG Professional 15% 14% 18

PG Dip 61% 60% 54

PG Bachelor 46% 41% 54

Honours 72% 62% 54

Masters* 22% 15% 30

Total 22% 20%

*excludes Masters by ResearchDOE defined as graduates over enrolments for the same qualification type in that year

20

Field of study

Note: According to DOE benchmarks, SET and Business & Management should comprise 60% of the total enrolled FTEs

Field of Study Distribution 2003 to 2005

33%

27%

34%

6%

60%

33%

26%

34%

7%

59%

32%

23%

32%

13%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

SET Business Humanities Education SET + Business

2003 2004 2005

21

Summary

The capping of FTEs to 2007 means changes to CESMs will not affect overall subsidy

The capping does not affect output Target post graduate enrolments Target throughput

22

DOE documents on MI website …

www.ukzn.ac.za/dmi

Thank you.

23

Teaching Output Weightings

First Certificates and Diplomas, of 2 years or less 0.5First Diplomas and Bachelors Degrees, 3 years 1.0Professional first Bachelors Degree, 4 years and more 1.5Postgraduate and Postdiploma Diplomas 0.5Postgraduate Bachelors Degrees 1.0Honours Degrees, Higher Diplomas 0.5Non-research Masters Degrees and Diplomas 0.5

24

Government Overview

H E B u d g etfo r N ext Y ear

M TE F P rovis ion a lA lloca tion fo r N + 1

M TE F P rovis ion a lA lloca tion fo r N + 2

N ation a lTreasu ry

25

Allocation Overview

A lloca tion toH E In s titu t ion s

H E B u d g e tfo r N ext Y ear

A p p roved S tu d en tE n ro lm en t P lan s

M in is try o fE d u ca tion

26

Teaching Output Grants

Teaching outputs are derived from:Total of non-research graduates in N-2

Excludes Research M and D Graduates

Normative total according to national benchmarks

Added August 2003

Funding grid of course levels

27

Graduation Benchmarks

Contact DistanceFirst Certificates and Diplomas, of 2 years or less 22.5% 13.5%First Diplomas and Bachelors Degrees, 3 years 22.5% 13.5%Professional first Bachelors Degree, 4 years and more 18% 9%Postgraduate and Postdiploma Diplomas 54% 27%Postgraduate Bachelors Degrees 54% 27%Honours Degrees, Higher Diplomas 54% 27%Non-research Masters Degrees and Diplomas 30% 22.5%

Graduates as % of Headcounts

28

Teaching Development Grants

Where an institution’s actual number of graduates in year N-2 is lower than the normative total, the institution may apply for a three-year teaching development grantTeaching development grants will be funded

from the difference between institutions’ actual and normative totals for graduates

29

Research Output Grants Derived from:

Research masters and doctoral graduates in year N-2

Research publication units in N-2Normative total according to national

benchmarks

30

Research Weightings

Publication Unit 1Research Masters Graduate 1Doctoral Graduate 3

31

Research Benchmark

Ratio of weighted publication units to permanently appointed instruction/research staff

Universities 1.25Technikons 0.5

32

Research Development Grants

Where an institution’s actual number of research graduates in year N-2 is lower than the normative total, the institution may apply for a three-year research development grant Research development grants will be funded from the

difference between institutions’ actual and normative totals for research graduates

33

Institutional Factor Grants

These factors are for:DisadvantageApproved size of institution

Approved shape of institutiondropped from August 2003 version

34

Disadvantaged Students

African and Coloured studentsSouth African citizens In contact education programmes

Calculation is made of the proportion these students constitute of the total unweighted FTE contact student enrolment in year N-2

This factor is added to the teaching input grant of the institution

35

Disadvantaged Students

Proportion Addition toDisadvantaged Contact Teaching

Students Input Grant80% and above 10%

75% 8.75%70% 7.50%65% 6.25%60% 5%55% 3.75%50% 2.5%45% 1.25%

40% and below 0

36

Institutional Size

Meant to take account of economies of scale

Additional input grants are made to smaller institutions

37

Institutional SizeTotal Addition to

FTE Student TeachingEnrolment Input Grant

4,000 and less 15%6,000 13.1%8,000 11.3%10,000 9.4%12,000 8%14,000 5.6%16,000 3.8%18,000 1.9%

20,000 and more 0

38

Foundation Programmes

Application can be made for funding, for a three-year period

Subsequent grants will be dependent on institutional achievements in FPsThe total FTE students to be funded in FPs

will be 15% of FTE enrolled first-time entering undergraduates in contact education programmes