Presentation to the Portfolio
Committee
on Higher Education and
Training
Report on the Ministerial
Committee for the Review of
Student Housing at South
African Universities
Department of Higher Education
and Training
6 March 2013
Cape Town, Parliament
Introduction
Introduction
 Minister appointed a Ministerial committee to investigate
student accommodation after he took up office in 2009 and
visited a number of universities.
 The visits confirmed there were serious challenges in the
provision of both on and off-campus accommodation.
 Lack of adequate and affordable student housing forces
students to rent sub-standard accommodation off-campus.
 Between 2005 and 2010, universities reported a total of 39
incidents of student housing-related protests with most of
these protests in historically black institutions.
 The Minister appointed Prof Rensburg to lead the
Committee to assess the provision of student
accommodation in South African universities.
2
Purpose of the Report
 To establish the scale of the student accommodation
challenges.
 To offer a well-motivated and justifiable differentiated
framework for redressing this student accommodation
quandary through establishing a typology of need based on
relative access to private sector led provision and historical
disadvantage.
 To provide government with a medium to long term
financing framework within a fifteen year timeframe, in
order to intervene in this situation.
 To provide minimum norms and standards for student
accommodation, whether on or off campus.
3
Research Methodology
 Comprehensive questionnaire constructed and distributed
to Vice Chancellors of the 22 contact universities.
 Review of related literature.
 Site visits covering on and off-campus accommodation
across 49 university campuses.
 Interviewing key stakeholders.
 Data compilation, review and analysis.
4
Literature Review - Summary of Findings







Bulk of student housing research – North America, Europe and
Australia.
Paucity of student housing research in developing countries.
Most students live at home; but demand for student housing
outstrips supply.
Public funding of higher education is under increasing pressure.
Student housing models range from traditional university
residences to public-private partnerships (PPPs), city-university
partnerships and the re-use of old buildings.
Trends emphasize ‘living-learning’ communities, more mixed and
flexible housing forms, safety and security,
sustainable student housing developments, and greater
consideration for the diversity of student housing needs.
No legislation in SA (national, provincial or local) pertaining to the
accommodation and/or housing in South Africa
5
Student Data
6
Student Data
7
Student Data
8
Student Data
NB: Only 5% of 1st year students at SA Universities housed in residence
9
Photos - Site Visits
10
Photos - Site Visits
11
Photos - Site Visits
12
Photos of Site Visits
13
Off campus accommodation at University of
Venda (not part of the study)
14
Per Bed Cost Breakdown – R238 602
Included in this cost (p.112 of Report):
 Consultants and planning costs (feasibility & due diligence, EIA’s
etc.)
 All construction costs
 All furniture & fittings (student rooms are fully furnished and
include soft furnishings and bed linen), heat pumps in place of hot
water boilers, motion-control sensors to control lighting in
common areas, wireless and fibre-optic network points in each
room, six common rooms fitted with flat screen TVs and DSTV,
three kitchenettes, six laundry areas fitted with washing machines
and tumble driers, six box rooms, biometric access control,
electronic fire-monitoring system, rain-water harvesting and onsite water storage to mitigate short period water outages, and
landscaping. Three 3-bedroomed wardens’ flats are included.
15
Per Bed Cost Breakdown – R238 602
 Additional expenses included unusual platforms &
foundations due to slope of site and provision for storage &
pumping of water due to inadequate/unreliable municipal
water supply.
 NOT included is the cost of land
 R238 602 is thus the actual cost of a greenfields, fully
furnished and fitted, turnkey development providing 261
beds in 2010 in a small rural town in the Eastern Cape.
16
Site Visit Findings
“No student interviewed during the site visits admitted to being
hungry, but several recounted stories about fellow students who
were starving, stories which were then confirmed by student
leaders and student support staff. Given the stigma of poverty,
the Committee is of the view that these stories are merely the
tip of the iceberg that is student hunger. It is an indictment on
all who live in this country that some of the greatest talents of
the next generation, and many of its future leaders, are being
suffered to live and learn under such appalling conditions. It is
not only that the country’s potential is being squandered; it is
literally being starved. This state of affairs cannot be permitted
to continue, and it should be the first and most urgent duty of
every stakeholder in higher education to ensure that it does
not.” (p.52)
17
Analysis of Findings
 Pervading and recurring motif - the implacable dialectic
between the need to keep residence fees as low as
possible and the need to provide student housing and
accommodation which meets minimum acceptable
standards.
 The mal-distribution of NSFAS funding for student
accommodation at a number of universities is the
direct cause of much suffering and hardship to
students at those institutions. Many students
experience hunger on a daily basis.
 71 % of students housed in residences received some
form of financial assistance.
18
Analysis of Findings
 Highest percentage of students housed in residences
originated from Kwazulu-Natal, followed by the Eastern
Cape, and thirdly from SADC region.
 Campuses are evenly split between those with dining halls
and those that are self-catering, poor nutrition and student
hunger are prevalent at all universities.
 Residence staff ratios vary between 1:19 and 1:535, with
staff remuneration and training varying just as widely.
 The lack of sufficient and adequate on-campus housing is
resulting in overcrowding, jeopardising students’ academic
endeavours and creating significant health and safety risks.
19
Analysis of Findings
 Based on university estimates, value of the current national
maintenance and refurbishment backlog is R2.5 billion.
 If existing residence stock is to be modernised to render the
residences ‘fit-for-purpose’, then a further R1.9 billion is
required.
 In addition to above costs, it is estimated that the current
residence bed shortage is approximately 195 815. In these
terms, the cost of overcoming this shortage over a period of
ten years is estimated at R82.4 billion, or R109.6 billion over
fifteen years. (Estimate based on cost of R240 000 per bed;
and 50% and 80% targets of student beds on specific
campuses, see table 3).
20
Analysis of Findings
 The private sector is a significant contributor and
stakeholder in the provision of accommodation to university
students in South Africa, as is the case internationally.
 It is estimated that the private sector provided for 10% of
the estimated full- time contact enrolment at universities in
2010.
 Condition of leased buildings can only be described as
squalid. Private student housing in the country is completely
unregulated and leads to exploitation of students.
21
Name of
Institution
CPUT
CUT
DUT
MUT
NMMU
RU
TUT
UCT
UFH
Name of Campus
CPUT CT
CPUT Wellington
CPUT Mowbray
CPUT Bellville
CUT
DUT Durban
DUT Midlands
MUT
NMMU SS South
NMMU SS North
NMMU 2 Ave
NMMU George
RU
TUT Pretoria
TUT Emalahleni
TUT Mbombela
TUT Garankuwa
TUT Soshanguve
UCT
UFH Alice
No of registered
students 2010 (DHET
data)
21 497
10 540
12 271
25 236
10 046
21 782
994
7 149
36 993
4 592
10 172
23 610
6 205
Beds per
campus
2010
3 048
547
203
2 045
728
1 400
1 211
1 270
1 431
955
171
254
3 503
4 012
198
130
1 478
4 346
5 579
4 006
Beds per
University
2010
5 843
Bed capacity
as % of 2010
enrolment
18.24%
Beds
Beds
needed to needed to
reach
reach
50% of
80% of
2010
2010
enrolment enrolment
6 951
6387
728
5.93%
5 408
2 611
10.35%
10 007
1 270
12.64%
2 811
12.34%
6767
8 334
541
3 503
49.00%
72
8 333
10 164
27.48%
2196
3792
5 579
5 089
23.63%
48.25%
Table 1 − Bed Shortage & Number of Beds Needed
6 226
958
22
UFH Buffalo City
UFS Bloemfontein
UFS QwaQwa
UJ AP-Kingsway
UJ AP-Bunting
UJ Doornfontein
UJ Soweto
UKZN Howard
UKZN Medical
UKZN Westville
UKZN Edgewood
4 343
19 289
3 824
45 509
2 815
34 066
1 083
3 382
1 053
1 111
1 350
1 796
136
1 743
165
2 349
802
4 435
19.19%
4 393
9.09%
1 089
6 263
2006
18 498
2116
6 924
1 865
UKZN Pietermaritzburg
14 103
5 935
5 935
UL Turfloop
3 879
2 748
2 748
UL MEDUNSA
14 497
4 354
4 354
UZ Kwa Dlangeza
6 522
2 233
UNW Mafikeng
4 826
8 096
UNW Potchefstroom
23 120
1 037
UNW Campus 3
41 796
7 650
7 650
UP
5 965
US Stellenbosch
26 418
6 874
909
US Tygerberg
10 280
2 036
2 036
UV
18 031
3 656
3 656
UWC
21 212
3 081
3 081
VUT
29 741
4 464
4 464
WITS
2 776
WSU Mthatha
21 901
686
WSU Mthatha Zama
5 354
1 638
WSU Butterworth
3 000
254
WSU Buffalo City
535 433
107 598
107 598
TOTALS
SUBTOTALS
TOTAL NUMBER OF BEDS REQUIRED NATIONALLY (OPTION 1) IN 2010
20.33%
10 109
42.08%
70.84%
30.03%
355
27.31%
5347
7244
2985
5 697
18.30%
13 248
26.02%
6 335
19.81%
20.28%
15.01%
15.01%
6188
10769
7 525
10 407
12421
24.45%
1 246
20.10%
126 099
69 716
195 815
23
No meals
INSTITUTION
UCT
WITS
UWC
RU
USB
UP
UKZN
NMMU
VUT
DUT
CPUT
UJ
MUT
UFS
UFH
TUT
NWU
UV
CUT
UL
UZ
WSU
Average
2008
R 18 080
N/P
R 17 174
R 16 145
R 15 015
R 14 090
R 11 283
R 14 671
R 10 969
R 10 581
R 9 399
R 8 935
R 9 437
R 9 453
R 6 863
R 7 711
R 9 109
N/P
R 6 758
R 6 420
R 6 136
N/P
R 10 959
2009
R 21 027
N/P
R 20 576
R 18 060
R 16 973
R 15 907
R 12 881
R 16 010
R 12 305
R 11 680
R 10 847
R 9 958
R 10 348
R 9 889
R 7 970
R 8 491
R 8 068
N/P
R 7 350
R 6 932
R 6 136
N/P
R 12 179
Meals included
2010
R 25 742
R 22 745
R 22 394
R 19 980
R 18 327
R 17 754
R 13 952
R 13 936
R 13 117
R 12 661
R 12 355
R 11 865
R 11 647
R 10 860
R 9 607
R 9 037
R 8 989
R 8 430
R 8 054
R 7 484
R 6 688
R 6 603
R 13 283
08/09 %
increase
16.3%
09/10 %
increase
22.4%
19.8%
11.9%
13.0%
12.9%
14.2%
9.1%
12.2%
10.4%
15.4%
11.4%
9.7%
4.6%
16.1%
10.1%
-11.4%
8.8%
10.6%
8.0%
11.6%
8.3%
-13.0%
6.6%
8.4%
13.9%
19.2%
12.6%
9.8%
20.5%
6.4%
11.4%
8.8%
8.0%
0.0%
9.6%
8.0%
9.0%
10.1%
10.1%
average
increase
2008
19.4% R 28 585
N/P
14.3%
N/P
11.2% R 26 905
10.5% R 24 343
12.3% R 23 294
11.2%
N/P
-1.9%
N/P
9.4%
N/P
9.4%
N/P
14.7% R 14 845
15.3%
N/P
11.1%
N/P
7.2%
N/P
18.3%
N/P
8.3% R 19 555
0.0% R 16 405
N/P
9.2%
N/P
8.0%
N/P
4.5%
N/P
N/P
10.1% R 21 990
2009
R 32 728
N/P
N/P
R 30 093
R 27 873
R 26 037
N/P
N/P
N/P
N/P
R 16 303
N/P
N/P
N/P
N/P
R 24 201
N/P
N/P
N/P
N/P
N/P
N/P
R 26 206
Table 2 − Weighted Average Residence Fee, 2008-2010
2010
R 38 938
R 37 493
N/P
R 33 302
R 30 427
R 29 384
N/P
R 28 341
N/P
N/P
R 23 404
N/P
N/P
N/P
N/P
R 26 106
N/P
N/P
N/P
N/P
N/P
N/P
R 30 924
24
INSTITUTION
UP
UCT
NWU
UV
WITS
USB
UL
TUT
VUT
NMMU
UZ
RU
CUT
UKZN
UFS
DUT
UJ
UFH
UWC
MUT
CPUT
NET TOTAL
AVERAGE
WSU
2008
R53 341 000
R2 709 000
R13 794 000
R14 216 000
R14 296 000
R12 565 588
R20 759 000
R2 899 000
R2 474 193
R871 322
-R2 328 000
-R1 000
R50 000
R7 294 000
-R5 168 000
-R1 090 000
-R1 408 000
-R4 339 886
-R6 293 938
-R23 548 000
-R20 739 004
R80 353 275
R3 826 346
Not provided
2009
R53 236 000
R6 645 000
R19 157 000
R11 432 000
R4 826 000
R12 337 470
R3 294 000
R9 196 000
R4 761 442
-R3 761 991
-R216 000
R651 000
-R229 000
-R3 687 000
-R2 166
-R426 000
-R11 944 000
-R7 997 293
-R9 841 722
-R8 663 000
-R23 238 083
R55 529 657
R2 644 269
Not provided
2010
R61 449 000
R50 322 000
R19 176 000
R11 895 000
R6 655 000
R475 569
Not provided
R8 152 000
R7 400 069
R11 246 750
R4 980 000
R0
R46 000
-R8 231 000
Not provided
-R8 263 000
R2 200 000
-R6 029 685
-R11 645 780
Not provided
-R34 118 074
R115 709 849
R6 428 325
Not provided
TOTAL
R168 026 000
R59 676 000
R52 127 000
R37 543 000
R25 777 000
R25 378 627
R24 053 000
R20 247 000
R14 635 704
R8 356 081
R2 436 000
R650 000
-R133 000
-R4 624 000
-R5 170 166
-R9 779 000
-R11 152 000
-R18 366 864
-R27 781 440
-R32 211 000
-R78 095 161
R251 592 781
R11 980 609
Table 3 − Net Surplus/Deficit for Residence System 2008-2010
25
Recommendations
 Type 1 campuses are those where off-campus
accommodation is unsuitable and/or unavailable (e.g. UL
Turfloop, UV, UWC, UFH Alice). Located in impoverished
areas with a severe shortage of suitable accommodation;
such campuses ideally need to be able to accommodate 80%
of total student enrolment in on-campus accommodation in
the short to medium timeframe, and 100% in the long term.
 Type 2 campuses are those where limited off-campus
accommodation is available and is suitable (e.g. RU, USB).
Such campuses ideally should be able to accommodate a
minimum of 50% of total student enrolment in on-campus
accommodation.
26
Recommendations
 Type 3 campuses are those where limited off-campus
accommodation is available and is suitable, and where land
for on-campus accommodation is restricted (e.g. UJ, Wits,
UCT). On these campuses, ideally, PPP student
accommodation villages, involving partnership between
universities, metropolitan councils and private providers,
should be encouraged and supported in the short to
medium term.
27
Recommendations
1. Residence admission and allocations policies:
 Comprehensive policy to be rigorously implemented
managed and monitored.
 Strategies and mechanisms need to be developed to
increase and support access to university residences by
poor and working class students.
 Strategies and mechanisms to allow all new first year
contact students in need of accommodation to be
allocated to a residence for their first year.
2. Minimum standards for student housing and accommodation:
 Minimum standards for the accommodation and housing
of students must be developed and made applicable to all
providers of student housing, both public and private.
28
Recommendations
3. Private student housing and accommodation:
 Given the dire shortage of suitable student
accommodation, public-private partnerships in the form
of student villages, particularly in the metropolitan areas,
should be explored further.
 Mechanisms designed to foster and enhance cooperation
between all stakeholders involved in the provision of
student housing and accommodation need to be
established, under the auspices of the DHET.
4.Residence management and administration:
 Residence staff to resident student ratios should not
normally exceed 1:150 in the case of wardens, house
parents, residence managers or the equivalent, and 1:100
in the case of student sub-wardens or the equivalent.
29
Recommendations
 All universities should establish a board, council or similar
body which represents all residences and oversees
residence life.
 Improving the professionalism, compensation and
training of university housing staff is an urgent priority.
 All complaints and allegations of maladministration,
corruption and nepotism must be rigorously investigated
by the DHET and strict action taken against offenders.
5. Role of residences in the academic project
 Research needs to be conducted to explore ways in which
the social and cultural milieu in residence systems impacts
upon the ability of black working class students to succeed
academically.
30
Recommendations
 Research needs to be conducted to explore the broad and
complex relationship between student housing and academic
success.
 Residences must become an integral part of the academic
project and promoted as sites of academic endeavour.
6. Financing of student housing and funding of student
accommodation
 The complete separation of the residence budget and
management accounts from the university budget and
management accounts is needed.
 Residence management accounts should be submitted on a
quarterly basis to the University Council, and annual financial
reporting must be standardised.
31
Recommendations
 A ‘wealth tax’ mechanism should be explored as a way of
increasing residence access to disadvantaged students.
 An investigation into universities’ use of reserves for priorities
such as student housing should be undertaken.
 An annual fixed national NSFAS residence fee for student board
and lodging which meets minimum standards (including a
minimum of two balanced meals per day) should be set at
R30 500 for 2011.
 Residences must become an integral part of the academic
project and promoted as sites of academic endeavour.
 Once the state has indicated what proportion of this target it is
able to fund, the private sector should be invited to meet the
remaining bed capacity target, in accord with minimum
standards for the provision of student housing.
32
Recommendations
 Residence bed capacities to accommodate 80% of full time
contact student enrolment on campuses where off-campus
accommodation is unsuitable and/or unavailable, and 50%
of full time contact student enrolment on campuses where
limited off-campus accommodation is available and is
suitable, should be targeted.
7. Condition of residence infrastructure
 All universities are to conduct a professional quantity
surveyor-led assessment of their residence infrastructure.
 National minimum standards and service level agreement
guidelines for the maintenance and refurbishment of
residence infrastructure should be established.
33
Recommendations
 Modular residence construction methodologies should be
fully researched.
8. Future planning
 All universities should develop a multi-year strategic plan
(including a financial plan) for residence maintenance and
refurbishment.
 Those who are accountable for university student housing
should be part of the planning process. The Chief Housing
Officer should report directly to a member of the senior
management team of the university.
34
DHET’s Response to the Report
 Funding available for university infrastructure over 3 years
amounts to R6 billion across a number of categories.
 Student housing allocation is R1.690 billion.
 Historically disadvantaged institutions/campuses allocation
is R1.443 billion (85%)
 Historically advantaged institutions allocation is
R247.3 million (15%).
 Approach is to provide funding for new residences and for
refurbishments of old residences.
 Low residency fees by Category A universities limits their
ability to access private funding.
 Government has to provide funding for infrastructure to
ensure that residency fees remain affordable to poor and
middle class students.
35
DHET’s Response to the Report
The DHET has engaged with the PIC/DBSA to offer preferential
rates and viable options to universities:



Category A: Universities with limited on and off campus
accommodation and a relatively weak balance sheet (off
balance sheet lending).
Category B: Universities with limited on and off campus
accommodation and a better balance sheet but pose low
risk for funders (can cede part of their investments).
Category C: Universities with a good balance sheet and
can access funding at preferential rates (in some cases
they cede their investment as security).
36
DHET’s Response to the Report







The Department hosted a workshop with all universities on
17 August 2012.
Recommendations were presented and different options
around financing explored (PIC, DBSA and ABSA).
Universities invited to present their comments on or before
21 September 2012.
Intention is to Gazette the Minimum Norms and Standards
for the sector.
Establishment of a departmental project management Unit
and building capacity within DHET .
Compel universities to make provision for maintenance on
an ongoing basis for infrastructure.
Systematic mapping of the system.
37
Priority Infrastructure Categories/Projects












Student Housing
Historically Disadvantaged Institutions’ backlogs
Disability funding for increased access
Engineering
Cooperative projects
Health Sciences
Life and Physical Sciences
Well Founded Laboratories
Teacher Education
African Languages, Humanities and Social Sciences
ICT
Project management at universities
38
Total Allocation per University
University
CPUT
UCT
CUT
DUT
UFH
UFS
UJ
UKZN
LIMPOPO
MUT
NMMU
NWU
UP
RU
UNISA
SU
TUT
VUT
VENDA
WSU
UWC
WITS
ZULULAND
Total Allocation
2012/13 – 2014/15
R'000
238 847
174 316
255 950
361 525
377 268
208 394
110 155
244 019
370 170
228 988
195 515
211 373
88 130
169 626
87 130
158 080
379 452
295 635
305 279
421 851
187 138
155 672
376 278
5 600 791
M&E Internal
5 000
ICT
184 209 * (to be adjusted)
Medunsa
210 000
Grand Total over 3 years
6 000 000
39
Student Housing Allocations - Per University
University
FC7A Student Housing in HDI universities
Final DHET Allocation
University Contribution
Priority projects total
cost
R'000
R'000
R'000
Cape Peninsula University of Technology
50 375
26 125
76 500
Central University of Technology (Welkom)
60 389
13 044
73 433
Durban University of Technology
115 439
5 604
121 043
University of Fort Hare
120 000
17 825
137 825
University of the Free State ( QwaQwa)
45 189
22 000
67 189
University of Johannesburg (Soweto)
50 000
27 900
77 900
University of KwaZulu-Natal (Westville)
80 000
33 191
113 191
180 000
33 173
213 173
Mangosuthu University of Technology
84 936
11 161
96 097
North West University (Mafikeng)
67 000
10 000
77 000
118 082
13 120
131 202
48 811
6 535
55 346
University of Venda
132 994
14 777
147 771
Walter Sisulu University
120 123
0
120 123
20 000
0
20 000
119 300
16 000
135 300
1 412 638
250 455
1 663 093
University of Limpopo
Tshwane University of Technology (Garankuwa)
Vaal University of Technology ( Sebokeng)
University of the Western Cape
University of Zululand
Total
40
Student Housing Allocations - continued
University
FC7B Student Housing in non- HDI universities
Final DHET Allocation
University Contribution
Priority projects total
cost
R'000
R'000
R'000
University of Cape Town
21 000
223 600
244 600
Central University of Technology (Bloemfontein)
30 100
13 644
43 744
University of the Free State (Bloemfontein)
10 000
42 500
52 500
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
20 500
7 036
27 536
7 545
0
7 545
0
27 391
27 391
Rhodes University
30 946
5 883
36 829
Stellenbosch University
29 750
57 750
87 500
Tshwane University of Technology (Pretoria West)
16 082
1 800
17 882
Vaal University of Technology (Vanderbijl)
68 213
9 802
78 015
5 000
32 000
37 000
239 136
421 406
660 542
North West University (Vaal)
University of Pretoria (allocation made from NSF)
University of the Witwatersrand
Total
41
Thank You