=
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
17 May 2012
Contents
1.
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4
2.
Approach
3.
Comparison of Scenario Outcomes ..................................................................................................... 8
4.
Impact of Discipline Shift ................................................................................................................. 12
.................................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A
Parameters ................................................................................................................. 14
Appendix B
Scenario Sources and Assumptions ............................................................................... 15
© 2012 Ernst & Young, Australia. All Rights Reserved.
Ernst & Young is a registered trademark. Our report may be relied upon by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and
Tertiary Education for the purpose of an independent review of higher education funding levels only pursuant to the terms of our engagement
letter dated 24 April 2012. We disclaim all responsibility to any other party for any loss or liability that the other party may suffer or incur
arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the contents of our report, the provision of our report to the other party or the reliance
upon our report by the other party. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  2
Release Notice
Ernst & Young ("Consultant") was engaged on the instructions of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary
Education ("Client") in accordance with a statement of work dated 27 April 2012 issued under the Master Agreement commencing 1 July
2010 between the Consultant and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplaces, (“the Engagement Agreement”) to conduct an
independent review of higher education funding levels.
The results of the Consultant’s work, including the assumptions and qualifications made in preparing the report, are set out in the Consultant's
report dated 17 May 2012 ("Report"). You should read the Report in its entirety including the Engagement Agreement, disclaimers and
attachments. A reference to the Report includes any part of the Report. No further work has been undertaken by the Consultant since the date
of the Report to update it.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Consultant, access to the Report is made only on the following basis. In either accessing the
Report or obtaining a copy of the Report the recipient agrees to the following terms:
1.
Subject to the terms of the Engagement Agreement, the Consultant disclaims all liability in relation to any other party who seeks to
rely upon the Report or any of its contents.
2.
The Consultant has acted in accordance with the instructions of the Client in conducting its work and preparing the Report, and, in
doing so, has prepared the Report for the benefit of the Client, and has considered only the interests of the Client. The Consultant
has not been engaged to act, and has not acted, as advisor to any other party. Accordingly, the Consultant makes no
representations as to the appropriateness, accuracy or completeness of the Report for any other party's purposes.
3.
No reliance may be placed upon the Report or any of its contents by any recipient of the Report for any purpose and any party
receiving a copy of the Report must make and rely on their own enquiries in relation to the issues to which the Report relates, the
contents of the Report and all matters arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the Report or its contents.
4.
All tax advice, tax opinions, tax returns or advice relating to the tax treatment or tax structure of any transaction to which the
Consultant’s services relate (“Tax Advice”) is provided solely for the information and internal use of Client and may not be relied
upon by anyone else (other than tax authorities who may rely on the information provided to them) for any purpose without the
Consultant’s prior written consent. If the recipient wishes to disclose Tax Advice (or portion or summary thereof) to any other third
party, they shall first obtain the written consent of the Client before making such disclosure. The recipient must also inform the
third party that it cannot rely on the Tax Advice (or portion or summary thereof) for any purpose whatsoever without the
Consultant’s prior written consent.
5.
Subject to the terms of the Engagement Agreement, no duty of care is owed by the Consultant to any recipient of the Report in
respect of any use that the recipient may make of the Report.
6.
Subject to the terms of the Engagement Agreement, the Consultant disclaims all liability, and takes no responsibility, for any
document issued by any other party in connection with the Project.
7.
Subject to the terms of the Engagement Agreement, no claim or demand or any actions or proceedings may be brought against the
Consultant arising from or connected with the contents of the Report or the provision of the Report to any recipient. The
Consultant will be released and forever discharged from any such claims, demands, actions or proceedings.
8.
Subject to the terms of the Engagement Agreement, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the recipient of the Report shall be
liable for all claims, demands, actions, proceedings, costs, expenses, loss, damage and liability made against or brought against
or incurred by the Consultant arising from or connected with the Report, the contents of the Report or the provision of the Report to
the recipient.
9.
For the avoidance of doubt a reference in this Release Notice, to “the Recipient” excludes the Client.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  3
1.
Executive Summary
1.1
Introduction
The Bradley Review in 2008 identified a range of structural and funding reforms which the Government
considered. The Government’s response to the Bradley Review was structured around a 10 year reform agenda
that included:
►
►
►
►
►
►
phasing in a new system for higher education funding to allocate funding on the basis of student
demand
changes to funding for university research
upgrades to higher education infrastructure
changes to the indexation for teaching, learning and research under the Higher Education Support Act
2003
measures to better support students and improve lower socio-economic status student participation
strengthening linkages between higher education and vocational sectors
The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) provides advice to
Government that compares the higher education funding per student load under a range of scenarios, including
pre- and post-Bradley review. The Department engaged Ernst & Young to conduct an independent review of the
Department’s analysis and methodology to provide insights into the analysis and identification of any gaps.
1.1.1
Scope
Ernst & Young worked with Department officials to examine data sources, indexation, and parameters to produce
an analysis that builds upon work already conducted by the Department. The output of the analysis is
documented in this report.
1.1.2
Scenarios
The Department had examined a number of approaches to comparing the higher education funding per student
load. This included straight line forecasts, based on different indexation factors, applied to the average funding
per student load in the year prior to the Bradley Review.
For our analysis, two scenarios were created to compare the effect of the Bradley Review reforms from a first
principles approach. Understandably, attempting to describe the differences between pre- and post-Bradley
review environments is complex and ultimately affected by assumptions made about likely higher education
institutional behaviours and Government policies under each scenario. The pre-Bradley review scenario (Scenario
1) is based on a likely peak in student load growth based on the over-enrolment provisions applied at that time.
This is combined with published funding data and indexation rates used at the time. The Post-Bradley review
scenario (Scenario 2) used available data and forecast future student load growth based on institutional
estimates, departmental funding estimates and identified pre-& post-Bradley review indexation factors.
1.2
Findings
►
The original requirement sought to determine if any potential improvements to the Department’s analysis
and methodology were required. In conducting this we have created an alternative approach to describe the
same outcomes and have reached a similar conclusion. Based on our review, we believe the assumptions
presented in the Departments approach are relevant and reasonable.
►
The importance of choice of index in funding the higher education sector is apparent in nominal terms.
Based on available data, Post-Bradley Review indexation parameters demonstrate a likely higher funding
growth trajectory with all other parameters being held constant.
►
Under the two scenarios examined (Scenario 1 - Pre Bradley Review and Scenario 2 - Post Bradley Review),
there would be an increase in funding for teaching, learning and research both in aggregate and on a per
student load basis over time. Scenario 2 (Post Bradley Review) indicates that there is generally more
funding per student load from 2012 onwards.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  4
►
There is more funding on aggregate in Scenario 2 for teaching and learning and this is associated with
increased Commonwealth supported student load in current university estimates (approximately 90,000
more Estimated Full-Time Student Load (EFTSL) in 2013 under Scenario 2 than in 2013 under Scenario 1).
►
For teaching, learning and research in 2013, the per EFTSL funding is $19,524 for Scenario 1 and $21,488
for Scenario 2, the difference being an increase of 10.1% over Scenario 1.
►
For teaching and learning only in 2013, the per EFTSL funding is $18,074 for Scenario 1 and $19,600 for
Scenario 2, the difference being an increase of 8.4% over Scenario 1.
►
We note that the data supporting the analysis (such as the university estimates of student loads) reflects a
sector in the midst of significant reform. There is an element of uncertainty as to the impact of the economic
and sector changes on the forecast data used.
►
Departmental analysis indicates there are likely impacts on the funding per student load as a result of
movements between high and low rate disciplines. The analysis indicates a trend in both scenarios to higher
cost discipline mix. We assess these impacts to be marginal based on our assessment of the departmental
analysis.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  5
2.
Approach
2.1
Overview
The calculation of higher education funding per estimated full–time equivalent student load (EFTSL) is based on a
simple arithmetic average. This comprises the summation of relevant funding programs, grant monies and
student contributions relating to teaching, learning and research that support student places. This is divided by
the total Commonwealth-subsidised EFTSL (including Commonwealth supported places and research places).
Two scenarios were constructed. The first scenario (Scenario 1 – Pre Bradley Review) examined the likely outcome
if no Bradley Review related reforms were made and funding levels as published in 2008-09 remained in effect.
The second scenario (Scenario 2 – Post Bradley Review) examined the effects of the Bradley Review higher
education reforms from 2010 onwards. Student numbers for each scenario were developed based on the unique
parameters of each scenario. These are detailed in Appendix A.
We note that both scenarios are attempting to represent, in reasonably simple terms, two alternate views of a
complex environment. Assumptions have been used to vary the underlying parameters. These assessments rely
on the chain of assumptions and are based on our interpretation of the likely outcome of each scenario based on
advice and data provided by the Department.
The Department advises that the construction of the pre-Bradley scenario poses particular difficulties because it
requires assumptions about university behavior under the policy settings applicable in 2009 and possible
Government responses.
This is addressed in the Departmental analysis by assuming that the net effect of all actions will be a stable
funding per EFTSL amount under the pre-Bradley scenario in real terms. In contrast our approach for the preBradley scenario (Scenario 1) presents an alternative version of pre-Bradley funding using estimates of the
funding and Commonwealth subsidised student load.
2.2
Funding Data Sources
The funding data used in the analysis was based on calendar year, Departmental budget estimates.
A list of higher education programs and grants were reviewed. Programs and grants were included (or excluded)
from the two scenarios based on the type of program and whether or not the funding supported teaching and
learning, student places or research. Scenario 1 excluded Bradley reform programs. Scenario 2 included these
Bradley reform programs.
Once the programs and grants were identified, the adjusted base year dollars for identified programs and grants
were sourced from two departmental models. One model captured learning and teaching programs and grants
(including student contributions) and the other model captured research programs and grants. A summary of the
scenario data sources and related assumptions are outlined in the table at Appendix B.
2.3
Student Load Data Sources
Student load data was drawn from several sources under both scenarios. For Scenario 1 data on teaching and
learning student load places was sourced from the Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS) target load model. For
Scenario 2 teaching and learning student load was drawn from Departmental estimates that rely on advice
provided by universities on their anticipated number of places for the three years 2012 to 2014. This was
supplemented with data sourced for research places based on historical data for International Postgraduate
Research scholarships and Research Training Scheme places.
For scenario 1, this data was modified for 2010 and future years to account for likely student loads in the absence
of the Bradley review reforms in this scenario. Under the policy settings for Scenario 1 the CGS included an
allowance of additional funding for ’over enrolled’ student places up to 5% above a university’s basic grant. Above
the 5% universities received only the student contribution amount for the place. The final parameters used in the
scenario included the full 5% over-enrolment allowance in CGS funding and HECS-HELP. This was combined with
a 5% ‘over-enrolment’ in Commonwealth supported places for each year. Advice from the Department indicates
that the 5% over-enrolment would not be uniform across all institutions and consequently it would be unlikely to
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  6
gain a full 5% increase in associated CGS funding. Given the unpredictability of the student loads in this scenario,
a conservative assumption of a full 5% increase in CGS funding for over-enrolments was used.
Forecast data for research places were assumed to be held static over the forecast period.
For Scenario 2, the teaching and learning student load was forecast based on higher education institution
estimates (from 2012 onwards) provided to the Department. As with Scenario 1, forecast data for research
places were assumed to be held static over the forecast period for Scenario 2.
2.4
Indexation
Prior to the Bradley Review, the indexation scheme to adjust higher education funding amounts was the Higher
Education Indexation Factor. This index was a composite index weighted 75% on the Safety Net Adjustment (SNA)
index and 25% on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This indexation method was used to present the pre-Bradley
reform scenario in nominal terms.
In response to the Bradley Review recommendations, the Government adopted a new indexation approach from
2011. The new indexation approach was a weighted composite index. The first component of the new index
maintains the weightings (75% and 25%) but has replaced the SNA with the Labour Price Index for Professional
Scientific and Technical Services discounted by 10% to encourage increased productivity. The CPI index remains
as the second component of the index. The index applied to student contributions in 2011 and both student
contributions and grants from 2012 was implicit in the post-Bradley forecasts in nominal terms (from 2012
onwards). The actual data in Scenario 2 (from 2008 to 2011) was indexed using the Higher Education Indexation
Factor to present the data in nominal terms.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  7
3.
Comparison of Scenario Outcomes
3.1
Comparison of Scenario Outcomes for Teaching, Learning, Research and
HEC-HELP funding
Our review indicates that higher education funding per Commonwealth subsidised EFTSL is generally increasing
under both scenarios over the period based on the data and assumptions provided.
Higher Education Funding per Equivalent Full-time Student Load
(Teaching & Learning, Research & HECS-HELP- Current Year Dollars)
$25,000
$20,000
$ per EFTSL
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Calendar Year
Scenario 1 - Pre Bradley Review
Scenario 2 - Post Bradley Review
Figure 1: Higher Education Funding per Equivalent Full-time Student Load in nominal dollars
Scenario 2 funding per EFTSL exceeds Scenario 1 in nominal terms from 2012 onwards. The divergence between
scenarios is partially explained by the difference in the scenario parameters around program funding reflecting
changes implemented post-Bradley Review.
The effect of the Bradley review indexation reforms are evident and show a greater gradient of growth in funding
from 2012. These are largely as a result of the change in the indexation factor in Scenario 2 as well as places
being fully funded and additional expenditure for some programs.
In 2013, the per EFTSL funding is $19,524 for Scenario 1 and $21,488 for Scenario 2, the difference being an
increase of 10.1% over Scenario 1.
Scenario 1
Year
Total Funding ($M)
Total EFTSL
Average $ per EFTSL
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
8,082
8,620
9,172
9,448
9,686
9,880
463,321
493,243
498,517
503,176
505,688
506,031
$17,476
$18,399
$18,776
$19,154
$19,524
$17,444
Table 1: Scenario 1 – Pre-Bradley Review funding scenario in nominal dollars
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  8
Scenario 2
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
8,082
8,620
9,560
10,054
11,646
12,828
463,321
493,243
524,283
543,479
572,479
596,979
$17,476
$18,234
$18,500
$20,343
$21,488
Total Funding ($M)
Total EFTSL
Average $ per EFTSL
$17,444
Table 2: Scenario 2 – Post-Bradley Review funding scenario in nominal dollars
Difference (Scenario 2 less Scenario 1 data)
Year
Total Funding ($M)
Total EFTSL
Average $ per EFTSL
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0
0
388
606
1,960
2,948
0
0
25,766
40,303
66,791
90,948
0
0
-$165
-$276
$1,189
$1,964
Table 3: Difference between Scenario 1 and 2 in nominal dollars
3.2
Comparison of Scenario Outcomes for Teaching and Learning and HECSHELP elements only
Further analysis of the funding levels per student load removing the data associated with research and research
places provides a similar outcome to the previous view.
Higher Education Funding per Equivalent Full-time Student Load
(Teaching & Learning, HECS-HELP excluding Research- Current Year Dollars)
$25,000
$20,000
$ per EFTSL
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Calendar Year
Scenario 1 - Pre Bradley Review
Scenario 2 - Post Bradley Review
Figure 2: Higher Education Funding per Equivalent Full-time Student Load in nominal dollars excluding research funding and student load
The Teaching and Learning funding analysis indicates a very similar comparative outcome between the scenarios.
Funding has generally increased over the period with a slight decrease in funding per Commonwealth-subsidised
EFTSL under Scenario 2 in 2011.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  9
Scenario 2 funding per EFTSL exceeds Scenario 1 in nominal terms in 2010 and from 2012 onwards. In 2013,
the per EFTSL funding is $18,074 for Scenario 1 and $19,600 for Scenario 2, the difference being an increase of
8.4% over Scenario 1.
Scenario 1
Year
Total Funding ($M)
Total EFTSL
Average $ per EFTSL
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
6,953
7,470
8,148
8,347
8,510
8,619
439,666
469,438
496,506
492,271
485,691
476,867
$15,913
$16,410
$16,957
$17,522
$18,074
$15,815
Table 4: Scenario 1 – Pre-Bradley Review funding (excluding research funding and places) scenario in nominal dollars
Scenario 2
Year
Total Funding ($M)
Total EFTSL
Average $ per EFTSL
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
6,953
7,470
8,301
8,740
10,251
11,219
439,666
469,438
499,704
518,900
547,900
572,400
$15,913
$16,612
$16,842
$18,709
$19,600
$15,815
Table 5: Scenario 2 – Post-Bradley Review funding (excluding research funding and places) scenario in nominal dollars
Difference (Scenario 2 less Scenario 1 data)
Year
Total Funding ($M)
Total EFTSL
Average $ per EFTSL
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0
0
153
392
1,740
2,600
0
0
3,198
26,629
62,209
95,533
0
0
-$202
-$114
$1,187
$1,964
Table 6: Difference between Scenario 1 and 2(excluding research funding and places) in nominal dollars
3.3
Comparison with the Departmental analysis
The Departmental analysis provides an alternative approach to estimating the pre-Bradley funding for estimated
student load. This analysis was conducted by the Department and is included here. The foundation of the
Departmental analysis was a steady growth in the 2008 Commonwealth-subsidised funding per EFTSL based on
the pre-Bradley review indexation factor. The department’s explanation suggests 2008 was chosen because it
gives a relatively stable funding picture unaffected by actions taken by universities in anticipation of the Bradley
reforms and did not have ‘unusually’ high over enrolments. This assumes proportional increases in student load
and funding increases predominately driven by indexation. The range of programs and sources for student load
used for calculating the per place funding in the Departmental analysis is the same as under our Scenario 1.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  10
Higher Education Funding per Equivalent Full-time Student Load
(Teaching & Learning, Research & HECS-HELP- Current Year Dollars)
$25,000
$20,000
$ per EFTSL
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Calendar Year
Scenario 1 - Pre Bradley Review
Scenario 2 - Post Bradley Review
Pre-Bradley Review - Dept. Analysis
Figure 3: Higher Education Funding per Equivalent Full-time Student Load in nominal dollars compared with the Department’s analysis
In this comparison, the growth in the Departmental analysis does not maintain parity with either scenario although
it is closer to Scenario 1. This suggests that average funding per EFTSL would likely have fallen without additional
funding injected into the sector.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  11
4.
Impact of Discipline Shift
The Department completed an analysis which sought to examine the difference between the pre-Bradley review
scenario and post-Bradley review scenario attributable to the shift between discipline clusters. The departmental
analysis examined this effect for Commonwealth supported places in both the Commonwealth Grant Scheme
funding and student contribution amounts. This analysis, separate from our analysis, is shown below. The
inclusion of this data is relevant to examine the potential effect of discipline shift in the context of our analysis.
The data for the Departmental analysis is drawn for the same sources for student load as used in our scenarios,
though has been modified in line with Departmental assumptions.
The analysis examined the proportional student loads per cluster based on target student loads for the same year
(2012) prior to the Bradley Review. These were compared to the proportional student loads per cluster after the
Bradley Review (2012). The analysis also compared the effect of discipline shift on the Department’s analysis of
funding impacts under the Pre-Bradley scenario (as shown in section 3.3)
It determined that the funding per EFTSL (including CGS and student contribution) between the two snapshots
(pre and post Bradley respectively) was slightly different in nominal terms.
Description
Outcome
Funding per EFTSL – 2012 Post Bradley Review distribution
$17,151
Funding per EFTSL – 2012 Pre-Bradley Review distribution
$17,035
Difference in $
$115
Difference as % of Pre-Bradley Review funding per EFTSL
0.7%
Table 7: Summary of Departmental analysis of changes in funding per EFTSL due to discipline shift
The departmental analysis indicates that this can in part be explained by a slight shift in student places from low
rate clusters to high rate clusters between pre and post Bradley scenarios. This is shown in the table below for the
cluster split for Commonwealth Supported Places:
Cluster and
Cluster rate
Cluster 1
$1,861
Cluster 2
$5,168
Cluster 3
$9,142
Cluster 4
$9,512
Cluster 5
$11,243
Cluster 6
$12,552
Cluster 7
$15,983
Cluster 8
$20,284
Total
Pre-Bradley
Proportional
Split of EFTSL
in 2012
19.3%
5.3%
23.4%
11.6%
13.1%
6.0%
15.7%
5.7%
100%
Post-Bradley
Review
Proportional
Split of EFTSL
in 2012
18.2%
5.2%
23.9%
10.9%
13.9%
5.8%
16.6%
5.4%
100%
Difference
splits
-1.0%
-0.1%
0.5%
-0.7%
0.8%
-0.1%
0.9%
-0.2%
(Government
Contribution only)
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  12
Table 8: Summary of changes in proportion of split between Pre-Bradley and Post-Bradley Review against clusters.
As well as this shift in Government funding for Commonwealth supported places the corresponding shift in
student contributions affects the total funding and has seen a higher proportion in lower contribution bands for
the pre-Bradley scenario.1
NP Band*
$4,520
Band 1
$5,648
Band 2
$8,050
Band 3
$9,425
Total
(Student Contribution Only)
Band and Band rate
Proportional Split of EFTSL in 2007
-
45.4%
31.6%
23.0%
100%
Proportional Split of EFTSL in 2012
-
45.0%
32.8%
22.1%
100%
Difference between 2007 and 2012 split
-
-0.3%
1.2%
-0.9%
Table 9: Summary of changes in proportion of split between Pre-Bradley and Post-Bradley Review split against student contribution bands.
*Note: In the Department’s analysis disciplines in the National Priorities band were allocated to their original band under all scenarios for
each of the two years. This isolated the impact of discipline shift on per place funding rates from the impact of policy changes to student
contribution levels.
Combining these insights with the prior analysis in Section 3 suggests the effect of discipline shift on the
difference between the two Scenarios is likely to be a marginal impact only (of around 0.7%), based on this
departmental analysis.
Further analysis by the Department on the difference between our assessment of Scenario 1 (Pre-Bradley Review)
and the Departmental analysis (shown in Section 3.3) indicates that the impact of discipline shift on their
estimate (which has a snapshot of disciplines in 2008) against our Scenario 1 estimate (which assumes
discipline shift occurring) is minimal.
Description
2012 Funding per EFTSL – 2008 distribution (Departmental analysis)
Funding per EFTSL – 2012 Pre-Bradley Review distribution
Difference in $
Difference as % of Department analysis
Outcome
$16,912
$17,035
$123
0.7%
Table 10: Summary of Departmental analysis and Pre-Bradley Review scenario of changes in funding per EFTSL due to discipline shift
1 Note that there
is a correlation between the cluster rate and the student contribution band though depending on the discipline the cluster
can map to more than one band.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Ernst & Young  13
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Appendix A
Parameters
Scenario 1 – Pre-Bradley Review Reforms
Scenario 2- Post Bradley Review Reforms
► Indexation: 75% SNA index and 25% CPI
► Indexation: All data is indexed based on the index factor
► Indexation: 75% of 90% of the growth in the Labour Price index
determined above
► EFTSL – 2008 and 2009 are based on actual student load
► EFTSL – 2010 onwards has 5% over enrolment funding and 5%
over-enrolment growth in student load (year on year) above
target loads
(Scientific and Technical) and 25% CPI
► Indexation: 2008-2011 data is indexed based on the Scenario
1 index (as it was the index used for that cost base). 2012
onwards uses the indexation factor agreed by Govt. in response
to the Bradley Review as above.
► Grant and Program funding amounts– 2008, 2009 are based
► EFTSL – 2008 to 2010 are based on actual student load
► EFTSL – 2011 onwards is higher education institution
► Grant and Program funding amounts– 2010 onwards are
► Grant and Program funding amounts– 2008, 2009, 2010,
on actuals
forward estimates prior to updates for Bradley funding
measures
estimates
2011 are based on actuals
► Grant and Program funding amounts– 2012 onwards are
estimates
‘
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  14
Appendix B
Scenario Sources and Assumptions
Summary of Approach analysis
Table 11: Assumptions and data sources used in Scenario 1 (and sensitivity analysis)
Scenario
Data
Sources
Pre-Bradley Reform
Teaching and Learning Program and Grant
Funding
2008, 2009 Actuals
Model: Higher Ed Actual
Expenditure - 2005-2016 (30
January 2012).xlsx
2010 onwards
Model: DEEWR Summary of Est
30 April 2012(Apr prices)
Worksheet: Adjusted Base
estimates
Research Program and Grant Funding
Model: DIISR Summary Feb
2011 estimates revised
indexation SC.xlsx Worksheet:
Adjusted Base estimates
HECS-HELP Loan funding
2008, 2009 Actuals
Determined amounts sourced
from UniPay
Estimated Full-time Student Load
Assumptions and Adjustments
2010 onwards
Adjustments were made to
Commonwealth Grant Scheme
funding to account for an annual
5% over-enrolment allowance
from 2010 onwards.
2010 onwards
Model: FE 2007-08 v24.0 M+S
student contrib red Update for 2008_09 budget
measure (May 08)
(5% over enrolment scenario 2)
adjusted.xlsx
2010 onwards
Adjustments made based on 5%
over-enrolment from funding
agreement target.
CGS and HECS-HELP
CGS and HECS-HELP
2008, 2009 Actuals
Determined amounts sourced
from UniPay
Actual student load taken from
UniPay
2010 onwards
2010 onwards
Adjustments were made to
Model: CGS Database_Final pre- Commonwealth Grant Scheme
funding to account for an annual
2012 version.xlsx
5% over-enrolment allowance
from 2010 onwards.
Research
All years
2010IPRS_2008-10RTSLoad 03-05-12.xlsx
Research
Assumptions and Adjustments
Historic RTS data was used for
2008, 2009 and 2010 and
assumed constant for forecasts.
IPRS headcount data for 2010
was made available and this was
assumed to be the flat rate for
all years. IPRS headcount was
assumed to equal EFTSL on the
assumption visa conditions and
scholarships require full-time
study commitment.
Table 12: Assumptions and data sources used in Scenario 2
Scenario
Data
Sources
Post-Bradley Reform
Teaching and Learning Program and Grant
Funding
2008, 2009 and 2010 Actuals
and 2011 estimated actuals
Model: Higher Ed Actual
Expenditure - 2005-2016 (30
January 2012).xlsx
.
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Ernst & Young  15
2012 onwards
Model: DEEWR Summary of Est
30 April 2012(Apr prices)
Worksheet: Adjusted Base
estimates
Research Program and Grant Funding
Model: DIISR Summary Feb
2011 estimates revised
indexation SC.xlsx Worksheet:
Adjusted Base estimates
HECS-HELP Loan funding
2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011
Actuals
Determined amounts sourced
from UniPay
2012 onwards
Model: HELP MODEL version:
FE2011-12 v21
Estimated Full-time Student Load
CGS and HECS-HELP
CGS and HECS-HELP
2008, 2009 and 2010 Actuals
and 2011 estimated actuals
Determined amounts sourced
from UniPay
2008, 2009, 2010 Actuals, and
2011 estimated actuals
Actual student load taken from
UniPay
2012 onwards
Model: Summary of funding and
enrolments 18 April.xlsx
2012 onwards
Forecast based on CGS
estimate from higher education
institutions.
Research
All years
2010IPRS_2008-10RTSLoad 03-05-12.xlsx
Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Independent analysis of Higher Education Funding approach
Research
Historic RTS data was used for
2008, 2009 and 2010 and
assumed constant for forecasts.
IPRS headcount data for 2010
was made available and this was
assumed to be the flat rate for
all years. IPRS headcount was
assumed to equal EFTSL on the
assumption visa conditions and
scholarships require full-time
study commitment.
Ernst & Young  16
Ernst & Young
Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory
About Ernst & Young
Ernst & Young is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. Worldwide, our 141,000 people are united by our shared values and an
unwavering commitment to quality. We make a difference by helping our people, our clients and our wider communities achieve their potential.
Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global
Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit www.ey.com.
© 2012 Ernst & Young, Australia.
All Rights Reserved.
Ernst & Young is a registered trademark. Our report may be relied upon by Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education for the
purpose of only pursuant to the terms of our engagement letter dated 24 April 2012. We disclaim all responsibility to any other party for any loss or liability that
the other party may suffer or incur arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the contents of our report, the provision of our report to the other party or
the reliance upon our report by the other party.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.