01.11.07
1994 Group response to DCSF Consultation
Increasing Voluntary Giving to Higher Education - Consultation on a matched funding scheme for English Providers of Higher Education
- Is the data from the Ross Group Survey the best means of establishing baselines?
-
The 1994 Group is concerned with the accuracy and reliability of the current Ross Group survey. Currently the survey is not audited, either internally or externally. The Group believes if the survey data is to be used, the data should become subject to audit and this should be accompanied by the highest level of security for the data produced.
Furthermore, not all institutions currently complete the survey. If it is to provide baselines that relate to all institutions, it must become compulsory for all institutions to participate.
- If baseline thresholds are set should they be calculated at the level of: individual institutional level data or broad class fundraising capacity?
-
If baseline thresholds are set, the 1994 Group agrees that they be calculated at the level of individual institutional data.
Calculating baseline thresholds at the level of broad class fundraising capacity would prove to be a disadvantage to institutions at the lower end of their class and would reduce the incentive of those institutions at the upper end of their class to raise income levels. Individual donors may become disillusioned and discouraged to donate if institutions are set the challenge of having to significantly increase higher levels of income before they start to qualify for matched funding.
It is vital the scheme that is introduced is simple and therefore easy to communicate to donors. Obstacles which make the targets more difficult to achieve or make the scheme more complex to manage and communicate to donors will reduce the overall effectiveness of the scheme. Therefore developing a system to be as accessible as possible to institutions and donors must be a key aim of the DCSF. Simplicity of message is fundamental to the success or failure of the scheme.
- How should the Government take account of the principle of additionality in designing the scheme?
-
The 1994 Group supports the intention that the scheme should lead to an increase in the aggregate level of voluntary giving compared with the current baseline position. This must be weighed against the fact that the most effective way for the scheme to have a positive effect on the levels of giving to HE institutions is to make the system easy and transparent for donors to understand. Any unnecessary complications will result in confusion and have a negative impact on the scheme.
The establishment of an aggregate baseline which is relevant, accurate, comprehensive and objective, would depend upon the data being properly audited and completed by all institutions (see question 1). It would be desirable for this aggregated baseline to be in place for a three year period in order to make the system clear and easy to understand for all. As a second stage after the three year process, when data has been established and audited, additionality could then be introduced on a yearly basis.
Perhaps a better alternative to setting a financial baseline would be to judge each institution on an increase in the overall number of donors. If the intention of this funding is to institute a culture of philanthropy in Higher Education, requiring each institution to significantly increase their donor pool would provide the greatest incentive for Universities to ask more frequently from more prospective donors.
- Should institutions be allocated to particular tiers on the basis of past or current performance?
-
The 1994 Group believes institutions should be allocated to particular tiers on the basis of past or current performance, providing there will be some flexibility for institutions to request a change in their tier if they have good reasons to do so. Institutions should be allowed an element of self selection to a particular tier.
As fundraising performance varies between institutions, the Group supports a 'handicapping' system to prevent the more established and successful institutions from taking the greatest proportion of funds available.
- Should institutions be able to express a preference for a particular scheme?
-
The 1994 Group supports giving institutions an element of choice for a particular scheme. We believe it is desirable to enable institutions to self-select according to their own circumstances and ambitions. We support the idea of an independent panel of experts to oversee whether an institution has been allocated to an appropriate tier.
- How should we treat institutions for which data on fundraising performance is not currently available?
-
The 1994 Group believes that institutions should be obliged to participate in the Ross Survey, in order for data on previous levels of funding performance to be available. The data would provide an institution with an indication of the appropriate tier, and, if incorrect, enable the institution to request a move.
If it is decided that institutions are not required to complete the Ross Survey and data on fundraising is not currently available, or fundraising has not taken place, institutions should be entered at the lowest tier.
- How should any grant underspends be redistributed after 3 years to reward institutions with the greatest levels of relative improvement?
-
The 1994 Group welcomes the proposal to redistribute any grant underspends to the institutions with the greatest levels of relative improvement. The Group believes the grant underspends should be redistributed to institutions whose percentage improvements are greatest, relative to their original baseline. Rewarding relative as opposed to absolute improvement would be in keeping with the ideas of the matched funding programme, namely promoting growth rather than acknowledging existing success.
- Should we measure relative improvement in cash terms, percentage terms or a combination of both?
-
The 1994 Group believes that relative improvement should be measured in percentage terms. If relative improvement is awarded purely in proportion to the levels of funds raised above the cap, then, owing to the relative disparity of wealth among the communities of alumni of different institutions, it will be larger institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge that will benefit. For this reason, improvement should be measured in percentage terms. Furthermore, percentage should be set against the original threshold, not on a year on year base level.
- What else (if anything) apart from cash donations should we count?
-
There is agreement across the Group that new cash donations and individual donations should be counted in the scheme. The principal focus of the scheme should be to encourage contributions from individual donors, as this is the group which is most likely to continue and indeed increase giving as the scheme develops.
The inclusion of cash from legacies poses an interesting question. It is clear that this would have minimal effect during the three year pilot, but should the scheme continue this group of donors could become increasingly important. The idea that an individual's final gift could be matched by government, as well as being tax free, may well be an encouragement to donors to leave a major donation in their will, and for many people this will be only way of making a substantial gift. Publicising the fact that these gifts will be matched in the long term could be very important.
The Group believes the geographical location of any donor should have no bearing on whether or not it is eligible for matched funding.
- Should we match fund gift-aid?
-
Yes, gift-aid is an integral part of an individual's gift and should therefore be eligible for matched funding. Furthermore, we believe gift-aid will act as an incentive for people to make more use of this scheme.
Rachel Craine
1994 Group
1 November 2007
Notes for Editors
The 1994 Group was established in 1994 to promote excellence in research and teaching. The 1994 Group represents nineteen of the most research-intensive universities in the UK.
The Group's members are small- to medium-sized institutions, and are generally campus-based.
They operate on a human and personal scale, maximising student-staff contact and ensuring an adaptable and inter-disciplinary approach to both research and teaching. Research-led teaching is key to the 1994 Group's mission, and a large majority of the top academics who achieved the Group's outstanding results in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise teach students.
The 1994 Group in partnership with the NUS will hold a conference in central London on 28 November to mark the launch of the Group's policy statement 'Enhancing the Student Experience.' The national one day conference will set out what the undergraduate 'student consumers' of today and tomorrow are expecting from learning and teaching, support, and prospects on graduation. Delegates will be given the opportunity to consider how to define the student experience at their institution, and how to capitalise on the student experience to help secure the future of the university.