September 5, 2018
I am writing on behalf of the Group of Eight (Go8) universities to offer feedback to the Post-Implementation Review (PIR) of the Indigenous Student Success Program (ISSP).
Please note that what follows are high-level views of the Go8 network; member universities may make their own, more detailed submissions.
The Go8 is very pleased to be able to provide input into this process and applauds the efforts of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) to engage in comprehensive consultation with the sector for this PIR.
As an overarching comment, I would like to recognise the additional flexibility that is afforded under the ISSP and associated Guidelines that enables institutions to fund a broader range of activities for Indigenous students. This is an important and positive policy development that has been well received. For example, the ability for institutions to retain the flexibility to offer scholarships to commencing students at a value which the institution deems appropriate and necessary to attract and support those students is often a critical ingredient in enabling student success.
At the same time however, the requirements of the ISSP in respect of grant conditions for scholarships can be cumbersome and do require an extensive degree of administrative effort and activity. While there is a definite appreciation of – and value placed on – accountability requirements for Government expenditure, the Go8 questions whether there are more streamlined mechanisms through which these same outcomes can be robustly achieved.
You will recall that in providing feedback on the proposed ISSP Guidelines in 2016, the Go8 highlighted this same issue. The ability for universities to include preserved funding in budget forecasts and planning processes without the need to re-bid, reconcile and possibly to return funding would further strengthen the Program.
More specifically, in 2016 in the context of initial feedback on proposed structure of the funding mechanism, I noted thate the Go8 leads the university sector in the retention and success of Indigenous students at university. As such, the Go8 broadly support a funding formula that acknowledges the additional barriers that can be faced by those students. At the same time, however, we must be careful that an Indigenous student’s status as coming from a regional or remote area is not inadvertently used as an additional proxy for disadvantage across the board and that we acknowledge the substantial proportion of Indigenous students come from urban areas.
To better reflect need in this area, the funding formula should also move away from reflecting students in all modes of study and this component should instead reflect students studying on-campus only. There are a range of factors to this, including students accurately identifying their place of residence (where they are from) in university systems as opposed to their place of residence for study.
Overall, the Go8 will continue to advocate for a longer-term funding profile – ideally three years – for the ISSP as the current timeframes are unsuitable for planning, staffing and delivery within institutions. The delivery of longer-term funding profiles, while a critical issue for institutions, must also be accompanied by streamlined reporting arrangements that better reflect data usage and reporting based on need and risk management. Some of these concerns may be partially allayed through clarification of the issues raised in the PIR Discussion Paper, such as reporting of non-ISSP assistance (for example the reporting by some institutions of pro-rata allocation of Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding versus targeted and specific funds reporting).
I look forward to seeing the outcomes of this PIR process and to a more streamlined and effective ISSP being delivered from 2019 onwards.
Yours sincerely