Understanding the impact of bursary support: An institution approach.

Dr Mandy CrowStudent Recruitment and WP Managerm.crow@manchester.ac.uk

Stephanie Lee, Head of Widening Participation & OutreachStephanie.Lee@manchester.ac.uk

Overview

• Context• Evaluation Framework• Conclusions and insights

Context

Table 6a – OFFA expenditure summary (£)

Academic year

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Access expenditure 1,273,080 3,200,000 3,296,000 3,394,880 3,496,726Student success expenditure 479,601 1,000,000 1,030,000 1,060,900 1,092,727Progression expenditure 319,734 800,000 824,000 848,720 874,182Expenditure on financial support 18,349,869 19,188,173 18,073,758 16,852,921 16,377,096

Total expenditure 20,422,284 24,188,173 23,223,758 22,157,421 21,840,731

Summary of Access Agreement Expenditure (2015/16 Access Agreement)

Table 6b – OFFA expenditure summary, as a % of higher fee income

Academic year

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Higher fee income (HFI) 53,060,635 57,038,160 57,616,455 57,697,500 57,643,500Access 2 6 6 6 6Student success 1 2 2 2 2Progression expenditure 1 1 1 1 2Financial Support 35 34 31 29 28

Total expenditure % of HFI 38 42 40 38 38

Context• The Manchester Bursary is available to any student who is registered on an

eligible UG degree course at the University and who has had a financial assessment by Student Finance.

• The bursary is additional to the government package of maintenance grants.

• Bursaries are paid in three instalments: 25% in December, 50% in February and 25% in April.

• Support targeted at those from lowest household incomes.

• Definition of ‘need’ in relation to student financial support. Lowest household incomes or gap between financial support and cost of living?

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/student-finance/

Evaluation FrameworkPhase

Approach Data Source Sample

Phase 1:

Initial take-up

Quantitative analysis of the take up and choices made by recipients (cash, fee discount, accommodation discount)

Student record data following allocations of financial awards

Entrants in 2012 – analysis of choices made by 4690 students

Phase 2:

Student Voice

Quantitative and qualitative feedback and comments from recipients

Online survey of all students receiving The Manchester Bursary Series of interviews with recipients

April 2013 – survey distributed to 1,422 recipients – 316 complete responses =22.6% response rate Oct-Dec 2013 -20 semi-structured interviews

Phase 3:

Longitudinal evaluation

Quantitative analysis of retention of recipients Quantitative analysis of academic performance of recipients (e.g. annual examination attainment, final degree classification)

Future regression analysis of Student Record data to explore the relationship between The Manchester Bursary, retention, academic performance.

Next steps - 2015/16

Online Survey Evaluation

Semi-structured Interviews

In autumn 2013, a series of 20 one-to-one semi-structured interviews were carried out by the UMSU with bursary recipients

Aim was to explore recipients:•decision making – institution and academic•financial situation – how they felt about their finances•standard of living – how they used their bursary

Data collated from the interviews has been coded and analysed

Semi-structured InterviewsDecision making

The most frequent reason for wanting to come to The University of Manchester was proximity

Participant 1: “I grew up in Liverpool, for many years, so I didn’t really want to go there, because it was a city that I was aware of. I wanted to go to a big city, not too far away.”

Participant 2:“I wanted something quite local, because I am older and have a family; I didn’t want to relocate.”

Participant 14:“I don’t know; I wanted to stay close by, so that I could keep my job, and the University of Manchester had the best reputation of the universities in the area.”

Semi-structured InterviewsFinancial Situation

Many students are unable to turn to their family for financial support

Participant 20: “The bursary last year paid for my deposit on my house that I’m in now, and if I didn’t have that then I wouldn’t have been able to pay it at the same time as everyone else. It’s really useful, my family can’t really send me any money.”

Participant 7:“I would’ve, but it would’ve been a lot harder to do. I would’ve needed to ask my family for money more often and help. I don’t like doing that because they don’t have much anyway.”

Participant 4:“I am from a lower income family, and my dad wouldn’t be able to give me any support – I needed that from the University.”

Semi-structured InterviewsFinancial situation

All but one student reported that if the bursary were removed, they would continue with their studies

Participant 6:“I’d have to budget a lot more carefully; I’d be a lot harder on myself for spending any money. It would be on my mind a lot more; I don’t think that I’d be able to relax and study.”

Participant 17:“I’d probably have a gap year where I’d just work or something, that’s kind of my plan - I wouldn’t leave totally, because I’ve always wanted to go to university.”

Participant 1:“No, I don’t think it would come to dropping out, because if it really came to rock bottom then I live an hour away on the train. If it came to that then I could commute. I don’t want to, but if it came to that then I could do.”

Standard of Living

Participation in student life and social activities is determined by funds available

Participant 19:“I definitely wouldn’t have been able to afford some of the things that I’ve done. As I said before, we went to Prague, with the History Society - it wasn’t too expensive, but if I hadn’t have that, then I don’t think I could’ve justified spending that much money.”

Participant 5:“Probably, yeah; I’ll join my course societies anyway, if I can afford to, and I’ll probably budget for a few more if I can afford a few more. It’ll be course ones first, and then fun.”

Participant 11:“I would say that a quarter or a third is going to the household; at least another third is going on resources, and the rest is for socialising.”

Semi-structured Interviews

Next steps

Phase

Approach Data Source Sample

Phase 1:

Initial take-up

Quantitative analysis of the take up and choices made by recipients (cash, fee discount, accommodation discount)

Student record data following allocations of financial awards

Entrants in 2012 – analysis of choices made by 4690 students

Phase 2:

Student Voice

Quantitative and qualitative feedback and comments from recipients

Online survey of all students receiving The Manchester Bursary Series of interviews with recipients

April 2013 – survey distributed to 1,422 recipients – 316 complete responses =22.6% response rate Oct-Dec 2013 -20 semi-structured interviews

Phase 3:

Longitudinal evaluation

Quantitative analysis of retention of recipients Quantitative analysis of academic performance of recipients (e.g. annual examination attainment, final degree classification)

Future regression analysis of Student Record data to explore the relationship between The Manchester Bursary, retention, academic performance.

Next steps - 2015/16

• Students believe that the bursary has had a positive impact on their student experience

• Removal of the bursary would have a big impact on their standard of living

• 19 of the 20 students interviewed reported that they would continue with their studies if the bursary were removed

Next steps

What do we want to look for in the statistical analysis?

Can we expect to see impact on non-continuation, performance, employability?

Can we identify a control/comparator group?

Conclusions and Insights